Finding Nemo (Film) Critique 3/4

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 
 
Humour
 
For a character with so little screen time, Coral cracks me up.

Marlin asks, “Do you remember how we first met?” to which Coral replies, “I try not to.” Usually, this type story is a precious memory in a relationship, so Coral actively avoiding it is amazing.

Marlin hopes his kids will like them. Coral says, “There’s over four hundred eggs. Odds are at least one of them will like you.” No reassurances on how they’ll love him because he’s amazing (a response one would expect from a loving partner). No certainties, just probabilities (if there’s still a chance they won’t like him, it won’t be reassuring). Coral’s just so done with Marlin’s nervous nature and she’s not prepared to coddle him. That’s true love and reassurance, even if she’s being funny with it.
 
Nemo isn’t a funny character but he does end up in funny situations.

Nemo asks if his dad’s ever met a shark and Marlin says he doesn’t plan to. Then when Nemo said turtles lived to be over a hundred, Marlin says he’d ask a turtle when he sees one. This is funny because Marlin’s so safety-obsessed that, well, yeah right. But then he goes on to have these encounters!

On the edge of the reef, Nemo and his new friends spot a boat. One of them says, “That’s a big butt.” It’s funny that they’ve mispronounced boat like this (and even if this statement was said about an actual bum, it would still be funny). Then one of the friends said, “I’m gonna touch the butt!”

One of the tank fish asks Nemo asks, “The big blue. What’s it like?” Nemo replies, “Big… and blue?” The uncertainty is funny, as he answers the question with the question’s prefix. But then the other fish says, “I knew it!” like he’d solved a giant mystery.
 
Dory is by far my favourite character.

Dory talks in her sleep. A funny phrase is, “Sea monkey owes me money.” She also says, “Yes, I’m a natural blue.” This phrase is usually a response when people think you’ve dyed your hair. Considering Dory has neither hair nor a way to dye her body’s colour, this whole phrase tickled me.

The jellyfish bouncing was a fun idea. At one point, Dory’s bounces on the jellyfish get really fast, mimicking a pinball machine.

A crab says, “You’ll never make me!” So Dory lifts the crab above the surface, exciting the gulls. He then spills everything he knows rather than spills his guts.
 
Dory and Nemo finally meet.

Nemo introduces himself to Dory. She pauses, as if remembering everything, but then she just says it’s a nice name.

Nemo calls out, “Dad!” Dory also says, “Dad!” Then she asks if it’s her dad or Nemo’s dad. When Nemo says his, Dory says, “Okay. Dad!” even though she knows it’s not her dad.

When Dory remembers everything, she rambles it all aloud, including, “your father.” But then she looks cross and shouts, “Your FATHER!” As she throws her fins down in anger, Nemo (who’s clutched between them) is also thrown down.
 
 
Humour at the Dentist
 
Initiating Nemo into the tank gang was a giggle fest.

Jacque drops one pebble on Nemo to try waking him up. When this doesn’t work, Jacque drops a whole pile of rocks on Nemo instead.

At Nemo’s initiation, the other fish sing, “Aa who, wa he, a hohoho.”

Bloat declares, “Swim, through the ring of fire!” His voice then echoes, adding to the dramatic moment. But nothing happens, making it a funny fail. But then Jacque turns on the ring of fire and Bloat quickly shouts, “The ring of fire!” again. Rectifying a mistake in such an obvious way must have been embarrassing.

Waiting for Nemo to swim through the ring of fire, the tank gang chants whilst Jacques is there screaming in a high voice. Now, Jacque’s pitch is usually low so for him to do this was amusing.

Once Nemo is initiated, Gill calls him ‘Sharkbait’. Following this and Gill’s other statements, the tank gang chants, “Sharkbait, ooh aha!” Gill eventually tells them to stop, all but Gurgle who ends with a pathetic and quiet, “Oo, ba, badoo.”
 
The dentist-related humans are interesting. They have little screen time, yet P. Sherman is the whole reason this film has a plot.

Darla starts to scream, making the dentist’s waiting room start to panic. Then comes her, “There’s a fish in ma hey-yuh!” (The last two being ‘my hair’.)

When Nigel crashes into the window, the noise shocks the dentist pulling out a patient’s tooth. If that wasn’t funny enough, Sherman says, “Good thing it’s the right one, prime minister.” Of all the people he could have pulled the wrong tooth out of, this is the worst.
 
The tank gang are a solid bunch.

Gill asks, “Who’s with me?” Everyone says, “Aye!” Meanwhile Gurgle says, “I think you’re nuts.” The use of homophones (in this case, aye/I) to such good effect makes me laugh.

Jacque is told off for cleaning so he hands his head and says, “I am ashamed.”

When the tank gang are scanned by the Aquascum, Gurgle covers what would be his private parts.

The yellow fish says, “Bubbles, bubbles, bubbles.” Then his voice and face are cross when he tells Nemo, “My bubbles.”
 
 
Humour with Dory-Marlin interactions
 
Dory suffers from short-term memory loss. It results in a lot of funny situations. Despite being used often, it didn’t become stale.

Dory says, “It runs in the family. At least, I think it does.”

She forgets that she’s leading Marlin to the boat. Marlin explains all this to Dory, but by this point Dory’s forgotten she’s even met Marlin (again!) so she introduces herself (again!)
Marlin tells his story multiple times. Every time, whether it’s with the sharks or the turtles,

Dory acts like she’s never heard the story before.
Bruce is banging on a door and Dory says, “Hello, who is it? Sorry, you’ll have to come back later, we’re trying to escape.” She’s forgotten they’re in mortal danger. Then she’s so polite.
Marlin and Dory descend into the dark depths. Dory feels Marlin and gets scared before thinking he’s her conscience. Her memory (or lack thereof) strikes again.

Dory keeps on forgetting Nemo’s name. Hence she calls him Harpo, Chico, Fabio, Bingo and Elmo.

Marlin thanks the whale in ‘Whale’ (i.e. the language whales speak called Whale). Dory says, “Wow, I wish I knew how to speak whale.” Even though Marlin only spoke like this because Dory did it first! 
 
Marlin and Dory’s interactions are full of exasperation and annoyance on Merlin’s part. The fact Dory’s funny behaviour aggravates this is perfect.

Dory says to Marlin, “Do you have a problem? Do ya? Do ya? Do ya?” With each of these, Dory tilts her head to either side as she gets further in Marlin’s face. That combined was hilarious. Plus, the audience experiences it directly from Marlin’s perspective, meaning this tiny fish takes up the entire screen.

There’s the I Spy game where the answer to Dory’s question is always ‘Marlin’. This repetition just went on and on and on. The filmmakers managed to make each instance funny rather than annoying. Marlin’s turn when he answered Dory was so lifeless. He’s always been animated around Dory so for her persistence to make him lose his patience is perfect.

When Dory’s singing the ‘just keep swimming’ song, she eventually goes into this deep opera voice. So unexpected.
 
 
Humour with New Characters
 
The anglerfish in the depths produces the most fun (not as in the most funny, but the more upbeat and exhilarating).

Marlin grabs the anglerfish’s lure; both end up in its stomach. The world goes dark. Dory says, “Light, please.” Then the anglerfish obliges. Hilarious timing.

When they trap the anglerfish, Marlin sings, “We did it, we did it, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. No eating here tonight.” Then Dory ends this with, “No, no, no eating here tonight, you’re on a diet!”

Marlin tells Dory to, “Read. No pressure.” But then the anglerfish gets really close, making Marlin shout, “Pressure, lots of pressure!”
 
All whale-related funnies were perfection.

Marlin rubs his bum on the whale’s tastebud, saying, “Do I taste good, Moby?” Too funny.

Dory claims she can speak whale. But all she does is saying normal words but with the rhythm and tones of whale song.

Dory comforts Marlin, saying whales only eat krill. But then krill swim past, chanting, “Swim away.”

When the water in the whale’s mouth starts to go down its throat, it makes the sound of a gurgling drain.
 
A non-Nigel pelican swallows Marlin and Dory.

Marlin blocks their descent, saying, “I didn’t come all this way to be breakfast.”

As the pelican chokes on Marlin and Dory, Nigel says to the other pelicans, “Someone should help him.” The other pelicans murmur agreement and nod their heads but no-one makes a move.

Nigel asks, “Problem, fish got your tongue?” Then the pelican sticks out its tongue, both Marlin and Dory clutching on to it. So fish really did ‘got’ his tongue.
 
Marlin and Dory’s interactions with the sharks amuse me.

Dory sees some writing and says, “Ess-ka-pay. That’s funny, it’s spelt just like the word ‘escape’.” English being said phonetically is always fun, but to read it wrong when she knows what it actually says is brilliant. Especially when they’ve got the topic of escaping on their minds.

The sharks are essentially having an AA meeting, except it’s about abstaining from fish, not alcohol. Then they say the only exception is dolphins (which aren’t even fish!)

Dory says she’s never eaten a fish before, then says she’s glad she got that off her chest. Usually that expression is used when you admit to people that you did something bad (which clearly doesn’t apply to Dory in this eating-fish situation).

When Bruce starts chasing the fish, the other sharks yell, “Intervention!”

Marlin and Dory are hiding inside a pipe. Bruce keeps ramming into it. When Bruce swims backwards, the other sharks stick their head in; before Bruce slams back into the pipe, the sharks back off. Not only is this a funny visual but it also breaks up the conversation.
 
The humour with the turtles isn’t particularly clever but that didn’t stop the joy.
            Marlin and Dory lose consciousness after the jellyfish bouncing. A shadow in front of the sun descends, two long things spreading out under the head. Angels descend at times of trouble, surrounded by a shining halo and wings spread out. Only it turns out this ‘angel’ was Crush the turtle!

Crush and the other turtles have a Californian ‘surfer dude’ accent. He says things like ‘dude’, ‘sweet’, ‘totally’, and ‘chaa’ for ‘yeah’. Plus, he’s chill. Combined with his lidded eyes, it portrays Crush as a weed smoker. It’s a sneaky detail to make adults laugh.

Riding a fast bit of the EAC, Crush yells, “Righteous! Righteous!”

Squirt says he’s from the EAC. Mr Ray says, “Sweet,” with Squirt and Nemo saying, “Totally.” This mimics Squirt and Crush’s earlier conversation. This is complete with everyone having lidded eyes like Crush.

Finding Nemo (Film) Critique 2/4

*****SPOILERS*****

 
Clever: Favourites
 
Many things reflect reality.

My favourite is when Dory tries out different ‘dialects’ of speaking whale. That leads her to saying, “Maybe he speaks humpback. Too much orca.” Humpbacks actively defend animals from orca so picking these two as a contrast was nice nod to reality.

The volcano in the tank creates bubbles and the tank gang refer to this as ‘the ring of fire’. Now, these fish live in Australia which is on the Ring of Fire, a volcanic range around the edge of the Pacific Ocean. So this was a clever acknowledgement.

Whenever the fish speed up, they wriggle their rear ends very quickly in place before darting very fast through the water. This perfectly mirrors the movements of fish in real life.

Before Nemo leaves for school, Marlin reminds him to brush (like many parents in America do). Nemo does so, but it’s his body against the anemone.
Mr Ray reminds his students to “Keep your ganglion to ourselves.” The ganglion (in this context) are nerves inside an animal’s front limbs the process sensory input. Hands process sensory input on humans and hands are on our front limbs. So Mr Ray basically told the kids to keep their hands to themselves!

Squirt gives Marlin and Dory a safety announcement. Marlin says, “It’s like he’s trying to speak to me, I know it!” People never understand safety announcements so it reflects reality, too.

Chum, when finding out Nemo was taken, says, “Humans. Think they own everything.” Anchor says, “Probably American.” The rest of the world does believe that America acts like they own everything. It’s funny for an American-made film to criticise America (usually, they do this to show how bad and untrustworthy a character is. But that’s not the case here). This extra layer of realism is rewarding.
 
Some things were iconic. I often use them in daily life, co-opting them for whatever suits my current situation. Clearly, these phrases have captivated me.

When meeting a teeny-tiny jellyfish, Dory says, “I shall call him squishy and he shall be mine and he shall be my squishy.” This is my favourite line from the entire film.

The gulls saying, “Mine,” is entertaining. It’s their only word and it’s overbearing and persistent, just like gulls are.

Darla says, “I am a piranha. I live in the Amazon.” The rhythm with the separated syllables really captures the ear.

Dory calls Marlin, “Mr. Grumpy Gills.” The amount I’ve used this phrase in my life is surprising. There’s also, “Fish are friends, not food,” a sentence with less application but still useful.

 
Beating expectation was put to good use.

Bruce abducts Marlin and Dory so we expect them to be shark food. As Bruce ushers Marlin and Dory to the meeting, one shark says, “I’m starving.” So we’re extra sure they’ll be on the menu. This is emphasised by the screen zooming in on Anchor’s mouth, as well as Chum having a fish skeleton stuck in his teeth. But it turns out this wasn’t the intention at all! (Plus, having this they-won’t-be-eaten expectation, it thus makes Bruce’s attempt to eat them later a complete surprise.)

At the end, the tank gang finally escape the tank. However, they are floating on the ocean’s surface within fish bags. One asks, “Now what?” They were so desperate to be free and despite this they’re still stuck. It’s good that their plot has been concluded, rather than left to our imagination. One would expect their ending to have gone better because Marlin’s finding Nemo plot went well. This contrast was good.
 
 

Clever: Details
 
Word play is fun.

Coral says their area has ‘great schools’. This phrase from parents is obviously about educational facilities but a school is also a name for a group of fish.
Chum calls Marlin his chum. He means it as in ‘friend’ whilst Marlin thinks he means it as in ‘fish food’. 

The tank gang say ‘aye’ instead of ‘yes’. Aye is often used by people living/working on the sea, meaning the tank gang using it is a nice idea.

Crush says he’s just waxed his shell. Car washes use turtle wax.

The other dads expect Marlin to be funny because he’s a clownfish. Then Marlin mucks up a joke spectacularly. It’s good to defy stereotypes. Also, it was clever for the filmmakers to make note of Marlin’s species name, rather than either ignoring it or leaning into it too much.
 
A school of fish make a bunch of shapes, sometimes complete with moving parts.

One example is a ship, complete with someone walking the plank. They even make the shape of Marlin with a really grumpy face, moving the mouth as they moaned!

Also, Dory guesses ‘clam’ for an octopus, to which the fish say, “Close enough.” Clams and octopus are both molluscs so that’s accurate.

Shoaling fish follow each other’s movements in perfect organisation in the wild, so to see this natural behaviour co-opted for complex shapes in the film was a great decision.
 
Deb with her ‘sister’ Flo. It’s both funny and sad.

It makes some laughs. Deb says that Flo is nuts. Flo is Deb’s reflection, so clearly if anyone’s nuts, it’s Deb. When Deb tries to look out of the tank, she complains that Flo is in the way.

But it’s also gut-wrenching. For Deb to think Flo is her sister shows Deb’s mental instability. This is most likely the result of captivity-induced psychosis, yet the possibility of Deb having an actual twin called Flo (from whom Deb was separated when bought by Sherman) can’t be discounted. When the tank is dirtied up, the lack of reflections means Deb can’t find Flo, something that’s hard to watch.
 
P. Sherman takes Nemo from the wild as a present for Darla.

Such poaching can’t be legal. Yes, he framed it as a rescue. However, that would require paperwork and handing Nemo over to a legitimate rescue aquarium. Neither happened. After all, that way he wouldn’t be able to give Nemo as a gift to Darla. Also, no-one would look at Nemo and think he needs rescuing, meaning the rescue centre would have to report Sherman for poaching.

Sherman is a cheapskate because he wouldn’t pay for Darla’s gift. Although one would imagine the petrol money for his motorboat would cost more than buying one fish. Perhaps it was a friend’s boat. Perhaps it was the principle of not buying presents you know will be broken/killed, like Darla does with fish. But if that were the justification, why give Darla another fish in the first place? Why let her kill something again? Clearly, he has a soft-spot for Darla so giving her a fish that he didn’t buy satisfies all his feelings.

This definitely shows that Sherman is a cheapskate who doesn’t care how many fish die under Darla. Not only that but he disregards the legality of poaching in order to do what he wants.
 
Two other details are worthy of note.

The turtles pass Marlin’s story along. It’s told in a montage shared between different species. The dolphins can only speak above the water, meaning the conversation is constantly halted and restarted. Swordfish fence and complement each other as a sidenote during the storytelling. A lobster shares it as he’s walking along with a friend, saying hi to another friend as they walk on by before turning back to his walking companion and continuing with the story.

In the fishing net, Nemo has all the fish swim downwards to pull the net away from the humans. (The tank gang did this early to free Nemo from the dentist scooping Nemo out.) During this, Marlin and Dory sing, “Just keep swimming!” like Dory said much earlier in the film. So the film brings together all these separate things and combine them to be relevant once more.
 
 

Clever: Names
 
The names of the characters were planned really well.
 
A few names were directly linked to the characters.

Gill has slash-like scars across his body, mimicking the slash-like shape of gills in fish.

The pufferfish is called Bloat. Pufferfish expand their bodies, i.e. they bloat. So this name is appropriate.

The hammerhead is called Anchor. Some hammerheads have a slight curve, giving their heads the appearance of an anchor.

P. Sherman sounds like ‘fisherman’. Fish get fished from the sea by fisherman, just like how Sherman took Nemo from the sea.

Gurgle is a germaphobe. People gurgle to clean their mouths (hence getting rid of germs). Hence this name is a good fit.
 
Most of the names have watery themes.

Marlin and Dory are both named after fish species. However, these aren’t their own species, meaning their names aren’t too obvious whilst keeping to the watery theme. If humans can name themselves after other mammals, like ‘Bear’ or ‘Wolf’, or after plants like ‘Daisy’ or ‘Violet’, why shouldn’t fish name themselves after other fish species?

The names Deb and her ‘sister’ Flo are a pun on the phrase ‘ebb and flow’, describing the tides. Nemo’s mum Coral is named after coral reefs.

Bubbles are made of water. Gurgle and Squirt are actions that happen with water. Pearl is something from the sea. Shells also come from the sea, matching the name Sheldon. Chum is named after a food used to attract sharks.
 
The pelican was called Nigel.
            This name is usually said to mean ‘champion/hero’. Nigel is nowhere near status of main character so for him to be the hero or champion of the story is insane. However, he did save Marlin and Dory from the gulls, going very fast and risking his life to do so. Even if he isn’t the story’s hero, he still acts heroic.
        Another possible meaning of Nigel is ‘cloud’. Clouds are watery things in the air, something that equally applies to sea birds like pelicans.
            However, the consensus seems to be that Nigel was named that just because that’s just what the filmmakers wanted. Not everything has to have a deeper meaning.
 
Some names can’t be linked to water (the overall theme of names) but that’s okay.

Darla was named after a colleague of the filmmakers. She was a prankster. To seek retribution for Darla’s antics, they gave her name to an annoying, spoilt, obnoxious, murdering little girl in this film. (If you have a character named after you, a character like Darla isn’t the one you want!)

Peach’s name is in reference to her colour and rounded shape (Peach isn’t as pointy as most starfish). It’s not an inspiring name but it works.
Bruce is a great white shark. His name is in homage to the mechanical shark in Jaws.
 
Nemo, the main character, has an interesting choice of name.
            He is named after Captain Nemo, a famous literally character from ‘Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea’. So, whilst Nemo isn’t a nautical name by nature, it is nautical by association.

The name is Latin for ‘no-one’. Nemo was damaged (and almost eaten) by the barracuda, meaning that he might not have been born, thus meaning he would be no-one. Marlin wouldn’t let anything happen to Nemo. He got to do little, meaning his life was empty and full of nothing: an empty life of nothingness makes people feel like they are nobody. Also, Marlin’s actions prevented Nemo was socialising and, if no-one knows or remembers him, that makes him a no-one, too.

Finding Nemo (Film) Critique 1/4

Nemo, a disabled clownfish, is kidnapped by a dentist on the reef. This makes his anxiety-ridden father Marlin journey to rescue his son.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Animation

 The animation is this film was stunning. Attention to detail is phenomenal. Possibly my favourite is Marlin cradling Nemo’s egg. You can see his embryo moving inside. The egg is composed of different shades of red. It was beautiful.

The colours of the coral reef were so vibrant. The rocks and plants, for example, have so much texture and so many interesting shapes. The way the anemones sway their tentacles is mesmerising. It made the film beautiful.

Beauty wasn’t the only aesthetic used. As Bruce leads Marlin and Dory to the ship, the atmosphere very dark. This is a stark difference to the bright, lively colours of the coral reef. Algae all over the sunken ship was the only bit of colour, and they were dull and dark, too.
Another example follows the scene when everything thinks Nemo died. Nigel takes Marlin to a dark and desolate area of the coast. The environment matches their mood.

This film was mostly bright, light and beautiful. The two examples above, plus the anglerfish depths, were the only instances of dark, drab surroundings. As such, the impact of the contrast is much more pronounced.
 
Water is notoriously difficult to animate yet they did a good job.

The water is constantly moving and this is noticeable despite being see-through. These were achieved mainly by two things: seeing the waves rising and falling (from the perspective of looking up at them); and the current either swaying or carrying objects (from fish to plants to dust).

The water in the whale’s mouth is of particular note. The way it flows beneath the surface and the wave above the surface. How it crashes into the whale’s baleen and how Dory and Martin are carried by its current.

When the fishing net breaks free of the boat, the animation was perfection. Not only the snap itself, but how the boat recoiled so that its opposite side would crash into the sea, complete with a splash.
 
Sunlight is a useful tool.

Penetrating at different depths, sunlight enters the water at angles. This attention to detail makes this film’s quality higher than more modern animated films.

Fish glow due to the sunlight. Now, the vibrant colours of the fish wouldn’t stand out next to the vibrant colours of the ocean. So dimming the water around the fish means there is no such clash. As a consequence of being next to dimmer water, the fish look brighter. This highlighting effect doesn’t break reality because fish in the ocean do look like they glow.

When Marlin first meets Dory, the sunlight dappling on the sand is simply beautiful. The conversation alone could have carried this scene, meaning such a rounded approach shows commitment to this project.
 
Some of my favourite animation comes from the anglerfish. (The water and sunlight were more impressive due to their difficulty. But the anglerfish animation appeals to me the most.)

The screen looks at Marlin and Dory as they swim out of the dark ocean and into the anglerfish’s light. It’s a gradual transition. Not only is this realistic but it’s a good visual in its own right.

When the anglerfish roars, this is followed by its back lighting up from head to tail. Just like Godzilla.

Marlin and the lure are inside the anglerfish’s stomach. When the light comes back on, this illuminates the insides of the anglerfish, including ribs and Marlin. Also, the light is red, which is how light is perceived when shining through flesh.

When the anglerfish bites his light-producing lure, it makes the sound of a light zapping an insect.
 
Bruce’s animation was handled well.

When Bruce smiles, he opens his mouth slowly, revealing all his teeth. It makes this clicking sound with same cadence as zip opening.

Bruce’s face when he cries is an absolute picture. Sharks are thought of as these big bad predators, so animating Bruce to be vulnerable was a job well done. (Considering they later animate Bruce to be scary, this successful dichotomy is impressive.)

When Bruce sniffs Dory’s blood, he looks like it’s the best thing in the world. His pupils dilate right to the edge of his eyes, making Bruce look animalistic.
 
Nigel’s colouration was fantastic.

Pelicans are often thought of as having dull, boring colouration. Yet the filmmakers turn Nigel into a rainbow. Not a glaring rainbow but a bright individual.

His flight feathers are ruby with navy feathers underneath it. His eye skin is a lovely peak. His beak is a lovely mixture of orange and yellow, turning a simple shape interesting. Nigel’s back is this green-gold colour. Plus, his feet are scaled.
 
Simple actions are also noteworthy.

Marlin chatting to Coral says, “imagine the kids waking up and they see a whale!” His gestures and facial expression during this were perfect.

Peach makes a ‘snow angel’ in the tank’s grime. A pure activity in a polluting (non-pure) substance.

Darla slams open the door. A painting breaks and scary music blasts out. She is a known fish killer, something at odds with her cute looks.
 
 
Problems
 
Fish knowing about specifics of the human world cause issues.

Dory calls the mines balloons. But how does she know what balloons are? She can read (unlike other fish) which suggests she’s had encounters with humans before, hence she could have learnt about balloons. However, Bruce also knows what balloons are. But great whites are famous for not surviving in aquariums, meaning Bruce couldn’t have learn what balloons were. Yes, someone who did know could have told him, but this seems like too far a stretch. So this was weird.

Marlin asks if Dory can read. But earlier, when he looked at the mask, Marlin says, “I don’t know what these markings are.” If he knew about reading, why didn’t he just say he can’t read? Perhaps he didn’t realise these markings were letter until Dory looked at similar shapes (other letters) and knew their meanings? Then he’d realise the markings on the mask were letters. But that’s just me fishing for answers (pun entirely intended).
 
The tank gang witness problems.

Sherman has had four cups of coffee, which makes Peach think he’ll soon use the loo. The dentist does, taking a magazine. But liquids (like coffee) make people urinate. If someone takes a magazine to the toilet, that means they’ll sit down to defecate. So, the filmmakers are saying one of two things: either coffee makes Sherman defecate or Sherman reads whilst having a wee. The latter is particularly bizarre because urination doesn’t take long enough to read something.

The tank gang makes their home dirty. As such, Jacque isn’t allowed to clean the tank. What, so Gill expects Jacque to starve himself for days on end?
 
Marlin is also witness to issues.

Answering Marlin’s question about his age, Crush says he’s one hundred and fifty, yet still young. Later, Marlin tells Nemo that turtles live to one hundred and fifty. But if Crush is still young, then one hundred and fifty isn’t what he can live up to (that would be how old they are when they die).

Obviously, no whale would drink that amount of saltwater. Maybe this is how it gets to the blowhole? After all, the whale could be sitting at the surface of the water, floating as it waits to blow Dory and Marlin free. In real life, water is pushed by the tongue through the baleen, and spouting is for air, not water. But the whale opening its mouth and allowing Marlin and Dory to swim free wouldn’t have been quite as dramatic.
 
 
Queries
 
They keep on saying ‘sea turtles’.

Now, when most people hear turtle, they think of those that live in the sea, so the distinction isn’t necessary. Also, these characters live in the sea, so sea-dwelling turtles would be their norm so any distinction isn’t necessary. If they were to distinguish a turtle, it would be a freshwater turtle.

One could argue that in America, they call tortoises turtles. But the characters live in Australia so they’d use Australian terms, not American. Also, tortoises live on land, so this film’s characters might not even know tortoises exist, in which case there wouldn’t be a need for Marlin to specify sea-dwelling turtles because there’d be nothing to distinguish them from!
 
Three small questions arise from interesting sources.

Jacque is told off for cleaning a tiny bit of grime. Yet Peach making a ‘snow angel’ (which cleans a lot more grime) doesn’t get told off. This seems a contradiction. However, Jacque is shown to be cleaning all the time so it makes sense for Gill to nip it in the bud before it becomes detrimental to his plan.

Marlin bashes himself into the whale’s baleen. The clatter sound matches perfectly with dry baleen receiving an impact. It seems unlikely that the sound would be the same when the baleen is wet. However, I’ve never heard wet baleen get hit before, hence this is an open query.

Humans eat fish. The fish are sentient. The humans clearly don’t know this but eating sentient beings is an uncomfortable thought.
 
The film begins and ends with an anemone sitting on the edge of the reef. One assumes they’re the same one, with the peaceful look at the end a complete contrast to the mayhem and murder of the barracuda.

Yet the one at the end of the film is not only further horizontally away from the rest of the reef than the start anemone, but it’s further vertically, too. Hence, they cannot be the same anemone.

Did the animators intend for it to be the same anemone but they lacked consistency? It’s either that or they planned on two different anemones. But if that were the case, choosing to do two different anemones are the reef edge is an odd choice, especially when there’s only been one other anemone at the reef edge for the rest of the film.

Old Wives' Tales: tea cools you down

Does drinking tea really cool you down in hot weather? 
      Most people say no: tea is hot and hot things warm you, not cool you. This has some trutj.
      Yet the science shows the opposite to be true. Well, that tea cools you because it first warms you.

What We Feel

Our perception of the process led to this whole debate.
      If tea does cool the body down, some say it just brings it down to the temperature it was before the tea was consumed. Not further cool you to an even lower temperature. (Whereas fans and ice will lower one's net temperature.)
      However, you still feel this rapid cooling post-healing. It's still noticeable. So people hearing 'tea cools you down' and thinking this refers to a net lowering of temperature overall misunderstand the phrase. 

Why the Body Reacts

The mechanics of the process make is essential to underatanding the dilemma.
      The body's thermoregulation tries to keep the body at a stable temperature.
Extreme heat makes proteins unravel. Considering our bodies are built upon and only function due to proteins, this unravelling can be dangerous and deadly.
      So, if the body ingests a hot drink on a hot day, the body works hard to cool the body to a safer, more comfortable temperature. Hence drinking tea will cool the body down.

How the Body Reacts

Not only does the body react to tea but the heat and moisture levels in the environment matter, too.
      Drinking a hot drink raises the body's core temperature. This makes the body sweat which leads to evaporation cooling the skin. In turn, so is the body as a whole.
So, while the initial sensation of drinking tea is one of increased warmth, this is then followed by a sensation of cooling.
       In humid climates, the air is already saturated with water. As such, less sweat will evaporate. That's why the cooling effects of sweat evaporation work best when it's a dry heat (so there's 'room' for more sweat water in the air).
      The whole idea of 'drink tea to cool down' is a British thing. But because we're so wet, our heat is humid. So we have this cool tea knowledge but the worst weather for it to work!

Effect of Metabolism

Personal metabolism has a great effect on how tea contributes to the person's reaction to tea. 
      This explains why some people don't feel like tea cools them down at all. (And no doubt making them miserable, having made themselves hotter but with no chance of cooling.)   
      Faster metabolism makes the body warmer, so any tea-heating would be more pronounced, which theoretically would increase the cooling. If in dry climates. 
      In humid climates, when sweat doesn't evaporate as well, a hotter metabolism with hot tea would just make someone hotter rather than cooler. 

Does Tea Cool You in Cold Weather, too? 

It makes you wonder if drinking tea cools you in cold weather, just like in hot weather.
      The tea rises core body temperature, as before. Just like before, the body tries to keep its temperature at a stable level. 
      But as the environmental temperature is cold, it means the body has to work harder to keep its own from dropping. 
       Hence any excess heat from the tea is largely retained, rather than being lost to the environment via sweating.

Conclusion

So tea can cool you down, if the heat, humidity and moisture levels cooperate. This old wives' tale just happens to be true, at least some of the time.

Three Sisters of Plynlimon

Known as 'Tair Chwaer Pumlumon' in Welsh, the last word refers to a mountain and the giant sleeping beneath it both. Pumlumon, meaning 'Five Beacons', a mountain range in the Cambrian Mountains, Wales.

From this mountain are sourced three rivers, the daughters of Plynlimon: Hafren (the Severn), Gwy (the Wye), and Rheidol (Ystwyth). The three rivers are his daughters. As such, they are niskai (Celtic water nymphs/goddesses).

There are two tales of how the rivers were born. They aren't necessarily contradictory but they're never told together. The first focuses on how the sisters as sources were made whilst the second is how the rivers flowing from these sources came to be.

The Sisters

Despite the tales being short, these three sisters have massive, distinct peraonalities that remain consistent.

Severn (Hafren in Welsh) is the oldest, most beautiful and most powerful. She is also patient and slow. Despite this, she is quick to punish those who abuse her waters. 

Wye (Gwy in Welsh) is the middle child. She seeks beauty and harmony; she fills people with happiness and tranquility. The Wye is a creature of grace. 

Ystwyth (Rheidol in Welsh) is the youngest and smallest. She is headstrong nature and reaches decisions quickly. The Ystwyth skips and dances; she sparkles as she does so.

Version One: End the Dryness

Pumlumon wanted to bring water to his land in order for life to florish. He tried but failed everytime, leaving his land in a barren drought. 

Giving up, he shed three tears. These settled into three small puddles, from which were born his three daughters. 

Pumlumon nurtured these puddles to grow with both rain and mist. He in turn used his daughters' waters to nurture his lands, finally giving them life. 

When the sisters started to dry up, he encouraged them to go to the sea to save their lives. So they shot forth, created riverbeds to fill with freshwater. 
 

Version Two: Seek the River

The Three Sisters wanted to visit the sea and they discussed the best routes to the sea. They had different views, perfectly expressing their personalities. 

Whilst sad to see them go, their dad knew his daughters return riding clouds. From there, the three sisters would become the rain and mist to water the mountain and surrounding land.

The Severn wanted to visit as many human settlements as possible. She wanted to observe the humans, their celebrations and art. The Severn longed to gain knowledge and learn things.

The Wye took the scenic route. She was happy to wander without a specific path. The Wye can be found among the purple hills and golden valleys.

Ystwyth, on the other hand, was always in a hurry. She took the most direct route to the sea as possible, too headstrong to be deterred from her task.

How did the Rivers Fill with Water?

It's never explained how these three riverbeds were filled with water.
If the sisters were drying up as sources, they definitely wouldn't have enough water to fill entire rivers. 

The land itself was in a barren drought, dry enough for Pumlumon to seek solutions and constantly fail. This suggests there would be very little rain to fill the rivers up with. 

(But then rains and mists were necessary for growing his puddle-made daughters into sources large enough to bring moisture to the land. So it's unsatisfying to be 'just because'.)

Perhaps the rivers were filled up downstream and the water drove upwards to the sources like travelling an aquaduct? Perhaps magic? It seems impossible but I suppose that's what myths are for.

Conclusion

In story one, Pumlumon drove his daughters to go to the sea because they were drying up. In the second story, the Three Sisters just wanted to visit the sea. 

There are no reason why these can't coexist. Maybe Pumlumon wanting to save his daughters was the reason why the sisters wanted to visit the sea in the first place.  

(Even if they were incompatible stories, many things in folklore have multiple myths surrounding them. Why wouldn't the Three Sisters of Plynlimon be exempt from this?)

All-in-all, this is a story about fatherhood and sisterhood, about how vital life-giving waters are to us and all other life we share the world with.

Assisted Dying: the 'Doctors should cause no harm' Argument

Assisted dying allows a patient to end their own life (with doctor-prescribed medication) in order to end their suffering. 
      Some doctors don't want to participate in this, which is fine. One explanation is that 'doctors should cause no harm' and that causing death is harmful. 
      However, this is an argument of emotion, not logic. As these doctors used this argument to try and persuade MPs to vote against the bill legalising assisted dying, having an argument without the rigours of facts and logic is problematic.
      There are three points of contention: not dying as harmful; inaction as harmful; and dying as harmful.

Not Dying as Harmful

If doctors are worried about assisted dying because it causes harm, they also need to consider how not allowing assisted dying causes harm.
      Assisted dying is quick and painless. Whereas the alternative, letting someone suffer by not allowing assisted dying, is long and painful. 
      Sure, assisted dying might be harmful. But it's impossible to refute that preventing assisted dying is more harmful. Not only does the pain last longer but the intensity of said pain is also higher! 
      So, if a doctor's so concerned about not causing harm, then they should allow assisted dying because it's less harmful than the alternative. Thus 'not causing harm' is not a logical reason to be anti-assisted dying.

Inaction as Harmful

Choosing inaction can be harmful. Anti-assisted dying doctors don't seem to recognise this.
      In many situations, failing to stop/prevent harm is considered bad and harmful. Police not stoping a crime, teachers not stopping bullying, no-one stopping abuse of power... why would doctors not stopping harm be any different from these people not doing so?
      Indeed, many medical scenarios already show doctors aren't different in this regard. For example, if someone has been seriously wounded, they're given pain killers. If they have cancer, or infected tonsils/ball bladder, it is removed. But if a doctor chooses inaction, this harms the patient because the doctor has chosen to not do the thing that will end the suffering. 
      Actively letting someone suffer, choosing to not end the pain, is also a doctor doing harm. So inaction can be harmful, including the inaction to proceed with assisted dying.

Dying as Harmful

Some would claim that, as the doctor doesn't cause the patient's death, them doing assisted dying isn't harmful.
      After all, it's the patient who ends their own life during assisted dying, not the doctor. All they do is assist the process by prescribing the necessary medication.
      But the doctor directly assisted that death, directly made that death possible. Whereas patients suffering because of their health conditions would be suffering whether or not that doctor even existed. 
      Clearly, even if death is the lesser of two evils, guaranteeing a patient's death is still harmful. Ending all the bad things in the patient's life still ends all the good things, too.
      But if someone wants to die? That means they've had little to no joy for a while. It means they're going to die from the disease, rather than get better, which means they'll never get the joy back. Ending someone's life when they've got a minimal lifespan left anyway and it will be full of horrors, not happiness, how can we say assisted dying is more harmful than life?

Conclusion

Death is harmful. But letting a patient and their loved ones suffer awfully is far more harmful than death itself. Thus saying 'doctors should cause no harm' logically can't be used to argue against assisted dying.

Assisted Dying: Quality of Life vs Quantity of Life

      Doctors have two main aims: make patients feel better (quality of life) and make patients live longer (quantity of life).
      Which of these aims they prioritise is reflected in a doctor's position on assisted dying. 

Doctors who agree with assisted dying argue from prioritising quality of life. 
      Letting someone live just so they can suffer unbearably is considered cruel. 
      That patient's quality of life is clearly reduced.

Doctors who disagree with asissted dying argue from prioritising quantity of life.  
      Doing something that leads to a patient's death is usually seen as malpractice. 
      This patient's quantity of life is clearly reduced.

The 'Pets get euthanasia' arguement is an example of how we already accept death to save suffering in our society.
      We don't let our pets suffer if they have a health condition. If there is nothing else to be done, we euthanise them. 
      Now, most people consider themselves more important than animals. Things that are more important usually get better treatment compared to those of lesser importance. 
      So, if pets are permitted death to save their suffering, then one would think humans should be permitted it, too.

So which is the more important aim, giving life quantity or quality?
      Most people view life as important, and doctors often work to prevent people dying, so allowing assisted dying is contrary to both beliefs and practices. Plus a doctor saving a patient must be far more rewarding than simply treating them. When preventing people from death fits with these observations, no wonder some doctors prioritise quantity of life.
      But most healthcare is focused on quality of life with medication, operations, physio and occupational therapy. These things help a person's life to get better. When quality of life in the bulk of healthcare, no wonder some doctors prioritise it.
      Yes, participating even slightly in a patient's death isn't ideal. Curing them perfectly would be grand. But we don't live in an ideal world, so letting a doctor's idealism keep patients suffering is cruel.

Assisted Dying: doctors opposing legislation

Some doctors were telling MPs that assisted dying should not be legalised. 
      Their reason? 'It goes against my beliefs.' 
      They opposed legislation (which affects everyone) because of their beliefs (which affects only themselves).
      
Why should the beliefs of the non-supporters be imposed on the supporters who hold different beliefs? 
      Having assisted dying legalised means individual doctors can decide if they participate based on their own beliefs. Every doctor's beliefs would matter. If assisted dying isn't legalised, that means only the non-supporters' beliefs matter because they're the only ones that can be acted upon.
      Thing is, 'it goes against my beliefs' should only exempt doctors from participating in assisted dying if they share said beliefs. That's not an argument for why it shouldn't be done by any doctor at all. So it definitely isn't an argument to prevent assisted dying becoming legalised in Parliament.
      
Besides, assisted dying is about the patient, not the doctor.
      Healthcare should be decided in the patient's best interests, not the doctor's best interests. It should be about the patient's health, not the doctor's beliefs. 
      Medical decisions and laws are meant to be based upon objective facts, not subjective opinions. The personal, subjective beliefs of a doctor shouldn't have an impact on inclusive, objective laws and healthcare. 
      
Hence doctors opposing assisted dying legalisation based on their own beliefs is odd and, frankly, disrespectful.

What if a monarch comes back from dead?

Imagine a monarch comes back from the dead after their successor was crowned.
      (Maybe they went into hiding. Maybe they took Tetrodotoxin.) 
      So, who's the rightful monarch: the old one or the new one?

Legal Situation

Someone can't be crowned as the monarch unless the previous monarch no longer holds said position. Doing so would be legally illegitimate. 
     There are two avenues that allow the monarch to be legally replaced by their heir: death or abdication. By legally announcing a new monarch, the old one's position is revoked. The legal contract of monarchy is disolved. 
     There's also deposing the monarch. However, that doesn't usually lead to the legitimate heir replacing the monarch. Regicide is illegal but then new usurper is then legally recognised as the rightful monarch.
      (A monarch fleeing can be seen as them abandoning their duties, though whether this is a legitimate argument for declaring their title void is uncertain.)

Legal Return

Let's say new monarch has been legally recognised as such. 
      For the ex-monarch to reappear? I doubt that would disolve the new monarch's legal, rightful position. 
      If so, every abdicated monarch would be a threat to a monarch's position. Clearly they're not, so why would another ex-king be a threat?
      Whilst 'monarch comes back from the dead' has no legal precedence, there is a well-established legal comparison.     

Legal Comparison

The situation of a death disolving a legal contract and then the 'dead' returning does have legal precedence. 
      War widows often married. There were many instances of the widow's ex-husband then returning from the dead. So, who's the rightful, legal husband?
      His 'death' meant their marriage was legally disolved, meaning the war widow could legally remarry. But the 'dead' ex-husband coming back didn't disolve his widow's current marriage.
      So, the law is firm that coming back from the dead doesn't disolve any legal contracts. Whether marriage or something else like a title. Why should a monarch coming back from the dead be treated any differently by the law?

Final Thoughts

So, is the rightful monarch the old one (who's come back from the dead) or the new one (who's been legally recognised as such)? Logic and law are clear: the new one.

Why do Arabs have a higher genetic risk of developing cataracts?

Natural selection means Arabs should have a lower genetic risk of developing cataracts. 
      Arab culture shows why the opposite unexpectedly holds true. 
      Then we'll see this doesn't provide a contradiction at all.
      

Natural Selection 

Natural selection is when life evolves to cope with the negative features of their environment. Its Darwinian principles can be seen in all long-standing populations of all life forms, including humanity. 
      Polar bears are a good demonstration of this. They have fur and blubber to conserve heat. Also, polar bears are white for snow/ice camouflage, allowing them to better hunt their prey.
     This principle also applies to humans. Tibetan blood carries oxygen more efficiently in order to cope with the lower oxygen levels at higher elevations. Adulthood lactose tolerance is prevalent in cultures that raise many dairy cattle.

Let's look at Arabs: their biggest evolutionary pressure would be the dangers of the desert.
      Various desert conditions (sunlight, heat, dehydration) can lead to cataract development. Cataracts make existence difficult at best and deadly at worst, especially for sight-dependent animals. So evolving to deal with the desert includes evolving to deal with cataracts.
      Hence you'd expect desert dwellers, like Arabs, to have evolved to limit cataract development. Yet Arabs have a higher genetic risk for developing cataracts than many other ethnic groups.

Arab Culture

Arabs genes promote cataracts. Whilst initially at odds with natural selection, cultural practices do provide an explanation: cousin marriage.
      The more related two people are, the more likely they are to share the same alleles (gene variants). Even bad alleles. So marrying relatives increases the chance of their offspring having two copies of the same bad allele and thus being negatively affected.
      Perhaps Arabs, due to the prevalence of cousin marriages, have a higher rate of alleles that either encourage or can't prevent cataracts.

Does this go against the idea of natural selection? Well, no.
      Human intelligence leads to adaptive behaviours and items, reducing the negative consequences of our environment. Our intelligence is a product of our DNA, meaning that intelligence is the product of natural selection.
      For example, Arab ingenuity adapts them for desert life. All the dangers of deserts lead to cataracts, so by dealing with desert risks, cataracts are less of a risk. So, whilst Arab DNA makes them more susceptible to cataracts, their DNA also allows them the intelligence to develop behaviours and tools to mitigate this risk. 
      Arab desert survival is impressive (as all clever things are). Loose garmets create shade and air circulation. Architecture creates shadows, promotes breezes and allows cooling via evaporation. Oral histories have allowed for the transmission of food and water sources. Activity is limited to the cooler parts of the day to avoid dangerous heat.  
      As such, behaviours to cope with cataracts and biology to prevent cataracts are equally good examples of natural selection. Just because Arabs rely on the former doesn't make their cataract-susceptibility a negation of Darwinian evolution.