BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Ratatouille

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
CameronStewart
12:00 / 17.07.07
Once again - the comparison of Bird to Miyazaki, which perhaps may be being blown slightly out of proportion, is not based on direct stylistic or thematic similarities in their works. Most mainstream American animation, as produced by Disney and Dreamworks for the last couple of decades or so, has been thin and characterized largely by trite musical numbers and contemporary pop culture jokes that are dated by the film's second week of release. The lack of any major alternative has cemented the perception of what animation "should be" in most of the audience. Bird is a filmmaker working in the mainstream who is seemingly interested in breaking the established formula of the modern American animated film and attempting to create something a little deeper, a little more intelligent and elegant, something that's timeless and can speak to people of all ages (this is what I meant by "maturity" in my post much earlier in the thread, which Seth said he didn't understand - maturity in the context of mainstream animation developing as a viable medium of artistic expression). Since Bird is seemingly further along at achieving this than his Western contemporaries, he is compared - in purpose, not style or content - to a recognized master of the medium. No one is saying that Brad Bird is as good as Hayao Miyazaki, or that they're stylistically similar, merely that if there's a fork in the road and down one path is Shrek the Third and down the other is Spirited Away, Bird's more likely to choose the latter.

Is it too much to ask to can the snark? I started this thread because I wanted to talk about something I thought was very beautiful, and it's rapidly turning very ugly.
 
 
Hieronymus
13:06 / 17.07.07
I must have missed the snark for the meat. Because I'm finding this thread extremely fascinating for the ideas and topics being passed around.

I almost think a Brad Bird/Miyazaki thread is worth opening up, as the discussion comparing animation styles of America and Japan warrants much more discussion (if we don't have a thread on it already). Ratatouille fits within that framework, but I think this discourse of Bird vs. Miyazaki outgrows the thread at present.

Any takers?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:27 / 17.07.07
Normally, Cameron, I would be right there with you. I would explain quietly and gently to Nico how it may not be purely coincidental that the point at which Nico believes that it is universally right and proper to stop "analysing" something happends to tally exactly with what Nico, personally, does not want to discuss. I would gently suggest that post factum cries of "it was a JOKE" are rarely if ever taken by Barbelith as a whole as being useful. I might even, with the infinite care with which one might carry one's favourite pet rabbit onto the veterinarian's table, suggest that writing off every dissenting viewpoint or attempt to get one to engage with the actual thing under discussion as "snark" is not going to allow one to grow as a person very far.

Ultimately, however, fuck it. If Nico were able to take any of that on board, Nico would be able to understand the difference between a critique based on commenting on the text and a "critique" that consisted of "U R all overanalysing LOL". And Nico is not able to do that. So, fuck it. Fuck it in the ear. Fuck it, quite frankly, with a spork.

So, back on Brad Bird. I'm thinking about the output of Disney and Dreamworks, and wondering if the last interesting animated work produced by Disney sans Pixar was in fact Hercules. I might be missing something - Treasure Planet, possibly? - but the almost classical structure of episode and then sung interval does seem to have encouraged a formulaic tendency. I guess that the Dreamworks high watermark might have been Antz - not a good movie, but in some ways an interesting one, not least in its astonishingly old cast - every character seemed to be voiced by the one-off comic turn or baddy in a Disney film. Titan A.E. - another astonishing cast - if anything showed how difficult it was to make an animated adventure film outside Disney/Dreamworks - I am very firmly in the underrated camp on that one, but none of the directors, producers or writers seem to have survived it, depite the genius of making Nathan Lane's character look exactly like Nathan Lane. From then on, as far as I can see, it's Pixar pretty much all the way. I am not going to talk about Polar Express. Nor, ideally, should others.

So, there's something which I think sharply distinguishes Bird and Miyazake - the condition of American animated cinema, where every player of any note appears to be working for one production company, and certainly where one company is generally assumed to be dominant in terms of cultural significance and artistic quality. There seems to be a very narrow pyramid rising up, with Brad Bird at the top.

Having said which, Bird did not himself come from the Disney line, as I understand, it but instead worked on the Simpsons - the closest thing the US has to family-oriented periodic animation - before The Iron Giant. Is this significant? Was he insulated to some degree from the drumming insistence of episode-stasimon-episode-stasimon-montaqe-to-music? Did this separation give him more freedom of movement when it came to discussing scripts? Simply put, what is it that made Brad Bird Brad Bird? Is this just a freak of cinematic nature? Also, how far back does that put Andrew Stanton or Pete Docter, say - the latter of whom, tying up neatly, directed the English dub of Howl's Moving Castle? Do those with a better understanding of animated cinema than I see Brad Bird as within or without a continuum, here?
 
 
CameronStewart
13:40 / 17.07.07
>>>I might even, with the infinite care with which one might carry one's favourite pet rabbit onto the veterinarian's table, suggest that writing off every dissenting viewpoint or attempt to get one to engage with the actual thing under discussion as "snark" is not going to allow one to grow as a person very far. <<<

Haus, you're being snarky and condescending RIGHT THERE in the first part of that sentence, even as you suggest that Nico is unjustifiably characterizing any opposing opinion as snark. You also are quite blatantly suggesting she's an imbecile by deliberately misquoting her in l33tspeak.

Knock it the fuck off.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:43 / 17.07.07
I think you're overanalysing there, Cameron.
 
 
CameronStewart
13:48 / 17.07.07
So, to recap:

Nico chastised for something - subjected to withering condescension.

Haus chastised for something - sidesteps it by making weak joke that also again mocks Nico.

Got it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:50 / 17.07.07
However, if you would rather I could instead accurately and correctly quote hir spelling of "way" with three vowels, thus:

Has it occurred to anyone else that, just maybe, waaay too much is being read into an animated flick? Just saying.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:01 / 17.07.07
Nico asked to engage with the actual thread, rather than make disparaging comments about people who apply critical standards he does not wish to apply.

Result - Nico throws tantrum.

Cameron champions rotting of own thread by Nico.

Result - Haus gets depressed.

All done? Goodo. Now, unless you want to spend waaay too much time talking about this, perhaps Brad Bird and Ratatouille?
 
 
Hieronymus
14:24 / 17.07.07
Haus, your condescension is unwarranted and all too coy in its cheapshots. As Cameron has explicitly pointed out, your tone when addressing other Barbelith members in this thread is not helpful at all. The veterinarian crack? Just plain cheap. While the attempt to bring more content to the table is appreciated, it's blown to smithereens by your sniping first paragraph.

Please don't speak of "other people" rotting the thread when you're busy dumping gasoline on the fire.
 
 
HCE
14:53 / 17.07.07
So, back on Brad Bird. I'm thinking about the output of Disney and Dreamworks, and wondering if the last interesting animated work produced by Disney sans Pixar was in fact Hercules. I might be missing something - Treasure Planet, possibly? - but the almost classical structure of episode and then sung interval does seem to have encouraged a formulaic tendency. I guess that the Dreamworks high watermark might have been Antz - not a good movie, but in some ways an interesting one, not least in its astonishingly old cast - every character seemed to be voiced by the one-off comic turn or baddy in a Disney film. Titan A.E. - another astonishing cast - if anything showed how difficult it was to make an animated adventure film outside Disney/Dreamworks - I am very firmly in the underrated camp on that one, but none of the directors, producers or writers seem to have survived it, depite the genius of making Nathan Lane's character look exactly like Nathan Lane. From then on, as far as I can see, it's Pixar pretty much all the way. I am not going to talk about Polar Express. Nor, ideally, should others.

So, there's something which I think sharply distinguishes Bird and Miyazake - the condition of American animated cinema, where every player of any note appears to be working for one production company, and certainly where one company is generally assumed to be dominant in terms of cultural significance and artistic quality. There seems to be a very narrow pyramid rising up, with Brad Bird at the top.

Having said which, Bird did not himself come from the Disney line, as I understand, it but instead worked on the Simpsons - the closest thing the US has to family-oriented periodic animation - before The Iron Giant. Is this significant? Was he insulated to some degree from the drumming insistence of episode-stasimon-episode-stasimon-montaqe-to-music? Did this separation give him more freedom of movement when it came to discussing scripts? Simply put, what is it that made Brad Bird Brad Bird? Is this just a freak of cinematic nature? Also, how far back does that put Andrew Stanton or Pete Docter, say - the latter of whom, tying up neatly, directed the English dub of Howl's Moving Castle? Do those with a better understanding of animated cinema than I see Brad Bird as within or without a continuum, here?

Isn't all that content?

Anyway, the descriptions Cameron and Haus have given of the way animated films work these days make it sound similar to the way the old Hollywood Studio system worked. Is this a good thing, perhaps, in some ways? Is there enough work for animators, enough big hits to sustain smaller things?
 
 
grant
15:27 / 17.07.07
If it adds focus, Disney bought Pixar a while ago - it's like the "gourmet" line of the same studio fare, maybe?

On the other hand, the Shrek movies are done by DreamWorks, which explains the slams against Disney in the first one -- although the style is remarkably similar (musical numbers, etc.), the company remains a rival.
 
 
Hieronymus
15:54 / 17.07.07
Anyway, the descriptions Cameron and Haus have given of the way animated films work these days make it sound similar to the way the old Hollywood Studio system. Is this a good thing, perhaps, in some ways? Is there enough work for animators, enough big hits to sustain smaller things?

There's an interesting question similar to yours, gourami, in a book I read recently: Japanamerica by Roland Kelts. He posits that anime was at its most imaginative when it was compelled to be so i.e. anime was born out of a reaction/budget concern of Japanese studios doing the stories they wanted to do with live action actors. In the book he says that anime production and reception is weaker than it used to be and that anime clearinghouses are looking to tap into the money of the Hollywood distribution machine.

The question is, will the imagination of anime suffer with that kind of partnership? When anime studios were creativity driven and not financially driven, their output showed it.

It's part of the reason I find Pixar so fascinating as guys like Lasseter and Bird are proving you can incorporate a strong story and still produce the coin.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:08 / 17.07.07
Gourami - well, _sort of_, I think. Pixar was a CGI special effects studio, which then became a production company, and made films that were distributed by Disney. When that arrangement broke down, Disney bought them. So, Pixar is effectively a Disney "brand", with a degree of autonomy - most notably, John Lasseter has editorial control over whether projects go or not - and the former Pixar creatives on the board.

Dreamworks was set up as an independent studio - filming, producing, distributing - making animated (having purchased another computer graphics company) and non-animated films, but was bought by ViaCom. At the purchase, the animation arm was spun off, and is now (I think) an independent company, but one whose films are distributed by Paramount (owned by ViaCom). So, effectively Dreamworks Animation is to Paramount as Pixar _used_ to be to Disney.

Where it is a bit like the old studio system is that the _creative_ stars of Pixar - Lasseter, Bird, Docter, Stanton - are not just employees but also executives and board members, so they don't have freedom of contract. I don't know about Dreamworks animation, but the board doesn't seem to contain any creatives, and Andrew Adamson, who must be the jewel in their crown, has notably directed at least one film then distributed by Disney (Narnia).

So, it may not be so much like the old studio system as much as there being two major houses, each closely tied to a big production institution, but one with a core of writing and directing talent that is tied in to the company. Dreamworks Animation seems to be set up more to hire talent on a project-by-project basis, although both will presumably have a permanent staff of visualisers and computer graphic artists who remain pretty much constant.

Outside those two, with their resources and distribution channels, there doesn't seem to be a lot on. The Polar Express was distributed by Warner Bros., and was damnably creepy, but made money as a seasonal IMAX treat. I don't know if we can take a lot of lessons from that. Fox Animation Studies, headed by former Disney men Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, basically washed out - they made one "trad" Disneyish romantic comedy, with a villain, a comedy foil and a starry cast (Anastasia) and then a much underrated but inarguably financially disastrous tweenager sci-fi adventure, Titan A.E, before being shut down (there was a third film, but literally nobody has ever seen it). Besides, they were still using hand-animation, although Titan AE started to employ CG, so it was literally a different age.

There are other production companies, whose films are distributed by other distributors - e.g. Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius or The Ant Bully - but they are characterised by being cheap to make and "off-the-peg" - the reason that they all look the same is that they are generally made with some variation of Lightwave, I believe, as are many television CG cartoons.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:28 / 17.07.07
Oh, and of course Disney's Animation studios - who briefly levered themselves out of creative and financial default (Home on the Range, anyone? Roseanne Barr, anyone? $100 million, anyone) with Chicken Little. Interestingly, Chicken Little was a trial run - an attempt to see whether Disney could make their own CG animated films in-house, since the relationship with Pixar was stormy and the contract expiring... it turns out that they could, but that it earned a buckload less than Pixar films did (although they saw more of it, since Pixar didn't take a cut). I imagine WDAS will limit themselves now to producing intermittent "prestige" trad animated films, with their release times controlled by John Lasseter's schedule.
 
 
This Sunday
16:42 / 17.07.07
Of course, the next major Disney 2D release is set to be The Princess and the Frog, which is undergoing revisions for accusations of classism and racism, aside from (fairly founded) rumors that it's a marketing node around which a story is being slowly cobbled. 'Prestige' might not be the word, I'd think. More 'direct-to-DVD follow ups to older 2D films, with the occasional new theatrical project.'

With Ratatouille, itself, I'm more interested in seeing it for the birdwatching quality, to see if I can pick out friends voice and animation work, than I am the actual story. The Incredibles just didn't do a great deal for me, outside of annoying me with old gags (which, probably seemed new to people with a greater distance from other-things-superhero) and frustrating me with half-homilies. I think Brad Bird's got a good eye for character movement and timing, but in terms of camera-work (even fictional or fake camera-work, as animation oft necessitates - mise en scene and motion) and the actual editing, which he's got to have some hand in, seem very base-level - competent, but not particularly interesting. There are angles and shots that looked very good, circa Family Dog - even the borrowed ones - but, it would be nice(r) to see some advancement as a director and perhaps, new tricks, new ways to frame or pace a familiar scene, or something.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:49 / 17.07.07
'Prestige' might not be the word, I'd think. More 'direct-to-DVD follow ups to older 2D films, with the occasional new theatrical project.'


Oh, of course - and they might also end up with second-tier animators making the to-DVD follow-ups for Pixar properties, if the Pixar bods trust them not to piss on the brand. But yes, their future is primarily "Matt Frewer/David Warner in the role of the Genie/Lion made famous by Robin Williams/Jeremy Irons" stamping on a human face forever.
 
 
HCE
20:40 / 17.07.07
It's part of the reason I find Pixar so fascinating as guys like Lasseter and Bird are proving you can incorporate a strong story and still produce the coin.

I keep wanting for there to be a way to bridge the gap between art and commerce, because I don't think the push for commercial success is going to go away any time soon (if we have a Fassbinder thread, I might try to have a look some other ways that mass media, popular culture, and 'art' films interact, if anybody's interested). It seems that animation might be a great way to sneak art in through the back door, as it were, because the market opportunities are so huge -- the films that are successful are so to an astonishing degree, in part because of the possibilities for merchandising -- I recently saw Ratatouille-themed silicon spatulas for sale at a cookware shop.

Anyway, I have not yet seen Ratatouille, but will try to see it this week.
 
 
grant
23:14 / 17.07.07
I recently saw Ratatouille-themed silicon spatulas for sale at a cookware shop.


I think that's in the 21st chapter of Revelation.....
 
 
wicker woman
03:42 / 18.07.07
Heh. Just noticed Antonin Ego's subtitle of 'The Grim Eater' at the beginning of the film... =D
 
 
Quantum
13:38 / 18.07.07
Ratatouille sounds like Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, but with a rat and eating instead of a seagull and flying. I think I'll check it out. Was it anywhere near as good as Belleville Rendezvouz?

(PS I really liked Titan AE)
 
 
HCE
15:19 / 18.07.07
Is Belleville Rendezvous the one about the bicyclists? I think it was released as Triplets of Belleville in the US.
 
 
gridley
17:19 / 18.07.07
and wondering if the last interesting animated work produced by Disney sans Pixar was in fact Hercules. I might be missing something - Treasure Planet, possibly?

I thought Lilo & Stitch (2002) was pretty damn interesting. And not just because the main character was an intergalactic weapon designed to destroy civilizations in the body of a cute, fluffy pet. It also had complex, well-developed human characters mixed with some of that madcap, no-hold-barred fun that Pixar later perfected.
 
 
grant
17:33 / 18.07.07
And Elvis.
 
 
X-Himy
19:06 / 18.07.07
I have a soft spot for the Emperor's New Groove, another of the last cel animated Disney movies. The plot's not that important, typical stuff, but I found it pretty funny.
 
 
CameronStewart
19:38 / 18.07.07
If you don't want to wait to see Ratatouille you can always pick up Ratatoing, a hilariously low-rent knock-off.

The company also has one called "The Little Cars."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:58 / 19.07.07
It also had complex, well-developed human characters mixed with some of that madcap, no-hold-barred fun that Pixar later perfected.

That's interesting - apparently John Lasseter was not a fan, and subsequently yanked Chris Sanders off another project, presumably either causing or à cause de his departure to Dreamworks.

But yes - foolish of me to forget Lilo and Stitch, which I confess I have not seen. It fits quite neatly into the narrative that ends with Disney/Pixar; it had a lot of time and energy pushed into it, it sought in effect to piggyback the Disney brand history (promo shots featuring the Lion King and the Little Mermaid), and so to avoid being connected instead to the recent critical and commerical failures like Atlantis. What it didn't manage was to turn the ship around, though - Home on the Range, I think, lost more than L&S made, although that's not counting the spin-offs.

There's also an interesting possible connection with Ratatouille - the backgrounds for L&S were constructed using a labour-intensive, archaic technology, which gave it its particular feel. Cameron, would you say that the no-motion-capture did the same thing for Ratatouille? It sounds as if there's an artisanal aspiration there...
 
 
CameronStewart
00:34 / 20.07.07
>>>Cameron, would you say that the no-motion-capture did the same thing for Ratatouille?<<<

It should be pointed out that unlike other studios Pixar has never used motion capture in any of their films, preferring instead to animate "traditionally" (albeit using state of the art technology). The major advance in Ratatouille, as has been mentioned, was developing software that allowed the animators to distort, pull, stretch and squash the CG models, allowing them the freedom and variety of expression that was formerly the advantage of drawing by hand. It's definitely a noticeable change and gives the animation a very classic, old-school feel, despite the "realistic" surface.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:17 / 20.07.07
Ah, righty - I had wondered about that, since I had not previously thought that Pixar did use motion capture. So, whereas Lilo and Stitch used a very old technique (watercolour backgrounds) rather than a labour-saving modern replacement, Ratatouille is using the very latest technology to simulate a feature of traditionally-drawn animation - the deformation of character's bodies.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:15 / 23.07.07
also, for fans of hand-drawn animation, Pixar has vowed to do at least one hand-drawn movie in the next few years. They're proud of their CGI work but they don't want the old-school stuff to die out, since they're lifelong animation fans.

>> The company also has one called "The Little Cars."

I saw this DVD (Little Cars) in a drug store the other day and laughed my ass off!!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:03 / 23.07.07
'Prestige' might not be the word, I'd think. More 'direct-to-DVD follow ups to older 2D films, with the occasional new theatrical project.'

Ha. And it turns out that we are both wrong. Lasseter has taken over Disneytoons, sacked the President - sorry, moved her to Special Projects - and has announced that that's it for the straight-to-DVD sequels. Which is interesting, although apparently spinoffs like Tinkerbell are still allowed.

So, possibly my original "prestige" suggestion was closer to the mark than I thought. Hmmm.
 
 
HCE
22:11 / 29.07.07
Having finally seen this film, I confess I was rather disappointed. It seemed a bit inconsistent, internally, and found many of the characters not particularly appealing, if not outright unappealing. I don't want to get into a lot of spoilery detail, but the story seemed thin and not very tight. I liked Remy's brother quite a bit. I found myself comparing it to Toy Story, which stood out for me in terms of creating a world that made so much sense and seemed so real, and had such a focused, coherent story. I did quite love the way the rats were animated, particularly when they were wet.
 
 
grant
19:41 / 30.07.07
Best thing = wet rats?


Aw, man.
 
 
This Sunday
19:50 / 30.07.07
In my best Depp as Ed Wood: That's not so bad; I've seen reviews where they don't even mention the rats!

And that Lasseter change-up is making me gut-laugh through half a grimace. Especially because Tinkerbell, with all it's could-be-a-Barbie-DVD sensibility and interesting character designs is still a go.
 
 
HCE
23:17 / 30.07.07
Sorry, guys. I really wanted to like it more. I love rats, loved Toy Story, and love food - this should've been right up my alley.
 
 
Blake Head
23:28 / 18.11.07
I don’t know about it being perfect, but I certainly thought it was charming, and the message seemed laudable enough. Isn’t there a line near the end to the effect that while not everyone can be a great chef a great chef can come from any part of society? I think it’s maybe tricky to entirely avoid accusations of elitism when promoting ideas like striving for professional distinction, taking time and savouring and appreciating the beauty and skill in any given field, and living the life one chooses rather than the one which is expected to, because they’re features of certain sections of society, even when in and of themselves they’re positive things. I personally didn’t find it to be a strongly elitist film.

The critic character was rather good, wasn’t he? I thought the resolution of his story was quite touching as well, and scenes like that definitely weight the film more towards the beneficial aspects of “high” art as something potentially elevating but also personal and moving rather than something whose value lies in an objective set of standards that some people are excluded from understanding. I think it’s part of the learning process in the film (as well as for Remy) that not everybody’s cut out to be a gourmet chef, or a discerning food critic, and that’s ok, but it’s important for those that can be and want to be not simply follow the role in society that been provided for them. Ditto Linguini, in a backwards sort of way. And I particularly liked the coming out scene between Remy and his Dad. And as much as some of the more sophisticated material (I think Cameron called it maturity earlier) is handled quite well, there’s plenty of prolonged and hectic action scenes to keep the kids amused, so thumbs up really. Plenty of rewatchability value grant, I reckon.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply