[.ca] Derrida

Moving Human Portrait; Astute Philosophically--Excellent:
Derrida is a philosopher who focuses especially on the implications of the fact that reality has a future. In other words, the ultimate state of things is not yet settled--and never will be! This is equally true of reality as a whole and of an individual life. The central question of human action is how to live in a way that addresses this futurity. How in dealing with ourselves, and how in dealing with others, can we both respect the specificity that our lives, our reality, has already taken on, and simultaneously be open to the indeterminateness and unexpectedness of the future, a future in which we may well be confronted with circumstances that require of us that we radically transform ourselves, that we change our expectations and prejudices in order to address what comes. How can we responsibly address the singularity, the specificity and the openness of a life, or of our world? These are the deepest and most demanding questions of philosophy, as they are the deepest and most demanding questions of life. This film, engages these questions by taking the singular life of the man, Jacques Derrida, as its theme. The film presents (so far as a short, non-technical film can) the thought of this man--a central dimension of his specificity--juxtaposed with other specifics of his life (his family, his home), and with the mortal, personal singularity of his existence, as a way of invoking these philosophical questions about the nature of a life and its meaning. This film is provocative, intelligent and moving. I recommend it highly, and I especially recommend it for use in university courses that touch on these philosophical themes.

Where Was Oprah?:
I recently attended a showing of "Derrida", a biographical documentary on the French philosopher, Jaques Derrida, who is famous for "deconstructionism". A californian film crew follows Derrida as he gives lectures, answers interviewers' questions and discusses aspects of his life and philosophy. It's not often that we get to see documentaries of famous living philosophers in America, so I was quite enthusiastic about viewing this film. Derrida observes towards the end of his film that this documentary will have more to say about the film crew than about him, Jacques Derrida, because it will be the film crew to edit the shootings and decide "which Jacques Derrida" is to be presented. If that is indeed the case, then the movie tells us its creators were young, inexperienced, not well-versed in philosophy; they missed a golden opportunity to meaningfully explore the life and philosophy of the last great post-structuralist. At regular intervals, difficult passages from Derrida's writings flash on the screen, leaving us little time to ponder them. Sound bytes dont work well for Derrida! The interviewers questions are haltingly broad, "What do you have to say on the subject of love?", haltingly personal, "Tell us about how you fell in love with your wife?", or haltingly stupid, "which philosopher would you have liked as a mother?". To his credit, Derrida either refuses to answer such questions, or reformulates them into intelligent ones. At one point Derrida begins to make interesting comments on the myth of "Narcissus" and "Echo", obviously alluding to the relationship between "source" and "simulacra", but the interviwer fails to ask penetrating questions to draw him out on the matter. After a family lunch, Derrida himself, turning the tables, asks an overly broad question of the interviewer: "What did you think of my family?". "Il sont tres gentils, tres chaleureux" is the response. I wonder if the irony of this was lost on Derrida and the film crew. We see Derrida eat, get a haircut and meet friends...a warm fuzzy to remind us that Gallic philosophers are, after all, just like us. In short, if Americans suddenly took more interest in the lives of French philosophers than Britney Spears, this film would be on "People" magazine's recommended list. Tant pis. -Thomas Seay

Strengths:
This film has left me verbally speachless. Having the remote in my hand was an asset so i could pause and reflect on a scene, or snippit. The editing of this documentary leaves something to be explored. People have knocked this film for it's 'shortcomings' in editing and broad questioning. Isn't this one of the basics of deconstruction? Taking somethin broad and breaking it down, to what and then why? Let me bring it back up to broad... brilliant!

Moments:
This film had a couple of moments which held interest, but for the most part I found it extremely superficial and well, narcissistic on the part of the film makers. I am not by any means an expert on Derrida, and was looking forward to learning a bit more about him and his philosophy. I came away from it feeling as if the filmmakers finished this thing congratulating themselves on making a film about an important philosopher, but not having actually bothered to investigate much about what he has written and said. Say what you might about Derrida, he seems to have a curious and thoroughly investigative spirit, which is more than you can say for the boorish creaters of this movie. I was disappointed.

Dvd is best format for this film:
watch this with another interested person. utilize english subtitles for hearing impaired as to not miss a word. utilize the rewind button when getting lost. push the pause button and look at the words. stop to ponder and discuss it. continue on in this manner. I appreciated Derrida's sportsmanship and playfulness, yet respected his intensity and commitment to who he is. Watch this critically and rigorously yet remain open. See the "center of focus" shift not by any conscious manipulation on the part of the subject or the filmmakers, but by the relationship had between them and thus the relationship all of this is having with you. Enjoy this. This man is a gift and this film is brilliant. I never wnated to read Derrida's puzzling prose before but this changed my mind and I want to start with the book "Archive Fever" as to me it seems so apt.