He believed films were repositories for empathy. “If you can sit with someone else’s life,” he’d say, “for two hours, with all their contradictions, you return a different person.” He didn’t mean this as sentimentality; his lessons were exacting. Empathy, he argued, required attention—the ability to hold your view and then make room for the image’s own logic. To watch a film was not to possess it but to witness it, to be present with its choices without immediately translating them into opinion.

He was not immune to contradictions. He loved film history but sometimes misremembered dates. He extolled courage yet would sit out a rowdy midnight showing because too much noise distracted him. He called himself incurable—“addicted to light, sound, abrupt endings”—and indeed he chased premieres across borders, a pilgrim in cheap shoes. He fell in love twice—once with a set designer who left mid-shoot to travel, once with a sound editor who promised to stay and did for a while—and both times the city devoured the ordinary domesticities of a relationship. He never had children, but the young cinephiles he mentored often felt like kin.

His legend will always be part practical, part fable. People will tell the story of the man who loved films so much he made a temple of a single-screen theater, and in telling it they will do the thing he taught them best: they will look again.