Hitchcock said that about scripts because he had no idea how to write them himself and wouldn't let his ego admit that something he couldn't or didn't have the appropriate discipline to do was remotely important. He also called actors cattle because he was no doubt envious of the skill involved in the profession.
You have a source for this? is the first time i read it.
Is curious because i have read numbers of Hitchcock interviews (specially the ones he made with Truffaut and Cahiers) were openly admit, in the majority, that he thinks dialogue is important for suspense, but he is unable to make all the dialogue for a movie, beacuse he doesn't believe is a serious part of the films. Even then he was able to read the work of the guionist and change every part that wasn't to the direction he was thinking in his mind
Wich surprise me more is the part of the envious, Hitchcock treated actors like cattle because in his mind they was messing with his work. In the mind of a filmmaker who are perfectionist like Hitchcock, giving power to a actor mean that you lost power over your work, if you are open to let the actor take the lead about how he play his role you are letting they to change what you think about how the movie needs to be, and then you're open to uncertainty.
This is one of the reasons there are theories of cinema, since Bresson, who don't let professional actors to be in movies. You made movies with people portraying himself, nothing more.
No script imo usually equals indulgence because the film starts to lose sight of a cohesive narrative. But then narrative is not for everyone.
I'm not against narrative in itself, even if i think is exhausted since the 50's, i'm against the primacy of narrative. This "everything needs to made sense" absurdity. Wich is funny, is that many critics and the people believe in this and then you look at polls like the Sight and Sound one (probably the more serious one) and Vertigo is the winner, when the movie is the kingdom of the plot holes.
Also the world will never be crying out for a Tarantino directorial Oscar like they were for Scorsese. Tarantino only has one filmmaking style, it's effective but he has not proven to have any versatility at all. I'm fine with him never winning that award.
depend of what you understand for style. Scorsese is also one dimentional (like almost all the filmmakers in the world), his movies can be summed in a character entering in a decendent spiral until one act or event let him access to redemption (even in death). Scorsese has touch many more genres, but this is also because he is obssesed with the portraying of America and his movies are about that issue more than the genre in itself. Not denying nothing form Scorsese, the guy is the most importanta American director since the 70's (with Eastwood)
Tarantino on the other side is more about experimentation in the way he works, you seem to see a movie heavily reling on dialogue, but the dialogue take you to no nowhere. So he, constanstly tries to change how the dialogue functs in the movies, this is one of the reasons for him losing the fans from his 90's work who seems to believe that he is a "noir" and "gangster-violent" filmmaker.
i'm also fine with him not winning the oscar, but for the fact that the award is just a bunch of political, moral and marketing thing, just like any other award. So if he doesn't win it, it will not chhange anything about his career.