Take yourself off the tripod

The film attempts to portray the notion of freeplay through it's camera work. If we take what is being filmed as 'reality' and the camera's lens as our own symbolic notion of knowledge (or our view of reality) we can then begin to understand what the film is attempting to have us understand. What is happening during the film would not necessarily be happening in Derrida's daily life. He admits to be very cautious around the camera lens and goes into a meditation about improvisation. He would not have done such without the camera, though he likely may internally meditated on the subject or not brought it to mind at all. So, the simple act of viewing changes the actions of the perceived. The individual would be present (in the world) regardless of a camera being present in the room. but it is strongly affected and altered by the simple act of presence and such affects the understanding of it. Much like the camera our individual perceptions of reality base our understanding of the world around what we see. While we take what we are seeing as being the absolute truth, our presence is actually affecting the very reality we are viewing, constructing it (as the camera constructs the shot its takes) much like we would construct the sign of 'tree'.
The rapid and fragmented camera angles serve as a parallel to Derrida's notions of the sign having infinite meanings because language is missing ' a center which arrests and founds the foreplay of substitutions'(Derrida). Such, we see each camera angle as representing a slight substation of the sign, which in this case is Derrida. This views Derrida in his simplest form, exterior looks alone, and thus forces us to grasp that even something as simple as exterior form, can take on an infinite number of meanings. Each person is their own camera angle filming 'reality'.
By incorporating mirrors we do not, as viewers, get a sincere and centered image of Derrida. Our eyes go left, our eyes go right, and at times it is even difficult for us to tell where he is positioned in the room. These images of Derrida being split into two different directions are editorial decisions that successfully perpetuate the philosophies within Derrida’s revolutionary text, “Structure, Sign and Play.” The mirror implies the belief that we exist within a decentered universe, and that no ideas about who we are, what we do, what we know, are at all fixed. So in these instances involving mirrors, Derrida’s physical existence at the time of these interviews can take place in several places; hanging from the wall, sitting on the couch, and we could even say, streaming through the mechanics of a camera, aiming “to show that the text is at war with itself”(Barry, 69).
Within this metaphor one might say that Derrida's deconstructionist attitude would be for each person to step back from the camera and analyze why they are shooting a scene in that particular way, that is to say, what causes one to view life from that particular angle. The mirror shots of Derrida with the camera behind him, give us a taste of just how interesting wandering down that path may be.

Take yourself off the tripod.

The notion of love that Derrida presents is extremely interesting. Is it the ‘who’ we love or the ‘what’? Is it possible to tell the difference?
The first thing that came to mind to help break down this question was the classic phrase ‘love at first sight’. Personally I’ve had moments where someone walks by and I become paralyzed. Its as if time stops and my brain goes on overdrive. My mind instantly ‘falls in love’. But thinking back on those moments, I’ve come to realize that when I say ‘fall in love’ I really mean, ‘attribute characteristics; that my mind has created, that I find attracted, and that I desire, to a woman.’
It is the ‘what’ that we initially fall in love with. Derrida says that all love starts with a seduction. This seduction is (in every instance of my own at least) always a revealing of this ‘what-love’ to be true. It is a characteristic which we attribute to our beloved as being true that they actually show as such (at least at first) which allows us to be seduced. From this point forward we find ourselves attempting to either find more characteristics within our beloved that we hold as being lovable, or find characteristics that they themselves have, which we try to 'learn to love'. We attempt to replace our original signified 'love' with a new signified and by doing so, either buy into ourselves and fall further in 'love, or finding out that we have done nothing but shift our own understanding/meaning of our 'beloved' find our center fall apart and in doing so fall 'out of love' with the person. 'It's not you, it's me' is an appropriate sentiment.
On the topic of love, the notion of the 'I' is also mentioned by Derrida. What Derrida is saying, is that if we strip someone of the what(that is, the "things" ie. what they wear, what they listen to, what kind of movies they watch, etc.) then we are essentially losing an entire impression of "who" that person is. So in a sense then, in response to what Derrida is suggesting here,  these "whats" are what construct the "I" in many ways, and they play important roles then, in defining who the "I" is in a universe full of other "I's". For example. I choose the clothes I wear, hoping that others will understand a more inner part of me that has the potential to be expressed somewhat outwardly by what I choose to wear; how I present  myself, is thus how I want others to perceive me as. This is just a small example, a very simple one. But essentially, the "I" that is mentioned here, is in fact both constructed and represented by the "what". Furthermore the "what" is a mere "supplement" of the self. That is to say, that these supplements are what we use to construct and further 'develop' the external notion of "I".