Skip to main content

Sigourney Weaver is going to help us!

Finding Dory
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The problem facing Pixar’s animated sequels, more so than its big studio neighbours, is that by making the emotional journey the be-all and end-all, rather than whacky hijinks and endless gags (which support rather than lead in Lasseterland) they run the risk of cheapening the much-vaunted substance of their endeavours through repetition. Characters must learn and then re-learn lessons, unnecessary additional arcs having no option but to reinforce because the characters reached a perfectly sufficiently satisfying place originally, thank you. As more than competent as Finding Dory is, there’s really no need for it, and so it’s inevitably a less-effective enterprise, even as it labours points that, through sheer breathless verve, the original never became bogged down in.


Perhaps that will set it apart as a positive for some viewers, though. I tend to find underlining the pay-off is never wise, particularly when, as here, it’s all about resubmerging itself in the importance of the familial bond (but of course, it’s Pixar), only now reaching new, unrestrained levels. Nemo in the original was a cute fish, but not toe-curlingly so. He was at least proactive, had get-up and go, even if that made him something of a Hollywood kid cliché in itself. But baby Dory here, as we see ad nauseam in flashbacks, is a horrifically adorable, tiny, big-eyed coochy coo, accompanied everywhere by syrupy music and adoring parents (except when she gets lost).


It's crassly manipulative gurgly-goo-goo on Pixar’s part, designed to infantilise the adult Dory (who may have been nursing a disability, but was nevertheless a grown-up nursing a disability in the first movie). It’s perhaps inevitable that Pixar should make this choice, that for narrative purposes we are all essentially children deep down, but getting there means retro-fitting Dory as a character (much more successful on the cutesy front is the short preceding the film, Piper, in which a baby bird discovers the wonders of water).


She had, after all, made sufficient a break-through in Nemo that we could happily leave it at that. Now, though, she is given a memory arc, indulging a well-meaning but laborious message about perseverance and overcoming disabilities (or learning to live with them; however, it’s difficult not to see Dory’s process as curative, which may rather muddle the takeaway for those wishing to see the movie as reflective and considered in regard to those with disabilities). If Pixar’s strength is the emotional through line, it can also sail close to being their weakness at times, because it can leave the content feeling curdled or overbaked. Everyone is special, everyone needs family; worthy themes, but they’re somewhat shoehorned into Dory’s thematic bearing – she’s not a kid searching for her parents, but she must be reduced to the state of a child for Finding Dory to work, because Pixar has limited narrative avenues.


Balanced against that is some highly potent imagery. If Nemo got behind shock value as part and parcel of its rollercoaster ride, it only once emphasised the stark terror of Dory’s situation, as Marlin briefly leaves her and she finds herself entirely alone and without bearings. The opening sequence of Dory, overextended as it is, really digs into this existential nightmare, but it is undoubtedly overextended, Pixar putting heartstring-pulling over straightforward adventuring entertainment. Of course, before both these things comes profit, hence the very existence of the sequel. Although Stanton may have been feeling, subconsciously or otherwise, that he needed to justify such commercial crassness by engraving the thematic importance of the picture more than he otherwise would. This is certainly the closest Pixar gets to plumbing the philosophical depths outside of Wall-E’s opening chapters, even if such ruminations never come close (thankfully) to the nihilistic resignation of, say, The Plague Dogs.


So Dory takes a while to kick into gear, but despite the time it takes, I doesn’t ever fully justifies that set-up, simply because what it has isn’t sufficiently fresh or different. The device of Dory learning and remembering is essentially a crutch borrowed from the tail end of the first movie, and used to increasingly desperate effect (whenever an insurmountable obstacle is faced, Dory gets a rush of memory) and the Marine Life Institute is very much a case of brainstorming to come up with a sufficiently different setting. While the measures conjured to traverse dry land are ingenious, there’s a nagging feeling throughout that this has been artificially, slightly awkwardly devised, such that it lacks the almost casual finesse of its predecessor; Finding Dory is inelegant.


On the other hand, the willingness to go off reservation and explore broader devices and constructions, embracing cartoon physics at their giddiest, is highly appealing, even if it may put some off (it certainly creates a dissonance, when one compares and contrasts that doomy opening with the climax’s hijinks of an octopus driving a truck the wrong way down a freeway). Indeed, as many have observed, the scene is incredibly similar to the finale of the broadly cartoonish The Secret Life of Pets. I preferred Dory’s version, mainly because I cared more about what was happening (Pets is full of great incidentals, but its central duo are kind of sucky, unfortunately).


Another hugely appealing aspect of Dory is that, for all its overloading with trademark Pixar thematic content, Stanton and Victoria Strouse have gone to admirable lengths to come up with a range of new characters. I expected, with the sight of the Stanton-voiced surfer turtle in the trailer, this to be a little too laurel-resting in treading old ground, but Crush and a brief appearance by the eagle ray are pretty much all there is. And the new faces are very nearly up there with the cast of the original.


Top of the list comes Ed O’Neill’s aforementioned octopus (or septapus) Hank, whose camouflaging and stealth traversing of the institute’s confines are consistently inventive and often hilarious. He’s also agreeably cantankerous but touchingly genuine, like a less anal, more upwardly mobile version of Marlin. There’s more of Dory speaking to whales, via Kaitlin Olson’s myopic whale shark Destiny (so not really a whale, then) and Ty Burrell’s beluga Bailey, who has lost his echolocation facility. Then there’s Becky, a common loon, who very much is one, and sea lions Fluke (Idris Elba; he’s having a very busy year for voice work, is Idris) and Rudder (Dominic West, so it’s a Wire reunion; perhaps adoring parents will break out the box set for junior). As for returnees Brooks and particularly DeGeneres, asked to stretch for the role, they’re note-perfect.


The sea lions do show up the danger of making the sentiment elsewhere so achingly sincere, however, as a portion of viewers have complained about their treatment of less than fully au fait sea lion Gerald. I found the sequence very funny, and it didn’t cross my mind at the time that it might be read as mocking those with autism. Possibly those with monobrows… Even considering the charge levelled, Gerald does get the rock to himself, and more than that, he’s one of the most appealing, memorable characters in the picture; a likeable oddball. If Rudder and Fluke were supposed to be our heroes, I might concur that there’s an issue, but they’re simply supporting players with an unsavoury attitude to one of their brethren.


Also worthy of note: the talkative clam, Sigourney Weaver, the daredevil crossing of a footpath via water jets, and the touch tank. The latter might be the best of possible call backs to the original’s horror of indelicate nippers, as the fish live in moral dread of being child-handled by enthusiastic little terrors. It’s an interesting choice too (eco-conscious?), that the aquatic palate is often muddy and murky, in stark contrast to the bright and sparkling Nemo.


This is Andrew Stanton’s fourth Pixar feature (co-credited here with Angus MacLane), and the first after the ignominy of John Carter’s diversion into live action. It’s certainly unable to scale the heights of Wall-E and Finding Nemo, and I’m not sure it’s even as satisfying overall as the (underrated) A Bug’s Life. Stanton’s too professional for the picture to be less than serviceable, but for all his sterling attempts to justify the return to the well (or ocean), it can’t help but feel like a retreat that wouldn’t have happened if not for that bad day on Mars. Finding Dory is, fortunately, much closer to the honourable Toy Story sequels than the whatevers of Cars and Monsters, but by the time Finding Marlin arrives the “brand” will be well and truly diluted.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?