The Stinky Ratatouille Script: One Reader Speaks Out!
December 2, 2008
I’m expecting some dissent under this blog. Everyone loved this movie when it came out. Everyone. It got 96% on rotten tomatoes and nobody said it wasn’t wonderful. And I know I’m a stick in the mud so I held my tongue at the time, but it’s been a while now and I’ve got to denigrate a national treasure and finally speak the words that have been caught in my throat for a year: Best Original Screenplay Nominee? Areyouforreal??
I will give you best animated feature. I will maybe even give you best written animated feature. I will also give you that Patton Oswald and many other voice actors are great. And, of course, I will give you that it looks amazing. But the screenplay? The way it’s written? Is kind of dumb. Isn’t it? Do we have enough distance to admit this? To find out, let your mind take a fantastical trip to the olden days of 2007, when change and the depression hadn’t come to America and we were all still able to cream our jeans over silly stuff like sophisticated animation. Are you there yet? Ok, let’s discuss:
So, I get and understand the part of this movie story where Remy the Foodie Rat is running from people and dodging obstacles in order to avoid their knives and clubs and other instruments of death, necessitating fast-moving visuals that will allow animators to show off.
However, I would like to have the other 7 minutes and 30 seconds of this film explained to me.
What I mean is, other than a rat wanting to cook, which was ably explained by the movie poster, can you who would defend this script (or one of your easygoing friends) explain what this movie is about, i.e. what it’s message or theme is? After the rat dodges lots of obstacles and knives and moves to the city, then becomes a chef (by dodging lots of obstacles and knives) it becomes confusing to me. Because we have a human and a rat, both of whom seem to have personal struggles (in addition to the Rat’s continued, physical struggle of obstacle/knife evasion), and both of whose personal struggles seem to have about 10 competing morals or messages. Here are some of the morals and messages presented at different key moments in the movie, all of which seem like they are central and important at the time, only to be forgotten about moments later:
- Anyone can cook.
- (slightly modified) Anyone can cook so long as they don’t cook TV dinners, which are for jerks and poor people and non-chef rats.
- Anyone can do anything? (except in this movie world only the rat can really cook)
- Don’t steal, even if you’re a rat.
- Rats are people, too?
- It’s ok to steal if you’re stealing for your art.
- People are rat-killers and deserve to be stolen from.
- People are actually ok.
- Prejudice against both rats and people is wrong.
- Don’t hate stuff that isn’t you, whether it’s rats, people, food or France. Except hate frozen food, though. It sucks.
- It’s wrong to kill rats, but it’s ok for rats to cook other animals so long as the result is delicious.
- Be yourself.
- Be yourself if by being yourself you will be a great chef. If being yourself means being a janitor, then you should pretend to be someone else for a while.
- After you’re done lying about being a chef, tell the truth and even though you’ve got zero culinary talent, if you come out as yourself, your chef girlfriend who fell for you in part for your culinary talent will still love you because you’re being your honest self, even though she has no idea what that honest self is since you have been pretending to be someone else who had everything in common with her until now.
- If you want to be a great chef (or any other kind of artist), you may have to devote your life to that and as a result not really be a rat or a person, but some sort of culinary ‘tweener. Food knows no species. Food wants you to be an outcast and live down by the docks.
- Following your dreams is more important than anything. (provided your dream is in the arts. if you like accounting you should probably watch this movie about a rat who can cook a few more times).
- Per the Peter O’Toole character: Not anyone can cook, but great cooks can come from anywhere.
- Rats who claimed to love garbage and family really just want and deserve to eat in restaurants like humans and will learn good taste if given the opportunity.
- Can’t we all just get along?
- France and Paris are whimsical and pretty enough for anything to be possible.
- OMG that meat cleaver is coming right for you! Duck!
That’s what I wrote down during a second viewing of Ratatouille. 
And it’s confusing. I honestly can’t tell which of these is the real central theme or message and which is just something I’m supposed to ignore once it has passed because it was only there to give motivation for that one scene’s fleeing from objects and/or showing off of dazzling, sparkly flatwear. It’s convenient for the film that there is actually a federal law that any movie geared at people under 18 must have “Be Yourself” as its overriding moral, since that’s sprinkled liberally everywhere, conflicting directly with some character arcs and muddying the waters enough that I can’t really point to anything more specific at the heart of the script. And I keep asking you to provide evidence to the contrary because, since I can’t find any, I would like to submit that there is none.
This means that, while the movie is entertaining and cool to look at and I can enjoy it for reasons other than its screenplay, the screenplay itself shouldn’t have been singled out for praise because it didn’t do its job -telling a coherent story- exceptionally well. It did the bare minimum, in fact, and spent most of its pages creating opportunities for animators.
Good job on the shiny, photorealistic kitchen surfaces, though.
“It’s convenient for the film that there is actually a federal law that any movie geared at people under 18 must have ‘Be Yourself’ as its overriding moral…”
Ha!
You’re not the only one! Graphic novelist Kazu Kibuishi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazu_Kibuishi ) said this:
“I actually really disliked this film. While very technically impressive and often very funny, I felt the heart of the story was shallow and self-centered. Listening to others around me praise the film has been turning my stomach into knots, so I’ll just have to get this out of my system.
The core idea of the protagonist’s story: Of putting an artist’s acceptance of his talents in the eyes of strangers (in this case, the critics) before the survival of his family is a despicable notion and goes against everything I believe in as an artist and storyteller. I feel that it is our job to help enrich the lives of all people through our works, no matter how disapproving they may be of our life’s decisions, and not simply pander to the ones we deem to have “finer” tastes. Who cares about what the vocal minority think? Is being critically-acclaimed requisite to creating great art? I firmly believe that the answer is no, especially in the realm of family entertainment, and I imagine that many other artists, including the filmmakers, would agree. So why should we care for characters who believe otherwise and never change their tune? Why should we believe that being a superstar is more important than the act of creation itself? Simply because it fits well in the plot structure? Why was none of this actually explored in the film? To me, the film feels like a selfish act, and not a generous one.
What’s worse is that because the film is so well-executed in all its technical aspects, including the acting, art direction, animation (which was superb), and direction, all of this marvelous work is used in service of such a poorly-conceived message. It made me nauseous and gave me a headache, especially knowing the hard work that went into the making of this film, even by a few of my friends. I really hope the higher-ups at Pixar get it together, because if they continue with this kind of disrespect for the general audience who made them what they are (something that began with Cars), they will quickly follow in the footsteps of the fading Disney magic, where everyone at the studio is so busy slapping each other’s backs to notice that the kids have lost interest in the work they do. I am never sadder than in seeing fallen heroes, but I suppose we just move on to new ones.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Brad Bird (incidentally one of my favorite directors) is a bit like The Iron Giant as a weapon, a machine of a man who has the talent of ten directors, but one who cares little about the viewpoint of the storyteller, working much harder to simply be true to the characters who inhabit his world, however morally ambiguous they may be. As an artist, I applaud him for such attempts at objectivity, but when something is marketed squarely for the family audience, namely my brothers, sisters, and parents, and is clearly trying to state some kind of message, please leave that ego at the door and do what is right for the situation. Some things are best left for different venues to handle. “
This is spot on.
thank god someone wrote this!!! i only just saw it recently and while it had cute moments, i was horrified at the lack of morals and self-involvement shown in it for a kids movie….call me a mom….i am….but i am glad my daughter didn’t see it as a young child.
of course that could lead to a conversation on how many “r ” movies i go to that people bring their kids along with them.
love the blog. when you had posted the cage post, i had to sent it to a friend because i had just seen bangkok dangerous and was more scared by his hair then anything in the film.
I agree with some of this. I totally agree that the movie being nominated for best screenplay was bizarre (but then again, so was the nomination of the screenplay of L’Année dernière à Marienbad, so it’s not like it means anything).
But while I think that you are absolutely correct that there are a million “messages” is this movie, I don’t think that a movie necessarily needs to have one and only one message to make it a good movie. The problem in this case wasn’t just that there were so MANY messages, but that they also beat you over the head with them. This, I believe is also federal law for kids movies (and even broad comedies!! what the heck, why can’t we just go to the movies to have a fun time without being beaten over the head with a moral anymore, for god’s sake??), but the fact that Ratatouille does so basically eliminates the screenplay from being true Oscar material, imo, since one of the basic requirements for the highest forms of art would be (I would hope!!!) some subtlety……
Unfortunately you describe the fundamentals of just about every Hollywood offering, Indies included.
p
“…can you who would defend this script (or one of your easygoing friends) explain what this movie is about, i.e. what it’s message or theme is?”
I haven’t seen this movie since it debuted, so my memory of some of the details is a little fuzzy. But I did respond positively to it, so let me see if I can explain why.
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe the central message as the need to “just be yourself” or “follow your dreams”. It’s more specific than that: the movie is about striving to do something well. The playing field happens to be food, but it could be any other field of endeavor.
The rat is a heroic figure, and becomes successful, because he has the critical combination of ambition/drive/passion and skill/talent/discrimination. Other characters in the story illustrate what happens when one or both of these elements are lacking. The feckless would-be chef dreams of culinary success but lacks actual ability (or more specifically, he is “heedless” in the Buddhist sense). The critic has a fine palate, but lacks the will to do anything but evaluate the work of others. The sell-out frozen food chef has neither aspirations towards quality nor the drive to do anything more than necessary to make a quick buck.
The movie asks: how should we respond to these characters? Is the rat noble just because he happens to be born with the right combination of traits? Is the would-be human chef simply an object of pity or contempt, or is there actual potential underneath his buffoonery?
All of these issues are pointed to by the koan-like catchphrase that “anyone can cook”. Clearly it doesn’t mean that anyone CAN cook. But maybe it means that anyone COULD cook, if only they were to take the proper approach. Or maybe it’s really a question, “Who can cook?”, echoing the rat’s self-doubt. Or perhaps it’s just a catchy book title designed to move product and conveys no actual information. To the rat, “anyone can cook” is both an inspiration (”YOU can cook!”) and a transparently hollow, empty promise, foreshadowing the possibility of failure.
I would summarize the central message as, “If you want to be a truly great chef/engineer/artist/whatever, you have to both DEVELOP your skill through attention and practice and learn to TRUST the instincts you develop.” To a lesser extent, there’s also the message that most of the obstacles you face will have nothing to do with the task at hand.
The climactic sequence involving the critic focuses on the “self-trust” portion of the message. The rat couldn’t care less about pandering to some arbitrary person’s taste; he just wants to make a great meal. The critic represents external validation, since unlike the other rats, he actually knows the difference between good and bad food.
I don’t get the whole cult of Brad Bird. I think he’s a talented guy…but, it’s in ways that don’t really matter all that much (photo-realistic hair! OMG! Wow!) I know people swear by “The Iron Giant” but, to me, that was like somebody watched “ET” and thought it would be better if it were more politically correct, had needless adult characters, and “Keys” was an obnoxious asshole who showed up to bother Elliot halfway through.
i just have one thing to say: Ratapooie.
also, i’ve only read the script. if anyone wants the .pdf, let me know. i’m so fucking hooked up.
NH
ps, wanna cyber?
i really havent thought about the movie in that way you described in this blog, but you got good points…
I enjoyed the movie but I didnt think it was a “WOW, IT’S SO AMAZING” masterpiece or anything. I saw it as an entertaining popcorn flick, you know?
I thought the theme was that we make our own destiny. A rat doesn’t have to eat garbage because he’s born into it and, similarly, a chef might make garbage despite his apparently dormant great-chef DNA… but Danny Kaye is an exception, and apparently destined for slapstick in all incarnations, even as a CGI dishwasher/would-be chef in a Disney flick.
I loved the music. Loved it. Otherwise, the movie seemed very formulaic and predictable.
I don’t think it was so difficult to understand, and after seeing the film a couple of times and having read the script as well, the ideas it projects seem pretty straightforward: Being yourself can be a noble undertaking, but step correct or else deal with the consequences. This script is all about characters “being themselves” and then dealing with the outcome depending on how they approach their circumstances. Much like life — or how many of us wish life would be like more often, especially when we see an evil person get a break without comeuppance — Ratatouille is all about learning how to be yourself without screwing up the lives of everyone around you.
Okay, here it goes. Basically all of the points you bring up relate to about 2 main themes in the movie, here’s how I mapped them out for you:
* Anyone can cook. - “yes, but only the fearless can be great. And a great chef can come from anywhere.”
* (slightly modified) Anyone can cook so long as they don’t cook TV dinners, which are for jerks and poor people and non-chef rats. - Silly, pass.
* Anyone can do anything? (except in this movie world only the rat can really cook) - no. “Anyone can cook but only the fearless can be great, and a great chef can come from anywhere.”
* Don’t steal, even if you’re a rat. - Being an artist is about creation. “A chef creates, a thief takes.”
* Rats are people, too? - “A great chef can come from anywhere.”
* It’s ok to steal if you’re stealing for your art. - No. Remy stole food, and as a consequence he lost his friend. Stealing = bad.
* People are rat-killers and deserve to be stolen from. - See “stealing = bad.”
* People are actually ok. - Yes. Prejudice is wrong.
* Prejudice against both rats and people is wrong. - Prejudice is wrong.
* Don’t hate stuff that isn’t you, whether it’s rats, people, food or France. Except hate frozen food, though. It sucks. - Silly, pass.
* It’s wrong to kill rats, but it’s ok for rats to cook other animals so long as the result is delicious. - Remy’s dad showing him dead rats was about the limitations we put on ourselves. Sometimes it’s not just snotty people saying that we can’t do something, but ourselves saying that too. Remy moved beyond the limitations his dad put on him.
* Be yourself. - Yes.
* Be yourself if by being yourself you will be a great chef. If being yourself means being a janitor, then you should pretend to be someone else for a while. - If you have it in you to pursue excellence in a field, like cooking, go for it with all you’ve got.
* After you’re done lying about being a chef, tell the truth and even though you’ve got zero culinary talent, if you come out as yourself, your chef girlfriend who fell for you in part for your culinary talent will still love you because you’re being your honest self, even though she has no idea what that honest self is since you have been pretending to be someone else who had everything in common with her until now. - It takes a lot of courage to tell the truth, but it’s the right thing to do. Linguini did it even though he knew he might lose his girlfriend. But in the end it worked out (luckily).
* If you want to be a great chef (or any other kind of artist), you may have to devote your life to that and as a result not really be a rat or a person, but some sort of culinary ‘tweener. Food knows no species. Food wants you to be an outcast and live down by the docks. - “A great chef can come from anywhere”, be it a rat or a person.
* Following your dreams is more important than anything. (provided your dream is in the arts. if you like accounting you should probably watch this movie about a rat who can cook a few more times). - Silly, pass.
* Per the Peter O’Toole character: Not anyone can cook, but great cooks can come from anywhere. - Yes.
* Rats who claimed to love garbage and family really just want and deserve to eat in restaurants like humans and will learn good taste if given the opportunity. - Rats are allegory, get it?
* Can’t we all just get along? - I’m guessing not…
* France and Paris are whimsical and pretty enough for anything to be possible. - Yes, and a bit of fun too.
* OMG that meat cleaver is coming right for you! Duck! - Lame.
Oh, and I don’t agree with Kazu Kibuishi. Many artists, composers, inventors, etc. have pushed themselves to the limits to achieve greatness. Brad Bird is saying there’s something noble in that. Sometimes they were selfish when they did it, sometimes they destroyed relationships. I think what Brad was saying was that it doesn’t have to be that way. Remy and his dad worked it out in the end.
In summary, “A great chef can come from anywhere.” Be a true artist, create (don’t steal), and be determined. You’ll meet prejudice from people because you are different, and even those around you might impose limits on you. But stay true to your passions, and true to your friends.
There, that wasn’t that confusing was it? Maybe you should watch the movie again.
This is one of the big problems with “script analysts” — they can’t understand anything that’s fresh and original because it doesn’t conform to their check-lists and beat sheets. Well, that’s why those who can (write), do; those who can’t, teach; and those who can neither write nor teach, blog. But then, I expect the underlying anti-critic message hit a bit too close to home for you.