Derrida (2002)
A solid, black, perfectly cut, perfectly
edged, perfectly cubed piece of onyx. That is this
film, "Derrida" in a nutshell. Functional yet impossibly
useless. Beautiful yet boring. Priceless yet worthless.
Existing in time and space yet totally devoid of any
reason to exist. Formed by nature yet for seemingly
no purpose. As impenetrable with a sledgehammer as
it is with a jeweler's tool.
The titular "Derrida" is Jacques
Derrida, a French philosopher who is apparently the
well-respected genius behind the idea of "deconstruction"
in philosophical terms. "Derrida" (the film) and Derrida
(the man) offer up only one interesting notion in
this entire film. I will present it for you now in
a way that is as simple and concise as I know how:
Within any system (or structure or concept or precept)
there lies the inherent flaw that will allow for its
destruction.
In other words, the force which
usually deconstructs or destroys something, is usually
NOT an "outside" force. Rather it is something that
has existed within the "thing" since its inception.
This is, no doubt, a brilliant and original idea.
But it hardly makes sitting through this obtuse, 90-minute
documentary worth the time and effort.
Derrida, and to a lesser extent
wife Marguerite who also appears here, opt from the
beginning of this film not to participate. They make
a conscious effort not to allow the filmmakers, who
are generally pretty inept, any entree into their
lives or thoughts or histories or motivations. Oh
sure, they allow the filmmakers in their house and
weeks to document their lives and Derrida's travels,
lectures, conferences and classes, but they don't
offer up a single insightful moment in this film.
It is exactly as if Derrida decided that he would
not participate in the film.
This concept is explained, in a
very roundabout manner, by Derrida. In his own way,
he explains the old adage about documentary films
which had its start in anthropology. This idea basically
implies that it is impossible to document something
because simply by studying something you change its
nature. This attempt to document Derrida on film,
the philosopher assumes, will inherently be flawed
and an inadequate representation of him. He therefore
attempts to be impenetrable and by doing so helps
to give us a film that sheds almost absolutely no
light on him whatsoever.
This is a film that should be viewed
by anyone considering attempting to make a documentary.
What if you shot a film and nobody came?
Derrida does not do anything in
this film that anyone who is interested in him could
possible care one iota about (other than walk and
talk). It works as a documentary only because it contains
a seemingly permanently recorded document exposing
Derrida's physical appearance, voice, mannerisms and
mode of dress. Even the latter, as Derrida' tells
us, is a false impression as he never dresses when
at home normally, opting for PJ's and a robe, but
appears here in button up- shirt and slacks for the
camera.
As a gay man myself, Derrida, in
this film, did offer me one more interesting note.
In one of the film's few introspective and honest
moments, Derrida tells of being a Jew in the early
days of Nazi Germany and being expelled from school
and being angry, upset and confused by the hatred
that confronted him as a Jew. Sent to a school for
Jews only, run by Jews and attended by Jews, Derrida,
who became ever vigilant in pointing out and attempting
to eradicate anti-Semitism, also felt completely ill
at ease when surrounded by other Jews. This is a naked
and bold admission and one that I, as a gay man, can
certainly relate to. I am proud to be gay and try
to fight homophobia and hatred wherever I find it.
Yet, at the same time, I have never truly been completely
comfortable or felt totally at home when surrounded
by gay people. I'm not sure what the relevance of
this is to me or to Derrida but there it is nonetheless.
Anyway... The filmmaking here is
either the most inept or the most brilliant documentary
work I've ever seen. Faced with an incompliant subject
and not receiving one bit of help from his family
and friends, the filmmakers here opt to use the experience
to project Derrida's philosophy onto a film. That
is, the downfall of the film is the flaw which is
most inherent to the film: Its subject. "Derrida,"
the film, is a deconstructed documentary. Sadly, it
is not seemingly due to the filmmakers' intent but
rather to the lot that was presented to them.
Hey, at least they used a good score
by Ryuichi Sakamoto. The musical moments here can
sometimes be haunting. However, a scene with brilliant
music is nonetheless lost on the audience. Derrida's
work often speaks of "The Other" but this concept
is never fully explained to us in the film. And so
when a cameraman ventures outside Derrida's house
and films the crew filming the philosopher from "outside"
through a window, emulating a sense of "The Other,"
neophytes are totally ignorant of its implications.
Never the less, the scene is haunting and Sakamoto's
score here is perfection in the moment.
Another thing I liked was the narration,
even though the monotone of the narrator left the
text lifeless and meaningless. Read by co-director
Amy Ziering Kofman, the unfathomable quotes from Derrida
(as impenetrable as the man himself) sound like the
female on Phillip Glass' "Einstein on the Beach" CD.
Again, an interesting note but certainly nothing really
worth noting and certainly nothing with much relevance
to Derrida's work. (Although the relationship between
the written text and the reader is something he has
written about, this is also not discussed in the film
leaving the narrator's monotone voice to seem artsy
but without any substance).
Jacques Derrida is perhaps one of
the most important figures in 20th Century philosophy.
At least that's what I've heard. I certainly don't
know why that might be after seeing this film. At
the very best, the most one can really say for it
is that it makes you want to get on the 'Net and find
out more about the man (which I did while writing
this review). Surely someone out there can sum up
his importance in a paragraph of two. Perhaps in the
future, someone else will also be able to do it in
a two minute film.
Notes:
In French and English usually with
subtitles.
Co-director is Kirby Dick (director
of the documentary "Sick" about performance artist
Bob Flanagan). Kofman had filmed Derrida for several
years before asking Dick to assist her in finishing
the film.
Derrida was also the subject of
Safaa Fatht's 2000 documentary film "D'ailleurs, Derrida"
("Derrida's Elsewhere") which was released in a 68
minute and a 52 minute version.
Derrida has written several books,
essays and articles and, as mentioned above, many
of them are quoted in the film.
Philosophers mentioned in the film
include Heidegger, Hegel, and Aristotle. (I only know
the name Hegel because of an interview for radio I
did in 1994 with Mexican-American author Dagoberto
Gilb).
The film played at Sundance in 2002.
Released to arthouses in October, 2002, the film did
not play a regular engagement in Austin until September,
2003 (although it did play at SXSW in March, 2002).
Viewed at the Dobie in Austin in
August, 2003, at a press sneak. Also in attendance
was Corey of "The Reel Deal" and a guy - I think his
name was Steve - from hybridmagazine.com or something
like that. We had an interesting discussion about
the film afterwards with Dobie manager Dan Cofer where
Corey basically lambasted it as stupid and Derrida
himself as an arrogant, pompous, windbag who said
nothing. The scenes of Derrida addressing white students
in South Africa concerning "unconditional forgiveness"
particularly pissed him off. I could somewhat see
his point.
"Steve," a guy seemingly in his
40's, had apparently taken some philosophy in college
and spoke of a philosophy called Semisism or something
like that. He was an odd guy who is apparently a wine
salesmen in his real day-to-day world. He seemed to
like the film somewhat.
