I would encourage anyone who viewed this film to get a copy of the book. For it is in the book that we learn about the master and what he did and how he thought. This was Truffaut's baby and it is incredible that this is left for us. The strength of the film is in the commentaries of the participants. We get a picture of the admiration shared by the two directors. That said, despite the limitations of 85 or so minutes, we are made privy to techniques employed. The focus is really on two films, "Vertigo" and "Psycho." That is enough in some respects because most of Hitchcock's dazzle is employed here. The lesson learned is that Hitchcock as a stylist and a sort of visual tyrant made him what he was. One interesting point made was what would have happened if he had been forced to work with egos like Marlon Brando, James Dean, or Dustin Hoffman, who certainly would have tried to manipulate Hitchcock. Montgomery Clift tried and failed; so we get a sense of that thing. All in all, this is decent, but it is more the observation of the director who attempted to produce a summation of the book. It only works in bits and pieces. Still, I'm glad I got a chance to see it.
31 Reviews
Good look at the master of suspense as his ways are described!
blanbrn9 August 2016
This documentary "Hitchcock/Truffaut" is interesting and informative for the way it details the way the master of suspense worked on his films as Hitch was an icon and inspiration to many as you and many others know his movies left a lasting impact! However many may not know that a 1966 book was published called "Hitchcock/Truffaut" it was a book on cinema and how that the work of Alfred had influenced French director and writer Truffaut. As during this film you the viewer get to hear the actual audio recordings of the interview for the book and see clips from many of Hitch's films and it gives in detail Alfred's background to the days even when he started in advertising. And it talks about how Alfred saw the world as a one world view director as often calling his actors and actresses cattle, clearly Alfred was demanding as discussed is how he shot his films with an emphasis on space and geography. And anyone who's watched a lot of Hitchcock movies know that his camera work was top notch the way he did scenes at angles the documentary talks of this also. Aside from the clips and talk of the impact of his movies other well known directors talk about how Alfred influenced their work as in the film Wes Anderson, David Fincher, and Richard Linklater to name a few give their take on Hitch. Overall good informative documentary that was an interesting look at the master of suspense.
Tête-a-Tête.
rmax3048239 August 2016
Not the usual kind of biographical stuff about the celebrity's childhood and how he "rose to prominence" before he "fell from grace." In other words it's not an episode of "Biography." The object of attention is the book, "Cinema According to Hitchcock" by an admirer and fellow director Francois Truffaut, published in 1966.
The film is roughly (but only roughly) chronological and the biographical material is limited but covers both Hitchcock and his interviewer. What makes it more interesting than it might be is that Truffaut was about half Hitchcock's age. They came from different traditions -- Hitch from the silents, when everything needed to be spelled out visually, and Truffaut from the French "New Wave" cinema of the early 1960s, when the rules were thrown out the window.
Despite their different styles, they never clash. Truffaut is too good natured for that, and Hitch too distantly polite in his British way. Only once, in the book, not in the film, is there any sign of friction, when Truffaut suggests a different way Hitch might have handled a scene and he replies, "It seems you want me to write for an art house audience." Lots of excerpts from Hitch's movies and several from Truffaut's as well. A good deal of attention is paid to cinematic techniques -- the position of the camera, the lighting, the pattern of the images themselves. Some of the talking heads, and Hitchcock himself, come up with implications that to me seem questionable. I can't manage to convince myself that, while waiting for Kim Novack to emerge fully transformed from the bathroom, Jimmy Stewart is "getting an erection." In fact, I can't imagine Jimmy Stewart getting an erection at all.
I suspect the program might disappoint some viewers who don't want to listen to the interlocutors making polite jokes. (Twice, Hitch is about to tell an anecdote and asks for the recorder to be turned off.) Nothing in the movie is critical of either Truffaut or Hitchock, who became an alcoholic during his last years.
There are photos from the interview and excerpts from the recording, as well as a description of the surprising friendship that developed between the two. I thought it was all fascinating.
The film is roughly (but only roughly) chronological and the biographical material is limited but covers both Hitchcock and his interviewer. What makes it more interesting than it might be is that Truffaut was about half Hitchcock's age. They came from different traditions -- Hitch from the silents, when everything needed to be spelled out visually, and Truffaut from the French "New Wave" cinema of the early 1960s, when the rules were thrown out the window.
Despite their different styles, they never clash. Truffaut is too good natured for that, and Hitch too distantly polite in his British way. Only once, in the book, not in the film, is there any sign of friction, when Truffaut suggests a different way Hitch might have handled a scene and he replies, "It seems you want me to write for an art house audience." Lots of excerpts from Hitch's movies and several from Truffaut's as well. A good deal of attention is paid to cinematic techniques -- the position of the camera, the lighting, the pattern of the images themselves. Some of the talking heads, and Hitchcock himself, come up with implications that to me seem questionable. I can't manage to convince myself that, while waiting for Kim Novack to emerge fully transformed from the bathroom, Jimmy Stewart is "getting an erection." In fact, I can't imagine Jimmy Stewart getting an erection at all.
I suspect the program might disappoint some viewers who don't want to listen to the interlocutors making polite jokes. (Twice, Hitch is about to tell an anecdote and asks for the recorder to be turned off.) Nothing in the movie is critical of either Truffaut or Hitchock, who became an alcoholic during his last years.
There are photos from the interview and excerpts from the recording, as well as a description of the surprising friendship that developed between the two. I thought it was all fascinating.
Wide-ranging look at a famous collaboration between two great directors
BrianDanaCamp7 December 2015
HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT (2015) offers a documentary treatment of the relationship between the veteran English-born Hollywood director Alfred Hitchcock and the much younger French filmmaker Francois Truffaut and the ambitious series of interviews conducted by Truffaut in 1962 at the Beverly Hills Hotel that resulted in Truffaut's pioneering book, "Hitchcock/Truffaut." (Truffaut asked questions in French, with Helen Scott supplying the translation.) We hear a number of excerpts from the audio recordings of the interviews, usually accompanied by clips from the Hitchcock films under discussion. To supplement all this, director Kent Jones has added archival footage of both Hitchcock and Truffaut and photos of them at work, as well as other archival interviews, including one with Truffaut where he talks about these interviews. In addition, we get new interviews with a number of other Hollywood directors, some of whom were Young Turks when Hitchcock was in the final stages of his career, e.g. Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich and Paul Schrader, who are all now older than Hitchcock was at the time of the interviews, and some of whom are flourishing today, e.g. David Fincher, Richard Linklater, James Gray and Wes Anderson. There is a lot of rich material here that should engage film students, Hitchcock fans, and film buffs in general.
In many ways, the film plays like excerpts from a master class on Hitchcock's career. Often we hear Hitchcock's voice describing how he approached a particular scene as the film shows us the scene he's talking about. For instance, we see the overhead long shot from THE BIRDS showing the burning of the gas station and the spreading of the fire to the rest of the town while Hitchcock explains his decision to shoot it that way. He describes the trouble he had convincing Montgomery Clift to look up from the crowd in a scene in I CONFESS in order to justify a cut to something happening above the crowd. We see the famous shower murder in PSYCHO while he is heard describing in detail his approach to composing the scene. Some of the interviewees devote this kind of attention as well, as when Scorsese describes the components of the scene in THE WRONG MAN when the wrongfully accused Henry Fonda first adjusts to his prison cell and we see the scene unfold. The most screen time is devoted to VERTIGO and PSYCHO. Not only do we get Hitchcock's revelations about his working methods and aesthetic decisions on these films, but we get expert commentators such as Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Fincher and Gray.
Of the interviewees, the most screen time is given to Scorsese (Jones's mentor) and Fincher, but they all offer significant insights and clearly speak not only from respect and admiration, but a great love for Hitchcock. We also hear from three foreign filmmakers, the French directors Olivier Assayas and Arnaud Desplechin, and, from Japan, Kiyoshi Kurosawa. They speak in their own languages, with English subtitles.
Having said all this, I am troubled by certain omissions and questions I had that were never answered in the film. For one thing, we are never told whether Hitchcock knew any French at all. He appears to understand Truffaut's questions at times in the audio recordings and answers in English without waiting for a translation. Numerous letters that he wrote to Truffaut are shown and two of them, including the very first one, are in French. Did he write it in French or did he have someone translate it? I needed this spelled out. Which also begs the question of why there's no discussion of Helen Scott and what her background was and why she undertook this task. Truffaut refers to her in a filmed interview as "my collaborator," but that's the only mention she gets in the entire film.
Also, Peter Bogdanovich had a friendship with Hitchcock beginning back then and even interviewed the master himself around the same time. Why was this parallel relationship not mentioned? Bogdanovich is in the film and probably talked about it, but only a hint of it remains in his brief clips. And speaking of young directors who worshiped Hitchcock, why is there no discussion of Hitchcock's influence on these filmmakers? Truffaut himself was influenced by Hitchcock (see THE SOFT SKIN and THE BRIDE WORE BLACK), but this is not explored in any detail. Paul Schrader is interviewed and he even wrote the screenplay for Brian De Palma's OBSESSION (1976), a film that owes a great deal to VERTIGO, yet there's no mention of this film nor of De Palma himself, whose films were frequently cited for the debts they owed to Hitchcock. Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER (also 1976 and also written by Schrader) has more than a few Hitchcockian touches yet neither Scorsese nor Schrader bring it up. And both OBSESSION and TAXI DRIVER featured the very last scores by Hitchcock's frequent composer, Bernard Herrmann. Truffaut used Herrmann for two scores himself (THE BRIDE WORE BLACK and FAHRENHEIT 451).
Which brings up the film's most egregious omission. Herrmann scored six of the films excerpted in this documentary, with music playing an especially prominent role in the clips from VERTIGO and PSYCHO, yet no one refers to the music or mentions Herrmann by name. I have to assume that his name came up in the interviews, so I wonder why no mention of him made the final cut.
I was also bothered by the fact that film clips went unidentified. I can understand that they didn't want to disrupt the flow of the film by having text constantly pop up, but I can't be the only one who couldn't identify the various silent Hitchcock films excerpted. Also, while varying degrees of attention are paid to numerous Hitchcock films not mentioned in this review so far, e.g. SABOTAGE, SABOTEUR, NOTORIOUS, and MARNIE, I am curious as to why the following masterpieces receive little or no mention: REBECCA, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, and REAR WINDOW.
In many ways, the film plays like excerpts from a master class on Hitchcock's career. Often we hear Hitchcock's voice describing how he approached a particular scene as the film shows us the scene he's talking about. For instance, we see the overhead long shot from THE BIRDS showing the burning of the gas station and the spreading of the fire to the rest of the town while Hitchcock explains his decision to shoot it that way. He describes the trouble he had convincing Montgomery Clift to look up from the crowd in a scene in I CONFESS in order to justify a cut to something happening above the crowd. We see the famous shower murder in PSYCHO while he is heard describing in detail his approach to composing the scene. Some of the interviewees devote this kind of attention as well, as when Scorsese describes the components of the scene in THE WRONG MAN when the wrongfully accused Henry Fonda first adjusts to his prison cell and we see the scene unfold. The most screen time is devoted to VERTIGO and PSYCHO. Not only do we get Hitchcock's revelations about his working methods and aesthetic decisions on these films, but we get expert commentators such as Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Fincher and Gray.
Of the interviewees, the most screen time is given to Scorsese (Jones's mentor) and Fincher, but they all offer significant insights and clearly speak not only from respect and admiration, but a great love for Hitchcock. We also hear from three foreign filmmakers, the French directors Olivier Assayas and Arnaud Desplechin, and, from Japan, Kiyoshi Kurosawa. They speak in their own languages, with English subtitles.
Having said all this, I am troubled by certain omissions and questions I had that were never answered in the film. For one thing, we are never told whether Hitchcock knew any French at all. He appears to understand Truffaut's questions at times in the audio recordings and answers in English without waiting for a translation. Numerous letters that he wrote to Truffaut are shown and two of them, including the very first one, are in French. Did he write it in French or did he have someone translate it? I needed this spelled out. Which also begs the question of why there's no discussion of Helen Scott and what her background was and why she undertook this task. Truffaut refers to her in a filmed interview as "my collaborator," but that's the only mention she gets in the entire film.
Also, Peter Bogdanovich had a friendship with Hitchcock beginning back then and even interviewed the master himself around the same time. Why was this parallel relationship not mentioned? Bogdanovich is in the film and probably talked about it, but only a hint of it remains in his brief clips. And speaking of young directors who worshiped Hitchcock, why is there no discussion of Hitchcock's influence on these filmmakers? Truffaut himself was influenced by Hitchcock (see THE SOFT SKIN and THE BRIDE WORE BLACK), but this is not explored in any detail. Paul Schrader is interviewed and he even wrote the screenplay for Brian De Palma's OBSESSION (1976), a film that owes a great deal to VERTIGO, yet there's no mention of this film nor of De Palma himself, whose films were frequently cited for the debts they owed to Hitchcock. Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER (also 1976 and also written by Schrader) has more than a few Hitchcockian touches yet neither Scorsese nor Schrader bring it up. And both OBSESSION and TAXI DRIVER featured the very last scores by Hitchcock's frequent composer, Bernard Herrmann. Truffaut used Herrmann for two scores himself (THE BRIDE WORE BLACK and FAHRENHEIT 451).
Which brings up the film's most egregious omission. Herrmann scored six of the films excerpted in this documentary, with music playing an especially prominent role in the clips from VERTIGO and PSYCHO, yet no one refers to the music or mentions Herrmann by name. I have to assume that his name came up in the interviews, so I wonder why no mention of him made the final cut.
I was also bothered by the fact that film clips went unidentified. I can understand that they didn't want to disrupt the flow of the film by having text constantly pop up, but I can't be the only one who couldn't identify the various silent Hitchcock films excerpted. Also, while varying degrees of attention are paid to numerous Hitchcock films not mentioned in this review so far, e.g. SABOTAGE, SABOTEUR, NOTORIOUS, and MARNIE, I am curious as to why the following masterpieces receive little or no mention: REBECCA, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, and REAR WINDOW.
New insights on "the artist who wrote with a camera"... a must for any movie aficionado
paul-allaer19 December 2015
"Hitchcock/Truffaut" (2015 release; 80 min.) is a documentary based on the book of the same name, originally published in 1966. The book was essentially a transcript of a week-long interview/conversation between directors Alfred Hitchcock and Francois Truffaut. As the movie opens, we are given a quick historical context within which these conversations took place, and the various contemporaries (Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Lynch, etc.) provide their further perspectives. To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see it for yourself.
Couple of comments: first and foremost, if you are a movie aficionado, you are in for a finger-lickin' good time, as two of the giants in movie history dissect Hitchcock's oeuvre in a manner that we have not seen before, and along the way we also get a fresh and better understanding of Truffaut's oeuvre. But let's be clear: this documentary is mostly about Hitchcock, and at times it feels that the book simply serves as an excuse to examine Hitchcock. But we admittedly also get a clear understanding as to why the book was much more than just a book for Truffaut and that it was as important as any film he made. While Hitchcock's entire career is looked at (including the very early days), the documentary spends more time on two Hitchcock films than any other: Vertigo and Psycho. We also get a clear understanding why Hitchcock claimed that "all actors are cattle", which makes the director of this documentary (the to me previously unknown Kent Jones) wonder how outspoken/strong-willed icons like Robert de Niro, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman would have fared under Hitchcock. One of the best features of the documentary is that the audio tapes of the week-long conversation between Hitchcock and Truffaut have survived and are used heavily (along with still photographs from those sessions). It's like we're having a seat at the table along with these movie giants and the interpreter. I only wished that the movie lasted longer than its all-too-brief 80 min. running time.
"Hitchcock/Truffaut" opened this weekend without any fanfare or advertising at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. I figured this will not be playing very long, so I went to see it right away. The Friday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. Given the lack of any marketing for the movie, this didn't come as a surprise. That said, if you love movies and want to get new insights on Hitchcock and Truffaut, you simply cannot go wrong with this, be it in the theater, on Amazon Instant Video, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. "Hitchcock/Truffaut" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Couple of comments: first and foremost, if you are a movie aficionado, you are in for a finger-lickin' good time, as two of the giants in movie history dissect Hitchcock's oeuvre in a manner that we have not seen before, and along the way we also get a fresh and better understanding of Truffaut's oeuvre. But let's be clear: this documentary is mostly about Hitchcock, and at times it feels that the book simply serves as an excuse to examine Hitchcock. But we admittedly also get a clear understanding as to why the book was much more than just a book for Truffaut and that it was as important as any film he made. While Hitchcock's entire career is looked at (including the very early days), the documentary spends more time on two Hitchcock films than any other: Vertigo and Psycho. We also get a clear understanding why Hitchcock claimed that "all actors are cattle", which makes the director of this documentary (the to me previously unknown Kent Jones) wonder how outspoken/strong-willed icons like Robert de Niro, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman would have fared under Hitchcock. One of the best features of the documentary is that the audio tapes of the week-long conversation between Hitchcock and Truffaut have survived and are used heavily (along with still photographs from those sessions). It's like we're having a seat at the table along with these movie giants and the interpreter. I only wished that the movie lasted longer than its all-too-brief 80 min. running time.
"Hitchcock/Truffaut" opened this weekend without any fanfare or advertising at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. I figured this will not be playing very long, so I went to see it right away. The Friday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. Given the lack of any marketing for the movie, this didn't come as a surprise. That said, if you love movies and want to get new insights on Hitchcock and Truffaut, you simply cannot go wrong with this, be it in the theater, on Amazon Instant Video, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. "Hitchcock/Truffaut" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
An Appetizer for the Real Meal: the 8-Day 1962 "Truffaut/Hitchcock" interview...
ElMaruecan8222 December 2017
The title plays like a clever nod to "Frost/Nixon" but in this case, the interviewee's name is put first, a matter of respect that even Truffaut would have acknowledged. Look at the poster, Truffaut is like a disciple totally enthralled by the humorously pedantic look the Master is deigning to give him. In reality they were just having fun together, having earned a few minutes of relaxation after having provided so many hours of valuable insights not only on Hitchcock's movies but on his vision of film-making, and if anyone was entitled to say what film-making was about, no doubt it was the director with the iconic shadowy silhouette.
Indeed, even when he wasn't making great movies, Alfred Hitchcock was still the greatest director to have ever graced the screen. He reconciled two generally conflicting approaches: the artistic and the technical, he could indulge to symbolism, to hyperbolic visuals, to innovative dilatation or accelerations of time, to juxtaposition of shots or the use of specific leitmotiv but he never, never improvised: every frame, every moment was sketched, planned and studied with a meticulous attention to small (and pervert) details and a unique sense of anticipation. You can see this pattern even in that distinctively slow voice he had, as if he had to think before, set up his mind, before announcing a subject. And yet he could sound witty and funny on the spot. Hitchcock was a man of paradoxes, but he was himself a paradox, an artist, a technician and a natural.
That's the genius of Hitchcock. And that's how he became the true Master of Suspense; he had to get in control of every single element: the timing, the use of particular objects or plot device (his McGuffin darlings) as props, of even his characters as the props of his own creativity. His infamous "treat actors like cattle" takes its full meaning once you hear him talk about the attention for characterization and his fascination for human paradoxes: having a totally innocent man being mistaken from a dangerous criminal, a lovable family uncle being a serial killer or a sophisticated blonde have a volcanic libido in privacy. Hitchcock was like a Master Puppeteer, he didn't belong to the Elia Kazan or method acting of school, he pulled the strings himself and it's only fitting that his trademark theme was Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette". Basically, many of his movies can be looked at as a macabre march (or chase) of a puppet-like character.
But we were his puppets as well. Hitchcock could toy with our emotions like no other director, making it an instant signature, probably what made him recognized by 'Cahiers du Cinéma' as an auteur director. When then critic François Truffaut, along with New Wave icons to be (Chabrol, Brialy and Godard), started to re-evaluated the history of cinema, they defined the auteur as a director whose unique vision and sense of narrative and style shaped most of the movie. The idea wasn't to dismiss any movie from a non auteur but to say that even the lesser movie from an auteur will be more interesting than the other director's main work. In the documentary, Scorsese mentions that the art of directing is so reliant on contributions: from the actors, the editors, the writers, the musicians that you can't just make the director the sole 'maker' of the film what would "Psycho" be without Bernard Herrmann or Anthony Perkins.
Still, Hitchcock can get away with it. Even his lesser movies, with casting choices he ended up regretting, had a Hitchcockian quality. It started in the 30's, became widely known in the 40's and then culminated in the 50's. In 1962, he had just finished "Psycho" and was working on his "Birds" when Truffaut was only starting with three movies that met with international acclaim. Truffaut was like a critic, a journalist, a fan and a fellow director and on these four levels, he seemed to know more about Hitchcock than Hitchcock himself. From the interview, he released a book that became a Bible for cinema, a frame-by-frame study of Hitchcock's most creative film sequences on which David Fincher said to have been a huge influence on his future work.
Say what you want about Truffaut's movies but he shared at least with Hitchcock the passion for the art and the craft, the two really meant business. Now, there are many juicy facts to gather from the documentary, and they're punctuated by some neat interventions from directors such as Scorsese, Fincher or Anderson. But the biggest favor the documentary does is to encourage you to listen to the interview between Truffaut and Hitchcock and that's just an offer no film-maker can refuse. Hitchcock goes through every major film he made and provides his own insights, even criticism toward movies we generally praise. Hitchcock was a practical man believing a movie that didn't met the public has faulted in a way or another, and listening to him criticizing even Joan Fontaine in "Suspicion" is one of these 'a-ha' moments you're begging for. A director praising Hitchcock, what's new? Hitchcock criticizing his work, now, that's even better. The documentary isn't just about retrospective analysis, it also allows us to understand the elements that made Hitchcock such an iconic director.
It's Truffaut who said that Hitchcock never made movies that belonged to a time, he never followed trends and fashion, his movies belonged to himself and that way, end up being eternally modern. Hitchcock was obviously flattered by the compliment (coming in the first interview if I remember correctly) and could see that Truffaut wasn't an ordinary. You could feel the bond growing between the two men and the friendship would go on till Hitchcock's death. The interview is the real thing, this documentary is just an appetizer.
Indeed, even when he wasn't making great movies, Alfred Hitchcock was still the greatest director to have ever graced the screen. He reconciled two generally conflicting approaches: the artistic and the technical, he could indulge to symbolism, to hyperbolic visuals, to innovative dilatation or accelerations of time, to juxtaposition of shots or the use of specific leitmotiv but he never, never improvised: every frame, every moment was sketched, planned and studied with a meticulous attention to small (and pervert) details and a unique sense of anticipation. You can see this pattern even in that distinctively slow voice he had, as if he had to think before, set up his mind, before announcing a subject. And yet he could sound witty and funny on the spot. Hitchcock was a man of paradoxes, but he was himself a paradox, an artist, a technician and a natural.
That's the genius of Hitchcock. And that's how he became the true Master of Suspense; he had to get in control of every single element: the timing, the use of particular objects or plot device (his McGuffin darlings) as props, of even his characters as the props of his own creativity. His infamous "treat actors like cattle" takes its full meaning once you hear him talk about the attention for characterization and his fascination for human paradoxes: having a totally innocent man being mistaken from a dangerous criminal, a lovable family uncle being a serial killer or a sophisticated blonde have a volcanic libido in privacy. Hitchcock was like a Master Puppeteer, he didn't belong to the Elia Kazan or method acting of school, he pulled the strings himself and it's only fitting that his trademark theme was Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette". Basically, many of his movies can be looked at as a macabre march (or chase) of a puppet-like character.
But we were his puppets as well. Hitchcock could toy with our emotions like no other director, making it an instant signature, probably what made him recognized by 'Cahiers du Cinéma' as an auteur director. When then critic François Truffaut, along with New Wave icons to be (Chabrol, Brialy and Godard), started to re-evaluated the history of cinema, they defined the auteur as a director whose unique vision and sense of narrative and style shaped most of the movie. The idea wasn't to dismiss any movie from a non auteur but to say that even the lesser movie from an auteur will be more interesting than the other director's main work. In the documentary, Scorsese mentions that the art of directing is so reliant on contributions: from the actors, the editors, the writers, the musicians that you can't just make the director the sole 'maker' of the film what would "Psycho" be without Bernard Herrmann or Anthony Perkins.
Still, Hitchcock can get away with it. Even his lesser movies, with casting choices he ended up regretting, had a Hitchcockian quality. It started in the 30's, became widely known in the 40's and then culminated in the 50's. In 1962, he had just finished "Psycho" and was working on his "Birds" when Truffaut was only starting with three movies that met with international acclaim. Truffaut was like a critic, a journalist, a fan and a fellow director and on these four levels, he seemed to know more about Hitchcock than Hitchcock himself. From the interview, he released a book that became a Bible for cinema, a frame-by-frame study of Hitchcock's most creative film sequences on which David Fincher said to have been a huge influence on his future work.
Say what you want about Truffaut's movies but he shared at least with Hitchcock the passion for the art and the craft, the two really meant business. Now, there are many juicy facts to gather from the documentary, and they're punctuated by some neat interventions from directors such as Scorsese, Fincher or Anderson. But the biggest favor the documentary does is to encourage you to listen to the interview between Truffaut and Hitchcock and that's just an offer no film-maker can refuse. Hitchcock goes through every major film he made and provides his own insights, even criticism toward movies we generally praise. Hitchcock was a practical man believing a movie that didn't met the public has faulted in a way or another, and listening to him criticizing even Joan Fontaine in "Suspicion" is one of these 'a-ha' moments you're begging for. A director praising Hitchcock, what's new? Hitchcock criticizing his work, now, that's even better. The documentary isn't just about retrospective analysis, it also allows us to understand the elements that made Hitchcock such an iconic director.
It's Truffaut who said that Hitchcock never made movies that belonged to a time, he never followed trends and fashion, his movies belonged to himself and that way, end up being eternally modern. Hitchcock was obviously flattered by the compliment (coming in the first interview if I remember correctly) and could see that Truffaut wasn't an ordinary. You could feel the bond growing between the two men and the friendship would go on till Hitchcock's death. The interview is the real thing, this documentary is just an appetizer.
Mutual Admiration Society - Cinephelic wet dream
george.schmidt13 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT (2015) **** Cinephelic wet dream - fine documentary about how acclaimed filmmakers Francois Truffaut - a then up-and-coming New Wave French director - managed to coerce The Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock for a week long series of in-depth convos on the latter's filmography and the thought process/creative links they both shared resulting in a treatise book/filmmakers/goer's bible and now the end result. Interspersed with fellow disciples of cinema Martin Scorsese, James Gray and brimming with talent David Fincher discuss how Hitch's influences enforced their own visions as well as groundbreaking the format for ages to come. Compiled by Kent Jones with appreciation and love. Go; enjoy.
A must for people who are intense about movies
Red-12517 January 2016
Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015) was written and directed by Kent Jones. The movie is a documentary about the two-week period during which the young French filmmaker Francois Truffaut interviewed the older filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock. Truffaut--who greatly admired Hitchcock's work--was writing a book about Hitchcock. It was published in 1966 with the title "Cinema According to Hitchcock."
This long interview was sound recorded, but apparently not entirely filmed. So, often we are watching a still while the words are given as voice-over. We see clips of great Hitchcock and Truffaut movies, but usually I couldn't see the relationship between the words and the film clips.
Also, Hitchcock spoke English, and Truffaut spoke French, so each was hearing the other person's words through a interpreter. (Obviously, the interpreter was a professional. Still, unless you know both languages well, you can't tell whether each man is hearing the essence of the other man's words.)
Most of the movie consists of comments about Hitchcock, Truffaut, and the book given by famous film directors. These include Peter Bogdanovich, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Paul Schrader, and Martin Scorsese.
I'm a movie buff, and I've reviewed over 600 movies for IMDb since 1999. However, I don't understand the intricate technical subtleties that film professors teach, and that were discussed in this movie. I felt as if I were outside, looking inside, watching professionals talk about their magic. I would have preferred less talking and more film clips, but director Jones wanted to give us talking heads instead. Of course, the heads that were talking were highly successful movie directors, so it's hard to complain. However, this is a better movie for highly knowledgeable film people. It was interesting enough for my wife and me, but I won't suggest that you seek it out unless you are really versed in cinema.
We saw this film at the wonderful Dryden Theatre in the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, NY. Naturally, because the movies discussed were meant for the large screen, the film clips work better on a large screen. However, the interviews will work just as well on a small screen.
This long interview was sound recorded, but apparently not entirely filmed. So, often we are watching a still while the words are given as voice-over. We see clips of great Hitchcock and Truffaut movies, but usually I couldn't see the relationship between the words and the film clips.
Also, Hitchcock spoke English, and Truffaut spoke French, so each was hearing the other person's words through a interpreter. (Obviously, the interpreter was a professional. Still, unless you know both languages well, you can't tell whether each man is hearing the essence of the other man's words.)
Most of the movie consists of comments about Hitchcock, Truffaut, and the book given by famous film directors. These include Peter Bogdanovich, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Paul Schrader, and Martin Scorsese.
I'm a movie buff, and I've reviewed over 600 movies for IMDb since 1999. However, I don't understand the intricate technical subtleties that film professors teach, and that were discussed in this movie. I felt as if I were outside, looking inside, watching professionals talk about their magic. I would have preferred less talking and more film clips, but director Jones wanted to give us talking heads instead. Of course, the heads that were talking were highly successful movie directors, so it's hard to complain. However, this is a better movie for highly knowledgeable film people. It was interesting enough for my wife and me, but I won't suggest that you seek it out unless you are really versed in cinema.
We saw this film at the wonderful Dryden Theatre in the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, NY. Naturally, because the movies discussed were meant for the large screen, the film clips work better on a large screen. However, the interviews will work just as well on a small screen.
Excellen documentary minus one important phase
noir-2348910 December 2015
The only section missing in the film is a discussion of the MUSIC in Hitchcock films especially the work and career of BERNARD HERMANN! Neither director touched on the scores for VERTIGO, PSYCHO, or THE BRIDE WORE BLACK. Others like WAXMAN and TIOMPKIN were also neglected! Soundtracks are an integral part of both director's work! Shame on you! Also there was no discussion of the score for TORN CURTAIN! Why no Hermann score and a substitute for one by by John Barry? You can write an entire book on film noir music or THE SOUNDS OF DARKNESS. Think about PSYCHO and the "shower scene" without music. It loses its chilling effect. What about James Stewart hanging from a roof gutter in VERTIGO? And that haunting "love theme" in VERTIGO, when Stewart is following Kim Novak in his car and the crescendo of waves breaking against the shore when they finally embrace? I can cite many more moments where music was crucial to a scene in Hitchcock's work, too many to enumerate here. I just had wished the directors and filmmakers would have discussed this important phase of both director's work.
Dr. Ronald Schwartz at www.noir1937@aol.com Manhattan
Dr. Ronald Schwartz at www.noir1937@aol.com Manhattan
A Welcome Tribute To One Of The All-Time Great Legends Of Cinema
CinemaClown6 October 2020
A welcome tribute to one of the all-time great titans of cinema, Hitchcock/Truffaut is an insightful, informative & illuminating documentary that borrows its narrative from a series of interviews which were conducted by French filmmaker Francois Truffaut in an attempt to dissect & discern the style, themes, motifs & visual storytelling that define an Alfred Hitchcock film.
Directed by Kent Jones, the film provides an interesting glimpse into the mind of the Master of Suspense and his approach to storytelling. Before getting to the good bits, it offers a brief overview of both filmmakers, their early years in the film industry, and the events that led to the interviews which in turn resulted in the seminal book of the same name. And it's gripping at all times.
What's also interesting to see is how even Hitchcock was derided by the film snobs of his time who deemed his films too entertaining to be considered works of art and it's very satisfying to find Truffaut dismiss their limited perspective & definition of art as rubbish. The film also observes their contrasting filmmaking methods as Truffaut invites improvisation while Hitchcock demands absolute authority.
Also offering reflections on the legacy & influence of Alfred Hitchcock's body of work are contemporary filmmakers like David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Richard Linklater & Wes Anderson, each commenting on how Hitchcock films broke barriers, set new benchmarks, are visually accessible to all demographics, and why most of them are still effective. It doesn't cover all his films but Vertigo & Psycho are discussed in depth.
Overall, Hitchcock/Truffaut is going to appease all who enjoy films about filmmakers and is an absorbing documentary that presents two friends & auteurs discussing all-things cinema without any pretence. And that makes it essential viewing for anyone who aspires to be a filmmaker. My main gripe with it is that it's just 80 mins long, for such short runtime for a filmography as extensive & legendary as Alfred Hitchcock's is simply not enough nor acceptable.
Directed by Kent Jones, the film provides an interesting glimpse into the mind of the Master of Suspense and his approach to storytelling. Before getting to the good bits, it offers a brief overview of both filmmakers, their early years in the film industry, and the events that led to the interviews which in turn resulted in the seminal book of the same name. And it's gripping at all times.
What's also interesting to see is how even Hitchcock was derided by the film snobs of his time who deemed his films too entertaining to be considered works of art and it's very satisfying to find Truffaut dismiss their limited perspective & definition of art as rubbish. The film also observes their contrasting filmmaking methods as Truffaut invites improvisation while Hitchcock demands absolute authority.
Also offering reflections on the legacy & influence of Alfred Hitchcock's body of work are contemporary filmmakers like David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Richard Linklater & Wes Anderson, each commenting on how Hitchcock films broke barriers, set new benchmarks, are visually accessible to all demographics, and why most of them are still effective. It doesn't cover all his films but Vertigo & Psycho are discussed in depth.
Overall, Hitchcock/Truffaut is going to appease all who enjoy films about filmmakers and is an absorbing documentary that presents two friends & auteurs discussing all-things cinema without any pretence. And that makes it essential viewing for anyone who aspires to be a filmmaker. My main gripe with it is that it's just 80 mins long, for such short runtime for a filmography as extensive & legendary as Alfred Hitchcock's is simply not enough nor acceptable.
The usual stuff
Leofwine_draca16 September 2016
Another year, another Hitchcock documentary. I suppose I was expecting more from HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT before of all the high brow praise surrounding it, and the link to an early 1960s interview between the master and French director Francois Truffaut promised plenty. However, despite the title, the interview isn't really mentioned all that much and limited to only a few audio snippets linked along the way. I suppose they featured it predominantly to make this stand out from all the other Hitchcock documentaries over the years.
Instead this documentary is the usual praise-fest in which various familiar faces show up and talk about how much of a genius Hitchcock was. Martin Scorsese features heavily alongside other notables like Wes Anderson and David Fincher. Most of the film looks at VERTIGO and PSYCHO and there are many clips utilised from both films. I've always loved PSYCHO but consider VERTIGO to be a bit overrated although it seems these pretentious high brow intellectuals love to analyse it to craft their own theories. Not my cup of tea really - I'm just a kind of 'sit back and enjoy' kind of guy and that's the reason I love Hitchcock, he knew how to entertain.
Instead this documentary is the usual praise-fest in which various familiar faces show up and talk about how much of a genius Hitchcock was. Martin Scorsese features heavily alongside other notables like Wes Anderson and David Fincher. Most of the film looks at VERTIGO and PSYCHO and there are many clips utilised from both films. I've always loved PSYCHO but consider VERTIGO to be a bit overrated although it seems these pretentious high brow intellectuals love to analyse it to craft their own theories. Not my cup of tea really - I'm just a kind of 'sit back and enjoy' kind of guy and that's the reason I love Hitchcock, he knew how to entertain.
A Crash-course in Filmmaking
minister_of_silly_walks11 August 2020
An excellent documentary focusing on the relationship between two icons of the movie industry based on the book by Truffaut. Renowned modern filmmakers, such as Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Fincher and James Gray, discuss the influence of Hitchcock and Truffaut on cinema and how their genius inspired numerous current directors and filmmakers. Hitchcock/Truffaut is an affectionate and well crafted tribute to one of the most famous screen legends ever and should be a must watch for all future filmmakers and cinephiles.
A meeting of minds
Prismark1027 November 2016
In 1962 Francois Truffaut the critic and filmmaker interviewed Alfred Hitchcock over eight days in 1962 at his offices at Universal Studios with an interpreter present although Hitchcock could speak French.
The encounter led to Truffaut's 1967 book about Hitchcock's filming techniques and elevated his reputation from just being a commercially successful director of thrillers to an auteur.
This documentary examines the encounter and revisits both Hitchcock and Truffaut as filmmakers but also interviews directors such as Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich and Richard Linklater who talk about the importance of Hitchcock the director and what they learned from him.
Film historian Kent Jones has made an entertaining film but it has too much ground to cover and skimps through Hitchcock's early years in Britain and surprisingly not one British director is interviewed. I wanted to learn more about the various techniques and how he got on with the actors, who Hitchcock likened to cattle.
Given the age difference between the two men, Hitchcock was over twice as old as Truffaut, they got on very well with each other and sadly Truffaut died only a few years after Hitchcock's death.
The encounter led to Truffaut's 1967 book about Hitchcock's filming techniques and elevated his reputation from just being a commercially successful director of thrillers to an auteur.
This documentary examines the encounter and revisits both Hitchcock and Truffaut as filmmakers but also interviews directors such as Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich and Richard Linklater who talk about the importance of Hitchcock the director and what they learned from him.
Film historian Kent Jones has made an entertaining film but it has too much ground to cover and skimps through Hitchcock's early years in Britain and surprisingly not one British director is interviewed. I wanted to learn more about the various techniques and how he got on with the actors, who Hitchcock likened to cattle.
Given the age difference between the two men, Hitchcock was over twice as old as Truffaut, they got on very well with each other and sadly Truffaut died only a few years after Hitchcock's death.
Talking the talk, talks too much
ccorral41910 January 2016
Director Kent Jones (director of programming of the 51st New York Film Festival) looks back at a week long discussion critic-turned-filmmaker Francois Truffaut had with Alfred Hitchcock regarding his films. Here, Truaffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" is turned into a retrospective of not only the discussions between the two men, but an insight to Hitchcock's movie-making and thinking, and those influenced by him. There was no filming of the week long interview, so snapshots of the interview are what lead the retrospective, along with a slue of interviews from a variety of directors, including Wes Anderson ("The Grand Budapest Hotel"), Peter Bogdanovich ("the Last Picture Show"), David Fincher ("Gone Girl"), Kiyoshi Kurosawa ("The Cure") and Richard Linklater ("Boyhood") to name a few. While it's great to hear Hitchcock speak about his intentions with his films, and to hear how much he has influenced any number of directors, an hour and twenty minutes of praise and approval was tiring. What director Jones could have done to make this retrospective really interesting was to have interviewed Truffaut's assistant/interpreter and/or his crew that film the week long interaction. Their unique point of views haven't been heard (at least not that I know of), and would probably bring more attention and appeal to this film.
A Must for Film Buffs
Michael_Elliott5 January 2017
Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Paul Schrader, Richard Linklater, James Gray, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Olivier Assayas and Arnaud Desplechin are among the people interviewed who discuss the landmark book Hitchcock/Truffaut and the impact that reading it had on their careers.
Kent Jones documentary is one that's certainly going to appeal to film buffs as it does a terrific job at explaining why the book was so important when it was released and we get a great number of directors talking about the impact it had on their careers. The documentary also works at letting the filmmakers share their thoughts on Hitchcock the filmmaker and we get some terrific discussions of not only his movies but certain shots, certain images and just a great overview of his career.
Both VERTIGO and PSYCHO get the most attention, which is understandable since those two pictures are considered his greatest. While the filmmakers talk about the movies we will flashback to the actual interview between Hitchcock and Truffaut and throughout the running time we also get to see letters that the two directors wrote one another through their friendship. HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT is an extremely entertaining film that will have you wanting to go through your Hitch collection after you're done viewing it.
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Paul Schrader, Richard Linklater, James Gray, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Olivier Assayas and Arnaud Desplechin are among the people interviewed who discuss the landmark book Hitchcock/Truffaut and the impact that reading it had on their careers.
Kent Jones documentary is one that's certainly going to appeal to film buffs as it does a terrific job at explaining why the book was so important when it was released and we get a great number of directors talking about the impact it had on their careers. The documentary also works at letting the filmmakers share their thoughts on Hitchcock the filmmaker and we get some terrific discussions of not only his movies but certain shots, certain images and just a great overview of his career.
Both VERTIGO and PSYCHO get the most attention, which is understandable since those two pictures are considered his greatest. While the filmmakers talk about the movies we will flashback to the actual interview between Hitchcock and Truffaut and throughout the running time we also get to see letters that the two directors wrote one another through their friendship. HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT is an extremely entertaining film that will have you wanting to go through your Hitch collection after you're done viewing it.
A documentary for film nuts and film students...but probably not for most others.
planktonrules22 February 2018
"Hitchcock/Truffaut" is not a film for everyone. Film students and film nuts might love it but the average viewer will be pretty bored with the material. The material consists of using a series of interviews between Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock from 1966 in which the French director asked the British director about his craft. Originally, this resulted in a book with transcripts from the meeting but in this film you hear portions of the interview as well as hear from many famous filmmakers as well as see clips from various, mostly Hitchcock, films.
To love this documentary, you really need to buy into the central assumption of this film...that Hitchcock was the greatest (at least by 1966) filmmaker ever. It seems that the many directors who participated in this agreed and loved to talk about Hitchcock in almost godlike terms. And, this hero worship seemed to me to be a double-edged sword. Sure, they could talk about the great things he did on film. But, since he was a god, he was perfect and any shortcoming on Hitchcock's part simply wasn't considered. No filmmaker is truly godlike and for me the documentary just seemed to lack real objectivity. For example, they praised "Psycho" again and again...even though a very similar film, the brilliant "Peeping Tom" came out the year before but was seen by few because it was banned. So, in this sense, Hitchcock really wasn't first to make this sort of movie....though this wasn't acknowledged. Overall, worth seeing, perhaps, but not a must-see for me.
To love this documentary, you really need to buy into the central assumption of this film...that Hitchcock was the greatest (at least by 1966) filmmaker ever. It seems that the many directors who participated in this agreed and loved to talk about Hitchcock in almost godlike terms. And, this hero worship seemed to me to be a double-edged sword. Sure, they could talk about the great things he did on film. But, since he was a god, he was perfect and any shortcoming on Hitchcock's part simply wasn't considered. No filmmaker is truly godlike and for me the documentary just seemed to lack real objectivity. For example, they praised "Psycho" again and again...even though a very similar film, the brilliant "Peeping Tom" came out the year before but was seen by few because it was banned. So, in this sense, Hitchcock really wasn't first to make this sort of movie....though this wasn't acknowledged. Overall, worth seeing, perhaps, but not a must-see for me.
a full course meal for aspiring and already hardcore cinephiles
Quinoa19841 October 2016
I think if I were a budding film buff, this would be one of the essential movies in my collection. I even remember when I was about 13/14 years old when the Starz channel had some made-for-TV doc in the late 90's about Hitchcock (it featured Bogdanovich saying the exact same words, I can remember them it's that clear, about Psycho as he does in this doc, plus De Palma, who isn't here perhaps as it'd be too obvious), but it has the bonus of being about this book and what that was all about: understanding film grammar and an artist's worldview. What is that worldview? Cinema, and pure cinema, as much as possible, even when it doesn't make sense. Actually Hitchcock addresses that in one of the audio excerpts that were recorded for the book: "logic is dull." It's all talking heads, but that's fine as well - while I might have liked a little more of the tension between the two directors elaborated on (I may also have more insight from reading a biography on Hitchcock where the whole Truffaut book interview) where at times this was more probing and uncomfortable on Hitchcock's part, it still works - because this is made for two audiences: those who know a lot about Hitchcock, and those who may be more casual, like only seen Psycho or Vertigo or North by Northwest at best. Or for young people who may be told about Hitchcock or that something is Hitchcockian, to come across this is an excellent little film seminar, if not film school, which has the wise choice of showing clips from most of the major Hitchcocks, but also the silents (a piece on Easy Virtue is wonderful, as well as extolling a few of the really pure cinematic moments of Topaz).
But what is "pure" cinema in the Hitchcock sense? Not having to explain much, not even having to rely on the usual exposition-logic that bogs films down sometimes, especially in modern cinema. For Hitchcock a way of elevating a thriller or simple suspense picture or a movie about a man stabbing a woman in a shower to something close to poetry is about manipulating time. While becoming a master of manipulating time and space (and space being something taken for granted by filmmakers, here it's emphasized several times and for good reason), it comes down to a mixture of... knowing the most effective ways to tell the story, to know more-so what *not* to show than what to do, having your actors properly know what they're doing and bring an emotional dimension that the director can't bring (which could bring conflict with a guy like Montgomery Clift), and having the ability to bring the personal into the commercial.
While one can certainly say with good reason "well, just go read the book", I think Kent Jones' aim is to make clear how much of a global impact, from movie lords like Scorsese and Fincher and Linklater to the French (Assayas and Desplain) to Kiyoshi Kurosawa, this man had on cinema, and that the book was a force for real change and reevaluation of what cinema meant to the art form. There's the temptation at different times, depending on how one looks at his career, to say that HItchcock got too much attention and also not enough, which is what Truffaut did as being simply a gigantic fan himself. So it makes sense that the highlights of the doc are long looks at Vertigo (how Scorsese breaks down individual sequences would make this a recommendation for me alone) and Psycho, and how the power of the film came and still comes from what Hitchcock does to his audience's expectations: "I'm not going to give you what you want, I'm going to give you something else." In about 80 minutes I got what I wanted and hoped for: a fun and loving tribute to a man's career through another artist's work (Truffaut gets a little time as well via 400 Blows and Jules & Jim), though it's not without a few little touches of self-doubt (what if he had done *more* experimentation, not stuck in the thriller genre his whole career). I only wish it was longer.
But what is "pure" cinema in the Hitchcock sense? Not having to explain much, not even having to rely on the usual exposition-logic that bogs films down sometimes, especially in modern cinema. For Hitchcock a way of elevating a thriller or simple suspense picture or a movie about a man stabbing a woman in a shower to something close to poetry is about manipulating time. While becoming a master of manipulating time and space (and space being something taken for granted by filmmakers, here it's emphasized several times and for good reason), it comes down to a mixture of... knowing the most effective ways to tell the story, to know more-so what *not* to show than what to do, having your actors properly know what they're doing and bring an emotional dimension that the director can't bring (which could bring conflict with a guy like Montgomery Clift), and having the ability to bring the personal into the commercial.
While one can certainly say with good reason "well, just go read the book", I think Kent Jones' aim is to make clear how much of a global impact, from movie lords like Scorsese and Fincher and Linklater to the French (Assayas and Desplain) to Kiyoshi Kurosawa, this man had on cinema, and that the book was a force for real change and reevaluation of what cinema meant to the art form. There's the temptation at different times, depending on how one looks at his career, to say that HItchcock got too much attention and also not enough, which is what Truffaut did as being simply a gigantic fan himself. So it makes sense that the highlights of the doc are long looks at Vertigo (how Scorsese breaks down individual sequences would make this a recommendation for me alone) and Psycho, and how the power of the film came and still comes from what Hitchcock does to his audience's expectations: "I'm not going to give you what you want, I'm going to give you something else." In about 80 minutes I got what I wanted and hoped for: a fun and loving tribute to a man's career through another artist's work (Truffaut gets a little time as well via 400 Blows and Jules & Jim), though it's not without a few little touches of self-doubt (what if he had done *more* experimentation, not stuck in the thriller genre his whole career). I only wish it was longer.
Flourishing under the Iron Umbrella
moonspinner5514 September 2017
Today's top movie-men (Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Martin Scorsese and Richard Linklater among them) reflect on French filmmaker François Truffaut's 1966 book "Hitchcock/Truffaut", wherein an eight-day meeting was arranged in 1962 Los Angeles between Alfred Hitchcock (who had just completed "The Birds") and Truffaut, who had released only three films but who had met Hitchcock before in Paris and struck up a friendship. The interview book with rare photographs took Hitchcock through each one of his movie titles, giving readers a then-rare glimpse into his thought processes, his behind-the-scenes troubles, his triumphs and regrets. Although portions of Truffaut's original recorded interview are heard throughout, the picture (heavy with clips) becomes, predictably, a tribute to Hitchcock's body of work--with, even more predictably, a heavy emphasis on "Vertigo" and "Psycho". Most revealing are the passages from Truffaut's interview, including the famous quote wherein Hitchcock referred to actors as cattle (after finishing a story on working with Method actor Montgomery Clift on "I Confess"). Hitchcock didn't believe in giving his players any free room within his productions to expand on their characters--character content was secondary, everything was planned out visually from the beginning--yet Hitchcock's temperament or volatility (if, indeed, any) isn't touched upon here. This is a reverent piece of work, an enjoyable but mild documentary without intrusive surprises. **1/2 from ****
For the Film Junkies
ThomasDrufke17 April 2017
The success of documentary is usually based on how much you already know and how much you learn about the main subject of the film. I knew a bit about Hitchcock, but I never dug deep into his archival footage or books written about him to understand the full psychology of the master of suspense. Hitchcock/Truffaut is a fascinating look into several of Hitch's films, and even some of Truffaut's, even if it is a little too short to call it a full exploration. Director Kent Jones gathers several of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers, including Martin Scorsese, Richard Linklater, Peter Bogdanovich, and David Fincher, to discuss Hitchcock's influence on the art of cinema and some of his most effective features. These commentators are certainly insightful, but you don't get enough from each of them to get full satisfaction. The film is based around a conversation between Hitchcock and Truffaut that took place in 1962. Truffaut, an up and coming filmmaker at the time, provides the viewer (or reader) a glimpse into what it would be like to interview the legendary filmmaker yourself. In many ways, Truffaut gets to ask all the questions any fan of Hitchcock has always wanted to ask. Whether it's addressing his catholic roots, sexual undertones in many of his features, his transition from silent film to talkies, the dreamlike quality to the films, or his iconic use of "god's eye" camera angles, it's all covered. As a film junkie, this type of coverage on one filmmaker is a dream come true. Again, the one thing I think the film could have improved upon was just giving more of everything and spending even more time on his expansive filmography. Spending a good chunk of time on Vertigo and Psycho was definitely needed, but I would love a more in-depth look at plenty of other films of his as well. However, overall, this documentary is a joy to watch, especially considering it's brilliant filmmakers commenting on Hitchcock, who is one of the greatest.
8.5/10
8.5/10
Interesting
proud_luddite2 September 2018
Based on the 1966 book by François Truffaut, this French/American documentary explores the cinematic history of the genius Alfred Hitchcock.
This movie has fascinating footage which includes still photos with audio interviews (with the aid of a translator) between the directors; thoughtful interviews with contemporary directors from the U.S., France, and Japan; and deeper analyses of renowned films like "Vertigo" and "Psycho". (Sadly, my favourite Hitchcock film, "Rear Window", did not get such attention.)
It was also a delight to see visual footage of a very young Hitchcock directing silent films in the 1920s. It was also fun to notice, in other footage, that people used to dress up to go to the movies even until the early 1960s.
There is so much I should have loved about this movie. I believe that Hitchcock was a genius and I have great admiration for Truffaut as well - some of whose best films also get attention in this film. But for some unknown reason, I just cannot understand what was missing.
Usually, I get what I liked or didn't like in a movie. I can see what I liked in "Hitchcock/Truffaut" but I still don't see what I disliked. It's almost as much as a mystery to me as a Hitchcock movie itself. But at least there, the mystery is solved within a couple of hours.
It might have been the structure of the film or the high expectations. In any case, this is a movie I admired but only from a distance.
This movie has fascinating footage which includes still photos with audio interviews (with the aid of a translator) between the directors; thoughtful interviews with contemporary directors from the U.S., France, and Japan; and deeper analyses of renowned films like "Vertigo" and "Psycho". (Sadly, my favourite Hitchcock film, "Rear Window", did not get such attention.)
It was also a delight to see visual footage of a very young Hitchcock directing silent films in the 1920s. It was also fun to notice, in other footage, that people used to dress up to go to the movies even until the early 1960s.
There is so much I should have loved about this movie. I believe that Hitchcock was a genius and I have great admiration for Truffaut as well - some of whose best films also get attention in this film. But for some unknown reason, I just cannot understand what was missing.
Usually, I get what I liked or didn't like in a movie. I can see what I liked in "Hitchcock/Truffaut" but I still don't see what I disliked. It's almost as much as a mystery to me as a Hitchcock movie itself. But at least there, the mystery is solved within a couple of hours.
It might have been the structure of the film or the high expectations. In any case, this is a movie I admired but only from a distance.
the greatest dialog about movies ever
dromasca26 April 2019
'Hitchcock / Truffaut' is a movie about a book about movies. And much more. It's a movie about the book that many of the movie fans (I among them) think of as the best book ever written about movies. A book that Hitchcock's admirers (I among them, again) consult each time they see or see again one of the movies of the master of suspense. A book of reference and a book for the soul.
The first minutes of Kent Jones' documentary describe in details the genesis of the dialogue that took place in 1962 between the famous Hollywood director and the young Frenchman at the beginning of his career. Truffaut and his colleagues from La Nouvelle Vague, many of them theorists at early-stages of their practical careers of film directors, but whose destinies were to shake the foundations of French and world cinema, had great admiration for American gangsters and "film noir" movies, for actors such as Humphrey Bogart and especially for Alfred Hitchcock whom they had raised on the pedestal dedicated to supreme deities. Besides the post-war fascination for everything American (for example, the embracing of jazz that he found its second home in Paris), the young French iconoclasts were also fascinated by the personality of a film-maker who corresponded to their model of a film director as author of the movie. A Hitchcock movie was identifiable among many others, the director's personality dominates the creation. When François Truffaut wrote to Hitchcock daring to invite himself at his home for an interview, the answer came immediately, positive, and unexpectedly gentle. There followed eight days of dialogs (with the help of an interpreter) recorded on audio tapes and photographed (photos staged by Hitchcock himself). A few years later, the book appeared. Its revised edition is one of the treasures of my library.
Kent Jones's documentary is the story of the interview that gave birth to the book, but also a review of Alfred Hitchcock's career, illustrated with extracts from dialogues and key sequences discussed by the two directors. In addition, comments from contemporary film directors such as Martin Scorsese, Olivier Assayas , Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, discussing aspects of the book and dialogues, completing the information about movies, and speaking about Hitchcock's influence on their own careers. The common denominator of all is the supreme admiration for the English master relocated to America. A Hitchcockadmirers' club, whose founding member was François Truffaut.
Those who do not consider Alfred Hitchcock as one of the world's greatest filmmakers risk being irritated by the cult of personality for the film-maker promoted here. For those who have read gain and again the book, and have seen and seen again the master's movies, 'Hitchcock / Truffaut' does not bring too much news. Kent Jones is a good professional documentary films maker, but he does not bring any new perspective or any unprecedented revelation that will make us see Hitchcock in a new light. His film continues the work of documenting and appreciating the career of a director who has become even more influential in posterity than in his lifetime. The Hitchcock monument began to be built while he was still alive, and this documentary allows us to see the phases of the digging of its foundations.
The first minutes of Kent Jones' documentary describe in details the genesis of the dialogue that took place in 1962 between the famous Hollywood director and the young Frenchman at the beginning of his career. Truffaut and his colleagues from La Nouvelle Vague, many of them theorists at early-stages of their practical careers of film directors, but whose destinies were to shake the foundations of French and world cinema, had great admiration for American gangsters and "film noir" movies, for actors such as Humphrey Bogart and especially for Alfred Hitchcock whom they had raised on the pedestal dedicated to supreme deities. Besides the post-war fascination for everything American (for example, the embracing of jazz that he found its second home in Paris), the young French iconoclasts were also fascinated by the personality of a film-maker who corresponded to their model of a film director as author of the movie. A Hitchcock movie was identifiable among many others, the director's personality dominates the creation. When François Truffaut wrote to Hitchcock daring to invite himself at his home for an interview, the answer came immediately, positive, and unexpectedly gentle. There followed eight days of dialogs (with the help of an interpreter) recorded on audio tapes and photographed (photos staged by Hitchcock himself). A few years later, the book appeared. Its revised edition is one of the treasures of my library.
Kent Jones's documentary is the story of the interview that gave birth to the book, but also a review of Alfred Hitchcock's career, illustrated with extracts from dialogues and key sequences discussed by the two directors. In addition, comments from contemporary film directors such as Martin Scorsese, Olivier Assayas , Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, discussing aspects of the book and dialogues, completing the information about movies, and speaking about Hitchcock's influence on their own careers. The common denominator of all is the supreme admiration for the English master relocated to America. A Hitchcockadmirers' club, whose founding member was François Truffaut.
Those who do not consider Alfred Hitchcock as one of the world's greatest filmmakers risk being irritated by the cult of personality for the film-maker promoted here. For those who have read gain and again the book, and have seen and seen again the master's movies, 'Hitchcock / Truffaut' does not bring too much news. Kent Jones is a good professional documentary films maker, but he does not bring any new perspective or any unprecedented revelation that will make us see Hitchcock in a new light. His film continues the work of documenting and appreciating the career of a director who has become even more influential in posterity than in his lifetime. The Hitchcock monument began to be built while he was still alive, and this documentary allows us to see the phases of the digging of its foundations.
BRAVO! ~. A Master Class in documentary filmmaking,
alexdeleonfilm14 September 2016
The Greatest Story Hitchcock Ever Told
HITCHCOCK/Truffaut; Document, UK. 2015. director Kent Jones. 78 minutes. Viewed on Saturday afternoon in the little tent at Sodankylä Midnight Sun Film Festival June 2016. Makes you want to read and devour the celebrated Truffaut book on Hitch ASAP. Fantastic film. Great shots of Hitchcock film posters. Sharply selected excerpts from Hitchcock films. Opens with a stark still shot of actress Sylvia Sidney in "Sabotage", 1936, and takes off from there on a whirlwind tour of the director's career and obliquely some, but not too much, of his personal life.
Comments by Scorcese, Schrader, Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovitch, Olivier Assayas, Arnaud Desplechin, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, David Fincher and even young Jean-Luc Godard, among others. All indicating how they were influenced by Hitchcock one way or another. Kiyoshi speaks in Japanese, the French directors in French. Subtitles in Finnish (natch)...
Many shots of Hitchcock as a young man in London, not yet as rocky-poly as he became later. Actually, not a bad looking if slightly portly young man on a roll. The importance of his wife in the background. Throughout his career he consulted with her regularly on all of his films although she was only credited officially in a few of the early ones. He is invited to Hollywood. Has no interest in Tinseltown but is itching to get into a fully equipped Hollywoid studio.
One of the high points of the film is an extensive discussion of the making of PSYCHO, it's social impact in 1960 (people were literally screaming in the theaters!) and a detailed analysis of the construction of the infamously famous shower scene in which ultra sexy Janet Leigh is stabbed to death by ultra-psycho Anthony Perkins. This discussion of the making of that flabbergastingly powerful scene by the master himself could be excerpted and show on its own as a complete independent master class in filmmaking. Mr. Jones's magnificent 78 minute film about the making of a book is, in fact, a Master Class in documentary filmmaking, and on its own justified this trip to the upper reaches of Finland. Hats off -- Bravo! -- I want to own this film so I can watch it over and over endlessly.
Among other things it reminds me of my own relationship to Hitchcock over the years. As a youth I saw many of his films routinely when they came out at my neighborhood theater but only thought of them as great entertainment, not as Great Art. It was only when I was a student of linguistics at UCLA that I met many students from the film department who worshiped him as a true artist and a creative genius that my views began to change.
At the Pacific Film Archive in 1975 I saw every film in a complete Hitchcock retrospective arranged by Tom Luddy who later founded the Telluride film festival. It was at this time that I truly began to understand the difference between film as entertainment and film as art and how the two can merge without contradiction simultaneously satisfying the intellect as well as the need for fun and distraction.
Truffaut himself is, of course, a major character in this film with live and still footage of Hitchcock as well. Many stills are shown from the three day interview in Hitchcock's office at Universal studios in 1962 which served as the basis for the book --with Truffaut, Hitchcock and a woman interpreter -- Truffaut didn't know English nor did Hitchcock know French. Yet the master recognized Truffaut as an upcoming talent and a worthy interviewer. The Point is made that they were of different generations but each was cognizant of film as art and respected the other. Although at the time of the interviews, 1962, Truffaut had only made three films, he was already recognized as a major new director of international importance. In a late ceremonial speech at the Hollywood Oscars Truffaut, underlining the respect in which Hitchcock was held in France as opposed to the cretin like lack of respect in America, Truffaut states a bit bluntly: "In America you call him "Hitch" ~~ in France we call him Monsieur Hitchcock!" --
To the very end Monsieur Hitchcock wavered between seeing himself as primarily entertainer or primarily artist but there is no doubt that he was most interested in connecting with and manipulating the emotions of the audience. So, in a sense he was above all a master of mass psychology --another point subtly and effectively made in this exceptional study of an exceptional film career.
Hitchcock dies on April 29, 1980 at age 81, and most surprisingly Truffaut less than four years later, on October 21, 1984, at the untimely age of 52 of a brain tumor. Hitch's career was over but Truffaut still had untold amounts of offerings in store. His book on Hitchcock and this film about the book and the man behind the book are now part of his deathless contribution to the history of Cinema.
HITCHCOCK/Truffaut; Document, UK. 2015. director Kent Jones. 78 minutes. Viewed on Saturday afternoon in the little tent at Sodankylä Midnight Sun Film Festival June 2016. Makes you want to read and devour the celebrated Truffaut book on Hitch ASAP. Fantastic film. Great shots of Hitchcock film posters. Sharply selected excerpts from Hitchcock films. Opens with a stark still shot of actress Sylvia Sidney in "Sabotage", 1936, and takes off from there on a whirlwind tour of the director's career and obliquely some, but not too much, of his personal life.
Comments by Scorcese, Schrader, Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovitch, Olivier Assayas, Arnaud Desplechin, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, David Fincher and even young Jean-Luc Godard, among others. All indicating how they were influenced by Hitchcock one way or another. Kiyoshi speaks in Japanese, the French directors in French. Subtitles in Finnish (natch)...
Many shots of Hitchcock as a young man in London, not yet as rocky-poly as he became later. Actually, not a bad looking if slightly portly young man on a roll. The importance of his wife in the background. Throughout his career he consulted with her regularly on all of his films although she was only credited officially in a few of the early ones. He is invited to Hollywood. Has no interest in Tinseltown but is itching to get into a fully equipped Hollywoid studio.
One of the high points of the film is an extensive discussion of the making of PSYCHO, it's social impact in 1960 (people were literally screaming in the theaters!) and a detailed analysis of the construction of the infamously famous shower scene in which ultra sexy Janet Leigh is stabbed to death by ultra-psycho Anthony Perkins. This discussion of the making of that flabbergastingly powerful scene by the master himself could be excerpted and show on its own as a complete independent master class in filmmaking. Mr. Jones's magnificent 78 minute film about the making of a book is, in fact, a Master Class in documentary filmmaking, and on its own justified this trip to the upper reaches of Finland. Hats off -- Bravo! -- I want to own this film so I can watch it over and over endlessly.
Among other things it reminds me of my own relationship to Hitchcock over the years. As a youth I saw many of his films routinely when they came out at my neighborhood theater but only thought of them as great entertainment, not as Great Art. It was only when I was a student of linguistics at UCLA that I met many students from the film department who worshiped him as a true artist and a creative genius that my views began to change.
At the Pacific Film Archive in 1975 I saw every film in a complete Hitchcock retrospective arranged by Tom Luddy who later founded the Telluride film festival. It was at this time that I truly began to understand the difference between film as entertainment and film as art and how the two can merge without contradiction simultaneously satisfying the intellect as well as the need for fun and distraction.
Truffaut himself is, of course, a major character in this film with live and still footage of Hitchcock as well. Many stills are shown from the three day interview in Hitchcock's office at Universal studios in 1962 which served as the basis for the book --with Truffaut, Hitchcock and a woman interpreter -- Truffaut didn't know English nor did Hitchcock know French. Yet the master recognized Truffaut as an upcoming talent and a worthy interviewer. The Point is made that they were of different generations but each was cognizant of film as art and respected the other. Although at the time of the interviews, 1962, Truffaut had only made three films, he was already recognized as a major new director of international importance. In a late ceremonial speech at the Hollywood Oscars Truffaut, underlining the respect in which Hitchcock was held in France as opposed to the cretin like lack of respect in America, Truffaut states a bit bluntly: "In America you call him "Hitch" ~~ in France we call him Monsieur Hitchcock!" --
To the very end Monsieur Hitchcock wavered between seeing himself as primarily entertainer or primarily artist but there is no doubt that he was most interested in connecting with and manipulating the emotions of the audience. So, in a sense he was above all a master of mass psychology --another point subtly and effectively made in this exceptional study of an exceptional film career.
Hitchcock dies on April 29, 1980 at age 81, and most surprisingly Truffaut less than four years later, on October 21, 1984, at the untimely age of 52 of a brain tumor. Hitch's career was over but Truffaut still had untold amounts of offerings in store. His book on Hitchcock and this film about the book and the man behind the book are now part of his deathless contribution to the history of Cinema.
Provides real insights into Hitchcock and filmmaking
gbill-748771 December 2016
This is a fascinating look at Alfred Hitchcock stemming from Francois Truffaut's legendary interviews with him, as well as their correspondence and deep friendship afterwards. The book that Truffaut would write about it became a groundbreaking reference book for filmmakers in 1966, and really opened the world's eyes to the artistry in Hitchcock's films. Despite his fame, Hitchcock was known as more as a popular director, and did not get enough credit for his genius. Truffaut, 33 years younger and acclaimed for his first few films which were viewed as 'artistic', idolized the man, and helped change that. The documentary includes Hitchcock and Truffaut's thoughts about clips from his great films, as well as a few snippets of Truffaut's own brilliant work. Just as importantly, it includes commentary from Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdonavich, David Fincher, and many other American and French directors who were interviewed, providing real insight. Interesting to anyone who loves the art of cinema, and very interesting to those who love Hitchcock.
Hitchcock's mindset
AvionPrince1618 August 2021
a book. and its seductive story
Kirpianuscus1 September 2016
a book . as result of a legendary, fascinating meet. few confessions of great directors. and the trip in the universe of Hitchcock. it is not a lesson about cinema but perfect occasion to see, in other light, scenes, details, performances, steps of a British director who gives new sense to Hollywood. not exactly revelations. and not only Hitchcock. because the documentary propose only a sketch. like a spiderweb. result - an invitation. to see again the films of Hitchcock. to discover the universe of Truffaud. to be witness of a splendid form of admiration, a friendship and a game. to understand the root of a form of rehabilitation of the art of a great director. in essence, a must see for every film fan.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
