Why? A person can acknowledge the contribution made by a participant, but at the same time understand that the particpant's contribution was part of a larger design created by someone else.
> I don't remember the name of the actor now, but the big man who
appeared in many of Chaplin's films, including The Gold Rush, contributed
something to the essence of those films, even though Chaplin directed
and had the core role. Another actor would have created a different film.
Exactly, and Chaplin (who also wrote, produced, edited and often scored his own films) chose him for the role in order to create the film that he did, in the same way that a painter picks a particular shade of blue for a painting.
> Both what Brian writes and some other film criticism I have read give me
the sneaking suspicion that discussion of mise en scene has much more to
do with the (alleged) soul of the director than with the film itself as a
finished product.
How so? What specifically gives you that impression? And what other critics do you get that sense from?
Brian