No, Hitchcock is not anyone's Tom Clancy, but these guys have their value, too. Gripping accessibility is a must for most, and many storytellers who favor this emotional mode are every bit as timeless-- and often much more so-- than their more abstruse counterparts. Perhaps there is no greater example of this from more recent history than Alexander Dumas.
Kurosawa has proven to resonate with the mainstream (across cultures and time) in a way that Tarkovsky and Bergman never could. If I showed Seven Samurai in the public square in my hometown it would be a smash hit. People would adore it. Even rednecks adore Kurosawa. Only those who can't read subtitles might leave, and even then they might still stay. That's how powerful Kurosawa's stuff was to every viewer. If I projected a Bergman film I would lose like half or two thirds of the audience (I predict the well-studied Christians would stay). If I projected a Tarkovsky film there would be like me and one other guy in the grass at the end of the movie. You have to appreciate that many don't interpret cryptic cerebralism as good storytelling, and they don't identify with it.
Hitchcock and Kurosawa were both accessible and dense at the same time. Bergman and Tarkovsky were mostly just dense.
