what does this film have to do with deconstruction?

I have an observation about the title of this film.

In a late scene, a dream sequence no less, a character states, (and I quote loosely,) "All your books, (read "films",) are sad on the surface, which is why I like to deconstruct them because deep down they're all happy, only you don't know it."

Woody Allen is a massively misunderstood artist, especially by the intelligentsia that are his putative fanbase. This is a notion he has parodied in such films as STARDUST MEMORIES and DECONSTRUCTING HARRY, where he presents himself "deconstructed", (so to speak,) in such a way that we are tempted to believe he is expressing the "real" Woody Allen. In DH, Harry even goes so far as to admit to the Adair Professor when discussing a character, "who am I kidding, it's me". This is a trick.

We must remember firstly that Woody Allen (a stage name, but also a persona that fits the public view of a very private man,) is actually a fictional creation of Allen Stewart Konigsberg. So in DH, where we have a character, Ken, who is created by Harry Block, who is created by Woody Allen, who is created by Allen Konigsberg, we cannot be certain of anything regarding the living, breathing human.

While watching the final scene of DH, where Harry recieves applause from all the characters he has created, I was struck by the notion that this has little to do with the real Allen, for if Allen were to experience such an illusion in real life he would be confronted by multiple images of himself. Allen is a relentlessly self-portraiting artist and, although he has created many memorable characters played by others, it is the characters he plays himself that are so closely identified with his artistic vision..

If we deconstruct Allen's body of work, we find that he does not disguise himself in his films, as is suggested. We see the human clearly, but he appears in many guises that fool us into thinking we are getting closer insight into to the character of the human. We are really just getting insight into the character of "Woody".

"Woody" is Allen's true disguise.

"Woody" is, first and foremost, a clown. He his face is painted whenever he performs, because he truly does not wish us to know the human behind the paint. If those who watch him perform are concerned only with who is behind the paint, then they become unwitting participants in his comedy.

What greater cosmic joke for a clown to make to invite us to deconstruct a man who does not exist.

*****

Allen has created an incredibly rich and varied body of work. I envy that you still have so many of his films to see and enjoy. I have watched DH, SLEEPER, ALICE and RADIO DAYS over the xmas break, and four more diverse films I cannot imagine. I recommend STARDUST MEMORIES, ZELIG, THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION, THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO and, of course, LOVE AND DEATH, which Allen professes to be one of his favorites.

Enjoy!

So, Swim with birds, what you suggest is that deconstruction is not a practice to find conclusions, but to find questions?

It seems to me that nobody is really sure how to define this concept of deconstruction. This Dirrider opened a can of worms that we're all deconstructing! Delicious.

Was the word 'deconstruction' never used before this Jaques Dirrider cat said it? If not, then I see your problem with Allen using it ambiguosly. But if it was actually a word, Allen is all too justified in using it to describe a film that 'takes apart' the facets and layers of a character.

It's also interesting to consider that many have said that deconstruction tells us there is no truth to be found in and of a given work (but only in its analysis and comparison with other ideas). Is Allen, as suggested by the above poster) telling us that no truth can be know of himself through this work?

>>"Wouldn't Derrida be utterly opposed to the idea of a text concealing a conclusive and stable "true meaning" beneath the surface?"

The film doesn't claim this, surely. Surely it claims that, as an above poster mentions, it is only when examined from the outside, and related to certain emotional ideas by the student, that the work can find meaning.

A certain definition I found says the following of deconstruction: 'a philosophical theory of criticism (usually of literature or film) that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work by delving below its surface meaning.'Deconstructing Harry' to a tee.

But hey, I'm a Graphic Designer, for goodness sake.

Derrida actually defined 'deconstruction'? Must have missed that one. I think the title has to do with Woody's character gradually having his entire life and psychological/moral condition explained to him by the products of his neuroses. At first he comes off as a despicable person because of the way the people in his life view him, but in the end, all of that is relative.

Since we are reading this on the web, and on the web Jacques Derrida can himself as recorded explain parts of his ideas on deconstruction (like a film, you only ever see parts)... Let's go to the video tape, everybody, and enjoy another thinker on film, and filmed. Derrida, unlike McLuhan, was sadly never in a Woody Allen film. But I offer Derrida as an example that, in the course of any reality (film), the unknown and known collide, and the understood, the mis-understood, and the unknowable all exist simultaneously, constructed and deconstructed. Comedy is the philosophy of mis-understanding and understanding, and slipping all at the same time.

Remember or forget, nothing is completely explained. It might be answered wrongly, correctly, criticized, but not explained.

Jacques Derrida On The Problematics Of Deconstruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9YaNW7Q0c8&feature=related


Den NC USA

Read Derrida and tell me he has any idea what deconstruction is...