OK so I got what Barthes* means but I don't know why your statement differentiates author from film. They are the same aren't they? They are all stories however they are told. Let's assume there is no difference. No, I wouldn't lean that way. One of my earlier statements to DH is that the directors version of Sicario is far far more interesting, since he got the film made (which is a bit of respect normally lost on the critic), than any alternative version, Blunt-less, or otherwise. That applies to any film. So sticking with a film until it is done and letting an author tell his story to the end, before you make any consideration would be the ideal. What stops that in me or anyone else, is precisely that. Me or anyone else. I stop it happening. I have my reasons but they are my own. The film is eternal and immutable. It doesn't change (directors cut aside). I feel it is better for me to explain what has me liking or disliking a film in me.
*My reaction to this argument is that is highly rhetorical. Just because "The Death of Arthur" was cobbled together by various authors is unusual. Most books are written by a single person in a single timeline. So they can be mined for meaning from religious belief etc of that person. It's a straw man argument that can only be applied if multiple people did contribute. In a collaborative process like the film industry, I would grant that centring too much on the man, the director is a little one tracked. When anyone says "the director thinks this" I am happy to see that as shorthand for "the creators of the movie" because acting like the director did everything is a bit silly since you can see actors on the screen who aren't the director. Comparing across films has significance because it filters out the other influences (to an extent). Common sense.