Derrida implies the irony of himself being filmed from the beginning of the film, referring to cinema verite. Derrida and the film crew both realize that what they are capturing is not the truth, and not a real documentation of Derrida’s real life. Derrida does not believe in one “true” self-image. He points out several times the cameras, and how they are a mockery and not projecting what is the truth. The directors realize the irony of the film, and how what is being shot is not the truth. This is best seen when Derrida is talking about how if the film crew were not there, he would stay in his pajamas, as he does most days until he actually leaves the house. In an ideal documentary, the directors would want him to stay in the pajamas all day to show a sense of reality and authenticity. The directors probably wished they could capture that normalness of Derrida. However, he knows that the whole thing is a kind of misrepresentation, so he decides to get dressed for the filming.
The format of the biography is so that you are aware of the falseness of the movie. The editors could have cut out all of the time Derrida brings attention to the fakeness of the cameras, but they chose to leave it in, furthering the very idea of Derrida. The style and the layout of the film definitely brings forth an acknowledgement of Derrida’s ideas. First of all, it is a bit disconcerting, with all the subtitles, voiceovers, and shaky camera shots. Jacques Derrida’s ideas are always revolving and progressing, and a little bit confusing, much like the tone of the movie. I think the best word to describe the tone of the movie is deviation. One minute, we see Derrida lighting a pipe, strolling across a street playfully. The next minute, we hear this voiceover of a monotone woman quoting him, whose voice makes me want to fall asleep. I think this layout of the movie intends to make us think that there is no one true “self” version of Derrida; he is both the joyful little Frenchman and also the voice behind the thoughtful words.
As I said before, there are two very distinct versions of Derrida we see in the film. There is the one who, if I can be blunt, is the coolest old guy I’ve ever seen. He walks down the street smoking a pipe, recklessly crosses traffic, and bumbles around his house. I can relate to him. I think that this is why the film works so well. Who would have thought an amazing philosopher could be so normal and cool? Then, through the film we see the intellectual side of Derrida. One way is through the voiceovers, which quote him directly. Another is through the interviews with the film crew, which show a more hands-on, personal point of view. These parts are my favorite, because we can see him thinking in action. Then, we also see him interacting with others, like at lectures. The intellectual side to him is obviously brilliant, and I like when we can see him talking his way through his ideas the best.
Derrida seems quite resistant to the interviewing process. To be honest, I found it entertaining when Derrida would laugh and scoff at the interviewer’s questions. Derrida does not seem to want to waste time with questions that are dull to him, like when Amy asked him his opinion on love. I think that if you asked anyone, not only a brilliant philosopher to describe love, they would not really be able to. At times like this, Derrida looks as though he is over the interview process, but then he will come back with a brilliant answer, like his opinion on love, and how we love either a “who” or “what”.
Derrida has a strong grasp on the philosophy of life, but when he is introduced to our current cultural mediums he struggles in understanding the correlation we have with media. When the sitcom, Seinfeld, is addressed in the documentary, Derrida comments to read and do your homework. He feels that there is little to no need for the popular media we are accustomed to. In today’s world we use media and cultural phenomena to help us grasp ideas. We use it to understand more complex thoughts.
This Youtube video is an extra from the dvd. He discusses the way Americans will see the film, and how his image will be distorted according to them. Chillingly, he also says "the film will survive me". The video shows Derrida's wisdom, and overall affectionate side, which I have come to adore throughout the movie! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otV7OHgrO4A
Extra Credit:
Scritti Politti started out as a left-wing British rock group. Over time, their genre changed to pop. Green Gartside, the lead singer, was extremely influenced by readings in the field of deconstruction. The lyrics of their songs, in particular Jacques Derrida, address political and cultural messages based on deconstructive readings. The lyrics of the song, “Jacques Derrida”, by Scritti Politti, are part of a love song.
I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida
Read a page and know what I need to
Take apart my baby's heart
I'm in love
I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida
Read a page and know what I need to
Take apart my baby's heart
I'm in love
It is about loving someone, and trying to figure out their feelings. This verse is specifically talking about Derrida. Literally, it is saying that the writer read Derrida’s work, and he now knows how to deconstruct and win over the girl’s heart. By deconstructing this structure of the heart, he has found true meaning. I googled the lyrics and found an anecdote about how after Derrida heard the song, he invited the lead singer, Green Gartside to dinner in Paris. I would love to have heard their conversation!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDocumentary films in general assume the truthful depiction of a reality: they document the real life of people as they are or of certain events as they were lived by certain people. They use the camera as a tool to presumably make a life or an event visible to the public. The camera though, through entering the lives of these people, will change them to a degree. It will serve as an object to which the subjects will interpolate themselves, and therefore what will be ultimately documented will not be the people that attracted the filmmaker's attention but an interpolated-to -the-camera version of them. Cinema Verité exists to acknowledge its subject as an interpolation to the camera rather than assume that it is documenting an unchanged subject. In saying that "the format of the biography is so that you are aware of the falseness of the movie" you are implying that there is an essential self of Derrida that escapes the movie, and this makes it fake. It is interesting to notice how this conclusion contradicts Derrida's philosophy. He would say that there is no essential Derrida to be captured in a documentary. There is no center, a referent ad infinitum, a simulacrum. There is no essential self but rather different Derridas with or without the presence of the camera, joyfully crossing the street, or in his studio writing and so on. None of them is more of an essential self than the others. They are all elements of the play.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, it was quite apparent that Derrida was resistant to the interview process. And as you also mentioned, when it appears as though Derrida is tired of the interview, he will come up with a brilliant description on a word such as "love". However, I do not believe he is resistant because he finds the question dull, or considers answering it a waste of time. On the contrary, when Derrida questions his own methods of interpretation and the nature of interpretation, he becomes flustered. The trouble, I think, for Derrida, is the pressure to define a single abstract word. A deconstruction believes that all specific details are a distraction from the generalized notion of the meaning of a word. Providing a definition of a word would mean using language in a way that is governed by the system of language. That is, he would be constructing the meaning of the word "love"—the opposite of deconstruction. This is how he arrives at his final answer, which begs the question: Do you love "who" or "what"? He also asks the same about forgiveness: "Do you forgive someone, or do you forgive someone something? We are left to recognize that the meaning of a word cannot be fixed. Even our own interpretations are fluid and can change. This is why I believe Derrida was so hesitant to answer the interviewer's questions. His answer will be documented and thus be considered the fixed meaning in a world where language is in perpetual flux.
I agree that we do use media and cultural phenomena to help us grasp ideas nowadays. After all, I believe we watched this documentary to help us learn more about Derrida and deconstruction. It is interesting that the film mentions Seinfeld which is a show that is critically acclaimed and attentive to details. Equally as interesting is that Derrida has never heard of Seinfeld. However, I don’t think that he necessarily has trouble understanding our correlation to the media but rather is just less interested in media than some. We see from the documentary that he has an extensive library and recommends that we read and do homework instead of watching television. But I think that media has become an important learning tool in our society. As you say, it is used to understand more complex thoughts. I think this is a somewhat natural thing in that we have to learn things which are simple and then move onto more difficult concepts and we understand everything in relation to something else. I also think that Derrida’s grasp on the philosophy of life would make it easy for him to transfer that grasp to the media if he was inclined to do so. Media offers a mimetic perspective in that it is an imitation of life in many ways. This also causes things to be lost in the translation of life to media much in the same way that aspects of Derrida are lost in relating his personality in a documentary form or some aspects are simply not represented in it.
ReplyDelete