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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.