
By Michele Diomà
Five years ago, when the WILD FILMMAKER adventure began, I wrote down a list of names of cinema personalities I hoped to interview one day. At the very top of the list of film critics was Serge Toubiana, for the joy I felt reading the biography of François Truffaut he co-wrote with Antoine de Baecque.
Today is a special day for the WILD FILMMAKER Community, whose mission, beyond discovering independent filmmakers from all over the world, has always been to help preserve the memory of cinema history. For me, it’s a dream come true to welcome to the WILD FILMMAKER Community Monsieur Cinéma himself, Serge Toubiana!

Who is Serge Toubiana?
I am a former film critic (for Cahiers du Cinéma, from 1974 to 2000). I was the Director of the Cinémathèque Française (from 2003 to 2015), and the author of numerous radio programs on cinema (for France Culture). I have also directed a few documentary films (on François Truffaut, Isabelle Huppert, Amos Gitai, Gérard Depardieu) and written several books: a biography of François Truffaut co-written with Antoine de Baecque (1996, Gallimard), a book on Yasujiro Ozu co-written with the novelist Nathalie Azoulai — Ozu et nous (2021, Arléa), and other works such as Maurice Pialat, Les fantômes du souvenir (2016, Grasset), L’Amie américaine (about Helen Scott, 2020, Stock), Les bouées jaunes (2018, Stock), the correspondence between François Truffaut and Helen Scott (1960–1965) — Mon petit Truffe, ma grande Scottie (2023, Denoël), Le fils de la maîtresse (2022, Arléa), and most recently On ne connaît du film que la scène des adieux (2025, Calmann-Lévy).

The biography of François Truffaut, which you wrote with Antoine de Baecque, deeply fascinated me. What does the filmography of the director of The 400 Blows represent to you?
François Truffaut is a filmmaker I discovered during my adolescence in Grenoble, where my family lived in the 1960s. I discovered his films (Stolen Kisses, Bed and Board, Two English Girls and the Continent, etc.) at the same time as those of Jean-Luc Godard (Pierrot le Fou, Masculin Féminin, Two or Three Things I Know About Her, La Chinoise, etc.).
My feelings were mixed: with Truffaut, I felt that his films contributed to my emotional education especially through the character of Antoine Doinel, played brilliantly by Jean-Pierre Léaud, while with Godard, his work shaped my political and artistic education. The combination of the two was immensely stimulating for me.

In the early 1970s, I moved to Paris to study cinema at Censier–Paris 3, where Cahiers du Cinéma critics (Serge Daney, Pascal Bonitzer, Pascal Kané, Jacques Aumont) were teaching. I began writing for the magazine during its politically engaged period (1972–1974), when it was openly Marxist-Leninist and enthusiastic about the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It wasn’t the best period in its history, but I learned a lot — especially from Serge Daney, who became my mentor.
In 1974, Daney took over the magazine to steer it back on track, breaking away from ideological dogmatism. I helped him as his assistant or deputy. In 1975, I convinced him to reconcile Cahiers du Cinéma with François Truffaut, with whom the magazine had fallen out — his films were no longer covered. We met Truffaut at his office at Les Films du Carrosse, and that meeting was decisive for me. From then on, I worked to restore the relationship between Truffaut and Cahiers du Cinéma, which I eventually succeeded in doing, as evidenced by the long interview the filmmaker gave the magazine in June 1980.
A lasting relationship and deep fascination grew from there for a man who was both secretive and generous. His death in October 1984 was a terrible shock to cinephiles worldwide. I felt as though a life and a body of work had been cut short and as though I had lost someone essential. Since his death, I have constantly sought to fill that void, that absence, that mourning. That’s why I wanted to write his biography. Antoine de Baecque had the same project, and in 1993 we decided to combine our efforts. It was published in 1996 by Gallimard and translated into many languages. It was a monumental task, based on a deep analysis of his work and his archives. Truffaut kept everything, which helped enormously. But one also had to possess an intimate understanding of his work, his family story, and his inner world.

Some filmmakers, rarely mentioned today, were nevertheless crucial to the evolution of cinema. One of them is Jean Vigo. Do you think it is possible today to renew the storytelling of past cinema to bring younger audiences closer to film history?
I’ll answer this question by connecting it to your previous one: François Truffaut was a passionate admirer of Jean Vigo. This is evident in the recurring presence of Jean Dasté, an actor from Zero for Conduct and L’Atalante, in several of Truffaut’s films — The Wild Child, The Green Room, The Man Who Loved Women.

Having directed the Cinémathèque Française for about a dozen years (2003–2015), I believe it is both necessary and vital to screen films from the past, such as those by Vigo, in the best possible conditions, with restored copies, to introduce them to younger audiences. Today, there is a genuine enthusiasm for heritage cinema, both in cinematheques and festivals, such as the Cannes Film Festival’s “Cannes Classics” section , as well as on cinephile streaming platforms.
We are fortunate in France to have this culture and passion for classic cinema from around the world, and to live within a dynamic and vibrant cinephile tradition.
With artificial intelligence, Orson Welles’ “The Magnificent Ambersons” is being restored. What is your opinion on cinema’s embrace of AI?
I tend to be wary of this obsession with “retouching”, re-editing or altering films, especially when the original authors are no longer alive. It’s crucial to preserve the integrity of the works their duration, format, and artistic truth.

I am convinced that Artificial Intelligence will profoundly transform our lives on every level: health, behavior, lifestyle, systems of representation, even our literary and artistic passions. But we must be careful never to “tamper” with the truths of the past.

World cinema today seems unable to renew itself aesthetically: we are overwhelmed by remakes and films that endlessly reference the classics. Do you think this reflects a lack of courage from filmmakers, or is the industry simply uninterested in promoting experimentation?
I don’t need to draw you a picture you can see, as I do, that the world is in full transition. We don’t really know where it’s all heading, which breeds anxiety. Young people live with this anxiety in their own way in a kind of collective headlong rush. Can we really blame them? I don’t think so.
Cinema today is not confident enough in its future to be inventive, carefree, or self-assured. Major studios are on edge, fearful of being consumed, as many already have been, by massive digital and industrial conglomerates. Mainstream American cinema survives through its franchises — Disney, Marvel, and the like. Independent cinema survives, but barely.
The only thing that truly interests me are independent filmmakers, those who, in extremely difficult conditions, continue to carve their path on the margins of the system. This is true in America, Europe, and Asia alike. Today, it takes real courage, both artistic and political, to persist and make great films.
I recently saw Richard Linklater’s Nouvelle Vague — twice, in fact — and was amazed by it. It recaptures the youth, irreverence, and creative spirit that Godard and the original Nouvelle Vague had at the start. There’s even a touch of “amateurism” that I find refreshing — a brilliant sense of improvisation, values I believe should be rehabilitated.
Auteur cinema, whether French or otherwise, suffers too often from an “air of seriousness” that makes it neither appealing nor engaging. Only young filmmakers, women and men alike, will be able to reconnect with that spirit, a blend of talent and lightheartedness.

What do you dislike about contemporary cinema, and what would you change?
Cinema has become or seems to have become a grave affair, too serious, perhaps because of the state of the world, the numerous global conflicts, and cultural policies that haven’t evolved in forty years.
As a result, auteur cinema lives on its past achievements, anxious about its future, often defensive, lacking in spontaneity and lightness. One symptom of this is the increasing length of films as if filmmakers (writers and directors) fear being misunderstood, and no longer trust cinema itself, in its very form, to tell their stories. To be continued.

















