A Look Back at Finding Nemo

Copyright 2003, Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios

Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios have made, as of today, nine films. 2003's Finding Nemo is the fifth; as a midpoint in the current output from Pixar, it's interesting to look at the film as the major turning point for the fledgling computer-animation company. Two main stories have emerged since the film's release, both of which could have pegged the film as a failure. First, the unspoken truth of the original voice of the film's lead, Marlin, a neurotic father whose son goes missing in the vast reaches of the sea; though Albert Brooks, who does voice Marlin, was the first choice for the film's director and co-writer, Andrew Stanton, William H. Macy got the role and did the entire script before...well, Stanton and friends just didn't think his voice worked. Obviously, we're never going to hear Macy's work, but the story goes that he understood as much as the Pixar folk that he wasn't right for the part. Either way, Brooks is fantastic in the role.

The other story is more well-known: in 2001, as Monsters, Inc. was readying for release, the head of the Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner, was not thrilled with the work being done on Nemo. He thought it was weak & Marlin was shrill and annoying. He figured that this film would be the first slight against Pixar, which had been previously perfect; critics and audiences loved their films, and he figured Nemo would stop that streak. Thanks mostly due to Stanton's wise decision to alter the film's story around and to fix some script problems, Eisner was proven wrong. Stanton had originally held back on revealing exactly why Marlin was so neurotic (his wife and the rest of his children are eaten by a barracuda), explaning the story in flashback. As we now see it, the entire scene opens the film and wastes no time in explaning why the character voiced by Albert Brooks sounds and acts exactly like...well, most characters played by Albert Brooks: neurotic, worrying, and seemingly weak.

Eisner, as I said, was wrong. In fact, he was so wrong that it ended up, in some way, costing him his job and getting Pixar to pretty much control far more of Disney than he might have wanted. Finding Nemo is Pixar's most successful film, with just about $340 million domestically, and over $850 million worldwide. It's the highest-selling DVD of all time; musicals, theme park attractions, and the like have been created because of the film's success. Most importantly, Finding Nemo was the movie that helped reinforce this idea: when it comes to animation, there is now no longer Disney vs. everyone else. There is Pixar, and then there is the long distance between them and everyone else. When Disney reigned supreme, it was because there was no competition. Pixar came along and rivals sprung up; as successful as those rivals are, when you boast Kung Fu Panda as your strongest film....I don't know how well it speaks for DreamWorks.

Finding Nemo may not be the most complete break from the older Pixar films, the movies that added plenty of clever humor based on human-style interactions among non-human characters (the first 10 minutes of Nemo poke fun at fish in the same way), but it's the first film that dealt with main characters and their realistic drama. Before this, only Toy Story 2 hinted at this with the subplot involving Jessie the cowgirl. Here, though, is a movie whose main character is genuinely complex for genuine reasons; his sidekick has a mental disease which impairs her severely (yes, Dory the tang is adorable, but the truth is the truth). The dentally savvy fish who Nemo meets in the aquarium he's stolen away to by an arrogant Australian dentist are almost too human to function in the ocean and have been completely institutionalized.

Yes, I'm reading too much into Finding Nemo, which is one of the more exciting adventure films of the past decade, a breathless and suspenseful story about a father's undying love for his only son. But the complexities are there in a different way than any Pixar film that came before it. Still, Finding Nemo is a far less complex film than Stanton's next directorial effort, WALL-E. Despite that, the animation in Nemo is arguably the best Pixar's ever offered, and that is saying a lot. The general design of the ocean and its inner workings looks close to photo-realistic without seeming too real. The fish in the film, from Marlin and Dory to Nemo and Gill, look real enough; some look freakish, such as the menacing fish with a light attached to its forehead. It took the folks at the studio in Emeryville, California six years to complete the picture, and all the work shows.

The script, by Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds, is sharp and crisp; we spend enough time with every character and feel like they're all clearly defined, even the three dads who pester Marlin, a clownfish, to tell them a joke. Of course, with Brooks and comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as Marlin and Dory, the movie is made in the shade. Brooks and DeGeneres take two characters who are very potentially awful and obnoxious and make them not only fully realized but fully lovable. Though Dory is the more hilarious, both characters are brilliantly conceived and performed. Their relationship is easily the best twosome since Woody and Buzz. Moreover, it's easy to note a similarity between these two mismatched characters and Wall-E and Eve. The only difference here is that the main character of Nemo is the Eve substitute, not the Wall-E substitute.

I can't believe that I could have gotten you to read this far down if you haven't already seen Finding Nemo (hence my lack of explaining the plot beyond saying that Marlin, the dad, has to find his missing son, Nemo), so presuming that you are that rare person....SEE THIS MOVIE. Just stop reading and see it. I wouldn't put Finding Nemo at the top of my list of Pixar favorites (still WALL-E, Ratatouille, and The Incredibles at the top), but it's a great film, a great animated feature, and massively entertaining.