It is easy to take for granted the notion that our interests in movies, music, comedy, and entertainment of all forms are a reflection of our “personal tastes”. But this idea is far from settled. There is compelling, although not immediately apparent, evidence that trends control us – the consumers. Put more precisely, producers of those trends control consumers by setting a trend, which then shapes and homogenizes society’s interests. This notion is not a new one, and it was most famously summarized by cultural theorist Theodor Adorno in the middle of the twentieth century. In his view, people’s interests are not a function of anything unique to themselves. Rather, their “tastes” are forged by the producers of the cultural artifacts. As Adorno put it, “The autonomy of works of art, which of course rarely ever predominated in an entirely pure form, and was always permeated by a constellation of effects, is tendentially eliminated by the culture industry, with or without the conscious will of those in control.” (Adorno and Rabinbach, 1975) If culture producers set and manipulate society’s tastes, then people are passively engaging with their culture instead of actively shaping its contents. Their tastes are being controlled by the “culture industry.”
To find that this compelling view is not the case we need to identify the trending themes in our culture. Then we must show that popular cultural artifacts exist which differ markedly from those trends. If such artifacts exist apart from the mass produced cultural products, then they have become popular because of people’s independent tastes, not because of influence from the existing cultural trends. This would imply that consumers are not just passively receiving their culture and accepting its mainstream products. Rather, they are actively shaping it based on their own interests. As it turns out, there are many examples of popular artifacts which differ from cultural trends. One such example is the film Napoleon Dynamite, which became popular because consumers found something unique that they appreciated in it, not because it fit in with any mass produced cultural pattern.
To see how consumers deviate from the cultural trends, we must first establish what those trends are. One major trend in film is toward big budgets. Big budget movies put their names out with extensive marketing efforts. They often involve fantastical scenes with violence, complex settings, or extraordinary stunts intended to wow the audience. Examples of such movies include: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Avatar, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. These movies all feature significant use of graphical modifications and computer adjustments. These features drive up the cost themselves, but also facilitate the other aforementioned commonality among these movies that makes production expensive: extreme action and stunts. Movies with such characteristics all have a commitment to leaving the audience awestruck by portraying physically extreme events: explosions, chases, duals, etc… This feeds a culture where a movie series like Fast and Furious, an action packed series absent complex messaging or markedly different plots, can be on its eighth film. These movies are consistently reproducing the same type of film, a type that people evidently enjoy despite its lack of complexity.
Another major trend is that most movies have some clearly established purpose or conclusion that they are driving toward. In many cases, this comes in the form of a conflict/resolution structure which is fundamental to much of storytelling. An excellent example of this is present in The Breakfast Club, a film renowned for addressing topics of adolescence and social adjustment. In bringing together five students of different social swaths for Saturday detention, the film highlights uncomfortable, but accurate features of teen social structure. This was, unequivocally, a component of the film’s purpose. As Harold Foster put it:
For many of its viewers, the film has that ‘this-is-real, slice-of-life’ quality. You can just hear its teenage audience saying, ‘That’s me.’ I contend The Breakfast Club was much like The Big Chill in that the makers of this film knew what buttons to press to get the intended audience into the shopping mall theaters. Like the old World War II movies, each person represented one stereotype. There was the popular girl, the brainy nerd, the flake, the jock, the troubled rebel, and the dumb, authoritarian teacher. Characters spin their stories predictably with the same superficiality that characterized characters in A Chorus Line. To many viewers, this is a realistic, sensitive portrayal of troubled kids. (Foster, 1987)
The filmmakers intended to use the set of stereotyped characters they created to bring to the surface some of the key challenges of adolescence. Not only films with serious subject matters, but many other types such as comedies and fantastical action films operate with a similarly clear sense of purpose. For instance, it was hardly ever ambiguous what the conflict or resolution was in any Spider Man or Batman film ever made.
While cultural trends are captured and magnified in many movies, this is not universally the case. Napoleon Dynamite exists as a popular artifact removed from mainstream productions. When we search for a purpose in this film, we’ll find only a few vestiges of mainstream appearance. Initially, the movie presents as if it may show the evolution of a kid who struggles to fit in. Napoleon is harassed at school for his tater tots, gives an embarrassing current events report on the Loche Ness monster, and has only one friend, a quiet new student named Pedro. On top of this, Napoleon has trouble getting along at home. With no parents, Napoleon lives with his grandmother, has a poor relationship with his unemployed, chatroom-obsessed, older brother Kip, and cannot get along with his strange relative, Uncle Rico. Toward the end of the movie, there are some suggestions of solutions: Napoleon gives a legendary dance performance in front of his school, Kip finds happiness with his new girlfriend, Pedro wins the school presidency, and Uncle Rico reconnects with an old friend. But the semblance of a mainstream story in this movie ends there.
Despite the humorously negative events that the film shows many characters going through, chiefly Napoleon, there is no illustration of a clear conflict. Napoleon seems largely blind to the degree to which he fails to fit in. Although he is often ill-tempered, this doesn’t appear to have its roots in his lack of popularity, but rather, simple things, such as chapped lips, or a lack of steak in the fridge. Kip also seems perfectly content with his chatroom and television filled lifestyle. While his failure to engage in any conventionally meaningful endeavors may paint a depressing picture for the audience, it fhardly appears to phase him. And then there’s Uncle Rico, whose extreme nostalgia and desire to live in the past leaves viewers painfully chuckling at his extreme delusion. Yet, he appears fairly pleased with his life. Each of these examples demonstrates that the problems with the characters as the audience perceives them, are not challenges that the characters themselves feel. In essence, the movie does not present any clear conflict, even for Napoleon.
Beyond not presenting any clear conflict, Napoleon Dynamite does not outline any substantive solutions to the minor challenges it suggests that the characters face. While the movie ends with a series of positive events for each character, these illusory solutions don’t actually address what viewers likely perceive as the fundamental problems in the characters’ lives. Specifically, Napoleon’s success dancing in front of his school, while it may provide momentary gratification by temporarily impressing his classmates, fails to fix the underlying personality traits that serve as barriers to his social acceptance. It also fails to address his dry life at home and strained relationships with his family members. For Kip, finding a girlfriend, who he quickly declares to be his “soul mate”, provides him considerable happiness. But it does not alter his otherwise dismal future prospects given that he is jobless and devoid of any apparent skills or meaningful resources. For Uncle Rico, meeting what may be an old girlfriend at the end of the film does not fix his persistent disillusionment and nearly nonstop obsession with the past. With no clear problem, the movie provides no clear solution. And beyond this, the movie does not offer any escape from what viewers would likely take to be mildly depressing lifestyles.
At this point, it is apparent that Napoleon Dynamite is certainly not a mainstream film. It has no identifiable purpose, particularly not one which relies upon a conflict-resolution structure. We know that what made the film popular were not its trendy, mainstream qualities. But then what features did cause viewers to flock to it? While answering this question is not essential to demonstrate that Napoleon Dynamite exemplifies active consumer culture, it can provide positive affirmation of this point. The main unique aspect of the film which seems to garner viewer interest is the way it attempts to characterize reality without signaling to the audience that it is doing so. Viewers are left, after the film, wondering what the takeaway was, searching for something in a plot that appeared to be about nothing. But then it becomes clear how, in telling a story which entertained by focusing humorously on the eccentricities of reality, the film captured reality so perfectly. The vast majority of the time, reality does not have violent chases to defeat a villain, or a relationship that goes awry but eventually falls magically into place. Reality is far simpler than that. It has far more bike rides, farm animals, and tough days at school than it does car chases, explosions, or scandals. And there is humor in it. The film’s critics complain that Napoleon Dynamite is about nothing. These viewers have been conditioned by the mass media to enjoy that which is dramatic or clear in purpose. The film is proof that pop culture can be creative. It is proof that, even in a culture dominated by big budget dramas, a film can be made which subtly, but humorously characterizes reality and still gains popularity. And that can only happen in a society with active consumers, not passive ones.
Bibliography:
[1] Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.” New German Critique 6 (1975): 12. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
[2] Foster, Harold M. “Film in the Classroom: Coping with “Teenpics”” The English Journal 76.3 (1987): 86. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
Image Sources:
[1] http://www.playbuzz.com/celebmix/who-said-it-napoleon-dynamite-edition
[2] http://chubbycat543.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html
[3] http://gtaforums.com/topic/825375-declasse-moonbeam-appreciation-thread/page-3