MovieChat Forums > Hitchcock/Truffaut (2016) Discussion > Should have been called: Hitchcock/Jones...

Should have been called: Hitchcock/Jones/Truffaut


Good engrossing documentary. But, the title is a misnomer. It uses the Hitch-Truffaut interviews and book as a jumping off point, but, it really is Kent Jones' take on Hitchcock in the end, with an appropriate tip of the cap to Truffuat.

Liked the movie, but, it wasn't as advertised. I would like to have heard much more the actual interviews and some historic footage of Truffuat himself.

reply

I liked the movie as well, but I knew going in that Truffaut was not the author, narrator or director of the documentary. I didn't feel tricked or misled in any way.

Approaching Hitchcock's work through the Truffaut book was a smart idea. The movie is, after all, mostly a doc about Hitchcock's work, but the sections about the book itself make for a good story.

I read the book over two decades ago and hardly a month has gone by without me thinking about it.

reply

I knew going in that Truffaut was not the author, narrator or director of the documentary. I didn't feel tricked or misled in any way.


Obviously, natch.

The point is that the Doc doesn't even attempt to see Hitchcock as Truffaut approached him, but as Director Kent Jones did. That's why the title is misleading. It's hardly a 50/50 split, nor is it really a doc about the book.

reply

I thought it was a superficial and haphazard skate over Hitch's films. Grievously disappointing.

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007, 2010. Clio, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

reply

It's not the film of the book. It's a film about the book.

reply