Thursday, October 23, 2008

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

By Vadim Rizov

I have a distinct, horrified memory of a girl in one of my screenwriting classes freshman year nearly breaking into tears, trying to communicate to our teacher what it was she wanted to make; his proscriptive beats and arcs just weren't doing it for her. She wanted to create something real, small, and true, something that showed how people really were; something, she concluded in near-hysteria, like Garden State. Zach Braff's sincere blast of post-fame anomie—sincerely emotive, twee and stupid—was the first salvo in an increasingly deliberate wave of films that led the Sundance movie from amorphous arthouse genre into the multiplexes; the demographic had been pinned down, finally.

In short order came the exponentially more successful releases of Little Miss Sunshine and Juno. It was only a matter of time before a major studio realized they didn't have to spend their time digging and panning for gold, wasting their money on Happy, Texas or Hamlet 2. There is, of course, a big distinction between a "demographic" and a "generation"; the danger comes when the former doesn't realize they don't constitute the latter. There's no such thing as a generational experience anymore, if there ever was such a monolithic beast; we live in an age of fragmented experiences, each segment trying to convince themselves that they're the thing posterity will remember. Going into Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist I was thinking, "Time to watch my generation be cynically exploited by a multi-billion dollar corporation." Then I realized that "generation" was wrong, and "demographics" are made to be exploited.

So here's Peter Sollett, making surely one of the least-respected sophomore film of recent years; everyone who pretended to like him is gone. Sollett's the real deal, and Raising Victor Vargas—an affectionate portrait of LES life among the less-privileged—was a real Sundance movie breaking out of the pack. There were complaints that Sollett had scrubbed down his Latino teens, making them less prey to sex, drugs and violence than reality would dictate. All kinds of issues here—Was Raising Victor Vargas a way to pander to middle-class audiences? Do we really need a Latino Boyz N The Hood?—were mostly trumped by people's delight in the warm and fuzzies. When it comes to the privileged white hipsters of Nick and Norah, though, it's a whole different ballgame. Shouldn't privileged white teens have more time to angst out?

First things first then: Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings)—whose only real task the whole movie is to form the romantic bond predestined by the title—are, at best, completely incoherent characters, at worst, a cynical construction designed to sell shit back to the people who see themselves in the movie. For starters, there's the problem of Nick's nefarious ex Tris (Alexis Dziena), as evil a vamp the screen's seen since Theda Bara, only younger. Nick lives in Hoboken and drives a Yugo; how in the world he got in the pants of the bitchily status-obsessed Tris (a private-school girl from Inglewood no less) is one of those questions that doesn't bear thinking about too hard. But Nick at least has a center (at least as portrayed by Cera, whose schtick still hasn't gotten quite stale yet; he's funniest at his most inarticulate, and when he gets the temerity to actively flirt or present himself the modulation is subtle), being a band kid obsessed with music. Norah's a whole other problem: poor little rich girl, dad a music mogul, what she wants or aspires to unclear. If she's far from the magical pixie girl that makes movies like Garden State so unbearable, she's not a person, just a boob-stacked straight-edge. What she does since she doesn't have the traditional teen recourse to obscene partying is unclear.

So Nick and Norah are a couple of teens who really, sincerely believe that looking at another person's mixtape or playlist is the window into their soul. This is obviously never true; there are people who care about music and people who don't, of course, and that can tell you a lot about where someone's priorities lie, but that's it. Being in a band will get you laid as reliably as having a British accent; being into a band will not. Yet Nick And Norah is built around this untenable premise, and—with its casting, twee-indie soundtrack, and title—everything about this movie is a working demonstration for the existence of confirmation bias. Your ability to like, let alone enjoy this movie will depend on your ability not to feel the title searing your retina in pain. Prepare to enter the world of teenagers simultaneously all too self-aware of themselves and not at all aware of how they fit into a world their hermetic society has successfully sealed out, at least for the moment.

But Nick and Norah are too young to pick up on this, and besides there's a lot of revenge-fucking that needs to happen. Nick needs to exorcise Trish, and Norah needs to have an orgasm, which is where Nick and Norah, in one of its biggest surprises, starts resembling Shortbus. It turns out that's the one thing Norah's lacking that Nick can give her, and that's the movie's out. Which is frankly a shocking development for a PG-13 indie-tween movie, one that immediately throws into sharp relief Garden State and Juno's pansy-assed insistence on transmuting all sexual attraction into whimsical romance and deferred gratification. It's not necessarily smart—for the most part, it's a lie—but at least the movie finally finds a center. There's other things happening here that are unexpected.

Sollett's biggest problem, aside from a soppy love for everyone that pushes humanism into indiscrimination, is his insistence on endless establishing shots and bland nightscapes of NYC. That's a double-edged sword though, because anyone who, like Sollett, was an NYU kid will instantly recognize the universe he lays out, one generally bounded by Union Square and Houston on one hand and 2nd and 6th Ave on the other. Shameful but true: it gave me giddy thrills of recognition, the kind I normally only get from watching movies set in my hometown of Austin. Sollett also has a deft hand in peppering scenes with one-liners from people barely sighted: e.g. the bikers yelling out at Cera before rapidly passing out of frame, all the little details that make a night out something that brings you closer to others rather than the star of your own social drama.

That said, we're still talking about a movie where panning up Nick's wall of Merge and Buzzcocks memorabilia counts as character development. Which it's not, except on the solipsistic terms of its characters. So here's the thing: Nick and Norah is, conceivably, every bit as annoying as any random Kate Hudson rom-com, only with different annoyances. Instead of upwardly mobile jocks and blondes who automatically conceive of romance as part and parcel of the good life, Upper East Side style, we have an equally shallow group of signifiers. This is the movie 16-year-old teens who call themselves "indie" deserve, and there's nothing wrong with that; it's just a different kind of shallow. My inner 16-year-old was gratified.
_______________________________________________
Vadim Rizov is a New York-based freelance writer. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, The Onion AV Club and Paste Magazine, among others.

13 comments:

Michael Peterson said...

I'm fairly terrified that this is what "Scott Pilgrim" will be turned into... certainly, this is what the audience will be expecting of that film.

THE FUTURIST! said...

Excellent commentary, Vadim Rizov! Michael Cera, however, is not THE FUTURIST!'s cup of latte. He plays the same sweet schmo in every film. His monotone voice and dazed look as if he received a whack on the curly top with a cricket bat is so repetitive and tiring. And he looks like a teen Zeppo Marx. Not that that's a bad thing; it's just this opinion that feels his presence will fade away on screen just like the unfunny Marx Brother.

John Lichman said...

Michael--

what Scott Pilgrim will be turned into?

This is Scott Pilgrim in a nutshell.

Liz said...

Thank you; this is one of the best reviews of ANYTHING I've read in months. It was deliciously salted with sardonic commentary on the industry, the movie's demographics, the filmmaker, and the characters--I was grinning like a fool at your scathing cynicism. Reading this review was like watching a guy with a flamethrower torch a set ablaze with glee. You enjoyed the movie though, I can tell. You don't need to be ashamed.

This movie is like a blanket, meant to stoke a sense of security in knowing that there are others out there with similar desire for vague idealism in our increasingly isolated society. Let people enjoy. After all, populistic movies are supposed to bring people together--this certainly will.

Michael Peterson said...

John-

You just proved my point, there.

Nothing in your review of this film hints at the emotional honest of Scott turning to Envy Adams and asking her, "Did we EVER talk like normal people?"

Scott is a shallow hipster, yes, particularly at the opening of the series. However, O'Malley never lauds him for it. Scott is portrayed as a deadbeat, a callous user, and a coward. The climax of the fourth volume has provided him with some small measure of growth (He admits that Ramona's "boyfriend challenge" and refusal to open up to him should be deal-breakers, but he's too infatuated to end it), but he's still not exactly a human being yet - the implication that the next volume to come will deal with his refusal to find closure for his relationship with Kim Pine hints that he'll get there eventually.

I know you'll get the reference if I compare it to the anime "FLCL" (though not, oddly, the manga). The "growing up" theme that ran through all of the broad comedy was largely paper-thin... because that wasn't the main purpose. The main purpose was dealing with loss. When Naota, who identifies Haruko with his older brother, finally breaks down like the child he is and sobs into her shirt about his brother's abandonment, that's a true and honest moment.

[I really was going to get to all this is an essay...]

There's very little ironic detachment in "Scott Pilgrim," which makes it unlike the Apatow films or this movie here. The question that a lot of its readers never seem to ask is, why does Scott love (or at least stay with) Ramona? She hasn't shown a huge interest in his terrible indy band, she doesn't play video games with him, and he (until the end of Vol. 4) doesn't even know her age. The book is beginning to explore that question more seriously as it goes along, but one of the first and most important reasons is that her existence is something outside of himself and his pathological self-involvement (ironic, as she first appears when passing through his mind, using it as a shortcut to more important things). His past, his neuroses, his failure to grow up, and his narrow but "precious little" life is opening up - Ramona's life has colleges on floating mountains and lunar explosions, that he'd been blind to because he was playing Sonic 3. The fact that those video game rules apply to his struggle to win her heart only shows that he might (might!) be right for her, after all.

But, you know, I'm a fan. And I'm aware that his wife, Hope Larson, is really the better cartoonist in the long run.

Michael Peterson said...

I shouldn't reply like that at work - there were a LOT of typos in that last entry.

Michael Peterson said...

......Including attributing the review to John instead of Vadim. ARGH! Sorry!

...I need a nap.

Vadim said...

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

rob humanick said...

Nick and Norah struck me as something of a pitch between Lost in Translation and Superbad for the mainstream crowd (seriously, can anyone call this indie cinema, even by Little Miss Sunshine standards?), and though it really only channels those film's respective creative energies in a superficial manner, I felt there were some strong instances of the film's fiber reflecting something real and true. It's not much of a good film, but I enjoyed it in its adolescent meanderings, and got a bit of a personal thrill recognizing a good chunk of the NY underbelly I'm growing to love myself. Take away the polished look, that ungainly title and diminish the clique stereotypes a bit, and you might really have something.

MovieMan0283 said...

The best way to deal with the mainstreaming of already tired hipster cliches is to ignore it, and them. Granted, this is far easier when you don't live in New York, but trust me, it's a relief. The stupid urban subculture of the past 8 years is only relevant as it relates to the ostrich-mentality of the country at large. Otherwise, it's pretty much meaningless and not really worth reacting to anymore. Bigger fish to fry, and all that. History will bury the scene, no need to lend a hand.

As for...
"Your ability to like, let alone enjoy this movie will depend on your ability not to feel the title searing your retina in pain." Generally, the only people whose will feel that way are among the crowd this movie is targetted at - either because they have one foot in the scene or recognize it but find it overrated, or because they've outgrown the phase, or because they find the movie a phony expropriation of their own experience. Or because of latent self-loathing. Or all of the above.

On the other hand, my parents, who are 56 and 60, and didn't really know what a "hipster" in its modern incarnation was, saw the movie and enjoyed it, finding it charming with some nice New York scenery.

In other words you're not going to hate this movie unless you think in terms like "feel the title searing your retina in pain" in the first place, which puts you squarely in this movie's demographic. Ironic, to be sure, but then irony always was the lifeblood of this sort of thing.

(And, yes, I'm more or less in the same boat as you in regard to all of this, though I haven't - and don't really plan - to see the movie.)

Vadim said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Vadim said...

movieman0283, you're mostly right. The reason I was thinking about the title was a good friend of mine who was at NYU with me who has extremely similar film taste on the highbrow/lowbrow split (70%), but is also from Nebraska and absolutely despises all manifestations of hipsterdom, which he stood resolutely outside of. He despised the movie and refused to see it on principle because of the title alone. This is, of course, a New York problem. But I grew up in Austin, so moving from there to here was basically going from one small version of a scene to a bigger one. I'm a little conflicted on this stuff, but these are basically some of the kids I went to high school with, and I may not have been clear on this, but I'm happy this was made. They deserve a safe place to play as much as anyone. Your other comments stand, obv.

Boz. said...

We are obviously from the same demographic, if not necessarily the same generation, since I also felt myself aggressively targeted by this movie. (Originally I wanted to see it because I thought the movie might reference The Thin Man.) I still haven't seen it yet, though I'd probably like it, because I have a low-grade distaste of being huckstered and going along with it.

But calling playlist flirtation an "untenable premise" bemuses me and makes me think you're not exactly part of the target demographic for this movie. Which is: people who may not necessarily believe that sharing musical likes and dislikes with someone else means anything, but find the idea seductive.

You called the characters empty signifiers, but that's what playlists are: a collection of signifiers. A band lends its ethos, history, and specific subculture to the final mix, which is a kind of personality map. Whether it's empty or not, playlists have cultural symbolism beyond where someone's priorities lie.

Can you really formulate a clear picture of someone's personality and true nature simply through a list of "what they're into?" Not really, but reading other people for clues as to what they're thinking is what we do all the time, so this kind of behavior is just standard procedure.