"I don't believe in good and bad films, I believe in good and bad directors. It's possible that a mediocre or a very average filmmaker might from time to time make a succesful film, but such success doesn't count. It matters less than a Renoir failure, insofar as Jean Renoir is even capable of making a film that fails."

"A director possesses a style that one will find in all his films, and this is true of the worst filmmakers and their worst films. Differences from one film to the next--a more ingenious script, superior photography, or whatever else--fon't matter, because these differences are precisely the product of exterior forces, more or less money, a greater or shorter shooting schedule. What's essential is that an intelligent and gifted filmmaker remain intelligent and gifted no matter what film he is shooting. I am therefore and advocate of judging, when there is judging to be done, not films but filmmakers."

I took excerpts and the title from Francois Truffaut's most famous article. I believe this, maybe not as dogmatic, but with the overall concept. I believe people pick directors that they feel they relate too more than any aesthetic reason involved in a picture. Our friends in life are the ones who we relate to, enjoy sharing stories, experiences, jokes, etc. I sort of feel the same way about directors. The directors I most admire are ones that want(ed) to explore the same things that I think are interesting and use their craft to relate to the world the same way I relate to them. I just feel that the great directors were the ones that when something caught their interest they wanted to make a film because the audience would want to share that same interest. This is one reason why I can't stand Kubrick, and more and more I'm starting to feel the same way about Bergman. I feel that where someone like Hitchcock who never acted like he was better than the audience, Kubrick always did. All his films feel like he thinks this is what the people want so I'll give it to them. Nothing ever feels personal in his films, just shallow, polarizing, and contraversial just for the sake of it subjects. Now if I continue with Hitchcock, I can easily justify his bad movies. I don't particularly like Rope for example. I can very much appreciate how experimental of a film it is though. There are so many things in this film that make it interesting, for instance, the concept of having a feature length film be one take, to have his first color film and use color very boldly, and to be able to examine hypocrisy and justice. Even though I don't care for it there are still Hitchcock elements in it that make it redeeming. The reason I actually think the film isn't great is because he goes away from his principles, (he admits this himself). I don't offer any of this as an argument point to anybody, just thought I'd add my two cents to the mix.