Finding Nemo

Dirs: Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
2003
Yes, well, now I see it. Although I don’t have any kids tugging at my arm, I do have my wife, who, though not too interested in Disney, feels the need to keep up with movies discussed around the water cooler at her job. And the office women seem to like “Finding Nemo”. Plus her sister keeps going on about it (she kept saying “You made me ink!” over and over on holiday, and ruined that joke for me). So here we are.
I will go and see Pixar films; they are a separate entity from Disney (especially now), and I did really like “A Bug’s Life” for it wealth of background jokes and well done supporting characters (the pillbugs especially). I saw “Monsters Inc.” last year and that was okay.
“Finding Nemo” had some good moments, but I feel this is the most “Disney” of the lot–too much saccharine, too many ‘life lessons’, too much “I love you dad!” moments. Characters come, do their shtick, then go, such as the surfer turtles, the vegetarian sharks, and the rest, all feeling quite programmed after a while. Undoubtedly, many children’s books also go with this structure when there’s a journey narrative–just think of Wizard of Oz–but it becomes very obvious here.
Just as there’s too many supporting characters (Nemo’s fishtank friends are reduced to one or two gags each), the film is almost too beautiful. The realism and the minute craftsmanship that goes into every single backdrop means even the scary parts are comforting. The light upon the water, the transparency of the ocean, the fluorescence of the coral reefs, the textures of sand and rock–it’s all very amazing.
But having watched this in the same week as “Laputa,” I can remember much more of that film’s characters than here. I also became very aware that the two main characters are Ellen Degeneres and Albert Brooks. I couldn’t separate them from their animated characters. I could just see Albert and Ellen in the studio, improv’ing it up. On the other hand, I had no idea that was Willem Dafoe as the battle-scarred tropical fish, Gill.
In the end it was the small things I liked: the arguing Boston lobsters near the steam vent, the gulls (a design nod to Aardman?) who just say “mine. mine.” when food is about, and the French shrimp (“I shall resist!” he says when told not to clean the tank, a line that no doubt goes over all the kids’ heads and most of the adults’).
Yes, it’s funny, but the humor comes from the concessions it makes for the adult audience. Kids get thrown pretty colors and an ADD-inspired adventure tale; sappy adults get thrown a father-son tale about “letting go as a parent,” while the adult jokes and sitcom delivery please the television watchers.
This is still “separate-but-equal” entertainment. Many children’s filmmakers have decided that their product will be unwatchable to adults unless a second level is added. Do we have the ability to make a film that succeeds with all ages without dumbing down or snarking up?
By the way, when we were in the video store, we watched a young father trying to find movies to rent for his two kids, who I guess were 5 and 7, maybe younger. He was trying to rent “The Apple Dumpling Gang,” presumably because he loved the film as a kid and wanted to initiate them. “But is has guns and explosions in it,” he explained to the little boy, “You’ll like that!” The boy wasn’t having any of it. Parents: will they ever learn?