>>7323
Napoleon Dynamite is the Tarkovsky of comedy cinema. You see, there's nothing experimental about these type of films. They're extremely contemporary, the creators know what they're doing and where they're heading.
In Napoleon Dynamite, you can find the same philosophy as what you find in Zerkalo, Stalker, Rublev, Solaris, Sacrifice, and other Tark's films. They're very down to earth, they don't try to look sophisticated yet there's a radiance of brilliance emitted by them. Whereas other films try to mimic life, these films create life. These are the personal impressions of the director's memory that are transmuted into an audiovisual format. The aesthetic of these films are so hard to articulate, yet so alive and flows like poetry.
It's not only the casting that made the actors of this film feel so natural. There is a certain director's decision that needs to be made in order to achieve this. As explained by Tarkovsky in Sculpting in Time:
>Often enough in film, the director takes upon his conscience things that go against the wishes of the actor. In theatre, by contrast, we have to be made aware in every scene of the ideas that go to build up a character — that is the only right and natural way. For in theatre, things are not done to order; theatre works through metaphor, rhythm and rhyme — through its poetry.
>Here we wanted the actress to experience those minutes just as she would have in her own life,happily unaware of the scenario; she would presumably be hoping, losing hope, and then starting to hope again . . . Within the given framework of waiting for her husband, the acttess had to live out her own mysterious fragment of life ignorant of where it might be leading.
>>7334
A good film doesn't need an elaborate plot and unexpected change of scene. In fact, these factors can distract the audience and ruin the flow of the film. The lack of these distractions is the reason why people keep saying that Napoleon Dynamite is a "comfy" film. Cinema should be an observation of life without the crude interference with it's continuity.
This film has a lot of diverse characters with their diverse intentions and living their own diverse story. As you said, this film doesn't rely on vulgarity and shock values. All the characters turn out to be good guys in their own way. The director didn't want to make the unpleasant surprises by making twists or deepening plot. This film is no more than an observation of life, without any glorification and forced absurdity, and that's why this film is perfect.
Even the music tells the story. Whereas Tarkovsky has Bach as an overture and sounds of nature with subtle electrical chirps as the soundtrack, this film has a simple and light jazz muzak played on a Casio keyboard that tries not to disturb the flow of the film. It's like the director REALLY knew his shit.
