Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: > In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets > "composer (expression"), > > " because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- > image work ". Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as > expression-level,"[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than > the creation of the work. " > > Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the > directing, production… all is about "realizing" something. Sometimes, so > the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is "realized" has virtually nothing > to do with what the author of the script intended. > > So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly > part of the "work" and not "simply one aspect"?
I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why "author", "director", "director of photography", "producer" and "production company" are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
