i be give this 4 out of 10 because while agree with the other poster that the film lack any sort of clarity or even a reason for be and there be a few moment in there that be sort of interesting . the main sense i get of the man after watch this movie be that he basically do not like be film and seem uncomfortable do the project . i do not mean that and a a philosopher and he have philosophical reason for object to see himself a a subject and but simply that he be just the kind of person who felt a little weird be film . nothing wrong with that in principle and but it do make him a poor subject for a documentary of this kind . to me and the scene that capture the ineptitude of the movie the best be a scene in which an australian ( i think ) interviewer ask derrida whether the tv show seinfeld get at all at deconstructionism and with it emphasis on the mundane . in theory this could be an interesting question and to see how he talk about popular culture . except that derrida hadn not even heard of seinfeld and do not really have anything interesting to say about it . i do not fault derrida for not have hear of seinfeld and but i do fault the filmmaker for put such an inconsequential exchange in their movie . a others have note and we also get a lot of faux deep scene of derrida go about his daily business ( walk down the street and get a haircut and make his breakfast and etc . ) . which do not add up to a whole lot . still and i have to admit i do find a few scene interest here and there . the guy do have a legion of follower and for instance and and watch him interact with them at lecture and other place be interest .