Download - Francois Truffaut - The Man who Loved films
Theory's Abstract
The present study applies theories of intertextuality in literature and semiotics to an
examination of the cinematic poetics of François Truffaut. The intertextual model is
employed both for an interpretation of the cinematic text as a relationship between
different texts and for an examination of the historical context of Truffaut and the
“New Wave”. Intertextuality, in this context, is seen as a tool for defining Truffaut’s
cinematic canon. The study distinguishes between the broad phenomenon of
intertextuality in cinema – a topic that has indeed been treated in Truffaut research,
and the special case of cinematic intertextuality, where the systems of texts are
exclusively cinematic – a topic that has hardly been treated at all in the traditional
research. Hence the study has a dual goal: to re-examine Truffaut’s cinematic
revolution in its historical context, and to contribute to the development of the
intertextual model as a tool for the interpretation of any cinematic text whatsoever.
The Conceptual Framework of the Study
Intertextuality is a concept that refers to all cases of simultaneous activation of two or
more texts within the framework of a single text. The point of departure of this study,
as also of any intertextual discussion, is that a text is not a hermetic entity and does
not constitute a complete and contained unit, and can therefore never function as a
closed system, but only as a part of a complex of texts.
The basis for any kind of intertextuality is the intertext. According to one definition,
which identifies intertext with subtext, this is a prior text that is activated by the text
that we are interpreting. Together with the latter, the intertext, which is known to the
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 1
interpreter, becomes a fuller text that receives a new meaning after the process of
identification and interpretation.
We may distinguish between linguistic intertextuality, whose distinctive
representative is Kristeva, according to whom every text is perceived as a derived text
and every sentence as a quotation, and rhetorical intertextuality, which is a deliberate
aesthetic strategy, and whose distinctive representative is Riffaterre. While linguistic
intertextuality is generally imperceptible because it is imbedded in the structure of the
language, rhetorical intertextuality in most cases is perceptible, because of the
essential role of the intertext in filling the gaps in the text. Riffaterre sees the conflict
between the text and the intertext as fundamental to the phenomenon of
intertextuality. Continuing from Riffaterre’s approach, this study focuses principally
on rhetorical intertextuality, interpretation of which enables us to explain Truffaut’s
choices both on the level of the text and on the level of the poetic whole.
As Riffaterre’s model limits itself mainly to the rhetoric of the single text, while I see
intertextuality as a tool that was employed by Truffaut to develop his cinematic voice
in relation to the tradition, I have also drawn upon the intertextual approach of Harold
Bloom. The conflict between the text and the intertext, presented through the Oedipal
relationship between a poet and his precursor, is a central concept in this remarkable
theory, the theory of the “anxiety of influence”. Bloom engages in imaginary personal
relationships between strong poets, and the model that he proposes is partially
appropriate to a description of Truffaut’s relations with his precursors, as well as to
biographical aspects of his cinematic oeuvre. Moreover, Bloom’s theory provides a
framework for tracing the formation of a canon and of its establishment in the cultural
consciousness. Furthermore, since Truffaut, together with his colleagues in the “New
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 2
Wave”, rebelled against the old cinematic canon and consolidated an alternative
cinematic canon, the formation of which was central to his work as a director and a
critic, and since cinematic allusion served as an essential tool for the consolidation of
this canon, Bloom’s theory makes it possible to position Truffaut in cinematic history
and to examine his position in the canon from a fresh perspective.
“The Anxiety of Influence” and “Misreading”
Bloom claims that reading is a belated act, which takes place in a broad context of
writings that are familiar to both the writer and the reader. An act of reading will be
seen as “strong” by dint of its being a “misreading”. In other words there are no texts,
only interactions among texts. The relations of influence that are dominant in writing
are actualized in reading, which proves to be “miswriting”, and in writing, which
proves to be “misreading”. Good poetry, in Bloom’s view, is necessarily criticism of
poetry, just as “strong” criticism attains to the status of prose poetry. This is how
poetic power is achieved, in a wrestling with the greatest among the poet’s artistic
precursors. According to Bloom, this wrestling is necessary for the perception of
artistic value. From this approach Bloom derives his criteria for the definition of the
canon, and his conception of the tradition as a developing canon. Poems, in the
Bloomian discourse, are neither about subjects nor about themselves, but necessarily
about other poems. The poet does not speak to people; rather, he rebels against the
continuous speaking of the dead poets to him – a speaking that possesses much more
vitality than his own voice. In contrast to the view that sees the artistic act as a
dialogue between an artist and a living audience that is to be found in his vicinity,
Bloom defines the artistic act as a dialogue with the past. This definition augments the
role of intertextuality and accords it the status of a necessary tool, if not an exclusive
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 3
one. This struggle with the past causes the poet to misconstrue the oeuvre of his poetic
father. The rewriting of the father plays a central role in the poet’s construction of a
denial mechanism towards the “anxiety of influence”. The role that Bloom accords to
“misreading” and to the denial of influence is relevant to our discussion. This study
shows how, in contrast to the Bloomian conception of denial, Truffaut turns the
“anxiety of influence” and the act of “misreading” into a cinematic theme that he
recurrently engages in.
Despite the advantages I have noted of applying Bloom’s theory to the study of
Truffaut, this theory by itself is insufficient, principally because it does not give us
tools to describe a rebellion that goes beyond the crystallization of the artist’s identity,
and also because our goal is to cast light on the revolution that Truffaut effected in the
medium under discussion.
Cinematic Intertextuality - Applying the Semiotic Conceptual
Framework to the Present Field of Research
In applying the theoretical framework drawn from semiotics and literature to the
cinema, I distinguish between two different concepts:
1. Intertextuality in cinema – this refers to all the phenomena that the theories of
intertextuality relate to, where the text being studied is a film instead of a literary
text, but the intertext is not necessarily a film.
2. Cinematic intertextuality – this refers to the special case where both the text and the
intertext are films or parts of films. The present study focuses on this special case,
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 4
although at times there are also references to intertexts from other domains of
culture.
The Status of Intertextuality in Cinema in the Existing Research
Most of the studies dealing with intertextuality in cinema have related to linguistic
intertextuality, while rhetorical intertextuality has received little attention. Despite the
important status of intertextuality, the discussion of it and its ramifications has not
received adequate treatment. The prevailing intertextual research that deals with the
language of cinema – with genres, remakes, motifs that develop from one cinematic
trend to another, deals essentially with the transition of mechanisms of signification
through more than one text, but not with the goals of these mechanisms of
signification or their effects on the viewer.
Rhetorical intertextuality, which is supposed to explain these phenomena in the
context of the cinematic communications situation, has not yet received any
exhaustive cinematic research. The cinematic quotations and allusions, when these are
identified, are generally catalogued in the broad category of the “homage”, without
any treatment of thee interpretative and poetic potential hidden within them.
The present study concentrates on intertextuality in cinema, and on cinematic
intertextuality in particular. My claim is that consideration of cinematic intertextuality
is essential for an optimal actualization of the interpretative potential of the cinematic
text. The historical awareness possessed by Truffaut and his colleagues, as film-
makers and critics, of cinema as a developing language, reinforces the methodological
validity of this claim as an essential tool for the study of the “New Wave”. A survey
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 5
of traditional intertextual references in connection with the “New Wave” reveals a
conspicuous lack of discussion of cinematic intertextuality. This lack is especially
conspicuous in light of the status of reflexivity in both the theory and the practice of
the “New Wave” filmmakers. This school developed a systematic criticism of the
historical order and of the consolidation of an agreed cinematic canon. Reflexivity
was perceived as a necessary condition for the inclusion of a film in the cinematic
canon. Thus this group of directors inserted the history of cinema into their own films,
which re-examine the language of cinema and provoke a heightened discussion of the
action of a cinematic code. Their work can be seen as containing a statement about the
old genres, and as crystallizing new conventions for reading a cinematic text. This
calls for an interpretative logic that is based on intertextuality. Intertextuality, with all
its aspects that have been mentioned above, served this movement not only as a
distinctive tool for making statements on the history of cinema, but also for
confronting its future. The intertexts that appear in the films of the “New Wave” come
from all the cultural domains available to them: literature, philosophy, the plastic arts,
music, theater, myths, history, politics – and especially the cinema. Out of all these
domains, the cinematic intertexts constitute a major tool for honing the cinematic
statement, and this is why I have chosen to focus on them.
To sum up, the contribution of the intertextual tools is explained and discussed in the
following contexts:
1. Reflexivity.
2. The appeal against the obvious in the classical cinematic language and the
crystallization of a new cinematic language.
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 6
3. A new historical order, based on a demolition of the classical canon of films
and on a consolidation of a new canon of directors.
The third point makes Bloom’s theory a central theory for the discussion of this
school of filmmaking.
Method
The study examines nine films by Truffaut: Les Mistons (1957), Les Quatre Cents
Coups (1959), Tirez sur le Pianiste (1960), Jules et Jim (1961), Antoine et Colette
(1962), Baisers Volés (1968), Domicile Conjugal (1970), La Nuit Américaine (1973),
and L’Amour en Fuite (1978). Each film is examined and receives an interpretation
based principally on intertextuality, but relating also to a complex of cinematic and
narrative elements. The cases examined are those in which the intertextual analysis
reinforces the analysis of the text as a closed text and therefore serves as a means of
cinematic utterance that combines with other means to create a full meaning, as well
as cases in which the intertextuality enables new insights and an expansion of the
meaning of the closed text. The intertextual interpretation is conducted in the
following way:
1. Identification of an intertextual nexus.
2. Definition and characterization of the latter.
3. Indication of its context and function in the film under discussion.
4. Examination of its contribution to larger complexes of: structure, genre, film
school, creation of expectations, cinematic statement and historical position.
Summary:
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 7
Truffaut’s Various Uses of Intertextuality
The study demonstrates a variety of uses of intertextuality, which differ from one
another in the interaction between the main text and the text alluded to:
1. The intertext as an expression of the “anxiety of influence” – intertexts that, in
Bloom’s terms, conduct Truffaut’s “wrestling with the greatest among his artistic
precursors”
2. The intertext as a “misreading” – according to Bloom, “misreading” is an
expression of “anxiety of influence”, and hence there is no point in relating to
“misreadings” as different phenomena. The present study creates a distinction
between these two concepts in cases where the intertexts express Truffaut’s rebellion
against a cinematic convention or conception and his defining of an alternative option
or his marking out of a new cinematic direction.
3. The interext as an instrument for defining a cinematic canon – this, according
to Bloom, is a necessary outcome of the two former phases. An outcome of
“misreading” is the crystallization of the cinematic canon, which is formulated by the
interpreter even when the filmmaker is not consciously engaged in formulating the
canon. In Truffaut’s case, as the study demonstrates, we are speaking of a conscious
process and a deliberate aspiration to define a cinematic canon in his films, as an
alternative to the canon that was accepted before him. For this reason many intertexts
are interpreted directly from this angle rather than as an accompanying interpretative
conclusion.
4. The intertext as one of the tools of cinematic utterance, i.e., rhetorical
intertextuality – in these cases the film that quotes has no intention of making a new
statement about the quoted material; rather, it uses the latter in its prevalent meaning
in order to direct the viewer’s responses to itself.
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 8
Validation of the Study’s Premises and Examination of
its Conclusions in Light of its Goals
From the analysis of the nine films by Truffaut it becomes clear that the claim that
intertextuality is a necessary condition for the interpretation of any given text is valid
in regard to Truffaut’s cinematic texts. Even when it is possible to provide an
illuminating interpretation of one of his films without using the tool of intertextuality,
the statement that the intertextuality in his films conditions the process of signification
itself faithfully reflects the fact that his films are constructed with layers upon layers
of prior cinematic texts, as the study shows in reference to his total oeuvre. The fact
that, for example, Jules et Jim alludes to Vertigo and at the same time to Tirez sur le
Pianiste, and that all three are based on Pygmalion, and that all these allusions are
built upon a multiplicity of elements that determine the course of the entire film,
leaves no room for doubt about the impossibility of interpreting this film without
reference to its multi-layered character. The study shows that these factors include
both linguistic and rhetorical intertextuality. Moreover, the study emphasizes that
here, as in most of the cases examined, we are dealing with intertextuality in which
the intertext is a cinematic text.
In most of the cases discussed in the study, the intertextuality is not created by gaps in
the mimesis, and therefore intertextual interpretation of the main text is not imposed
upon the viewer, who may adhere to the illusion that the text has been fully
interpreted while ignoring the intertextual interactions. Hence it is possible to
speculate that this phenomenon is not unique to Truffaut, but is rather inherent in the
cinematic language as a whole. For this reason, the study claims that the intertextual
model proposed below may be applied to any cinematic text. In this context,
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 9
intertextual interpretation is perceived as a routine practice of film interpretation, and
not as a characteristic of a deviant poetics of allusions.
The Bloomian Discourse
The intertextual analysis of Les Quatre Cents Coups and La Nuit Américaine leads to
the conclusion that we may see a parallelism between the Bloomian model and the
theory that Truffaut himself formulates as a cinematic language in his films.
Moreover, this theory constitutes a basis for an examination of the cinematic canon
that Truffaut defined in the course of his oeuvre, and for a comparison of the latter
with the canon he had formulated years earlier as a film critic. In particular, the study
exposes Truffaut’s complex relations with Jean Renoir, Orson Welles, and Alfred
Hitchcock, who – also on the basis of what we know from other sources – had a
dominant role in the shaping of his cinematic world. Besides illuminating his struggle
with these precursors, the Bloomian discourse also helps to cast light on Truffaut’s
wrestling with the Hollywood cinema and Italian Neo-Realism, and on this
wrestling’s contribution to the consolidation of his cinematic development. The
examination of intertextuality in these contexts shows that Truffaut absorbed these
influences and rebelled against them, and by doing so shaped a cinematic identity
possessing a unique style.
A fundamental point in which Truffaut’s cinema does not correspond to Bloom’s
approach involves the matter of “the denial”. As the study shows, Truffaut does not
ignore the “anxiety of influence”; rather, the latter appears as a central theme that in a
number of his films is accorded a special status, as for example in certain scenes in
Les Quatre Cents Coups and La Nuit Américaine. As I see it, this deviation from the
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 10
Bloomian framework has further implications for the extension of the Bloomian
discourse as applied to understanding Truffaut’s poetics. A unique case in which it
appears that Truffaut’s struggle with his precursors is indeed denied, and operates
distinctively according to the Bloomian model, is his struggle with the author Honoré
de Balzac. Truffaut’s recurrent references to Balzac have hardly been dealt with at all
in the existing cinematic literature. The present study, however, does not content itself
with perceiving Truffaut’s involvement with Balzac as an “homage”; rather, it reads
the interaction between the two as an expression of a distinctively Bloomian struggle,
in which the concept of “the denial” plays a central role. Truffaut employs Balzac’s
La Comédie Humaine as a model for the Antoine Doinel films: Les Quatre Cents
Coups (1959), Antoine et Colette (1962), Baisers Volés (1968), Domicile Conjugal
(1970), and L’Amour en Fuite (1978). This represents the creation of an epic saga that
extends across space and time beyond the limits of the single text. In this process,
Truffaut expanded the boundaries of the cinematic language.
The phenomenon of self-quotation, too, goes beyond the bounds of the Bloomian
theory. The “anxiety of influence” is not relevant to the fact that Truffaut’s films
quote earlier films of his own. On the other hand, other terms from the Bloomian
discourse, such as “appropriation” and “canonization” cast an interesting light on a
possible meaning of self-quotation. By means of this form of quotation Truffaut
inserts his own films into the cinematic canon, positing himself as an authority who
replaces the precursors he has struggled against. Self-quotation, as the study shows,
has yet another meaning that connects with the Bloomian discourse – its function as a
tier in “misreading”, for example, in the interaction with Balzac’s La Comédie
Humaine.
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 11
A further extension of the application of Bloom’s theory to cinema involves Bloom’s
claim that a poem necessarily centers on another poem. Due to the cinema’s breadth
of scope, in terms both of means and of the way time and space are treated in the
cinematic language, it is difficult and indeed impossible to limit a particular film to a
“misreading” of only one other film. The multiplicity of scenes and of possibilities of
quotation by means of diverse cinematic components directs the viewer to intertextual
connections and to multi-layered “misreading”. Thus, for example, in this study Les
Quatre Cents Coups is seen as a combined “misreading” of Zéro de conduite, Der
Blaue Engel, Sommaren Med Monika/Summer With Monika, and Pinocchio; and Jules
et Jim is seen as a “misreading” of Vertigo, Citizen Kane and La Ronde.
“Misreading” vs. “Miswriting”
While Bloom sees “miswriting” as a synonym for “misreading” and uses these two
terms in order to augment the identity between reading and writing, between criticism
and poetry, the present study claims that there is room for a distinction between the
two terms. This distinction is relevant principally when referring to different cases of
“misreading”. In the one case we refer to the struggle with the “anxiety of influence”,
which is an expression of the desire to be an influence, rather than to be influenced,
but not necessarily to rebel or to change the language of the cinema. For example, La
Nuit Américaine as a “misreading” of La Règle Du Jeu expresses Truffaut’s desire to
revive the cinema of Renoir, rather than to rebel against it and to define an alternative
to it. In the other case, however, we refer to a rebellion and an endeavor to outline an
alternative cinematic path to that taken by the revered father. For example, La Nuit
Américaine as a “misreading” of The Bad and the Beautiful and A Star is Born rebels
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 12
against them and defines an alternative cinema to the classical Hollywood cinema – a
cinema in which the director is the sole “auteur” of the film, in contrast to the
Hollywood cinema where the producer and the star are the dominant figures in the
shaping of the film. In such cases we will not content ourselves with the term
“misreading”, but will specifically employ the term “miswriting”. Going on from this
distinction, La Nuit Américaine will be interpreted as a “misreading” of La Règle Du
Jeu, and as a “miswriting” of The Bad and the Beautiful, A Star is Born and Singin’ in
the Rain.
Bloom’s theory thus serves as a major tool for the understanding of Truffaut’s
intertextuality, but the study proposes a number of emendations and extensions in
order to describe the multi-layered activation of intertextuality in Truffaut’s oeuvre:
1. In most of the cases, Truffaut’s wrestling with the greatest is not denied, and is
made perceptible.
2. Self-quotation is used by Truffaut for purposes of appropriation and self-
canonization. In this case intertextuality serves Truffaut as an instrument of
canonization, even though there is no point in speaking about “anxiety of influence”
when Truffaut quotes himself.
3. On many occasions a film is a “misreading: of more than one other film.
4. The terms “misreading” and “miswriting” are not employed here as synonyms
that emphasize the identity between the process of creation and the process of
interpretation, but as distinct terms that express different intertextual dynamics. The
case of “miswriting” – of a rebellion that concludes in an innovation and the creation
of an alternative – is a rarer one, while the case of “misreading” – of a struggle
without expanding the boundaries of the language – is more prevalent.
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 13
The study shows that the textual relations between Truffaut’s films and the
Hollywood classics are complex, and range from veneration to rebellion and an
endeavor to crystallize a cinematic alternative. Truffaut employed intertextuality as a
tool for defining a cinematic canon, for superseding the canon that had been accepted
before him, and for transforming a canon of films into a canon of directors.
Furthermore, by means of intertextuality, Truffaut positioned himself and his
colleagues of the “New Wave” in the historical order of the cinematic heritage. An
intertextual analysis of his films enables the researcher to examine Truffaut and the
“New Wave” movement in their historical context and in relation to the development
of the cinematic language.
To sum up, Truffaut employed intertextuality in order to consolidate a cinematic
canon, to wrestle with the “greatest among his predecessors”. Moreover, it is
important to emphasize that this struggle was not limited to an ahistorical
psychological interaction of the Bloomian kind, but had important historical
ramifications: Truffaut’s struggle with cinematic currents and movements which had
changed the face of cinema, such as the Soviet montage school, German
Expressionism, Italian Neo-Realism, and of course Hollywood cinema. The
quotations and allusions were a tool that enabled him to struggle with opposed
cinematic approaches and to bridge between polar or antithetical conceptions, in order
to consolidate a distinctive personal cinematic language. His shattering of the
cinematic codes was essential for the creation of alternative codes. This process,
which extended through Truffaut’s entire cinematic oeuvre, is evidence that beside his
colleagues of the “New Wave” as well as other filmmakers of his period, Truffaut
shaped and extended the cinematic language by means of intertextual tools.
From "François Truffaut The Man Who Loved Films" a book by Aner Preminger 14