I don't think this will get through to anyone. The only reason people can respect the time used up by a director is because every minute of filming has a massive directly attributable dollar cost to the company. In normal employment, the company is going to spending that money on either yourself or your replacement, so there's not an obvious, immediate economic incentive in allowing you to do what you consider "real work" (building something) instead of allowing the manager to do what he considers "real work" (sitting around and talking about stuff).

The problem with this argument is that it presumes that your manager agrees with the film director - programmer analogy and shares an understanding of film making that would reveal the practice to be bad in that context.

There are good arguments (and, IIRC, even a bit of research) on why continuous blocks of time are much better for efficiency of programmers; and meetings for them should generally be minimized and, when necessary to have, coordinated to avoid breaking up work blocks as much as practical. But that particular analogy is close to the worst way to make the argument to most bosses.

TIL, I am Stanley Kubrick!