HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT tapes

[Chris Knipp]

......................

FIND THE HITCHCOCK-TRUFFAUT TAPES CURRENTLY HERE (2023)

Richard Brody's New Yorker movie blog gives links to a tape collection culled from a French radio show excerpting the approximately 50 hours of interviews Truffaut conducted with Hitchcock over a 4-year period which are found on Tom Sutpen's blog, "If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats."

The interviews, which fed into the (originally 1967, later revised and updated) book Hitchcock AKA Hitchcock by Truffaut, written in collaboration with the translator/interpreter for the sessions, Helen G. Scott, are divided into 25 segments (Scott is seen to the right above).

The first five tape segments are here.

The following twenty are here.

If you want just simple individual links to each of the 25 sound segments, I have set them up on my website here.

[Chris Knipp]

Speaking of notable interviews, fans of the late Dennis Hopper may want to watch his lively Actor's Studio interview with James Lipton. Hilarious and enlightening.

[Chris Knipp]

Hopper to James Lipton: "I went to the Museum of Modern Art every day and went through the permanent collection." Some of his fans don't know what an important appreciator and collector and friend of the cutting edge artists of the day Hopper became and what an amazing collection of art he assembled. This is one of the big things I respect him for. It's not so often a Hollywood movie star is as keen a connoisseur of art as Hopper was.

[Chris Knipp]

Long ago, I read the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitch book and found it interesting but frustrating because Truffaut never challenges Hitch's assertions. He is no Pete Bogdanovich. I am not so keen on Truffaut as a critic either, by the way. And yet, it is interesting and worthwhile reading. To know Hitch one should read William Rothman's "The Murderous Gaze" and Robin Wood's "Hitchcock's Films".

--OSCAR JUBIS, on the NYFF 2009 thread.

I had said:

Listening to the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews in all their minute, film-by-film detail, I am more and more struck by how often Hitchcock himself -- a man of such firm confidence, forthright speech and decided opinions -- admits to failures and mistakes in his work. (He seems to think far less highly than recent writers of VERTIGO and thinks it had the wrong lead actor, but that's another topic to be discussed elsewhere). When even Homer gladly admits to nodding, I'm the more ready to consider flaws in the work of a young director.

To Oscar's comment I replied:

I would not trash the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes on the basis of a criticism of Truffaut as a critic in general or by saying he doesn't challenge Hitchcock. Actually, in the tapes, he is polite, of necessity, but he often challenges him and I'm struck by how frankly he points out certain films were not a success, were a reversion to relatively trivial material, and so forth, and Hitchcock agrees. Truffaut is not Bogdanovitch? Maybe not, but Bogdonovitch didn't do this set of interviews. So what? I am more interested in what the tapes reveal of Hitchcock's approach. There are plenty of directors I find more exciting or intriguing. Hitchcock was more an enthusiasm of my youth. But in terms of basic technique and clarity of form, Hitchcock is hard to beat, and the interviews help us understand why. Needless to say, you cannot critique the tapes on the basis of Truffaut's book, because they are almost certainly different, though I haven't read the book or read a comparison of the two.

Oscar did not choose to respond. Talking to myself, I added later, still on the NYFF 2009 thread:

I hope somebody if not you will listen to the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes so we can have a discussion. I definitely do not think Truffaut is too wimpy. I wanted to point out to you that Tom Sutpen, whose bllog I got the files of the tapes from, implies in his comments that Truffaut is too bossy and know-it-all and intrusive. Sort of the opposite of what you were saying about Truffaut based on the book, sounds like. I think Truffaut does a darn good job. Maybe I'm wrong. Again, I have yet to read the book Truffaut made out of the interviews. Nor am I any expert on Hitchcock's "oeuvre."

Again I provide simple access to the MP3 files of the 25 separate tapes on my website here. Or once you have one of them up,you can go to the next simply by changing the number in the URL.

[cinemabon]

I might tend to agree with you, Chris, about Dennis Hopper and art with the exception of Jennifer Jones (AA winning actrees who passed away in December). Jones married Norton Simon in 1971 and retired from cinema in 1974 (after she made "The Towering Inferno"). She influenced the formation of Simon's permanent collection in Pasedena at what became the Norton Simon Museum, one of the finest art museums and galleries on the West Coast. She and Simon continued to purchse art works together for many years and she remained on the Board of Trustees until her death in 2009.

http://www.nortonsimon.org/

Thanks for the links on Hitch and Truffaut... but good god! It will take me forever to watch them!

[Chris Knipp]

From Oscar on the Nyff 2009 thread:

Do you think there's a big difference between the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitchcock book and later editions? Is that why you keep mentioning that it was the first edition that you read?
Just clarifying that I have not read the segments added for the 2nd edition and that I do not remember the interviews in detail because it has been a long time since I read them (except from excerpts dealing with Psycho)

But what matters is, does anything of value come out of these interviews, and if so, what? I think they provide valuable insight into how Hitchcock thought about his films. Are you saying as far as you can remember they don't, because Truffaut isn't probing enough?
I said it was interesting and worthwhile reading but it could have been more so, particularly given Hitch's personality, if he was more knowledgeable and more probing (perhaps Truffaut's limited English was a hindrance also).

What do you mean when you say "He is no Pete Bogdonovitch." What is Peter Bogdonovitch as a film critic or interviewer of directors that you think Truffaut falls short of rising to?
Of all American directors, Pete BOGDANOVICH id the most knowledgeable about cinema and film history. He is also an excellent interviewer. His interviews with John Ford, Howard Hawks, and other directors are legendary. The book about Ford and one called "Who the Devil made it: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors" are the class of the field.

[The boldface questions are from me, with Oscar's answers.] I comment in reply:

I know Bogdonovitch is very knowledgeable, he and Scorsese. I should read Bogdonovitch's interviews which I have not read (or only slightly); I'll have to see if I can get a look at them. Truffaut's limited English surely was not a factor since he and Hitchcock spoke through an interpreter and his French was fluent enough for all normal purposes, he being French. I think through Helen G. Scott the two communicated rapidly and well. Maybe we could take about this more if and when we've both listened to the tapes and/or read the book recently. Are the later additions to the book important, do we know? I haven't gotten to the PSYCHO discussion. I've taken a break from the tapes thought I'm near the end of them, or those which are available via the Internet. Anyway, if it's true as you think that the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews are not up to par compared to Bogdanovitch's of other directors, it's weird that Truffaut's book is so famous. If I might speculate about this, I'd suggest it's because Truffaut's French, and the French have over time devoted more thought io cinema -- and Hollywood films -- as art than Americans. When I happened to be given a new book in French to look at in the Nineties that was about Buster Keaton, it was an eye-opener to learn that it was the first significant study.

I find in the French version of Wikipedia, in the "Cahiers du Cinema, Truffaut on Hitchcock" section of the Alfred Hitchcock article: "In the Fifties in France certain Cahiers du Cinema critics were the first to consider Hitchcock's films as works of art and tot promote them as such. Hitchcock became one of the first directors to whom the critics, future forces behind the New Wave, applied their "politique des auteurs " [auteurist theory]." This little section concludes, "In 1966 François Truffaut published Le Cinéma selon Hitchcock/Cinema According to Hitchcock, the result of a long series of interviews with the "master of suspense." Some consider this work the best book of interviews, even simply the best book, ever written about the cinema."

They may not know Bogdanovitch, and their view may have spread far and wide about this.

[oscar jubis]

How could it fail? It's the most famous Hollywood director being interviewed by the most famous new director. Cinephilia at the time of its apex. And it is good. But it strikes me as a lost opportunity to dwell deep into Hitch. Part of the problem for me is that Truffaut did not understand his idol as well as...say Robin Wood, who wrote a book called "Hitchcock's Films" in the 60s which has aged much better. That is my informed, learned opinion but obviously just that.

[Chris Knipp]

I think you are probably right on both counts, the success of thie Truffaut/Hitchcock moment, and its shortcomings. However the more I listen to and ponder the tapes, the more I wonder if it was really ever possible to penetrate deeper into Hitchcock's walls of reserve and pose of all-knowing wisdom. Robin Wood may well provide better insights into Hitchcock, but whether he could have gotten more out of the man in person remains hypothetical.

I'm still hoping you will listen to some of the exchanges between Truffaut and Hitch to see if you see what I mean.

[oscar jubis]

You are absolutely right. And it would be fun to listen to some of the interviews. I will do my best to make the time. My census job is over. Consumed by the World Cup right now (Go USA!!! sports make it ok to be nationalistic) and by all things Mizoguchi.

[oscar jubis]

Heard one segment (25th I think) and was thoroughly disappointed. For instance, at one point Hitch actually tells Truffaut that he is asexual or has stopped having sex. Truffaut probably blushed like a schoolboy. He simply ignores it! Given his themes, this is not irrelevant, as it would be in the case of say John Ford or CB DeMille. Another example, Truffaut goes on and on about Laughton's The Night of the Hunter and tries to use it as a reference after Hitch has indicated he did not see the picture and cannot say anything about it or compare it to his films. What follows is a superficial treatment of good vs. evil as a theme. Some amusing stuff here and some good information but sheesh...

[Chris Knipp]

Perhaps you are right, but of course you have to slog through the whole series to get the full effect. Do you watch 1/25th of a movie and then review it? But I do not wholly disagree with you. As the saying goes, "you do not need to eat all of an egg to know that it is bad." In your criticisms, however, you have to take into consideration the nature of the relationship, the differences in ages, and the period when this took place, which was one of greater reserve and greater deference. It is somewhat naive to suggest that Truffaut should have pounced on Hitch's declaring that he is asexual. And also questionable that a Frenchman would have "blushed like a schoolboy" at a reference to, not sex even, but the lack of it.

I simply think that the tapes provide a sense of an interaction that you would not get from the doctored printed page. In truth they are often a bit out of sync with each other, an effect enhanced by their speaking through an interpreter (she was Truffaut's friend, though). If nothing else a thorough knowledge (not just one tape) of the tapes gives one a key weapon in discussing and evaluating the book.

I hope you do not now make your learned academic declarations on the basis of fractional exposures to your material.

[oscar jubis]

I have been very honest all along about the source and nature of my opinion about this interview project. I specified I heard only one installment. I specified earlier that my reading of these interviews took place in the distant past.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, you have been honest.

[Chris Knipp]

Neither this nor the TRUFFAUT/HITCHCOCK tapes is necessarily complete, but the website indieWire has an excerpted version of the Bogdanovitch one that is pretty good.

PETER BOGDANOVITCH'S 1963 INTERVIEW WITH HITCHCOCK (link)

(It doesn't take a genius to find this interview online, but I thought it would be good to add it to this thread.)

So Oscar, you were right, though maybe not entirely for the reasons you gave, more for the format. I'm not sure Bogdanovitch challenges Hitchcock more forcefully here, but he asks him some general questions at the beginning of this passage that give a good picture of Hitchcock's formation and working method in England and Hollywood. Plus there are advantages to the printed form of Bogdanovitch's interview that I'll explain below. In many cases, the discussions of LIFEBOAT and SPELLBOUND are good examples, Hitch gives Bog exactly the same response he gave Truffaut. He had answered these questions before. It's by rote. In some cases, Hitch goes into less detail for Bog than he did for Truffaut. Sometimes Bog gets more or different detail from Hitch as when he asks about the carousel sequence in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. But does Bog challenge Hitch more? I don't see that. Hitch goes into detail about VERTIGO, but it's all about staging revelation so as to manipulate the audience, nothing more. Technical (see below). Of course in both interviews, Hitch analyzes his films precisely and succinctly. He leaves the film students little to do but mop up the details.

Though the tapes do show how Truffaut and Hitch relate to each other, they're ultimately wearing to listen to because of Helen G. Scot's phrase-by-phrase method of translating. It may have worked for them because of the immediacy of the method, but a better way to do the job for a third-party listener is to let the person speak for a minute or so, taking notes, and then deliver a version of it in English or French. Besides Soctt being American and not a professional translator, she may come off funny to Truffaut every now and then. I don't know how important this was; at least she translated him to Hitch pretty accurately and when she didn't know, she asked him to explain.But the information is much easier to digest in the printed form of the Bogdanovitch interview.Even the famous voice distracts. There's something about Hitchcock's voice that reminds one too much of his comical TV appearances and that ironic persona. He sounds too bossy and domineering. Absent the voice in the Bogdanovitch text, and it all becomes much clearer and less distracting. It's all there in cool uninterrupted printed prose. No translator was needed!

I'm not saying we toss the Truffaut tapes in the rubbish bin. I still have to read the Truffaut book to see how that comes across. And it all counts in the complete picture.

The picture I get from the two interviews so far:

His recall of details of pictures he made thirty or forty years before is impressive. The man was very smart, and had a command of all the tricks of filmmaking that is simply awesome. He is above all a technician. He is not an intellectual. If there is any truth in his description of himself, he has tunnel vision. He didn't read the newspaper, except to look for jokes. He doesn't talk about other directors or movements or styles. His lack of interest in actors is disappointing. Note his report to Bogdanovitch that he told Kim Novak she had too much expression in her face and to make it blank. Did she? I"d have thought somewhat the opposite; she always seemed to have a frozen face in all her movies. But there is something mechanical about his outlook and working method both with narrative and actors that is in a way impressive -- he can achieve what he wants so forcefully -- and at the same time limiting and disappointing. He doesn't go into much detail about ideas behind the material he made into films; he's almost exclusively interested in the technical challenges it posed and the technical and commercial success of the results. He is a dictator. Even though he acknowledges the various crafts that go into his films, one doesn't get a strong sense of a collaborative effort, of working on an equal footing with people. He is always in charge. And that again made for brilliant yet limited results.

[oscar jubis]

Good stuff. Thanks.
Currently thinking about the ending of Suspicion, wondering whether anyone believes it can be interpreted any one way, on how it relates to audience expectation, etc. I just re-watched this perversely, deliciously dark film with a very interesting production history. I like it more now than ever.
Best online site for Hitchcock fans is run by Professor Ken Mogg out of Melbourne: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html