Open Forum Friday: Is Napoleon Dynamite the Most Divisive Movie Ever Made?

Posted by on November 28th, 2008   Filed under: Open Forum Friday
Source: New York Times

There’s an intense competition going on right now between a number of brilliant mathematicians, all of whom are trying to find the best way to predict the tastes of the average movie watcher. Netflix, like Amazon and many other online retailers, has a system that analyzes user ratings and rental history to recommend other movies to their subscribers. Netflix is offering a $1 million prize to anyone who can improve its accuracy by a factor of 10%. So, for example, if you’re into action movies with extreme violence, you’ll probably like Rambo. If you’re more into sci-fi and westerns, you might want to check out Serenity. Sounds easy enough right? The problem is, there is a growing list of oddball movies out there that simply can’t be tracked by any algorithm. #1 on the list? Napoleon Dynamite.

What is it about this movie that makes it so hard to predict? Well, for one, you either love it or you hate it. There is no middle ground. More importantly, there seems to be no surefire way of guessing which side you will fall on. Statistically speaking, it’s pretty random. Even among close friends with similar movie interests, there is quite often disagreement over the merits of Napoleon Dynamite. I find this fascinating, because it pinpoints an area of human behaviour that has no simple explanation, and a defining characteristic of “art”, I guess you could say. There’s no accounting for taste, as the saying goes. Other problematic films for Netflix include Fahrenheit 9/11, I Heart Huckabees, Kill Bill: Vol. 1, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Do you find that opinions on these movies vary wildly? What are some other films that have this polarizing effect on audiences? Can you explain why you like or dislike Napoleon Dynamite? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • dirrrtyfrank

    #1 Nothing But Trouble

  • I neither like nor hate this movie. If it’s on Comedy Central on a Sunday afternoon, I’ll probably watch it for a while and get some laffs.

    But yeah, it is pretty divisive. I think the haters are too cool to admit it’s at least a pretty funny movie, and the lovers are too ga-ga to admit it’s just a hip piece of fluff.

  • “I think the haters are too cool to admit it’s at least a pretty funny movie, and the lovers are too ga-ga to admit it’s just a hip piece of fluff.”

    I love I Heart Huckabees and Napoleon Dynamite. But I don’t understand what makes Napoleon Dynamite fluff. I think it’s almost genius that Hess was able to make a movie about pretty much nothing and still make it so fu and at the very least bearable to watch. The Seinfield effect, would you call that fluff? I just think that when a little movie comes out and finds success people just have to jump on it and find something that makes it not worthy it happened to titanic, it happened with juno, and it happened to napoleon dynamite.

  • Liz

    People are divisive about “Kill Bill Vol. 1″? I find that weird for some reason.

  • Seinfeld so brazenly disregarded any attempt at poignancy or sympathy for its characters that it did arguably make an art out of stories about nothing.

    Napoleon Dynamite isn’t as assured as Seinfeld. I’m not saying it’s easy to make people laugh–it isn’t. But beyond some good laughs and the already dated visual style, it’s just another teen underdog story with a little too many overtly borrowed elements. Personally, something would have to do more than just make me laugh for me to call it genius. And I don’t have anything against fluff if it’s entertaining enough, like ND.

  • Ian

    YES have Frank on more often. Nothin’ but Trouble for sure.

    You know Sean not to screw up your system but I’d have to say that I’m pretty ambivalent about a few of those movies mentioned in the post. I think that people are somewhat easy to cater to but I think more than anything they dislike the idea that product is being sold to them (as if they were a stereotype of a demographic). It’s kind of why the podcast thing you guys and others (myself included: http://www.granateseed.com/futilepodcast) have become so popular.

    Honestly I think maybe the best way for somebody to devise an algorithm to predict a person’s tastes is to first identify the subculture that person hails from and what are the tastes of the leaders within that subculture. For example I can reliably say that if filmjunk enjoys a movie most of the time I’ll also enjoy it (Condemned, that cartoon Rat movie, etc). That’s based on listening to hours of your show and reading your site, but all somebody would have to know is that I check filmjunk to know that the filmjunk tastes are something I appreciate. I think net history for clients of NetFlix would be a key to determining the all around tastes of a user.

    They should just ask what websites do you visit most ofen during the day?

  • Swarez

    It’s a great misunderstanding that Seinfeld is a show about nothing. Just because the creator says so doesn’t make it so. It’s the quintessential sit com, comedy about situations that the characters get themselves in to. That’s what it is about.

    Napoleon Dynamite is truly about nothing. It’s a collection of scenes, very funny scenes but has no story to speak of.

    I Hear Huckabees is a piece of shit that is trying too hard to be about some existential thought process and tries to fuck with our minds, making it seem like it’s deeper than it really is. It’s not. It’s one of the most pretentious films ever made.

    And no Kurt, it’s not as funny as The Big Lebowski. Not even close.

  • “I Hear Huckabees is a piece of shit that is trying too hard to be about some existential thought process and tries to fuck with our minds, making it seem like it’s deeper than it really is. It’s not. It’s one of the most pretentious films ever made.”

    I agree that some of I Heart Huckabees is pretentious but it’s the preformances that make it a great film for me. Your telling me that you didn’t enjoy Jason Schwartzman, Mark Whalberg or Dustin Hoffman to any degree?

  • Swarez

    Mark was good, Schwartzman not so much.
    The dinner scene was funny though.

  • TheMovieVampire

    “Crash (2005)” is the nost divisive movie ever

  • TheMovieVampire

    “Crash (2005)” is the most divisive movie ever

  • Goon

    Dogville
    Elephant
    Synechdoche New York
    Gerry

  • Goon

    “I Hear Huckabees is a piece of shit that is trying too hard to be about some existential thought process and tries to fuck with our minds, making it seem like it’s deeper than it really is. It’s not. It’s one of the most pretentious films ever made.”

    I have no idea why people think this way. The existentialism element is simply a vehicle to tell a strange story, and isn’t trying to say a single thing. I don’t find the movie even the slightest bit pretentious, in fact I think its making fun of it through some somewhat close-to-the-chest satire. I agree its now Lebowski, but Kurt is dead on when he simply personifies it as a screwball comedy.

  • “I think the haters are too cool to admit it’s at least a pretty funny movie, and the lovers are too ga-ga to admit it’s just a hip piece of fluff.”

    So fucking true. I hate people who lie to themselves…especially when it comes to artistic taste.

    “People are divisive about “Kill Bill Vol. 1″? I find that weird for some reason.”

    I understand the division…for two reasons:

    1. Kill Bill Vol. 2 has all of the substance. Once you see it Vol. 1 feels inferior and less watchable. It should be that way…movies should actually always have sequels that are better than the first like video games do but of course this is a rarity because sequels are usually made for easy ching and nothing else.

    2. Max (a friend with movie taste closer to me than any human I’ve ever met) and myself are die-hard kung-fu fans. Between each other own about 300 HK DVDs. We both love Tarantino and so of course we were superpumped about seeing Kill Bill. I loved it…Max felt like it was making fun of kung-fu in some irreverent way and it wasn’t an homage. I was all like: “How could someone want to make fun of kung-fu when it’s impossible for someone to have written and directed Kill Bill w/o loving kung-fu (considering the fact that if you’re a head like me you saw the multitude of references to classic golden age kung-fu)?” Max had no answer.

    ““Crash (2005)” is the most divisive movie ever”

    It really is…and I feel like that has something to do with the heavy-handedness of the race issue and the fact that it won an Oscar. I’m not even gay and I felt like Brokeback Mountain was definitely more deserving of that award.

    As for the Napoleon Dynamite: Some people were bombarded w/ hype before they got a chance to see it…thus nothing could live up to that kind of expectation of greatness. Also, many people absolutely HATE anything that can be perceived as hipsterism and they can’t see through their blind rage. I thought it was funny…not nearly as good now but it’s still very watchable.

  • James

    The ones that seem to be divisive in my group of friends are O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?, MOULIN ROUGE, DANCER IN THE DARK and STRANGER THAN FICTION. I like NAPOLEAN DYNAMITE, but I guess I could see why others hate it. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is another. I love it, but I know people who haven’t been able to sit through it and it’s only eighty minutes long. I love KILL BILL V.1 and 2, but I always watch them together because it’s one movie, really. Quentin Tarantino’s film are divisive, and so are Tim Burton’s. I know someone who had that all of Tarantino’s and Burton’s films are the same. I don’t think that’s true. ED WOOD is nothing like BIG FISH. Which is nothing like SWEENEY TODD. Which is nothing like PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE. Which is nothing like SLEEPY HOLLOW. Which is nothing like BEETLEJUICE. Which is nothing like PLANET OF THE APES. Okay, I think I’ve made my point.

  • Neil M

    After watching Kill Bill Vol.2, I didn’t feel that Vol.1 was inferior at all. I love both films for different reasons, but I was blown away when I saw Vol.1. I didn’t get that sense of awe with Vol.2. Sorry, I really have nothing to add to the debate. I just wanted to get that in there because I just happened to have re-watched both.

  • joe

    What about Borat? For some reason people I thought would hate it ended up liking it. And honestly after loving the Ali G Show on HBO, I didn’t care for the movie that much myself. I mean it was OK.

  • Swarez

    The Ali G movie was weak.
    I have not gotten myself to watch Borat again since I saw it in the cinema. I have a hard time watching these types of shows where people are put on the spot and make asses of themselves. I think they are hilarious but I feel so uncomfortable watching that stuff.

  • Crash, definitely. I friggin hated that movie.

    I also like the Gerry suggestion. I know people who loved it and hated it. I saw it two weeks ago and I’m still not sure what I thought.

    How about There Will Be Blood?

  • @Ryan M :: I don’t think I’d put it so strongly that people are lying to themselves about Napoleon Dynamite, but yeah, I do it with certain movies and music too.

  • rus

    O.k. I’m actually going to spend some time thinking about this in the context of all the films Sean listed because I love this shit.
    Napoleon Dynamite is an interesting example because at a base level it achieves what all good film/TV needs to reach the level of a remembered, loved work; it’s characters are fully formed and realized, and it introduces us to an environment that adds to the story. Past that, I believe the film’s popularity is in the way it successfully captures that nerdy, bumbling time in every person’s life were we struggled with identity (personal, interpersonal and within the family) and the freedom of naïve youthful ideals. There is an undercurrent of “hipster chic” were you might want to disregard Napoleon form the beginning only to realize he is the most interesting character in the film and impossible not to watch. I feel many of the people that “really hate” the film might have some personal hang-ups with always needing to judge and feel superior to things outside their comfort zone.
    But beyond all of that, the character of Napoleon is probably the most successful adolescent character ever put on celluloid. He is fully within the rules established for him by the film’s wonderful beginning. Characters like Ferris Bueller and Juno are good but by either their actions (Ferris) or snapping dialogue (Ferris and Juno) we don’t honestly buy that they are fully real. Napoleon feels real, and due to really getting into the role the filmmakers actually can take it to places of complete unreal hilarity.
    In a way Napoleons’ draw is very similar to Seinfeld because it takes the mundane issues of life and makes eloquent studies of them. Life is not about scaling mountains, it’s about dealing with feeling inadequate as you enter a party, school, a restaurant. That is something everyone has had to deal with on different degrees therefore it’s universally entertaining.
    That being said, Napoleon Dynamite is basically “a few days in the life” type film and many of the people that dislike it well never understand why people will watch it over and over. In this way, it is very similar to The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. This is a film I like when I really should not. It’s childish in concept and characters, it feels like a rehash of similar Anderson themes at a more exotic local, but its singular vision and simple layout makes me like it none-the-less. (I dig art direction so this film would always have my heart) It is one of those personally crafted films that I have to watch a few minutes of whenever it comes on. So it is similar to Napoleon Dynamite in the way its characters, setting and style make it uniquely singular, therefore, rememberable. Furthermore, each film is a simple story that without the colorful visions, locals and characters would be impossible to watch. I feel these two opposing forces is what makes the love/ hate debate with these films.
    I can see why people think “I Heart Huckabees” is preachy. I just wonder if they are associating the director with the film too much. I liked the film and was amazed how it could combine philosophical debate into a story without completely turning off or losing the audience. So of the scenes, like the dinner scene, are awesome. I’m also always reminded of one of Steve Martin’s lines whenever I watch the film, “I took just enough of philosophy in college to screw me up for the rest of my life.”
    Kill Bill is a film that is self perpetuating. What I mean is the “mash-up, homage to” aspect gives the film layers that make it more than the basic “revenge film “ but a visual museum show. I have a limited knowledge of all the types and characteristics of the different martial arts films depicted, but the way Tarantino allowed those ideals to shape the film is probably the only reason I watch Kill Bill today. The interesting parts of the films are in the layered references, transitions and styles dictated by the homage Tarantino wanted to express. If you don’t buy into that idea from the beginning I can see how it is a distracting mess.
    So what is the reason these films are so debated? I think it because each is a singular vision of a simple story and if you don’t buy the vision, the simple story is not going to keep you.

    Later,
    Rus

  • “I also like the Gerry suggestion. I know people who loved it and hated it. I saw it two weeks ago and I’m still not sure what I thought.” – Ashley

    Ha. Netflix should have an option where they can decide whether or not you liked a film. :-)

    I’m halfway through “Gerry.” I’m watching it 5 minutes at a time each month, because I get bored of watching people walking after 5 minutes.

    I haven’t seen Napoleon Dynamite, but I’m guessing I’ll hate it. I hate reality shows. I hate the character Borat. I hate Kenny vs. Spenny. I hate shows where people do stupid things to hurt themselves. I liked Freaks and Geeks. I wonder if I’ve specified enough input variables for the Netflix algorithm to come up with an answer for me.

  • In my experience, I’ve found that people’s dislike for these movies usually aren’t entirely due to the movie itself, but rather the hype surrounding. Movies tend to lose there appeal when you’ve already heard every punch line and catch phrase a hundred times before you have even seen the movie. This is especially true for movies like Napoleon Dynamite. Ace Venture Pet Detective / Austin Powers come to mind. I think late comers would be more hesitant to choose a movie on “the Netflix” after they’ve heard some dude/fem make an ass of him/her self reenacting a scene from a movie. Maybe the bigger the name “of a decent flick” the more polarized opinions get. I say that Netflix and blockbuster incorporate a “wild card” to their algorithm… just recommend the wild card movies regardless. Million $ idea right there. I win.