“Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”
Setting out as a mockery of self-indulgence (but always ending up as a sophistry of solipsism), “indie” movies cast in provinciality the very counterculture which they seek to distinguish.
Through this inadvertent pigeonholing, the naked value of “independence” – as defined by the indie set – exposes itself as a caricatured derivation of all that it could’ve been.
The result, then, is an exaltation neither of culture (nor counterculture), but lazy, telegraphed irony.
Just as The New Yorker’s over-the-top attempt at Obama-maniacal satire fell flat under the heft of its own truth, so indie-ironic nihilism deflates from the pressure of its own forthright aplomb.
So it is that this month’s indie iteration reverberates with the formulaic echoes of the mainstream flicks that it seeks to malign.
“Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” very good though it is, misses the mark it sets for itself. Stripped bare, it’s a boy-meets-girl story that obediently hits every target set forth by all those “boy-meets-girl” flics that have preceded it.
If boy-meets-girl is the typical Hollywood meme, boy-sweats-world is its indie counterpart. “Nick and Norah,” like most recent indie endeavors, does neither with novelty.
Actor Michael Cera, fresh from the set of the wistfully alternative “Juno,” portrays in painful predictability the awkward, world-weary teenager who pines over the breathy ingénue he can’t get.
So along comes Kat Dennings, raven-haired and ruby-lipped, as Cera’s misanthropic match.
But for the particular quirks of these characters, it’s impossible to tell that “Nick and Norah” even wants to be indie. These quirks have to do primarily with music, as do most of the indie ilk – and, ironically, it’s because of the music that “Nick and Norah” devolves into a complete cliché.
The soundtrack is full of songs by bands you’ve never heard, and frankly never want to hear.
They’re all bare-bones and low-fi, almost a capella except for their woeful acoustic strums. It’s the kind of music that wants you to know that it’s telling a story, and indeed the story in “Nick and Norah” relies not only on the music itself but also on the idea of the music.
It’s music that propels the plot: Nick and Norah find each other (and themselves, naturally) as they comb the alleys of New York for alt band “Where’s Fluffy.”
This would make them total groupies, if it weren’t for the blaring implication that Where’s Fluffy is above the allure of acclaim. So, groupies they’re not, band-aids they are – the notion of which was snagged from fellow indie wannabe “Almost Famous.”
So central is the alt couture music to the movie that it eventually mocks itself for its own salute to stereotype.
If the music drives the story, Cera’s car steers it. A yellow Yugo, the car is, next to the music, the most salient feature of the movie’s indie adamancy.
The movie is determined to make an undeclared statement at every turn, and the Yugo, with its carefree wink and careless nod, must have seemed like the only car that would say something without saying anything. Instead, the Yugo comes off as a contrived prop – vintage glam and millennial apathy, in equal measure.
And so both the music and the Yugo, the latter chosen as a whisper of heterodox culture, end up as strident markers of the subtlety they’re meant to convey.
Set against this alt-obsessed backdrop are evermore uber-indie signifiers. There’s class-conscious disparity, prescribed isolationism, and proscribed heterogeneity. Set in the midst of New York chic, there’s of course and an ode to urbanity and a siege of suburbia – an assault of all that is regular and normal and planned.
And, surprisingly, it’s the New York skyline against which drums the movie’s only “indie” dimension. Perhaps the only time “Nick and Norah” resembles anything but bread-and-butter cinematic fare is when it explores Jewish-American identity. Here, the movie shimmers with subtlety.
Dennings plays the daughter of a rich exec – uncomfortable as the JAP she can’t help but be, yet blithe that extraordinary is a choice that’s hers to make. She isn’t quite sure what to make of her notoriety, at once embarrassed of and cavalier with her access to exclusivity.
The exclusive access doesn’t stop with the characters. Viewers are granted the odd backstage pass into the nooks of the dynamic between young Jews and Israeli sovereignty. Nestled in “Nick and Norah” are pointed slivers of that dynamic, cleverly culled as meta-Jewish jokes.
Keeping with the movie’s rare departure from typicality, Dennings’ dad isn’t the kind of executive you’d expect of a New York Jew. Playing on the movie’s thematics, he’s a storied music producer who, it’s obliquely clear, hasn’t been made tony by his affinity for tone. For once, the movie uses music to escape from the mainstream into the machiavellian.
Despite its random self-vindications, “Nick and Norah,” trotting the heels of “Juno,” “Garden State,” and “‘Napoleon Dynamite,” is set to join a cavalcade of movies which shun the category altogether, preferring haughtily to be a “film” but not minding the box office success that mainstream appeal brings.
Post-modernism, with its third-rate but first-class indie-pendence, is out.
What’s in is post-marvelism: Bleak in plot and place, censorious of society but emblematic of it, and enterprising in its micro budget and macro appeal.







Comments
By movie fan on October 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
there were some awkward moments in this movie that were hard to get past… such as every time that gum was re-used (yuck!)
By Paul Kinfer on October 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Oh prose, why so purple? Were you battered to bruises with a thesaurus? It must be so, for how else to explain the disjointed confusion of how you read, with your dozen or so one-sentence paragraphs.
By Mande Wilkes on October 13th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Paul –
You’re a little late to the party:
http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/09/17/write-like-mande/
xoxo
M
By Paul Kinfer on October 13th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Well God bless you for plodding obstinately on, I suppose.
By Connor Peterson on October 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am
ugh.
By Brandon on October 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I quit reading this post after the first sentence. Are you writing for an audience or self-indulgence?
By CL on October 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“a sophistry of solipsism”?
Isn’t that the title of the new Bond movie? Seriously, that is gibberish. While it does not clean up the underlying misuse of the terms, you could have at least used “sophism” instead of “sophistry.”
By Mande Wilkes on October 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
CL -
Just because both words share a root doesn’t mean that the suffixes are interchangeable. “A” for effort, though.
Brandon –
You needn’t read past the first sentence anyway. You managed to nick a phrase from the very first clause and repurpose it for your own comment. “A” for resourcefulness.
By nope on October 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Completely inscrutable. As usual.
By CL on October 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“Just because both words share a root doesn’t mean that the suffixes are interchangeable.”
Precisely. They are not interchangeable and you used the wrong one. A sophism is a particular argument that is fallacious. Sophistry is making heavy use of sophisms, or the practice of making deceitful arguments. Even Wiki (I know, hardly definitive, but I am lazy) highlights the distinction:
“Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word can be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.”
Your use of the article “a” makes the word sophistry inappropriate.
I am glad your follow up led me to review the Wiki entry, as I find this section to be a particularly apt description of your writing style:
“it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing . . . . The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is . . . .”
By Mande Wilkes on October 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
CL -
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you’re accusing me of sophistry. Surely not, because, by your own declaration, sophisms trick the reader into agreeing with the sophist – and a scroll through the comments would suggest anything but a beguiled audience.
By Natasha on October 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
OMG, poke me in the eye now…
By nope on October 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
But, CL, it wouldn’t have been any better if she’d used the right word, because the whole sentence — the first two sentences — no, three — hell, the whole post — needed to be scrapped.
Mande, honey, the point of writing is to communicate. Your writing does not do that. It degenerates into obscurity almost every time. You are doing your thoughts a disservice with all this ridiculous language.
Maybe you have something useful to say. No one can tell. Calm down, write coherently, and we’ll find out.
By Mande Wilkes on October 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Nope -
Advice duly noted.
The thing is, I tire of lowest common denominator appeals – and so do many of my readers.
Most of my work is suited for the masses. Don’t take my word for it, though. See that search box at the top right of the screen? Type in my name…I think, after reviewing my work serially, that you’ll agree that the vast majority of what I write is pretty simpleton-friendly.
Every once in a while, though – every several posts, maybe – I cater to that other segment of my audience: The readers who, like me, tire of how-low-can-you-go pablum. Within these articles, yes, I totally play around with syntax and alliteration and parentheticals and vocabulary.
Think of it as a break from the endless game of intellectual limbo.
Not everybody likes these overtures of mine – and that’s fine. Hell, the critical disapproval is self-affirming in its own way.
xoxo
M
By nope on October 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
M –
William Buckley. George Will. Our own Kathleen Parker. Elegant, surprising writers all, and never impenetrable.
From Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style: “Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready, and able. If you admire fancy words, if every sky is “beauteous,” every blonde “curvaceous,” if you are tickled by “discombobulate,” you will have a bad time with Reminder 14.
“What is wrong, you ask, with “beauteous”? No one knows, for sure. There is nothing wrong, really, with any word — all are good, but some are better than others. A matter of ear, a matter of reading the books that sharpen the ear.
“The line between the fancy and the plain, between the atrocious and the felicitous, is sometimes alarmingly fine. The question of ear is vital.”
By Ellisong on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What the fuck does this review even mean? Did you eat a thesaurus and shit this out? I don’t see the problem with using ten-dollar words, but this screams college-educated-person-flaunting-college-education.
Trackbacks