[asphodel5]

Based on the fact that I was the only one who mentioned “Napoleon Dynamite” in the other thread, I presume that the creation of this thread and its opening statements are directed toward me. Your tone suggests that you 1- don’t believe that I even saw the film or 2- am so egotistical that I had my mind made up before entering the theatre. Contrary to that opinion, I had high hopes for the film. I read about its success at Sundance and tracked anticipated its local release. In fact, I saw the first matinee at my local theatre. I wanted to like the film, but for reasons that I will describe in subsequent paragraphs, I did not connect with it. As far as the marketing is concerned, I happened to like the initial marketing. The trailer promised quirky amusement. The poster featured an aloof character. I presumed that he would be a slacker with a swagger, a misfit with a mission or maybe even an ennui-ridden exile. I found none of those qualities.

If my first theatrical viewing was not enough to qualify as ‘open minded’, this evening, I have it a second try. Before you give yourself credit for exerting a degree of control over my life, I’ll mention that my younger brother (who is a fan of teen comedies, mundane action films and schlocky horror) expressed interest in seeing it. I reluctantly watched it while chatting on IM. Now, I’ll admit that this time, I went into it with certain preconceptions, but I believe that state is unavoidable in the case of any repeated film.

On to the film…

You mentioned that it is unimaginable for anyone not to find a film about high school life or social misfits interesting. That statement glosses over the reasons why I disliked the film. It wasn’t because it was about high school or because the characters were misanthropic. I’ll be the first to admit that it isn’t my favorite subject, but from time to time, a true gem appears in every genre. I like to find these films as I’m sure that you do. Unfortunately for me, it didn’t happen this time.

After that lengthy ramble, I’m sure that you want to hear why I disliked the film. I’ll do my best.

1- The characters simply do not appeal to me. On second viewing, Pedro was moderately amusing, but that’s only because the movie makes it acceptable to laugh at him for being a fish out of water. As my friend mentioned, this film isn’t about finding characters to identify with. It’s about finding characters who, however much of a loser you as an audience member might be, (not YOU specifically) will be even more pitiful. That ‘look how bad her hair is’ or ‘look, he dresses like 1982’ humor would probably work for a short film. It wouldn’t outstay its welcome. At feature length, it was tiresome.

These characters are bigger losers than anyone could ever be. At least, I hope that they are. I can’t identify with their less than mediocre lifestyle. I don’t find horrid clothes all that amusing. If I want to see people with no sense of style, I just have to go to drive by the discount grocery store. At least I won’t have to spend 85 minutes with them. The director doesn’t seem too sympathetic either. This may or may not have been his intention, but I handle slacker characters better when there is some attempt to make their plight sympathetic. Do we care when the date leaves Napoleon at the dance? No. How about when the uncle reminisces? No. We are expected to laugh because they are pitiful people. Laughter is (and should be) the goal of a comedy, but when the situations aren’t clever and the characters aren’t trying to ham it up for the camera, we end up spending our time laughing at them. I don’t see how that equals identifying with them. I’m not one to shy away from a black hearted laugh, but I didn’t see the point here.


2- Purpose

Napoleon and his friends have no real ambitions and no means to obtain anything. Yes, that fits with their ‘loser’ status, but losers are funnier when they try and fail. The Dude and his comrades fit this to a tee. With “The Big Lebowski”, the Coens’ were able to premise an entire film on a case of mistaken identity and a soiled rug. These characters were just as lazy and the plot was just as ‘untraditional’. It came together because it was premised on the idea of casting the least likely ‘hero’ at the center of a convoluted/frequently non-sensical Chandler-esque plot. The purpose (getting the rug back), is almost always secondary, but it is always there.

With ND, there is nothing to propel the film forward. It doesn’t have obvious plot twists because there is no plot to speak of. The early bus scene sums up the much of the film. When asked what he will do, Napoleon says “Whatever the hell I want to do” and tosses a stringed toy out of the window. To some viewers, this indicates freedom from convention. For me, is suggested that the characters would spend more time trying their hardest to be ‘odd’ or unpredictable than doing anything legitimately clever. This pattern repeats itself ad nauseum with the Llama, the cycle riding granny, the tater tots in the pocket and a number of other scenes. It seemed to go on and on (even more so the second time around) and without pleasing characters and any sense of satisfaction from the look or plot, it becomes an exercise in tedium.

All of this probably sets me up for a ‘you need everything safe and spoon fed’ or ‘you want to see silly explosions and a big, brave hero in your movies’ response. I can assure you that is not the case. Many of my favorite films are as far from heroic or by-the-numbers as you can get. I’ll be glad to list some, but I don’t want to be called arrogant for listing a bunch of pretentious bourgeois tripe. Maybe looking at my DVDAficionado list would be simplest. You can find that in my signature.

3- Dialogue or lack thereof and visual storytelling

You mentioned that you enjoyed the way that the intro established the main characters without a lot of dialogue of pointless chatter. I like that too. With the exception of screwball comedies from the 30s and 40s (which are the chattier, the better), I’m not a fan or wordy movies. I think that’s why I like films by Antonioni, Kieslowski, Renais and Wong Kar-Wai so much. Their stories are primarily told with visuals and in some cases, with music/sound. Dialogue is never all that important because you can ‘read’ the characters without knowing their every vocalization.

Although you suggested that ND does the same thing, I think that there is a difference between characters who have nothing to say and characters who don’t need to say anything to engage the audience. I know that many people found their ‘dangs’, ‘flips’ and ‘skills’ mumbling hilarious, but I didn’t. I wanted some snappiness or double entendre. I know, I shouldn’t expect these bumpkins to chatter like Preston Sturges characters, but as intentionally ironic as it all was, I don’t find terse discussions about football glory days, Tupperware or internet chicks amusing as presented here. On second viewing, the only time that I was amused was the visit to the $300 fitness seminar. It was the only time when I felt that the mockery was taken to an amusing end. At all other times, the stuttering and ironic ineptness dragged on and on. When he wasn’t mumbling, Napoleon stares with a glazed over look. That could be amusing for about ten minutes, but again, for me, it isn’t feature length material.

You also mentioned the minimalist mise-en-scene. There are bits of stylization like the locker colors and the hopelessly dated/rundown homes, but although it was taken too far to be considered naturalistic, it wasn’t far enough for me to consider it ‘surreal’ or even memorable.

Even now, the only style that sticks in my mind is the inclusion of disgusting lunchroom food during the credits. Many films present stills of beautifully presented haute cuisine, so I’m sure that the ironic use of bad, bad food was meant to be funny. Instead, in my case, it acts as an instant turn off. It is shallow, but I will lose all sympathy for movie characters who willingly eat preservative-laden slop that can’t even qualify as food. Even when this is played for comedy, I lose respect for the characters. By starting this movie with such a disgusting display (and yes, to me it was more disgusting than a famed shot from Catherine Brelliat’s “A Real Young Girl”), it needed to do a lot to redeem itself. I’m sorry to say that for me, that never happened.

4- Post-Release Hype

The buzz/internet/friend reactions didn’t taint my reaction the first time around, but I couldn’t help but pick up on a few biases by the second go around. Apart from one person, everyone who I have discussed the film with all of my friends who have similar tastes to mine have either disliked or loathed the film. Although there are likely to be many exceptions, most of the people (offline) who praised the film in my presence were clearly not to be trusted when it came to film. Just this evening, I heard an overweight, unshaven (yet not fully bearded) man who saw it proper to wear aqua sweatpants in public laud it to a videostore clerk. Most amusing was his resolution to see ‘way more of that Sunset winning shit’. That in addition to one of my brother’s friends and his pseudo-film buff rambling (who would have thought that the year 2000 was the start of cinema!) have further tarnished my appreciation of the film.

I hope that I gave it a fair chance or at least provided an amusingly bourgeois reaction.

PS
In re: to ‘trick’

Please explain your last sentence. I can only assume that me not liking Napoleon makes me a tease or a hoe or maybe someone who frequents red light districts. Fun.