More than once, I’ve heard people sneer at Napoleon Dynamite for not being “really about anything.” I’ve also heard people praise it for that reason. At any rate, I think I’ve figured out why it still makes sense as a linear story despite not having much of a purpose – you could say the election is the purpose, but the main character is not even the candidate.
Now, I can imagine a movie about this guy Pedro, who arrives from Mexico in a dinky town in one of the whitest states in the US. At first, he makes no friends except this weird guy called Napoleon Dynamite. But with the prodding of Napoleon (Goofy Sidekick[sup]TM[/sup]) he works up the courage to run for class president. And he has some setbacks, but gains confidence, and finds an angle his opponent can’t use (“protection”), and the Goofy Sidekick[sup]TM[/sup] is a big help, so Pedro wins, thereby assimilating without having to compromise his culture. And for a bonus, the Goofy Sidekick[sup]TM[/sup] gets a girlfriend. Or at least a tetherball partner.
So you spin that one quarter-turn, and you’ve got Napoleon Dynamite. There’s a quest, but it’s the main character’s friend’s quest, not his own. The events and the timeline parallel the story outlined above, only from Napoleon’s POV, and it answers some questions I’m mildly surprised no one has asked before. “What does the Goofy Sidekick[sup]TM[/sup] do when he’s not with the hero, propping him up? What kind of family does he come from? What does his house look like?” Of course there are movies, like most John Cusack movies, where the protagonist could be someone else’s Goofy Sidekick[sup]TM[/sup], but they’re still the hero of that film because they’re the one with the quest. Basically, Jared Hess reworked Better Off Dead so it was about Charles DeMar.
While that is a perfectly acceptable, sometimes brillant technique (see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead for an excellent version), I got absolutely no sense that that was what Napoleon Dynamite was about. None. Pedro is as bland, idiotic, and boring as all the other characters.
Of course I thought Napoleon Dynamite was an incredibly overhyped, complete waste of film with annoying, unfunny characters and little to no point, so I’m a bit biased.
Grats to the OP! That was about how I saw it back in 2004. Plus, it’s an ensemble comedy with a bunch of really wacky, funny characters, all slightly pathetic & sympathetic in their own way, which was a nice change of pace: nerds presented as protagonists. Misfits in the spotlight, for a change. I liked how the “popular”, pretty, oh-so-socially-aware characters were presented too (basically vacuous without their social support structure).
I love the movie because it gets geeks right. They’re not uber-smart computer nerds or eccentric gems with hidden qualities that nobody sees. They’re just straight up gorks, no smarter than anybody else and nothing hidden. What you see is what you get. I knew dorks like Napoleon. The great thing about him is that he has no idea he’s a geek. He thinks he’s cool. And he’s not miserable or dissatified with his life. He doesn’t want to be like the popular kids (a movie meme I hate is the presumption that all kids in high schools admire and want to be part of the elite, jock/cheerleader cliques), he’s totally happy the way he is.
I know a lot of people profess to hate this movie, and I’m not really sure why. I think it may not be what they expect it to be. They say it’s boring, but that bone dry quality is what makes it for me. That grounds it in reality. It also has a lot of heart. It’s one of my all time favorite comedies.
You think Napoleon’s not miserable/dissatisfied and totally happy the way he is? Dude, did we see the same movie?
I thought the point was he is miserable and dissatisfied (as are his brother, the girl, and Pedro), but the sad thing is that he is the only one who doesn’t manage to do anything about it.
ETA - and to the OP, I like your idea of the “quarter turn” on the typical movie. The “typical” movie could have been made not only about Pedro but the girlfriend, too, for that matter.
What? Napoleon was well aware of his short comings and believes it is his lack of the cool skills that are required to get chicks that keeps him lonely. He hates or is at least incredibly annoyed by his home life, gets picked on and is fully aware that he suffers for his awkwardness. His finances are a constant problem. He wants to be cool, but doesn’t understand what it is that makes someone cool. All this is far from the self-actualization you’ve described. Name all the parts in the movie where he smiles?
And thats why it’s good. Napoleon is a sympathetic character because his problems are relatable for a younger generation and nostalgia for an older one.
That’s not how I remember the film. But, if true, his lack of knowledge is due in vast part to the fact he’s a complete and utter idiot, with the introspection skills of a dead mollusk and the IQ of dishwater.
The movie might have made one or two amusing 6 minute SNL skits, but as a movie, it was a waste.
I’ve always just seen it as a “romantic” exaggeration on dorky characters we may or may not have known IRL.
The plot/story is pretty thin, but it’s just a medium of delivering a couple weeks in the lives of these individuals. The plot is the kay-sah-dilla… the characters are the filling.
