Movie Review: Ratatouille

After the release of Finding Nemo, the general consensus seemed to be that Pixar had made their best movie and it was unlikely that they would top that. And then came Ratatouille. The glowing reviews of this new movie prove that Pixar still have a trick or two up their sleeve.

Ratatouille is the story of an aspiring chef named Remy (Patton Oswalt) who wants to be the best chef in Paris. There is just one problem - Remy is a rat. The movie opens with Remy's refined olfactory sense landing him the job of a poison detector in his father's colony. Exasperated with his family's lack of appreciation of fine food ("If you can sort of muscle your way past the gag reflex, all kinds of food possibilities open up!"), Remy sneaks into the countryside cottage of an old woman and secretly watches a cooking show featuring his inspiration Chef Gusteau (Brad Garnett), whose spirit incidentally, is his guardian angel.

Circumstances then bring him to Paris and fortuitously to Gusteau's restaurant. Unfortunately, Gusteau has passed away and his namesake restaurant is now being run by Skinner (Sir Ian Holm). Along comes bumbling, loopy Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano) who gets a job as a cleaner in the kitchen. One day, when Linguini accidentally makes a mess of a soup, Remy surreptitiously tries to improve it and gets caught. That is the beginning of a secret relationship between Linguini and Remy. He hides in Linguini's toque and controls the latter like a marionette by tugging on his hair. In the meanwhile, Linguini begins dating Colette (Janeane Garofalo), a tough yet charming chef.

It then transpires that Linguini actually is Gusteau's son and after ousting Skinner, he takes over the restaurant. News of the success of the new chef reaches food critic Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole) who previously had written a scathing review of Gusteau's that caused not only the restaurant to lose a star but also its head chef's subsequent death. That day, Remy and Linguini have a falling out and they part ways. The next day, as Ego is waiting for his meal, Linguini admits to his lack of culinary skills as well as to Remy's help at which all the chefs including Colette walk out. Remy comes back to Linguini bringing with him his rat colony and with the help Colette (who also returns), they all prepare a simple stew (inspiration for the title of the film) for Ego whose reaction on tasting it is nothing short of brilliant. Ego insists on meeting the chef and when the restaurant closes for the night, finally meets Remy. His review the following day is as good as they get. Unfortunately, Skinner, miffed at losing his restaurant has set a health inspector on to Gusteau's who upon finding the kitchen swarming with rats closes it down. A secondary consequence is that Ego loses all credibility as a food critic. However, this being a Disney/Pixar movie, it all works out in the end.

Rats are nasty, filthy, foul vermin. We hate them everywhere, but especially in our kitchens. That is why the idea of a rat who wants to be a chef should never have worked. Yet, it does. It is impossible to not fall in love with Remy, to not cheer at his triumphs, to not laugh with him or to not feel sad when he is miserable. The animators have performed a minor miracle. They made Remy look like a real rat and at the same time, made him adorable. Pixar has the tradition of using the best voices regardless of the actor's star power for their characters and that is eminently clear in Ratatouille. Patton Oswalt is perfect for Remy. No one else could possibly be better suited. Linguini as the awkward, slightly slow, yet occasionally sharp-as-a-tack janitor/reluctant chef is another lovable character. His scenes with Remy are either hilarious or wonderfully touching. Lou Romano, who actually works for Pixar, was so good as Linguini in the initial rehearsals that the directors decided to keep him on, which was a very clever decision.

Of the supporting characters, Janeane Garofalo as Colette, the feminist chef and Linguini's love interest is acerbic and very funny. Sir Ian Holm is impeccable as always. He manages to convey Skinner's meanness, greed and ambition through a most realistic French accent. One of the best characters has to be Anton Ego voiced brilliantly by Peter O'Toole. Everything about this character is supposed to spell doom for the restaurant he is critiquing - from his vulpine appearance, to his coffin-shaped office and his typewriter which vaguely resembles a skull, and it does quite effectively. Brad Garnett as Gusteau is excellent and does full justice to the portly and benevolent chef.

Ratatouille works as well as it does because it is visually gorgeous. Paris has never seemed so authentic in an animated film. The panoramic views or the cobble-stone streets are so rich in detail that they almost seem like photographs. The kitchen at Gusteau's looks like one at any restaurant - with all the different chefs, their stations and their pots and utensils. The food also looks like a gastronomical treat. The simmering sauces, the steam wafting up from them, the play of light and shade on the fruits and vegetables makes it all seem incredibly real. The rats as mentioned above are almost life-like. In fact, when one sees the kitchen at Gusteau's filled with rats cooking for Anton Ego, it is quite difficult to suppress a shudder of disgust. The scenes where Remy gets electrocuted or is soaking wet deserve a special mention because that is exactly what I imagine an electrocuted or a soaking rat would look like.

While the entire movie is fantastic, there are a few scenes which are simply brilliant from a story-telling point of view. One of them is the first time Remy tastes some mushroom with cheese and herbs. The screen behind him darkens and there is a cascade of fireworks in the background to show the audience through his synesthetic experience just how much he enjoyed that bite. Another inspired scene is when Anton Ego first tastes the ratatouille that Remy prepares for him.

Disney/Pixar movies always have a lesson in them. Ratatouille is no exception - in fact, it has a few. However, the central theme is as Anton Ego says, "Not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." Remy is testament to that.

In conclusion, Ratatouille is arguably Pixar's best movie to date. Do go watch it. It will be better than any other movie playing in the theaters - I guarantee it.


This article can also be found here.

Harry Potter vs. The Lord of the Rings

When the Harry Potter (HP) and The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) mania was sweeping across the world, I resisted its call for as long as I could. However, a couple of days of mind-numbing ennui on two separate occasions, forced me to pick up the books and/or movies and now, I have finished reading all the HP and LOTR books and watching the movies. To my surprise, I found some striking similarities between the two stories - so striking in fact, that I began to wonder if HP was inspired by LOTR. For instance:

1. Both are stories about underdogs who have been predestined to be the key players in the ultimate battle of good versus evil. Both accept their roles very grudgingly. Neither is physically imposing or exceptionally intelligent, but both have an innate courage and strength to persevere and complete their tasks. (I am going to assume that Harry is able to destroy Voldemort, because really, how else would the series end?)

2. Both are fighting the most powerful forces of evil of their time. Sauron and Voldemort are both omnipotent villains, who if victorious, would plunge the world into decay and darkness. Furthermore, both are disembodied as a result of a previous defeat - Sauron is a giant fiery eye and Voldemort, at least in the first half of the series, is an incorporeal being as well.

3. Both are assisted by the most powerful "good" wizards of their time. Gandalf and Dumbledore both have long hair and beards, large noses and wear pointy hats. They are instrumental in helping Frodo and Harry respectively with their tasks, but even they must leave the final fight to their mentees.

4. Both HP and LOTR have the brilliant concept of the soul or the spirit of the villains being contained in one or more objects. These objects must be destroyed in order to kill the villains. Voldemort's soul is in the seven Horcruxes while Sauron's spirit is in the One Ring of Power.

5. The Ring-wraiths or the Nazgul in LOTR are quite like the Dementors in HP. In addition to similarities in their wardrobes, they both inspire chilling dread and despair amongst those they encounter. Furtheremore, just as a Patronus charm is used to dispel the Dementors, so too does Gandalf project a beam of bright white light to scatter the Nazgul.

6. Giant spiders make appearances in both books. Harry and Ron have to escape from the clutches of Aragog (which sounds awfully like Aragorn) and his family while Shelob tries to make a meal out of Frodo and Sam.

7. Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew) and Grima Wormtongue (the advisor to King Theoden) are both weak creatures who are greatly influenced by their evil leaders (Voldemort and Saruman respectively) and betray the people they are supposed to protect, namely James and Lily Potter in HP and King Theoden in LOTR.

8. Voldemort is supposed to inspire so much fear that magical folk do not even like to speak his name out loud. Instead, they refer to him as He Who Must Not Be Named. In LOTR, instead of calling Sauron by his name, Faramir calls him The Unnamed, The Nameless and most interestingly, He whom we do not name.

9. This point is a minor point, but the name J.K. Rowling is quite similar to J.R.R. Tolkien. Most people would know the names but not what the letters stand for. (I did not myself, and had to look it up.) Incidentally, the initials stand for Joanne Rowling (the K is for her grandmother's name Kathleen) and John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

Admittedly, any fantasy series involving magic must be given a little latitude because great forces of good and evil battling for control over the world, a Merlin-like wizard, characters preserving their souls in a separate object and so on are not exactly uncommon features. It is quite easy for one to seem inspired by another. However, there are some elements in the HP series such as the name used for Voldemort in the magical world (He Who Must Not Be Named) and the Dementors which seem to have been shamelessly pilfered from LOTR. Consequently, this makes the reader feel less charitable towards all the other similarities.

Despite all the similarities, it seemed as though in many ways the HP series is a diluted version of LOTR. Having finished the latter just a few days ago, I am still a little awed by the scope of the book. J.R.R. Tolkien has created one of the most incredible worlds in fiction. He clearly could picture every house, field and crag of Middle Earth in his head - from the bucolic Shire to the gorgeous Rivendell and Lothlorien to the eerily magical Old Forest to the dismal and terrifying terrain of Mordor. No wonder then that he needed over a thousand pages (in an omnibus) to describe the minutiae of all these places and more. On the other hand, J.K. Rowling set her series in contemporary England which made her task not quite as creatively challenging. This by no means detracts from the clever way in which she incorporated her magical world into the real world (for instance, Platform 9 3/4, Diagon Alley etc), but as far as the scale of the books is concerned, LOTR surely wins.

There is a certain amount of disparity between the characters as well. Most of the characters in LOTR are larger than life. For instance, Aragorn is every man's man. He is "faithful in love, and dauntless in war", he is intelligent, resilient and is also a healer. In short, he can do everything. Gandalf, too, is another example. He is so powerful, especially as Gandalf the White, that he actually glows with an inner light. In one of the best scenes of the book, while trying to protect the Fellowship from Wargs (wolf-like creatures, but worse), he mutters an incantation and just like that, a tree bursts into flames and soon, the entire hill is on fire. He is infallible. He is not just powerful, he is power. On the other hand, in HP, the main characters are not perfect. Dumbledore, while very powerful, is not infallible. The readers also get an unnecessarily detailed description of Harry's adolescent angst in the fifth book while Ron adds to the tedium of the sixth book with his Don Juan-esque behavior. Perhaps, the charm of HP characters lies in their very flaws and their "normalcy". These characters are going through trials and tribulations that we all have encountered, though in a different context. This makes it much easier to relate to the teenage Harry in England than it does to a fifty-odd year old hobbit called Frodo in the fictional Middle Earth.

Whether it can be considered a somewhat watered-down version of LOTR or not, Harry Potter is a phenomenon. Since it is one that had encouraged children to turn off the TV and pick up a book, I cheer whole-heartedly for it. I must admit that I too am a huge fan and am eagerly anticipating the last installment in the HP series. J.K. Rowling has already told us that two of the main characters are going to die. Is it going to be Harry? Ron? Or Hermione? Where does Snape fit in all of this? What are the other Horcruxes? And who is R.A.B.? I can't wait to find out.

This article can also be found here.

M.C. Escher

One of my favorite artists of the 20th century is M.C. Escher. Born in the Netherlands, Mr. Escher is particularly adept at playing with perception. The angles that he uses in his works make the most implausible things seem plausible. Many of his works feature tessellations (repeating tiles so that they perfectly fit in a given area) and impossible constructions. Some of my favorites are:

Day and Night
Drawing Hands
Ascending and Descending (notice how the step are continuously ascending)
Reptiles
Hand with Reflecting Sphere
Sky and Water (perfect example of tessellation)
Belvedere (look at the columns carefully)
Waterfall
Snakes (this one isn't one of my favorites, but it reminds me of the one of the doors in the Chamber of Secrets in the second Harry Potter movie. I wonder if this was their inspiration.)

Stay the Course or Cut and Run?

Last week, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed a bill which committed $100 billion to the Iraq war with the provision that troop withdrawal begins in October 2007 and is completed by March 2008. Mr. Bush has already said that he is going to use his presidential veto for this bill.

This is such a tricky issue that I spent the last few days trying to understand where exactly I stand on it. It is clear that thus far, the American occupation of Iraq has been a hopeless failure. After the much touted WMDs did not materialize, spreading democracy in the theocratic and/or autocratic Middle East became the next goal. Even that has not been achieved. Due to the poor performance of the Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul Bremer III, the Iraqi economy is in a shambles, and the current Iraqi government has been unsuccessful in reviving it. The supply of basic amenities like electricity and water is very erratic. Health care facilities are woefully inadequate. The state of educational institutions is shameful. Of course, the problem that dwarfs everything else is security, or the lack thereof. The senseless and relentless carnage that occurs on almost a daily basis has left the American and Iraqi forces reeling. A civil war has erupted between the Shias and Sunnis and they seem quite intent on destroying each other. Most of the recent bombings have targeted one group or the other. The reason the Americans want to pull out is that their presence there does not seem to be making any significant difference. Moreover, many Iraqis want the occupation to end. Both of these make for a very compelling rationale for the Americans to withdraw from Iraq.

On the other hand, the Americans did create this dangerous situation in Iraq. Do they have some kind of a moral obligation (if nothing else) to leave the country safer than they found it or in other words, clean up the mess they made? More importantly, would the violence escalate even further after they left? Is the current Iraqi administration capable of stemming it and eventually forming a peaceful and united nation without the presence of the American military? Will it be able to stabilize the economy to the extent that the Iraqi citizens can live comfortable lives? I know it is difficult to imagine the situation getting worse than it currently is, but it could. The militias could get even more active and there is a possibility, though slight, that a massacre of the minorities, a la Rwanda, might occur. Millions of Iraqis have already fled the country and another mass exodus would be detrimental to the economy.

I fear that the solution to Iraq is going to be a complex and protracted one. Part of that solution would be to prepare the Iraqi forces well before the Americans leave. Another part would be to carefully analyze the consequences of the absence of the American soldiers as much as their presence. Unfortunately, I don't think I have nearly enough knowledge about Iraq and Iraqis in general to make that call. So, whether the troops should withdraw from Iraq - I still cannot make up my mind. On the other hand, the Bush administration and the US Congress are better equipped in that manner, and I hope that for once, they do whatever is in the best interests of the people of the country they needlessly invaded.

Gun control in the US

On April 16, 2007, a student at Virginia Tech shot 32 other students and professors before killing himself. We have yet another wake-up call for America to tighten its gun laws, and it is almost certainly going to be ignored.

The issue of gun control has always been somewhat of a political hot potato in America. When confronted with the issue, gun enthusiasts first invoke the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. They have a right to bear arms, and so help them God, they will. Unfortunately, they seem to have a selective memory regarding the Second Amendment. It actually states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To put it in its proper perspective, this was a provision made by the founding fathers to protect Americans from a British invasion after the American Revolution. Today, obviously, civilians do not form a militia for the defense of the country and the amendment is thus being willfully misinterpreted and bandied about by right-wing, trigger-happy, aspiring Western movie cowboys.

Another argument is that other countries like Canada or Switzerland also allow their citizens to own weapons, but since the rates of gun crimes are substantially lower there than those in the US, the link between stringent gun laws and gun crimes is tenuous. This could very well be true. Maybe the problem has to do with social pressures and expectations. However, this does not change the fact that homicidal-suicidal psychopaths (of whom an inordinate number seems to make headlines in the US) find it ridiculously easy to obtain guns and go on killing sprees. For instance, Texas residents do not need a permit to own a gun, nor do they have to register it (The Economist, 19 April 2007). I also recently visited http://www.armedamerica.org/ which has photographs of civilians brandishing guns they have absolutely no business owning. Do people really need Bushmasters and AK-47s in their homes? Clearly, regardless of whether lax laws are the disease or a symptom, they most certainly need to be toughened.

There has also been a frenzy of damage-control interviews from various members of the pro-gun faction. One idea that literally leaves me bereft of speech is to arm teachers in schools and colleges with guns so that they can effectively stop any rampages by madmen on the campuses. In effect, fight guns with guns. Maybe I'm being completely myopic about the situation here, but should not the general idea be to try to reduce the number of guns on school/college premises? Furthermore, whether the teachers carry their weapons on their person or store them somewhere, it would not be too difficult for a determined and clever student to get his/her hands on them. I really do think that in this case, the risks will always outweigh the benefits and I hope that reason prevails and such idiotic ideas are summarily dismissed.

Unfortunately, no politician wants to touch this issue any more. In general, the Republicans firmly stand behind their right to their guns and the Democrats worry about losing votes in the swing states (like Virginia). Any efforts made by Bill Clinton towards gun control have been undermined by the Bush government. In 2004, due to the heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a 1994 ban on assault weapons was allowed to lapse. Even now, after the Virginia Tech massacre, there seem to be no serious discussions in the government regarding gun control.

The mantra of the members of the NRA is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but to quote the British comedian Eddie Izzard, "I think the guns help." A disproportionately large number of people are killed in the US by gun assisted homicides and suicides. It is past time that the government realized that the lives of its citizens are worth far more than an archaic and anachronistic provision in the Constitution, and actually take some steps to fix it.

Homophonous Phrases

I was directed to an entry on Wikipedia on homophonous phrases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Homophonous_Phrases

One of my favorites has got to be Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In this instance, buffalo can refer to a) the city in NY, b) the animal and c) the verb meaning to bully. So in essence, the statement means those buffaloes from the city of Buffalo that other buffaloes from Buffalo bully, themselves bully other buffaloes from Buffalo.

The one about badgers is also quite amusing.

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone

I just finished reading a book by a Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran called Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. The book details the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion by the Americans and delves into their policies to rebuild the country as a mini-America. One of the first groups of Americans in was the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid, most of whom were grossly unqualified and were given inadequate resources. The ORHA was then reorganized to form the Coalition Provisional Authority and L. Paul Bremer III was appointed the viceroy.

The most striking aspect of the book is that it illustrates just how much the Bush administration valued loyalty over competence. Applicants for CPA positions were often asked questions regarding their party affiliations, opinions on Roe v. Wade and so on. Consequently, important tasks were given to people eminently unsuitable for them. For instance, a 24-year-old with no prior experience in finance was put in charge of reopening the Iraqi Stock Market. His attempts to bring in state-of-the-art equipment and to enforce new laws failed miserably and eventually, the Iraqis reverted to their whiteboards and hand-written notes. The mishandling of the State-owned companies is another example. Some of the CPA staff had come to the conclusion that only a handful of the 48 State-owned companies were viable and that the most efficient use of their small budget would be to allocate it to these companies. Paul McPherson, Bremer's economist, believed otherwise. He decided to use the money in Iraqi banks to pay off private depositors and State-owned companies would start with a clean slate. $60 million was to be distributed among the 48 state companies. Unfortunately, the companies which were doing better and had some money to be used as start up capital lost it all, and companies which were heavily in debt were in the clear.

The book also makes the hubris and delusions prevalent in the Bush administration all too clear. Clearly, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz made no attempt to understand the country they were invading and the people they were "liberating." They thought they would be done in a few weeks at most and would be welcomed by the Iraqis. They failed to keep their promises, and yet after the botched 2005 elections, when Mr. Bremer handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, he called the CPA's time in Iraq a success. Now Iraq lacks a decent supply of electricity and water, adequate health care, acceptable educational institutions, and most importantly security. The country is in the midst of a civil war, there is a mass exodus of Iraqis from the country and despite glaring evidence to the contrary, no admission of error is forthcoming from the administration.

I highly recommend this book. As distressing and disappointing as the information is, it is quite an eye-opener. The breathtaking stupidity of some of Mr. Bremer's beliefs and policies, the prevalent bureaucracy, the self-serving agendas and the incomprehensible inflexibility to adapt to changing circumstances make it crystal clear that Operation Iraqi Freedom was doomed from the very beginning.

PS - In honor of the approaching tax deadline, a little tidbit I picked up on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show is that $8.8 billion of cash (in bricks of paper money) that was sent for reconstruction efforts went missing, and Mr. Bremer, who was still in Iraq then, is unable to account for it. $8.8 billion of your tax money...MISSING...think about that for a while!