Napoleon Dynamite hit theaters on June 11, 2004
Let’s say it straight away and without filters: it’s not necessarily easy to love Napoleon Dynamite, which was a small but interesting critical case when it came out twenty years ago and which, however, over time, has not left a big mark on American independent cinema (go and see the subsequent filmography of Jon Heder and director Jared Hess for confirmation). A small cult object for a generation of nerds who then changed their references and their idols by choosing more glamorous products, it is a film that at times seems to do everything it can to make itself hated, or at least to maintain a certain distance between the viewer is his protagonist. It’s a classic case of a film whose value you can recognize even if you don’t love it – and for an independent work this risks becoming a problem.
Napoleon Dynamite e Napoleon Dynamite
The crux of the matter lies entirely in the protagonist: Jon Heder portrays a character superficially similar to a million other nerds seen in a million other films, but with a series of characteristics that differentiate him decisively. Napoleon Dynamite isn’t just a bit of a loser, asocial, ugly and with very particular obsessions: this has happened to all film nerds since the term was invented. Maybe he’s not even completely a nerd, maybe the correct term to describe him is “geek”; the fact is that, unlike many other similar characters, he lacks those characteristics that allow us to empathize with him.
For example: he is a victim of bullies, but he almost doesn’t seem to realize it, and he is a bully himself, in the sense that he treats badly those few people who are lower than him on the social ladder. He is not sweet, romantic or dreamy: he is just very strange. At times he even seems mean, in addition to being probably not very intelligent (another characteristic that nerds usually possess, being their main weapon). On the other hand, however, Jared Hess described Napoleon Dynamite as “very autobiographical”: you may find the protagonist unpleasant, but you can also admire the courage with which the author chose to represent him without smoothing out his more angular aspects.
The rest of the ecosystem
It would not be correct, however, to reduce Napoleon Dynamite to its protagonist, because like many indie comedies (then we also return to the genre of reference) what also counts is the ecosystem that revolves around him. Brother Kip, who is over thirty but still doesn’t dare to think about leaving home. Uncle Rico, who you never understand if he is a crafty guy who wants to exploit his stupid nephews or if he is just as stupid himself. The eternally young grandmother, a character that would not have been out of place in Little Miss Sunshine. Friend Pedro. Deborah, Napoleon’s “love interest” with all the quotation marks of the case. They are a series of completely absurd faces (and characters), yet perfectly integrated into the provincial world in which the events take place. They don’t make sense in an absolute sense, but they make sense as people who revolve around Napoleon.
This is why we talked about “reference genre” before. Napoleon Dynamite it is without a doubt a funny comedy full of humor deadpanbut it is also a slice of life (what in English is called slice of life) made so by its autobiographical nature. This is also the reason why it is difficult to explain exactly what it is about: it is a film in which things happen in the course of the protagonist’s life, but it does not have a traditional comedy structure, nor its rhythm. It is a film that proceeds, as and when it wants, and that often leaves you speechless because it is impossible to expect what will happen in the next scene.
The legacy of Napoleon Dynamite
So we come to the sore point: it’s such a strange and unconventional film that it never really exploded. There are no clones or heirs of Napoleon Dynamiteunless you want to consider the aforementioned as such Little Miss Sunshine of course Juno. But both of the titles mentioned have more commercial and marketable characteristics, which make them more appealing and digestible even for those who do not identify with their protagonists. Napoleon Dynamiteinstead, seems like a film made for those who at least once in their life have felt like Napoleon, and also made to irritate those who, on the contrary, have had to deal with a Napoleon and did not appreciate (or understand) him.
Of course, there are no laws that say if you don’t leave heirs you’re not a great film. And indeed, perhaps the fact that it is still such an alien cinematic object today is the true greatness of Napoleon Dynamite: a film about a character who is not particularly likable and at times openly irritating, who nevertheless exists, and has as much right as anyone else to have a life, friends, dreams. A character who does nothing to make himself loved, and whose lack of pandering (and in a broader sense of marketability) is like a medal of honor. Or maybe not even that: Napoleon, more simply, doesn’t give a damn about what you think of him.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!
Follow us on TikTok!
