Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?

One of the other reviews here is very negative. That review's author uses terms like "self- indulgent" to describe this film.

That term is totally accurate. This movie is the definition of self-indulgence. A series of edited interviews is played while hand-drawn animations form and transform on the screen. That's the film. It sounds ridiculous.

But it drew me in and captivated me. The topics range from linguistic theory, Noam Chomsky's views on various things, and musings about his childhood. Gondry's own thoughts and interpretations, also included, seemed to miss the mark fairly often. But I felt like Gondry's voice ended up adding something to the movie. He is someone trying to understand complex concepts: sometimes he gets it, sometimes it doesn't seem like he does. From what I've written so far, this movie may sound like a nightmare to you.

However, the whole concept was so original, and the drawings were engaging and interesting - - like a hand-drawn kaleidoscope with patterns that change depending on the topic being discussed. Gondry's thick french accent might distract some viewers, but I found it intelligible (there are also hand-drawn "subtitles" when he speaks, although I found them harder to read than I did to understand Gondry's accent). Chomsky has always struck me as a compelling speaker. He is soft-spoken but knows his lines (speaking figuratively) and makes his points well.

All in all a unique and surprisingly entertaining experience. 8/10

This is a fantastic, intelligent wedding of word and image. It's like a genuine synthesthetic experience, like the animator wanted us to have a cogent, dependable hallucination of Chomsky's brilliant, eloquent statements. From time to time I would sort of "forget" whether I was hearing Chomsky or seeing what he was saying; they sometimes switched places... or (perhaps more accurately) truly merged in my mind, like finally having the image of one of those 3D "art" images pop out at you when your eyes finally settle into the correct parallax and focus mix. I found that when I was relaxed and letting the flow of ideation wash over me, my experience was "of a piece"; almost psychedelically.

What can I say? It's just a lovely way to mainline a genius' thinking; the filmmaker succeeds in his quest to enhance and tease out the intuitive aspects to technical/scientific thinking; and that's downright inspirational!

Check it out.

--------Addendum

Just want to add one more point. As much as I find Chomsky's politics to be vital and morally attuned, it STILL strikes me as a great artistic decision on the part of Gondry to 1) minimize the politics, 2) put them off 'til (largely) the end, and 3) subsume them to the task of conveying warmth (not urgency). You get a measured, requisite dose of Chomsky's politics, *without* the overwhelming sense one often gets with Chomsky that, up against so much troglodytic inertia, the task truly daunts. Bravo.

A series of interviews featuring linguist, philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky done in hand-drawn animation.

Because of Gondry's accent, and at times because of Chomsky's age, the discussion is a bit difficult to understand, and you have to focus. Interestingly, there is a communication breakdown between Gondry and Chomsky, as well, because of translation and pronunciation issues.

The film is part biographical, part about language acquisition. There is no discussion of politics, which is probably good, because it makes this a much more timeless presentation.

There is mention of "irreducible complexity", which seemed odd, and then Gondry mentions astrology? He seems to be a bit out of his league at times. At least he was able to get Chomsky to talk about his wife Carol, which has been a sensitive topic.

Even when they are full of ideas, some filmmakers can be sometimes a bit 'stingy' when they try to film great thinkers. What happens when an image inventor confronts a creator of concepts? There can be many misunderstandings (maybe due to the language barrier?) and theaters can remain painfully empty. Not long ago, in 'Film Socialism', Jean-Luc Godard filmed Alain Badiou talking in front of an empty theater.

It seems that Michel Gondry accepts with great pleasure the emptiness that can sometimes separate images and philosophy on the screen. His film plays with the principle of 'illustration': this funny documentary is made of (often) naive drawings, coming from the discussion between the two men.

The viewer will not leave the theater with a manual on 'generative grammar' of the American linguist, MIT star. Instead he will be struck, blown away by the creative explosion of a free filmmaker, an inventor renewing at a rate of a thousand digressions and associations of ideas, with its memorial vein and dream, like in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep (his most romantic period). No wonder that the film is secretly haunted by Chomsky's absolute love for his late wife, Carol. Nonetheless, I found this 'little film' immensely refreshing.

While Mr. Gondry's accent took a little getting used to, the effort was well worth it. I applaud Mr. Gondry's creativity in presenting Chomsky's ideas about science and philosophy and the doggedness he exhibited in certain instances in delving into the meaning of Chomsky's notions about how we learn and think. The use of animation transformed what for some may have been a droll lecture into a lively and interesting narrative about philosophy, religion, and of course linguistics. I also applaud Gondry's decision not to focus on Chomsky's radical and divisive political views, which would have only detracted from his views about philosophy, science, linguistics and religion. I recommend the film to anyone who is interested in learning about the type of mind-set necessary to think clearly and originally and to make sense of how the world works.