Even though they did not specifically say much about each other, Jean Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette and Francois Truffaut, had a fairly clear understanding of each other and all three wrote a lot towards the periodical "Cahier du Cinema" ... 

There is one film, though, that really brings out a lot of that, but it is not directors talking. It is cinematographers, that explain some of the things they did with a director ... VISIONS OF LIGHT is a magnificent film that shows how some things worked, and also shows how some things ... were accidental and ended up being magic in the screen. 

Akira Kurosawa was, likely, the most appreciated of these, and he had to go find money elsewhere because no single Japanese company would help him ... he was a problem for them, and he would not come down to their greed level, and often did a film almost with no money at all. But several folks in America went to bat for him many times. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and probably many others I did not mention that helped a lot by producing various films and helping them get distributed elsewhere, which upset the Japanese studios even more ... the song of a gun could make more money than their films most of which never went out of the country just about!

There are some things that kinda give away the appreciation of a director for another. The best, and most impressive example, is the ending of CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT with Falstaff walking away into the dark tunnel ... in the end, almost exactly as the character in Luis Bunuel's film EL ending with him walking into a dark tunnel.

There are some other examples, and Quentin Tarantino just copied Jean-Luc Godard silly, and it would be fun to sit and break down all the moments but it is not just a single moment, or a shot ... it's a lot of other bits and pieces. I have often thought that if we don't find 12/15 Godard films in there, we're not paying attention, and of course, the look that copied Anna Karina way too much for my tastes including how Anna carried her cigarettes and smoked at various times. 

But it is a very difficult thing to work on/with. For example, we watch Peter Greenaway and never really think of anything, but he is a very "visual" director and I think that he might even shoot some of it on his own to ensure he gets what he is looking for. This, however, is not clear for several films, even though they all possess an incredible talent for creating images that are insane and crazy and everything else ... and you won't really learn much about it until you get the DVD for NIGHTWATCHING ... and specifically for the special "lecture" that is with that DVD of Peter talking about Rembrandt ... and you know right away that there aren't many professors anywhere, that can do this, so incredibly well ... no doubt one of the best and most knowledgeable folks about Rembrandt and his time and work. All of a sudden, when you start looking at your memory of a few of his films, you find some details that seem very clear ... and likely defined by his knowledge of the art of painting over the years, and specifically how LIGHT was used ... and that is his strength in his directing. I don't even want to get into the whole thing about nudity in his films, but when you see NOT MOZART his opening piece is something that makes most folks very uncomfortable, but it is by very far, one of the craziest and features some amazing choreography that Bob Fosse likely wanted to put on the stage but couldn't at the time in NY. He might have been able to do it in Paris or London, but not America!

Jean-Luc Godard makes fun of a lot of different moments in a lot of American films, but generally the moments are so quick and fleeting that saying something, makes it seem silly and not on par with the film at all ... specially the film noir stuff that he loved dong something with and resulted in ALPHAVILLE, though he did not exactly copy all that anymore after that ... I think he really got tired of the American folks making fun of it, and the film bombed here, except in Film Classes in various places for many years.

Tough subject and a cool one at the same time!

(I'm checking my film listing to see what I can find and remember)

By far, it seems the majority of comments by directors is about their (either) dislike, or some kind of competitive spirit for attention, where anything said is taken seriously ... and at times it gets nasty!

Orson Welles ... Fellini had different signs of being a superlative artist with little to say.

Orson Welles thought that Alfred Hitchcock got fat and lazy as he did more films.

Ingmar Bergman thought that Orson Welles was a "hoax". Empty. And not interesting. And he also disliked CITIZEN KANE as a total bore. Funny. Specially as he put together the one show for radio that caused the country to immediately create the FCC and set up regulations! That was a massive HOAX that scared a lot of people!

Ingmar Bergman thought that Godard was "constructed, faux intellectual and dead.

Alex Cox thought that Steven Spielberg was not a film maker. He was a confectioner.

Pedro Sena on Martin Scorcese .... "I didn't come to a movie to get a directing lesson on how to do a scene with actors, up to and including the camera movements and the magic lights changing within the same room."

Jacques Rivette on James Cameron ... He's an a****le. He wants to be the next Cecil B. de Mille, but he can't direct his way out of a paper bag!

John Carpenter's funny comment on Robert Altman ... his films are "masturbatory".

Clint Eastwood on Spike Lee ... A guy like him should shut his face!

===========================

Too many Orson Welles books to be able to tell you where I read it. But I think it was in a film class handout.

Ingmar Bergman had several books published of a lot of his interviews and comments. Those comments are in a couple of the books about his films.

Alex Cox has had a lot of comments made about a lot of his films, and he credits Bunuel and Kurosawa as influences.

John Carpenter's comments were in a couple of articles that had been delivered in a film class. Not exactly sure where they came from, but he has so many books on his works that it could be just about anywhere.

Clint Eastwood, for a long time, had a quote on anybody. I always thought it was how he made himself a better director, and though he's not bad, he's very lively with his own work, instead of someone else's. He's always a good quote ready to pop out! Very Hollywood!

The film classes, at UCSB when I was there (graduated 1982), used some interesting things that were not quite published as far as I knew it.

Bergman on Bergman

Fellini on Fellini

Welles on Welles

I don't know where these came from, although I think that it was compiled off a lot of things. And there were others that were also done, and I have to look at my trusty file cabinet where I still have a lot of that film stuff. I have not seen these on a book.

Altman on Altman is a fantastic book.

Cahier du Cinema ... I have to check. Have not gotten any issues since 1910 or so, Couldn't afford them anymore. Jacques Rivette is not quite known here in America but his films are always a wonderful exercise in acting ... he allows his actresses to roam, and fly ... and some performances are really special.

On James Cameron. Not surprised to see that comment about his directing since so much of his films are defined by the set, scenery and technical details which often leave the actors dry, and not as well defined as otherwise ... compare this to how Peter Jackson got all of his actors on the same page! 

Comments on Fellini, were interesting, because at times his films don't exactly have a story ... it just a day in the life of ... something, or nothing. And, often, one moment eats up the screen and the church goes nuts and wants the film removed from circulation! Good gracious ... they could not even appreciate a papal dress fashion show ... !!! 

Another take from me:

Orson Welles learned quickly before the WW2 that trying to be interesting and meaningful was stupid ... you just do any idea as real as you can and folks will either cry or laugh at your door! He never did anything else for "meaning" after his famous radio show was taken off the air!

Ingmar Bergman, many times was badly translated, but he was not about to admit that his early films did well because he had a cinematographer that insisted on making small changes so that a shot was better seen and used and helped improve the idea that Ingmar had in the first place, and he was not honest enough to admit it. Sven Nykvist might not be remembered but he was by far one of the folks that "made" a director a lot more than otherwise. I always thought that IB was trying to get some attention to his films, saying weird stuff was to help his films seem better and stronger. Not a great director in my book, but the cinematography is way out there, and I sincerely doubt that it was IB's vision, since Sven Nykvist kept his talent and used it many times in other films. IB kinda got dissolved as time went by.

Alex Cox has a very interesting set of films and it is hard to say something since he was much more attuned to the time and place, than someone like IB ever was. Meaning that IB stuff could be yesterday's or last decade's ... Alex's films were very much a reaction to the time and place ... the 1970's and 1980's. Good guy and director, not great but fairly with it.

Martin Scorcese is just a "professor" ... he is the perfect person to make use of all the Hollywood trickery in films going back almost 100 years. His work has really poor design for lights, that tend to make sure that his "shots" are perfectly lit ... and I kinda think this eats at the actors strength some. If this was a big theater in LA or NY, it would be worth seeing!

John Carpenter is not a director that I would place with the greats of cinema in the 20th century!

Clint Eastwood ... has good things, and ... so what things. Not sure he is that important as a director, though he has the fame for it, which came from him being a fairly good actor, though he improved things as he ended up directing himself and others, which he kind of allowed them some freedom ... for example, he knew he was never going to tell Gene Hackman what he should or should not do ... and it worked really well. Different with his women though, who I think he did not know how to direct or help!

Federico Fellini ... there is one sequence that is really what Fellini is about ... but sadly it is a film that did not translate well to English and was not will distributed and the studios gave way to the church condemning the film for a stupid thought and idea. That kid, at the start of the film is Fellini ... and the rest ... well the camera happened to be on! And the shot? Nobody on PA will ever check it out to see why! But you know that kid's name is Fellini!

Robert Altman is ... one of those folks that thinks that everyone is too full of themselves, specially actors ... and his fame came from using shots and takes on his films that were not rehearsed but the actors being surprised as fooled. He wanted the reactions, not the "acting", which more often than not is ridiculously over rated!

James Cameron ... hard to fault him for his takes on the quality of the sets and work he has defined and decided on, and how difficult some things were to direct during those  moments, since it is not exactly a natural environment for actors more often than not, and we kinda do not care, or think that acting is important. Sometimes I think it is just a far out cartoon!

The French folks, Rivette, Godard and Truffaut. In general, Truffaut was probably the poorest director of the trio, though he is the best known. His stuff is always concerned with the "meaning" and making sure that the audience grabs it! Godard is the ultimate bad boy and every time someone tries to do something that appears just conventional, he will undo it in its entirety. The best example is the famous "pendulum" used on a bar from behind the guy and his girlfriend, and the camera gets bored and starts going left ... on a straight line, and getting to see some others in the same type of shot ... and of course the dialogue changes and the situation is different behind this person, and even more so behind this other one! And then it comes back to the original situation ... and you wonder ... what is this about? There is no real comment that is satisfying at all. Typical Godard, and he also goofs around with the music and the idea of the moments in the script. Not really funny, but at times you want it to stop, but that would take the best out of Godard in his films.

Rivette is the least known of these but he is a great director and he allows the actresses to do their thing, and he just wants to make sure he can see them properly and get the right complementing shot to make the actresses look better. It is pretty, but sometimes too subtle and a bit tiring for most folks that are into "action" and "excitement" that some films out of America are so insistent on.

I think that some of the comments were for the benefit of the media, a lot more than otherwise. Some folks though, just do it in the films without words, and Terry Gilliam comes to mind ... and there is no film of his that he does not make a visual moment about other films ... it is interesting, but also difficult, and while to many of us that recognize these things might think it is funny or weird, most of the time it just flies ... though I never thought it was not meant to be a comment, other than just being funny and thankful for the inspiration!

Funny moment and test for you ... Ken Russell film that made fun of a moment in "Death in Venice" ... it was how Ken made fun of some folks ... though in general he did not have to comment on anyone, as he was too busy with the artist his film was about! His early films were better than some of the crap he did way later when he could get the money! I think he was done after "The Devils" which is, by far, his best and most far out film and that's not to take anything away from a couple of other famous English novels!