The Marketing Algorithm demands more Sea Turtle - a review of Finding Dory

There are three primary criteria I use to judge movies. A great movie will meet at least one of these requirements:

1. Magic. A single scene, if it contains enough magic, can be enough to carry an otherwise mediocre movie. Sometimes there is no single remarkable scene but something about the movie as a whole just works. You know it when you see it. Something that can't be replicated by merely studying the technical elements.

2. Would I feel exceptionally proud to be listed in the credits if I worked in the film industry? Is it a product of extraordinary quality? Sheer craftsmanship can be enough.

3. An astonishing acting performance. It can redeem any movie.

Finding Dory hints at magic on a few occasions, particularly during the ray migration scene, but these moments are too short and are placed too close to annoying scenes to be effective. A sequel should bring some extra magic and this movie just doesn't have it. Nothing about it feels special.

I would not feel exceptionally proud to have been a part of making Finding Dory. It's too routine and by the numbers. It would be a good paycheck and a nice credit, nothing more. I must note here that the short we are treated to, Piper, easily achieves greatness by sheer craftsmanship. The team that made Piper gave themselves the the most difficult technical challenges imaginable and created something stunning.

Finding Dory is almost redeemed by the acting. This movie would not even be worth discussing without Ellen DeGeneres in it. Yet it's not enough to overcome the flaws in the material and the story. Her performance is very good but it's not astonishing like it was in Finding Nemo.

Clearly, this it not a great movie. Is it even a good movie? My test of a good movie is simpler; Can I imagine that I will want to watch it again someday? It does some things well. The acting is good. The dialogue is well written and truly funny at times although it could have used more quality jokes. There are some very engaging scene transitions and clever storytelling. Sigourney Weaver as herself was an inspired insight by the casting director. However, Finding Dory has some major problems that prevent me from wanting to watch it again.

The most obvious shortcoming is that the stakes aren't high enough. Are Dory's parents still alive? Will she find them? It doesn't make any difference. We already know she is a competent enough character to be instrumental in saving a lost disabled child (that's real peril). It is fully established that Dory is a grown-ass fish. We even see her grow up in an awkward montage that takes place within the first few minutes.

That's right. After 13 years of development Finding Dory manages to beat Bloodsport for the record of getting to the montage first. At least Bloodsport has magic, and lots of it. I can't explain it either but you know in your heart it's true.

The “fastest time to montage” placard is displayed. The adjacent placard flips over and reveals that Pixar now holds the new record. Chong Li storms over to the edge of the elevated mat. He holds Dory's fin tag above Pixar's head, taunting Pixar. “First you break my montage record. Now I break you, like I break your frien'!” Pixar reaches out to grab the fin tag but the sneering Chong Li snatches it away.

The other major problem is that the scope is too small. They cross the entire ocean in a few minutes for seemingly no reason other than to bring back the weakest link from Finding Nemo, those insufferable surfer sea turtles. The rest of the movie takes place in a small location, the Marine Life Institute. The story follows the characters navigating within this confined space with no sense of wonder, danger or surprise whatsoever. This limited scope may have worked better as a first movie but it is simply insufficient when compared to the epic adventure of Finding Nemo. The first film involves a worldwide search into the unknown. This feels more like finding Dory in a department store.

Before the movie started, I had to suffer through an endless series of appalling previews for movies I'd pay not to be released. This experience pushed me a couple of steps closer to the decision of throwing away the TV and being done with all of it. Maybe the perspective of Nemo could be useful at a time like this. I don't mean the animated fish, I mean Jules Verne's Captain. “I am not what you call a civilised man! I have done with society entirely, for reasons which I alone have the right of appreciating. I do not, therefore, obey its laws, and I desire you never to allude to them before me again!” 
 

These utterly wretched previews made me equally salty. I had to wonder if the caretakers at the ranch called in a silver alert before they discovered that Robert Redford had wandered onto the set of Pete's Stupid Fucking Dragon. I hate to write that because I think All is Lost is a great movie but I really was perplexed about what Redford was doing. After a little thought it became obvious. Environmental activism. That movie is going to push a certain political agenda far too hard. It's the only reason it was made.

This was one of my concerns going into Finding Dory. There was some chatter about messages the film might be pushing, but this mostly proved to be unfounded. There is a message about treatment of animals by Sea World, an easy and safe target. It was done fairly well and was not too heavy-handed.

Unless I missed it there is no reference to LGBTQIA issues. (Yes, I had to look it up.) Where are my transgendered sharks? (Yes, I looked it up and dodged a bullet. Transgender would have been offensive.) Where are my lesbian manatee weddings? (Pretty sure I'm safe here.) Given the tremendous variation in reproductive strategies of ocean life, surely this sort of thing was considered. At the very least it could have provided a cheap and easy joke, the kind this movie loves. Why don't we see it? It's likely that any content approaching these topics was forbidden. There could be absolutely zero risk of any group boycotting this film.

Our Man climbs the mast to fix the radio.  We get the sense he is trying to spot a genderqueer porpoise while he is up there. The search proves futile, as does the attempted repair.

The lack of lesbian fish was a good decision but it wasn't a great decision. Yes, they would have botched it. It would have been cringe-inducing and seemed immediately dated. But wouldn't it have been something special if they addressed the topic in just the right way? It would have required a delicate touch, with just the right amount of force to release pent up potential energy - an emotional dim mak. (See? That's why Bloodsport has movie magic. It just gets into your brain somehow.) We needed something startling and cathartic. A joke or gag that people on all sides of these currently contentious issues could laugh at themselves about. Shouldn't we forget about all of this and just enjoy a kids movie? I agree, but it would have meant something to see this exact point skilfully made by the movie itself.

There is another controversy to address. Does finding Dory make fun of the differently abled or autism? Is it mean? We have 3 characters that seem to be affected by some kind of neurological something. I can't say more than that without offending so let's leave it at that. Dory, who suffers from short term memory loss; Becky, an easily manipulated loon with limited capacities to perform standard loon behavior; and Gerald, a non-verbal sea lion that is constantly bullied by the other two sea lions. Don't write to me about “suffers from”. The movie itself dredges up this oppressive and archaic phrase from the dark ages of 2003. I am fully aware that we now substitute “is experiencing” in our far more advanced and enlightened current year.

The film does make fun of Dory but that's unavoidable. With one brutal exception, it is done in a kind way, and this is the entire charm of the character.  Indeed, her manner of adapting is glorified to a troubling extreme. Pure spontaneity works for her because she has to make it work but that doesn't make it a virtue. I didn't like seeing it encouraged to children as an answer to every situation. It would have been good see a few contrasting situations where Marlin's more cautious strategy succeeded.

I found Becky the loon to be quite likable. She is a very capable bird but easily distracted. I didn't mind how silly she was but I was a little disturbed by how thoughtlessly her instincts were hijacked by the other characters for their own purposes. The way she is treated clearly and deliberately makes the protagonists look worse and Becky look better.  Some characters treat her poorly but the movie doesn't. 

Gerald seems to be the character causing the most controversy. I have to admit I can see the problem. They picked on Gerald one too many times to not be bothered by it. Gerald exists only to enable a pretty good gag featuring the other sea lions barking him off their favorite rock. I don't see why they couldn't just bark at an unnamed sea lion one time and be done with it. It would have been equally funny and detracted less from the story. Is Gerald intentionally portrayed as autistic as some critics have suggested? I think that the likable Becky better fits this description. There is just not enough of Gerald to make any conclusion. I would like to think that there was more to Gerald's story at one time. Maybe they were not permitted to waste additional screen time on him (the marketing algorithm demands more sea turtle) so they just recklessly made him an old school dimwit. (A sea lion-person experiencing old school dimwittedness?)

We also meet a depressed clam that hasn't talked to to anyone in years. He presents a similar problem. It's yet another lame joke (he's not happy as a clam) that feels forced and does nothing to advance the story. Our heroes become more unlikable during this encounter because they offer not even a glimmer of hope to this pathetic creature. His plight seems more dire than Dory's and they blow him off entirely when he annoys them.

The cumulative effect of all of this is that the movie is a bit too mean. The tone is off. But there was no nefarious intent behind these choices. It would have been fun for me to write about how the bloodthirsty Pixar hates autistic children and revels in seeing them getting attacked by sea lions. But that isn't it at all. Picture James Caan in Elf sarcastically commenting on publishing a flawed children's book. ”No, I think we should take a $30,000 bath so some kid can understand what happened to a puppy and a frigging pigeon. Ship 'em!” That's all we are dealing with here. 

"Who cares if an autistic kid gets attacked by a frigging sea lion? Is there any gay stuff? No? Ship it!"

Should you watch Finding Dory? Compared to the animated and children's movies that are coming out this year "just OK" is the best we can hope for. I don't regret paying to see Finding Dory only for this reason. Since I won't be paying to see the rest of the incoming tidal wave of dreck, I am in a relative sense punishing the other movies. See it if you must, but only out of spite. Alternatively, sit through the previews and then leave to go watch Tarkovsky's Nostalghia now that you can truly understand why a man would lock his family away to protect them from the world.

 "Just keep walking! Just keep walking! Just keep walking!"

Finding Dory fails to capture the imagination. The only thing I was imagining while watching it was meetings. You can just feel the choices that were made. It could have been art but instead it is only the best product that they could assemble after a decade of higher-ups decimating the storyboard. An obvious improvement to the script would have been to write the Nemo character out of it completely. He is entirely superfluous here and I don't think his physical limitations, the most interesting thing about him, are even mentioned. Maybe he is off on a school trip and can't participate in this story. Of course this is unthinkable. Someone could have been fired on the spot for proposing it. I am certain that a brilliant screenplay for this film was written. It probably didn't survive ten minutes into the first meeting.

Before we left for the theater, I looked on IMDB to see if Willem Dafoe would be back for the sequel and was relieved to see his name. This prompted my daughter to ask me the question every parent dreads: “Daddy, what's a Willem Dafoe?” I stumbled my way through an explanation. How do you explain such an inscrutable thing to a 4 year old? Can't we talk about sex or death or God instead? I think I told her something about future generations of scientists possibly understanding. I'm hoping that one day we will watch Shadow of the Vampire together and she will just get it.

"Yes, I would love to be in your children's movie"

                                         

Anyway, I didn't see Defoe's character, Gil. I read some internet comments and it seems that there is a scene after the credits. It shows the Finding Nemo crew from the dentist office tank still in those plastic bags. So you mean to tell me you have a character played by Willem Dafoe that spent a year in a plastic bag? No need to overthink this one. Here's what you do: you get a Willem Dafoe and throw it naked into a huge plastic bag with a microphone. "Ok Willem, Gil has been stuck in a plastic bag for a year. Go." Then you record the next two hours and there's your third movie. Cheap to cast, cheap to produce, cheap to animate. Guaranteed to be a great movie by my standards. Pixar still has time to release Losing Gil before summer is over to make up for Finding Dory.

Addendum: Further research has revealed the the scene after the credits shows Gerald getting bullied yet again. I take back everything I said about James Caan. The bloodthirsty Pixar hates autistic children and revels in seeing them getting attacked by sea lions.