What is our range of matters, for Truffaut is variation of hues. A tone is a tone system, with the tone, painting, strength and depth of all parts of a painting, and overall harmony, particularly with regard to color and chiaroscuro. So in light of this assertion, Truffaut is a system, a set and each film, for more diverse than it appears, is a part that fits through an adhesive. But what is that adhesive or, rather, that reference toward which each film element always this constant? It is spinning fine, the other aspect that interests me in the work of Truffaut: literature. And when I say life bookish literature, book culture, books, or delivery passion for literature, even literature for solace or salvation.
Characters in his films says that he lives to write, correlates with the very life of the director confessed that he only lived to film, the rest it was impossible or indifferent. Moreover, something seemed out of the film, Truffaut, a betrayal. Call this delivery, the priesthood, madness. But yes, even the damage caused thereby, alienation, deviation. Without turns, unsuited to reality, with poetic words: dream, unreal, fantasy.
Who writes this is a writer from about thirty-five years. Since little literature has been a kind of filter or lens. It is impossible to separate my life from literature, with its paradise and hell. Sure, Truffaut is a filmmaker and I writer, art shelters us but they are two crafts and something different between us. Truffaut appeals to the literature and I love film, but what is for him and what literature is for me the film? Leo: Truffaut's relationship with literature is like a fetish, the replacement of one thing for another, an activity that leads to who plays in her madness, or at least that not based on reality.