trump_dory trump_dory

‘Finding Dory’ Director Andrew Stanton and Voice Cast Reacts to Trump’s Screening of Pixar Film [UPDATED]

Here’s one for the history books: the first movie that Donald Trump screened during his term in the White House was Disney/Pixar’s Finding Dory. He held the screenings as mass protests raged around the United States (and in front of the White House) in opposition of Trump’s travel ban against refugees and citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries.

After news emerged about the screening, which began at 3pm Eastern time, many people on Twitter started asking the film’s director Andrew Stanton what he thought about Trump choosing his movie as the first film screened during his administration. Stanton has not directly addressed the situation, but has spent much of the afternoon retweeting other people’s posts that clearly express his opposition to the travel ban. At last count, he had retweeted nine messages, including the following ones:

With these retweets, Stanton joins Finding Dory’s co-director Angus Maclane, who had already started reposting tweets yesterday that expressed opposition to the travel ban.

Ellen DeGeneres, the voice of Dory, posted the following tweets after the news of Trump’s Finding Dory screening:

The only person who has directly addressed the screening of the film is Albert Brooks, the voice of Marlin, who tweeted the following:

The reactions of the people involved with the film were relatively muted compared to the reaction from others on Twitter:

UPDATE (Monday, 9:30pm PT): On her daytime talk show, Ellen DeGeneres addressed the White House screening of Finding Dory, pointing out that the messages in the Disney/Pixar film were at odds with Trump’s travel ban:

“Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t even have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors, because that’s what you do when you see someone in need — you help them.”

Watch the entire clip below:

  • That post by Albert Brooks hit it home. Both films (Finding Nemo/Dory) address unity in family, and the assistance of diversity to achieve that.

    My hope is that things turn around and start the healing process soon. This is really disastrous of what’s going on in America right now, and for our world.

  • Karl Hungus

    If you weren’t mad at the EXACT SAME POLICY being enacted by the former President for a longer period of time(6 months) in 2011, then I don’t think you are standing up to your armpits in hypocrisy. This is not a muslim ban. The 5 most populous muslim countries are not affected by this temporary policy. Thats 3/4 of the world muslim population. That is not affected by this policy. There are seven countries that we are freezing immigration from until the vetting process is re evaluated. 6 of those seven DO NOT have functioning governments(the other is Iran). That is why there is a pause being put on immigration from those nations. I’ve never seen such hysteria whipped up by the media in this nation before.

    • Gavin Mouldey

      So you see nothing hideous or hypocritical about refugees, asylum seekers, from worn torn countries (without functioning governments as you say), being denied legal refuge by a country that claims to be a leader of the “free world”? Seems ethically dismissive when that same free country has the largest military presence in the region (and deployed in more than 150 countries) and contributed to the refugee crisis in the first place. Meanwhile the rest of the free world is taking those refugees in as per legal obligations under the signed 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol, which require them to do so.

      • Karl Hungus

        This administration did not contribute to the refugee crisis. They have been in control for a single week, give them a chance to evaluate the vetting process from countries that do not have functioning governments(by every assessment). Its absolutely legal. Thats why the previous president denied refugees from Iraq for 6 months in 2011 when they realized they had mistakenly let some bad guys into our country(he also ended the refugee policy for cubans during the last weeks of his administration). Nothing we are doing is immoral. Its an unfortunate temporary policy that is only being done because the fractured and lawless state of much of the middle east. It is being done to better attain accurate records for refugees from countries that no longer have reliable record keeping systems. Any and all refugees have to be vetted properly so we are not letting in criminals. This is supported by the Refugee Convention Act which states on page 4: “the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” There is also a public health perspective where we might need to quarantine a refugee if they are from a region that has had an outbreak of some kind. But this is all academic… Yes, we have the largest military. Some find that immoral and I do not begrudge them that point of view. Its healthy to have a robust debate on that. What might make you feel better is that we take in more immigrants through our legal immigration process every year than any other country in the world…. oh wait, I got that wrong. We let in more immigrants through our legal immigration process every year than all other countries in the world, combined.

      • Renard N. Bansale

        Hideous and hypocritical to an extent, for sure, but there’s a greater hypocrisy from the outrage towards this president’s admittedly rather moderate and temporary changes to immigration policy when some of the recent previous presidents have done just as much, if not more, with marginal passionate protesting.

    • Roger_Mainwood
    • Tony

      The biggest problem with the policy is the haste with which it was enacted, and the confusion it caused therein. Not to mention the overall tone of the administration. It may not be a “Muslim ban”, but it FEELS like one, and this is what the uproar is all about..

      • Karl Hungus

        Thats a more than fair assessment. Truly this president does not have a good bedside manner.

        • Barrett

          Saying Trump doesn’t “have a good bedside manner” is like saying the Unabomber “just isn’t a people person.”
          Don’t excuse or downplay the horror. Don’t try to “normalize” this.

          • Karl Hungus

            87% of the worlds muslim population will be UNAFFECTED by the 120 day pause on incoming refugees from 7 out of 196 nations on the planet. It is not “horror”. And its laughable to say so when the real horror is that of ISIS and the implosion of Syria. All happening on the watch of 8 years of the previous administration. When a bad situation has 8 years to develop, its more than understandable for the next administration to get 120 days to RE-evaluate policies that the previous administration cited as a serious concern.

          • Funkybat

            There was nothing wrong with how the previous administration was handling immigration, including the vetting of refugees. If you don’t recognize the imminent threat to all our freedoms presented by Trump’s actions since taking office, I don’t know what to say to you.

          • Karl Hungus

            Really? A green card and visa were issued to Tashfeen Malik in 2014. One year later she was using an assault rifle to murder her husbands coworkers in San Bernadino. Her social media pages were littered with information that she had radical jihadist views. 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously wounded because she was not vetted thoroughly. There has been plenty wrong with immigration for years.

          • Mister_Munchie

            Yay for you for providing ONE example.
            However, Tashfeen Malik was from Pakistan, and lived in Saudi Arabia. These are not countries affected by the ban (GEE I WONDER WHY — could it have to do with there being Trump Hotels there?) but her husband was a U.S. citizen, born in Chicago. The Tsnarevs were US citizens too, along with the Orlando shooter. AMERICAN TODDLERS with guns kill 15 times more Americans EVERY YEAR than have been killed by terrorist immigrants since 9/11.

            This Trump ban is misguided at best, and actively fucking with innocent people at worst. It ONLY gives Muslims more reason to hate us.

          • Doug

            Let’s look back at history just a bit farther back … the “arab spring” was ushered in due to the great shake-up in the entire region due to the breaking of Iraq and the creation of the porous borders that were created by our declaration of “mission accomplished” and the plan to pull out before we had put the country back together. This spread to Syria and allowed the creation of the self declared caliphate of ISIS. This breaking of Iraq was the accomplished by the GW Bush presidency. I’m not a fan of Mr. Obama’s Syria policy (I think it is his great failing) but we cannot blame this solely on the former President. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that any “BAN” (and yes, it’s a ban and Pres Trump has called it such on several occasions) will not help to make America Great Again in anyone’s eyes except his supporters. This ban, temporary or not, is a nasty, embarrassing and likely unconstitutional exercise in fulfilling a campaign promise.

          • Dusty Ayres

            I’m not a fan of Mr. Obama’s Syria policy (I think it is his great failing)

            What would you have done better than Obama did in this situation? I’m just dying to know.

    • Marie

      1. Obama responded to an actual threat.
      2. Obama did not announce there was a ban on visa applications.
      3. Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country [Iraq], including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping. Under Obama there were delays in processing, not an outright ban.
      4. The new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security learned about Trump’s executive order as Trump signed it on television. The lack of communication from the White House sowed confusion in airports nationwide, as volunteer lawyers, congresspeople and eventually several federal judges demanded that detained refugees with valid visas be let go.
      5. The seven countries under Trump’s ban do not include several that have been tied to terrorists involved in major attacks or attempted plots in the United States.

      You’re making a false equivalence between Obama’s and Trump’s actions. And the media didn’t whip up any hysteria; the media simply reported Trump’s amateurish and irresponsible rollout of a poorly prepared policy.

      • okiloki

        Also, the countries that have had ties to funding terrorism and where most of the terrorists have originated from (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt) are not on the list and Trump happens to have many business interests and hotels in those countries. He has none in the 7 countries that are on the list.
        Incidentally, I happened to see the crazy Pat Robertson defending Trump’s ban as not a Muslim ban since Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, was not on the list. Turns out Trump has a bunch of new resorts planned in Indonesia as well.

    • okiloki

      Sorry, but this has been proven false. Obama did not implement a ban in 2011 and there are legitimate news sites that will back up this claim. There was a temporary increase in the vetting process on incoming Iraqis after a specific threat of 2 terrorists was uncovered, but there was never an all out ban on all people from 7 countries. What Trump is doing is saying no one from these countries is coming in. No one is being vetted for at least 90 days and after 90 days, they can extend the ban. This is not a freeze on immigration. It includes permanent residents aka green card holders who have been living in the US for years. You can literally have been living in the US for 10 years and be flying back from Vancouver or London, and barred from returning to the US. This is not hypothetical. One Iranian man who had lived here for years went on a gay cruise for a week was detained and would have been shipped back to Iran, where they kill people for being gay, had the courts not intervened. You seem like a level headed person but your facts are not accurate and it would be good to reevaluate your sources. We all want national security but the clumsy and heavy handed way that this executive order was enacted shows that it is amateur hour at the White House.

    • Marti386

      “If you weren’t mad at the EXACT SAME POLICY being enacted by the former President for a longer period of time(6 months) in 201”

      Sorry, Karl. It never happened:

      Just a little tip. You should probably not get your info from the girl that coined “alternative facts”.

  • Karl Hungus

    Middle eastern nations SHOULD take more refugees. For the price of taking in 10,000 refugees in the US, a middle eastern nation could take in 120,000. So lets keep a firm grasp on the priorities here. Most, refugees want to return to their home of origin and this administration now has a herculean task of trying to solve the Syrian mess after 8 years of failures to do so. Its a situation that will not be solved by everyone taking in more refugees – Syria has 23 million people. What we know from history is if the conflict is not resolved it will spread to other countries. The river is rising. How did we get here? From the policies of inaction that failed for 8 years( a long time). When Bill Clinton unleashed a bombing campaign to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bonsia, titled “Operation Deliberate Force” (just imagine how that title would be framed by the media today) residents of the towns being bombed sat on hillsides and cheered as the bombs leveled parts of their own town.

    • Dusty Ayres

      Karl, you may know about animation, but you know diddly about this topic-please keep quiet.

  • Too Many Cooks

    The ban is temporary. These families will be reunited, it’ll just take three months. I’ve gone for much longer without seeing most of my family.

    • Dante Panora

      There’s not point in this ban being temporary if people are worried about “dangerous foreigners”, cause It’s 99.99% more likely the political climate in the countries banned is not going to change at all. Either keep the date indefinite until your satisfied or don’t sign an order like that at all.

      • Too Many Cooks

        The political climate won’t change, but our vetting process will.

    • dantes342

      It’s a first step and it’s a ban based on religion, no matter how they’re trying to sell it. It’s a Nazi tactic. Shame.

      • Karl Hungus

        Its not a ban on religion. There are christian populations in Syria, Egypt, and Sudan and they are not allowed to enter during the moratorium either. These are nations where interim governments have taken over after coups or collapses and they have not yet re-established the order necessary to run properly. Our government cannot rely on data regarding the true identity or history of the people coming to our country from them. We have no way to verify who people are from those countries so, understandably, they are halting entry UNTIL they can establish a better protocol.

        • dantes342

          That’s all pr. Trump campaigned over and over and over SPECIFICALLY on banning Muslims. Everyone knows that’s what this is about. It’s a weaselly lie to pretend that it isn’t.

          Everybody can see what’s going on.