Watch Hitchcock/Truffaut


Hitchcock/Truffaut is a movie starring Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, and David Fincher. Filmmakers discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" influenced their work.

Other Titles
Hitchcock og Truffaut, Χίτσκοκ/Τριφό, ヒッチコック/トリュフォー
Running Time
1 hours 19 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Kent Jones
Serge Toubiana, Kent Jones
David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Bob Balaban, Peter Bogdanovich
France, USA
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

In 1962 Hitchcock and Truffaut locked themselves away in Hollywood for a week to excavate the secrets behind the mise-en-scène in cinema. Based on the original recordings of this meeting-used to produce the mythical book Hitchcock/Truffaut-this film illustrates the greatest cinema lesson of all time and plummets us into the world of the creator of Psycho, The Birds, and Vertigo. Hitchcock's incredibly modern art is elucidated and explained by today's leading filmmakers: Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Arnaud Desplechin, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Wes Anderson, James Gray, Olivier Assayas, Richard Linklater, Peter Bogdanovich and Paul Schrader.

Comments about documentary «Hitchcock/Truffaut» (30)

Jack photo

The Hitchcock/Truffaut Duplication is a very good documentary about the original version of Psycho, but it is also about the revisionist version. The Hitchcock version has been very heavily revised over the years, including changes to the ending, the "serial killer" theme was changed to a more "intellectual" killer. The Tarrantino version is also heavily revised. This movie also gives a good overview of the music and the music industry, which is very interesting. Overall, the movie is worth watching. If you're a fan of the original, you should check it out.

William Washington photo
William Washington

An excellent documentary about the life of John Carpenter and the production of the original "Hitchcock/Truffaut" film. Some excellent interviews with John Carpenter, his wife Barbara, and producer Peter Cushing. The main highlight of the documentary is the experience of seeing the original film. I was so impressed by this film that I watched it twice the first night and then again the next night. I was especially impressed with the way John Carpenter and Barbara Carpenter worked together to ensure that the film was as good as it could possibly be. In the second viewing, I was surprised to find that the original film had a lot more darkness in it than I remembered. The film was originally supposed to be a comedy, but in the end Carpenter decided to have a serious film. The story line is very original, and Carpenter did a great job of directing the film himself. I highly recommend this film.

Lauren B. photo
Lauren B.

I was reading reviews for this movie on IMDb and the majority of them were glowing. This movie had a lot of praise, so I decided to check it out. I was very pleasantly surprised. The movie is pretty much all Hitchcock and Truffaut. However, it is also very entertaining and definitely worth seeing. I was surprised to see the production values in the movie were much better than Hitchcock's. I found this to be a very engaging story and worth seeing. I especially liked the performance of Catherine Deneuve, who is so well known for her role in Hitchcock's films. There were also a few other performances I really liked in the movie, especially the one by Tim Roth as an American military instructor. As for the plot, I will say I did not see a lot of plot holes. It was very good, and I think that many people will enjoy this film. It was very entertaining, and I would recommend it to anyone who loves Hitchcock and Truffaut. 7/10

Richard O. photo
Richard O.

This is a short documentary about one of the most significant, controversial and influential films of the 20th century: Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. I'll admit that I didn't read the book on which this film is based, but I can see that this film was made by someone who, like Hitchcock, had the ability to create a movie out of nothing, with very little budget. It's interesting to see how the movie's themes have been interpreted in different cultures, both in the US and abroad. I must say that the movie is also very interesting, even though it's quite slow and its pace is rather slow. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Hitchcock was not only a master of suspense, but also a master of dialogue, and he never lost that ability. It's also a good thing to see how he managed to create a masterpiece out of a very small budget, and how he managed to do that with no "big names". I'd be happy if I could edit a couple of hours of this documentary into a two-hour film, but it's impossible to edit a movie this long into a single, cohesive and well-made film. I'm glad that I got to see this film, but I also hope that you will, too. This is a great movie, and I'd definitely recommend it.

Aaron photo

For some reason this movie is rated so low. This movie does a great job of showing the inner workings of the film industry. The actual film making and cinematography are both excellent. This is a great documentary that should be watched by everyone.

Lauren photo

Movies about the Hitchcock films are not really that much different from the novels in which they are based. I'm sure you've seen a few Hitchcock films or read a few Hitchcock novels. They all basically revolve around the same basic plot. We meet the main character, we learn about the main character, we see how the main character's life changes after a traumatic event, and we see how the main character responds to the events. Hitchcock is the classic example of this, and he is also the classic example of this. The difference is that Hitchcock made the films a little more challenging, while Truffaut never really took Hitchcock's work to the level that the films are set to reach. Hitchcock is a fantastic writer, but he is a terrible director. Truffaut does not have the ability to make the films more challenging. Truffaut just goes for the easy way out and makes the films as simple as possible. The first thing you notice about this documentary is that it's a little too long. There's a lot of information packed into the first 30 minutes, but after that it really starts to get repetitive. The only thing that was different about this film is the tone. This is not a movie about the Hitchcock films, it's a movie about Truffaut. The only things that this movie had going for it were the amazing images that Truffaut captured. I do feel that the footage was quite effective, but the film was too long and the information was not enough to make the film worth watching. I also feel that the information was not presented in a way that was relevant to the film. I would recommend this film to people who love Hitchcock or Truffaut, but it's not a film that I would watch twice.

Rose A. photo
Rose A.

Michael Moore's documentary about Hitchcock is an entertaining look at one of the greatest directors of all time. It focuses on the two men's relationship and their friendship. However, the film also shows how the directors were both driven by their personal experiences in life, both as actors and directors, and both of them also had to deal with personal demons. This documentary is very well done and also very interesting in its own right. The documentary shows how the directors had to deal with the major problems in their personal lives and the different types of stories they had to tell. It also shows how the directors made many films in which they acted as actors, and they also show their personal stories. This documentary also gives a lot of information about the directors and shows how the directors were able to deal with their demons. The documentary is very well done, and I think it's a great documentary about a very important and controversial filmmaker.

Evelyn photo

I don't know if this is the best documentary ever made about Hitchcock, but it's certainly the most interesting and entertaining. The way the film was done and shot made it very interesting. The way Hitchcock was portrayed was pretty much as I've always imagined him. He was a very reserved and quiet man who was able to express himself with his camera. He was able to use the camera to tell stories and the story of the film was his personal story. The story itself is fairly old, but the way he told it was very interesting and entertaining. The editing is very interesting as well, as the footage is always switching from the actual filming to the editing. The editing is very smooth and is definitely one of the best editing I've ever seen. The way Hitchcock was able to use the editing to tell the story was interesting, as he would be showing a scene, then cutting to another scene and then cutting to a third scene. The way he used the editing to tell the story was very interesting. This is a very interesting film that is entertaining. Definitely a must-see. 7/10

Cheryl photo

This documentary is actually quite interesting. It's very factual, and the writing is sharp. But it lacks the tension and tension-provoking character that is found in Hitchcock's films. I was quite disappointed. I know Hitchcock didn't care about the politics of the war, but he was a very pragmatic and hard-working man. I think that it was more about the politics of the time. For example, in one scene, Hitchcock says that "it is impossible for one individual to act in the interest of the nation". This implies that the reason that he was fighting the war was not because of the country or the people, but because he felt that the country had been tricked by the Russians. He was acting for the people, not for his country. This film could have been better if Hitchcock had chosen to use the "Bond style", but then he would have lost some of his artistry. I think the director has been trying to depict the "Bond style" of suspense and action. That is the way Hitchcock would have made the film. This is not the way that Alfred Hitchcock would have made the film. I also think that he is quite "hard-nosed" in his criticism of the war. He doesn't like the war, he doesn't like the way it was handled by the Russians. In fact, I think that he is being too harsh, because he knows that it was not the Russians who were to blame, but rather the way the war was handled by the Allies. He would have been a lot more sympathetic to the Allied cause if he had not portrayed it as being a German-Soviet "situation". I think that this documentary could have been a lot better if Hitchcock had chosen to use the "Bond style". In fact, he is trying to portray the "Bond style" of suspense and action. The problem is that he has chosen to portray it as a "situation" instead of a "situation". This is a great shame, because the "Bond style" is supposed to be one of the greatest films ever made. I think that it is even more tragic that it has been treated as a "situation". I don't think that Hitchcock was so hard-nosed about the war, but rather about his own personal experience of it. I think that he would have been much more sympathetic to the cause if he had chosen to portray it as a "situation", but then he would have lost some of his artistry.

Crystal photo

I first saw this movie when I was 12. I was absolutely fascinated by it. I would see it over and over again. It was like a big part of my life. I didn't realize at the time, that Hitchcock was a director who was essentially the same person who made Psycho. It's a fascinating film. The only problem is that it doesn't really explain the story. It's too fast and it's too fast. It could have been done a lot better.

Joyce P. photo
Joyce P.

Jody, David and I are all movie buffs and I can say that this is an excellent documentary that helps make sense of the madness that is Hollywood. It is well worth seeing.

Carol Little photo
Carol Little

This movie is a pretty good overview of how a film is made and how the directors and producers put together a film to create a movie that is as great as it is. It is a very good summary of what goes into making a movie. The idea of it is to create a movie from nothing, as this is why Hitchcock's films are so successful. I like the idea of a person being put into a situation and not being able to do anything about it, instead of the normal hero that is put into a situation and has to make it work. The first half of the movie is a little slow, but it is interesting to see how the different people involved are put into the situation and what they do about it. The second half is amazing, it really captures the spirit of the film. I like the idea of people not being able to do anything about it, but being able to try to do something about it. I like how Hitchcock created a very realistic movie, with a very believable story, even if it is a little far-fetched. This is a very good movie, I recommend it to anyone, it is a good movie to watch.

Sara Keller photo
Sara Keller

Lars Von Trier's last feature film "Breaking the Waves" (which was written, produced, and directed by him) is a portrait of an obsessive schizophrenic. It is a sad, harrowing tale about the loss of a loved one, and the anguish that is inevitable when you have lost a loved one. Von Trier is obviously a talented filmmaker who has shown a knack for weaving compelling images with brilliant narrative. "Breaking the Waves" is not your typical cinematic portrait, however. The film is a continuous narrative, and we watch in two parallel stories. One of these stories is set in Germany during the Second World War, and is about a young man, Karl, who loses his brother to the Nazis. The other is set in the 1920s, and is about a young woman, Beryl, who is a nymphomaniac and is obsessed with a young man, Paul, who is being sent to the concentration camp. The film is filmed in a very low-key style, which makes the experience of watching it all the more poignant. The only other feature film I have seen by Von Trier that I found so compelling was "Breaking the Waves." "Breaking the Waves" is a very difficult film to watch, and I found it hard to sit through it at times. The film has a very sad and depressing tone throughout, and I found myself feeling really upset throughout the film. I was trying to figure out what was going on in the film and trying to figure out what was happening to Beryl. I found it hard to stay engaged in the film at times, and the film could have been much longer than it was. Von Trier seems to want to explore the many meanings and feelings that are linked to schizophrenia, and I think it would have been more effective if the film could have been longer. The acting in the film is quite good. Anna Paquin does a very good job at being a very disturbed young woman, and I think it is very effective. I also thought that the young man who plays Paul was very good, but I think the other actors did a very good job as well. I thought the cinematography was very good, and I thought the use of color was very effective. I thought that the score by Andrew Rasiek was very effective. I think the music in the film was a strong point, and I thought the music was effective. I thought that the film was a good story and a good film, but I think it could have been better. I would not recommend this film to anyone, because I found it very hard to watch at times, and it is a difficult film to watch. I am not sure what to make of it, but I would not recommend it to anyone, unless they have a very strong interest in Von Trier. I would say that this film is a good film, but it could have been a lot better. The film is a very strong film, and I think it is worth seeing, but I

Patrick H. photo
Patrick H.

Hitchcock is not the best choice for a Hitchcock fan, but for the rest of us, he's a very good choice. The first part of the movie is a sort of documentary on the making of the movie, and the second part is a very interesting look at the movie. I would recommend this to all Hitchcock fans, and it's definitely worth the price of the DVD.

Patricia Webb photo
Patricia Webb

As a film critic, I have to say that this documentary is more of a rant than a documentary. But it is a great rant. In it's own way it's fascinating. The film was made by a film student, Chris Farley. I have never seen him before but I think he does a great job. It's fascinating to see how he got his funding and what it takes to make a film like this. I also think that the man is brilliant. This is a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. If you are interested in film, you should watch this.

Christina Silva photo
Christina Silva

I loved this documentary. It was very well done. I would have liked to see more in-depth interviews with Hitchcock and Tarr. I think it would have made the film more interesting. I also thought that the interviews with the directors of the films mentioned above were not quite as detailed as I would have liked. However, I think that the overall effect of this documentary is excellent. I look forward to the DVD. The film has a clear and concise message and is very educational. The visuals are very good. The production values are excellent. I would recommend this documentary to anyone.

Carol Boyd photo
Carol Boyd

Some great interviews and observations by people who knew and worked with Hitchcock. I don't know if anyone else saw this, but it really is fascinating and fascinating. I didn't expect to like this film, but I do. The film is a fantastic compendium of interviews from people who were there and worked with Hitchcock. Some of the interviews are from the 1960s, some are from the 1970s. The interviews are interesting, some of the discussions are very interesting. Hitchcock is interviewed here from the very beginning of his career to the end of his life. Some of the interviews are about his films, some about his people. I was very impressed by this film. It is a really fun documentary that I hope everyone enjoys.

Gloria H. photo
Gloria H.

This is the best documentary about the making of 'Seven'. It is a great insight into the making of the film. The film is not a comedy, it is very dark and depressing. The best thing about this film is the cast. The actors are amazing. Kirsten Dunst is one of my favorite actresses, but she really shines in this. Anthony Hopkins is fantastic. He plays the role of a cold-blooded killer very well. Ralph Fiennes is very good as the doctor. I really enjoyed this film, I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock and Truffaut, and this film is a great introduction to their films.

Teresa Walsh photo
Teresa Walsh

This is the most talked about documentary about the film industry and the process behind the making of films. It covers a lot of information about how a film gets made and how it is made, the actors involved, the film's cast, and the crew. I thought it was very interesting, as well as entertaining. It was interesting to hear the stories of how they went from idea to movie, and the cast and crew involved in that process. It was also interesting to hear the stories of how the film got made, and how the actors and crew became involved in the making of the film. The actors and crew did a good job of telling their stories. The film also covers the process of getting the film made, and the story behind the film. Overall, it was a very good documentary that was well worth watching.

Jordan Tran photo
Jordan Tran

I am a sucker for early Hitchcock, and I watched this documentary before I saw Hitch's film "Psycho". But I am so glad I did! I was surprised how much I really liked "Psycho". "The Birds" is also worth watching. But I can't imagine watching this film again. I don't think I can ever watch it again. But that's okay. I just know I'll always remember what Hitchcock's film "Psycho" is like. (Well, maybe not "Psycho" itself, but "The Birds" and "The Birds 2")

Virginia S. photo
Virginia S.

I'm sorry to say that I've been a Hitchock fan since the 1960s. His films are very personal and not only to his fans. For the first time in my life, I watched the DVD of this film in a theater. It was very emotional, and I was able to understand a lot of the meaning of the film. I would have liked to have seen the original version of the film. I was able to understand more of the meaning of the film, and I think it would have helped me understand Hitchock's films better. The film is very well made, with good photography, and a very good sound. The movie is very entertaining, but the ending is a little bit of a disappointment. I would recommend this film to anyone, but I think it would be best to watch it on the big screen. The DVD is very good, and I would recommend it to anyone who is a Hitchock fan.

Sean G. photo
Sean G.

I loved the book, and I enjoyed the movie very much. I think it is the best movie ever made about the topic of "The Apocalypse". The movie is just so much more interesting than the book, and I loved the ending of the movie. The movie is very well made, and I thought that the music was great. I think it was very appropriate to use music that was not in the book, like the music that the soldiers used during the battle scenes. I thought the movie was very well done, and I really enjoyed it. I recommend it to everyone who loves "The Apocalypse".

Roger photo

I enjoyed this film, not because I had heard of Hitchcock or Tarrade, but because I had seen this film before and it was a nice introduction to the themes and ideas. It is actually a great introduction to the use of music in film, as Hitchcock stated that he used music to bring the audience into the story, and I can definitely see why. I have never seen the "Moulin Rouge" show, but I imagine it is a lot like Hitchcock's vision, where the audience becomes the character. The overall music score was excellent, with the music blending perfectly with the action of the film. I liked the use of music as a sound to break the action, but the dialogue was very good. I can't see how people could not like this film, but I know some of the people who disliked it, and they have no idea what a great film this is. I'm glad that I saw this film and I can't wait to see it again!

Anna Rose photo
Anna Rose

This is a documentary about Hitchcock, but it is more about the director than about his films. He is shown as a man who lived his life in the shadow of the great directors who came before him, and who made a career out of making films that were more or less indistinguishable from those of his contemporaries. He is not a good man. He is a good filmmaker, and one who is very misunderstood. It is an interesting film, but one that is not for everybody. The question of whether he was a good director is a matter of opinion, and it is up to the viewer to decide what to make of it. If you want to know about his films, you can watch this film. If you want to learn about the man, you can read a biography of him, such as Hitchcock: The Life and Films of Alfred Hitchcock.

Paul photo

This documentary about Hitchcock's film career is an interesting mix of archival footage, interviews and interviews with the people involved in the making of "Rear Window" and "Psycho". There are also a few interesting anecdotes from Hitchcock's personal life, such as the one involving his habit of playing "rape" music at the time of filming. Overall, this is a good documentary on a good subject. The interviews with the actors are interesting as well. I think the biggest reason that this documentary isn't better is that it isn't really the "true" story of Hitchcock's career, as some people claim it to be. I personally think that the interviews are good, but I also think that the interviews with the actors aren't that interesting. The film isn't that well done either, but I would say that it is a good documentary that is worth watching. I recommend it to fans of Hitchcock's films.

Michelle Jensen photo
Michelle Jensen

This film is a bit of a disappointment. It is good to see Hitchcock and Truffaut doing their thing, but the editing is so choppy and the camera angles so weird that it almost seems as if the film was shot in a studio. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that Hitchcock's films had such a high body count, and so many scenes that were just plain weird. I'm not saying that this is the worst film of all time, but it was definitely not the best. The thing that makes Hitchcock and Truffaut films great is that they are so unpredictable. There are so many things that can happen in a Hitchcock film, and the characters are so unpredictable. It's really hard to tell who is who in Truffaut films, and you don't know what's going to happen. It's like watching a serial killer's life, and then a murder in the next scene. It's just not very interesting. The film is also very slow, and you can tell that it was shot in a studio. It just doesn't make for a very interesting film. I also thought that the film was quite long. I think that the film was a bit overlong. The film was a bit long and had a lot of scenes that were just plain weird. Overall, I thought that this film was interesting, but I think that it could have been better. It was a good film, but it could have been better.

Ronald K. photo
Ronald K.

This is a very interesting documentary about the movies that inspired Hitchcock, and how they influenced him. It's a good way to understand how the movies that he loved were actually made, and how he got his ideas. Some of the stories are fascinating, some are not, but I think that the most interesting is how Hitchcock came up with his ideas, and how his ideas were then followed up by others, most notably by Tarkovsky. It's a good way to learn about the influence of movies, and how they influenced movies that influenced him. It's also interesting to see how the Hitchcock films are made, and the influences of those films on his films.

Charles photo

I've seen the other two Hitchcock films, 'Psycho' and 'Rear Window', and I have to say that they were very interesting and well made films. However, I was very disappointed with 'Marnie'. It's a very dull, uninteresting and very boring film. There are only two memorable moments, and they are very brief. The other thing I disliked about this film was the way it was shot. The camera is too close up, and it doesn't really show anything. There is one interesting shot of Marnie walking down the street, but that's about it. This film is not Hitchcock at all. It is very dull and uninteresting. I recommend that you don't watch this film. It's not very good.

Ethan M. photo
Ethan M.

I have seen this film many times and I have not been able to put it down. It is a work of art and it is one of the few films that can actually change the way you think about things. It is very original, and it is really sad to see how it was all made. I think this is one of the best films I have ever seen. I have seen it over 30 times and it is still the best film I have ever seen.

Brian L. photo
Brian L.

I'm not a fan of Hitchcock, but I do like the way he uses film to show the world what it's like to live in a society of secrets. It's an approach that I think is often misunderstood. "Hitchcock/Truffaut" is a documentary that's centered around the director and his work. The director, Sir Ridley Scott, is interviewed about his work and about his relationship with Hitchcock. The film is not an exploration of the director's work. Rather, it's an examination of his relationship with the man. The film is well done. It's a slow-paced documentary that I would recommend to fans of Hitchcock. It's not a film that will appeal to everyone. However, if you are a fan of Hitchcock, then you should watch this film.