Finally getting a wider release in the United States, this Japanese anime with subtitles treats animation with adult seriousness and delves in surrealistic dreamscape imagery and reality that uses the animated medium very well. Japanese anime seems to demonstrate that realism in anime like Ratatouille isn't necessary for animation to be successful nor essential for quality animated films. While not reaching the same level of consistency in terms of storytelling (perhaps due to its subject matter and target audience) as Spirited Away, the Japanese concept of animation appears broader than the American focus on children's films, except perhaps movies like Sin City and A Scanner Darkly though each of these attempted to use the realism of animation technique to wow over its audiences as if the director or producer or industry executives were nervous of making these with the more traditional forms of animation techniques.

I don't get it. Ratatouille is NOT a "children's film". Sin City is not an animated film, unless you consider Sky Captain and the World Tomorrow an animated film. Even if you consider those animated films, it doesn't make it so. I'm not sure you should namedrop Ratatouille every chance you get because you don't seem to understand the "context" of that film.

quote:

mark f
Posted 16 July 2007 06:45 PM

I don't get it. Ratatouille is NOT a "children's film". Sin City is not an animated film, unless you consider Sky Captain and the World Tomorrow an animated film. Even if you consider those animated films, it doesn't make it so. I'm not sure you should namedrop Ratatouille every chance you get because you don't seem to understand the "context" of that film.

It's nice to have an opportunity to really get into a discussion at last. It's been somewhat boring lately. Anyway, IMDb has listed this G-RatedRatatouille as an animated, comedy, family movie. As such I would define this movie as a children's movie, particularly rated for those under 13 years of age. I don't know what other universally recognized standard one could use. The context of this movie is mass audience, entertaining film with food as its centerpiece and the odd man out as its protagonist and its target audience is families that includes children and adults.

As for my distinction with Sin City and A Scanner Darkly, I can't say that these movies are untouched live action films either. They have been retouched. As the fusion of animatRataouilleion and live action become indistinguishable, as animation has come to use real actors on green screens that are then computerized and digitized into animated computer forms as well as real animals, also, the distinction you are claiming to make is only one of degree.

The reason, I'm am name-dropping Ratatouille is that I feel have a reasonable claim to compare it to another animated movie that I feel has more claim to emotional and compelling animated interest.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
As for my distinction with Sin City and A Scanner Darkly, I can't say that these movies are untouched live action films either.

I would consider A Scanner Darkly animation, but not Sin City. Technically, the former is rotoscoping, but we always talked about that when discussing animation in my Cinematography classes. However, the latter is a live action film using CG sets. It's no more animation than Star Wars Episode 3 is.

Ah...Anybody have scholarships to film schools in Utah?

OK, 2001: A Space Odyssey is G-rated. Is that a children's film?

Regarding the simplistic Ratatouille, have you considered all the perspectives the film covers? There are the rats and the rat hero, there is the "offspring" of the late, great chef who doesn't know who he really is, there are all the workers in the restaurant, from those who care to the top guy who's a complete sell-out, there is the critic who's seen it all, or has he?, there are the customers of the restaurant, and maybe, more importantly than anything, there is the persona of the city of Paris. I don't see how this film is "too simple".

I will try to watch Paprika ASAP, and I'm not angry or anything, believe it or not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

quote:

mark f Posted 16 July 2007 10:20 PM Hide Post

OK, 2001: A Space Odyssey is G-rated. Is that a children's film?

Regarding the simplistic Ratatouille, have you considered all the perspectives the film covers? There are the rats and the rat hero, there is the "offspring" of the late, great chef who doesn't know who he really is, there are all the workers in the restaurant, from those who care to the top guy who's a complete sell-out, there is the critic who's seen it all, or has he?, there are the customers of the restaurant, and maybe, more importantly than anything, there is the persona of the city of Paris. I don't see how this film is "too simple".

2001: A Space Odyssey subject matter was big apes, outerspace, and a computer with adult-level conversation and plot. Ratatouille subject matter was a cute young rat who became a bigger rat who befriends a novice, naive, and innocent boy who ends up getting a job throwing out the trash (an entry level job) that is based on food (something many kids know a lot about from being in the kitchen) along with a lot of action of a rat trying to avoid being squished (sound familiar from morning cartoon shows?). Still not convinced that this movie isn't a family movie (that includes children).

So this movie involves rats, rats family, human beings that are employees led by a leader, a food critic, and the public...thus supposedly makes for a non-simplistic movie. I would propose that such a description could include the simple juvenile movie feature The Princess Diaries that includes a girl, other school students, teachers, a Queen, loyal subjects somewhere. Just become there is a large collection of groups of humanity doesn't by definition make a movie complex. A noted kid's movie The Breakfast Club could be considered simple by your defintion yet it has been considered a complex look at youth.

I prefer to consider not the actual number and types of people involved in a movie that determines the simplicity or complexity of a movie rather I look at the subject matter, the themes, the depth of emotional maturity of the nature of the script. In this way Ratatouille seems to stay on the level of small rat misunderstood by parent, chasing one's dream, learning the key words of one's dream, overcoming adversity...add action and comedy and live happily everafter.

You still have your built-in prejudices working. Somehow, you believe that "happily ever after" means kid's movie and non-complex. Based on your definition, you'd have to throw out many of the classic films of all time because they don't end in some "realistic disillusionment". For example, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Wizard of Oz, Singin' in the Rain, People Will Talk, My Father's Glory, Modern Times, The General (1927), Safety Last, The Quiet Man, Ben-Hur, and many others I'm leaving off for now. Realism can be happily ever after. It all depends on how skillful you are in blending all the elements into your conclusion. I'm bowing out of these never-ending scenarios. Maybe when the Academy Award nominations are announced, we can come back, although I realize that's never stopped anybody from bitching about their inadequacies.

quote:

mark f "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 16 July 2007 11:26 PM

You still have your built-in prejudices working. Somehow, you believe that "happily ever after" means kid's movie and non-complex. Based on your definition, you'd have to throw out many of the classic films of all time because they don't end in some "realistic disillusionment". For example, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Wizard of Oz, Singin' in the Rain, People Will Talk, My Father's Glory, Modern Times, The General (1927), Safety Last, The Quiet Man, Ben-Hur, and many others I'm leaving off for now. Realism can be happily ever after. It all depends on how skillful you are in blending all the elements into your conclusion. I'm bowing out of these never-ending scenarios. Maybe when the Academy Award nominations are announced, we can come back, although I realize that's never stopped anybody from bitching about their inadequacies.

In my limited experience of films, I've only seen the first two movies and based on my way of experiencing films, I can say that Stars Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark did not make my favorite movies list, partly because of the notion of simplicity - a lot of special effects and action but light on substance - mostly soap opera westerns. I enjoyed both movies, but in terms of meaningful movies I discount them. In contrast to Star Wars (1977), I prefer Alien (1979). Even Andomeda Strain (1971) ranks higher on my list.

As for Raiders of the Lost Ark, an action-adventure film, I've really had to start thinking about how curious it is that none of the representative action-adventure films identified by the American Film Institute made my favorites list. I don't know exactly what significance it has. Now what built-in prejudices do I have working on this one? Help!

Entertainment, my friend! It's not a dirty word. It's saved thousands of people from killing themselves! Entertainment is not to be poo-pooed in my opinion. Not in the least! I believe "entertaining" movies leave far more lasting "artistic" impressions on people than "art" movies do.

Simply because a film is accessible to younger audiences doesn't mean you should discount its ability to deliver a complex message. The message of The Incredibles is just as subversive as those of any Satoshi Kon movie I've seen. Ratatouille serves nicely as a complement to the message of The Incredibles, its action is superbly directed, its humor is often subtle or sharp -- just as one would expect from Brad Bird.

I hope to see Paprika this weekend.

I think the two of you are arguing two different things. I'm guessing theres some history here; that tabuno doesnt like Ratatouille and mark does? Well I haven't seen Ratatouille, but to me I agree with the original point tabuno made here that there is alot of japanese animation directed to adults and none in the US that is. Referring to the incredibles, a movie i've seen, you can talk all you want about how it subversive it is but at its heart it is a movie aimed at kids. Just because there are a few bones thrown to adults that they will "get" and their kids won't doesnt make it a movie directed for adults. This has no relation to how good or bad a movie is. Just because its a kid's movie does not mean adults shouldnt enjoy it or its not actually art/good/mature entertainment. The reverse is also true. Just because adults enjoy a kids movie does not make it necessarily an adult film.

As to what types of movies are better, its all a matter of perspective. I feel that a greater majority of people can agree on the excellence of a good action-adventure film or a movie that is pure entertainment (and maybe not meaningful as tabuno might suggest) done well. Whether it registers more...that is a matter of debate. Now there are many bad art films just as there are many bad entertainment films. But a good "art" movie, a good movie that does something completely different or might even be difficult to watch, can in the end be much more satisfying than pure entertainment. And once you have a few of these experiences in movies, which I think differ from person to person cause in such cases these types of movies connect on a more personal level, the pure entertainment, even when done excellently, is in the end not as gratifying. Still what movies you relate too, which movies invoke a reaction, its all relative. I didnt care for the notebook, while almost crying at the end of Children of Men, whom the girl i saw with was like wtf is this shit?

Now I know that the people on this website would not consider children of men an "art" movie... but it isn't the conventional action movie either..holla

quote:

Originally posted by Robot Tussin:
Just because there are a few bones thrown to adults that they will "get" and their kids won't doesnt make it a movie directed for adults. This has no relation to how good or bad a movie is. Just because its a kid's movie does not mean adults shouldnt enjoy it or its not actually art/good/mature entertainment. The reverse is also true. Just because adults enjoy a kids movie does not make it necessarily an adult film.

Ratatouille and The Incredibles are not kids' movies with a few pieces of sexual or sophisticated humor that flies above the heads of its child audience to appease the parents who've been inevitably dragged there (see: Shrek). I think it'd be more appropriate to compare them to a movie like Close Encounters or Raiders of the Lost Ark that is accessible to all ages, but knowledge of the technique or understanding of the themes deepens one's appreciation as one ages. One thing to you at age seven, something entirely different fifteen years later, but not for the poorer.

By the byy, I saw Paprika. My favorite of Kon's so far. A cogent culmination of his themes thus far, with spectacular visuals. Probably my favorite film this year.