Before I get to "Ratatouille" I can't help but comment on the audience I saw it with. I saw the film at The Los Angeles Film School, across the street from the old Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.
I'd never been to that school before and I was amazed to see how Godawful tasteful and intelligent everyone looked. All the students looked like they were Harvard Phi Beta Kappas. I couldn't help thinking, "Is this a good thing? Should IQ points determine who gets to make films? Doesn't creativity and street smarts enter into it?" How would Rock and Roll have fared if only Julliard grads had been allowed to make records? Anyway, I was still glad to be there.
This review is going to come across as negative. It's not. The film represents a big advance and I'm glad I saw it. If I sound negative it's because the film's many good points have been covered in countless other reviews and I don't see the point in repeating them. I only have a few paragraphs so I'll limit myself to talking about what might have been done better in the film. Nitpickers and curmudgeons, this is for you!
One of the biggest flaws in the film is that it doesn't contain memorable characters. The characters aren't bad, they're better than average for 3D, but they're supporting actors trying to do the job of leading actors. They just don't have the weight to carry a film. Memorable characters used to be a Disney specialty: The Witch and the Dwarfs in "Snow White," Pinnochio, Jimminy Cricket (spelled right?), Peter Pan and Captain Hook were all heavy hitters. What happened?
On another point, the writing contained too much exposition and too often sounded like a fleshed-out story bible. You get the feeling that an elaborate ending was figured out, then the rest of the the film evolved in logical steps backwards from the ending. In my opinion that's a mistake. It's a good idea to know where you're going but a good story is more organic than that. Writers (hopefully artist writers) shouldn't sit down at a table and say, "What logical step are we going to flesh out today?" They should be saying, "What can we do at this point to wow the audience!? "
On another point, Ratatouille is skimpy on set pieces. What's a set piece? The Mad Tea Party in "Alice in Wonderland" was a set piece. The giant cactus dance in "Three Caballeros" was one. Groucho and Chico's "party of the first part" sketch in "Night at the Opera" was a set piece. Olivier's speech at the opening of "Richard III" was a set piece. It's an almost self-contained sketch or musical number within a larger story that's an excuse for tour-de-force writing and performance. Set pieces are the reason a film exists. In a way the rest of the story is just binder to hold the set pieces together.And where were the funny scenes? I saw plenty of humorous scenes but only a few funny ones. The film needed a character that could support broad comedy. Maybe Remy's undiscriminating friend could have done it.
And why was the dialogue so normal? I expect films to have memorable dialogue. Aren't you glad Bogart said, "We'll always have Paris," rather than "Think of the memories we'll have of Paris" ? Aren't you glad Anthony Hopkins said, "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti" rather than "He bothered me so I had to eat him"? Some writers and artists are specialists at dialogue and every filmmaker should have their addresses on hand. You hire them as consultants.
Last but not least, the film was 3D which is wildly expensive and extremely limiting. I hate to say it but in 2007 you can still get more funny acting with a ten cent pencil than a top of the line desktop.
But acting isn't the only way 3D is limiting. Suppose one of the Ratatouille artists had come up with really hilarious gags involving passers-by on the street?* You couldn't do them. You'd have to throw them out. It would take 3D artists forever to construct each new character and it would cost a mint. That's why 3D films are so infuriatingly claustrophobic. The limitations of the medium force you to be nose to nose with the same small set of characters for an entire film.
* The one gag that did involve a passer-by, a bicyclist, got a big laugh. Wouldn't it have been great to see more gags like that?
* The one gag that did involve a passer-by, a bicyclist, got a big laugh. Wouldn't it have been great to see more gags like that?
76 comments:
I had to delete the Statue of Liberty post for a technical reason. Many thanks for the kind comments and I'm sorry they were lost!
Your comments are definitely on the mark. I don't feel the need for outlandishly funny gags in a film, but I have to agree with everything else you said. There is a lot brilliant in this film, yet I wonder how much more palatable it would have been if the rats were done in 2D and didn't have that wet slimy fur. When the chandelier comes down with dozens of rats everyone in the screening I attended went "Ewwwwwww!" loudly. I'm not sure that's the effect Brad Bird wanted - maybe.
It's still a few weeks from release here, and I missed the sneak previews yesterday, so I haven't seen it yet. But I just wanted to mention that passer-by characters are fairly easy to do now. I guess the biggest problem would be extra clothing, but I gather they spent a lot of time on The Incredibles on a "Universal Man", which designers/animators could bend into whatever they wanted. Most of that film's characters were made that way. If I'm not mistaken, they made a few this time, with different bodytypes. Of course it doesn't approach the ease of drawn characters, but for a big production like this, it isn't so difficult anymore that they'd throw out a great scene for this reason.
Isn't it kind of a huge shame that this is the best animated feature I've seen since 2005? Sure, it's not a bad movie, but...it certianly shouldn't be grabbing the word 'best' out of my mouth.
Where are the funny cartoons????
I'm confident that 3D films like this one will go away eventually. Remember how many 3D television shows they tried to push on us at one point? Now they're all gone because they made not enough money. As soon as 3D movies stop making big money, studios will abandon them completely because of how expensive they are.
"Is this a good thing? Should IQ points determine who gets to make films?..."
I think that only determines who gets to go to posh film schools. That and money.
That rat, the supposed star, has one of the least appealingly designed faces I have ever seen. Ick. Bad. All the human leads are at least trying to project some kind of type. What type of rat is that? Deformed? History is full of cartoon mice and rats, in all shapes and sizes, and all of them are better-looking and more appealing.
I haven't seen it yet and I'm sure I will find things to like in it, but I am underwhelmed by the same kinds of things that you are.
I don't feel the need for outlandishly funny gags in a film, but I have to agree with everything else you said.
Isn't Eddie's stuff funnier than "Rat, etc."? Wouldn't you rather see his stuff on the big screen? Doesn't funnier mean more entertaining? Isn't more entertaining better?
I'm not ragging on you, I'm just wondering where the impulse to defend mildness in comedy comes from. "I love to laugh, but only a little," is a seldom-heard statement.
When I watched it all i kept thinking about was how hard it looked to make it. In every Pixar movie I always stop thinking about the story or Characters because I start wondering how or even why they would do some of the things they did. Although I did like Peter O'Toole's Character for the few minutes he was there.
I would just point out that, while I don't disagree with what you said about the film not having memorable characters, all the Disney characters you mentioned (and more since) have already been known and established in books and/or fairytales. And in this day and age where brand names seem to be the only thing that sell, I would imagine it would be hard to create characters that stick out as much as those that had some sort of existence beforehand.
As a complete side note, being that this is my first post post, I want to say how much I like reading your blog. You and John might save the world.
: )
I really enjoyed Ratatouille, but I wish it was funnier, like Finding Nemo and Cars! The Linguini moments were cute and all, but I just wasn't finding myself laughing as much as in previous Pixar films.
As to the Statue of Liberty Fourth of July post: Bravo, Eddie! It's good to pause and take stock of the things we have to be grateful for. Okay now back to my pissing and moaning mode....
"All the students looked like they were Harvard Phi Beta Kappas. I couldn't help thinking, "Is this a good thing? Should IQ points determine who gets to make films? Doesn't creativity and street smarts enter into it?""
This is kind of unrelated, but from my limited experience working on film sets. The real film techs (gaffers, best boys, grips, etc) hate these kids because they graduate from these top film schools and think they are the next Spielberg before they even start paying their dues. At least that is my experience from working on films in Philly. You start from the bottom and work your way up no matter what film school you went to. Unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to produce your own films
Those characters never stopped talking.It left me dizzy.
They told you everything that was happening.
They explained their personalities to you, told you how they were feeling at every moment, how they felt about other characters.
They even explained all their motivations.
Even though you could see everything that was happening.
It was like a really expensive filmed show pitch.
"Doesn't funnier mean more entertaining? Isn't more entertaining better?
I'm not ragging on you, I'm just wondering where the impulse to defend mildness in comedy comes from. "I love to laugh, but only a little," is a seldom-heard statement."
Oh come on, you know you're twisting his statement. Entertainment does not equal funny. Something funny IS entertaining, but a riveting play or film can just as well be entertaining without necessarily being funny. Seems to me like Bird is the type of director that focusses most on the story and the drama, and makes sure it's got humorous elements. He's not going for an all-out comedy that happens to have a story arc so people would stay in their seats for 2 hours. Both are fine, but I rarely prefer the latter over the former.
Stormko: "all the Disney characters you mentioned (and more since) have already been known and established in books and/or fairytales." Yes, but this is also true of many of the best characters from live action films (Rick Blaine, Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, etc.) So what you are describing here is typical of the creation of film characters. And it doesn't mean that the filmmakers don't get (any) credit for these characters, it means that the characters are the result of a collaboration, in this case a collaboration between story-authors and film-makers. The book-version of Pinocchio does have a talking cricket, but he bears little resemblance to the beloved Jiminy Cricket (as I recall, Pinocchio kills him by whacking him with a shoe!). There was a really big Disney input into the creation of that character. (I realize that this is all probably consistent with what you had in mind. Friendly ammendment!)
This has been touched on already, but did you get the impression that the rats were designed by a much less talented artist? This makes sense when you consider how Brad Bird took over the film from another director.
I didn't mind the dialogue so much as the acting. Was I the only one who couldn't stand Remy's voice?
"Having to make a decision to leave your family to pursue that dream."
Isn't that in every animated feature?
It all seemd pretty formulaic, just smoother than the competition.
"Isn't that in every animated feature?"
Isn't that true of every film, play, story and book?
It isn't the "theme" that needs to be new. There aren't any new stories under the sun. There's a famous (old) book by Polti, still in print and still used by writers called "36 Dramatic Situations". 36!
Anyway the point is that the same old themes can be entertaining if done well. What's anyone's life story? Get a job, meet a girl, have a family, have dreams? That's our world, our world view, whoever we are. Rat, human, whatever.
The only thing that can be new and different is the execution and approach.
Too bad Eddie didn't fancy the writing which was actually quite witty. The Ego character particularly was great in animation, design and dialogue; his choice words were beautifully written.
I don't think this film was aiming to be a Ritz bros. comedy but it had plenty of physical humor which came naturally out of the situation-much more than just the guy crashing his bicycle. It also had many set pieces, i.e.:
*The first scene in the great kitchen, starting with the view from the skylight; continuing with Remy trying to escape and then topped by his "fixing the soup"
*all the rats in the kitchen, both times
*The first time Remy ascends to the rooftops of Paris from the sewer, passing silhouettes of girls, lovers, etc. til he realizes where he is with that spectacular view
*The introduction to Colette where she furiously explains herself to the young busboy
*the chase of the head chef and the rat with the papers
*BIG one: the first time Remy controls Linguini by biting him all over, trying to get him to cook properly; the audience I saw this with roared at it. They thought it was funny. You know...slapstick.
Bear in mind that-while this film does have flaws-it was a takeover project that was overhauled with probably many compromises that had to be made, since there was less than 18 months til the release date. By that standard it's a miracle.
You don't have to like it-that's a personal thing for everyone-but it's still far from a mediocre film. The animation alone is fantastic.
I guess that(animation?)is what Eddie means when he refers to it as an "advance".
The 'set piece' for me was probably Remy trying to wake up Linguini.
Actually what I was impressed with most about this feature WAS the 3D animation. Usually it's a crutch for poor drawing, but here it's top notch. Skinner looked like a character out of a Bob McKimson cartoon.
Oh come on, you know you're twisting his statement. Entertainment does not equal funny. Something funny IS entertaining, but a riveting play or film can just as well be entertaining without necessarily being funny.
My bad. I thought we were discussing a funny cartoon. I sure hoped we were.
It isn't the "theme" that needs to be new. There aren't any new stories under the sun. There's a famous (old) book by Polti, still in print and still used by writers called "36 Dramatic Situations". 36!
If there are 36, then why are we constantly pummeled with the same one or two?
Pixar has used 'extras' before, perhaps even for a passing gag.
That is, they do not have to design a new 3d character from scratch for an incidental gag.
They are like puppets, they just grab an old one and redress it.
They just have to pull one off the shelf that may have been less funny in the situation than something designed much more approrpriate to the flavor of the gag, and quicker, as someone penciled a storyboard
Anon: Interesting comments! The chase where the oven flames on above Remy's head was definitely a set piece but I don't know if the film contained any others. Some of the sequences you identified as set pieces were, by my definition, just plain interesting scenes.
The part where the rat bit Linguini under his shirt definitely had set piece potential but it never took off. Imagine how Jerry Lewis would have handled that in his prime! Or how about the way Jim Carey beat himself up in the mens room in "Liar,Liar?"
Remy's trip through the apartment building early in the film could have been a terrific set piece but it went too fast and didn't contain enough clever ideas.
Collette yelling at the busboy didn't even have set piece potential in my opinion. That may have been a pivotal story scene but important scenes only occassionally lend themselves to good set pieces.
The Pink Elephant and Casey Jr. sequences in "Dumbo" were major set pieces but weren't necessary to the plot. As I said, set pieces seldom are. But there are exceptions. Dumbo visiting his mother in prison was a good set piece as was the mother going berserk, and both served story purposes, but these were exceptions to the rule.
Set pieces aren't a luxury item that you include if the staff has time to fit them in. Set pieces are the very heart and soul of a film. They're the reason people plop their money down at the box office.
You're right that a takeover film of this quality being made in 18 months was miraculous and I have nothing but admiration for the people who pulled it off.
>>Collette yelling at the busboy didn't even have set piece potential in my opinion. That may have been a pivotal story scene <<
It was long exposition, pure and simple and didn't further the plot at all and was never followed up for the rest of the story.
Hey eddie, Jordan here regarding the subliminal ads.
I have been turning my messy room upside down, but only managed to find the gas pump KOOL ad so far. Then I tried searching online and found a website that had most of the ads I talked about, and more...unfortunately their jpegs aren't very big...
http://www.subliminalworld.org/cool.htm
You could see there the REALLY OBVIOUS S-E-X tattoo on the guys arm, plus the man in BLUE pumping a SAME COLOR BLUE gas pump with 2 FLESH COLORED carseats sticking up like testicles under the pump. It's amazing!
I am still searching for the Kraft cheese ad, and fear that it is lost to the ages.
-Jordan
Oh and he does not mention this, but note in the first ad, with the S-E-X tattoo, how much the guy's palm and arm looks like, well...you can tell for yourself.
-Jordan
It was at least a whole lot better than the recently opened Transformers movie. ;) I couldn't keep up with the action scenes as it was hard to track who is fighting whom.
Odd thing about the S-E-X airbrushed vertically in the gin bottle: I looked up a hardcopy of the original ad on the back of an early 1970's TIME magazine. The word is far less obvious in the original ad than it is in the book "Subliminal Seduction", where it was overemphasized to make their point.
"It was long exposition, pure and simple and didn't further the plot at all and was never followed up for the rest of the story."
It was never followed up? Why should it have been? And wasn't that what Eddiem was just lamenting-the absence(he thinks)of scenes for their own sake RATHER than ones to "further the plot" or be "followed up"? I'd think gags with people in the street would have zero to do with any of the characters and the "plot" of "Ratatouille".
This is the Colette introduction IS a set piece: it wasn't crucial to the story but was done for its own sake, for fun. It was just one character's intro-an important one but not THE most important one-featured in a memorable way, period. Exposition? Her speech was megafast, funny and very well written. It also seemed like an outburst that that girl in that kitchen would really have and things she would really say in that circumstance. Guess it didn't float your boat, but it can't really be called "exposition" when it's not information we need to know for the plot but rather a character being themselves.
It was a surprise, too, since up til that time Colette was quiet and simply "looking" sloe-eyed. Wordlessly she's had this kid thrust on her to school and watch over, and while he's affable and tongue-tied she bursts out as the polar opposite. That's all.
"It was long exposition, pure and simple and didn't further the plot at all and was never followed up for the rest of the story."
It was never followed up? Why should it have been? And wasn't that what Eddiem was just lamenting-the absence(he thinks)of scenes for their own sake RATHER than ones to "further the plot" or be "followed up"? I'd think gags with people in the street would have zero to do with any of the characters and the "plot" of "Ratatouille".
This is the Colette introduction IS a set piece: it wasn't crucial to the story but was done for its own sake, for fun. It was just one character's intro-an important one but not THE most important one-featured in a memorable way, period. Exposition? Her speech was megafast, funny and very well written. It also seemed like an outburst that that girl in that kitchen would really have and things she would really say in that circumstance. Guess it didn't float your boat, but it can't really be called "exposition" when it's not information we need to know for the plot but rather a character being themselves.
It was a surprise, too, since up til that time Colette was quiet and simply "looking" sloe-eyed. Wordlessly she's had this kid thrust on her to school and watch over, and while he's affable and tongue-tied she bursts out as the polar opposite. That's all.
"One of the biggest flaws in the film is that it doesn't contain memorable characters."
This is the most significant statement ever said about 3D films. Everyone else who criticizes 3D cartoons point out limitations on the media itself, leaving the artist with a clear scapegoat. But the artist are also at fault for the movies made. Brad Bird did an amazing job with The Incredibles. The Incredibles is the best 3D film produced. I have not seen Ratatouille so I can not mark a judgement but Eddie hit the nail on head with his statement about 3D movies.
This is why everyone loves you Eddie, you are a true cartoonist and that is evident in everything you say.
Anon: I'm amazed that you found so much to like in Colette's dialogue! It scores points for being brief and to the point but I didn't see any art in it. I wouldn't be surprised if her dialogue was a simple rewrite of her story bible description.
You said that Colette's dialogue was simple and heartfelt but for me that was the trouble. In my opinion good dialogue is better-than-life artifice which is so cleverly done that we accept it as real. That's very different than dialogue which is simply realistic.
jordan: Thanks for the link! Hmmmm. Let me study this stuff.
Storm, R.Ban: Thanks!
Hi Eddie,
I really disagree with your review of Ratatouille, but I'll have to address that later. I was taken aback by this sentence in your post:
"...I was amazed to see how Godawful tasteful and intelligent everyone looked. All the students looked like they were Harvard Phi Beta Kappas. I couldn't help thinking, 'Is this a good thing? Should IQ points determine who gets to make films? Doesn't creativity and street smarts enter into it?'"
You're making an assumption based soley on how the students looked -- judging a book by it's cover, in other words. Those kids could have been crass and stupid for all you knew. You made a choice based on gut emotion and not reason.
Besides, is intelligence so wrong in cinema? We seem to sorely lack it these days. Should everything be aimed at the lowest common denominator?
I don't know why you're worrying about it anyway. Even if those kids do enter the movie biz, they'll be forced to create dumbed-down entertainment, no matter their I.Q. level. They don't control the purse strings, and the people who do are scared sh*tless of taste and intelligence. That's why there is such an abundance of fart jokes, shameless mugging and overall stupidity in comedies these days.
They don't do character bibles in feature animation as they do in TV. There was one screenwriter here-Bird-and he decided what the characters were like.
The writing was top notch and most importantly specific to the characters.
Linguini: borderline incoherent. Colette: fiercely to the point. Ego: witty, acerbic, thoughful.
He at least was written in the Super-Man style.
There's "art" in all kinds of dialogue. If every character sounded like Oscar Wilde it would be as lame as every character sounding like a punk kid.
"If there are 36, then why are we constantly pummeled with the same one or two?"
Because the 36 are in fact derived from one or two.
Come on now-you get the point. But go ahead and bash.
BUT there are NO new "plots".
If every character spouted astoundingly witty and intelligent dialogue it would work. That's what happens in Preston Sturges' best films. But it's an act most writers and directors can't match. Sturges himself managed to do it only during his peak years.
I thought the movie was pretty damn great...although I do agree with some of your criticisms.
The fact that there was no real stand-out extremely memorable character (well except maybe the food critic...although I don't see him selling a lot of toys).
It also wasn't side-splittingly funny...but then right from the beginning Disney movies have been comedy/adventures rather than straight up comedies. I don't recall tons of yuks in Snow White or Pinnochio either.
I totally *don't* see where you're coming with the "lack of set pieces" thing though. I don't recall a recent animated movie with more of them. The old lady with her shotgun, Remy running through the various craw-spaces and vents to get to the top of the building and first see Paris, the scene with him skittering around in the kitchen and narrowly avoiding one periil after another...3 pretty brilliant set pieces all in the first half hour or the movie.
I had no issue with the dialogue either...I thought there were some very good lines.
Oh, and I'm not an animator...but I thought generating big crowd scenes is one of the things computers did far *better* than hand drawn animation? I don't really think the lack of lots of crowd scenes had anything to do with technology. They certainly didn't scrimp on the crowds during the scenes where all the rats were together.
Heh, oh...and I almost forgot.
I'm surprised there's no mention of the fact that Skinner (the evil little chef guy) is basically Ren.
Look at that face! He even lets out a very Ren-like "eeeeediot!" at one point!
"They don't do character bibles in feature animation as they do in TV. There was one screenwriter here-Bird-and he decided what the characters were like."
And then he had the characters TELL us what they were like, instead of trusting us to see it by what they do.
I thought it was brilliant.
You say, "Set pieces are the reason a film exists."
I think story comes first.
"Besides, is intelligence so wrong in cinema? We seem to sorely lack it these days. Should everything be aimed at the lowest common denominator?"
You're missing his point J.J..Eddie has nothing against intelligence in humor.He's against intelligence OVER humor.
Also stupidity isn't the problem of comedies today,sloppiness is.
AAAAAHHH, SHADDUP!
What a disrespectful asshole. John saw the movie earlier in the week. If you want to know just how outclassed you are, just ask Vincent. He'll give you an honest answer.
See ya
Steve
"AAAAAHHH, SHADDUP!! You didn't even see the movie, so how would you know, Crusty Old Animator? "
What's with all the hostility? How would you know if John saw the movie or not?
I just saw the movie and thought it was brilliant. Much better than the dissapointing Transformers, which had too much poorly explained story and confusingly directed action sequences and too much shaky camera!.
"and confusingly directed action sequences and too much shaky camera!."
That is definetly the Micheal Bay MO.
>>What's with all the hostility? How would you know if John saw the movie or not?<<
Hi Kali,
I'm basically a hostile person, so that should explain the hostility.
Personally, I don't know if Kricfalusi has seen the movie or not. But he has been complaining about the movie before it was even released. Sometimes he gets real tiring to listen to, especially when he gripes about the few animated cartoons that are actually good.
>>What a disrespectful asshole. John saw the movie earlier in the week. If you want to know just how outclassed you are, just ask Vincent. He'll give you an honest answer.<<
Yes, it was disrespectful of me. I think your friend, Mr. K can also be disrespectful, too.
I don't know what Vincent thinks about my class, or lack thereof, but I'm not going to bother him about it.
Dearest Hunsecker,
Opposing opinions are good. They keep life interesting. I can't really speak for Eddie, but, normally, I imagine they are welcomed here. However, misguided belligerence isn't so interesting. I think it is also safe to say it's not welcomed here.
You're really starting to live up to your moniker's notoriously bad disposition. Probably not such a good thing.
It's amazingly ironic that you accused Eddie of making assumptions, when you did it yourself in your next post. But that's neither here nor there, because it's past 9:30 and that means the JJ Hour is over.
Back on topic, I think John K's succinct, insightful comment deserves discussion. Who is traditionally credited for saying that famous line (paraphrased) don't tell it to the audience, show it to them? Was that Chaplin?
Where do you (anybody, not just John) think the movie was doing too much telling and not enough showing? How would you have approached the scenes differently?
>>It's amazingly ironic that you accused Eddie of making assumptions, when you did it yourself in your next post.<<
Yes, you're right. I did make an assumption. My apologies. I hate to be hypocritical. My problem is I've really grown to dislike John K from reading his comments, hence my rush to judgement.
>>Back on topic, I think John K's succinct, insightful comment deserves discussion.<<
Sorry, here's where I have to disagree with you. I don't find Mr. K's comments on anything regarding Brad Bird's work to be insightful. This is a person who referred to The Incredibles -- a film with some of the most exciting action sequences in animation or live action -- as "bland". In fact, John K applies the same criticism to just about anything that isn't in his realm of animation. I'm sure you'll hear such phrases as "flailing arms", "non-specific acting", "bland", "the designs look like wallpaper and/or CalArts/Disney/Bluth" etc., from John K in regards to Ratatouille, even though it isn't true.
Eddie was right when he said this post was for "nitpickers and curmudgeons." The problem is that nitpickers sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. Every film and cartoon has weaknesses, but they have to be weighed against their strengths. We can find the same problems in a classic episode of Ren & Stimpy. Would it be fair to nitpick it to death?
The main problem for the curmudgeons here is that Bird didn't cater to their personal taste (no pun intended) of what an animated cartoon should be. And, somehow they feel he should be blamed for this. It comes off sounding like sour grapes to me (again, no pun intended).
>>You're missing his point J.J..Eddie has nothing against intelligence in humor.He's against intelligence OVER humor.<<
pcunfunny,
I'll admit I don't really know what you mean. I don't know of any humor that was too intelligent in recent years, to the point where it smothered the humor. Or where a filmmaker chose to be smart over being funny. (If that's what you meant.)
Hey JJ, can't everyone just have their opinion? I mean, isn't that what blogs are for? You get to read everyone's point of view. Commenting is just a luxury, in my opinion. See, there's that naughty little word again! If everyone got all uppity about what everyone said, then we'd all be frowning, and that's just not fun.
Hi Kali,
Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I have nothing against that. Sometimes though, it aint WHAT ya say, it's HOW ya say it.
I'm glad Brad Bird's making the films the way he is.
But sopmeone else should definatly make some films like the ones put forward in this blog.
Humsecker: I deleted your personal insult against John. You need to use some restraint when you write.
"You said that Colette's dialogue was simple and heartfelt but for me that was the trouble. In my opinion good dialogue is better-than-life artifice which is so cleverly done that we accept it as real. That's very different than dialogue which is simply realistic."
You thought her dialogue was realistic?
I thought it was better-than-life artifice, precisely. Only "real" in the sense that all dialogue must be real: specific to the character.
You could argue that this film has problems, but imho just not the ones you identified.
The film did have good dialogue, exactly like what you describe as the best kind, in fact. I don't know what you were listening to but it reads like you tuned out early on.
How anyone could think Anton Ego, who goes on about criticism like Walter Pater, is lacking in erudite, wittier-than-thou dialogue?
No, the film wasn't conceived backwards. I don't think it plays that way at all, either. But there you go-wildly diverging views make the world go 'round.
One has to wonder, though, what kind of a feature animated film would you find good enough-or even better than average?
I wish you noted what was good about the film for you. I guess it would probably be the technical details-"dull" workmanship. The unkindest cut.
Why delete it? Now all the replies are out of context.
Anon: I don't have a copy of the film so I can't talk about Colette's dialogue in detail. If you have a copy, you should post the dialogue and link to it. That'll settle the argument.
I'm glad you mentioned Ego. He was a good character but the killer is that he could have been a really great character. What he needed in my opinion was better dialogue and a Shmee (spelled right?)-type assistant to boss around.
Americans think any snobbish English accent is funny. They're half right. It certainly has the potential for humor. What they forget is that people who naturally talk that way are devishly clever and have been using words as weapons ever since they were kids. If you undertake to write dialogue for a character like that you have to come up with something really first rate. If you can't do it yourself then bring in friends and conultants.
I did like the way his childhood came back to him and his lecture about how critics suck. I don't agree with what he said but the charm was undeniable. If I were doing a film like that I would have left Ego frustrated and unrepenitent but the audience liked this ending and you can't argue with success.
>>Humsecker: I deleted your personal insult against John. You need to use some restraint when you write.<<
Okay Eddie, Fair enough. I’ll try and show some restraint. I’d like to readdress the issue John K brought up: “...he had the characters TELL us what they were like, instead of trusting us to see it by what they do.”
Well, that’s not exactly true. There is narration in the film, similar in style to a movie like Goodfellas or Out Of The Past, but it used to comment on the proceedings in the story, not illustrate it. There is some dialog at the end of the picture in which Remy says how he feels, but by then we know what kind of character he already is, because we’ve seen it through his actions. One of the most telling is when he tries to escape the restaurant and he finally reaches the window to escape, yet turns back several times to fix the soup. There is a great moment where he wordlessly stops in his tracks, wags his finger in the air as he realizes that the soup needs one last ingredient and turns back.
Besides, Kricfalusi is guilty of the same thing. In “Onward and Upward” Ren says how he feels about his abject poverty at the start of the cartoon. Ren also tells us how happy he is at the end of “Stimpy’s Invention”.
>> If I were doing a film like that I would have left Ego frustrated and unrepenitent but the audience liked this ending and you can't argue with success.<<
But Ego isn't the villian (Skinner is). He just has high standards and is offended by mediocrity. (Sound familiar?)
Seen in that light, he deserves his redemption.
"Or where a filmmaker chose to be smart over being funny. (If that's what you meant.)"
Yes that's what I meant.
>Who is traditionally credited for saying that famous line (paraphrased) don't tell it to the audience, show it to them? Was that Chaplin?
My English Teacher.
Why a Smee-type character? The shallow and silly acting in Ollie Johnston's animation Smee was a giant flaw in "Peter Pan", IMO. (Though I love the scene where he gets so drunk he starts crying when Hook is grilling Tinker Bell.)
JJ, If you hate listening to John's comments why do you even bother reading them? Just a question?
>JJ, If you hate listening to John's comments why do you even bother reading them? Just a question?
He needs material for his HILARIOUSLY ironic blog.
BTW, I agree with Thad, Ego didn't need a sidekick, that would've been too derivative and typical.
>>JJ, If you hate listening to John's comments why do you even bother reading them? Just a question?<<
Hi Sean,
I didn't always hate Kricfalusi's comments. I use to enjoy reading his blog when he analyzed Warner cartoons.
I just don't like the professional jealousy and petty attacks on other talented artists that sometimes eminates from his postings on his blog, as well as those he frequents.
Sometimes a person can't get away from John K's vitriol. I like to read about animation, so I surf a lot of animator's blogs. Sometimes what Kricfalusi has written shows up there too.
>>He needs material for his HILARIOUSLY ironic blog.<<
Jorge, are you being ironic?
>>Memorable characters used to be a Disney specialty: The Witch and the Dwarfs in "Snow White," Pinnochio, Jimminy Cricket (spelled right?), Peter Pan and Captain Hook were all heavy hitters.<<
Sorry to beat a dead horse, Eddie, but I reread your post and this sentence stuck out. I have to ask, do you really consider Peter Pan a memorble character? He seemed pretty dull to me in that movie -- a real lightweight. (No pun intended.)
Also, while the Witch and Dwarfs were good characters in Snow White, the title lead herself was a bit on the vapid side, and the Prince was an empty shell of a character.
>>It would take 3D artists forever to construct each new character and it would cost a mint. That's why 3D films are so infuriatingly claustrophobic. The limitations of the medium force you to be nose to nose with the same small set of characters for an entire film.<<
The same thing happens in hand drawn animation, and for the same reason -- money. Most Looney Tunes cartoons have a cast of two characters, at most three. There were no crowd shots in the original Ren & Stimpy unless it was in a still painting like "Nurse Stimpy". Most classic animated cartoons had still paintings for crowds. You even had a post about it before called "Zombie Crowds" or something like that. Why are you suddenly upset that CG cartoons have the same problems?
Hunsecker: Interesting questions but I'd have to write a book to answer them. At least that's the way it seems when I'm sleepy like I am now.
Hey, Uncle Eddie. I apologize for joining this discussion so late but I wanted to thank you for the fine thinking points which are increasing my appreciation of Ratatouille.
I'm still mulling over the Set Pieces idea (thank you, I have learned something new). I'm not convinced what everyone is calling exposition was-most of that read as narration to me. I found the most revealing scenes came through subtler moments (Remy's furtive glances, Linguini's exhalations). I was pleased that none of Remy's narrations mentioned his growing annoyance at his self-imposed anonymity. As I recall, that was only expressed verbally at the end when he was trapped in the trunk.
but re: Smee... SMEE?!! There was a small moment at the very end that took me out of the movie's world for a split second. As the camera moved out of Remy's rooftop rat café, we saw a rat flexing a huge bicep while younger rats stared. I don't know why, but it really bugged me. I don't think he needed to be there. It was cute, sure, but that rat was and the Smee would be distracting. If there's a question here, it'd be: in the oft-mentioned and wished for Uncle Eddie feature is there a point before which comedic bits are obvious as gags and after which they make the movie an honest to goodness comedy? Is there a critical mass of yuks?
This is a long post to say I appreciate and enjoy your blog very much and read it whenever work release lets me in the library.
Anon: I used to have Polti's 36 plot book and I sold it because it was useless. Polti can't write a readable page to save his life and the mythological examples he used were arcane in the extreme. I don't know why this book is so popular.
Meng: I shouldn't have mentioned Smee by name. I meant to use the name only as an example of a sidekick.
I'll admit I reacted a little strongly to Smee—though I remember liking the character when I was young—in particular, but my comment was meant to be a little more general. If the current cast all seem like supporting characters, wouldn't sidekicks feel a step further removed and superfluous?
I liked Ego, liked that he was a loner, and liked that he found perspective. I'd be afraid that a sidekick would have given the writers an opening for a Lenny Henry as Chef (sorry, the only YouTube clip I could fine was horribly coded) tirade.
Anyway, thanks for the reply and thanks again for the food for thought.
Haha , I agree with Eddie about the use of "puppets" so animators do not have to recreate new 3D characters. Know why? 'cuz i found an easter egg in this show.
Remember "Bomb Voyage" from The Incredibles? Apparently, he was the mime at the scene where Colette and the klutz were rollerstaking. haha! check it out! :D
I'm reading this review 7 years after you wrote it and wonder if you still feel the same way. This film, to me, is a masterpiece and doesn't have any of the dumbshow nonsense that usually plagues dreamworks and sony fare. When you say it has no memorable characters, I totally disagree. It has no ridiculous "cartoon" character, but to me, that's a great thing. It has a narrative arch that shifts from character to character with ease . And as to your question about education - guys like Tarantino prove that you don't need a traditional education , however you do have to be highly intelligent. That's something all directors share in common.
Post a Comment