Review of Derrida

right off the bat let me say (write) that i had expectations of a more clinical examination of the thoughts of derrida, rather than a look at his life and thoughts in a personal documentary more like "stevie" than what you might see on pbs. a lot of the first part of the film is dedicated to examining what heidegger once said about a philosopher's biography - the important things are he was born, he thought, he died...everything else being anecdotes and details. well this documentary seemed to have more of those anecdotes and details than i think derrida or heidegger would have liked, but maybe that was the filmmakers' way of challenging this notion. the point of the quote is that on the one hand you can't get to know someone through incidental stories about their childhood, but on the other hand th is is what storytelling and filmmaking (especially documentary filmmaking) is often about. derrida rightly observes, too, that the film is more of a signature of the filmmakers than a biography of himself. so i'll go on, now, to examine the filmmakers...like i mentioned before, i wish there had been more focus on the ideas of derrida in a linear or instructive fashion. i expected to gain a better understanding of the main tenets of his philosophy. but, as an example, "differance," which i know to be a large motif in his deconstruction, was mentioned only once...fifteen minutes before the ending of the film. that main disappointment aside, the film was well done. i do feel i "know" derrida better. his ideas are still murky, but in seeing how he answers questions or examines his body parts (specifically his eyes and hands) i got a good idea of how he thinks, which in a lot of ways is more important than WHAT he thinks. the most interesting idea that i picked up in the film wasn't derridean (?) at all - it was an ancient greek/roman (?) story of echo and narcissus. i think i had heard the story many years ago, but i didn't remember anything about it until he retold it. echo was doomed to only repeat the last part of what other people said. eventually she used this curse to adopt a language based upon what narcissus said...combining the end of certain words that narcissus used to form her own language. philosophically it's interesting because it speaks to several ideas - we're just repeating that which has already been said, everything beyond plato is a footnote, nothing new under the sun, we are all so intrinsically connected to that which came before us that "improvisation" (as derrida calls it) is impossible, but should still be sought after. it's a story that's ripe with meaning. i took it as a justification for hip-hop as a viable form of music. hip-hop artists manipulate musical language the same way that echo did. derrida and other deconstructionalists would likely point out that hip-hop artists are just one step closer to echo than other artists who try to hide their references or influences. anyone who understands music knows that if you're going to get on public enemy's case for sampling then it's a slippery slope before you start criticizing elvis, the beatles, and everyone else. you can argue over the degrees, but i don't think you can knock the entire practice. at any rate, the film is good precisely because it incites this kind of thought. though i went into it expecting a schooling, i came out wiser precisely because it sought not to lecture. an interviewer asks him a question about the philosophy of seinfeld and how it might be seen as deconstructionalist. he had never heard of seinfeld, but said that deconstruction isn't about watching sitcoms. "people should read and do their homework instead." i give it a solid "B."