"does not like Truffaut cut out, throw away, discard. Even in his films there is this tension nostalgic against everything that the fiction is forced inevitably to delete. Telling also means cutting out, refuse bribes and assumptions, sacrificing other fictions: he seems to prove even a bit 'of nostalgia for those cases, those people, those letters, involved in a movie and deserted from the eye of the cinema, no one will deign or more than one look.
Maybe he knows quell'inquietante testimony of Marshall McLuhan who, having undergone some movies of Africans do not literate, he discovered with surprise and interest that they paid attention especially to the people who disappeared from the screen, were especially sensitive to their gradual exclusion : where did that story have had?
So - McLuhan said - we were forced to rethink the stories in a different way, putting in a lot of things for us were not necessary. We had to follow the characters along the way, until he had turned the corner. He could not just exit the screen.
An anecdote certainly would have liked to Truffaut. He, too, in his letters, never canceled. This raises a question, testing, and answers his own question, perhaps in a postscript. He admits a mistake, but it's not hidden at all, we superimposed a correction, it leaves a trail.
So that is more explicit with Helen Scott:
I'm sorry I started my answer aggressively, without having found the courage to knock it off and start over.
sloth is not true, her: she loves the feelings too, to leave potersene casually. Stratify prefer: the feelings, such as scripts, are the steps, and you can improve. "
From: " Sisyphus happy or The man who loved the letters " , introductory essay by Mark Vallone a portrait. Letters 1945-1984 Fran Cois Truffaut, edited by Sergio Little Grebes, Einaudi, Torino 1989, pp. LIV-LV.
0 comments:
Post a Comment