“In real life we are thinking of multiple stories all the time. We are thinking of something in our head, we are listening to something someone is telling us, while we hear something on the radio. At the same time we are reading a sign and watching what other people are doing. We are taking all of these things in and are keeping it all straight. To me this process is much more interesting than having to pay attention to only on a story on a screen, especially when I can probably predict what’s going to happen anyway.”—Pat O’Neill
“We are excited to see someone ask, ‘Will you marry me?,’ whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see ‘Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?”—California State Court, on overturning California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage
"It’s fascinating to consider the similarities and the differences between François and Antoine," wrote Kent Jones in a 2003 essay for Criterion on Antoine and Colette (1962), the short film in which Antoine, all of 17, falls in love for the first time. Kent Jones notes that Truffaut has shifted the “cultural meeting ground” of the young lovers “from the cinematheque,” where Truffaut, at 17, fell for a girl named Liliane Litvin…
to the concert hall, the first of many replacements Truffaut would find for his chosen art form: literature in many films, theater in The Last Metro, pedagogy in The Wild Child , the dead in The Green Room  — interesting that Day for Night , the one movie in which Truffaut takes the cinema itself as his subject, is one of his tamest.
More intriguing is Antoine himself. Léaud at all ages seems at once more manic and concentrated than Truffaut, enraptured by his own insights and deeply, almost stubbornly alone. This feeling of recessiveness in the actor and his character are quite far from the young Truffaut, a wildly ambitious figure who enjoyed a meteoric rise in the world of arts and letters. His compulsive drive didn’t go into his characters, who tend to become lost in the thrall of their own obsessions. The drive went into the filmmaking, in an effort to render an image of that fleeting apparition known as human experience. Which he manages in this little film with amazing fluency and delicacy.
Which brings us, of course, to the unfair fact that mentions of Truffaut nearly always lead to mentions of Godard, whereas mentions of Godard can flourish on their own. Fate took Truffaut too young — he was 52 when he died in 1984 — and not only was that “triumphant arrival” not all that far behind him but it was also a double act. Fortunately — very fortunately — we were able to celebrate Godard’s 80th in December 2010 and just a week ago we were able to report the latest on his next film.
In 2008, I quoted from Ronald Bergan's introduction to his collection, François Truffaut: Interviews, and today’s a fine day to revisit that passage, leaving the final word for now to Truffaut himself: “[I]n stark contrast to the oeuvre of his erstwhile New Wave comrade, Jean-Luc Godard, Truffaut’s films are not overtly political in any way. ‘For right or wrong, I believe there is no art without paradox: now in the political film, there is no paradox, because already in the script, it is decided who is good and who is bad.’ … Truffaut’s rejection of current topics or fashions is not a conservative one, but the need to retain a freedom and purity of expression uncluttered by the zeitgeist. For him, the eternal theme of Love ‘is more important than social questions. It is the way to lead people to truth. There is more truth in sentimental relations than in social relations. There is more truth in the bedroom than in the office or the board room.’” (via Mubi)