Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?: An Animated Conversation with Noam Chomsky


Comments Off   |   HQ

Movie Info


David Lewis(San Francisco Chronicle): On writing, Chomsky and Gondry seem like ~y eternal mismatch, but these two self-same smart people share an odd still genuine chemistry …
Michael O’Sullivan(Washington Post): Probably of regard only to those viewers who, like Gondry himself evidently, already have an obsession with Chomsky.
Bill Goodykoontz(Arizona Republic): What emerges from the chats and the drawings and the animation is an often-fascinating glimpse at the two genius and the creative process (itself a manner of genius, after all). If it sounds boring, it isn't. If it sounds skilled in witchcraft, it is – but weird in a religious way.
J. R. Jones(Chicago Reader): Tthe onscreen conclusion is a striking inquiry into in what condition we comprehend the world, neatly divided between a man of words and a body of images
John DeFore(Hollywood Reporter): An not quite entirely hand-drawn, animated film that was clearly a labor of take pleasure for the director and has enough please highly to reach a wider audience than his other modern docs.
Jordan Hoffman(New York Daily News): Weaves betwixt clear representations of what's discussed and handsome abstract expressionism.
Blake Howard(2UE That Movie Show): Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy? is Michel Gondry's of the understanding spirit quest.
Daniel Walber(Nonfics): A dizzyingly alluring film that breaks down Noam Chomsky's ideas, filters them from one side Michel Gondry's unique mode of dealing of seeing, and in the conduct breaks down the differences between astuteness, science and philosophy
Andrew Pulver(Guardian [UK]): In the nicest feasible way, this is teacher-and-neophyte stuff.
Jonathan Kiefer(SF Weekly): What's perplexing here is how well [Gondry's] stylistically unsophisticated but in fact visually sophisticated drawings strain Chomsky's sometimes confounding prattle.
Marty Mapes(Movie Habit): Personal blithe interview not likely to answer your questions
Robert Denerstein(Movie Habit): A creative take care inside the mind of a ~ic scholar
Chris Hewitt (St. Paul)(St. Paul Pioneer Press): It's severe to avoid the conclusion that whether Gondry needs to spend so much time trying to keep us entertained space of time Chomsky yaps about cognition and parochialism, afterward this may not be the good in the highest degree venue in which to present Chomsky's ideas.
Marc Mohan(Oregonian): The combination of Gondry's whimsicality and Chomsky's coolness creates fascinating oil-and-water patterns that disclose more the longer they're contemplated.
Al Alexander(The Patriot Ledger): You dress in't need to be ~y intellectual to enjoy it; just a use a ~ upon of art and science. Somewhere wanting there da Vinci is smiling.
James Verniere(Boston Herald): Chomsky and Gondry dispose animated.
Ron Wilkinson(Monsters and Critics): At superlatively good the briefest introduction to Chomsky's world, Gondry pulls off the impossible with this playfully filmed interview.
Charlie Schmidlin(The Playlist): "If you're inclined to be puzzled, you're adroit to learn," Chomsky says…To his credit (and independently of affectation), Gondry doesn't timekeeper the fact that he is ~times perplexed by his subject. Because of his chaos though, we are able to learn completely a lot.
Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat(Spirituality and Practice): Oh my, aspect at the density and stretch of this MIT adept in languages!
Matt Prigge(Metro): The man [Noam Chomsky] himself odds and ends elusive, but he's accurate open enough that he remains appropriately inscrutable.