>considering there are various factors outwith >his control that might make him appreciate Hitchcock less - he >also gave solid reasons/arguments on top
his reasons/arguments were pretty crappy, IMHO
"Hitchcock stayed in his comfort zone"? what does THAT mean?
is yet another parameter that the director who essays the *widest* array of genres is the best?
that's kind of like the moronic argument that thrives in the Lesson and would have you believe that a musician who plays 6 instruments in a medicore fashion is superior to one who concentrates on mastering a single instrument inside out and in fact, expands the vocabulary for that instrument.
the argument that Hitchcock's films are "of their time" is similarly ridiculous.
what ISN'T "of its time"? E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial isn't? Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Amblin? Sugarland Express? Jaws? Schindler's List? Jurassic Park?
they are ALL "of their time"... the poster just doesn't think they are because since many of them occurred in his lifetime, he probably feels he can "relate better" to them.
so essentially, once again it comes down to his own limited experience being a central parameter.