| Meg, Luke, can I play mediator for a moment?|
Regarding NAPOLEAN DYNAMITE: I haven't seen in myself, but I am intrigued by the dual interpretations. I am wondering if there may be an element of truth to both your claims?
Meg, judging from the commercials for the movie, and from short clips, I might be inclined to agree with you; the main character seemed to have be a nerd who compensated by reversing the usual derision aimed at nerds by attacking first and insulting everything. Without having seen the movie, I don't know the context for his behavior, which could be part of the random, pointless behavior you claim to see. It could be an expression of nihilism, if there is a story supporting that. And he really comes off as arrogant, but I wonder, based on the commercials, what his arrogance is based on? He seems to be the type of person who thinks himself superior but has done nothing particularly inspiring himself. Could it be "hatred of the good for being the good?"
But Luke saw something different, and points to the films unresolute ending, which made me wonder if there may be a certain vagueness to the movie in order to allow for individual interpretation, to allow the viewer to project his own situations where he may have issues of conformity versus non-conformity? If so, this could explain why you saw random, pointless action, and Luke was able to see struggle and self actualization.
This is not uncommon in art, especially in comics and cartoons: some characters are drawn more completely, photorealistically, leaving little room for misinterpretation of the image, others are drawn more abstractly, or iconically, suggesting a character, but leaving room for the viewer to project themselves in the character. Icons are an example of this.
Now I am intrigued to see the damn thing...I'll wait to video.