query: director or society or ?

[Michael Hirohama]

I have not studied film, so this may appear to be a simple question to the
more knowledgable on this list.  I would appreciate becoming enlightened.
The next paragraph contains a collection of thoughts which lie in the
background of my pondering.  Question: Is it valid to draw conclusions
about the development/maturation of an individual director upon viewing his
or her collected works?  Or is it more valid to make a conclusion about the
collective development/maturation of the director's society?  Or should I
not assuming that the content of films usually reflects the nature of the
film maker and his/her society.

I attend screenings at the Berkeley UAM/Pacific Film Archives (PFA).  In
their bi-monthly calendar and on their ticket stubs, films are listed by
title, director, country and year.  I suspect that this is done because it
is a simple way to uniquely identify a film.  On occasion, the PFA shows a
series of films on specific themes, eg. "War" in Japanese film, which cross
a directorial boundry.  More frequently, however, the PFA usually presents
a series of films by the same director instead of grouping films by
screenwriter, photographer, or leading players.  When the creation of a
modern Hollywood film requires the collective efforts of hundreds if not
thousands of individuals and organizations, is the PFA biased in
emphasizing the director's influence?

--
For information on the PSYCHOHISTORY (historical motivation) forum,
send a request to <psychohistory-request at home.ease.lsoft.com>.