Six years later, we are still feeling the heat and feeding the fire that we started with Jared Hess’ Napoleon Dynamite. While the popularity of its one-liners died out shortly after its release, the impact of Hess’ film can be felt in chintzy gifts at Urban Outfitters stores as almost a sense of déjà vu. It’s as if the aesthetic appeal of Napoleon’s non-adventure have been destroyed, vaporized and absorbed by our collective culture and subconsciously regurgitated back onto shelves.
That isn’t inherently a bad thing; it just is. And it’s noticeable. In the world of film, particularly so: the number of faux-indie flicks like Junebug and Juno can thank their lucky stars for inviting the world to embrace pastel-hued awkwardness, as can Wes Anderson’s retro stop-motion Fantastic Mr. Fox. It’s not a matter of the content or quality of these movies, but rather, a question of how much studios owe to Hess’ little triumph for drawing eyes toward their schtick in the first place.
Miguel Arteta’s Youth in Revolt, based on a novel by C.D. Payne, might not be completely derivative of Dynamite, but like these other films, it sure is reverent to the altar Napoleon built. For better and worse, the structure of the film is almost identical: awkward boy surrounded by bizarre characters goes on awkward transformational journey to win the heart of weird girl. The mobile home culture, the wood-paneled walls, stop motion interludes and simple construction scream out to be different, but became the norm three years ago.
(To be fair, Payne’s book was published in 1993. Had a film been made then, it would have been the trendsetter.)
In it’s best moments, Youth in Revolt achieves exactly what it desires to: Michael Cera’s journey to win the heart of the sweet-yet-somehow-heartless Sheeni (Portia Doubleday) by developing a badass alter ego named Francois Dillinger plays like Fight Club meets (500) Days of Summer. The concept hits two snags though. The first is pacing and structure — there’s little arc to the film and characters, and Cera’s dual roles meander from situation to situation so listlessly that all the air is removed from the room. This isn’t helped by the fact that Doubleday isn’t given anything to do — while she performs admirably, the role as written is flat. She leads Cera’s Nick Twisp/Dillinger on with such inexplicable rigidity that it becomes maddening.
What’s more maddening is the way in which Arteta pulls his punches — while Cera’s performance as Dillinger is quite good, his comedic timing is never utilized correctly, or at least not fully. The opportunity provided to Cera as Dillinger was to pull a balls-to-the-wall 180 degree turn from his usual role, and while he steps in that direction, he doesn’t go far enough. An exploding car might have looked truly rebellious on the page, but not on the big screen. One might claim that going farther would have been out of tune with the reality that the movie presents, but with bizarrely exaggerated characters like Fred Willard and Justin Long’s in tow, that argument seems to fall apart.
The supporting actors all fare well, but are as underutilized as Cera. Jean Smart, as Twisp’s mother, could make (and in certain films like Garden State, has made) a career playing washed-up moms; Zach Galifianakis as Smart’s boyfriend is goofy but given no material to work with. The film is comprised of great character actors upon others: Steve Buscemi, M. Emmett Walsh, and Ray Liotta perform admirably but leave no splash. Everything plods along without allowing the audience to grow attached to any character. This might have something to do with the fact that none of the characters as written seem to be real human beings, but instead some alternate reality version of them. Gustin Nash’s screenplay probably reads like a more eloquent version of Napoleon Dynamite’s script, in which Twisp’s wacky relatives speak in ways just as far removed from conventional conversation as possible, albeit more at length.
Youth in Revolt is an ensemble piece that gives no time to its ensemble cast — at a brief 90-minute clip, it doesn’t really aspire to do anything besides be another quirky entry into a cultural dialogue of quirkiness. At its best, this is diverting and mildly entertaining; at worst, it’s irritatingly dull.
I’m not railing against the film for what it is: it’s simple, concise and sparsely laugh-inducing.
I’m simply irked by what it isn’t: a push in a different, more interesting direction. Just as it took a few more iterations of the Power Rangers to confirm that kids were ready for something new, so too will it take a few more Youth in Revolts to awaken Hollywood to the knowledge that audiences are ready for something new. If it’s unfair to wish to be impressed by new and exciting ideas and motifs in a film, then so be it: I unfairly dislike this film.
Agreed. Thank you for the feedback, good sir!
I disagree with the 'Napoleon Dynamite' comparison. Whereas 'Youth in Revolt' could be considered as a blend of drama and comedy, 'ND' is absolute comedy, and with a totally strange sense of humor (especially in comparison with the slight-witty style of 'YIR's jokes.)
I get what you mean about this movie being just another quirky comedy that the Indie scene seemed to host so much of last decade. Still, a movie can be good even if its premise or style is unoriginal – just look at movies like 'Avatar' or 'The Hangover' from last year.
I don't know that I was strictly comparing the two on the level of genre/humor level, but sort of content and general aesthetic the films go for.
I do recognize the validity of an unoriginal premise — I loved Avatar and The Hangover. I just think that this and many other films of the past decade (Juno, Garden State, ND, etc. etc.) have such a similar aura that it's bound to become grating after a while.
YIR just had the unfair position of being the one that started to really get on my nerves. (For the record, I thought Dynamite was great.)
I disagree with the 'Napoleon Dynamite' comparison. Whereas 'Youth in Revolt' could be considered as a blend of drama and comedy, 'ND' is absolute comedy, and with a totally strange sense of humor (especially in comparison with the slight-witty style of 'YIR's jokes.)
I get what you mean about this movie being just another quirky comedy that the Indie scene seemed to host so much of last decade. Still, a movie can be good even if its premise or style is unoriginal – just look at movies like 'Avatar' or 'The Hangover' from last year.
Excellent review – I'll probably check this one out even though you've highlighted pretty much everything I was concerned for about this film tho.
Although I admire Juno other films like Little Miss Sunshine, Garden State and 500 Days of Summer all seem to be trying too hard with contrived quirkiness and attempting a certain aesthetic. As you said I think this whole movement has to be on its last legs.
wow i really found this to be interesting. thanks for sharing. Nice Post I will dig it