![ratatouille movie colette ratatouille movie colette](http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Colette-Ratatouille.jpg)
The angle used is the eye level.Ĭamera movements: in this movie the use of a lot of camera movement as pan, tilt and zoom.īackground: The scenes take place in a typical kitchen of a French restaurant, is a dialogue between Linguini and Colette, an everyday scene in which both perform activities of kitchen. In addition to Gusteau's will that was dated to 2004, there's another evidence that shows Ratatouille is set in the present and that's the health inspection officer's form on the wall that is certified in the year 1998 and it's expiration date is in the year 2020.Technical and artistic details of the film.Įntertainment Company: Pixar Animation StudiosĪngles & Shots: This film uses a medium shot and close-up because the movie usually shows the story from the waist up. So Bomb Voyage is in Ratatouille but he should've been more than 80 years old if we assume he was 30 in The Incredibles!Īnother mistake is seen when Skinner and Linguini drink a beverage from 1961. Incredible is reading and that's approximately where the act II of the movie starts.Īct II starts 15 years after the act I. May 16th, 1962 is the date written on the newspaper that Mr. He, with that appearance was in the act I of The Incredibles which was set in 1947. This is Bomb Voyage from The Incredibles (the left-side picture is him in the Ratatouille and the right-side one is him in The Incredibles). I don't know this huge mistake was intentional or not. I think it was a very huge mistake by the movie staff to implement old things in a work that is set in the present. But I do not see any deeper meaning in a film like Ratatouille beyond these points and I don't think detailed comparisons to when and where gadgets appeared and disappeared in our world are helpful here.
![ratatouille movie colette ratatouille movie colette](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7E5bd68-O0k/hqdefault.jpg)
Showing objects prominently could also be seen as an hommage to something. Omitting certain technologies, that would have been there was it our world, can be seen as a form of criticism. The concrete reasons why they prefer certain objects over others can be as simple as aesthetics and emphasis on certain craftsmanship. Why not? On a whole, cinema has always been about escapism from the real world - showing us dream worlds - and they are still fulfilling this role today. The fictional movie world is just different in some points and very similar in other aspects. With this in mind, it's perfectly fine that there's an unusual combination of gadgets as compared to our world. Above all, my main point is that the movie is fictional and just as the portrayal of animals deviates from reality other aspects may deviate too.
![ratatouille movie colette ratatouille movie colette](https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/4995ef1e-d5fe-4acd-902c-46be8a118ef1_1.8787ce9c1656bf81154daed92119563e.jpeg)
Even though you can argue that the animals in the movie actually communicate with their own set of sounds and it's only projected to English for the audience's sake, this doesn't change the fact that in the movie the animals are smarter than in reality and display human qualities. They certainly cannot reflect on their traits of character and most, if not all, animals don't even have an understanding of self-awareness equivalent to humans. They can only express in a very limited way what they like, how the feel, etc. Real animals make noise, they don't communicate at the same level of complexity. Update: Since there are so many comments about that, let me clarify that "talking" is a human action - I intentionally used this word in the above paragraph. This movie world may resemble our own world, but it's clearly not identical, since we don't have talking animals in reality. Let us not forget that we talk about a fictional movie that features animals talking with human voices.