Skip to main content

The wonder of Ratatouille

I have this fantasy. I imagine the day when US animators start treating their art like their Japanese brethren, as a means of making film that isn't limited to a kid's audience. Consider Paprika, a very R-rated animated film, or Akira or the entire Ghost in the Shell series. The mind boggles at what might result if a talent such as Brad Bird, backed by a studio like Pixar, took on a more adult project, like Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. (An interesting story of a cancelled film version may be found here.)

Until then, we have Ratatouille. It might be an over-statement to call Ratatouille the best film of the year, but not by much. Certainly if Beauty and the Beast can get such a nomination, this film can because it is far more deserving. Ratatouille raises the bar in so many ways it's amazing to consider that it is "merely" an animated film. Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles) rules animation the same way that light and air rule your life; there really is no substitute.

Plot-wise, this is not a complex or subtle film. It's message is plainly stated: "Not everyone can be an artist, but an artist can come from anywhere." From that simple premise, Bird weaves a story that is only predictable in the sense that it will have a happy ending. Beyond that it is always inventive and visually rich beyond words. There are lovely touches everywhere and while we expect high standards from a Pixar film, this production goes even higher. In so many ways it makes Pixar's past triumphs, even Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc., look like little more than paint-by-numbers.

For instance, there is a moment near the end of the film that is pure and visual, making a point without a word being spoken. Yes, it's cliché, but it is "told" with such exuberance and joy that cliché is tossed into the trash and you laugh out loud at what you're seeing. It's clear in that moment, and throughout the production and in his past works, that Brad Bird doesn't just enjoy making animated films, he loves them. He revels in animation in ways no one else in the industry does. Other Pixar animators obviously enjoy the craft, but there is so much love and grace and beauty and talent in Bird's films that all others are left at the starting gate.

Yeah, I'm that big of a fan.

Peter O'Toole has a promising new career as voice talent for animated films. His performance as Anton Ego, lethal food critic, is priceless. He's backed up by a marvelous character design and a series of deft touches: When viewed from the back, parts of Ego's typewriter form the shape of a leering skull; when looked at from above, his room is shaped like a coffin. On and on, each visual cue adding to the personality that O'Toole's voice is building.

In comparison, everyone else is merely great, and this includes Patton Oswalt (who?), Lou Romano, Brian Dennehy, and Ian Holm. No one slacks and no one's character is completely predictable. Each takes a subtle turn or change and each turn or change is perfectly keeping in character. It's a lovely ensemble, spoiled only by one: Janeane Garofalo.

Including her risked ruining the film because she is humorless and vacuous in spectacular ways. Luckily for us, the film is saved by her putting on so thick a French accent that she's unrecognizable.

But back to the good stuff: Ratatouille is fantastic. It completely redeems Pixar for making Cars. (Of course, the included teaser for 2008's Wall-E fills me with dread. The teaser is so lacking spark, energy, or life that I cringed.) And Brad Bird is a national treasure. I loved the little credit at the end, declaring that the film is 100% animated, no motion capture used. Ladies and gentlemen, that is love and devotion to a cinematic art.

C'mon, Brad, Lord of Light calls.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.