Napoleon Dynamite

Granted I was loaded with some questionable substances over the weekend and that always tends to skew one’s opinion on a movie, but I reckon I would have loved Napoleon Dynamite stone straight.

At times excruciatingly funny, at others both touching and heartbreaking – the question that kept popping up all night amongst us was “is this director taking more drugs than we are?”

I thought Jon Heder’s performance as the bullied, skewed and lonely Napoleon (a hyper-real character I think everyone can in some way identify with) was nothing short of perfection. As for the guy (whose name I can’t remember) that played Pedro, I laughed from the first minute.

Also, did anyone else get the feeling that there was something vaguely disturbing, perhaps even sinister lurking just beyond the grasp of understanding? I know everyone that watched it with me held a similar view.

For a low budget film I thought the production standards (especially the sound and camerawork) were nothing short of first class.

One of the best I’ve seen this year, without doubt.

I agree that there is a disquieting ugliness lurking just beneath the surface of the movie. I think it was the appearance of the Uncle Rico character that really triggered my suspicions. If squirming around like a sleazy, middle-aged lothario isn’t unsettling enough, his condescending (bordering on something a little more sinister) demeanor toward the brothers left me feeling uncomfortable at times. Indeed, more than a couple of us felt that there was something very wrong about that family unit – with theories ranging from the suggestion of physical abuse right up to incest*. And it’s not just Napoleon’s family that receives an almost sadistic kicking from the director. Pedro, Summer and Deb all seem as if they’ve been plucked out of God’s “damaged goods” bin without permission.

Another thing that struck me was the overwhelming shabbiness of the world Hess paints. The hideous wallpapers, the clapped-out cars and vans, the tasteless clothes and hairstyles, the rinky-dink school dance with its limp decorations and tawdry lighting. To me the whole thing seemed like a hellish village for the damned.

At more than one point in the movie I was torn between the thoughts “this is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in years” and “stop laughing because this REALLY isn’t the kind of thing one should be laughing at”.

Certainly I feel Napoleon Dynamite is far beyond the “Geek Triumph” genre many people want to lump it into. Whilst at heart it is without doubt a Fairy Tale (of the Brothers Grimm stable), I think also it is a bitter and often cheerless examination of the horrors of family dysfunction and the miserable social excommunication that often flows from it. I defy anyone not to empathise with Napoleon when he stands beating the tethered ball (badly) with an expression of frustration, depression and aching loneliness painted across his face.

I know there’s a lot of seething antipathy for ND, but I’ve got to say it put the hook in me from the first minute and from then on I was caught. Without doubt I shall watch it over and over again.

* For those who have seen the twisted and bizarre British TV comedy The League of Gentlemen, does anyone else feel there is more than a touch of Royston Vasey about the whole movie?)

I think the "indie film posing" accusation is a touch harsh, tbh. BOM says the production budget for the movie was $400,000, which is hardly lavish, even for a TV production. According to IMDB, Hess edited the whole thing on a home PC.

What I do strongly take issue with is the accusation that has been leveled by a number of people on this board that the film is “loser chic”. In my opinion there was precious little glorification of “losers” in the movie. At times Hess’s treatment of the misfits was pretty painful, whilst at others I felt he demonstrated a warm degree of sympathy. Certainly it made me wonder about my days at school and whether I’d done enough to help those Napoleon Dynamite types who always seemed to haunt the hallways and playgrounds mocked, dejected and ostracized. At the time it was always easier to fall in with the popular opinion that such "weirdos" were best given a wide berth. Now the foolishness and cruelty of that stance is all too apparent. A guilty conscience can lay heavy on the heart.

In my mind, (a personal opinion of course), it seems pretty obvious that Napoleon is not simply “a loser geek”. I think there’s strong evidence to support the argument that he suffers from mental illness, probably Asperger’s Syndrome or what was once called Walter Mittee Syndrome – constructing elaborate fantasy scenarios in the mind that can be escaped to when “real life” becomes too difficult to bear. Like many sufferers, Napoleon is extremely awkward in social situations and finds it very difficult to make friends with people who aren’t similarly ostracized. In school he draws pictures of unicorns or “Ligers” (a cross between a Tiger and a Lion, known for magical powers), in a file that is covered with more pictures of rocket ships. When he’s not drawing he’s regaling others with far-fetched fantasy tales of how he defeated 50 wolverines in Alaska with a 12 gauge or how he was invited, on the strength of his bowstaff skills, to join a popular gang at school. All of these mental escapes are designed to impress others and thus (hopefully) promote his miserable standing in the school hierarchy. Of course, the reality is that they are entirely counterproductive. Instead of making him look “cool” they merely reinforce the popular opinion that he is simply an eccentric weirdo, best avoided (the opening line spoken to him on the bus is “So, what are you going to do today, Napoleon?).

Napoleon’s attitude to girls is straightforward and quite sad: only men with skills can woo them – “You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.” At no point does personality come into it, because he feels he doesn’t have a strong enough one to ever compete with those of the cool kids around him. Interestingly, a third into the movie we learn that one of Napoleon’s skills is the ability to dance. It is at this point the director lays the foundations for what I think is a very dark twist at the end of the movie. Throughout the film the point is hammered home that Napoleon has little to no coordination. He’s forever falling on his backside, hopelessly missing the tethered ball, crashing painfully off bikes etc. Yet, at the end of the movie he is suddenly transformed, (just like the ugly ducking) into a strutting Disco God, whose swaying hips and lithe moves win the entire school’s favour (and the heart of the girl he secretly likes) in under two minutes. Could it be that we are in fact witnessing one of Napoleon’s delusional escapes from reality?

I think, given the evidence, this rather downbeat assessment is very plausible. But even if it isn’t the case (Hess, in the tradition of most good writer directors, has played his cards very close to his chest about the movie) I think NP is still far more complex and sophisticated than many people give credit. Certainly this superb (and I use that word with caution these days) piece of work demands repeat viewing.

I can't imagine the opening credits to ND were expensive. How much does a hand, 15 dishes, meals and tablecloths, and someone who's useful with an icing pipe cost?

There’s no doubt that ND had a good deal of expensive backing to distribute the movie, but surely the point is it only secured that investment on its own merits? There’s no way FOX or anyone else is going to toss money like confetti at a low-budget movie unless they think it demonstrates some worth. To me it is nonsensical to argue that ND (for which Heder was paid a paltry $1000) isn’t a genuine low-budget film simply because the major studios (who it seems weren’t involved previously) jumped in at the last minute to distribute the movie and make some easy money.

Intended by the writing team or not - Napoleon does exhibit symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome.