Busy Nothings

No Reservations is a formulated, slick, and ultimately entertaining romantic comedy.  It is the second film made from the screenplay Mostly Martha.  The first film was made in Germany and, if I remember correctly, was a good film.  The story revolves around an executive chef named Kate who is ordered to attend therapy by her boss to deal with her lack of interpersonal skills and anger management problem.  Despite (or perhaps because of) these character flaws, Kate is an excellent chef and is lauded by many of her customers and reviewers alike. The story gets going when Kate’s sister and niece come to visit.  Before they arrive, however, they are involved in a car accident and Kate’s sister dies.  This causes two events: Kate takes over the guardianship of her niece, Zoe and she needs to take some time off from the restaurant. 

Kate, as you can probably guess, has a rocky time adjusting to her new ward and Zoe likewise has a hard time adjusting to her new life.  The development of their relationship makes up most of the rest of the film.  Predictably enough, they come to love each other deeply in the end. 

While Kate is absent from the restaurant and without her knowledge, the owner hires a new sous chef named Nick.  He is everything Kate is not-warm, engaging, and pleasant to be around.  Immediately, the staff warms to him and eventually, Kate does as well.  By the end of the movie, they are in love. 

What makes this movie enjoyable are all the technical things it does right.  The kitchen is beautifully realized.  Not only is the food gorgeous but the hustle and bustle in a kitchen is also accurately depicted.  The dialogue as well is spot on.  In fact, it is quite like the soundtrack by Phillip Glass, just enough (minimalism) to express the idea fully.  The acting is adequate if not well-done.  Aaron Eckhart (who is excellent in Thank You For Smoking) plays the sensitive rogue particularly well. 

But the film seems to lack any real suspense.  I know I knew the story going in from seeing Mostly Martha but I would find it hard to believe that anyone had any real doubt that all would turn out well for Kate in the end: she would have a loving relationship with her niece and her beau.  Part of that is the genre of film but more so is the way the film dealt with the crisis situations in the film.  Case in point, in what would seem to be the greatest crisis in the movie-Zoe runs away after she thinks there is no way Kate and Nick will repair their fledgling romance-the film offers almost no time to even become concerned about the situation before it is resolved.  All you get are short scenes at the school, Kate’s apartment, and the street in Nick’s truck.  And that sort of thriftiness is what ultimately makes this film less than perfect.  It is too efficient at what it does.  The film tells the story so directly and cleanly that there’s next to no time to enjoy what’s happening at any one time.  Yet, it still manages to entertain and really, you can’t ask romantic comedies of this sort to do much more. 

Ratatouille is the latest movie in Pixar’s generally outstanding line of computer animated movies.  It tells the story of a rat named Remy whose sole love in life is food.  He starts out in an obscure farmhouse where he falls in love with the cooking of a deceased chef named Gusteau, who had been France’s most celebrated chef.  Eventually, his love of food creates a situation at the farmhouse where his family’s rat colony is discovered and he and his colony are forced to make a mad dash for survival.  (Quick kudos to Pixar for this scene.  They have an uncanny ability to create the wackiest characters.  In this case, a shotgun wielding grandmother who is very trigger happy.)  During the escape, he becomes separated from his colony and finds himself in Paris.  At this point in the movie, Remy is quite good friends with a ghostlike Gusteau who, like a guardian angel, comes in at opportune times to give advice. In Paris, Remy is led by Gusteau to, guess what, Gusteau’s restaurant.  The restaurant is now being run by Skinner, who is only there to cash in on Gusteau’s name.  The restaurant itself has lost two of its five stars and Skinner is more interested in mass-marketing things like Gusteau’s burritos or corn dogs.  Remy, of course, is awed anyway by the workings of a real French kitchen.  By fate, it seems, the very night Remy first visits Gusteau’s, a lanky boy named Linguini comes to ask for a job.  After being hired, he destroys a soup after spilling some of it on the floor.  Remy, being a fine cook, not only saves it but creates a sensation with the guests.  From there, Remy and Linguine form a relationship.  Linguine realizes he needs Remy’s cooking skills to maintain the illusion that he can cook and Remy needs Linguine to fulfill his dream of cooking.   

I’ll leave the rest of the plot a mystery for those of you who have not seen the movie. 

There are many really good things about this film.  It is gorgeously shot and animated-there are many scenes in which the colors and textures on the screen are simply astounding.  The farmhouse is so warm and inviting that one simply wants to spend a summer there.  Much of the food is so colorful and vibrant that I was a little hungry after the movie.  And the characters move with a grace that even eclipses the smoothness of animation in The Incredibles.  The movie also does a fabulous job of giving a fairly accurate satire of a kitchen.  You meet rough and tumble characters with questionable backgrounds.  The stress of a busy night is beautifully shown through the fight the cooks have with each other.  And, in my favorite line from the film, Colette (the only female character in the movie) yells at Remy that “he does not have a second to lose in the kitchen.”  That, by the way, is very true. 

But, as much as I enjoyed the film, I went away a trifle bit disappointed.  Perhaps I expected too much from this movie.  I was expecting to be astounded like I was after many of Pixar’s films (Toy Story 1 and 2, Monsters, Inc., and The Incredibles were all absolutely superb.  I thought less of A Bug’s Life, Cars, and Finding Nemo.)  My (small) gripe with the film is that I wanted it to touch my inner child more than my adult sensibilities.  What I thought my favorite Pixar movies did so well was tap into something elementally childish and turn it into something sublime.  For example, Monsters, Inc. turned every child’s fear of monsters into a story where the monsters are not only real but exhibit human qualities.  In the Toy Story movies, our beloved toys become exactly what we’ve always wanted our toys to be-companions with whom you have a relationship.  The magic of the films was the ability to take a subject that was immediately recognizable to a child and make it into a story that touched adults. 

Ratatouille just doesn’t seem to have that same kind of magic.  In fact, it seems that the formula of Toy Story was turned upside down.  In Ratatouille, it seems that Pixar is attempting to take something essentially adult and make into a story that touches kids.  Hence, this story is one that works better for adults.  It is really a story of pursuing a dream to the point of sacrificing what is important to you.  In this case, Remy gives up his former life as a rat and even much of his rat-like qualities (after learning to cook, he refuses to walk on four legs because that would make his hands dirty).  He, in effect, changes himself in order to achieve his dream.  And that, I think, is a very adult theme.  I wonder what kids do think of this movie.  (I’ll have to consult my nieces and nephews.) 

In the end, Ratatouille defies classification.  When writing this review, I couldn’t think of what genre best described what Pixar created.  I think that it is both its strength and weakness.  Undoubtedly, it has the power to entertain almost anyone (including myself, in case there was any doubt) but because it is an adult’s movie made for kids, it just can’t rise to the level of sublimity.  But, that’s no reason to avoid seeing the film. 

 [This review is a small milestone.  This is my 100th post.  Thanks to Katelyn for inspiring this post.]

I found this list quite interesting.  I knew none of the names on the list but I recognized a good number of the bad movies they had directed. 

(This is my first full-blown movie review so please excuse the poor writing and analysis.)

Mansfield Park (1999, starring Frances O’Connor) is a rather modern take on the Jane Austen novel.  It is the story of a poor girl named Fanny Price who, probably through some begging of her mother, is transplanted to a wealthy relative’s estate.  There she is refined into a gentlewoman (for the most part) and is educated.  However, her inferior connections (due to her rather unfortunate connection with her poor family) make her a second class citizen in her new home.  It is only her cousin Edmund (Johnny Lee Miller) who treats her with respect.  Her other relatives all treat her as some sort of an elevated servant.  For, of course, they all come from “good society” and hence are superior in morals, opinions, elegance, and nobility. 

Nonetheless, Fanny grows up at Mansfield Park and eventually becomes an essential part of the household, even if most of the residents there would not admit to it.  It is when she is around 20 years old (probably about 7 years after arriving at Mansfield Park) that the story really starts going.  It is at that point when the parsonage at Mansfield Park is filled by Mr. Crawford and his sister.  They are all elan and panache.  Everyone, except Fanny, is taken in with their exceptional manners, pleasing countenances, and their raw sensuality (this is the only Austen movie in which there is a definite sexual vibe running through it).  Edmund, by which now Fanny is quite in love with, is taken with Miss Crawford.  Edmund’s two sisters, of whom one is already engaged and becomes married, fall for Mr. Crawford.  At this point, numerous flirtations occur, many of which border on the inappropriate. 

Eventually, Mr. Crawford persuades himself that he is in love with Fanny.  She initially rejects him for two reasons: 1) She is in love with Edmund and 2) She has reservations about his character.  Her rejection upsets the household and eventually she is sent back to live with her poor family.  There she continues to be pursued by Mr. Crawford and at last she accepts.  However, she recalls her assent the next morning.  She then seems destined to live her life out there.  But when the eldest son of the Mansfield Park family falls ill that she is recalled to the estate (it is then that the family realizes her worth to them) and all becomes well.  Mr. Crawford and his sister are found to be quite immoral and Edmund and Fanny agree to marry. 

There are three points I want to make about this film.  First, the filmmaker has done a wonderful job of showing the evil lurking underneath the “fine society: of 19^th century England.  The patriarch of Mansfield Park supports his family through the slave trade.  The scurrilous suitor of Fanny is nothing but a sex-obsessed man who never really got past adolescence.  He eventually is caught fornicating with Edmund’s married sister.   And her love, her cousin Edmund, is blockheaded enough to be entranced by the opportunistic sister of Fanny’s suitor.  All those in the film who are supposed to be of good breeding are morally confused.  This makes them either susceptible to the evil of others or incapable of changing their behavior to conform themselves the moral behavior.  The relationship between Edmund and Mr. Crawford’s sister is indicative.  He is shallow enough to be trapped (for awhile) by the more overt lack of moral fiber of Miss Crawford.  In fact, all of them are trapped in their society, culture, and moral failings.  As one of the characters says in the film, “I cannot get out.”

This brings me to my second point:  Fanny, being the outsider, is able to rise above the mess of life that is Mansfield Park.  She is able to discern the true character of Mr. and Miss Crawford before anyone else.  There is a point in the film where she says, “I can see more clearly in the rain.” 

Which brings me to my third point:  The other reason Fanny can see more clearly is the fact that she is so boringly banal.  In the film, she has not great beauty or great manners.  She is a somewhat talented writer (eventually published) but she is not a mover or shaker in the sense that she makes things happen.  She is a reactive character, not a proactive character.  The most significant action she takes in the whole film is a refusal.  Hence, I think, we see she is good just through her absence of evil.  Or, better yet perhaps, good is not necessarily a proactive action, it is sometimes just enough to refrain from evil. 

One last thing:  I have one literary theory about Fanny’s name.  Jane Austen’s other heroines are named Elizabeth, Elinor, Anne, and Catherine.  All of which are elegant names, shall we say.  Fanny, on the other hand, is quite plain and used in her other novels for less important characters.  So, perhaps Austen used her name as a way of showing her plainness, her lack of action, and her banality.  But those things become interesting and significant when weighed against the actions of her fellow characters.  Perhaps that is why Henry Crawford desired her so greatly.