Francios Truffaut is one of the best writers in history.He has the ability to do what ever he wants to do.I think that everyone should read his books as well as viewing his movies.He is truly amazing.

This collection of Truffaut's letters is an extraordinary portrait of a man of enormous charm, passion, integrity and (sometimes brutal) honesty. The immediacy of his writing makes his voice emanate from these pages. What an enormous privilege it must have been to count oneself among his friends. And what a daunting foe he must have been as well.

An inspiring, invigorating book.

There was considerable autobiographical content to the movies of Truffaut, but they expose only a public side, frequently with a focus on male/female relations. Truffaut's childhood is exposed as sadder, but possibly less harsh than his image (and The 400 Blows) suggest. The rest of his life was lived to its fullest with many life-long friends, close working relationships and a touching continuity to his relations with the women in his life, even after the time of passion had passed. There are many references to French intellectuals and film-makers that will not be familiar to American readers and occassionally slow the book down. The description of the genesis of many of the famous movies and the time and troubles to be overcome to bring a movie to the viewer is as the best I have read. All-in-all, this is an entertaining and extremely well-written biography. The translation is seamless.

When you saw all of TRUFFAUT's films ,this book has the edge over all other books about him.It is a complete biography about a man who had a passion for making movies.It is also about a man who loved actresses and had love affairs with many of them.FRANCOIS is all over the book with his strenghts and his weaknesses.Many of his movies have autobiographical contents;STOLEN KISSES for instance show his obsession with women;The character of AZNAVOUR in SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER is almost a portrait of himself;JULES AND JIM was a love triangle ,and in his private life FRANCOIS had several mistresses at the same time.His sensitive approach has also ruined a few movies like THE SOFT SKIN and THE MISSISSIPI MERMAID.As a critic he could be very rude at times ,but he was a convincing debator.Finally ,i would say that movies were really his escape from the monotomy of life ;it was his own ticket for adventure.A worthy biography ,because i learn things about him beyond gossip.

The book starts from before day one, describing Truffaut's conception into the world as accidental and unwanted. We see parents who were much harsher and less loving in the bio than we do in The 400 Blows. We are presented with a boy genius turned truant, turned self-hating autodidact who by the grace of some magical force is redeemed. That magical force, of course, is the beauty and wonder of film. Amid this telling, we are given a lesson in French film history. Great names like Max Ophuls, Jean Renoir, Alain Resnais, Goddard, and Cocteau. We see this young boy rise from a state of debilitating poverty to the ranks of polemical, ingenious film criticism. We are excited when this precocious film journalist rails against a heavily commercialized, stagnant film establishment, and we hold our breaths when this same critic turns director, and releases his first full length feature, The 400 Blows and wins the Cannes' Grand Jury Prize.

In this biography, the wonderful and important films that made Truffaut famous take a back seat. Instead, we see how his formative years inform his adult years in his search for love from actress, to actress, to actress. We see Truffaut's friendships and fall outs with brilliant filmmakers, and we see what goes on behind the scenes on the sets of his films. We realize, quite easily, that Truffaut the man is very special.

At the end of the book, we come away with at least a glimpse of the true essence of Truffaut--a singular genius, searching for love in life and through films; a humble creator who makes films to please no one but himself; a charming friend who prefers humor over sentimentality; and most of all, an intensely private individual who used film to articulate his deepest yearnings. Yes, Truffaut was a great film maker, but as this biography so convincingly shows, he was an even greater person.

This masterpiece is Truffaut's first feature film, yes. The first New Wave film? Hold your horses there, sonny. You may want to define what you mean by "New Wave". As a couple of other brilliant reviewers below me have indicated, *The 400 Blows* does look rather like "refried Neo-Realism", and the movie is indeed classically constructed. Much more conventional than the exactly contemporaneous movies by Resnais and Godard, *Hiroshima, Mon Amour* and *Breathless*, respectively. Those movies REALLY "broke all the rules", linear narrative especially. But if you mean by "New Wave" an uncompromising, unflinching attempt to simply tell the truth, if you mean the true artist's concern to dispense with cliches and find his own voice, if you mean a feeling of liberation in a movie in which it seems anything can happen next, then *The 400 Blows* fits your bill. At any rate . . . what Americans will never get about this movie is how much it meant to France. Indeed, "Antoine Doniel", the adolescent hero, emerged as a sort of NATIONAL hero, a French Everyman who the French never tired of: Truffaut made 4 more films with Jean-Pierre Leaud in the role of Doniel. (Believe me, we Americans should feel no need to be as tolerant of Doniel's continuing adventures, which degenerate into sit-com buffonery.) The movie's at its best showing Doniel's adventurous truancy in and around a most unromantic Paris: the opening credits use a moving camera to show the Eiffel Tower trying to peep out above row upon row of ugly warehouses and tenements (Paris wouldn't look so ugly again until Godard's *Alphaville*). It's a tough town for a kid -- but no more tough than his home-life, with his alternately hateful and bribing and flirtatious mother, and his utterly undistinguished, stupid stepfather. It's no tougher than the school, either: Truffaut makes a good case for truancy being more affirmative than attending French public schools. (The teacher is a meanie straight out of Dickens.) The last sequences in which Doniel has been unceremoniously dumped into reform school might be accused of being heavy-handed, but Truffaut makes his points quickly with these scenes -- they by no means turn the film into grim melodrama. All in all, this director must be recognized as being one of the very few artists -- in ANY medium -- who gave a damn about children, and who intelligently told their stories. His *The Wild Child* in particular, made a decade later, seems almost perfect to me, even superior to this movie. [The DVD by Fox-Lorber is pretty good . . . for them. I'm sure the Criterion edition looks better, but it's now out of print, and I'm sure it's not SO MUCH better that it's worth forking out an extra Jackson (or two) for it. I do wish the picture on this Fox-Lorber edition was less dark. The features included a commentary track that probably isn't necessary, talent bios, and a whole slew of Truffaut trailers.]

I just saw Francois Truffaut's 400 Blows again, and this indeed is the epitomy of the New Wave by making a story which can be seen like a French neo-realist reaction, and being as such it gets its chance to shine in the hands of the debut Truffaut. It's a lovely, wonderful cinema experience.

In a partially autobiographical tale, Truffaut's protagonist is Antoine Doinel, a pre-teen-ish youth who can be identified with by most who are at or older than his age viewing his tale- he hates school, goes to the movies as escape, and has parents who tend to be over-bearing and un-attentive. After a string of events occur (one of which getting thrown out of his school) he tries to live on his own, which proves un-successful in a caught theft, which gets him into an "observatory for delinquent youth", or juvenile prison.

One of the truly fascinating qualities of the film is that it all goes along in a totally naturastic manner, or at least natural for the characters presented, and there aren't any over-stylings to go along with the drama. The stylings that are apparent give the film a perfect balance: the spellbinding scene on the carnival-twister, the un-broken shot of the boy running down the road, and shots that add emotional weight merely by the time allowed on the object. And this is all worthy of a younger audience as well; even those who don't watch foreign movies could consider this their must-view as an introduction to the genre.

Nobody could capture childhood like Truffaut. Through a series of measured vingettes--unsentimental and unsensationalized--The 400 Blows chronicles the life of its young protagonist with unflinching honesty and pitch-perfect emotional tone. This film is in many ways the mirror opposite of Small Change: while that (also excellent) film was about the joys of childhood, this is primarily concerned with its pains. Its a bleak world, one in which adults are at best emotionally stunted, and more often simply vicious. However, it ultimately inspires rather than depresses: in spite of mangling him mercilessly in its machinery (yes, I hate that alliteration as much as you do), the world is unable to crush Antoine. The ending shot is destined to haunt you for years to come.

The acting is uniformly good. Léaud, in the lead role, isn't quite virtuosic, but he doesn't need to be for his character to be effective, given the film's naturalistic manner. It's difficult to imagine anyone else doing better. Also--and maybe noting this is missing the point of the film, but it's undeniable--the cinematography is beautiful; Antoine's world is brilliantly realized.

I really can't recommend The 400 Blows any more highly. It's dark, but it's also one of the most compassionate films you're likely to see. Hollywood couldn't have made anything like this.

This book is an excellent document of who Hitchcock's mind worked, picked apart piece by piece - film by film - by Truffaut, another bonafida master of the medium. Hitchcock is so assure of himself and his place, because his self-critique isn't so whitewashed and he admits to mistakes, admits to acts of brilliance and admits most of all that he was truly the genius filmmaker that every who has seen at least 3 of his films can attest to.

Detailed discussion on how shots were done in say, Psycho, Vertigo, The Birds. Script changes in Rebecca, Suspicion and Spellbound.

Hitch's method is unique and can't (nor shouldn't) be copied, but to understand it enriches a readers subsequent understanding of cinema who's career spanned from the Silents to the 1970s!!! And he left and indeliable mark on directing, and film-storytelling as whole.

The only other interview book that is as exhaustive in the craft of filmmaking are Peter Bogdanovich's WHO THE DEVIL MADE I.T. His THIS IS ORSON WELLES isn't a bad supplement either!!

this book conveys two fundamental aspects of art: respect and friendship. it is clear from the opening introductory essay that truffaut genuinely loved, respected, and cared for the works of hitchcock, moreover, for the person behind the art. and in their discussions, it is all the more clear that genuine friendship and admiration occurred between the two. truffaut's questions are informed and probing, but above all, his enthusiasm for the films echo throughout. he carefully balances formal questions with his account of his own first impressions. hitchcock is lively, never condescending, with an air of immense pride for his works.

reading this book is like sitting in on a great conversation between two passionate people. it's a hard book to put down as every page is replete with great film stills and engaging discussions. truffaut covers the entire hitchcock oeuvre. for this, we should be grateful as he reminds us of the many number of works that are still widely unavailable and unseen.

the book opens with a sort of a manifesto by truffaut as to what great cinema should be. the discussions that follow fall along the paths that truffaut lays down: what is suspense, the role of arbitrary fate, the unreality of the cinematic image, and how to tell a good story. it ends with a thoughtful tribute, of truffaut's reminiscences of his last encounters with hitchcock. it's a moving portrait of the last years of a genius.

this book includes a helpful "bibliography" (cinemaography?) of every hitchcock movie.

a truely invaluable book for any cinemaphile.

This is an important document in film history and scholarship and a fun, interesting read. Two great artists discuss film in general and Hitchcock's work in particular. The interview provides some interesting background facts about some of the films, revealing analyses, and some clues to the ideas and goals Hitchcock had when making his pictures. I would offer one caveat: after reading this book through several times, I confess that occasionally I suspect the veracity of a few of Hitchcock's remarks. Sometimes Hitchcock appears too agreeable to Truffaut's observations, endorsing statements that contradict what he's stated or suggested elsewhere. I don't mean to suggest that Hitchcock lied or behaved maliciously; I don't even mean this as criticism. I believe simply that in details that were of small importance to him, Hitchcock didn't bother to dissent, leaving Truffaut to believe as he liked. Also, they both occasionally get their facts wrong when talking about an older film, a mere failure of memory. It's helpful knowing these things going in; otherwise, no harm done-it's still a great book, one that should be read by every Hitchcock fan and anyone who's wanted to know a little bit more about any of his films.

I read this entire book on a flight from London back to the U.S. When I got home, I rented/watched several of the movies mentioned by Truffaut (Rear Window, etc.) watching for the points he made. Many people don't know Truffaut was a journalist as well as a filmmaker. He was able to write as desriptively as his films were imaginative. My only complaint is that this is a book for serious film fans who have already seen the movies he reviews. If you haven't seen the films, his comments aren't referential enough to include you. But, that said, it will help you see many titles in a new way.

A film critic and director, Francois Truffaut, brings the reader into an almost literary expositon on films and how they affect us. He takes film beyond its bounds by noting the joys and sorrows directors have put into their creations. Truffaut, as a great director himself, discusses directors and actors like Hitchcock, Renoir, Bergman, Kazin, Welles, Wilder, and many others. What impressed me about the book was the compassion Truffaut has for film making. He brings out the nuances that I failed to notice in great films. For instance, in his discussion of Citizen Kane, he brings out the parallelism between Charles Foster Kane's mother and his love for Susan Alexander by saying Alexander was areplacemnent for his separated mother. And of course rosebud and the snow dome create the crux for such parallels to show uo. In his review for Kane, he brings out such nuances that only a well-carved critic and director could do. Those out there who enjoy film and all its! ! complexities will enjoy this book. A Frenchman discovers what made such films great in so many people's eyes: Rear Window, 8 1/2, The Seven Year Itch, and many other great films. I love Truffaut, so reading what he likes and dislikes was a sheer pleasure - sumptuous at times!

This is a translation into English of Truffaut's earlier "Les Films de ma vie" to which was added a short chapter on Japanese cinema, in which Truffaut has nothing to say about Kurosawa, which is strange for a man who so loved John Ford. The book has important things to say about a lot of important films, but also a lot to say about many unimportant ones, like "Land of the Pharoahs" by Howard Hawks, which is a good but not a great or even a significant film. All the same, there is much gold to be mined here. Purchasers of this book should be warned that an error in preparing the plates for the current (possibly every) printing resulted in the absence of pages 64 and 65. A chapter on Fritz Lang, which should have begun on page 64, begins in mid course on page 66. But if you must have this book in English, there may be no other choice.

Readers should be warned also that Truffaut is a very partisan reviewer and something of an ideologist. This is the man who called David Lean an "incompetent cynic" and who once opened an interview with "Cahiers du Cinema" by proclaiming that "Wyler is excrement!" At the same time he fiercely defends the frequently mawkish or silly sound films of Charlie Chaplin. Such are the perquisites of genius.

Readers who can read French should acquire "Le Cinema selon Francois Truffaut" (obtainable from amazon.fr), a collection of interviews carefully edited for continuous reading, which hasn't been translated yet into English. The recent biography, "Francois Truffaut" by Antoine de Baecque and Serge Toubiana, is a must-read. A wonderful documentary, "Francois Truffaut: Stolen Portraits" was directed by the latter and is available on VHS (in French with English subtitles). And, of course, see the films, all of which, except for "Une belle fille comme moi," are available on VHS or DVD.

The title is misleading, since this book is NOT a biography of the French New Wave director, but instead a thorough analysis of his films. It should have been called "The Films of Francois Truffaut." Professor Insdorf makes clear the connections among Truffaut's films. Many of those connections are quite surprising, and will deepen your appreciation of the films. Also, this book is the last word on Truffaut's influences. Professor Insdorf's description of the director's marriage of the Hitchcock sensibility with the lyricism of Jean Renoir is magnificent. This is a fine companion to the director's films, but the biographical data -- about Truffaut's youth and film criticism -- is perfunctory. And there is precious little on Truffaut's interaction with other French and world filmmakers.

In the beginning this book seems as if it will be interesting, or scandalous, or something, but it quickly proves to be an endless series of repetititive vignettes about the two title characters and their innumerable attempts to find love, or passion, or a reason to live, or something. The second half of the book is centered mainly on Jim's long affair with Kate, Jules' wife. Jules completely approves of and even facilitates their relationship, so there's really no conflict there. The conflict comes from their innumerable break ups and reconciliations. When I say innumerable, I mean it. After a point I found myself not really caring whether they stayed together or not, but just praying for the relationship to be resolved one way or another so that the descriptions of their silly, melodramatic fights would end. The book is kind of interesting in terms of its style and its commentary on social and moral values in early 20th century Europe, but overall I found it a bit of a bore.