By far, the most beautifully animated film ever created just so happens to also be the most entertaining. With stunning art direction that rivals the best of live action and animation that would make legendary Disney animator Milt Kahl weep with pride, Ratatouille is the closest thing to perfection we may ever see.
So why then does the film seem so overly long?
**************SPOLIERS AHEAD!******************
Personal Thoughts
Because of my profession as a character animator I’ve seen more animated films than a person really should. Of all the countless frames I’ve witnessed I have never seen anything as stunningly beautiful as Ratatouille. And while I’ll point out a major story flaw below, please understand that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the artistry on display in this film.
Disney’s Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty, for which this film easily surpasses as greatest animated film of all time, also had issues with their stories. Story is not the be-all end-all of filmmaking, especially when it comes to character animation. Story may be king, but all is forgiven when you are treated to a visual display unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
There were moments in Ratatouille when I became so involved that I forgot I was watching an animated film. Halfway into the film, there is this chase scene through the streets of Paris that is so believably “real” that it transcends the artform. It becomes something neither animated nor live-action. Director Brad Bird, and all the artists involved in the production of this film, have truly created something new - an aspiration that the film so earnestly touches upon.
Without a doubt, this something new will become the touchstone for all future cinema.
It Was Too Long
So what’s this major flaw with the story?
The biggest complaint I’ve heard around town is that Ratatouille seemed too long. Most have pointed to the beginning of the story as the obvious problem area. “It took forever to get started,” they’ll say or “The first act is too long.” I’m not sure if I agree with that because I don’t know how else you would’ve set up the whole premise of a rat with this great talent for cooking. No, I believe the real problem exists where the first story stops and the second story begins.
Story Limit
The Story Limit is one of the more important concepts in the Dramatica theory of story. While it is the easiest to understand, for some reason it is also the most easily overlooked. The basic premise is this: stories are an argument and an argument needs a limit in order for it to have meaning. Now this, of course, presumes that you agree with the contention that stories are an argument; that they seek to provide some kind of meaning. In the case of Ratatouille that argument comes in the form of Gusteau’s belief that “Anyone Can Cook.” This is what the film is trying to say; what it is trying to argue to you, the audience.
But an argument needs a limit. For without it, an argument simply becomes a long-winded series of talking points from various points of view. With no end in sight, the audience has no idea how to appreciate each point that is made. When will they end? Why does this one happen before that one? Are there more points to be made or are we getting closer to the end? These are questions an audience asks as it is watching a film. You need to have a limit set so that an audience understands how to appreciate what is being shown to them. 1
The Story Limit comes in two flavors - a Timelock or an Optionlock. The first is easiest to understand2: there is a set amount of time that, once expended, will bring about the climax of a story. This often comes in the form of a deadline, like 24 or 48 Hours. Once that time is up, the story is up.
The second is an Optionlock and is a bit more difficult to explain. In stories with this kind of limit, the climax is brought about once a set amount of options have passed. These can be thought of as passageways through a maze or a set amount of suspects (like Ten Little Indians). One by one these options disappear until finally the characters are out of options; the climax has to occur.
Again, the purpose of setting the limit in a story is so that the audience knows when the story will end. Without it, they become unsettled and restless. But perhaps more important than setting a limit, is making sure you honor it.
Violating the Trust of an Audience
Ratatouille begins with a Timelock. The story centers on the world famous Gusteau’s restaurant located in the heart of Paris. Gusteau, now deceased, established in his will that 2 years after his passing, if no rightful heir could be found, the restaurant would be passed on to the Head Chef - in this case, Skinner (brilliantly voiced by Ian Holm). The 2 year deadline is the Timelock; once that deadline has passed the restaurant will fall into Skinner’s hands. Several times throughout the first half of the film we are reminded of this Story Limit (what most refer to as “the ticking clock”). This constant reminder builds up an expectation in us: once that limit has been reached, the story has to end.
But before that limit can be reached, Remy discovers Skinner’s nefarious plans and Linguini’s rightful place as Gusteau’s heir3. He steals Skinners documents and brings them to Linguini. Linguini acquires Gusteau’s, thus ending the Objective Story in Success.
The story has ended, but only by violating the Story’s Limit — a crime that has a very unfortunate side effect. When certain strictures are set in place, an expectation is created within an audience member; when they are tossed aside, so too is the audience’s trust in an author. As mentioned before this loss of a trust often reveals itself as a restlessness and a disengagement from the reception of a story. And there is no more obvious place to witness this than in the reactions of a small child.
The Fidget Test
For some reason, children instinctively know when a story is finished, regardless of whether or not they actually understand the words that are being said. If you have young children you know that no matter what it is they are watching, a television show or an animated feature, when that climax occurs they get up and start moving around. Rarely, if ever, do they sit and wait around for the denouement. And this is precisely what my children did when the first story of Ratatouille ended.
Linguini “won” the restaurant and my 2 year olds were down on the ground, ready to leave…but the film wasn’t over. Even my 4 year old daughter became rather fidgety, asking for water and for more food. This doesn’t happen with Cars, or Finding Nemo, or Iron Giant, or Toy Story or The Incredibles; all those films have complete stories that honor their Story Limit.
The Second Story
Thankfully Ratatouille doesn’t waste too much time in setting up the second story - that of impressing the delightfully sardonic food critic, Anton Ego (another brilliant performance by Peter O’ Toole). There is a bit of an overlap between the two stories4, but not enough to where you don’t feel a real lull in the middle of the film. Again, the stunning nature of the visuals are such that much can be forgiven, but this premature ending is cause for some concern. When exactly will this new story end?
Once you realize the trappings of the second story, you begin to understand that now there is an Optionlock in place: There are only a set amount of people who are willing to work with a rat in the kitchen before Remy and Linguini will have to do it all by themselves. The chefs of Gusteau’s leave in disgust and Remy is left with only one last option: that of having his father and the colony of rats help him prepare the meal for Ego.
Because there isn’t much time left, this story is brought to an unusually quick but emotionally fulfilling end (more on this later). Remi’s Main Character Throughline is nicely resolved, as are the throughlines of most all the other characters. Strangely enough, the Antagonist of the first story (Skinner) is not sufficiently brought to an end, and as such, we’re kind of left wondering what happenned to him.
But this could’ve easily been repaired.
The Fix
Solving this kind of story problem is easy: simply end the second story before you end the first. This is how Finding Nemo was able to successfully weave two separate stories together. The “Finding Nemo” main story was the first; the Nemo and Gill “Stuck in an Aquarium” story was the second5 The second story was resolved before the first one; Nemo and the other fish escape from the aquarium and then Marlin finds his son. By taking this approach, the audience is not left wondering what story will come next; they still expect the ending of the first as they wait for the completion of the second.
Ratatouille could’ve easily taken this approach. They could’ve allowed the “Pleasing the Food Critic” story to play out and successfully end first. Then they could’ve resolved the “Passing on of Ownership of Gusteau’s.” The exact particulars of this switch would have to be fine tuned, but here’s one coarse attempt at it.
By honoring the limit, an author maintains the trust of an audience
When Ego requests an audience with the chef, Skinner could reappear victorious stating that it doesn’t matter who served up the dish - time has run out; the restaurant and the name Gusteau are now his. Skinner could perhaps reveal the presence of rats in the kitchen resulting in Collete and Linguini’s banishment from the kitchen. This would all occur shortly after the Second Act turns into the Third. Remy could then reveal what he knows about Linguini’s true heritage and the race would be on to regain Linguini’s place as rightful owner of Gusteau’s.
Again, the suggestion above is rather raw and untested, but the purpose behind it is clear: Hold the audience’s attention throughout both stories. By finishing the second story before the first, an author maintains the dramatic tension necessary to engage an audience. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, by doing this an author maintains the audience’s trust. By honoring the limit of an argument, an author fulfills the original promise made to the audience: that of providing them with meaning.
Ratatouille unfortunately did not take this approach and thus feels like two consecutive stories mashed into one. As it turns out, there might be a good reason for this.
Second Director
The first director on Ratatouille was Jan Pinkava. For whatever reason, Pinkava was replaced with the insanely talented Brad Bird6. From what I’ve been able to gather, only two lines of dialogue exist from the original Pinkava version. With an extremely short production schedule, Bird still was able to create one of the most beautifully animated films of all time. That being said it still suffers from a major hiccup in the structure of the story. How much of this comes as a result of one director taking over for the other is not entirely known but for now, will be accepted as one of the primary catalysts.
Emotional Connection
There is something quite ridiculous about criticizing a film that criticizes critics. Throughout writing my critique above I kept referring back to Ego’s review of the new Gusteau’s and of his less than stellar opinion of critics (which, in my estimation, is simply Brad Bird’s opinion of critics). Why waste time criticizing something when you could be spending it creating something entirely new?
Ego has a point, and one that is not entirely lost on me. Still, I did have problems with the structure of the story; enough that it took me out of the film. This doesn’t happen on films without significant story problems. I was enraptured with The Incredibles as much as I was with The Shawshank Redemption. Those films had complete stories that honored all that they had set up.
It will be interesting then to see if Ratatouille holds up on further viewings (which will come by the truckloads once the DVD arrives in my house7 ). Right now, I’m not so sure. During the film I was even prepared to predict that the answer would be no; that my problems with the story would simply relegate me to burning only my most favorite scenes onto my Greatest Animated Scenes DVD.
But then Ego took that first bite of Remy’s dish.
The sequence that followed was so wonderfully heart-warming, so tender and so emotionally fulfilling that I quickly forgot all about story structure and story theory. Structure is one thing; to feel your heart overflow with elation at a beautifully touching sequence is quite another. I will never forget that feeling I had watching this “new” artform and will be forever indebted to those who created such a remarkable experience.
But I do believe that the problems in the story are still worth looking at. After all, this is a site dedicated to the study of story structure — not film appreciation — and is therefore reason enough for why I felt compelled to criticize. For if this site was instead dedicated to the latter, you’d find nothing but praise and large 1920×1080 High Definition JPEGs adorning every page.
In other words, I loved it.
Footnotes for this article
- I’ve written another article about the importance of Keeping the Story Limit Consistent. In it, I explore in more detail the problems of changing a limit in the “real world.”↩
- Especially amongst male audience members - Timelocks are their favorite!↩
- The fact that Remy discovers this as a result of his deciding to steal from the kitchen is also confusing thematically. Is it a good thing then that he has attempting to steal? Thematically, Remy is kind of all over the place; besides his issues of stealing he is also trying to come terms with whether or not a rat really can cook, or if a rat should even be allowed to. These different themes of exploration also contribute to the feeling of an overly long film. But when it comes to this specific issue of stealing, not knowing exactly how we are to measure his actions becomes a bit problematic in our appreciation of the story.↩
- The introduction of Ego is sort of clunkily forced into the middle of the first story. We’re introduced to this brilliant character (who’s silhouette and office resemble all too closely that of a coffin!) but then are summarily deprived of him for far too long.↩
- The storyforms for these two stories can be found here: Finding Nemo Storyform and Stuck in an Aquarium Storyform.↩
- I believe Brad was 14 or 16 when he began working with the aforementioned legendary Disney animator Milt Kahl - an animator who most regard as the greatest ever.↩
- Refer to the previously mentioned “house full of kids!”↩
8 responses so far ↓
1 Graham // Jul 10, 2007 at 9:57 am
Could you consider the 2 year timelock regarding ownership of the restaurant to be part of a sub-plot, and not the limit of the main story? I didn’t feel any lull or sense of completion before the end of the film. Also, the opening scenes feel like they are more about limited options than limited time (there are only so many ways a rat can try to get food). I don’t remember how early in the film Skinner reveals the will’s 2 year requirement, so maybe it’s sooner than I think. But I think the main story is Remy becoming a chef (or being generally accepted as one), and that story does culminate with the critic’s review. I’d love to hear what you think, and thanks for a great site.
2 James Hull // Jul 10, 2007 at 10:12 am
Remy’s wanting to become a chef is more of what Dramatica refers to as the Main Character Throughline. Remy’s longing to become something the world will not let him is felt most personally by us, the audience. It’s the “I” perspective on a story’s problems that Dramatica calls the Main Character Throughline.
The Objective Story (Dramatica’s fancy yet more accurate name for main story) is the one that all the Objective Characters are concerned with - the “They” perspective. From this vantage points the Objective Characters can be seen as chess pieces working together and against each other in concert with a common goal. Here it is best to think of characters in terms of their role: the rat, the garbage boy, the head chef, the assistant chefs, the food critic, the patrons, the waiters, etc. The reason being that now you are looking at the characters instead of from within them - an objective view.
From this perspective, the first storyline presented to us is that of the transfer of ownership of the restaurant. The problems in this Objective Story are resolved once Linguini is revealed as the heir to the restaurant. The second storyline begins and this one is resolved once the food critic gives the meal his seal of approval.
Again, the lull that I referred to was short lived, but I felt it was enough that it took me out of the picture and made me question where the film was headed.
3 Andrew Dickson // Jul 11, 2007 at 11:22 am
This is an excellent analysis of a movie I really enjoyed. I saw it over the weekend and thought it was easily on par with the Invincibles and in many ways emotionally richer.
I do however agree with Graham that the two-year timelock is not actually essential to the overall story. For me the overall story goal was to restore the reputation of the restaurant and return it to its five star glory. This was damaged first by Ego who Manipulates public opinion in his review and later by Skinner in his mismanagement of the Gasteau legacy (including frozen foods). The fact that Linguini is Gasteau’s son plays into the Manipulations but is really a complication along the road.
The MC story was about Remy and his gift (Situation), and the pressures to choose between the human world (of cooking) and the rat world (of his father and brother).
The IC character is Linguini, because he’s the person through whom the human world expresses its Fixed Attitudes about cooking and rats. And he’s the one who most worried about what others think about him. But the more he tries to reinforce those attitudes through the manipulations in the OS, the worse things get until the whole edifice comes crumbling down. His confession, and the departure of the cooking staff is the key moment. The dynamic of fixed attitudes is reinforced by the character of Linguini’s girlfriend who struggles to overcome fixed attitudes as the only woman in the kitchen.
The MC/IC relationship is all about Activities in the kitchen. Remy is able to cook by physically manipulating Linguini. Up until then the relationship between rats and humans is defined by chases and violence. The uniqueness of their relationship bonds them together for most of the movie, but when Remy helps Linguini with a kiss, it’s clear that they can’t go on like that forever.
So, for me its a failure/good story. They don’t save Gusteau’s restaurant, but Remy in his own way brings harmony to the world of rats and humans, and fulfills Gusteau’s philosophy that anyone can cook. The ending is set-up by that astonishing scene where Ego bites into the “peasant dish” and his transported. After that, the world never looks the same again.
4 James Hull // Jul 11, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Interesting. I didn’t see it that way. I do like the OS Goal of “Restoring the Reputation of Gusteau’s” though and the notion of Failure/Good. But was Gusteau’s reputation in the tank from the beginning?
Ahh, yes, it was. Ego wrote the review it dropped to 4 stars, Gusteau fell into depression and died; it dropped to three. I don’t know how I forgot about that.
Something about that moment where Linguini takes over though still doesn’t sit right with me. Now I’m not so sure why. Where do you see the Limit then?
5 James Hull // Jul 12, 2007 at 7:12 am
I’ve had some more time to think about this.
I still think there are two separate stories at work here. The first is as Andrew described above: Remy as the Main Character, Linguini as the Impact Character, and their Relationship (or Subjective Story) revolving around their problematic Activities in the kitchen.
The second, and the first one we are introduced to, has Remy as the Main Character and his father Django as the Impact Character. Their Relationship is of the classic father/son type where father knows best, yet the son yearns for more. Whether or not their relationship is a conflict of Fixed Attitudes or one of mutual Manipulation would require further investigation. The important point is that their relationship is definitely not one of conflicting Activities; this relationship and the one with Linguini are significantly different.
Therefore, because the two Subjective Stories reside in different Domains their opposing Objective Stories must also reside in separate domains. In other words - two different stories. While I think the “Restoring the Reputation of Gusteau’s” works nicely with the second story, I’m not really quite sure what the first one would be. It still feels to me like it ends when Linguini acquires the restaurant.
Another interesting observation I had, and perhaps another reason why I felt dramatica tension was resolved at that point: If Remy and Linguini’s relationship is one of Activities, their Plot Progression would consist of Understanding, Doing, Learning and Obtaining. It seems to me that these are all covered by the time Linguini is revealed as the natural heir:
Understanding - Linguini discovers Remy getting “fancy with the spices.” They come to a mutual understanding by the side of the river.
Learning - All the wonderfully entertaining moments as they try to coordinate their cooking skills.
Doing - “Let’s do this thing!” Working their magic in the kitchen.
Obtaining - They acheive success - everyone wants their soup. Remy helps Linguini keep his job and then some, when he steals the will.
A full dramatic loop has been progressed through and their relationship really has nowhere else to go - under this context. This could also contribute to my feeling that something “ended” at or around that moment that the will was made public.
6 Andrew Dickson // Jul 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Those are good points and now you’ve got me thinking. I also appreciate the way you fleshed out my version of the relationship storyline with some details I’d forgotten. From that perspective the entire MC/IC throughline seems to be nested in the middle of story - basically the second act (in the old three-act structure) which seems weird. It’s also interesting, because once they achieve that success, the whole thing unravels: they stop doing, they stop learning, and eventually they lose their initial understanding.
On the other hand, since the consequence of failing to meet a goal is always associated with the MC/IC throughline, perhaps having the throughline resolve itself early really just hastens us on to the third act.
I also agree with you that there is still room for a second story. And I’m still not convinced that I’m understanding the Linguini storyline correctly, so maybe there’s three storis? I previously thought of the father/son relationship as part of the MC throughline, but you may be on to something.
One of the things I struggle with in my own stories is understanding how to use secondary characters in the MC, IC, and MC/IC throughlines. I understand how the perspectives work, but how much story can you have in a throughline before it becomes a sub-plot? And what are the limits placed on the MC perspective before you’re really shifted the focus up to the Overall story?
One other thought. I wonder if a completed storyform would reveal that one of the throughlines has an episodic structure (rather than Z or hairpin) which would explain the sense of things stopping and then starting again? (The MC/IC throughline already has a natural break in the middle because it’s a hairpin, I think).
What I’m really getting from this movie is that each of the Dramatica throughlines is so crammed full of character and detail that the throughlines themselves feel like individual stories; storyforms within storyforms.
To answer the question in you’re previous post, I think the story has an option lock related to winning the approval of all the characters in the OS: the restaurant patrons, the critics, the kitchen staff, the rats, and most importantly, the health inspector. Eventually, they run out of options and the restaurant is closed.
7 Chris Huntley // Jul 15, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I saw the movie late last night and really loved it. Here are a couple things that popped out at me.
The story goal seemed to be restoring Gusteau’s reputation with the rat (Remie) acting as complex protagonist. Gusteau’s mantra, “Anyone can cook,” is proven true as illustrated by new restaurant “Le Ratatouille.”
It seemed to me that Remy’s MC throughline was in the Psychology (Manipulation) domain. His main concern is “playing a role:” is he a rat or a cook? Should he walk on all fours or upright? Should he play puppeteer or chef?
Conflict in the OS seems to come from Fixed Attitudes — low brow and high brow. The number of stars is connected to expectations not performance. Ego is biased against the idea of Gusteau. Skinner exploits Gusteau’s image by using it to sell fast food and therefore degrade Gusteau’s image/reputation. The restaurant crowd is snobby contrasted by the super lowbrow attitudes of the rats.
I think there is a “false” limit introduced with the two year anniversary timelock. I say false because the story doesn’t conform to the feel and structure of a timelock. But it is definitely there and chops up the story unnecessarily.
It’s also unfortunate that Skinner is so tightly tied to the timelock. Once it’s up, Skinner is demoted from antagonist to contagonist.
Ego seems to have a substory of his own. We see very little of it except his transformation. It gives a strong emotional moment for the audience but is not imtimately connected to the rest of the story.
Those are just a few of my inital thoughts. All said, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. And IT IS BEAUTIFUL.
8 John Ludwick // Nov 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hello, Mr. Hull. You have a remarkable way of disseminating story.
I’m considering Ratatouille as a top 5 of all time - it has simmered on its little stovetop and served up on DVD, and I still relish its scenes in the same way Anton Ego relishes the ratatouille dish.
I looked at the entire piece as an Optionlock depicting the journey of an artist. Remy is a rat - the antithesis of the kitchen standard. How will he even be able to get in a kitchen to practice his craft? When he does, he can’t do it in the open - enter Luigi. Luigi doesn’t have control, how will they continue? Briefly exit Skinner. Luigi falls for Collette - how can Remy keep Luigi focused for his own dream? I see Ego not as a different story, but as the last in a series of hurdles to Remy’s dream - the man who brought his mentor down.
That’s my take; thank you for your excellent article. I’ll definitely return to this site!
Leave a Comment