infobong.com

I saw the Derrida doc. at last year's SXSW and it really wasn't that good. I've read lots of media coverage of this film since and I don't think anyone is really fairly criticizing it. One real problem is the filmmaker didn't manage a very interesting structure for the film (maybe it's cuz she shot for nine freakin years!!!). Given the subject matter, she could have done some really cool meta-structuring that coincided with Derrida's work in interesting ways. Although there are some nice moments where the filmmaker gets her famous subject to discuss topics not often covered in his books, overall it is a celebrity-celebrating kind of film. Kind of like MTV's The Osbourne show, it allows people to get their kicks watching a celebrity do mundane things. What's worse about watching Derrida instead of Ozzie is that the audience can do so under the guise of intellectual concern. But, I could see it on the faces of the Austin crowd: people were like, "woa! the worlds most obtuse man eats potato chips!" (Woa! Ozzie walks his dogs? Derrida combs his hair??!! This is not enough to carry a film or a self-respecting TV show). Sadly enough, I thought the Derrida doc really compared to the George Bush doc at SXSW last year. But I will say that the Bush doc was much worse. It was all about George Bush on the campaign trail (cutely called, "Journeys with George"). Shot by the new House Minority leader's daughter, (Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter) this movie does nothing other than make W more warm and fuzzy. ("George W. Eats Cheetos? Woa!") I'm sure Nancy's real proud. HBO bought it for a million bucks!
Anyway, I'm just pissed off that these kinds of obsequious talking-heads only movies are allowed to call themselves documentaries, when the genre has much much more to offer. And SXSW should offer better shit too.
I say, stick with Jackass the Movie (and the Todd Haynes one looks good too. I love the Sirk and Fassbinder movies upon which it is based).