document_title: Wave–particle duality

question_text: who discovered that light was a particle and how

text: Wave–particle duality

text: Brief history of wave and particle viewpoints[edit]

text: Democritus—the original atomist—argued that all things in the universe, including light, are composed of indivisible sub-components (light being some form of solar atom).[8] At the beginning of the 11th Century, the Arabic scientist Alhazen wrote the first comprehensive treatise on optics; describing refraction, reflection, and the operation of a pinhole lens via rays of light traveling from the point of emission to the eye. He asserted that these rays were composed of particles of light. In 1630, René Descartes popularized and accredited the opposing wave description in his treatise on light, showing that the behavior of light could be re-created by modeling wave-like disturbances in a universal medium ("plenum"). Beginning in 1670 and progressing over three decades, Isaac Newton developed and championed his corpuscular hypothesis, arguing that the perfectly straight lines of reflection demonstrated light's particle nature; only particles could travel in such straight lines. He explained refraction by positing that particles of light accelerated laterally upon entering a denser medium. Around the same time, Newton's contemporaries Robert Hooke and Christiaan Huygens—and later Augustin-Jean Fresnel—mathematically refined the wave viewpoint, showing that if light traveled at different speeds in different media (such as water and air), refraction could be easily explained as the medium-dependent propagation of light waves. The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and was subsequently supported by Thomas Young's 1801 discovery of double-slit interference.[9][10] The wave view did not immediately displace the ray and particle view, but began to dominate scientific thinking about light in the mid 19th century, since it could explain polarization phenomena that the alternatives could not.[11]

text: James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could apply his equations for electromagnetism, which had been previously discovered, along with a slight modification to describe self-propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light (phenomena thought previously to be unrelated) were all electromagnetic waves of differing frequency. The wave theory had prevailed—or at least it seemed to.

text: While the 19th century had seen the success of the wave theory at describing light, it had also witnessed the rise of the atomic theory at describing matter. Antoine Lavoisier deduced the law of conservation of mass and categorized many new chemical elements and compounds; and Joseph Louis Proust advanced chemistry towards the atom by showing that elements combined in definite proportions. This led John Dalton to propose that elements were invisible sub components; Amedeo Avogadro discovered diatomic gases and completed the basic atomic theory, allowing the correct molecular formulae of most known compounds—as well as the correct weights of atoms—to be deduced and categorized in a consistent manner. Dimitri Mendeleev saw an order in recurring chemical properties, and created a table presenting the elements in unprecedented order and symmetry.

text: Turn of the 20th century and the paradigm shift[edit]

text: Particles of electricity[edit]

text: At the close of the 19th century, the reductionism of atomic theory began to advance into the atom itself; determining, through physics, the nature of the atom and the operation of chemical reactions. Electricity, first thought to be a fluid, was now understood to consist of particles called electrons. This was first demonstrated by J. J. Thomson in 1897 when, using a cathode ray tube, he found that an electrical charge would travel across a vacuum (which would possess infinite resistance in classical theory). Since the vacuum offered no medium for an electric fluid to travel, this discovery could only be explained via a particle carrying a negative charge and moving through the vacuum. This electron flew in the face of classical electrodynamics, which had successfully treated electricity as a fluid for many years (leading to the invention of batteries, electric motors, dynamos, and arc lamps). More importantly, the intimate relation between electric charge and electromagnetism had been well documented following the discoveries of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. Since electromagnetism was known to be a wave generated by a changing electric or magnetic field (a continuous, wave-like entity itself) an atomic/particle description of electricity and charge was a non sequitur. Furthermore, classical electrodynamics was not the only classical theory rendered incomplete.

text: Radiation quantization[edit]

text: In 1901, Max Planck published an analysis that succeeded in reproducing the observed spectrum of light emitted by a glowing object. To accomplish this, Planck had to make an ad hoc mathematical assumption of quantized energy of the oscillators (atoms of the black body) that emit radiation. Einstein later proposed that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, not the energy of radiating atoms.

text: Black-body radiation, the emission of electromagnetic energy due to an object's heat, could not be explained from classical arguments alone. The equipartition theorem of classical mechanics, the basis of all classical thermodynamic theories, stated that an object's energy is partitioned equally among the object's vibrational modes. But applying the same reasoning to the electromagnetic emission of such a thermal object was not so successful. That thermal objects emit light had been long known. Since light was known to be waves of electromagnetism, physicists hoped to describe this emission via classical laws. This became known as the black body problem. Since the equipartition theorem worked so well in describing the vibrational modes of the thermal object itself, it was natural to assume that it would perform equally well in describing the radiative emission of such objects. But a problem quickly arose: if each mode received an equal partition of energy, the short wavelength modes would consume all the energy. This became clear when plotting the Rayleigh–Jeans law which, while correctly predicting the intensity of long wavelength emissions, predicted infinite total energy as the intensity diverges to infinity for short wavelengths. This became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe.

text: In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that the frequency of light emitted by the black body depended on the frequency of the oscillator that emitted it, and the energy of these oscillators increased linearly with frequency (according to his constant h, where E = hν). This was not an unsound proposal considering that macroscopic oscillators operate similarly: when studying five simple harmonic oscillators of equal amplitude but different frequency, the oscillator with the highest frequency possesses the highest energy (though this relationship is not linear like Planck's). By demanding that high-frequency light must be emitted by an oscillator of equal frequency, and further requiring that this oscillator occupy higher energy than one of a lesser frequency, Planck avoided any catastrophe; giving an equal partition to high-frequency oscillators produced successively fewer oscillators and less emitted light. And as in the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, the low-frequency, low-energy oscillators were suppressed by the onslaught of thermal jiggling from higher energy oscillators, which necessarily increased their energy and frequency.

text: The most revolutionary aspect of Planck's treatment of the black body is that it inherently relies on an integer number of oscillators in thermal equilibrium with the electromagnetic field. These oscillators give their entire energy to the electromagnetic field, creating a quantum of light, as often as they are excited by the electromagnetic field, absorbing a quantum of light and beginning to oscillate at the corresponding frequency. Planck had intentionally created an atomic theory of the black body, but had unintentionally generated an atomic theory of light, where the black body never generates quanta of light at a given frequency with an energy less than hν. However, once realizing that he had quantized the electromagnetic field, he denounced particles of light as a limitation of his approximation, not a property of reality.

text: Photoelectric effect illuminated[edit]

text: While Planck had solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by using atoms and a quantized electromagnetic field, most contemporary physicists agreed that Planck's "light quanta" represented only flaws in his model. A more-complete derivation of black body radiation would yield a fully continuous and 'wave-like' electromagnetic field with no quantization. However, in 1905 Albert Einstein took Planck's black body model to produce his solution to another outstanding problem of the day: the photoelectric effect, wherein electrons are emitted from atoms when they absorb energy from light. Since their existence was theorized eight years previously, phenomenon had been studied with the electron model in mind in physics laboratories worldwide.

text: In 1902 Philipp Lenard discovered that the energy of these ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but instead on its frequency. So if one shines a little low-frequency light upon a metal, a few low energy electrons are ejected. If one now shines a very intense beam of low-frequency light upon the same metal, a whole slew of electrons are ejected; however they possess the same low energy, there are merely more of them. The more light there is, the more electrons are ejected. Whereas in order to get high energy electrons, one must illuminate the metal with high-frequency light. Like blackbody radiation, this was at odds with a theory invoking continuous transfer of energy between radiation and matter. However, it can still be explained using a fully classical description of light, as long as matter is quantum mechanical in nature.[12]

text: If one used Planck's energy quanta, and demanded that electromagnetic radiation at a given frequency could only transfer energy to matter in integer multiples of an energy quantum hν, then the photoelectric effect could be explained very simply. Low-frequency light only ejects low-energy electrons because each electron is excited by the absorption of a single photon. Increasing the intensity of the low-frequency light (increasing the number of photons) only increases the number of excited electrons, not their energy, because the energy of each photon remains low. Only by increasing the frequency of the light, and thus increasing the energy of the photons, can one eject electrons with higher energy. Thus, using Planck's constant h to determine the energy of the photons based upon their frequency, the energy of ejected electrons should also increase linearly with frequency; the gradient of the line being Planck's constant. These results were not confirmed until 1915, when Robert Andrews Millikan, who had previously determined the charge of the electron, produced experimental results in perfect accord with Einstein's predictions. While the energy of ejected electrons reflected Planck's constant, the existence of photons was not explicitly proven until the discovery of the photon antibunching effect, of which a modern experiment can be performed in undergraduate-level labs.[13] This phenomenon could only be explained via photons, and not through any semi-classical theory (which could alternatively explain the photoelectric effect). When Einstein received his Nobel Prize in 1921, it was not for his more difficult and mathematically laborious special and general relativity, but for the simple, yet totally revolutionary, suggestion of quantized light. Einstein's "light quanta" would not be called photons until 1925, but even in 1905 they represented the quintessential example of wave-particle duality. Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.

text: Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect[edit]

text: In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation of the photoelectric effect, a hitherto troubling experiment that the wave theory of light seemed incapable of explaining. He did so by postulating the existence of photons, quanta of light energy with particulate qualities.

text: In the photoelectric effect, it was observed that shining a light on certain metals would lead to an electric current in a circuit. Presumably, the light was knocking electrons out of the metal, causing current to flow. However, using the case of potassium as an example, it was also observed that while a dim blue light was enough to cause a current, even the strongest, brightest red light available with the technology of the time caused no current at all. According to the classical theory of light and matter, the strength or amplitude of a light wave was in proportion to its brightness: a bright light should have been easily strong enough to create a large current. Yet, oddly, this was not so.

text: Einstein explained this enigma by postulating that the electrons can receive energy from electromagnetic field only in discrete portions (quanta that were called photons): an amount of energy E that was related to the frequency f of the light by

text: where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10−34 J seconds). Only photons of a high enough frequency (above a certain threshold value) could knock an electron free. For example, photons of blue light had sufficient energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did not. One photon of light above the threshold frequency could release only one electron; the higher the frequency of a photon, the higher the kinetic energy of the emitted electron, but no amount of light (using technology available at the time) below the threshold frequency could release an electron. To "violate" this law would require extremely high-intensity lasers which had not yet been invented. Intensity-dependent phenomena have now been studied in detail with such lasers.[14]

text: Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.

text: De Broglie's wavelength[edit]

text: In 1924, Louis-Victor de Broglie formulated the de Broglie hypothesis, claiming that all matter,[15][16] not just light, has a wave-like nature; he related wavelength (denoted as λ), and momentum (denoted as p):

text:
This is a generalization of Einstein's equation above, since the momentum of a photon is given by p =

E
c

{\displaystyle {\tfrac {E}{c}}}

 and the wavelength (in a vacuum) by λ =

c
f

{\displaystyle {\tfrac {c}{f}}}

, where c is the speed of light in vacuum.

text: De Broglie's formula was confirmed three years later for electrons (which differ from photons in having a rest mass) with the observation of electron diffraction in two independent experiments. At the University of Aberdeen, George Paget Thomson passed a beam of electrons through a thin metal film and observed the predicted interference patterns. At Bell Labs, Clinton Joseph Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer guided their beam through a crystalline grid.

text: De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929 for his hypothesis. Thomson and Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1937 for their experimental work.

text: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle[edit]

text: In his work on formulating quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg postulated his uncertainty principle, which states:

text: where

text: Heisenberg originally explained this as a consequence of the process of measuring: Measuring position accurately would disturb momentum and vice versa, offering an example (the "gamma-ray microscope") that depended crucially on the de Broglie hypothesis. The thought is now, however, that this only partly explains the phenomenon, but that the uncertainty also exists in the particle itself, even before the measurement is made.

text: In fact, the modern explanation of the uncertainty principle, extending the Copenhagen interpretation first put forward by Bohr and Heisenberg, depends even more centrally on the wave nature of a particle: Just as it is nonsensical to discuss the precise location of a wave on a string, particles do not have perfectly precise positions; likewise, just as it is nonsensical to discuss the wavelength of a "pulse" wave traveling down a string, particles do not have perfectly precise momenta (which corresponds to the inverse of wavelength). Moreover, when position is relatively well defined, the wave is pulse-like and has a very ill-defined wavelength (and thus momentum). And conversely, when momentum (and thus wavelength) is relatively well defined, the wave looks long and sinusoidal, and therefore it has a very ill-defined position.

text: de Broglie–Bohm theory[edit]

text: De Broglie himself had proposed a pilot wave construct to explain the observed wave-particle duality. In this view, each particle has a well-defined position and momentum, but is guided by a wave function derived from Schrödinger's equation. The pilot wave theory was initially rejected because it generated non-local effects when applied to systems involving more than one particle. Non-locality, however, soon became established as an integral feature of quantum theory (see EPR paradox), and David Bohm extended de Broglie's model to explicitly include it.

text: In the resulting representation, also called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics,[18] the wave-particle duality vanishes, and explains the wave behaviour as a scattering with wave appearance, because the particle's motion is subject to a guiding equation or quantum potential. "This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored",[19] J.S.Bell.

text: The best illustration of the pilot-wave model was given by Couder's 2010 "walking droplets" experiments,[20] demonstrating the pilot-wave behaviour in a macroscopic mechanical analog.[17]

text: Wave behavior of large objects[edit]

text: Since the demonstrations of wave-like properties in photons and electrons, similar experiments have been conducted with neutrons and protons. Among the most famous experiments are those of Estermann and Otto Stern in 1929.[21] Authors of similar recent experiments with atoms and molecules, described below, claim that these larger particles also act like waves.

text: A dramatic series of experiments emphasizing the action of gravity in relation to wave–particle duality was conducted in the 1970s using the neutron interferometer.[22] Neutrons, one of the components of the atomic nucleus, provide much of the mass of a nucleus and thus of ordinary matter. In the neutron interferometer, they act as quantum-mechanical waves directly subject to the force of gravity. While the results were not surprising since gravity was known to act on everything, including light (see tests of general relativity and the Pound–Rebka falling photon experiment), the self-interference of the quantum mechanical wave of a massive fermion in a gravitational field had never been experimentally confirmed before.

text: In 1999, the diffraction of C60 fullerenes by researchers from the University of Vienna was reported.[23] Fullerenes are comparatively large and massive objects, having an atomic mass of about 720 u. The de Broglie wavelength of the incident beam was about 2.5 pm, whereas the diameter of the molecule is about 1 nm, about 400 times larger. In 2012, these far-field diffraction experiments could be extended to phthalocyanine molecules and their heavier derivatives, which are composed of 58 and 114 atoms respectively. In these experiments the build-up of such interference patterns could be recorded in real time and with single molecule sensitivity.[24][25]

text: In 2003, the Vienna group also demonstrated the wave nature of tetraphenylporphyrin[26]—a flat biodye with an extension of about 2 nm and a mass of 614 u. For this demonstration they employed a near-field Talbot Lau interferometer.[27][28] In the same interferometer they also found interference fringes for C60F48., a fluorinated buckyball with a mass of about 1600 u, composed of 108 atoms.[26] Large molecules are already so complex that they give experimental access to some aspects of the quantum-classical interface, i.e., to certain decoherence mechanisms.[29][30] In 2011, the interference of molecules as heavy as 6910 u could be demonstrated in a Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau interferometer.[31] In 2013, the interference of molecules beyond 10,000 u has been demonstrated.[32]

text: Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie wavelength is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable; above the Planck mass a particle's Compton wavelength would be smaller than the Planck length and its own Schwarzschild radius, a scale at which current theories of physics may break down or need to be replaced by more general ones.[33]

text: Recently Couder, Fort, et al. showed[34] that we can use macroscopic oil droplets on a vibrating surface as a model of wave–particle duality—localized droplet creates periodical waves around and interaction with them leads to quantum-like phenomena: interference in double-slit experiment,[35] unpredictable tunneling[36] (depending in complicated way on practically hidden state of field), orbit quantization[37] (that particle has to 'find a resonance' with field perturbations it creates—after one orbit, its internal phase has to return to the initial state) and Zeeman effect.[38]

text: Treatment in modern quantum mechanics[edit]

text: Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex-valued function roughly analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This function evolves according to a differential equation (generically called the Schrödinger equation). For particles with mass this equation has solutions that follow the form of the wave equation. Propagation of such waves leads to wave-like phenomena such as interference and diffraction. Particles without mass, like photons, have no solutions of the Schrödinger equation so have another wave.

text: The particle-like behavior is most evident due to phenomena associated with measurement in quantum mechanics. Upon measuring the location of the particle, the particle will be forced into a more localized state as given by the uncertainty principle. When viewed through this formalism, the measurement of the wave function will randomly "collapse", or rather "decohere", to a sharply peaked function at some location. For particles with mass the likelihood of detecting the particle at any particular location is equal to the squared amplitude of the wave function there. The measurement will return a well-defined position, (subject to uncertainty), a property traditionally associated with particles. It is important to note that a measurement is only a particular type of interaction where some data is recorded and the measured quantity is forced into a particular eigenstate. The act of measurement is therefore not fundamentally different from any other interaction.

text: Following the development of quantum field theory the ambiguity disappeared. The field permits solutions that follow the wave equation, which are referred to as the wave functions. The term particle is used to label the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group that are permitted by the field. An interaction as in a Feynman diagram is accepted as a calculationally convenient approximation where the outgoing legs are known to be simplifications of the propagation and the internal lines are for some order in an expansion of the field interaction. Since the field is non-local and quantized, the phenomena which previously were thought of as paradoxes are explained. Within the limits of the wave-particle duality the quantum field theory gives the same results.

text: Visualization[edit]

text: There are two ways to visualize the wave-particle behaviour: by the "standard model", described below; and by the Broglie–Bohm model, where no duality is perceived.

text: Below is an illustration of wave–particle duality as it relates to De Broglie's hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (above), in terms of the position and momentum space wavefunctions for one spinless particle with mass in one dimension. These wavefunctions are Fourier transforms of each other.

text: The more localized the position-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be found with the position coordinates in that region, and correspondingly the momentum-space wavefunction is less localized so the possible momentum components the particle could have are more widespread.

text: Conversely the more localized the momentum-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be found with those values of momentum components in that region, and correspondingly the less localized the position-space wavefunction, so the position coordinates the particle could occupy are more widespread.

text: Alternative views[edit]

text: Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy. Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by mainstream physics, but serve as a basis for valuable discussion within the community.

text: Both-particle-and-wave view[edit]

text: The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather a system exhibits both particle properties and wave properties simultaneously, and particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by the pilot wave (or its "quantum potential") which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in preference to areas of destructive interference. This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics community.[39]

text: At least one physicist considers the "wave-duality" as not being an incomprehensible mystery. L.E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development, p. 4, explains:

text: When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are "particles" really "waves?" In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to observe them. That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura et al., 1989). Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect.

text: The Afshar experiment[40] (2007) may suggest that it is possible to simultaneously observe both wave and particle properties of photons. This claim is, however, disputed by other scientists.[41][42][43][44]

text: Wave-only view[edit]

text: Carver Mead, an American scientist and professor at Caltech, proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. In his book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000), Mead purports to analyze the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:[45]

text: Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

text: Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote:[46]

text: This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles) ... has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation ... appears to me as only a temporary way out...

text: The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is sometimes presented as a waves-only theory, including by its originator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI as "the wave interpretation".[47]

text: The three wave hypothesis of R. Horodecki relates the particle to wave.[48][49] The hypothesis implies that a massive particle is an intrinsically spatially, as well as temporally extended, wave phenomenon by a nonlinear law.

text: Particle-only view[edit]

text: Still in the days of the old quantum theory, a pre-quantum-mechanical version of wave–particle duality was pioneered by William Duane,[50] and developed by others including Alfred Landé.[51] Duane explained diffraction of x-rays by a crystal in terms solely of their particle aspect. The deflection of the trajectory of each diffracted photon was explained as due to quantized momentum transfer from the spatially regular structure of the diffracting crystal.[52]

text: Neither-wave-nor-particle view[edit]

text: It has been argued that there are never exact particles or waves, but only some compromise or intermediate between them. For this reason, in 1928 Arthur Eddington[53] coined the name "wavicle" to describe the objects although it is not regularly used today. One consideration is that zero-dimensional mathematical points cannot be observed. Another is that the formal representation of such points, the Dirac delta function is unphysical, because it cannot be normalized. Parallel arguments apply to pure wave states. Roger Penrose states:[54]

text: "Such 'position states' are idealized wavefunctions in the opposite sense from the momentum states. Whereas the momentum states are infinitely spread out, the position states are infinitely concentrated. Neither is normalizable [...]."

text: Relational approach to wave–particle duality[edit]

text: Relational quantum mechanics has been developed as a point of view that regards the event of particle detection as having established a relationship between the quantized field and the detector. The inherent ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is consequently avoided; hence there is no wave-particle duality.[55]

text: Applications[edit]

text: Although it is difficult to draw a line separating wave–particle duality from the rest of quantum mechanics, it is nevertheless possible to list some applications of this basic idea.

text:
Wave–particle duality is exploited in electron microscopy, where the small wavelengths associated with the electron can be used to view objects much smaller than what is visible using visible light.
Similarly, neutron diffraction uses neutrons with a wavelength of about 0.1 nm, the typical spacing of atoms in a solid, to determine the structure of solids.
Photos are now able to show this dual nature, which may lead to new ways of examining and recording this behaviour.[56]


document_title: The Equalizer (film)

question_text: what city does the equalizer take place in

root

text: The Equalizer (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is a retired Marine and Defense Intelligence Agency operative who after promising his recently deceased wife that he would leave his old life behind lives quietly in Boston, Massachusetts and works at a Home Mart hardware store. McCall befriends many of his co-workers and helps a security guard trainee named Ralph pass his qualification exam. Unable to sleep, McCall spends some late nights reading in a 24/7 diner where he befriends Alina (Chloë Grace Moretz), a teenage prostitute for the Russian Mafia; McCall regales Alina with philosophical interpretations of the book he is currently reading, The Old Man and the Sea.

tag: p

text: One night, Alina is hospitalized following a brutal beating by her pimp, Slavi (David Meunier). Hearing of the beating, McCall visits Alina's hospital room and learns from her friend, Mandi that Slavi was responsible for it. McCall tracks down Slavi at his office and offers to buy Alina's freedom for $9,800. Slavi refuses, dismissing McCall as old and impotent. Having failed to achieve his goal through negotiation, an unarmed McCall kills Slavi and four of his men with skillful close combat efficiency by using the men's own weapons, various objects in the office, and his bare hands.

text: Following the killings, Russian Mafia boss Vladimir Pushkin (Vladimir Kulich) sends his enforcer, Teddy Rensen (Marton Csokas), to Boston to find and eliminate the culprit. In the meantime, Ralph withdraws his security guard application going to work for his mother at the family restaurant; McCall learns the restaurant was set on fire by corrupt policemen as an act of extortion. McCall confronts the corrupt policemen, beats them, forces them to pay back all the money they have extorted, and threatens to publicize their crimes. Ralph then returns to Home Mart and passes his test, becoming a security guard at the store.

text: In investigating the murders of Pushkin's henchmen, Rensen questions Alina's friend Mandy, who tells him that "a nice man--a black man" had come to visit Alina in the hospital. McCall later gets a coworker's beloved ring back after it is stolen from her by a gunman at Home Mart. McCall is seen removing a sledgehammer from the store wall, and is later seen polishing and replacing it. After finding video footage of McCall entering the building where the killings occurred, Rensen becomes suspicious of McCall, finds him, visits him at his apartment, and later makes two attempts to capture him. However, McCall escapes after killing one of Rensen's men (first disarming him with a hardcover book) and knocking out another.

text: McCall then visits old friend and fellow former DIA operative Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo), who uses her resources to give him information on Pushkin and Pushkin's operations. Plummer informs McCall that Teddy Rensen's true name is Nicolai Itchenko, and that he is a former member of the Russian secret police and Spetsnaz. Plummer also gives McCall "permission" to break his promise to his late wife.

text: Stepping up his actions against Pushkin, McCall subdues and gasses Frank Masters (David Harbour)— a corrupt policeman working for Pushkin—to force him to help destroy one of Pushkin's local money-laundering operations. An unarmed McCall accomplishes this task by disarming Andrei (the person in charge of Pushkin's money-laundering operation), holding him at gunpoint, and telling him to order his henchmen to drop their weapons. From Masters, McCall obtains a memory stick loaded with information about Pushkin's illegal activities (including bribes of Congressmen and Senators), which he sends to the FBI. McCall then confronts Itchenko at a restaurant, revealing that he knows Itchenko's history and pledging to bring down Pushkin's criminal enterprise. When McCall destroys a container ship Pushkin used to smuggle goods, Pushkin orders Itchenko to kill McCall; adding that until the deed is done, Itchenko may not return home to Moscow.

text: Itchenko and his men go to Home Mart and take Ralph and several of McCall's other coworkers hostage, threatening to kill them if McCall does not surrender. McCall kills Itchenko's henchmen one by one using booby traps constructed with items in the store, but is wounded in the process. After a struggle between McCall and one of Itchenko's men, Ralph comes back to pull the injured McCall out of the store, but is shot in the leg himself. After Ralph escapes, McCall confronts Itchenko and kills him with a nail gun.

text: Later, McCall travels to Moscow and tricks Pushkin into electrocuting himself (even cryptically warning him first). He returns to Boston and is approached by Alina, who has recovered from her injuries, found a legitimate job, and taken up reading. She thanks him for giving her a second chance. McCall is inspired to continue using his skills to help people in need and posts an online advertisement, now identifying himself as "The Equalizer". He soon receives another plea for help and agrees to answer it.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Denzel Washington as Robert "Bob" McCall
Marton Csokas as Teddy Rensen/Nicolai Itchenko
Chloë Grace Moretz as Alina/Teri
Melissa Leo as Susan Plummer
Bill Pullman as Brian Plummer
Johnny Skourtis as Ralph/"Ralphie"
Haley Bennett as Mandy
David Harbour as Frank Masters
Vladimir Kulich as Vladimir Pushkin
David Meunier as Slavi
Alex Veadov as Tevi
James Wilcox as Pederson
Mike O'Dea as Remar
Anastasia Mousis as Jenny
Robert Wahlberg as Detective Harris
Timothy John Smith as Detective Gilly
Dan Bilzerian as Teddy's #3

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: In June 2010, it was announced that Russell Crowe was looking to bring The Equalizer to the big screen directed by Paul Haggis, with Crowe attached to play Robert McCall.[6][7]

text: In December 2011, it was reported that Denzel Washington would star in the title role of the film version, to be financed by Sony Pictures Entertainment and Escape Artists.[6][8] Director Antoine Fuqua came on board to direct on March 21, 2013, reuniting him with Washington after their successful collaboration on the 2001 Oscar-winning film Training Day.[9] Chloë Grace Moretz was announced as a co-star on May 10, 2013, Anna Kendrick, Kelly Macdonald and Nina Dobrev were also considered.[10] On May 31, 2013, Melissa Leo was cast in the film. Leo previously worked with Washington in the 2012 film Flight, and with Fuqua in Olympus Has Fallen (2013).[11] Marton Csokas was cast to play the villain on May 17.[12]

text: Filming began in June 2013 with locations in Salisbury, Hamilton, Chelsea, Haverhill, and Boston, Massachusetts.[13]

text: On June 21, 2013, Harry Gregson-Williams was hired to compose the music for the film.[14] Varèse Sarabande released a soundtrack album for The Equalizer on September 23, 2014.[15]

text: The song "Guts Over Fear" by rapper Eminem and featuring Sia with production by Emile Haynie premiered in trailers for the film.[16] The song also plays over the closing credits.

text: Release[edit]

text: Promotion and marketing[edit]

text: The first official image from the film was released on December 6, 2013. Sony originally planned on an April 11, 2014 release date, but pushed it back to September 26, 2014.[17][18] The first official poster for the film was released on April 16, 2014.[19] On April 22, USA Today revealed photos from the film.[20] On May 24, the trailer for the film was released.[21] On June 12, another official trailer for the film was released.[22] On July 16, the IMAX poster for the film was released.[23]

text: Theatrical release[edit]

text: The film had a premiere at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, 2014.[24] Sony released the film in IMAX screen theaters worldwide on September 26, 2014.[25]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The Equalizer grossed $101.5 million in North America and $90.8 million in other territories for a worldwide gross of $192.3 million, against a net production budget of $55 million.[2]

text: The film was released on September 26, 2014, in the United States and earned $12.6 million from 3,236 theaters in its first opening night including the $1.45 million it earned from 2,693 screens from Thursday night showings. On the second day the film earned $13.5 million and $8.1 million on the third day.[26][27] Its opening day is the third biggest for Washington, tailing behind American Gangster ($15.8 million) and Safe House ($13.6 million).[28] On its opening weekend the film earned $35,000,000 ($10,816 per theater) and debuted at number one at the box office. The film broke several records at the box office during its opening weekend including the biggest R-rated debut of September, surpassing Jackass: Number Two record ($29 million), the biggest IMAX opener of September, the biggest debut weekend gross for Antoine surpassing Olympus Has Fallen ($30 million), the third biggest domestic opening for Washington behind the aforementioned American Gangster ($43.6 million) and Safe House ($40.2 million) and the fourth biggest for a film released in September.[29][30][31] It earned $3.3 million from 352 IMAX theaters.[32] Audiences for the debut weekend of the film were 52% male and 48% female, with 65% of ticket buyers over 30 years old.[33]

text: The Equalizer earned $17.8 million overseas from 65 territories from 4,500 screens during its opening weekend with $1.4 million of the gross coming from 137 IMAX theaters.[34] The film broke several September openings record in various territories including the UK, Netherlands, Israel, and Egypt.[35] Top openings include the UK ($2.9 million), Russia ($2.7 million), Mexico ($1.4 million), Brazil ($1.3 million) United Arab Emirates ($875,000) and Malaysia ($650,000). Showings from Village Roadshow markets grossed an estimate $2.4 million with top openings including Australia ($1.9 million), New Zealand ($180,000) and Singapore ($300,000).[36][37]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, the film holds an approval rating of 60% based on 189 reviews, and an average rating of 5.7/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "The Equalizer is more stylishly violent than meaningful, but with Antoine Fuqua behind the cameras and Denzel Washington dispensing justice, it delivers."[38] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 57 out of 100, based on 41 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[39] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[40]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The Equalizer was released on Blu-ray and DVD on December 30, 2014.[41] Later, it was released on Ultra HD Blu-ray on July 10, 2018, 10 days before the second film was released in U.S. theaters.[42]

text: Sequel[edit]

text: On February 24, 2014, seven months before the release of the film, it was announced that Sony Pictures and Escape Artists were planning a sequel, with Richard Wenk penning the script.[43][44][45] In early October 2014, Fuqua said in an interview that there would be a sequel to the film only if audiences and Washington wanted it. He stated McCall was an interesting character and that the sequel could have more of an international flavor.[46] On April 22, 2015, Sony announced that a sequel would be made.[47]

text: In July 2017, Columbia Pictures announced that a portion of the filming would take place in the Brant Rock area of Marshfield, which took place over two weeks in November 2017.[48] The Equalizer 2 was released in the U.S. on July 20, 2018.


document_title: List of Jane the Virgin episodes

question_text: when does chapter 75 of jane the virgin come out

text: List of Jane the Virgin episodes

text: Series overview[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
Originally aired

First aired
Last aired

1
22
October 13, 2014 (2014-10-13)
May 11, 2015 (2015-05-11)

2
22
October 12, 2015 (2015-10-12)
May 16, 2016 (2016-05-16)

3
20
October 17, 2016 (2016-10-17)
May 22, 2017 (2017-05-22)

4
17[7]
October 13, 2017 (2017-10-13)
April 20, 2018 (2018-04-20)[8]

tag: table

text: Episodes[edit]

text: Season 1 (2014–15)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(millions)

1
1
"Chapter One"
Brad Silberling
Teleplay by : Jennie Snyder Urman
October 13, 2014 (2014-10-13)
1.61[9]

2
2
"Chapter Two"
Uta Briesewitz
Jennie Snyder Urman
October 20, 2014 (2014-10-20)
1.36[10]

3
3
"Chapter Three"
Brad Silberling
Meredith Averill
October 27, 2014 (2014-10-27)
1.09[11]

4
4
"Chapter Four"
Debbie Allen
Corinne Brinkerhoff
November 3, 2014 (2014-11-03)
1.01[12]

5
5
"Chapter Five"
Edward Ornelas
Josh Reims
November 10, 2014 (2014-11-10)
1.22[13]

6
6
"Chapter Six"
Jann Turner
Paul Sciarrotta
November 17, 2014 (2014-11-17)
1.09[14]

7
7
"Chapter Seven"
Janice Cooke
David S. Rosenthal
November 24, 2014 (2014-11-24)
0.96[15]

8
8
"Chapter Eight"
Norman Buckley
Josh Reims & Carolina Rivera
December 8, 2014 (2014-12-08)
1.22[16]

9
9
"Chapter Nine"
Zetna Fuentes
Corinne Brinkerhoff
December 15, 2014 (2014-12-15)
1.28[17]

10
10
"Chapter Ten"
Elodie Keene
Meredith Averill & Christopher Oscar Peña
January 19, 2015 (2015-01-19)
1.39[18]

11
11
"Chapter Eleven"
Joanna Kerns
Gracie Glassmeyer
January 26, 2015 (2015-01-26)
1.55[19]

12
12
"Chapter Twelve"
Gina Lamar
David S. Rosenthal
February 2, 2015 (2015-02-02)
1.24[20]

13
13
"Chapter Thirteen"
Howard Deutch
Josh Reims
February 9, 2015 (2015-02-09)
1.34[21]

14
14
"Chapter Fourteen"
Brad Silberling
Paul Sciarrotta
February 16, 2015 (2015-02-16)
1.31[22]

15
15
"Chapter Fifteen"
Melanie Mayron
Emmylou Diaz & David S. Rosenthal
March 9, 2015 (2015-03-09)
1.26[23]

16
16
"Chapter Sixteen"
Joanna Kerns
Josh Reims & Carolina Rivera
March 16, 2015 (2015-03-16)
1.10[24]

17
17
"Chapter Seventeen"
Uta Briesewitz
Amy Rardin & Jessica O'Toole
April 6, 2015 (2015-04-06)
0.93[25]

18
18
"Chapter Eighteen"
Edward Ornelas
Meredith Averill
April 13, 2015 (2015-04-13)
1.03[26]

19
19
"Chapter Nineteen"
Robert Luketic
Emmylou Diaz & David S. Rosenthal
April 20, 2015 (2015-04-20)
1.05[27]

20
20
"Chapter Twenty"
Debbie Allen
Corinne Brinkerhoff & Paul Sciarrotta
April 27, 2015 (2015-04-27)
1.06[28]

21
21
"Chapter Twenty-One"
Stuart Gillard
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
May 4, 2015 (2015-05-04)
1.05[29]

22
22
"Chapter Twenty-Two"
Zetna Fuentes
Josh Reims & Jennie Snyder Urman
May 11, 2015 (2015-05-11)
1.24[30]

text: Season 2 (2015–16)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(millions)

23
1
"Chapter Twenty-Three"
Brad Silberling
Jennie Snyder Urman
October 12, 2015 (2015-10-12)
1.06[31]

24
2
"Chapter Twenty-Four"
Edward Ornelas
David S. Rosenthal
October 19, 2015 (2015-10-19)
0.84[32]

25
3
"Chapter Twenty-Five"
Robert Luketic
Corinne Brinkerhoff
October 26, 2015 (2015-10-26)
0.94[33]

26
4
"Chapter Twenty-Six"
Zetna Fuentes
Paul Sciarrotta
November 2, 2015 (2015-11-02)
1.09[34]

27
5
"Chapter Twenty-Seven"
Jann Turner
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
November 9, 2015 (2015-11-09)
1.11[35]

28
6
"Chapter Twenty-Eight"
Melanie Mayron
Corinne Brinkerhoff & Micah Schraf
November 16, 2015 (2015-11-16)
1.10[36]

29
7
"Chapter Twenty-Nine"
Edward Ornelas
David S. Rosenthal & Dara Resnick Creasey
November 23, 2015 (2015-11-23)
0.98[37]

30
8
"Chapter Thirty"
Uta Briesewitz
Paul Sciarrotta & Carolina Rivera
December 14, 2015 (2015-12-14)
0.98[38]

31
9
"Chapter Thirty-One"
Joanna Kerns
Emmylou Diaz & Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
January 25, 2016 (2016-01-25)
0.99[39]

32
10
"Chapter Thirty-Two"
Jason Reilly
Micah Schraft
February 1, 2016 (2016-02-01)
1.04[40]

33
11
"Chapter Thirty-Three"
Uta Briesewitz
Michael J. Cinquemani
February 8, 2016 (2016-02-08)
0.94[41]

34
12
"Chapter Thirty-Four"
Howard Deutch
Madeline Hendricks
February 22, 2016 (2016-02-22)
0.94[42]

35
13
"Chapter Thirty-Five"
Melanie Mayron
Chantelle M. Wells
February 29, 2016 (2016-02-29)
0.91[43]

36
14
"Chapter Thirty-Six"
Uta Briesewitz
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
March 7, 2016 (2016-03-07)
0.92[44]

37
15
"Chapter Thirty-Seven"
Melanie Mayron
Sarah Goldfinger
March 21, 2016 (2016-03-21)
0.77[45]

38
16
"Chapter Thirty-Eight"
Georgina Garcia Riedel
Micah Schraft
March 28, 2016 (2016-03-28)
0.94[46]

39
17
"Chapter Thirty-Nine"
Matthew Diamond
Carolina Rivera
April 11, 2016 (2016-04-11)
0.93[47]

40
18
"Chapter Forty"
Anna Mastro
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
April 18, 2016 (2016-04-18)
0.96[48]

41
19
"Chapter Forty-One"
Gina Lamar
Joe Lawson
April 25, 2016 (2016-04-25)
0.84[49]

42
20
"Chapter Forty-Two"
Zetna Fuentes
Micah Schraft & Paul Sciarrotta
May 2, 2016 (2016-05-02)
0.86[50]

43
21
"Chapter Forty-Three"
Melanie Mayron
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin & Paul Sciarrotta
May 9, 2016 (2016-05-09)
0.90[51]

44
22
"Chapter Forty-Four"
Jann Turner
Paul Sciarrotta & Jennie Snyder Urman
May 16, 2016 (2016-05-16)
0.97[52]

text: Season 3 (2016–17)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(millions)

45
1
"Chapter Forty-Five"
Gina Lamar
Jennie Snyder Urman
October 17, 2016 (2016-10-17)
1.09[53]

46
2
"Chapter Forty-Six"
Brad Silberling
David S. Rosenthal & Paul Sciarrotta
October 24, 2016 (2016-10-24)
1.10[54]

47
3
"Chapter Forty-Seven"
Eva Longoria Baston
Carolina Rivera & Micah Schraft
October 31, 2016 (2016-10-31)
0.97[55]

48
4
"Chapter Forty-Eight"
Melanie Mayron
Sarah Goldfinger & Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
November 7, 2016 (2016-11-07)
1.08[56]

49
5
"Chapter Forty-Nine"
Anna Mastro
Paul Sciarrotta
November 14, 2016 (2016-11-14)
0.93[57]

50
6
"Chapter Fifty"
Melanie Mayron
Valentina Garza & David S. Rosenthal
November 21, 2016 (2016-11-21)
1.01[58]

51
7
"Chapter Fifty-One"
Gina Lamar
Sarah Goldfinger & Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
November 28, 2016 (2016-11-28)
1.15[59]

52
8
"Chapter Fifty-Two"
Anna Mastro
Carolina Rivera & Micah Schraft
January 23, 2017 (2017-01-23)
0.99[60]

53
9
"Chapter Fifty-Three"
Gina Lamar
Chantelle M. Wells
January 30, 2017 (2017-01-30)
0.91[61]

54
10
"Chapter Fifty-Four"
Melanie Mayron
Micah Schraft & Jennie Snyder Urman
February 6, 2017 (2017-02-06)
0.93[62]

55
11
"Chapter Fifty-Five"
Brad Silberling
Paul Sciarrotta & Jennie Snyder Urman
February 13, 2017 (2017-02-13)
1.07[63]

56
12
"Chapter Fifty-Six"
Matthew Diamond
Valentina Garza
February 20, 2017 (2017-02-20)
1.06[64]

57
13
"Chapter Fifty-Seven"
Zetna Fuentes
Madeline Hendricks
February 27, 2017 (2017-02-27)
0.88[65]

58
14
"Chapter Fifty-Eight"
Melanie Mayron
Merigan Mulhern
March 20, 2017 (2017-03-20)
0.84[66]

59
15
"Chapter Fifty-Nine"
Anna Mastro
Deidre Shaw
March 27, 2017 (2017-03-27)
0.89[67]

60
16
"Chapter Sixty"
Micah Schraft
Carolina Rivera & Micah Schraft
April 24, 2017 (2017-04-24)
0.79[68]

61
17
"Chapter Sixty-One"
Melanie Mayron
Paul Sciarrotta
May 1, 2017 (2017-05-01)
0.77[69]

62
18
"Chapter Sixty-Two"
Fernando Sariñana
Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin & David S. Rosenthal
May 8, 2017 (2017-05-08)
0.99[70]

63
19
"Chapter Sixty-Three"
Gina Lamar
Paul Sciarrotta
May 15, 2017 (2017-05-15)
0.76[71]

64
20
"Chapter Sixty-Four"
Melanie Mayron
Micah Schraft & Jennie Snyder Urman
May 22, 2017 (2017-05-22)
0.96[72]

text: Season 4 (2017–18)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(millions)

65
1
"Chapter Sixty-Five"
Brad Silberling
Jennie Snyder Urman & Paul Sciarrotta
October 13, 2017 (2017-10-13)
0.68[73]

66
2
"Chapter Sixty-Six"
Gina Lamar
Valentina Garza & Jessica O'Toole & Amy Rardin
October 20, 2017 (2017-10-20)
0.61[74]

67
3
"Chapter Sixty-Seven"
Fernando Sariñana
Carolina Rivera & Micah Schraft
October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
0.60[75]

68
4
"Chapter Sixty-Eight"
Gina Lamar
Deirdre Shaw & Chantelle M. Wells
November 3, 2017 (2017-11-03)
0.69[76]

69
5
"Chapter Sixty-Nine"
Stuart Gillard
Paul Sciarrotta
November 10, 2017 (2017-11-10)
0.65[77]

70
6
"Chapter Seventy"
Melanie Mayron
Carolina Rivera & Micah Schraft
November 17, 2017 (2017-11-17)
0.61[78]

71
7
"Chapter Seventy-One"
Micah Schraft
Valentina Garza & Deidre Shaw
December 8, 2017 (2017-12-08)
0.65[79]

72
8
"Chapter Seventy-Two"
Melanie Mayron
Carolina Rivera & Paul Sciarrotta
January 26, 2018 (2018-01-26)
0.68[80]

73
9
"Chapter Seventy-Three"
Eric Lea
Valentina Garza & Chantelle M. Wells
February 2, 2018 (2018-02-02)
0.67[81]

74
10
"Chapter Seventy-Four"
Gina Rodriguez
Micah Schraft & Paul Sciarrotta
February 9, 2018 (2018-02-09)
0.80[82]

75
11
"Chapter Seventy-Five"
Gina Lamar
Merigan Mulhern
March 2, 2018 (2018-03-02)
0.59[83]

76
12
"Chapter Seventy-Six"
Melanie Mayron
Leah Longoria
March 9, 2018 (2018-03-09)
0.58[84]

77
13
"Chapter Seventy-Seven"
Gina Lamar
Deirdre Shaw & Chantelle M. Wells
March 16, 2018 (2018-03-16)
0.59[85]

78
14
"Chapter Seventy-Eight"
Justin Baldoni
Valentina Garza & Micah Schraft
March 23, 2018 (2018-03-23)
0.65[86]

79
15
"Chapter Seventy-Nine"[87]
Gina Lamar
Paul Sciarrotta
April 6, 2018 (2018-04-06)
TBD

80
16
"Chapter Eighty"[88]
Micah Schraft
Micah Schraft
April 13, 2018 (2018-04-13)
TBD

81
17
"Chapter Eighty-One"[89]
Gina Lamar
Jennie Snyder Urman & Paul Sciarrotta
April 20, 2018 (2018-04-20)
TBD

text: Ratings[edit]

text: Season 1 (2014–15)[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"Chapter One"
October 13, 2014 (2014-10-13)
0.6/2
1.61[9]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

2
"Chapter Two"
October 20, 2014 (2014-10-20)
0.5/1
1.36[10]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

3
"Chapter Three"
October 27, 2014 (2014-10-27)
0.4/1
1.09[11]
0.3
N/A
0.7[94]
N/A

4
"Chapter Four"
November 3, 2014 (2014-11-03)
0.4/2
1.01[12]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

5
"Chapter Five"
November 10, 2014 (2014-11-10)
0.5/1
1.22[13]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

6
"Chapter Six"
November 17, 2014 (2014-11-17)
0.4/1
1.11[14]
0.3
N/A
0.7[95]
N/A

7
"Chapter Seven"
November 24, 2014 (2014-11-24)
0.4/1
0.96[15]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

8
"Chapter Eight"
December 8, 2014 (2014-12-08)
0.5/1
1.22[16]
0.3
N/A
0.8[96]
N/A

9
"Chapter Nine"
December 15, 2014 (2014-12-15)
0.5/2
1.28[17]
0.3
0.62
0.8
1.90[97]

10
"Chapter Ten"
January 19, 2015 (2015-01-19)
0.5/1
1.39[18]
0.3
N/A
0.8[98]
N/A

11
"Chapter Eleven"
January 26, 2015 (2015-01-26)
0.6/2
1.55[19]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

12
"Chapter Twelve"
February 2, 2015 (2015-02-02)
0.5/1
1.24[20]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

13
"Chapter Thirteen"
February 9, 2015 (2015-02-09)
0.6/2
1.34[21]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

14
"Chapter Fourteen"
February 16, 2015 (2015-02-16)
0.6/2
1.31[22]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

15
"Chapter Fifteen"
March 9, 2015 (2015-03-09)
0.5/1
1.26[23]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

16
"Chapter Sixteen"
March 16, 2015 (2015-03-16)
0.5/1
1.10[24]
0.3
N/A
0.8[99]
N/A

17
"Chapter Seventeen"
April 6, 2015 (2015-04-06)
0.4/1
0.93[25]
0.3
N/A
0.7[100]
N/A

18
"Chapter Eighteen"
April 13, 2015 (2015-04-13)
0.4/1
1.03[26]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

19
"Chapter Nineteen"
April 20, 2015 (2015-04-20)
0.4/1
1.05[27]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

20
"Chapter Twenty"
April 27, 2015 (2015-04-27)
0.4/1
1.06[28]
0.3
N/A
0.7[101]
N/A

21
"Chapter Twenty-One"
May 4, 2015 (2015-05-04)
0.5/1
1.05[29]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

22
"Chapter Twenty-Two"
May 11, 2015 (2015-05-11)
0.5/1
1.24[30]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

text: Season 2 (2015–16)[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"Chapter Twenty-Three"
October 12, 2015 (2015-10-12)
0.4/1
1.06[31]
0.4
0.69
0.8
1.76[102]

2
"Chapter Twenty-Four"
October 19, 2015 (2015-10-19)
0.4/1
0.84[32]
N/A
0.68
N/A
1.52[103]

3
"Chapter Twenty-Five"
October 26, 2015 (2015-10-26)
0.3/1
0.94[33]
0.3
0.56
0.6
1.51[104]

4
"Chapter Twenty-Six"
November 2, 2015 (2015-11-02)
0.4/1
1.09[34]
0.4
0.71
0.8
1.81[105]

5
"Chapter Twenty-Seven"
November 9, 2015 (2015-11-09)
0.4/1
1.11[35]
0.3
0.65
0.7
1.76[106]

6
"Chapter Twenty-Eight"
November 16, 2015 (2015-11-16)
0.5/2
1.10[36]
N/A
0.55
N/A
1.67[107]

7
"Chapter Twenty-Nine"
November 23, 2015 (2015-11-23)
0.4/1
0.98[37]
0.3
0.62
0.7
1.60[108]

8
"Chapter Thirty"
December 14, 2015 (2015-12-14)
0.3/1
0.98[38]
0.4
0.63
0.7
1.61[109]

9
"Chapter Thirty-One"
January 25, 2016 (2016-01-25)
0.4/1
0.99[39]
0.3
0.69
0.7
1.68[110]

10
"Chapter Thirty-Two"
February 1, 2016 (2016-02-01)
0.4/1
1.04[40]
0.3
0.66
0.7
1.70[111]

11
"Chapter Thirty-Three"
February 8, 2016 (2016-02-08)
0.3/1
0.94[41]
0.4
0.74
0.7
1.68[112]

12
"Chapter Thirty-Four"
February 22, 2016 (2016-02-22)
0.3/1
0.94[42]
0.4
0.72
0.7
1.66[113]

13
"Chapter Thirty-Five"
February 29, 2016 (2016-02-29)
0.3/1
0.91[43]
0.4
0.70
0.7
1.61[114]

14
"Chapter Thirty-Six"
March 7, 2016 (2016-03-07)
0.4/1
0.92[44]
0.3
0.68
0.7
1.60[115]

15
"Chapter Thirty-Seven"
March 21, 2016 (2016-03-21)
0.3/1
0.77[45]
0.3
0.66
0.6
1.43[116]

16
"Chapter Thirty-Eight"
March 28, 2016 (2016-03-28)
0.4/1
0.94[46]
0.3
0.69
0.7
1.63[117]

17
"Chapter Thirty-Nine"
April 11, 2016 (2016-04-11)
0.4/1
0.97[47]
0.3
0.69
0.7
1.66[118]

18
"Chapter Forty"
April 18, 2016 (2016-04-18)
0.4/1
0.96[48]
0.4
0.68
0.8
1.64[119]

19
"Chapter Forty-One"
April 25, 2016 (2016-04-25)
0.4/1
0.84[49]
0.3
0.74
0.7
1.58[120]

20
"Chapter Forty-Two"
May 2, 2016 (2016-05-02)
0.3/1
0.86[50]
0.4
0.69
0.7
1.54[121]

21
"Chapter Forty-Three"
May 9, 2016 (2016-05-09)
0.3/1
0.90[51]
0.4
0.66
0.7
1.56[122]

22
"Chapter Forty-Four"
May 16, 2016 (2016-05-16)
0.4/1
0.97[52]
0.3
0.70
0.7
1.66[123]

text: Season 3 (2016–17)[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"Chapter Forty-Five"
October 17, 2016
0.4/2
1.09[53]
0.4
0.83
0.8
1.92[124]

2
"Chapter Forty-Six"
October 24, 2016
0.4/2
1.10[54]
0.4
0.77
0.8
1.88[125]

3
"Chapter Forty-Seven"
October 31, 2016
0.4/1
0.97[55]
0.4
0.88
0.8
1.85[126]

4
"Chapter Forty-Eight"
November 7, 2016
0.4/2
1.08[56]
0.4
0.72
0.8
1.80[127]

5
"Chapter Forty-Nine"
November 14, 2016
0.3/1
0.93[57]
0.4
N/A
0.7[128]
N/A

6
"Chapter Fifty"
November 21, 2016
0.4/2
1.01[58]
0.3
0.76
0.7
1.79[129]

7
"Chapter Fifty-One"
November 28, 2016
0.4/2
1.15[59]
0.4
0.70
0.8
1.85[130]

8
"Chapter Fifty-Two"
January 23, 2017
0.4/1
0.99[60]
0.3
0.72
0.7
1.70[131]

9
"Chapter Fifty-Three"
January 30, 2017
0.3/1
0.91[61]
0.3
0.68
0.6
1.59[132]

10
"Chapter Fifty-Four"
February 6, 2017
0.3/1
0.93[62]
0.4
0.76
0.7
1.69[133]

11
"Chapter Fifty-Five"
February 13, 2017
0.4/2
1.07[63]
0.3
0.64
0.7
1.71[134]

12
"Chapter Fifty-Six"
February 20, 2017
0.4/1
1.06[64]
0.3
0.61
0.7
1.67[135]

13
"Chapter Fifty-Seven"
February 27, 2017
0.3/1
0.88[65]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

14
"Chapter Fifty-Eight"
March 20, 2017
0.3/1
0.84[66]
0.4
0.71
0.7
1.55[136]

15
"Chapter Fifty-Nine"
March 27, 2017
0.3/1
0.89[67]
0.4
0.69
0.7
1.57[137]

16
"Chapter Sixty"
April 24, 2017
0.2/1
0.79[68]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

17
"Chapter Sixty-One"
May 1, 2017
0.2/1
0.77[69]
0.3
0.55
0.5
1.32[138]

18
"Chapter Sixty-Two"
May 8, 2017
0.4/1
0.99[70]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

19
"Chapter Sixty-Three"
May 15, 2017
0.2/1
0.76[71]
0.3
0.58
0.5
1.34[139]

20
"Chapter Sixty-Four"
May 22, 2017
0.3/1
0.96[72]
0.3
0.60
0.6
1.56[140]

text: Season 4 (2017–18)[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"Chapter Sixty-Five"
October 13, 2017
0.3/1
0.68[73]
0.3
0.67
0.6
1.35[141]

2
"Chapter Sixty-Six"
October 20, 2017
0.2/1
0.61[74]
0.3
0.58
0.5
1.19[142]

3
"Chapter Sixty-Seven"
October 27, 2017
0.3/1
0.60[75]
TBD
0.54
TBD
1.16[143]

4
"Chapter Sixty-Eight"
November 3, 2017
0.2/1
0.69[76]
0.3
0.55
0.5
1.24[144]

5
"Chapter Sixty-Nine"
November 10, 2017
0.3/1
0.65[77]
TBD
0.61
TBD
1.26[145]

6
"Chapter Seventy"
November 17, 2017
0.2/1
0.61[78]
0.3
0.55
0.5
1.16[146]

7
"Chapter Seventy-One"
December 8, 2017
0.3/1
0.65[79]
0.3
0.61
0.6
1.25[147]

8
"Chapter Seventy-Two"
January 26, 2018
0.2/1
0.68[80]
0.4
0.71
0.6
1.39[148]

9
"Chapter Seventy-Three"
February 2, 2018
0.3/1
0.67[81]
0.3
0.60
0.6
1.27[149]

10
"Chapter Seventy-Four"
February 9, 2018
0.3/1
0.80[82]
0.3
0.59
0.6
1.39[150]

11
"Chapter Seventy-Five"
March 2, 2018
0.2/1
0.59[83]
0.3
0.62
0.5
1.21[151]

12
"Chapter Seventy-Six"
March 9, 2018
0.2/1
0.58[84]
0.3
0.53
0.5
1.12[152]

13
"Chapter Seventy-Seven"
March 16, 2018
0.2/1
0.59[85]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

14
"Chapter Seventy-Eight"
March 23, 2018
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

15
"Chapter Seventy-Nine"
April 6, 2018
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

16
"Chapter Eighty"
April 13, 2018
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

17
"Chapter Eighty-One"
April 20, 2018
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD


document_title: Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Solo Performance

question_text: who won the 1992 drama desk award for outstanding solo performance

text: Winners and nominees[edit]

text:
Year
Performer
Production

1984

Ian McKellen
Acting Shakespeare

Phillip Baker Hall
Secret Honor

Kaye Ballard
Hey, Ma...Kaye Ballard

Edward Duke
Jeeves Takes Charge

Estelle Parsons
Orgasmo Adulto Escapes from the Zoo

Billie Whitelaw
Rockaby

1985

Whoopi Goldberg
Whoopi Goldberg

Avner Eisenberg
Avner the Eccentric

Spalding Gray
Swimming to Cambodia

Alec McCowen
Kipling

Ekkehard Schall
An Evening with Ekkehard Schall

Lori Wilner
Hannah Senesh

1986

Eric Bogosian
Drinking in America

Elisabeth Welch
Time to Start Living

1987

Barbara Cook
A Concert for the Theatre

1988–89
N/A

text:
Year
Performer
Production

1990

Robert Morse
Tru

Eric Bogosian
Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll

Kathryn Grody
A Mom's Life

Mandy Patinkin
Mandy Patinkin in Concert: "Dress Casual"

1991

Eileen Atkins
A Room of One's Own

Jeffrey Essmann
Artificial Reality

Spalding Gray
Monster in a Box

Tracey Ullman
The Big Love

1992

Patrick Stewart
A Christmas Carol

Stan Freeman
At Wit's End

Kevin Kling
Home and Away

Josh Kornbluth
Red Diaper Baby

1993

Anna Deavere Smith
Fires in the Mirror

John Leguizamo
Spic-O-Rama

Lynn Redgrave
Shakespeare for My Father

Ron Vawler
Roy Cohn/Jack Smith

1994

Anna Deavere Smith
Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992

Eric Bogosian
Pounding Nails in the Floor with my Forehead

Sherry Glaser
Family Secrets

Spalding Gray
Gray's Anatomy

Claudia Shear
Blown Sideways Through Life

1995

James Lecesne
Word of Mouth

Dan Butler
The Only Thing Worse You Could Have Told Me

Danny Hoch
Some People

Avi Hoffman
Too Jewish?

Lisa Kron
101 Humiliating Stories

1996

Mary Louise Wilson
Full Gallop

Andrea Martin
Nude Nude Totally Nude

Karen Trott
Springhill Singing Disaster

1997

Fiona Shaw
The Waste Land

Eve Ensler
The Vagina Monologues

Eddie Izzard
Eddie Izzard

Roger Guenveur Smith
A Huey P. Newton Story

Julia Sweeney
Julia Sweeney's God Said "Ha!"

1998

John Leguizamo
Freak

Lewis Black
Black Humor

Danny Hoch
Jails, Hospitals & Hip-Hop

1999

David Hare
Via Dolorosa

Will Bond
Bob

Aviva Jane Carlin
Jodie's Body

Alexander H. Cohen
Star Billing

Lisa Kron
2.5 Minute Ride

Laurence Luckinbill
Clarence Darrow Tonight!

text:
Year
Performer
Production

2000

Dame Edna Everage
Dame Edna: The Royal Tour

Olympia Dukakis
Rose

Spalding Gray
Morning, Noon and Night

Mark Linn-Baker
Chesapeake

Mark Setlock
Fully Committed

Marc Wolf
Another American: Asking and Telling

2001

Pamela Gien
The Syringa Tree

Eric Bogosian
Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

Bette Bourne
Resident Alien

Brian d'Arcy James
The Good Thief

Sarah Jones
Surface Transit

Ruben Santiago-Hudson
Lackawanna Blues

2002

Elaine Stritch
Elaine Stritch at Liberty

Dave Gorman
Are You Dave Gorman?

Charles Nelson Reilly
Save It for the Stage: The Life of Reilly

Reno
Rebel Without a Pause

T. Ryder Smith
Underneath the Lintel

2003

Tovah Feldshuh
Golda's Balcony

Barbara Cook
Mostly Sondheim

Frank Gorshin
Say Goodnight, Gracie

Ricky Jay
Ricky Jay: On the Stem

Priscilla Lopez
Class Mother '68

Charlayne Woodard
In Real Life

2004

Jefferson Mays
I Am My Own Wife

Barbara Cook
Barbara Cook's Broadway!

Ben Gazzara
Nobody Don't Like Yogi

Sarah Jones
Bridge and Tunnel

Martin Moran
The Tricky Part

Will Power
Flow

2005

Billy Crystal
700 Sundays

Dame Edna Everage
Dame Edna: Back with a Vengeance

Dave Gorman
Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure

Jackie Mason
Jackie Mason: Freshly Squeezed

Tim Miller
Us

James Urbaniak
Thom Pain (based on nothing)

2006

Antony Sher
Primo

Judy Gold
25 Questions for a Jewish Mother

Marga Gomez
Los Big Names

Jon Peterson
George M. Cohan Tonight!

Janis Stevens
Vivien

Michael Winther
Songs from an Unmade Bed

2007

Vanessa Redgrave
The Year of Magical Thinking

Iris Bahr
Dai (enough)

Ed Harris
Wrecks

Capathia Jenkins
(mis)Understanding Mammy: The Hattie McDaniel Story

Anna Manahan
Sisters

Nilaja Sun
No Child...

2008

Laurence Fishburne
Thurgood

Kris Anderson
Dixie's Tupperware Party

Stephen Lang
Beyond Glory

April Yvette Thompson
Liberty City

2009

Lorenzo Pisoni
Humor Abuse

Mike Birbiglia
Sleepwalk with Me

Frank Blocker
Southern Gothic Novel

Michael Laurence
Krapp, 39

Matt Sax
Clay

Campbell Scott
The Atheist

text:
Year
Performer
Production

2010

Jim Brochu
Zero Hour

Theodore Bikel
Sholom Aleichem: Laughter Through Tears

Colman Domingo
A Boy and His Soul

Carrie Fisher
Wishful Drinking

Judith Ivey
The Lady with All the Answers

Anna Deavere Smith
Let Me Down Easy

2011

John Leguizamo
Ghetto Klown

Daniel Beaty
Through the Night

Mike Birbiglia
Mike Birbiglia's My Girlfriend's Boyfriend

Juliette Jeffers
Batman and Robin in the Boogie Down

Colin Quinn
Colin Quinn: Long Story Short

Joanna Tope
The Promise

2012

Cillian Murphy
Misterman

Baba Brinkman
The Rap Guide to Evolution

Suli Holum
Chimera

Jeff Key
The Eyes of Babylon

Denis O'Hare
An Iliad

Stephen Spinella
An Iliad

2013

Michael Urie
Buyer & Cellar

Joel de la Fuente
Hold These Truths

Kathryn Hunter
Kafka's Monkey

Bette Midler
I'll Eat You Last: A Chat with Sue Mengers

Julian Sands
A Celebration of Harold Pinter

Holland Taylor
Ann

2014

John Douglas Thompson
Satchmo at the Waldorf

David Barlow
This is My Office

Jim Brochu
Character Man

Hannah Cabell
Grounded

Debra Jo Rupp
Becoming Dr. Ruth

Ruben Santiago-Hudson
August Wilson's How I Learned What I Learned

2015

Benjamin Scheuer
The Lion

Christina Bianco
Application Pending

Jonny Donahoe
Every Brilliant Thing

Tom Dugan
Wiesenthal

Mona Golabek
The Pianist of Willesden Lane

Joely Richardson
The Belle of Amherst

2016

Jesse Tyler Ferguson
Fully Committed

Simon Callow
Tuesdays at Tesco's

Kathleen Chalfant
Rose

James Lecesne
The Absolute Brightness of Leonard Pelkey

Daphne Rubin-Vega
Empanada Loca

2017

Ed Dixon
Georgie: My Adventures with George Rose

Nancy Anderson
The Pen (Inner Voices)

Marin Ireland
On the Exhale

Sarah Jones
Sell/Buy/Date

Brian Quijada
Where Did We Sit on the Bus?

Anna Deavere Smith
Notes from the Field


document_title: List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals

question_text: who has scored the most goals ever in football

text: In top-level  football, at least 28 players have scored 500 or more goals over the course of their career, according to research by the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. Only players who were active in top division football for all or most of their careers are considered. The ranking below takes into account goals scored in official matches played with national teams at all age levels and clubs in all divisions.[1]

text: Ranking[edit]

text:
Unverified data is excluded from players' data; goal and match totals may be higher.
Players in bold are currently active; data is accurate as of the 25 August 2018.[2][3]

text:
Rank

Player

Goals

Matches

Ratio

Years

1

 AUT/ CZE Josef Bican [4] [5]

805

530

1.52

1931–1955

2

 Romário (BRA)

772

994

0.78

1985–2007

3

 Pelé (BRA)

767

831

0.92

1957–1977

4

 Ferenc Puskás (HUN)

746

754

0.99

1943–1966

5

 Gerd Müller (GER)

735

793

0.92

1962–1981

6

 Cristiano  Ronaldo (POR)

676

953

0.71

2001–present

7

 Lionel Messi (ARG)

646

823

0.78

2003–present

8

 Ferenc Deák (HUN)

576

1940–1957

9

 Uwe Seeler (GER)

575

649

0.89

1953–1978

 Túlio Maravilha (BRA)

575

—

1988–2012

11

 Arthur Friedenreich (BRA)

557

1909–1935

12

 Ernst Willimowski (POL)

554

—

1934–1955

13

 Eusébio (POR)

552

—

1957–1979

14

 Jimmy McGrory (SCO)

550

—

1922–1937

15

 Franz Binder (AUT)

546

—

1930–1949

16

 Fernando Peyroteo (POR)

544

354

1.54

1937–1949

17

 Hugo Sánchez (MEX)

541

—

1976–1997

18

 Fritz Walter (GER)

539

—

1937–1959

19

 József Takács (HUN)

523

—

1917–1934

20

 Gyula Zsengellér (HUN)

522

—

1935–1953

 Zico (BRA)

522

—

1971–1994

22

 Alfredo Di Stéfano (ARG)

514

—

1945–1966

 Hans Krankl (AUT)

514

—

1970–1989

24

 Gunnar Nordahl (SWE)

513

—

1937–1958

25

 Roberto Dinamite (BRA)

512

—

1971–1993

26

 Jimmy Greaves (ENG)

511

—

1957–1980

27

 Ferenc Bene (HUN)

508

—

1961–1978

28

 Zlatan Ibrahimović (SWE)

506

877

0.58

1999–present

text: Source: Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation[1]


document_title: Ratatouille (film)

question_text: who plays the voice of linguini in ratatouille

text: Ratatouille (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Remy is an idealistic and ambitious young rat, gifted with highly developed senses of taste and smell. Inspired by his idol, the recently deceased chef Auguste Gusteau, Remy dreams of becoming a cook himself. When an old French woman discovers Remy's colony in her house and attempts to exterminate them with a shotgun, they are forced to flee, and Remy becomes separated from his family in the panic. He ends up in the sewers of Paris and eventually finds himself at a skylight overlooking the kitchen of Gusteau's restaurant.

text: As Remy watches through the window, a young man named Alfredo Linguini is hired as a garbage boy by Skinner, the restaurant's current owner and Gusteau's former sous-chef. When Linguini spills a pot of soup and attempts to recreate it, Remy sees that he is ruining it, and fixes his mistakes. Linguini catches Remy, but hides him when he is then confronted by Skinner for tampering with the soup. As the two argue, the soup is accidentally served and proves to be a success. The staff convinces Skinner to retain Linguini, who is assumed to be the soup's creator. When Skinner catches Remy trying to escape, he orders Linguini to kill the rat, but Linguini discovers Remy's intelligence and decides to keep him instead.

text: On Linguini's first day as a chef, he and Remy find a way to communicate: Remy guides Linguini like a marionette by pulling on his hair while hidden under Linguini's toque. Skinner assigns Colette Tatou, the staff's only female chef, to train his new cook.

text: Suspicious, Skinner learns that Linguini is Gusteau's illegitimate son and the rightful owner of the restaurant. Remy discovers the evidence of Linguini's inheritance and, after eluding Skinner, gives it to Linguini, who deposes Skinner as owner. The restaurant continues to thrive, as all of Remy's recipes become immediate hits. A romance develops between Linguini and Colette, and Remy begins to feel left out. Remy finds that his clan has come to Paris as well, and is taken to their new lair, but his father Django's attempt to rid his son of his admiration for humans fails and Remy leaves.

text: France's top restaurant critic, Anton Ego, whose previous negative review cost Gusteau's one of its stars and caused Gusteau's death, announces he will dine at the restaurant the following evening. That night, Remy and Linguini have a heated argument. Remy leads his clan to raid the restaurant's pantries in retaliation, but Linguini catches them and drives them out. Having discovered Remy's skills, Skinner captures him in an attempt to use him to create a line of frozen foods. However, Remy is freed by Django and his brother Emile. He returns to the restaurant to find Linguini, who has been unable to cook without him. Linguini apologizes and reveals the truth to the staff, but they all leave in disbelief. Colette later returns after recalling Gusteau's motto, "Anyone can cook."

text: Django arrives with the rest of the clan, offering to help after seeing his son's determination. Remy has the rats cook, while Linguini waits tables. For Ego and Skinner, Remy creates a variation of ratatouille, confit byaldi, which reminds an astonished Ego of his own mother's cooking. During the meal, the rats are forced to tie up Skinner and a health inspector to prevent them from revealing the rats' involvement in the cooking. When Ego requests to see the chef, Linguini and Colette make him wait until the rest of the diners have left before introducing Remy. Ego is stunned and leaves the restaurant, deep in thought. He writes a positive and thoughtful review for the newspaper the next day, stating that Gusteau's chef is "nothing less than the finest chef in France."

text: Linguini and Remy have to release Skinner and the health inspector, however; thus, despite receiving a good review, Gusteau's is forced into closure, and Ego loses his job and his credibility as a critic. Luckily, Ego funds (and frequents for Remy's cooking) a popular new bistro, La Ratatouille, created and run by Remy, Linguini, and Colette. The rats settle into their new home in the bistro's roof.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Patton Oswalt as Remy, a rat with heightened senses of taste of smell, enabling a talent and desire for cooking. Director Brad Bird chose Oswalt after hearing his food-related comedy routine.[4]
Ian Holm as Chef Skinner, a diminutive chef and owner of Auguste Gusteau's restaurant. Since Gusteau's death, Skinner has used the Gusteau name to market a line of cheap microwaveable meals. Skinner's behavior, diminutive size, and body language are loosely based on Louis de Funès.[5]
Lou Romano as Alfredo Linguini, the son of Auguste Gusteau and Renata Linguini.
Brad Garrett as Auguste Gusteau (whose first and last names are anagrams of each other). Many reviewers believe that Gusteau is inspired by real-life chef Bernard Loiseau, who committed suicide after media speculation that his flagship restaurant, La Côte d'Or, was going to be downgraded from three Michelin stars to two.[6] La Côte d'Or was one of the restaurants visited by Brad Bird and others in France.[7]
Janeane Garofalo as Colette Tatou, Gusteau's chef de partie, inspired by French chef Hélène Darroze.[8][9]
Brian Dennehy as Django, Remy and Emile's father, and the leader of the rats.
Peter O'Toole as Anton Ego, a restaurant critic. His appearance was modeled after Louis Jouvet.[10]
Peter Sohn as Emile, Remy's gluttonous older brother.
Will Arnett as Horst, Skinner's German sous chef.
Julius Callahan as Lalo, Gusteau's saucier and poissonnier. Callahan also voices François, the advertising executive handling the marketing of Gusteau's microwaveable products.
James Remar as Larousse, Gusteau's garde manger.
John Ratzenberger as Mustafa, Gusteau's head waiter.
Teddy Newton as Talon Labarthe, Skinner's lawyer.
Tony Fucile as Pompidou, Gusteau's patissier. Fucile also voices Nadar Lessard, a health inspector employed by Skinner.
Jake Steinfeld as Git, a former lab rat and member of Django's colony.
Brad Bird as Ambrister Minion, Anton Ego's butler.
Stéphane Roux as the narrator of the cooking channel.
Thomas Keller as a dining patron who asks "what's new".[11]

text: Production[edit]

text: Jan Pinkava came up with the concept in 2000, creating the original design, sets and characters and core storyline, but he was never formally named the director of the film.[12] Lacking confidence[13] in Pinkava's story development, Pixar management replaced him with Bird in 2005.[14][15][16] Bird was attracted to the film because of the outlandishness of the concept and the conflict that drove it: that rats feared kitchens, yet a rat wanted to work in one.[4] Bird was also delighted that the film could be made a highly physical comedy,[14] with the character of Linguini providing endless fun for the animators.[17] Bird rewrote the story, with a change in emphasis. He killed off Gusteau, gave larger roles to Skinner and Colette,[18] and also changed the appearance of the rats to be less anthropomorphic.[19]

text: Because Ratatouille is intended to be a romantic, lush vision of Paris, giving it an identity distinct from previous Pixar films,[14] director Brad Bird, producer Brad Lewis and some of the crew spent a week in the city to properly understand its environment, taking a motorcycle tour and eating at five top restaurants.[7] There are also many water-based sequences in the film, one of which is set in the sewers and is more complex than the blue whale scene in Finding Nemo. One scene has Linguini wet after jumping into the Seine to fetch Remy. A Pixar employee (Shade/Paint department coordinator Kesten Migdal) jumped into Pixar's swimming pool wearing a chef's uniform and apron to see which parts of the suit stuck to his body and which became translucent from water absorption.[20]

text: Ratatouille was originally going to be released in 2006; however, in December 2004, the date was changed to 2007. This happened because Disney/Pixar changed the release date of Cars, from November 2005 to June 2006, thus pushing Ratatouille to 2007.[21]

text:
A challenge for the filmmakers was creating computer-generated images of food that would appear delicious. Gourmet chefs in both the U.S. and France were consulted[19] and animators attended cooking classes at San Francisco-area culinary schools[11] to understand the workings of a commercial kitchen. Sets/Layout department manager Michael Warch, a culinary-academy-trained professional chef before working at Pixar, helped teach and consult animators as they worked. He also prepared dishes used by the Art, Shade/Paint, Effects and Sets Modeling departments.[22][23] Renowned chef Thomas Keller allowed producer Brad Lewis to intern in his French Laundry kitchen. For the film's climax, Keller designed a fancy, layered version of the title dish for the rat characters to cook, which he called "confit byaldi" in honor of the original Turkish name.[11] The same sub-surface light scattering technique that was used on skin in The Incredibles was used on fruits and vegetables,[24] while new programs gave an organic texture and movement to the food.[25] Completing the illusion were music, dialogue, and abstract imagery representing the characters' mental sensations while appreciating food. The visual flavor metaphors were created by animator Michel Gagné inspired by the work of Oscar Fischinger and Norman McLaren.[26]
To create a realistic compost pile, the Art Department photographed fifteen different kinds of produce, such as apples, berries, bananas, mushrooms, oranges, broccoli, and lettuce, in the process of rotting.[27]

text: According to Pixar designer Jason Deamer, "Most of the characters were designed while Jan [Pinkava] was still directing… He has a real eye for sculpture."[28] For example, according to Pinkava, the critic Anton Ego was designed to resemble a vulture.[29] Rat expert Debbie Ducommun (a.k.a. the "Rat Lady") was consulted on rat habits and characteristics.[30] A vivarium containing pet rats sat in a hallway for more than a year so animators could study the movement of the animals' fur, noses, ears, paws, and tails as they ran.[24] The cast members strove to make their French accents authentic yet understandable. John Ratzenberger notes that he often segued into an Italian accent.[7] To save time, human characters were designed and animated without toes.[31]

text: Promotional material for Intel credits their platform for a 30 percent performance improvement in rendering software. They used Remy in some of their marketing materials.[32][33]

text: Music[edit]

text:
RatatouilleFilm score by Michael GiacchinoReleased
June 26, 2007Recorded
2006–2007Studio
Sony Pictures Studios Scoring Stage in Culver City, CAGenre
ClassicalLength
62:23Label
Walt DisneyProducer
Michael GiacchinoPixar soundtrack chronology

Cars(2006)Cars2006

Ratatouille(2007)

WALL-E (2008)WALL-E2008

Michael Giacchino chronology

Mission: Impossible III(2006) Mission: Impossible III2006

Ratatouille(2007) Ratatouille2007

Cloverfield(2007) Cloverfield2007

text: Professional ratingsReview scoresSourceRatingAllMusic[34]Empire[35]SoundtrackNet[36]

text: Brad Bird reteamed with Michael Giacchino on the score for Ratatouille since they got along well during the scoring of The Incredibles. Giacchino had written two themes for Remy, one about his thief self and the other about his hopes and dreams. He also wrote a buddy theme for both Remy and Linguini that plays when they're together. In addition to the score, Giacchino wrote the main theme song, "Le Festin", about Remy and his wishes to be a chef. Camille was hired to perform "Le Festin" after Giacchino listened to her music and realized she was perfect for the song; as a result, the song is sung in French in all versions of the film.[37]

text: The music for Ratatouille gave Giacchino his first Academy Award nomination for Best Original Score as well as his first Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack Album. Giacchino returned to Pixar to score their 2009 blockbuster Up.[37]

text: No.TitleLength1."Le Festin" (performed by Camille)2:502."Welcome to Gusteau's"0:383."This Is Me"1:414."Granny Get Your Gun"2:015."100 Rat Dash"1:476."Wall Rat"2:417."Cast of Cooks"1:418."A Real Gourmet Kitchen"4:189."Souped Up"0:5010."Is It Soup Yet?"1:1611."A New Deal"1:5612."Remy Drives a Linguini"2:2613."Colette Shows Him le Ropes"2:5614."Special Order"1:5815."Kiss & Vinegar"1:5416."Losing Control"2:0417."Heist to See You"1:4518."The Paper Chase"1:4419."Remy's Revenge"3:2420."Abandoning Ship"2:5521."Dinner Rush"5:0022."Anyone Can Cook"3:1323."End Creditouilles"9:1624."Ratatouille Main Theme"2:09

text: Release[edit]

text: Ratatouille's world premiere was on June 22, 2007, at Los Angeles' Kodak Theater.[38] The commercial release was one week later, with the short film Lifted preceding Ratatouille in theaters. Earlier in the year, it had received an Academy Award nomination.[39] A test screening of the film was shown at the Harkins Cine Capri Theater in Scottsdale, Arizona on June 16, 2007, at which a Pixar representative was present to collect viewer feedback.[40] Disney CEO Bob Iger announced an upcoming theatrical re-release of the film in 3D at the Disney shareholders meeting in March 2014.[41]

text: Marketing[edit]

text: The trailer for Ratatouille debuted with the release of its immediate predecessor, Cars. It depicts an original scene where Remy is caught on the cheese trolley in the restaurant's dining area sampling the cheese and barely escaping the establishment, intercut with separate scenes of the rat explaining directly to the audience why he is taking such risks. Similar to most of Pixar's teaser trailers, the scene was not present in the final film release.[42]

text: A second trailer was released on March 23, 2007.[43] The Ratatouille Big Cheese Tour began on May 11, 2007, with cooking demonstrations and a film preview.[44] Voice actor Lou Romano attended the San Francisco leg of the tour for autograph signings.[45]

text: Disney and Pixar were working to bring a French-produced Ratatouille-branded wine to Costco stores in August 2007, but abandoned plans because of complaints from the California Wine Institute, citing standards in labeling that restrict the use of cartoon characters to avoid attracting under-age drinkers.[46]

text: In the United Kingdom, in place of releasing a theatrical trailer, a theatrical commercial featuring Remy and Emile was released in cinemas before its release to discourage obtaining unlicensed copies of films.[47] Also in the United Kingdom, the main characters were used for a theatrical commercial for the Nissan Note, with Remy and Emile watching an original commercial for it made for the "Surprisingly Spacious" ad campaign and also parodying it, respectively.[48]

text: Disney/Pixar were concerned that audiences, particularly children, would not be familiar with the word "ratatouille" and its pronunciation. The title was therefore also spelled phonetically within trailers and on posters.[49] For similar reasons, in the American release of the film, on-screen text in French was printed in English, such as the title of Gusteau's cookbook and the sign telling kitchen staff to wash their hands, though in the British English release, these are rendered in French. In Canada, the film was released theatrically with text in English, but on DVD, the majority of the text (including Gusteau's will) was in French.[50]

text: Home media[edit]

text: Disney released Ratatouille on high-definition Blu-ray Disc and DVD in North America on November 6, 2007.[51] A new animated short film featuring Remy and Emile entitled Your Friend the Rat was included as a special feature, in which the two rats attempt to entreat the viewer, a human, to welcome rats as their friends, demonstrating the benefits and misconceptions of rats towards humanity through several historical examples. The eleven-minute short uses 3D animation, 2D animation, live action and even stop-motion animation, a first for Pixar.[52]

text: The disc also includes a CG short entitled Lifted, which screened before the film during its theatrical run.  It depicts an adolescent extraterrestrial attempting to abduct a sleeping human. Throughout the sequence, he is graded by an adult extraterrestrial in a manner reminiscent of a driver's licensing exam road test. The entire short contains no dialogue, which is typical of Pixar Shorts not based on existing properties.[53] Also included among the special features are deleted scenes, a featurette featuring Brad Bird discussing filmmaking and chef Thomas Keller discussing culinary creativity entitled "Fine Food and Film", and four easter eggs. Although the Region 1 Blu-ray edition has a French audio track, the Region 1 DVD does not, except for some copies marked as for sale only in Canada.[54]

text: It was released on DVD on November 6, 2007, and earned 4,919,574 units (equivalent to US$73,744,414) on its first week (November 6–11, 2007) during which it topped the DVD charts. In total it sold 12,531,266 units (US$189,212,532) becoming the second-best-selling animated DVD of 2007, both in units sold and sales revenue, behind Happy Feet.[55]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 96% approval rating with an average rating of 8.5/10 based on 245 reviews. The site's consensus reads: "Fast-paced and stunningly animated, Ratatouille adds another delightfully entertaining entry—and a rather unlikely hero—to the Pixar canon."[56] Metacritic, another review aggregator website which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 top reviews from mainstream critics, calculated a score of 96 out of 100 based on 37 reviews,[57] the highest of any Pixar film[58] and the twenty-first highest rated film on the site.[59]

text: A. O. Scott of The New York Times called Ratatouille "a nearly flawless piece of popular art, as well as one of the most persuasive portraits of an artist ever committed to film"; echoing the character Anton Ego in the film, he ended his review with a simple "thank you" to the creators of the film.[60] Wally Hammond of Time Out gave the film five out of five stars, saying "A test for tiny tots, a mite nostalgic and as male-dominated as a modern kitchen it may be, but these are mere quibbles about this delightful addition to the Pixar pantheon."[61] Andrea Gronvall of the Chicago Reader gave the film a positive review, saying "Brad Bird's second collaboration with Pixar is more ambitious and meditative than his Oscar-winning The Incredibles."[62] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B, saying "Ratatouille has the Pixar technical magic without, somehow, the full Pixar flavor. It's Brad Bird's genial dessert, not so much incredible as merely sweetly edible."[63] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "What makes Ratatouille such a hilarious and heartfelt wonder is the way Bird contrives to let it sneak up on you. And get a load of that score from Michael Giacchino, a perfect compliment to a delicious meal."[62] James Berardinelli of ReelViews gave the film three out of four stars, saying "For parents looking to spend time in a theater with their kids or adults who want something lighter and less testosterone-oriented than the usual summer fare, Ratatouille offers a savory main course."[64] Christy Lemire of the Associated Press gave the film a positive review, saying "Ratatouille is free of the kind of gratuitous pop-culture references that plague so many movies of the genre; it tells a story, it's very much of our world but it never goes for the cheap, easy gag."[62] Justin Chang of Variety gave the film a positive review, saying "The master chefs at Pixar have blended all the right ingredients—abundant verbal and visual wit, genius slapstick timing, a soupcon of Gallic sophistication—to produce a warm and irresistible concoction."[65]

text: Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune gave the film four out of four stars, saying "The film may be animated, and largely taken up with rats, but its pulse is gratifyingly human. And you have never seen a computer-animated feature with this sort of visual panache and detail."[66] Rafer Guzman of Newsday gave the film three out of four stars, saying "So many computer-animated movies are brash, loud and popping with pop-culture comedy, but Ratatouille has the warm glow of a favorite book. The characters are more than the sum of their gigabyte-consuming parts – they feel handcrafted."[62] Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel gave the film three out of five stars, saying "Has Pixar lost its magic recipe? Ratatouille is filled with fairly generic animated imagery, a few modest chases, a couple of good gags, not a lot of laughs."[67] Scott Foundas of LA Weekly gave the film a positive review, saying "Bird has taken the raw ingredients of an anthropomorphic-animal kiddie matinee and whipped them into a heady brew about nothing less than the principles of artistic creation."[68] Colin Covert of the Star Tribune gave the film four out of four stars, saying "It's not just the computer animation that is vibrantly three-dimensional. It's also the well-rounded characters… I defy you to name another animated film so overflowing with superfluous beauty."[62] Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "With Ratatouille, Bird once again delivers not just a great, witty story, but dazzling visuals as well."[69] Bill Muller of The Arizona Republic gave the film four-and-a-half stars out of five, saying "Like the burbling soup that plays a key part in Ratatouille, the movie is a delectable blend of ingredients that tickles the palette and leaves you hungry for more."[62]

text: Rene Rodriguez of the Miami Herald gave the film three out of four stars, saying "Ratatouille is the most straightforward and formulaic picture to date from Pixar Animation Studios, but it is also among the most enchanting and touching."[70] Jack Mathews of the New York Daily News gave the film four out of four stars, saying "The Pixar magic continues with Brad Bird's Ratatouille, a gorgeous, wonderfully inventive computer-animated comedy."[71] Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star-Ledger gave the film three out of four stars, saying "Fresh family fun. Although there are those slightly noxious images of rodents scampering around a kitchen, the movie doesn't stoop to kid-pandering jokes based on back talk and bodily gases."[62] David Ansen of Newsweek gave the film a positive review, saying "A film as rich as a sauce béarnaise, as refreshing as a raspberry sorbet, and a lot less predictable than the damn food metaphors and adjectives all us critics will churn out to describe it. OK, one more and then I'll be done: it's yummy."[72] Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film four out of four stars, saying "Ratatouille never overwhelms, even though it's stocked with action, romance, historical content, family drama and serious statements about the creation of art."[73] Richard Corliss of Time gave the film a positive review, saying "From the moment Remy enters, crashing, to the final happy fadeout, Ratatouille parades the brio and depth that set Pixar apart from and above other animation studios."[74] Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film four out of four stars, saying "A lot of animated movies have inspired sequels, notably Shrek, but Brad Bird's Ratatouille is the first one that made me positively desire one."[75] Peter Howell of the Toronto Star gave the film four out of four stars, saying "Had Bird gone the safe route, he would have robbed us of a great new cartoon figure in Remy, who like the rest of the film is rendered with animation that is at once fanciful and life-like. It's also my pick for Pixar's best."[76]

text: Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal gave the film a positive review, saying "The characters are irresistible, the animation is astonishing and the film, a fantasy version of a foodie rhapsody, sustains a level of joyous invention that hasn't been seen in family entertainment since The Incredibles."[77] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times gave the film four-and-a-half stars out of five, saying "Brad Bird's Ratatouille is so audacious you have to fall in love with its unlikely hero."[78] Claudia Puig of USA Today gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "Ratatouille is delicious fun sure to be savored by audiences of all ages for its sumptuous visuals, clever wit and irresistibly inspiring tale."[62] Miriam Di Nunzio of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "Ratatouille will make you wonder why animation needs to hide behind the mantle of 'it's for children, but grownups will like it, too.' This one's for Mom and Dad, and yep, the kids will like it, too."[79] Michael Booth of The Denver Post gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "Writer and director Brad Bird keeps Ratatouille moving without resorting to the cute animal jokes or pop-culture wisecracking that ruined so many other recent animated films."[80] Tom Long of The Detroit News gave the film an A, saying "Ratatouille has the technical genius, emotional core and storytelling audacity to lift it into the ranks of [the best] Pixar films, the crème de la crème of modern animation." Liam Lacey of The Globe and Mail gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "No sketchy backgrounds here—Ratatouille's scenes feels like deep-focus camera shots. The textures, from the gleam of copper pans to the cobblestone streets, are almost palpable."[62] Desson Thomson of The Washington Post gave the film a positive review, saying "Ratatouille doesn't center on the over-familiar surfaces of contemporary life. It harks back to Disney's older era, when cartoons seemed part of a more elegant world with less edgy characters."[81]

text: Box office[edit]

text: In its opening weekend in North America, Ratatouille opened in 3,940 theaters and debuted at number one with $47 million,[82] the lowest Pixar opening since A Bug's Life. However, in France, where the film is set, the film broke the record for the biggest debut for an animated film.[83] In the UK, the film debuted at number one with sales over £4 million.[84] The film has grossed $206.4 million in the United States and Canada and a total of $620.7 million worldwide, making it the seventh-highest-grossing Pixar film.[85]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: Ratatouille won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature at the 80th Academy Awards and was nominated for four others: Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Original Screenplay, losing to Atonement, The Bourne Ultimatum (for both Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing), and Juno, respectively.[86][87] At the time, the film held the record for the greatest number of Oscar nominations for a computer animated feature film, breaking the previous record held by Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles at four nominations, but tied with Aladdin for any animated film. In 2008, WALL-E surpassed that record with six nominations. As of 2013, Ratatouille is tied with Up and Toy Story 3 for animated film with the second-greatest number of Oscar nominations. Beauty and the Beast still holds the record for most Oscar nominations (also 6) for an animated feature film.[87]

text: Furthermore, Ratatouille was nominated for 13 Annie Awards including twice in the Best Animated Effects, where it lost to Surf's Up, and three times in the Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production for Janeane Garofalo, Ian Holm, and Patton Oswalt, where Ian Holm won the award.[88] It won the Best Animated Feature Award from multiple associations including the Chicago Film Critics,[89] the National Board of Review,[90] the Annie Awards,[88] the Broadcast Film Critics,[91] the British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA), and the Golden Globes.[92]

text: Plagiarized film[edit]

text: If magazine described Ratatoing, a 2007 Brazilian computer graphics cartoon by Vídeo Brinquedo, as a "ripoff" of Ratatouille.[93] Marco Aurélio Canônico of Folha de S.Paulo described Ratatoing as a derivative of Ratatouille. Canônico discussed whether lawsuits from Pixar would appear. The Brazilian Ministry of Culture posted Marco Aurélio Canônico's article on its website.[94] In the end, Pixar reportedly did not seek legal action.[citation needed]

text: Video game[edit]

text: The primary video game adaptation of the film, titled Ratatouille, was released for all major consoles and handhelds in 2007. A Nintendo DS exclusive game, titled Ratatouille: Food Frenzy, was released in October 2007. Ratatouille is also among the films represented in Kinect Rush: A Disney-Pixar Adventure, released in March 2012 for Xbox 360.[95]

text: The video game based on the movie was released in 2007 for Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 2, GameCube, Xbox, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Java ME, and mobile phones.  A PlayStation 3 version was released on October 23, 2007.  The other versions, however were all released on June 26, 2007.

text: Theme park attraction[edit]

text:
A Disney theme park attraction based on the film has been constructed in Walt Disney Studios Park, Disneyland Paris. Ratatouille: L'Aventure Totalement Toquée de Rémy is based upon scenes from the film and uses trackless ride technology. In the attraction, riders "shrink down to the size of a rat".[96]
At the 2017 D23 Expo, Disney announced a similar, Ratatouille-based attraction would be built at the France Pavilion in Epcot's World Showcase by 2021.[97]