Fone Bone
Matt Zimmer
Nimona
I suspect this review is going to be long. But I'm also not 100% sure what I'm going to say or what needs to be covered. It's a pretty big movie, and if you ask me too big for Blue Sky. It's nice that they were swinging for the fences when they went out of business, but I clearly see why Disney didn't want to have anything to do with it.
We'll get to that. The politics and the heavy themes? All of that will be talked about. What are my impressions of the film's quality? Did I like it?
I thought the film's quality was amazingly high. I also thought it was imperfect (which is something I like; I enjoy complaining). Did I like or enjoy the film? In some respects I did, but in most others the film resonated with me more because it challenged me, rather than because I was having a good time. It was interesting. I like that aspect of the film, but I can't say I purely enjoyed it simply because it was interesting.
I will say two things about Nimona, the character. 1. I dislike her very much. Her bloodthirstiness and Edgelord behavior is tiresome to me. The second thing is probably more important that the first. I have never seen another female fictional character like Nimona before. And for the film to offer a new type of female perspective I've never seen is more important than the fact that I don't like her. I don't have to like every character in fiction. The fact that the film created a a female character who is both sinister and destructive, and yet insightful enough to call Ballister's questions "small-minded" is new for me. And that is not actually an insight that belongs in a children's film. Which is why the film was a bad fit for Disney, and I see why they ultimately passed on it.
I think this is one of those films that I will like it more and more every time I rewatch it. I intend to see it again, and I expect every time I do I'll notice something interesting I missed on previous viewings.
I guess I'll talk about the studio politics of why the film was shelved soon, but before I do I want to point out why the film is different from other big studio animated films. Most of the current crop of animated movies are based on a silly high-concept premise that the filmmakers are instructed to construct a movie around. I am aware this is based on a graphic novel, and the fact shows in the sense that the film is based around a specific story and its characters rather than talking fish or cars. It's based on a world that is well-thought out and rich, and deep. The fact that you can't describe the scenario of futuristic knights on a billboard or an ad is unlike most current animated films. Back in the 2-D era Disney made MANY films that were story-based rather than high concept cartoons, but this is unusual for that.
I think perhaps one of the reasons Disney passed on it is that the film courts controversy. You can accuse them of gutlessness there, but I think Disney had the idea that the movie would be hella expensive, it would take a drubbing from Fox News for b.s. reasons, and it would still probably bomb at the box office because it's not exactly something a kid would like. While all those things are true, I'm betting Disney just didn't want to go through the hassle. Especially if they knew it was probably gonna lose them money anyways.
What are the controversial aspects of the movie? Of course the main romance being same-sex between Ballister and Ambrosius will have caused clucks among the moral scolds of society, but if that were it, the film could weather it. "Strange World" may have bombed at the box office, but it's gotten a cult following on Disney+ in the meantime. But the film's political controversies go far beyond diversity. It is easily the most political family animated film since "The Incredibles". And because The Incredibles' Objectivism was sort of conservative, and liberals didn't really care about it, the controversy over the film's questionable politics never materialized outside of online essays. Nimona's antiauthoritarianism and anti fascist / hatred messages are not gonna just be rolled with by people who disagree with those messages. Unlike The Incredibles, the film would get a LOT of crap from pundits like Tucker Carlson. It would get accused of grooming kids if Disney released it, and indoctrinating them in socialist propaganda. Let me offer a counterpoint that the filmmakers probably missed, but I'm betting Disney did not.
I think the film is inappropriate for little kids. Not every film that's inappropriate for kids needs to be rated R, or even PG-13. 2001: A Space Odyssesy was rated G back in the day, and there is no way a kid should watch it. But while I think 2001 was misrated at the time, I actually agree with Nimona's PG rating, because I don't think ratings should tie in with either tone or messaging. I think they should be just decided by content. The idea of a supposed "thematic element" (whatever the hell that is) giving The Wizard Of Oz a PG rating is I believe the MPAA overstepping their bounds. But I believe The Incredibles also deserved a PG rating. And I also believed that movie probably shouldn't have been seen by children either.
Maybe I'm wrong. God knows putting the idea that hatred and fascism are bad into kids heads young is a good thing. The reason I am hesitant to recommend this movie's version of that for kids is because of the nuances the film's mystery explores with it, and the fact that right and wrong isn't so clear-cut there. And I feel like if a KID sees an antifascist moral, and is confused by the actual message of where they should stand, that does more harm than good. Same deal with the Objectivism in The Incredibles.
I am not jiving when I say I found the nuances the film explored confusing. They troubled me a little too. At one point after the Director's corruption has been discovered by Ballister, Nimona suggests they can use the footage to topple the Institute, and Ballister says that the Institute is sound, and it's the Director that is the problem. Would the kids watching understand that Ballister's opinion is naive and wrong? The filmmakers don't exactly make it explicit, but although the wall is down at the end of the film, and people's opinions about what "monsters" are have changed, we have no idea what the political situation is after the fact. Is there another Queen or Director in charge? Is it simply an example of "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss"? I ask because the caste system the world is beholden to is abhorrent, and I would have liked a firmer understanding of if the Queen's idea to push back against it gained traction after the crisis or if the dream actually DID die with her. Ballister's Knighthood actually tells us nothing about the long-term politics of that system. His situation could be considered an outlier "special circumstance" there, just like it was at the beginning of the film. We just don't know. And while we don't, I'm not comfortable with kids not being given a clearer resolution for that.
The message of the people seeing the footage of the Director's confession is interspersed with a painful and unfunny montage of Ballister and Nimona goofing off and dancing around the hideout, and turns it briefly into every other annoying animated film. But between the cringe are scenes of people in the kingdom calling the people in charge liars and picking up rocks to throw at the knights allowing this level of corruption to continue. Is that a good message for kids? As long as the Director is able to eventually b.s. an explanation for that footage, probably not. For something like civil unrest to be shown to kids, cause and effect is necessary to actually show the message and what it actually means.
Another interesting controversy the film explores is ONLINE controversy, and how diverse opinions can view fake news and propaganda. Speaking for me, while the people at the end doing a 180 about Nimona is nice and all, I don't find it very realistic. It's called The Institute. Most people do not change their entrenched views of the institutions they've been raised with, and the propaganda they've spent their life being brainwashed by overnight. Most of them never actually do. And again, this is why the film is not a great fit for kids. It wants to explore fascism, hatred, and fake news, but wants to give kids the happy ending at the same time instead of it being the proper cautionary tale it needs to be.
The mystery isn't great, as the Director is really the only suspect worth exploring. But at least it's not a surprise villain ending twist like Disney did for Frozen, Zootopia, and all the other "Secret Bad Guy Reveals" they and Pixar have ever done. Although the solution is predictable, it's also not treated as Earth-shattering, so it's acceptable, instead of annoying.
I mentioned I would enjoy watching this film again and again. One thing I can say is I don't think rewatching the film will get me to overlook the film's biggest flaw. From Ballister's perspective he has no reason to question or distrust Nimona at the end because of what Ambrosius has told him. Even if she WAS the monster that Glorif-whatever fought a thousand years ago, Ballister should already know Nimona was not the one who framed him, therefore everything Ambrosius says about her is suspect. He was THERE for the Director's confession. He specifically knows Nimona was impersonating Ambrosius at the time, and the Director's confession was her own, while she apparently tried to murder who she believed was Ambrosius for making the discovery. And if I know that, every single bit of conflict between him and Nimona past then is artificial and stupid. I'm not saying the movie didn't have a nice ending. I'm saying based on what Ballister himself had witnessed he should have KNOWN immediately the Director trying to muddy the waters about Nimona is pure b.s. on every level. And he should have known it the entire time. And it's not poor characterization. It was poor writing that was hoping we simply wouldn't notice or would overlook that fact. Prediction: Most people will. The movie is great enough otherwise that people will rationalize a b.s. excuse to make it fit in their heads. I am arguing right now there is NOT a rational explanation that would make THAT fit. If there were, I'd jump on it myself. It's just poor writing that begs the viewer not to notice it. I actually did this time. Sorry.
There is a PSA at the end of the film for a number for people who are struggling to call. I understand the need for some fiction dealing with sensitive topics to perhaps direct people further interested in that topics to professionals, especially if the person is undergoing the issue explored. But you know what? I draw the line at offering suicide prevention lines at the end of movies simply with sad content. I think society should be allowed and trusted to view sad material without feeling triggered and the need to be talked off the ledge. Here is another thing, speaking as a person who is sometimes suicidal. There was absolutely NOTHING in this film that triggered me, and I think it's kind of insulting how little it thinks I can handle stuff like this. Maybe some people CAN'T handle this. But then they should be staying away from movies like this altogether. I would like to think people who watched and enjoyed this movie did so knowing that plenty of PG rated movies have sad and upsetting content. And they have since Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs and The Wizard Of Oz. I think the viewers of this movie can handle it. Like I said, little kids probably shouldn't watch it, but little kids aren't exactly the kinds of people who call suicide hotlines either. I think they are worried about the wrong members of the audience.
For now, I very much like the fact that the film raised a bunch of questions for me to answer about its morality that I had to answer myself, especially because I kind of dig the fact that I believe I probably disagree with what the movie's writers actually believe about the ethical quandaries shown. I like movies that give me permission to make up my own mind, and I suspect I would like it more and more each time I watched it. For those reasons I am giving the film my second highest grade of four and a half stars. ****1/2.
I suspect this review is going to be long. But I'm also not 100% sure what I'm going to say or what needs to be covered. It's a pretty big movie, and if you ask me too big for Blue Sky. It's nice that they were swinging for the fences when they went out of business, but I clearly see why Disney didn't want to have anything to do with it.
We'll get to that. The politics and the heavy themes? All of that will be talked about. What are my impressions of the film's quality? Did I like it?
I thought the film's quality was amazingly high. I also thought it was imperfect (which is something I like; I enjoy complaining). Did I like or enjoy the film? In some respects I did, but in most others the film resonated with me more because it challenged me, rather than because I was having a good time. It was interesting. I like that aspect of the film, but I can't say I purely enjoyed it simply because it was interesting.
I will say two things about Nimona, the character. 1. I dislike her very much. Her bloodthirstiness and Edgelord behavior is tiresome to me. The second thing is probably more important that the first. I have never seen another female fictional character like Nimona before. And for the film to offer a new type of female perspective I've never seen is more important than the fact that I don't like her. I don't have to like every character in fiction. The fact that the film created a a female character who is both sinister and destructive, and yet insightful enough to call Ballister's questions "small-minded" is new for me. And that is not actually an insight that belongs in a children's film. Which is why the film was a bad fit for Disney, and I see why they ultimately passed on it.
I think this is one of those films that I will like it more and more every time I rewatch it. I intend to see it again, and I expect every time I do I'll notice something interesting I missed on previous viewings.
I guess I'll talk about the studio politics of why the film was shelved soon, but before I do I want to point out why the film is different from other big studio animated films. Most of the current crop of animated movies are based on a silly high-concept premise that the filmmakers are instructed to construct a movie around. I am aware this is based on a graphic novel, and the fact shows in the sense that the film is based around a specific story and its characters rather than talking fish or cars. It's based on a world that is well-thought out and rich, and deep. The fact that you can't describe the scenario of futuristic knights on a billboard or an ad is unlike most current animated films. Back in the 2-D era Disney made MANY films that were story-based rather than high concept cartoons, but this is unusual for that.
I think perhaps one of the reasons Disney passed on it is that the film courts controversy. You can accuse them of gutlessness there, but I think Disney had the idea that the movie would be hella expensive, it would take a drubbing from Fox News for b.s. reasons, and it would still probably bomb at the box office because it's not exactly something a kid would like. While all those things are true, I'm betting Disney just didn't want to go through the hassle. Especially if they knew it was probably gonna lose them money anyways.
What are the controversial aspects of the movie? Of course the main romance being same-sex between Ballister and Ambrosius will have caused clucks among the moral scolds of society, but if that were it, the film could weather it. "Strange World" may have bombed at the box office, but it's gotten a cult following on Disney+ in the meantime. But the film's political controversies go far beyond diversity. It is easily the most political family animated film since "The Incredibles". And because The Incredibles' Objectivism was sort of conservative, and liberals didn't really care about it, the controversy over the film's questionable politics never materialized outside of online essays. Nimona's antiauthoritarianism and anti fascist / hatred messages are not gonna just be rolled with by people who disagree with those messages. Unlike The Incredibles, the film would get a LOT of crap from pundits like Tucker Carlson. It would get accused of grooming kids if Disney released it, and indoctrinating them in socialist propaganda. Let me offer a counterpoint that the filmmakers probably missed, but I'm betting Disney did not.
I think the film is inappropriate for little kids. Not every film that's inappropriate for kids needs to be rated R, or even PG-13. 2001: A Space Odyssesy was rated G back in the day, and there is no way a kid should watch it. But while I think 2001 was misrated at the time, I actually agree with Nimona's PG rating, because I don't think ratings should tie in with either tone or messaging. I think they should be just decided by content. The idea of a supposed "thematic element" (whatever the hell that is) giving The Wizard Of Oz a PG rating is I believe the MPAA overstepping their bounds. But I believe The Incredibles also deserved a PG rating. And I also believed that movie probably shouldn't have been seen by children either.
Maybe I'm wrong. God knows putting the idea that hatred and fascism are bad into kids heads young is a good thing. The reason I am hesitant to recommend this movie's version of that for kids is because of the nuances the film's mystery explores with it, and the fact that right and wrong isn't so clear-cut there. And I feel like if a KID sees an antifascist moral, and is confused by the actual message of where they should stand, that does more harm than good. Same deal with the Objectivism in The Incredibles.
I am not jiving when I say I found the nuances the film explored confusing. They troubled me a little too. At one point after the Director's corruption has been discovered by Ballister, Nimona suggests they can use the footage to topple the Institute, and Ballister says that the Institute is sound, and it's the Director that is the problem. Would the kids watching understand that Ballister's opinion is naive and wrong? The filmmakers don't exactly make it explicit, but although the wall is down at the end of the film, and people's opinions about what "monsters" are have changed, we have no idea what the political situation is after the fact. Is there another Queen or Director in charge? Is it simply an example of "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss"? I ask because the caste system the world is beholden to is abhorrent, and I would have liked a firmer understanding of if the Queen's idea to push back against it gained traction after the crisis or if the dream actually DID die with her. Ballister's Knighthood actually tells us nothing about the long-term politics of that system. His situation could be considered an outlier "special circumstance" there, just like it was at the beginning of the film. We just don't know. And while we don't, I'm not comfortable with kids not being given a clearer resolution for that.
The message of the people seeing the footage of the Director's confession is interspersed with a painful and unfunny montage of Ballister and Nimona goofing off and dancing around the hideout, and turns it briefly into every other annoying animated film. But between the cringe are scenes of people in the kingdom calling the people in charge liars and picking up rocks to throw at the knights allowing this level of corruption to continue. Is that a good message for kids? As long as the Director is able to eventually b.s. an explanation for that footage, probably not. For something like civil unrest to be shown to kids, cause and effect is necessary to actually show the message and what it actually means.
Another interesting controversy the film explores is ONLINE controversy, and how diverse opinions can view fake news and propaganda. Speaking for me, while the people at the end doing a 180 about Nimona is nice and all, I don't find it very realistic. It's called The Institute. Most people do not change their entrenched views of the institutions they've been raised with, and the propaganda they've spent their life being brainwashed by overnight. Most of them never actually do. And again, this is why the film is not a great fit for kids. It wants to explore fascism, hatred, and fake news, but wants to give kids the happy ending at the same time instead of it being the proper cautionary tale it needs to be.
The mystery isn't great, as the Director is really the only suspect worth exploring. But at least it's not a surprise villain ending twist like Disney did for Frozen, Zootopia, and all the other "Secret Bad Guy Reveals" they and Pixar have ever done. Although the solution is predictable, it's also not treated as Earth-shattering, so it's acceptable, instead of annoying.
I mentioned I would enjoy watching this film again and again. One thing I can say is I don't think rewatching the film will get me to overlook the film's biggest flaw. From Ballister's perspective he has no reason to question or distrust Nimona at the end because of what Ambrosius has told him. Even if she WAS the monster that Glorif-whatever fought a thousand years ago, Ballister should already know Nimona was not the one who framed him, therefore everything Ambrosius says about her is suspect. He was THERE for the Director's confession. He specifically knows Nimona was impersonating Ambrosius at the time, and the Director's confession was her own, while she apparently tried to murder who she believed was Ambrosius for making the discovery. And if I know that, every single bit of conflict between him and Nimona past then is artificial and stupid. I'm not saying the movie didn't have a nice ending. I'm saying based on what Ballister himself had witnessed he should have KNOWN immediately the Director trying to muddy the waters about Nimona is pure b.s. on every level. And he should have known it the entire time. And it's not poor characterization. It was poor writing that was hoping we simply wouldn't notice or would overlook that fact. Prediction: Most people will. The movie is great enough otherwise that people will rationalize a b.s. excuse to make it fit in their heads. I am arguing right now there is NOT a rational explanation that would make THAT fit. If there were, I'd jump on it myself. It's just poor writing that begs the viewer not to notice it. I actually did this time. Sorry.
There is a PSA at the end of the film for a number for people who are struggling to call. I understand the need for some fiction dealing with sensitive topics to perhaps direct people further interested in that topics to professionals, especially if the person is undergoing the issue explored. But you know what? I draw the line at offering suicide prevention lines at the end of movies simply with sad content. I think society should be allowed and trusted to view sad material without feeling triggered and the need to be talked off the ledge. Here is another thing, speaking as a person who is sometimes suicidal. There was absolutely NOTHING in this film that triggered me, and I think it's kind of insulting how little it thinks I can handle stuff like this. Maybe some people CAN'T handle this. But then they should be staying away from movies like this altogether. I would like to think people who watched and enjoyed this movie did so knowing that plenty of PG rated movies have sad and upsetting content. And they have since Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs and The Wizard Of Oz. I think the viewers of this movie can handle it. Like I said, little kids probably shouldn't watch it, but little kids aren't exactly the kinds of people who call suicide hotlines either. I think they are worried about the wrong members of the audience.
For now, I very much like the fact that the film raised a bunch of questions for me to answer about its morality that I had to answer myself, especially because I kind of dig the fact that I believe I probably disagree with what the movie's writers actually believe about the ethical quandaries shown. I like movies that give me permission to make up my own mind, and I suspect I would like it more and more each time I watched it. For those reasons I am giving the film my second highest grade of four and a half stars. ****1/2.
.
