Pryor on Film: Genius or Just Raw?

Okay, so, I just watched "Richard Pryor: Live in Concert" for the first time (I know, I'm late to the party!). And I'm kinda blown away, but also... a little uneasy? Like, the guy is undeniably a comedic genius. The way he moves, the voices he does, and his sheer honesty are all incredible to watch. But I'm trying to figure out how much of that comes across effectively on film. Because, let's be real, the direction is pretty basic. It's mostly just static shots of him on stage. Which, arguably, puts the complete focus on Pryor himself, and maybe that's the point? But I kept thinking, wouldn't it have been more impactful with some cuts that emphasized the audience's reactions more? Or maybe some subtle camera movements that mirrored the energy of his performance? I was particularly thinking about this during the 'Mudbone' bits. I guess what I'm getting at is: does simple cinematography actually enhance Pryor's performance by stripping away distractions? Or does it kinda sell him short by not fully capturing the energy of actually being there in the audience? I feel like if Scorsese got his hands on this, it could've been a whole different level, maybe too stylized, maybe not. And does anyone know WHY there's no credited director? Was it on purpose? It's just weird! What do you guys think? Am I overthinking this? Or are there missed opportunities in terms of the cinematic presentation of Pryor's brilliance? Maybe I'm just being a pretentious film student! Haha. Lmk your thoughts!