I realize that Chomsky is best known for his influential linguistic theories, but that last bit about sentence structure seemed almost trivial compared to some of the bigger, more interesting ideas presented in the film. Perhaps I'm missing something or simply failed to grasp the importance of the idea being discussed, but it seemed like a pretty weak point to end the film on. After almost 90 minutes of intense interest and curiosity, I was left feeling somewhat unsatisfied.
shareIt seemed to me that the director was particularly satisfied with the fact that Chomsky subconsciously changed the sentence from the original example that he used in his work "is the man who is tall in the room" to the titular sentence. This was apparently a result of the conversation they had about happiness, in which Chomsky did not reveal much.
Chomsky is a hard nut to crack and he seems to put a very rigid boundary around his private life. I have personally watched a lot of interviews with him, and this movie is the one that has been most successful in getting him to talk more about his private life. However, Chomsky still evaded the more private questions, and even when he opened up about the discrimination he faced as a school boy, he hardly mentioned his own feelings about the matter.
I think the director was hoping for a more revelatory movie, and when he failed in achieving that, he took the subconscious change in the sentence as a small triumph, and kind of ended the movie with a question about Chomsky's own happiness.
I personally think that the clash between the director's artistic sensibilities and Chomsky's lack of self-indulgence resulted in a rather messy product. I might be overanalysing, however.