Hitchcock/Truffaut
- 2015
- Tous publics
- 1h 19m
IMDb RATING
7.3/10
7.4K
YOUR RATING
Filmmakers discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" influenced their work.Filmmakers discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" influenced their work.Filmmakers discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" influenced their work.
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Bob Balaban
- Narrator
- (voice)
Jean-Claude Brialy
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Claude Chabrol
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Jean-Luc Godard
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Alfred Hitchcock
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Vera Miles
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Anny Ondra
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Alma Reville
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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
"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!
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.
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
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.
Did you know
- TriviaBoth Sir Alfred Hitchcock and François Truffaut could actually speak quite adequately in the language of the other, as can be heard in off camera moments. However neither felt confident enough, so they used Helen Scott, a bilingual Truffaut collaborator, to provide simultaneous translation.
- Quotes
Alfred Hitchcock: Silent pictures are the pure motion picture form. There's no need to abandon the technique of the pure motion picture, the way it was abandoned when sound came in.
- ConnectionsFeatures Les cheveux d'or (1927)
- How long is Hitchcock/Truffaut?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $260,430
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $28,178
- Dec 6, 2015
- Gross worldwide
- $386,471
- Runtime
- 1h 19m(79 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content