Distinguishing Artistic Efforts - Who Should Get The Credit?

So many scenarios, I'll name a few. If a director has a best-selling book, the greatest actor of all-time, and the movie becomes a success - who should get the credit? I was thinking of The Godfather, an excellent movie.

Take Taxi Driver. Originally at 17, I thought Scorsese was so great. However, after seeing De Niro's amazing performance, and reading Paul Schrader's script (no casual film-watcher knows him) I say the credit isn't going appropriately.

Also with "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" - you had one of the greatest books, greatest actors (Oscar Winners), so how much credit does Milos Forman deserve?

Take another one of my favorites "Network" - Paddy Chayesky was one of the greatest writers. Peter Finch won an Oscar, another Oscar won for Best Supporting Actress, and you also had Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall, and of course William Holden, even a great scene with Ned Beatty... I think a lot of directors would have done a great job, possibly better, which is why I like reading the scripts. From the ones I've read, I notice that the parenthetical talk was also written by the author.

American Sniper - I haven't seen it, but being a current event, with plenty of flag waivers who would watch the movie anyway. They know how much money they'll make before it's released for the most part.

But you also have directors who write their own stuff. Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film ever, and it was written from scratch by Orson and Mank, directed by Orson, starred by Orson.

The point of this thread is to bring out the truth. I'm sure each one of us knows situations in movies like this, but also other things to judge from.

Don't forget these people, too.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

You know everyone talks about how important directors are, but Orson Welles said it best when he said a film is made in the editing room.

No script and the film doesn't even get that far. Even with silent films.

I think it depends..

I know when I watch a Jean Cocteau film, that its his by the way he directs. Just as I know when Im watching a Mads Mikkelsen film, that I will be entertained and not let down by his acting. So I think it depends.

The auteur theory states that a movie's quality is closely tied to the director who is expressing their personal vision. An auteur ideally assembles the team that delivers the picture and has final say on all creative decisions. They bear the brunt of responsibility even though they aren't the soul creator. Sure, other aspects of filmmaking are often downplayed, especially screenwriters, but it's more convenient to group films under their respective directors who should have the greatest authority over their work. There are exceptions to this, of course, such as most studio blockbusters (to a lesser extent nowadays) and producers like Steven Speilberg.

I'd also like to point out critics - there's a ton of nepotism. Just one mention can equal a million new viewers. Even if only 1% of the audience like a movie, that's still a lot. And if it wins an Oscar, many more - but also the allusion. People would give it more of a chance, and feel they "have to" like it. Also critics have to suck up to 2016, that's all there is in the theater. I'm sure there are some critics who make their money being contrarian too, making non-conformity an industry.

As Richard Brooks said "It all begins with a word" - and as a writer and someone who thinks writing is the most important thing to a movie, I'm not as familiar with the writer, but I always know the director.