The director as director has the least creative importance. The more he or she assumes other, more creative roles, the more important she or he is creatively, most of all when the director is also the writer.
The director is the most important creative person, generally (there are some movies that are more producer- or writer-driven, of course, but director-driven is the rule). Their whole purpose is to direct
the creative course of the entire project. The director decides what the movie is going to be. Everybody else works under their supervision and conforms to their vision.
But then, it's a matter of the writer getting a chance to execute the script properly instead of having a director bungle it. I criticized the movie specifically for a tendency to melodramatize the dark impulses of the unwashed masses, and the Cotillard subplot was the single worst instance of that. Soderbergh may have reduced the time but he didn't reduce the problem. In fact, I suspect the cut scenes showed the unwashed masses not to be so darkly impulsed, which would mean that Soderbergh made the movie a little worse than it had to be! In other words, the director as auteur was just the guy who fucked up something. This is creativity?
That assumption has no basis whatsoever.