Tuesday, January 04, 2005
"Dear Pat:" a series of responses to your comment about my post about Napoleon Dynamite
Dear Pat:
As for Napoleon Dynamite, here's why it didn't work for me: I cared less about the characters in it than I do for most characters in SNL skits, and in fact the film plays like one long, extended, SNL skit. It was weirdness for the sake of weirdness, and not even endearing weirdness. It was, sadly, Pootie Tang for white suburbians. The morning after I watched it, I had trouble remembering what happened at the end. Even though I was awake throughout the whole movie, I just never connected with it, never really understood why I was supposed to be interested in these people. Because they're odd? I guess so. The cast is clearly talented -- the guy from Office Space, Napoleon himself, even the guy who played Kip (who, unless it is part of some very elaborate joke, is not the guy from Reno 911!. It's some guy named Aaron Ruell, who is a photographer [http://aruell.com] and BYU college buddy of the guy who wrote the film. The guy who plays Craig in Reno is named Kyle Dunnigan, and he's a circuit stand-up comedian: http://www.messinabaker.com/resume.php?clientID=116). Lots of talent there, just not much to do with it. Shame, too, because the director and cinematographer did a wonderful job of setting up some really striking shots. Some of the lines were funny, but again, without deeply amusing characters to deliver them, they just didn't have the punch. I wouldn't rank it up there with the worst films of the year last year, but I would have to say it's one of the most disappointing. Gosh!
Love always,
bp
Dear bp:
I was a little disappointed by ND at first, only because my niece has been quoting it and blowing it out of proportion for months. However, now that I look back on the film and remember some of the lines, I have a better appreciation for it. I think it's one of those films that will be a cult classic kinda like Pee Wee's Big Adventure. PWBA is a long SNL skit with characters that you don't have any feelings for, but it's pretty wacky and funny the more you watch it. I know I'd get a bigger kick out of ND if I watched it again, but maybe you won't. That's why it appeals to different people. You and I are different people. You like reality TV, and I don't. OK, maybe that's a bad example. You want to conquer certain video games, and I just want to kick yer ass in football/hockey/basketball/golf. You loved Pulp Fiction and swore it was the greatest movie of it's time, and I found that you over-hyped it for me and I ended up a little disappointed. I think when you hear so many good things about a film, you go into it overly critical. I know I do. However, as much as you may not agree with this statement, I feel like I always make my own judgment on films/TV/music and I never let the mass obscure my opinion.
I still love you though.
Love forever,
~o
Dear Spoo:
In defense of Pee Wee's Big Adventure: it is structured as a classic road story built around a robust and extremely well-developed character (which had been around for years by then, and which was already a countercultural icon). ND is structured as nothing, really. Nothing at all. Just scene after scene of Napoleon (neither a robust nor a well-developed character -- just an amusing one at best; basically -- just like SNL characters -- a funny look and a catch phrase or two repeated over and over again... might as well be Ed Grimley) looking constipated and saying occasionally funny (but never witty) lines like "Gosh." Also some amusing slapstick, but never with enough momentum (or surprise) to produce a genuine "laugh out loud" moment. In theory, that's OK -- I've enjoyed many films that didn't provoke the LOL moment. But few of those films were marketed to me as the feel good quirky comedy of the year! I think what upset me so much as I watched it was the attempted anachronism: mid-80's suburban Boise translated into mid-00's suburban Boise. I didn't see the point. Then I thought of how much COULD have been done with the whole mid-80's nerd thing (a subject with which I am embarrassingly familiar), and I got more and more angry that the film didn't make any attempt to connect with ME. Because I lived it, dammit!
A better comparison than PWBA (which, for me anyway, was a LOL movie from start to finish -- I remember being the only one in the packed theater who could barely breathe I was laughing so hard) might be "The Royal Tennenbaums," which, while full of weird characters to whom we can't readily relate, at least took some time to develop them. I don't remember a single LOL moment in that one, either, but I vividly and fondly remember the situations the characters found themselves in. If I could remember any of the characters' situations in ND, maybe the recollections would be fond (to be fair, I found the chicano guy whose name I can't remember pretty amusing in just about every scene he appeared -- much more so than Napoleon, Kip, or the uncle with the bad toupe). Which is basically my whole problem with the movie. It's been three days, and I can't remember any of it!. See what I mean?
As for your accusation that I am swayed by the masses and you are not... speaking for myself only, I DO read a lot of film criticism. A lot more than most people I know, and I'll bet a lot more than most peoiple you know. But film critics aren't the masses. They're just a bunch of people whose opinions I've learned over time align closely with mine (and, usually, they're good writers). I went into ND more or less neutrally biased, perhaps expecting to like it more than I expected not to. Keep in mind, the "hype" surrounding ND was almost universally mixed -- it's been a while since a "buzz" movie produced such strong love it or hate it reactions from the critical media (the ones I read regularly, i.e.). I went into it feeling pretty sure I'd like it -- I tend to align more with the writers who fell on the "loved it" side of the fence. The ones who hated it, though, were pretty persuasive. And I read just about everything I could, both positive and negative. Plus, you liked it. As did a few other friends whose opinions I know and trust.
Then, I saw it. And it just didn't work for me. It wasn't the worst movie ever, I didn't by any means hate it, it just didn't meet either my standards or my expectations. I respect you no less for liking it, but I can't say I saw whatever it was you liked when I watched it. Maybe another screening is in order. We'll see.
I have the same problem with "The Wire," which I have watched several times. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to sort out the characters who look alike (if you know what I mean), and it's really hard to watch a show when you can't tell from one scene to the next which person is a good guy, and which one is the bad guy. Bill Cross (and Ken Tucker, evidently, whose opinion aligns with mine about 95% of the time) think it's the best thing on TV. So I've ordered it up on Netflix. I may give ND another try, too -- Beth slept through it the first time, and I haven't sent it back. Maybe on 2nd viewing, I'll decide I like it more. But I'll probably just get more annoyed with it instead.
And can you confirm that Reno 911! Craig and Kip are / aren't the same guy? I think part of the problem with the movie is that I got all obsessed with finding out who he was, so I pulled out my computer and trolled the imdb for 15 minutes for an answer. I'm still not entirely sure. Any ideas?
Oh, and when are they gonna make the Ed Grimley movie?
Love eternally,
Willie
Dearest Guillaume:
First of all, not accusing you of being swayed by the masses. Quite the opposite! I was merely saying that when we (both of us, not "you") hear so many good things about a film, we are destined to be disappointed in it. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I was TRYING to say vs. what actually came out in the text. So when you do read that criticism (I know you are a much better read person than I am when it comes to entertainment - where do you find the time?), again you're set up for disappointment on movies that you expect to be great. Have you read the IBMd reviews for Life Aquatic? Some people loved it, others just simply didn't get it.
I thought they made an Ed Grimley movie, or was that just a cartoon on Saturday mornings?
Ya know, I am usually in line with your views on movies and so on. I'm at the point now when I read a review of yours I can tell whether I'd like the film or not - no matter how you judged it. For instance, I know I wouldn'tlike Dogville or Gerry, even though you have an appreciation for both films. And I will live by taking your word for it and not seeing them myself.
However, when you described Dead Like Me to me, I knew I would like it. Which leads me to believe you'd like Wonder Falls if it ever gets released on DVD.BTW, over the years I've grown to appreciate Pulp Fiction. But as for movies that are thoroughly depressing and realistic, I'd rather go to see something that entertains me and is an escape. If I want real, I'll watch the depressing news...
I would die for you,
GPA San Andreas
As for Napoleon Dynamite, here's why it didn't work for me: I cared less about the characters in it than I do for most characters in SNL skits, and in fact the film plays like one long, extended, SNL skit. It was weirdness for the sake of weirdness, and not even endearing weirdness. It was, sadly, Pootie Tang for white suburbians. The morning after I watched it, I had trouble remembering what happened at the end. Even though I was awake throughout the whole movie, I just never connected with it, never really understood why I was supposed to be interested in these people. Because they're odd? I guess so. The cast is clearly talented -- the guy from Office Space, Napoleon himself, even the guy who played Kip (who, unless it is part of some very elaborate joke, is not the guy from Reno 911!. It's some guy named Aaron Ruell, who is a photographer [http://aruell.com] and BYU college buddy of the guy who wrote the film. The guy who plays Craig in Reno is named Kyle Dunnigan, and he's a circuit stand-up comedian: http://www.messinabaker.com/resume.php?clientID=116). Lots of talent there, just not much to do with it. Shame, too, because the director and cinematographer did a wonderful job of setting up some really striking shots. Some of the lines were funny, but again, without deeply amusing characters to deliver them, they just didn't have the punch. I wouldn't rank it up there with the worst films of the year last year, but I would have to say it's one of the most disappointing. Gosh!
Love always,
bp
Dear bp:
I was a little disappointed by ND at first, only because my niece has been quoting it and blowing it out of proportion for months. However, now that I look back on the film and remember some of the lines, I have a better appreciation for it. I think it's one of those films that will be a cult classic kinda like Pee Wee's Big Adventure. PWBA is a long SNL skit with characters that you don't have any feelings for, but it's pretty wacky and funny the more you watch it. I know I'd get a bigger kick out of ND if I watched it again, but maybe you won't. That's why it appeals to different people. You and I are different people. You like reality TV, and I don't. OK, maybe that's a bad example. You want to conquer certain video games, and I just want to kick yer ass in football/hockey/basketball/golf. You loved Pulp Fiction and swore it was the greatest movie of it's time, and I found that you over-hyped it for me and I ended up a little disappointed. I think when you hear so many good things about a film, you go into it overly critical. I know I do. However, as much as you may not agree with this statement, I feel like I always make my own judgment on films/TV/music and I never let the mass obscure my opinion.
I still love you though.
Love forever,
~o
Dear Spoo:
In defense of Pee Wee's Big Adventure: it is structured as a classic road story built around a robust and extremely well-developed character (which had been around for years by then, and which was already a countercultural icon). ND is structured as nothing, really. Nothing at all. Just scene after scene of Napoleon (neither a robust nor a well-developed character -- just an amusing one at best; basically -- just like SNL characters -- a funny look and a catch phrase or two repeated over and over again... might as well be Ed Grimley) looking constipated and saying occasionally funny (but never witty) lines like "Gosh." Also some amusing slapstick, but never with enough momentum (or surprise) to produce a genuine "laugh out loud" moment. In theory, that's OK -- I've enjoyed many films that didn't provoke the LOL moment. But few of those films were marketed to me as the feel good quirky comedy of the year! I think what upset me so much as I watched it was the attempted anachronism: mid-80's suburban Boise translated into mid-00's suburban Boise. I didn't see the point. Then I thought of how much COULD have been done with the whole mid-80's nerd thing (a subject with which I am embarrassingly familiar), and I got more and more angry that the film didn't make any attempt to connect with ME. Because I lived it, dammit!
A better comparison than PWBA (which, for me anyway, was a LOL movie from start to finish -- I remember being the only one in the packed theater who could barely breathe I was laughing so hard) might be "The Royal Tennenbaums," which, while full of weird characters to whom we can't readily relate, at least took some time to develop them. I don't remember a single LOL moment in that one, either, but I vividly and fondly remember the situations the characters found themselves in. If I could remember any of the characters' situations in ND, maybe the recollections would be fond (to be fair, I found the chicano guy whose name I can't remember pretty amusing in just about every scene he appeared -- much more so than Napoleon, Kip, or the uncle with the bad toupe). Which is basically my whole problem with the movie. It's been three days, and I can't remember any of it!. See what I mean?
As for your accusation that I am swayed by the masses and you are not... speaking for myself only, I DO read a lot of film criticism. A lot more than most people I know, and I'll bet a lot more than most peoiple you know. But film critics aren't the masses. They're just a bunch of people whose opinions I've learned over time align closely with mine (and, usually, they're good writers). I went into ND more or less neutrally biased, perhaps expecting to like it more than I expected not to. Keep in mind, the "hype" surrounding ND was almost universally mixed -- it's been a while since a "buzz" movie produced such strong love it or hate it reactions from the critical media (the ones I read regularly, i.e.). I went into it feeling pretty sure I'd like it -- I tend to align more with the writers who fell on the "loved it" side of the fence. The ones who hated it, though, were pretty persuasive. And I read just about everything I could, both positive and negative. Plus, you liked it. As did a few other friends whose opinions I know and trust.
Then, I saw it. And it just didn't work for me. It wasn't the worst movie ever, I didn't by any means hate it, it just didn't meet either my standards or my expectations. I respect you no less for liking it, but I can't say I saw whatever it was you liked when I watched it. Maybe another screening is in order. We'll see.
I have the same problem with "The Wire," which I have watched several times. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to sort out the characters who look alike (if you know what I mean), and it's really hard to watch a show when you can't tell from one scene to the next which person is a good guy, and which one is the bad guy. Bill Cross (and Ken Tucker, evidently, whose opinion aligns with mine about 95% of the time) think it's the best thing on TV. So I've ordered it up on Netflix. I may give ND another try, too -- Beth slept through it the first time, and I haven't sent it back. Maybe on 2nd viewing, I'll decide I like it more. But I'll probably just get more annoyed with it instead.
And can you confirm that Reno 911! Craig and Kip are / aren't the same guy? I think part of the problem with the movie is that I got all obsessed with finding out who he was, so I pulled out my computer and trolled the imdb for 15 minutes for an answer. I'm still not entirely sure. Any ideas?
Oh, and when are they gonna make the Ed Grimley movie?
Love eternally,
Willie
Dearest Guillaume:
First of all, not accusing you of being swayed by the masses. Quite the opposite! I was merely saying that when we (both of us, not "you") hear so many good things about a film, we are destined to be disappointed in it. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I was TRYING to say vs. what actually came out in the text. So when you do read that criticism (I know you are a much better read person than I am when it comes to entertainment - where do you find the time?), again you're set up for disappointment on movies that you expect to be great. Have you read the IBMd reviews for Life Aquatic? Some people loved it, others just simply didn't get it.
I thought they made an Ed Grimley movie, or was that just a cartoon on Saturday mornings?
Ya know, I am usually in line with your views on movies and so on. I'm at the point now when I read a review of yours I can tell whether I'd like the film or not - no matter how you judged it. For instance, I know I wouldn'tlike Dogville or Gerry, even though you have an appreciation for both films. And I will live by taking your word for it and not seeing them myself.
However, when you described Dead Like Me to me, I knew I would like it. Which leads me to believe you'd like Wonder Falls if it ever gets released on DVD.BTW, over the years I've grown to appreciate Pulp Fiction. But as for movies that are thoroughly depressing and realistic, I'd rather go to see something that entertains me and is an escape. If I want real, I'll watch the depressing news...
I would die for you,
GPA San Andreas
posted by Bill Purdy, 1:57 PM