But I would like to think that it's the actor that makes the difference in these cases. Not the director, not the guy that wrote the book, not the guy that adapted it for the screen, but the actor.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
An actor is only a part of the film, not the whole, and very often, he is moulded by the director. That is why a good director can make so much difference to a film.
In some instances, I would say the writer does deserve equal billing with the director. In other instances the director - especially if he wrote part of the script himself - is clearly more the author of the movie.
Part of an actor's job, in my opinion, is adjust to the characteristics of the director and try to understand to how he tries to work.
Sometimes the producer has more say and the director takes what he is given. On other occasions, you don't see the producer very much and the director is the one who it is all about.
Often in the past, there have been authors that were deeply disappointed in their adaptation, but that's because they haven't accepted the fact that a movie is a different thing, and it can't possibly be the same as the book.
Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.
There's a lot of directors who were actors, so they have the sensibility of an actor, which sometimes helps.
You can be playing a line some way and the director wants you to change that, or you can disagree. But I always think that the creative conversation between director and actor is what leads to good work.
A film actor is just a victim of directors and editors.
To me, the director is the most important, rather than the story.