Film on Derrida

Half of the film we watched on Derrida yesterday in class was fascinating to me in a few ways.
First, it was exactly how I pictured him to look, act, walk, talk, etc. I did not expect him to be married, although I found it very interesting that he was married to a psychoanalysist.
The main point however was that it was a documentary, it was film. Derrida frequently repeated what I was thinking throughout the movie, "I do not normally act this way, I am different in front of a camera." It was a superficial way to view Derrida's life, because he was censoring himself, changing himself, and not living honestly. He said that on a typical day, up until he left his home, he would be walking around his home in his pajamas. He would not, however, act that way when the camera was present.
Derrida's message, especially in his essay, is that there is no absolute fixed truth or meaning because structures (meaning, text) can always be decentered and have its flaws revealed. That is one purpose of the post-structuralist, to read the text against itself and reveal these breaks and flaws.
Therefore, whatever "truth" the film crew was trying to reveal through their documentary on the life of Derrida, would automatically be flawed, which would automatically destory any concept of "truth" it was aiming at. Derrida saw this clearly and clarified it saying things such as, "This isn't me. This is not how I normally act."
When Derrida was on his couch, watching himself on the television, watching himself watch the documentary of himself, that was a decentering of the structure.
When Derrida was on the couch with his wife, and the film crew was trying to have them engage in a conversation with them concerning their love, their meeting, their romance - they both remained quiet. Derrida said they were thinking the same thing, and they knew they were thinking the same thing, but they didn't say it aloud. Instead he gave the facts, the dates, and the times.
When also, in this universe Derrida dares us to enter - there are no guarenteed facts. There is only interpretation.
That is also another main message, I think, of Derrida in the movie. This was supposed to be a documentary on his life, on his work (or so I've gotten from the thirty minutes we were able to watch in class so far), which are both apsects of what one would probably label as "truth." Watching a documentary on someone is supposed to reveal the "truth" behind them. When in fact it doesn't at all!
When Britney Spears or whatever is interviwed on that show that says something like, "You think you know? You have no idea...this is the real life, or diary, of Britney Spears" or so-and-so...that is not "truth". That is not real. It cannot be truth. I don't think anything can be "truth" or arrive at a "truth."
Us, as viewer, watching Derrida, then watching Derrida watch himeself watching himself, or even us just watching Derrida walking through Paris smoking his pipe, cannot obtain clarified, guareneeted facts, because they do not exist.
There is only our interpretation of Derrirda, of the film.
There is nothing else.
There is no truth.
In fact, studying post-structuralism has really changed my outlook on everything and I'm beginning to think there really is no truth to anything. At all. Truth ceases to exist.
But anyway...maybe this is what the film crew was trying to accomplish in this documetary. I do not know.
I cannot wait until we study psychoanalysis, because, I know some about it, but not much...and I really, really find it interesting that his wife was a psychoanalysist. Because I thought the purpose of psychoanalysis was to work with an individual for years, and bascially deconstruct and pick them apart, have them work against themselves in a sense, and decode them according to their subconsious thoughts and past happenings....to finally arrive at their "truth" and help them figure out who they are and what they are doing and why they are doing what they are doing...
I'm going to stop here.
This is getting me all worked up and I have two minutes to get to my next class.
I am excited to finish the film.
I am excited to see more Derrida. He gave me a headache at the beginning, but now is BY FAR the most interesting theorist we have studied. And I'm really getting into post-structuralism.

But quickly - what did others think of the film? I know we don't need to post this week, but I really am curious as to what others thought. Please comment and let me know!