I think I agree with both David and Jaime here, if that's possible. I
saw "Network" on its initial release. I enjoyed it mildly for the bitter
and telling script (and if that's the origin of the "I'm mad as hell and
I'm not gonna take it anymore" line, then Cheyevsky gave us a line that
has made it into the culture, but, ironically, without his intended
irony) but hated the direction, which seemed visually mindless. So
because Lumet is so bland, Cheyevsky's script was the element that stood
out.

But, per Dan, because auteurism is an "aesthetic" for me, I also have to
rate "Network" as a bad film from an aesthetic point of view, even if
worth recommending for elements within it. The director was asleep at
the switch, and had nothing to offer except making the script into a
picture-book, and with none of the skills of the great book illustrators
of the past such as Gustave Dore. For me a film becomes a work of art
only when its images are organized into visual expression. I don't like
dogmas, and exceptions are possible, but because my auteurism was
arrived at empirically I think it's not a dogma, and I've found very few
exceptions.

Now for someone who values script or acting as much as anything a
director might contribute, an aesthetic such as mine (or, perhaps, Dan's
and Jaime's) makes no sense. But I'd question whether that person is
really a 99 and 44/100ths per cent pure (quoting an old soap advertising
line) auteurist. The whole point of auteurism, as far as I'm concerned,
is to say that by and large and most of the time if a film is great it's
great because the director has created an emotionally powerful,
intellectually engaging, visually expressive and even beautiful work of
art. And the kinds of things a director can add can really not be added
by other crew members, as already discussed here many times.

- Fred