Hitchcock/Truffaut

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

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.

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.

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.

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