Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us

Daily News

SDG Reviews 'Finding Nemo 3-D' (3435)

Pixar’s dazzling father-son fish story returns to the big screen in eye-popping 3-D.

09/10/2012 Comments (18)
Pixar

– Pixar

(Note: In view of this film’s wide exposure for nine years, this review is somewhat less spoiler-sensitive than most of my reviews. — SDG)

Andrew Stanton’s Finding Nemo is the best father-son story in all of Hollywood animation, and maybe animation generally. It’s also a stunningly gorgeous film that exploits the potential of computer animation like no film before it and few films after it.

I can imagine the Toy Story films or Monsters, Inc. or Shrek being made as traditional hand-drawn animated films — or as stop-motion, for that matter. They would lose something, but perhaps also gain something; and while they wouldn’t be the same, I can imagine the essence of the films surviving.

Finding Nemo couldn’t be anything other than computer animation, because its essence is inseparable from the splendor of its undersea world, realized in quasi-photographic grandeur and richness unmatched by the noblest attempts of hand-drawn animation (Disney’s “Arab Dance” fish in Fantasia’s “Nutcracker Suite” sequence; The Little Mermaid; even Miyazaki’s Ponyo). No previous computer-animated film was so specific to this medium. Of later films, perhaps only Cars and Stanton’s own Wall-E are so dependent on texture, depth and the ambient quality of atmosphere itself — or, in the case of Nemo, of water.

Watching Nemo in 3-D on the big screen with my kids, I was captivated by all sorts of details that don’t stand out the same way on the small screen: the varying degrees of transparency and translucence of fishy fins; the articulation of the tiny suction cups on the underside of Peach the starfish in the dentist’s fish tank. Look closely at the top of the little pink octopus with one slightly shorter tentacle: Her mantle is slightly transparent.

Then there’s Mr. Ray’s tour of the coral reef — one of the most eye-popping, kaleidoscopically colorful sequences in all of animation, from the flashing reflections of his own spotted back on the surface just above him to the heightened naturalism of the flora and fauna (the Spanish dancer sea slug is a favorite). Cartoony character design notwithstanding, Finding Nemo has a love for the natural world that’s a credit to the tradition of Bambi and The Lion King. (Contrast DreamWorks’ Shark Tale, which is full of clever submarine conceits (e.g., the Whale Wash), but is too wedded to the surface world to honor the wonder of the ocean.)

The other thing linking Finding Nemo to Bambi and The Lion King, of course, is not one but two of the most traumatic parental separation/loss scenes in all of family cinema. What makes Nemo different is that these scenes are depicted not from the child’s point of view, but from the father’s.

Finding Nemo solidifies the orientation of previous Pixar films as family films aimed at parents. The Toy Story movies were about parental anxieties (or at least Toy Story 2 was); and Mike and especially Sully in Monsters, Inc. were for a time the grown-ups in Boo’s world (if less surrogate parents than avuncular figures in a sort of Two Monsters and a Baby scenario). Finding Nemo dispenses with surrogate relationships: It’s a literal father-son story transparently set amid the aspirations and anxieties of American suburbia and helicopter parenthood, though transposed to an undersea world of anthropomorphic fish.

The film is named for the son, but the titular quest is the father’s. Marlin (Albert Brooks) is the hero: a flawed but deeply sympathetic widowed father, scarred by tragedy and loss and anxiously overprotective of his only son, Nemo (Alexander Gould), who has a slight handicap — an underdeveloped pectoral fin.

It all stems from a tragic prologue set in the fashionable neighborhood on the edge of the coastal shelf overlooking the Drop-off, where Marlin loses his beloved wife Coral (Elizabeth Perkins), his confidence (“A fish can breathe out here!” he declares expansively before learning to fear the Drop-off) and all but one of their 400-plus eggs. (This heartbreaking sequence makes effective use of point-of-view shots, from the chilling vision of anemone tentacles drifting lazily at the wrong angle, desaturated by the sinking sun — a marker of time lost in unconsciousness as well as mood — to the throat-lump-inducing shot of Marlin’s fins cradling that infinitely precious last egg, an image with powerful nascent pro-life resonances.)

Needless to say, little Nemo grows up in a new anemone far from the Drop-off, and the one lesson he has learned above all others is that the ocean isn’t safe — though this hasn’t dampened his desire to venture out into the world he instinctively knows he must confront sooner or later. There’s the theme of the conflict, though Stanton makes clear that Marlin’s overprotectiveness hasn’t soured their relationship or taken the tenderness and playfulness out of it. (Contrast Brave, where Merida’s relationship with her mother, at least in the first-act present, seems lacking in anything but conflict.)

Then comes another fateful day at the Drop-off. It’s a fascinating scene, among other reasons, for its layered depiction of filial obedience, defiance and consequences. Nemo knows he probably shouldn’t be at the Drop-off with his new friends at all, but when it comes to their little game of chicken, swimming a few inches off the coastal shelf, he defers to his dad’s wishes. Alas, Marlin doesn’t see it that way, and his peremptory dressing-down prompts Nemo’s understandable but disastrous defiance.

Separated for most of the film, both Marlin and Nemo are stretched by new acquaintances who implicitly challenge Marlin’s micromanagerial parenting style. In the dentist’s fish tank Nemo finds a secondary male role model in Gill (Willem Dafoe), a crusty striped fish (a moorish idol) who pushes Nemo beyond his comfort zone and offers no sympathy or coddling for his bad fin. Marlin meets Crush, a surfer-dude turtle whose laid-back parenting style befits his species’ habit of leaving youngsters to fend for themselves.

And, of course, there’s Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a flighty blue tang who knows how to live in the moment because she can’t remember anything else. Her short-term memory loss is the source of much hilarity, though it also connects with the movie’s theme of handicaps and infirmities (the very funny 12-step sharks are another example).

Perhaps that’s why Marlin unconsciously transfers his parental anxieties to Dory. You can see it as he tries, with all the euphemistic gingerness and flat-out dishonesty of a guilt-wracked parent trying not to crush a child’s self-esteem, to part ways with Dory. (“And sometimes it’s a good thing! There’s a whole group of fish — they’re called delay fish …” Note the same euphemistic delicacy in Nemo’s “lucky” fin.)

And then, of course, the moment of emotional truth, clinging to a taste bud on a whale’s tongue, as Marlin resists Dory’s unknowingly fraught exhortation that it’s “time to let go”: “You think you can do these things, but you just can’t, Nemo!” Marlin’s eyes widen as he realizes what he’s said.

There’s also a wide-eyed moment of truth for Nemo as he realizes that there is more to his father than he ever guessed. For all his foibles, Marlin is genuinely heroic — reluctantly and frantically at first, but with a grim warrior resolve by the end. (His two hardiest moments are in the gullets of pelicans. After putting in time in the maw of a whale, he isn’t about to be pushed around by some pelican.) That moment when Nemo first begins to believe in his dad … I cried the first time I saw it in the theater nine years ago, and it still gets me every time.

But it’s not enough that Nemo believes in his father. Marlin also has to learn to believe in his son. For all his adventures, the bravest, hardest thing Marlin has to do is let Nemo go into danger alone. However old and experienced Nemo may be, how can Marlin ever look at him and not think of that precious, scratched egg in his fins?

There are head-scratching bits, such as Dory’s ability to read, a random plot convenience. Go with those, though, and the story is the height of Pixar polish and economy. Every scene, and practically every line, propels the story forward; the episodic adventures are one splendid set piece after another.

For all that, what makes Finding Nemo so unforgettable, in my book, is Marlin. He stands virtually alone among animated father figures: not an idealized father, but a heroic and lovable one who is trying his best and whose faults, such as they are, are regarded with sympathy and understanding. At the very end, Nemo tells his father, “I love you, Daddy.” In what other cartoon does that simple declaration carry so much weight?

P.S. Finding Nemo 3-D is preceded by “Partysaurus Rex,” easily the funniest and most inventive of the Toy Story shorts.

Steven D. Greydanus is the Register’s film critic.

Content Advisory: Animated high excitement and menace; parental separation theme. Could be frightening to sensitive youngsters.

 

Filed under animation, family films, movies, pixar, reviews

Comments

Post a Comment

To be honest, while I loved the film (or loved it when I watched it all the time 8-10 years ago), this re-release wasn’t even on my radar until I read you review. Now I’m thinking it might make for a good father/son outing.

I too love this movie and it’s become a favorite with my three kids.  The pro-life image you mention intrigues me as I recall a similar message in the first fifteen minutes of the movie Up (a scene my wife cannot watch without crying).  Are we finally starting to subvert Hollywood?

Steven - Great review, but in a nutshell, if you’re a family that pretty much has this movie memorized, is the 3-D version really worth tossing down the cash?  We LOVED seeing Toy Story 1 and 2 double feature in 3-D a few years ago, and if they re-released Incredibles in 3-D I’d be there even if my kids didn’t want to.  But while we love Nemo, we question the investment in seeing it again.  I appreciate that you pointed out the details you noticed in 3-D, but if you weren’t going to a screening of it, would you (as the father of several kids), wanted to pay for it again?  Just curious and looking for an opinion I trust before making that decision.

Greg Willits: Would I pay for tickets to bring my family to see Finding Nemo in 3-D on the big screen? Absolutely, and we have the film pretty much memorized too. I’m a big fan of the big-screen experience. It’s just different. The audience makes a difference too: You hear people laughing at jokes you almost don’t notice any more. It’s like seeing it for the first time.
 
FWIW, while our family screening of Finding Nemo was free (I did have to pay commuting and parking costs), I did pay to take my kids to a Toy Story / Toy Story 2 3-D double feature a few years ago. So I put my own money where my mouth is!

@SDG - That’s exactly what I wanted to know.  Thanks!

SDG,

I’ve chilled since my last postings.

‘Nemo’ is Pixar’s pinnacle.  It still tears me up. I so much identify with Marlin,  especially as I was in that situation.  But, I don’t care for 3D that much. It doesn’t make a great film better; and it doesn’t make a bad one better, either.

Matt
PS - How are you managing SEVEN, SDG?!

P.S. Greg Willits: Something that I think made the screening special for our kids was that I talked to them about the film on the way to the screening—pointed out the things I think make it a special film and particularly a special computer-animated film, and why I was excited about seeing it on the big screen. (Many of the points I made are now in the opening paragraphs above.)
 
I encouraged them to look for things they’d never seen before—and they did! For instance, James (11) noticed the toy Buzz Lightyear in the dentist’s waiting room for the first time. David (14) noticed that Marlin and Dory are almost never swimming through totally open water—you can almost always see subterranean ridges and mountains in the background, etc.
 
And, of course, they enjoyed the novelty of “Partysaurus Rex.” :-)

Matt: In general I agree with you about 3-D, with two notable exceptions: computer animation and stop-motion animation.
 
3-D works beautifully for these forms, since they are essentially forms of sculpture in real or virtual space. (I also loved the 3-D in Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams, a documentary about prehistoric cave paintings, since the contours of the cave walls bearing the paintings are an integral part of appreciating the work. Seeing it in 3-D was as close to actually going into the caves as I’m ever going to get.)
 
Actually, we are still functionally a household with six kids, since our eldest is away at college—but this makes things harder, not easier! Seven would be easier since Sarah was a major asset to running the household. That said, we are happily coping.

Synopsis:
Son willfully disobeys his overprotective father (major sin).
Son suffers consequences of this sin (so far, excellent)
In the conclusion the problem is placed squarely on the father’s shoulders for his overprotectiveness. (Disaster!!!!)
We need to embrace beauty and truth in all aspects of life. The conclusion of this movie makes it morally reprehensible. I prefer several R movies than this modernist, secular trash. I wish we had more serious Catholic movie critics who can see beyond the fun ride.
Read the first chapter of Orthodoxy as a tool for deciding upon the moral soundness of a movie.

merengue: Your dopey misreading of the film aside, your post ends with excellent advice. Cheers.

on another thread I read how you consider Dory the funniest sidekick since Kronk. Thanks for reminding me of Kronk, literally made my day.

Oh. Riiiiight. The poison. The poison for Kuzco, the poison chosen especially to kill Kuzco, Kuzco’s poison.
 
That poison?

I think “Finding Nemo” is a beautiful film. It’s both touching and exciting and the animation of course is gorgeous. I would go see it in 3D!! :)

SDG, I love all your movie reviews and yours is the first site I go to when I want to get a good, Catholic perspective on movies. God bless you on all your new directions God is taking you and your family now. Anyway, back to Nemo. I thought it was just me who cried at the part where Nemo finally believes in his dad, glad I’m not alone. Also, I still use lines on a regular basis from the film. The other day at work, I’d finished editing and formatting a very long and dificult chapter in a Latin book for a student. Upon finishing I found myself singing “We did it, we did it, oh yeah yeah yeah. No eating here to night.” I only realized I was doing it when “You’re on a diet,” can out of my mouth. I just love Dori.  You made me want to pop the movie in again and watch it. While the visual effects of both the original and the 3d are lost on me, it’s still one of the most wonderful and funny movies I’ve seen in a long time, and yes, Kronk is a scream.

Thanks for your kind words, Laura, and for your good wishes for my family and my incipient vocation.
 
Yes, it’s a very quotable movie. Probably the lines Suz and I use the most are “It’s like he’s trying to speak to me, I know it!” and “Look, you’re really cute, but I can’t understand what you’re saying!” And “Okay, okay, don’t hurt yourself” (when a kid is struggling to say something complex). And of course “Mine! Mine! Mine!”
 
To perpetuate the Emperor’s New Groove connection (which my kids and I watched just the other day): In situations where you might go “We did it, we did it, oh yeah yeah yeah,” I tend to go “Look at me and my bad self! Uh HUH! Uh HUH! Uh HUH uh HUH uh HUH!” like Kuzco congratulating himself on snatching Pacha out of the air and rescuing him from the crumbling canyon wall.

Hey! Hey! Hey!

Don’t forget the crabs.

Rregarding the blame for Nemo’s disobedience “placed squarely on the father’s shoulders,” it’s worth noting that (a) Marlin did have a problem with overprotectiveness and (as noted in the review proper) was behaving badly during the dropoff scene. Even so, unless my memory fails me, Nemo still apologized to Marlin at the end of the film. The film didn’t give much weight to Nemo’s capture being a consequence of his disobedience, because it sets out to explore more interesting thematic territory than a mere cautionary tale, but the reunion still features the apology (which by its nature implies an admission of guilt).
   
Moreover, while Marlin apologizes for his own sins, he does not take the blame for Nemo’s act of disobedience, even though that’s exactly what would have happened in any piece of “modernist, secular trash” worthy of the name.
   
I can’t disagree that Dory’s ability to read is a plot convenience, but it’s not entirely implausible. The most likely scenario—and I’m only speculating (read: “making stuff up”) here—is that she has some past experience with humans. Maybe she’s a former pet? After all, the tank fish got pretty familiar with dentistry, and a deleted scene shows Gil relaying a story from a waiting-room storybook (albeit one he’s probably heard read aloud many times). So it’s not entirely implausible. Maybe that’s also how she got her memory problems?
   
Of course, the film doesn’t give us even a hint of an explanation, and I’m okay with that. Again, the film has bigger fish to f—I mean, more important goals to accomplish.

Just keep swimming

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

     

Notify me of follow-up comments.