Fairy tales, the Old Testament and Napoleon Dynamite
January 12th, 2006 ~ Potpourri for 100, AlexI’ve been reading through the Apocrypha — the extra books of the Old Testament that didn’t make the cut — and so far it’s been kind of unusual.
In the Book of Tobit, we have a man living after the captivity in Babylon who has a family, suffers blindness by curious means, sends his son off to collect money from a relative, receives a visitation from the angel Raphael, and … well, I assume all will end happily, though I haven’t made it there yet.
Reading it today, I was bothered to find my thoughts interrupted by thoughts about “Napoleon Dynamite,” which we had seen for the second time last night.
For those who haven’t seen it, I won’t really try to describe it other than to say that it’s a thoroughly independent film that gets an enormous amount of creative energy from an attitude that’s very hard to describe. The main guy — named Napoleon, of course — is so bereft of any of the qualities of a movie protagonist (or antagonist), and the whole movie is so lacking in any of the usual trappings that make storytelling attractive and understandable that you find yourself thinking it’s all very funny and very engaging, without knowing why.
It’s really incredibly pared down. The writing is sparse since the dialog consists mostly of short, monosyllabic sentences and the acting is more non-acting. The story is very basic, something like this: a teenage boy who lives with his older brother and his grandmother (who has a llama) goes through different interactions at school and at home. He meets a girl he likes, successfully promotes a friend to school president, deals with a sleazy uncle, learns to dance, sees his brother go off with his soulmate, eats a lot of meat and tater tots, and at the end is shown playing tetherball with the girl he likes … as good a metaphor as any for living happily ever after.
It’s a strange movie, for sure, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear people say they thought it was too dumb or odd to be enjoyable. But I did find it enjoyable, and although I wasn’t pleased to note that my mind was recalling the feel of it as I read a kind of Bible story (albeit an apocryphal one, which means I don’t get points removed if I don’t find it relevant), I suppose I don’t feel alarmed by the irreverance either.
The similarity wasn’t in the attitude, since the movie gets a kind of kick out of being intentionally meaningless and absurd, but in the feel of it, the oddness coupled with a perceptable lack of context and analysis from the author. So much so, in fact, that you didn’t get a feeling of who the author was. That’s a common element, it seems, in mythic stories, because I read a Russian fairy tale later on this morning that had that going on as well:
Once upon a time there lived a tsar and tsaritsa and they had a son and a daughter named Ivanushka and Alionushka. After the tsar’s and tsaritsa’s death, they remained alone and went rambling all over the world. …
They walked and saw a herd of goats grazing near water.“Ah, sister, … I must drink.”
“Don’t drink, brother, or you will turn into a kid.”
But of course, he doesn’t listen and he turns into a goat. Why? No reason, really. Is it a judgment? Did he do something wrong? Is it a blessing in disguise? Is it a cultural reference?
Who knows? You could write another book interpreting this one, and interpreting Napoleon Dynamite and the Book of Tobit for that matter. And there probably are some, because that’s the way we are. But there is something compelling about the fact that you can’t judge the characters. The author (or authors) just don’t give you enough information for that. Lives are reduced to simple lines, to changes that occur without explanation or subtext, but which never alter the basic line from “Once upon a time …” to “… happily ever after.”
To make it even more interesting, I don’t even know that I’m trying to make any kind of specific point here. It’s just an observation really. Which seems appropriate for now.
Let’s hope that the next book of the Apocrypha doesn’t make me think of a movie. I think that would start to indicate a need my spiritual father should be aware of.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Tobit is one of my absolute favorite Books of the Bible.
Thanks for the comparison to ND ;)
January 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Hopefully that’s not a comparison that’s going to throw anyone too badly. I’m certainly not trying to elevate a (rather silly) movie or denigrate a book that almost made it into the Bible.
As I said, reading the Apocrypha has been interesting, because unlike the OT stories I encounter (I’m re-reading that as well), I don’t have any preconceived notions. I remember a reference or two in the NT to these books, but other than that, I don’t have any idea where they go or what happens in them. I’m sort of interested to read Maccabees, because that’s history closer to Christ’s time that seems like it’s an important part of the puzzle.
Any other favorites?
January 13th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
“Fairy tales, the Old Testament and Napoleon Dynamite” love the title of this post. Sounds like it could be a topic from Jeopardy… “i’ll take Fairy tales, the Old Testament and Napoleon Dynamite for 400 Alex”
the answer: “Fairy princesses rub it on their skin for a beauty treatment, the people of Israel won’t use it for concern it was made using pork fat, and Tina is a fat one.”
“what is lard?”
ding ding ding
January 13th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
All right. Major points on finding a tie-in between those three.
I just wish I could’ve thought of clever allegories like this when I was in school and anybody gave a rip.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Vote for Pablo!
January 13th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
BTW…Pablo is “Paul” in Spanish.
Pedro is Peter.
estaban pablo
January 14th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Gracias (… which might be Grace in Spanish, but actually isn’t. Oh well.)
On the second watch, my favorite line was probably the understated “Pedro offers you his protection.”
January 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Judith is another favorite.
I started reading the Old Testament in order a few months ago, and I just finished the Psalms. So, I reread Judith, Tobit, Macabees and am looking forward to the Prophetic books coming up.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I just stumbled across your very enjoyable site. But (there’s always a “but,” isn’t there?), I’m a little surprised no one has posted to say that, to us Orthodox, the books you’re reading are not “the Apocrypha — the extra books of the Old Testament that didn’t make the cut,” but part of the Old Testament itself. They are, it is true, included in either the Hebrew Scriptures or the Protestant Bible, but they have always been part of the canon for both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
Just sayin’.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I didn’t know that. Okay, so I was looking out the window during that part of my catechism. Bad girl!
January 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Not a problem, as they say out here on the Left Coast.
Oh, and of course I meant to say “They are NOT, it is true….” D’oh!
January 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
“Oh, and of course I meant to say “They are NOT, it is true….” D’oh!” — y’know, I went through that sentence a couple times and then just decided I needed more caffeine to read it and then once I was caffeinated forgot what I was doing. I love when I do that.
But anyway, I get it now. But I may use my magical admin powers to edit the ‘not’ in where it belongs, so that this exchange makes no sense whatsoever.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Where on the Left Coast? I’m a SoCal expatriate.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Your idea is brilliant. Perhaps you should sow well-placed “nots” throughout your site, just for fun.
NorCal, quite near Ahnold’s new digs. I’ve gone the other direction: Ex-pat from the Land of Beltway, and very happy about it.