But also enjoyed.
I wouldn't say it was especially illuminating for his theory, though. I think this is the problem with accessibility. There's a point where you say: this is about opening Derrida up, and therefore we must provide an extensive backgrounding so that anyone can access it. That's great, except that by-and-large I'm going to guess the audience interested in watching ninety minute of Derrida also already read Derrida. I think this attitude led to some of the heavy handed illustrations. Derrida talking about layers of knowing while the camera occasionally flips to shots of Derrida watching videos of videos of himself. Very clever.
All is not lost, Derrida talks about love. Or rather when asked about love he curtly tells her she can't ask him to talk so generally. Then, when asked about why philosophy continues to address that issue, he again says, You can't ask me that. Although, his apparent distaste for the question doesn't prevent him from going on about his views on love, this misplacement of it, the question between loving someone and loving something. The dependence loving someone has on the understanding of various traits which are ultimately mutable and therefore not lasting in the identity of the person. I think this, more than most parts, was surprising, and engaging.
This, and the everyday-ness, the humanizing effect it has on a figure whose essays and thoughts seem to outweigh his personality, was very interesting. The question then is: what is the value of the documentary? Is simply being interesting enough? Should their be more provoking thought-evidence?
No comments:
Post a Comment