just get back from the nuart ( word up la . ) where i saw derrida . for fairness and i must disclose that my entire family be french and i speak fluently and but i have live here since i be 6 and and everybody considers me an american . so onto the review . what a crummy flic . the movie follow the life of jacques derrida and the father of deconstructionist philosophy . well and in good documentary and you get to see all side of an issue and in fact usually you have an issue present . in the trial of henry kissinger ( catch that at nuart 2 week ago ) they have al haig be cut to chris hitchens cut to kissinger cut to the chilean ambassador . now obviously and the filmaker be go to try to make you lean one way in your decicion and but you still get to make a decision and you feel that you have be inform on all side and get to choose an appropriate belief in some idea that the movie be about . not so here . for a movie about a philospher and no other philospher be interview at all . critic . do they exist . if you dont know deconstruction before you go in and you wont know a thing about it when you leave . the director waste derrida time and her backer money . the footage seem to have be take over many many year ( i write this november 8 and 2002 and and derrida be see hear report of the rwanda massacre i believe those be in 1994 ) be so raw a to be terrible . i think that the director or producer think that they could stick a camera on this guy and edit it to a documentary . there be no research whatsoever . there be no critic of deconstruction ( there be many many out there ) . the question she ( the director ) asks be pitful and stupid and what i expect a student would ask and when put on the spot . the only interesting question ( and it put derrida on the spot ) be ask by some random voice offscreen ( which philospher would derrida like to have have a his mom ) . i have many problem with the comedy of this picture . people laugh a lot and at time and thing i think wern not funny at all but the editor or director frame to be . the director accent be so bad that derrida couldn not understand whether she be ask about lamour or lamort . reading that and you can see how he would be confuse and would keep ask her which one . but the english subtitle say love and death over and over and so people dont get his confusion . seem trivial and but they keep do this . and people keep laugh whenthe absolute bad part of the movie be random shot with voiceovers read from derrida work . they be horrendous . what happen to the director producer . how could they let her put these in . example represent one of them be a zoom in view ( on dv ) of hebrew tomb . but you can only see a few letter at a time and the camera shift like crazy up and down and tombstone to tombstone . it be so distract you have to close your eye to focus on the v or o ( which be very difficult to understand in the first place very very very very difficult ) . this happen over and over with these voice over . the director have to fill a lot of time . i mean and there be long shot of a fax machine and shot up close . of derrida cat ( no idea why ) . and i dont want to hear how this be about him and not deconstruction . you learn nothing about the guy . he secretive . than ask other people . do some flippin research . i vote and give it a 3 .