I wasn’t able to see Derrida until it was released on DVD, but now I’m glad. Much like his own writings, Derrida is so complex I found myself frequently rewinding – and sometimes re-rewinding – in order to keep up with what was going on. Even after it all, I’m not sure I caught it all. Though the need to rewind is often a detriment to a film’s success, I quite enjoyed it here. Derrida’s writings take multiple rereadings to understand, so a film about him ought equally to demand multiple rewatchings.

A lot of different ideas are brought up throughout the short documentary, particularly those of the concept of documentary and biography itself. I’m always amazed that in shows such as “The Real World”, the relentless presence of the cameras isn’t a factor in the subject’s lives. It probably is and they just don’t show it; but maybe it’s just because people are really good at being fake. This is exactly the notion to which Derrida objects, the unreality of the alleged reality. We never forget that this is a filmed documentary, Derrida is always reminding us.

This leads to further ideas about biography and its limits. At one point, Derrida quotes Heidegger’s comment that all you can really say about Aristotle’s life is that he was born, thought and died – everything else is just an anecdote. Immediately following this we get a string of anecdotes about Derrida, as if that were all we could say about him. The filmmakers seem to be constantly playing with Derrida, attempting to transcend or “deconstruct” the line that he creates between documentary and reality.

Derrida also includes frequent references to the Other and our relationship to it. My favorite parts include comments from Derrida on forgiveness that could have come from Kierkegaard (in fact, they probably did). I was glad to see the Other given such a prominent place in the discussion; I think it brought out the humanity in a Derrida which is usually seen only on the page.

Despite the presence of multiple ideas and multiple anecdotes (including one humorous bit about Derrida not wanting to have to explain ‘differance’ to his mother), I never felt like any of it came together cohesively. Maybe there’s some underlying string that I missed, but it felt like more of a montage of Derrida’s life and thought – a montage that leaves us with less of a distinct understanding than a hazy familiarity with who this man is. Considering, however, that that’s the effect that frequently comes from reading Derrida’s work, perhaps it’s the most appropriate way to approach his life.

Documentary

 
 
 

Year:

MPAA Rating: Running Time: Date Written:  
2002 G 1:24 05/04  
film | music | books | links