Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman’s chose to create a documentary featuring the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Trying to capture the “true” Derrida in a documentary film-despite the generic nature of a documentary- is ironic because Derrida did not believe in capturing any sort of “true” self. The directors play with this irony by including themselves in the film rather than trying to restrain themselves within the typical structure of a documentary. There is a scene in the film where Derrida is walking down the street with the directors and the audience is given an image of the videographer walking alongside and conversing with the philosopher about the peculiarity of being filmed; by presenting themselves in the film alongside Derrida they too are resisting what is expected of a biographical documentary. It seems that the directors understood that Derrida would not be a complying subject and went with a raw version in the already spontaneous genre of their work. The format of the documentary is informal and sporadic; the directors even include scenes where they are viewing already taped footage with Derrida as he gives his input and opinion on what they are watching. In acknowledging their own presence they seem to be poking fun at them being there and why they are there. Another scene where the directors include an image of themselves is when Derrida is picking out a jacket to wear and the woman says that the jacket does not need to match his pants because they are only shooting him above the waist. Again they poke fun at their project by presenting an easy informality in their images. Derrida’s refusal of an essential Derrida defers the meaning of himself. The directors attempt to achieve his refusal of the norm; while Derrida was setting the stage for post-structuralism they were trying to create a new kind of biographical film, perhaps the directors hoped they could mimic the genius of their subject.
There is a distinct image of Derrida when he is walking down the street smoking his pipe and he seems to be observing the world as though he is not a part of it. His slow motion walk paired with an impeccable music choice endows Derrida with an air of intelligence-not superiority-that separates him from the movement around him; he slows down and see what is going on, as though he is suspended in a quiet thoughtfulness. There are various images of Derrida: father, husband, grandfather, scholar and “celebrity”. When reading his work the reader makes assumptions about who he is and our image is in conflict with the representation we are given; would expect him to have a snobby formality about him and we are presented with an image of modest humility. We are presented with a man who keeps diapers and toys for his granddaughter in his son’s old bedroom.
Derrida resists the interview process, he acts as though he is uncomfortable with the attention and constantly draws the attention back to the camera. There is a scene in the documentary where Derrida is getting on an elevator and someone asks him if the camera bothers him, he replies that it used to be very difficult to ignore but he has improved. He acknowledges the camera’s presence when the crew asks him how he met his wife and he says “I can’t tell you everything with the camera here.” There seems to be a strong focus on the camera and what it means to be there. In another scene the director asks him if he regrets allowing them to videotape him and rather than giving a direct reply he asks, “Do you?” Derrida constantly avoids or twists questions to fit the answer he wants to give. “What philosopher would you want your mother to be?” is a question that makes Derrida smile, he even calls it a “good question” but then he does not give a direct answer. Instead he says that his mother could never be a philosopher because, to him, philosophers are only men, he ties a masculinity to the title. This struggle alludes to the directors’ desire to make a documentary about his ideas, however Derrida refuses to be classified in any constricted way and complicates each interview.
The film does not outline Derrida’s ideas with a specific clarity. When the directors accepted that Derrida was not going to an easy subject, a reality they may have prepared for, they chose to hide his ideas in the film structure. Derrida behaves in very post-structuralist way when he points out artificiality of trying to attempt to create meaning in a documentary. Derrida is shot sitting in front of a mirror and the audience does not know if we are seeing the actual Derrida or only a reflection. This deliberate style is an expression of deconstruction; the question of what is real emerges. Questions of what is real also emerge when the directors zoom in on a television interview with Derrida, because now the audience is watching a television on a television. The improvisation technique used to format the film is linked to bricolage.
“Jaques Derrida”- Scritti Politti
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
Britain based singer/ songwriter Green Gartside’s “Scritti Politti” pays tribute to Derrida and his philosophies on deconstruction. The song suggests that after reading a page from Jacques Derrida’s book the singer learned how to deconstruct the structure-his “baby’s heart”. Now endowed with the ability to win over the girl’s affection the singer also finds himself in love with Derrida. He is then filled with gratitude towards Derrida for sharing his brilliance he falls in love with him as well. To read more about the song and Derrida’s dinner with Gartside click the link below!
It's interesting to think about the disconnection the camera creates between Derrida the man and Derrida the image. The contrast between these two ideas refers to something that Derrida himself spoke to, the idea that we only know ourselves through others, the concept known in Marxist theory as interpellation. In considering the artificiality of the filming process and the arbitrary relationship between the man and the image, I thought of this relationship as a metaphor for the post-structuralist view of language. Thus, the camera, like a language system, creates a barrier between the man and the image in the same way language creates a fundamental barrier between the signifier, signified, and sign. In this way, as the post above suggests, Derrida himself embodies the post-structuralist conflict. The original post also persuasively discusses how the documentary process itself is a radically unstable, de-centered project.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested, particularly, in the idea od never reaching any meaning that is essentially "Derrida." As you said, this is evident in his own very explicit post-structuralist refusal to acknowledge anything as having essential or true meaning. The presence of the camera, as well, adds to the instability of an essential "Derrida." What I find most interesting, though, involves what you mentioned about Derrida being not just Derrida the philosopher, but Derrida the husband, Derrida the father, Derrida the grandfather, etc. Do you think, and this may possibly be true for all people not just Derrida, that we are split into fragments based on different roles we take on in our daily lives? For instance, Derrida the philosopher and Derrida the grandfather are, in a sense, two different people. I think this claim would support Derrida's refusal of there being anything essentially "Derrida."
ReplyDelete(I am writing the official comment for Critically Conditioned.)