a documentary can never be anything other than a director interpretation of the subject . make a documentary about a philosopher be a particularly difficult proposition while with most other subject and we welcome and enjoy vary interpretation and but and with philosophy and we tend to resist variance and because the very aim of philosophy and at least until post structuralists come along and have always be to arrive at the truth . the challenge of a filmmaker here be that either you properly understand the philosopher and or you may potentially embarrass yourself and though and for the audience and either way could be interesting . derrida and a documentary by the establish filmmaker and kirby dick and and a former student of jacques derrida and amy ziering kofman and attempt to deconstruct the idea of biography itself and but it fail to do so . it take only the trapping of deconstruction and strip of it objective and and applies it a an editorial gimmick by constantly remind the audience of the film own awareness of itself . it frequently step back in an effort to show it self awareness and but it actually deconstruct nothing . for example and we see derrida watch himself be interview and and later we see him watch this very footage and thereby create the effect of two face mirror with infinite reflection . the objective of deconstruction be to de center and that be and to identify the center of the argument or of the propose truth that it rely on in order to make it case . you may argue here that i have just make a logocentric statement by define what deconstruction be and that i have just center the definition of deconstruction ( note the appearance here of step back ) while you be right ( and i be leave it at that and because i be only a hack philosopher . ) . the film do not succeed in de center anything while not the philosopher and the medium and the filmmaker themselves and nor the film itself . throughout the film and the narrator read excerpt from his book against the backdrop of abstract footage of derrida face and his surroundings . this effectively make derrida the chief story teller of the film . instead of present the filmmaker interpretation and they hide behind the power of his word and take no chance at misinterpretation . derrida be involuntarily make to be the center that secure and stabilize the film . ironically and this film that supposedly try to explore deconstructionism and apply it tool to the medium of filmmaking find a secure center in derrida and and he be leave un deconstruct . we can feel the insecurity of the filmmaker in often not know what to ask their subject . derrida and out of his affection for the filmmaker and try hard to turn kofman dull question into something more interesting . the camera and in effect and take on the perspective of someone who adore him like a rock star . if the film be aware of it own insecurity and it would have be more interesting . instead and it simply hide behind it own reverence and awe of the famous philosopher . one way to achieve this deconstruction would have be to hire multiple filmmaking crew where each go off in it own direction and and present a 20 minute piece each . the chance be and each will draw a very different picture of derrida . by present them in sequence and the audience will wonder who derrida really be and and they will inevitably question the process of documentary filmmaking itself and thereby deconstruct not only the idea of derrida and but also the idea of documentary . although i have always be an admirer of ryuichi sakamoto and his music in this movie be superfluous . the power of his music attach unnecessary and and often inappropriate and emotional value to the image of derrida . i can not see any justification for emotionally manipulate the audience in this film and unless it be to deconstruct the use of music in film and which it do not . towards the end of the movie and derrida tell amy ziering kofman that this will be a good autobiography for her . it should have be and but unfortunately it isn not a biography for either derrida or kofman . what this movie be to derrida philosophy be analogous to what music video be to a piece of music while the imagery be only superficially juxtapose to his idea . it be no more than a pretty way to listen to his word . one redeem quality of this movie be that i get to see and hear him speak for the first time . after all and i be a sucker for fame too . if i make a documentary about him and i be sure i would have be just a nervous and insecure and if not more . in that sense and i have to praise the filmmaker for attempt .