Avildsen is an interesting filmmaker: the Oscar-winning director behind not one but two really successful, beloved films (classics of their decades) who nonetheless has so little auteur credit that this entire review only mentions his name once.
Probably because he wasn't an auteur, he was an accomplished technician. There's very little in the way of personal style or interior meaning in any of his films (two of Sarris's concentric circles). The best examples of his work are based on solid scripts, which he had little input into, because he didn't see himself as a writer: "I have the greatest admiration and respect for the writer. Give me a piece of paper and you have the wrong guy. I don't have that gift. But give me a script and I'll kibbitz ... Having a good writer to keep you in line is important." (DGA interview) Even when auteur directors aren't writers (Hitchcock, for example), they still have a strong steer over originating the story and the writing of the screenplay. They are essentially the driving force behind the picture.
Avildsen certainly wasn't the driving force behind Rocky - that was obviously Stallone, with considerable help from Winker and Chartoff. The Karate Kid was commissioned by Columbia because they'd just signed him and wanted him to make another underdog sports picture (and the story very much belongs to Robert Mark Kamen). And Save the Tiger clearly isn't a "director's movie" - it's controlled and driven by the lead and the writer. This isn't to say Avildsen didn't add value to the productions - I love a good technician - but that value would never have been enough to warrant a possessory credit.
Much as I love Jack Lemmon, this is not my favorite of his.
Avildsen is an interesting filmmaker: the Oscar-winning director behind not one but two really successful, beloved films (classics of their decades) who nonetheless has so little auteur credit that this entire review only mentions his name once.
Probably because he wasn't an auteur, he was an accomplished technician. There's very little in the way of personal style or interior meaning in any of his films (two of Sarris's concentric circles). The best examples of his work are based on solid scripts, which he had little input into, because he didn't see himself as a writer: "I have the greatest admiration and respect for the writer. Give me a piece of paper and you have the wrong guy. I don't have that gift. But give me a script and I'll kibbitz ... Having a good writer to keep you in line is important." (DGA interview) Even when auteur directors aren't writers (Hitchcock, for example), they still have a strong steer over originating the story and the writing of the screenplay. They are essentially the driving force behind the picture.
Avildsen certainly wasn't the driving force behind Rocky - that was obviously Stallone, with considerable help from Winker and Chartoff. The Karate Kid was commissioned by Columbia because they'd just signed him and wanted him to make another underdog sports picture (and the story very much belongs to Robert Mark Kamen). And Save the Tiger clearly isn't a "director's movie" - it's controlled and driven by the lead and the writer. This isn't to say Avildsen didn't add value to the productions - I love a good technician - but that value would never have been enough to warrant a possessory credit.