Occasionally you’ll run across a film that is brilliant for 2% of people and completely worthless for, literally, billions of others. Its appeal is so narrow that entire demographics are naturally shunned. That film would be considered mainstream by Hitchcock/Truffaut fans. “Hey, want to see Peter Bogdonavich talk about Alfred Hitchcock?” “Do I? Save me a seat! Sorry, mom, I’ll have to call you back – hope the coronary bypass goes ok.”
If you don’t know Vertigo reel-to-reel … if you haven’t seen Jules et Jim … if you haven’t marveled over the staircase shot in Notorious well, this movie is irrelevant. And not just kind of irrelevant, you will actually wonder why humans care what perspective a scene is shot from. “What,” you might ask, “would cause a grown man to sit and talk in front of a camera about Kim Novak’s hairstyle?” You might add, “Well, gee, why stop there? Isn’t her smart pants suit doing anything for you? How about her lip gloss?”
In 1962, François Truffaut invited Alfred Hitchcock over for a week to talk shop. Sources say Truffaut was interested in raising Hitchcock’s reputation from light entertainer to one of the greatest directors of all time. I don’t know how true these claims were. What I do know is before the meeting took place, Hitchcock had already made his masterpieces: Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959), and Psycho (1960). After the meeting, he made The Birds (1963). Just a guess, but I’m thinkin’ Hitchcock was a much greater influence on Truffaut than vice versa. Just a guess. This meeting was documented in the pop-up book Hitchcock/Truffaut which has become something of a director’s bible.
Hitchcock/Truffat the movie? It’s kind of like a Cliff Notes version of the book. To be fair, there is some great stuff in the film: Wes Anderson talking about how Hitchcock frames shots was especially poignant as Anderson is a director who lives to storyboard(as anyone who has seen an Anderson
film will note). Also Martin Scorsese talking about Hitchcock filming from the God perspective seemed noteworthy given Scorsese’s relationship with the Almighty. So, yeah, it’s not like this film is empty – but look at what you have to know to appreciate what’s on screen, huh?
While the title gives equal weight to Hitchcock and Truffaut, the film itself is 90% Hitchcock, 5% Truffaut and 5% Other. That’s probably a wise move; you’re likelier to have seen a Hitchcock classic than a Truffaut classic. I would bet that statement is even true among the French. The biggest problem I have with watching documentaries about great films is it isn’t long before, let’s face it, I’d rather be watching Rear Window. And this thing? It plays like documentary Inception – you have be a movie fan, but not just a movie fan, a classic movie fan, and not just an ordinary classic movie fan, a fan of the genius of Alfred Hitchcock, but not just a fan of Alfred Hitchcock, a fan of his particular style as a director. I don’t deny the merit, but you shouldn’t have to live five layers deep to enjoy a film.
Al and Frank, the best of amis
Artists, gurus and cinematic swamis
Do people still think their work is groovy?
Let us hope so for the sake of this movie
Rated PG-13, 79 Minutes
D: Kent Jones
W: Kent Jones, Serge Toubiana
Genre: Film critic masturbation material
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Aspiring directors
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Millenials
