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


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


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,


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


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.


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:


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.


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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.


Documents

Francois Truffaut - The Man who Loved films