在電影史上，「向大師致敬」的電影比比皆是，然而對於此一類型的研究並不多見，目前僅見賴奇和庫茲羅維兩人的論文。然而兩者的研究僅著重於電影的分類方式，缺乏對於致敬意義的探討，因此無法掌握「致敬電影」如何才能確實呈現導演的致敬之意這個問題。而德希達對於他自己如何向列維納斯致敬的思考，則提供解決這個問題的可行路徑。德希達指出，要避免與他所真正想對列維納斯所致敬的列維納斯的倫理結構相衝突，就無法依循傳統的敬意表達方式，而必須去嘗試召喚產生敬意時的原初經驗。唯有如此，才能有效達到真正的致敬。這個論點成為本文理解致敬電影的起點。此外，本文亦嘗試對於侯孝賢的《珈琲時光》和德尼的《巴黎日和》這兩部對小津安二郎的致敬之作進行討論。這兩部致敬電影都不適用於賴奇和庫茲羅維對致敬電影的認定。因此，藉由從德希達出發的對致敬電影的理解，本文試圖掌握這兩部電影所具有的致敬意涵。

What is a homage film? Although there are many films which pay homage to a master in the history of cinema, very few researchers focus on this specific genre. Thomas Leitch and Anton Karl Kozlovic are two pioneers in this new field of genre analysis, but they are interested only in the classification of homage film and thus ignore the genre’s main question, that is, how a film expresses the director’s intention to pay homage. To answer the question, this paper borrows Derrida’s idea of homage. In his discussion of how to pay homage to Levinas, Derrida offers a new way to conceptualize the issue: a homage text proposes to recall the primordial experience in which the Other caused one’s respect. The paper discusses in detail two films that pay homage to Yasujirō Ozu—Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s Café Lumière and Claire Denis’s 35 Shots of Rum—in order to examine and explore the value of this new approach, that is, a Derridian understanding of homage film.