It is clear that Derrida stands in complete opposition to the documentary process by pointing out the various degrees of falseness behind the film. At one point a man speaking to Derrida says, for Americans, being filmed is a natural condition as they measure their existence by the amount of time they are watched on and off the lens. Derrida refutes this claim with the belief that the person or persons behind (and in control of) the filming process is essentially authoring a fictitious tale of a real life. Therefore, any existence one might have through a filming process is ultimately a false one and not their own.
An example of this falseness can be seen during moments in the documentary, when techno music is thumping behind Derrida’s slow moving body as he casually walks down the street. What is more interesting is that during this dramatic scenario, we also recieve a string of disheartening dialogue in a monotone voice that almost sounds emotionless, however, we are meant to feel the uplifting sensation of enlightenment through solidarity. Derrida is a real person! Who has had real experiences! He has argued with his parents and has gotten sick! He has been scared and has had dreams! He has lived as we have and, yet, according this this film, he is not as we are, because sprinkled throughout this cohesion of common ground there are instances of absolute foreignness that we cannot relate to (e.g. receiving a call from Heidegger, being asked to act in a movie, etc.). This entire scene uses the art of conflict in order to reach the audience in their attempt to display Derrida’s “conflicted” image.
In the documentary there are a few other examples that effectively display Derrida’s struggle in the interviewing process. As this struggle is coming from a disconnect between Derrida and the interviewer, it is extremely interesting to see the result of the process through the struggle. For example, when the interviewer is attempting to pry information from Derrida and his wife, we (as a gossipy western civilization that is used to 24-hour pop culture coverage) sit on the edge of our seats and wait for the juicy details that led this infamous philosopher and the heroine of his life to come together. But they give us nothing. They met, they fell in love, and they are together. That is all. You can practically feel an entire world of Derrida fans slouch back in their chairs full of disappointment while he sits there grinning, “Oh well”.
There is a second moment, however, when Derrida speaks of love in another frustrated manner with his interviewer. Once again there is moment of disconnect and Derrida is left to his wits. The interviewer plainly asks him of love and Derrida does not know where to start, but what he says is exceptionally clarifying to such an open ended question. He speaks of the “who” and the “what”. When someone is within the act of love, whether it be falling in love, falling out of love, or confused within the dynamics of love, the main dilemma always stands to be, the who or the what? Are you in love with that person as who they are? Or is it the individual qualities that attract you to them (e.g. beauty, intelligence, humor, etc.). Although love almost always starts with seduction and lust, love is always weeded out by “what” we don’t want as well. If the other person does not meet our standards by the qualities they don’t have, then we also reserve the right to say they do not deserve our love.
Although I would like to say that I completely understand what Derrida is saying by the who and the what, I cannot say that I do. In fact, if I had to choose with what made more sense, it would be the “what” only because I feel that the “who” closely relates to what liberal humanism calls “essence”. When essence comes to mind, permanent comes to mind. Essence is the essentialness of who you are. I feel that I am misunderstanding Derrida when he says you can love a person for who they are only because I am contrasting it to his “what” definition while simultaneously defining it against “essence”. Any help on the matter would be appreciated.
Another image we are being exposed to in this film is a deceased one. Unfortunately, Jacques Derrida passed away October 8th, 2004. The man see walking around the cluttered corners of his home, is no longer walking around anywhere. He is no longer. With this in mind, the perception of image takes a deeper plunge into the dark mentions of death and how we live and correspond to it as ongoing beings. For most, the thought of death is fearful, not only for ourselves but for others. Derrida reinstated the point of “always already” by talking about cemeteries when discussing death. The fact that we are fearful, and that we will go and contemplate the location of our burial site before the time of our death proves that we are already thinking about it. From the time we are born, we are meant to fear death and from the time we are mature enough to take care of ourselves, we are meant to prevent death. It is buried in our mind to always be thinking about it, but to already prepared.
Scritti Politti- Jaques Derrida
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
Take apart my baby's heart
I'm in love
This song is playing with Derrida’s stance on deconstructionism. While the lyrics state “Read a page and know what I need to take apart my baby’s heart,” the song is literally insinuating that after reading a page of Derrida’s work, the singer is endowed with enough knowledge to study the center of a structure (in this case, his or her baby/ love) in order to understand how they work. After doing so, not only do they realize they are in love, but they are in love with Jacques Derrida. Whether this is in appreciation or infatuation, I do not know.
We were a little confused as well, so this is our interpretation:
ReplyDeleteLove is not a subject, but instead an effect of being alive. In the film, Derrida says that describing love in this "who" and "what" way splits up the heart. The heart is supposed to stay together. "Love" as a title for something that we are supposed to experience in life, is not LOVE, but instead a destructive title to a mess of emotions. This title disappoints us and makes us have expectations of what 'love' really is.
He chooses to ignore defining 'love' because its destructiveness is not positive. Derrida says that people who start to love, are in love, or stop loving are caught between the "who" and "what." Perhaps he's simply commenting on the manner in which we tend to talk about love--which is a binary in itself.
Derrida also states that philosophers don't necessarily know about anything, love included. They just have their process (linear or not) of thinking about it.
We also found his confusion between the interviewer's pronunciations of "l'amour" and "la mort" interesting. It is worth noting that in Italian as well as French the words for "Love" and "Death" are similar.
Why am I bringing Italian into the discussion?
While in Italy, I took a class about Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio's works. While discussing Dante's poetic experiment La Vita Nuova, my professor wrote "amore" (love) and "morte" (death) on the board. He presented the theory that they derived from the same source word (citing the common 'mor'). This he used as a segue to explore Dante's undying adoration of Beatrice, whom the poems continue to praise despite her untimely demise.
Amore and Morte exist hand in hand, two subjects that vex, intrigue and are thought about by all. Neither can be discussed in generalities, thoughts of both must be prodded by questions, statements, stories.
The "always already" he discusses with regards to Death exists within Love as well. Both are ingrained in our consciousnesses, constantly probing at our minds. We contemplate both obsessively, wondering what comes next.