> I'd like to see somewhere in there a refutation of the common and
> mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full
> control, write the script, et cetera -- an explanation of the
notion
> that a tension between the director and his material is sometimes
> thought to send the director to new heights (and as we all know,
> sometimes to new depths too).

I'm having a hell of a time duking it out with some youngsters on the
Rotten Tomatoes discussion board

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=309894

My arguments may be a little more messy, a little less educated (which
is why I wanted to get definitions of those terms - an FAQ is a swell
idea), than those of the more esteemed a_film_byers, the longtime
auteurists...but I'd like to think I'm fighting the good fight, waving
the flag, etc.

Boy, this guy I'm arguing with keeps bringing up the most damned
uninteresting literary/stage movies to back up his anti-auteurist
arguments - LORD OF THE RINGS, Branagh's HAMLET, THE SILENCE OF THE
LAMBS - and sure enough, I keep having to explain, over and over
again, the Tired Old Arguments:

> mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full
> control, write the script, et cetera

And this line had me throwing up my hands:

"Those things you mention [the director's aesthetic decisions] are
means to an end, that end being presenting as best as possible the
content of the scribt [sic]."

I must be convincing some people, but it sure gets tiresome after a
while.

-Jaime