I agree with this. Maybe we could make a historical analogy: the narrative portions of 42nd Street, Gold Diggers of 1933, and Dames are all directed by different people, but I think one could make a strong case that Bugsby Berkeley is the most important auteur. Like the Marvel movies, they have slightly different personalities based on the named director: Dames is a bit sillier, like some of Ray Enright's 30s comedies (he did at least two of the films in the Glenda Farrell/Joan Blondell B cycle), while Gold Diggers has more direct social commentary, which an auteurist-minded person might link to LeRoy's Fugitive From a Chain Gang or They Won't Forget. For all that, though, the spectacle portions of the film are consistent because Berkeley's numbers are the real attraction. Hence we don't think of these films as Enright, Bacon, or LeRoy films, but Busby Berkeley films.movielocke wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:36 amThe marvel films are an auteurist product, just of Kevin Feige not of any individual director. So yeah, he takes some of the (let’s call it ) choreography away from the directors but that’s to allow him the flexibility to cast just about any director he wants so they can add value to the actors and writing that your michael-bay-type experienced hyper vfx directors do not add—and in this way, Feige isn’t locking himself into the dead ecosystem of “proven” hyper vfx directors, he’s leveraging the best of both world, above the line talent at working with writers and directors and below the line expertise at choreographing and executing the logistics challenges of massive complexity of a million interacting puzzle pieces.
We could probably expand this discussion to include many spectacle-based genre in which specialists are called in to produce the spectacle portions.
I haven't followed any of the kerfuffle over Scorcesse's comments beyond scanning this thread, but I suspect that a reasoned debate over auteurism and narrative spectacle is not the dominant form this discussion is taking outside this forum. On some level, I get why Scorcesse might be upset about people taking comic book movies so seriously, though. I wonder if his Marvel comments are actually displaced frustration at all the nonsense about the Joker movie, which seems to be an example of a comic movie that not only borrows extensively from his own work, but might in retrospect be seen as the moment in which the comic book movie has well and truly colonized our film culture: not only have they taken over the tentpole blockbusters, but now they are even winning international film festivals and being talked about as "dangerous, controversial" films like Taxi Driver was in the 70s.