Derrida

Rating:
Summary: More entertaining than, um, philsophically stimulating
Review: I really enjoyed this one. It would be especially good to see right after reading Derrida's own Archive Fever, which this film draws from both by quoting some of its passages, and by "deconstructing" the filmmakers' own efforts to get at who and (or perhaps versus) what Derrida is. I agree with a reviewer for The Guardian, who wrote that the filmmakers "produce an enthralling, playful film that constantly frustrates our desire to know the 'truth' about this man, while deconstructing the very format of the biography in a manner that Derrida would doubtless give his blessing to." And on the DVD's extra features, he does just that, at a New York opening of the film.

Those looking for penetrating and critical analysis of Derrida's work and ideas should go elsewhere. As Derrida basically says at one point in the film, such people should "do their homework" and go READ. The music works very well, and many of the ragged, unedited edges purposely left in the film extract a playfulness from Derrida, and from his philosophical methodology itself. So in that sense it's about Derrida and his ideas, but it's also about how biographical efforts themselves (which we all make when we "get to know" anyone in our lives) are fraught with illusions and impossibilities.

My favorite parts were about love; the filmmakers ask him to say something about it, and he says he can't, but then he does, nicely deconstructing the question, of course, separating "who" we think love from "what" we love them for. Sure, the film is a hagiographic portrait, but ultimately, I think we're being asked a good question: what do those who revere Derrida love him for? Shouldn't they separate the two? but if they do, how well can they do so?

Good companion film: Notebook on Cities and Clothes.

Rating:
Summary: Where Was Oprah?
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: superficial voyeurism
Review: this documentary is even worse than expected. the filmmakers/interviewers show little respect for Derrida. for instance, they throw questions too private, such as Derrida's sexual life. this is so embarrassing and rude. they also push Derrida to summarize his philosophy. it is awful, because no philospher is able to, is obligated to summarize her/his own philosophy. we cannot ask them to simplify themselves; we can only hope they become more complicated. i have to say this documentary does Derrida violence. it is so obvious that the filmmakers/interviewers do not prepare themselves with Derrida's works before they make the film, because they keep asking unnecessary, irrelevant, and intrusive questions. i am surprised that Derrida tolerates these filmmakers. but he looks so obviously annoyed and impatient towards the end of the documentary, if you have the heart to finish watching this violent work.

Rating:
Summary: immature
Review: This film could've been a lot better--let's hope someone with a bit more philosophical aplomb and cinematagraphic acuity runs into Derrida! A start, but certainly not the last word on the philospher. In fact, one gets the feeling throughout the film that Derrida himself thinks this project will inevitably crash into gaseous cliches and unharnessed energy. Really, one is better off sneaking into NYU and hearing him speak...

Rating:
Summary: Moments
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Strengths
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: Strengths
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: of love, death, justice and the Other
Review: This is an incredible dvd about an extraordinary philosopher. Derrida, the man, comes across paradoxically as robust and vulnerable. In private moments he seems almost sad, lonely. Dick and Zierig Kofman did a great job editing the film and the cinematography is challenging. The narration includes quotes from his works and are truly beautiful passages, many from Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression.
The film is touching, as when his wife, Marguerite (a psychoanalyst), kisses him as she leaves to work and the film shows her leave. Another moving moment is when Derrida is lecturing in South Africa and a student challenges his concept of forgiveness. Certainly the film has its humorous moments. But death, justice and the Other are undercurrents which are not lost on Dick and Zierig Kofman. If you liked or respected Derrida when he was alive you should see this film (dvd), made all the more poignant now that he has "left us". But he has not left us with only loss...he leaves us with a corpus of work that will endure the ages and give his name a place among the greatest thinkers the world has known. "Deconstruction is already [and always]at work". This does not change because he is gone. It merely keeps the work[s] in motion. The dvd has interviews with Derrida (only available on the dvd) and also a question and answer session with the philosopher and the film-makers at the film's opening in New York. Thanks.

Rating:
Summary: A vehicle for Derrida to perform his philosophy -- beautiful
Review: this is the first amazon review i have ever written, but i felt compelled to answer some of the criticisms posted about this film. the major complaints seem to be:

1. the film is superficial. the intermingling/irreducibility of structure, text, context and "reality" (interviews) is, arguably, the heart of derrida's work on language. for another performative introduction, read "limited, inc" or, if you want to get more in depth, try "of grammatology."

2. the film is overly personal/demanding/"violent" -- read derrida's more political books, particularly "the work of mourning." making explicit one's own position in relation to philosophical questions is key to his work.

if have read derrida and you don't like it for whatever reason, you probably will not enjoy this film. if you haven't read any derrida, give the film a try -- it might prove to be a window into a whole branch of philosophy that you never would have explored otherwise. if you think you have read, understood and enjoyed at least two books by derrida and you don't like this film, then you should go back and read those books again, because you missed some major concepts.

Rating:
Summary: Derrida as Ozzie Osbourne
Review: This mockumentary is guaranteed to attract some interest, since Derrida, whatever the audience may know of him, is rather telegenic. Unfortunately, he gets the Ozzie Osbourne treatment here - the philosopher as the slightly uncooperative star of his own reality show, unable to shake the camera crew for long.

You learn how he finds his house key, how he prepares a snack, and how he puts on his coat. You see his wife, some of his friends, tight smiles, trying to stay out of the picture. What you don't get much of is the man doing what made him famous - and even less an exploration of his career. Who or what does he read, talk about, care about, when he is not forced, by the insistent camera, to answer slightly embarrassing questions?

To give him credit, Derrida works hard to contribute something intelligent to the show, as for instance when he reflects on the impoliteness of philosophical biographies. Indeed, this stalker movie makes you wonder what they actually wanted from Derrida. Kirby Dick never got any of the dozens of people he filmed to tell a good Derrida joke, and Amy Kofman's flirtations with the tan and trim thinker will make the audience squirm.

If you want to see Derrida talk about film, watch 'Ghost Dance' or his television interviews with Stiegler. If you want to hear him reflect on his career, watch the French documentary Safaa Fathy made with him. But if you ever wondered what might happen when you put a professor into a kind of reverse witness protection program, as Warhol did with Ondine, then watch this DVD. Beware though: the heavy-handed use of voice-overs may make you sad that the years of footage and access Amy Kofman and got in the end amount to little more than having the fan put the master's words into her own mouth.