Film review

  • The Taste of Things

    La passion de Dodin Bouffant

    Trần Anh Hùng (2023)

    The Taste of Things is beautifully made and performed and a good bit too long (134 minutes).  Set in rural France in the late 1800s, Trần Anh Hùng’s film tells the story of a creative partnership and a romance between renowned gourmet Dodin Bouffant (Benoît Magimel) and his chef, Eugénie (Juliette Binoche).  The first extended kitchen sequence is fascinating both to watch and to listen to.  The two lead actors’ movements around the large kitchen are absorbing; Binoche and Magimel look as if they really know what they’re doing as they reduce sauces, prep langoustines and so on.  DP Jonathan Ricquebourg supplies close-up after close-up of the food in preparation – braised turbot and lettuces, a prodigious vol-au-vent, a veal joint, baked Alaska.  There’s not much conversation as Eugénie and Dodin, with the willing though limited assistance of young housemaid Violette (Galatea Bellugi), concentrate on their work.  This sharpens your awareness of the sounds of sizzling pans, of cutlery on crockery, of footsteps over the kitchen flags; from outside, there are occasional cries of peacocks in the grounds of Dodin’s estate.  (It was gently elating to hear this unassumingly expressive soundtrack just a few days after experiencing the bravura sound design of The Zone of Interest.)  The whole sequence must run nearly half an hour yet doesn’t at all outstay its welcome.  In fact, it becomes suspenseful:  you keep wondering who the amazing meal is for.

    Curiosity is satisfied the moment Hùng cuts away from the kitchen.  Dodin hosts lunch in his dining room for four other middle-aged men:  Grimaud (Patrick d’Assumçao), Magot (Jan Hammenecker), Beaubois (Frédéric Fisbach) and late arrival Rabaz (Emmanuel Salinger), a local doctor who comes to the lunch straight from delivering a baby.  Dodin’s friends are appreciative of Eugénie’s cooking and sorry that she doesn’t join them for the meal, although they enthuse even more (that’s how it seemed to me) over their host’s wine.  A messenger arrives with an invitation:  the prince of Eurasia (sic!), currently visiting France, knows of Dodin’s gastronomic reputation and asks him to a banquet – the menu will be conceived by the prince himself and prepared by his personal chef.  The invitation is extended to Dodin’s friends, who readily accept.  The scene left me unclear on the occupations of the guests other than Rabaz and how the prince knew to invite the whole group to his banquet.  As the film proceeds, though, a larger mystery develops.

    Trần Anh Hùng’s screenplay is based on a 1924 novel, La vie et la passion de Dodin-Bouffant, gourmet.  The novel’s author, a Swiss called Marcel Rouff, was also an eminent non-fiction writer on food, co-author with Maurice Edmond Sailland (known as Curnonsky) of a multi-volume work on French gastronomy.  Rouff dedicated the novel to both Curnonsky and a famous gastronomic writer of an earlier era, Brillat-Savarin.  The latter is name-checked in The Taste of Things, along with his contemporary, the chef Antonin Carême, and Dodin’s contemporary, Auguste Escoffier.  Hùng’s easy insertion of fictional Dodin into actual culinary tradition is, on the face of it, deft (it’s a modest echo of A S Byatt’s achievement in Possession, where invented writers are placed convincingly in the detailed real world of Victorian literature).  But, after a while, Dodin’s celebrity becomes puzzling.  He’s known as ‘the Napoleon of fine dining’ but I wasn’t sure where he got this reputation or how he sustains it.  We rarely see him leave his house and grounds, or entertain guests other than his immediate circle of friends.

    The sketchy coverage of his public career results partly from the narrative’s increasing focus on Dodin’s relationship with Eugénie – on the blending of gastronomic and romantic passions.  We learn that gourmet and chef have worked together for twenty years and ‘spent more time together than many spouses’; that Dodin has several times proposed marriage to Eugénie but she has always refused.  We assume his sexual desire isn’t entirely unsatisfied, however, even though we don’t see them in bed together.  Dodin regularly goes to Eugénie’s bedroom door, which she sometimes locks and sometimes leaves open as a signal to him.  Inside the candlelit room, he watches her take her bath or sits on the bed caressing her naked haunch.  (In one of his less subtle juxtapositions, Hùng cuts to this from a kitchen close-up of a luscious pear.)

    Dodin remains quietly determined to marry Eugénie.  In another lengthy description of a meal in preparation, he works solo in preparing an elaborate dinner for her and her alone.  Although it inevitably lacks the bracing novelty of the first such episode, this second one, like the meal, is finely crafted.  There’s another lovely little detail on the soundtrack:  Eugénie eats noiselessly but there’s a hint of exhilaration in the tiny sound of her swallowing a mouthful of wine.  The dinner concludes with a dessert in which Dodin has concealed an engagement ring:  Eugénie exclaims more audibly when she discovers this.  She finally agrees to marry Dodin.  They hold an alfresco celebration for friends and neighbours, at which Dodin announces that he and Eugénie plan to wed ‘in the autumn of our lives’.

    We already know the existential season, and not just because this is a couple in their fifties.  As soon as Eugénie has a brief funny turn in the opening kitchen sequence, we can guess she won’t survive the film; when she has a couple of fainting fits and Rabaz mentions that her parents died quite young, we can be sure.  This isn’t to disparage the story as predictable – transience emerges as a central theme – but the leisurely tempo makes you very aware of waiting for Eugénie’s death to happen.  She eventually goes to bed one night and doesn’t wake up again.  Dodin mourns Eugénie and, good as Benoît Magimel is, the viewer soon misses Juliette Binoche.  The Taste of Things is probably more eventful post-Eugénie but it has less rhythm, and certain incidents aren’t convincing.  Dodin’s friends arrange for another chef to take up kitchen duties.  On arrival, she makes the man of the house an omelette, following Eugénie’s recipe.  Furious, he sends her packing.  Because the film has been so quiet hitherto, Magimel’s shouting has impact but you don’t believe his friends would be so foolishly presumptuous as to ‘replace’ Eugénie without consulting Dodin.

    The main sub-plot illustrates that, while individual cooks live and die, gastronomy goes on.  Pauline (Bonnie Chagneau-Rivoire), who is Violette’s niece, happens to be visiting on the day of the opening lunch and does more than watch with interest the preparations for the meal.  This child shows a precociously developed palate:  when Dodin asks her to identify the ingredients of a formidably complex soup, Pauline gets nearly every one right.  Eugénie visits Pauline’s parents (Sarah Adler and Yannik Landrein) and proposes that she train their daughter as a chef.  They demur but, after Eugénie’s death, tell Dodin that Pauline is more eager than ever to learn from him.  He refuses at first but, as he emerges from grief, changes his mind.  He interviews prospective new chefs; Pauline sits alongside, tasting their efforts and telling Dodin what she thinks.  They don’t find the right candidate but, in the film’s penultimate scene, Grimaud arrives, nervously bearing a dish cooked by a chef working locally, and asks Dodin to taste.  Dodin is immediately impressed and sets off with Grimaud to see the woman responsible.  In his excitement, he leaves Pauline behind but quickly returns to take her with him to meet the chef.

    These sequences work well enough but it’s only in the closing scene that The Taste of Things recovers its unhurried poise (and Binoche).  After Dodin, Grimaud and Pauline have left, the camera stays in the empty kitchen and slowly pans round it (a full 360°).  We then see Dodin and Eugénie sitting on opposite sides of the table; whether this is a flashback or some kind of reunion of kindred spirits, in the place where their partnership chiefly flourished, is probably irrelevant.  By telling her of his love of the first days of each season of the year, Dodin confirms the twin elements of ephemerality and continuation in the texture of the story.  By finally asking if he considers her his wife or his chef, Eugénie confirms its intertwining of romantic and epicurean appetites.  Dodin replies that she is his chef.  The look on Eugénie’s face makes clear this is the right answer.

    Dodin and his friends attend the prince of Eurasia’s banquet off screen but we hear them express disappointment with the lavish fare served.  Dodin finds it in an important sense tasteless – a succession of dishes that are individually spectacular but unharmonious together; he plans to reciprocate the prince’s hospitality by serving him a daringly unpretentious dinner with a rustic pot-au-feu as its centrepiece (this dinner doesn’t happen in the course of the film).  I have to admit that I began to feel glutted by Trần Anh Hùng’s menu, too.  The expertly photographed images of food are, more often than not, accompanied by a character’s description of what each dish is:  the subtitles on the screen seem to shove the food down your throat.  There’s also a surfeit of epigrammatic philosophising – ‘Happiness is continuing to desire what we already have’, etc.  We have friends who don’t like French cinema; that is, any French cinema – as if it were a standard product.  The common feature of French films is French people in them.  I suspect this is our friends’ problem, although they’d be horrified to be labelled racist.  I thought about this as my mind began to wander during The Taste of Things.  I enjoyed it a lot but it may be meat and drink to Francophobes.

    20 February 2024

  • American Fiction

    Cord Jefferson (2023)

    The trailer for American Fiction sets out the main story clearly.  Monk, a middle-aged African American, is a writer of serious literature with zero commercial appeal.  Frustrated by abysmal sales and dismayed by the success of a Black author whose new best-seller trades in Black stereotypes, Monk embarks on writing his own crowd-pleaser, in a spirit of angry sarcasm.  He types the title, ‘My Pathology’; after a moment’s thought, he replaces the ‘th’ with an ‘f’.  When his agent informs him that a publisher has accepted ‘My Pafology’, Monk is incredulous; when the book becomes a smash hit, he’s appalled.  Each time I saw the trailer in the cinema, I wondered how this strong comedy premise could be spun out to feature length (especially since it’s also clear from the trailer that representatives of the white publishing world will be getting cartoon treatment).  Now I know.  The material used by Cord Jefferson to expand the narrative to nearly two hours verges on an example of what American Fiction is meant to be satirising.

    Jefferson is a well-known writer for American television; American Fiction is his first cinema screenplay as well as his directing debut.  The source material is a 2001 novel called Erasure by Percival Everett.  Like his creation Monk, (Professor) Percival Everett is an English scholar as well as a fiction writer.  Even if you’ve not read Erasure (I haven’t), the Wikipedia page delivers an instant impression of its cultural knowingness.  Everett’s protagonist’s full name is Thelonious ‘Monk’ Ellison, who writes ‘My Pafology’ pseudonymously – as an Invisible Man.  Monk’s nom de plume, Stagg R Leigh, plays on the name of a legendary Black badass.  According to Wikipedia’s summary of Erasure, ‘My Pafology’ is ‘based in part on Richard Wright’s Native Son (1940) and Sapphire’s Push (1996)’; Everett presumably sees the latter as epitomising ‘the late-1990s’ reality of the publishing industry seeming to pigeonhole black writers by valuing accounts of dysfunctional urban poor over other black lives’.

    Monk Ellison’s phony novel is (Wikipedia again) ‘published in its entirety within Erasure and creates a meta-narrative that challenges the reader about the value and merits of this writing in contrast to the supposedly more erudite text and characters of Erasure’.  American Fiction can’t replicate this (a nice coincidence to see it just a week after bumping into Atonement again) but Jefferson takes from Percival Everett’s original the other elements mentioned above, and more.  While Push would become a 2009 film with a foolishly longer, self-aggrandising title (Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire), Monk Ellison tries to derail his book’s publication by insisting that ‘My Pafology’ be retitled ‘Fuck’ – or else the deal is off.  The publisher agrees, of course; ‘Fuck’ it is.  Jefferson also retains what one reviewer of Erasure would describe as a ‘moving portrait of a son coming to terms with his mother’s life’.  The Ellison family story, which accounts for much of the film’s screen time, is where American Fiction starts to go wrong.

    The opening sequences are promising.  Monk (Jeffrey Wright), who teaches at a university in Los Angeles, crosses swords with one of the students in his seminar.  Like most of her classmates, Brittany (Skyler Wright) is white – as is the board on which Monk has written the names of Flannery O’Connor and one of her short stories, The Artificial Nigger.  When Brittany complains the class shouldn’t ‘have to stare at the N-word all day’, Monk patiently explains that ‘This is a class on the literature of the American South.  You’re going to encounter some archaic thoughts, coarse language, but we’re all adults here, and I think we can understand it in the context in which it’s used’.  When Brittany continues to protest, Monk tartly replies that ‘I got over it – I’m pretty sure you can, too’.  Her exit line – ‘Well, I don’t see why’ – is petulant but the scene is strong as well as funny because Skyler Wright shows Brittany as genuinely upset.  The next scene, in which the university authorities suspend Monk for this latest in a series of verbal indiscretions, is comically much cruder but it’s also necessary.  American Fiction is apparently set in the present day but you do wonder if the war of words in the seminar reflects a situation more likely at the time Percival Everett wrote Erasure than in the 2020s.  It seems improbable that Brittany would now be a lone complaining voice.  It’s believable that her teacher would now be disciplined for suggesting that she grow up.

    The key episode at a literary festival in Boston – Monk’s home city, where he returns while on enforced sabbatical leave – isn’t subtle but makes its points effectively and amusingly.  Monk has just learned from his agent, Arthur (John Ortiz), that his novel manuscript has come back from yet another publisher with regrets that the book, though ‘finely crafted, with fully developed characters and rich language’, lacks connection ‘with the African-American experience’.  Monk’s fiction does indeed sound off-puttingly academic:  this latest effort, ‘The Persians’, is a reworking of Aeschylus’s tragedy of that name.  At the literary festival, there’s a feeble turnout for a panel discussion on ‘Revitalizing Ancient Literature for the Modern Audience’ in which Monk takes part.  He learns that this session clashed with a Q&A with exciting new Black author Sintara Golden (Issa Rae).  He looks in on the Q&A to hear Sintara tell the fawning moderator (Nicole Kempskie) how she came to write her rapturously received novel ‘We’s Lives in Da Ghetto’.  When she reads an excerpt, Sintara gets a standing ovation from a full house.

    By this point, Cord Jefferson has started to work in details of Monk’s middle-class family.  His sister Lisa (Tracee Ellis Ross) and his brother Cliff (Sterling K Brown) are both doctors.  Lisa works in Boston and, with the help of live-in housekeeper Lorraine (Myra Lucretia Taylor), cares for the three siblings’ widowed mother Agnes (Leslie Uggams), who’s showing signs of dementia.  Plastic surgeon Cliff, like Monk, moved out west; he recently split from his wife, after she found him in bed with a man.  Lisa stays in the film long enough to reveal to Monk that their late father had affairs (with women); she then dies, suddenly and unexpectedly.  It soon emerges that Agnes needs to be in a care home and that Monk must raise funds for her care costs since Cliff won’t chip in.  It’s a perfectly good idea that Monk, when he sits down to write a book that will sell, is driven by this urgent practical imperative as well as by cynical fury – but there’s little further traction between the film’s satirical comedy and the routine domestic drama, of which plenty is still to come.  Monk embarks on a tentative romance with Coraline (Erika Alexander), a divorced lawyer whose house is on the same street as his mother’s.  Cliff hangs around in Boston, in Agnes’s beach house, having fun and doing drugs with a couple of younger men.  There’s a sentimental, sub-Peggotty-and-Barkis romance between Lorraine and a cab driver called Maynard (Raymond Anthony Thomas).

    Monk’s agent Arthur evidently isn’t used to peddling trash:  each shot of his desk mysteriously displays a pile of copies of Alcools (as if Guillaume Apollinaire need worry about sales …).  When Arthur first receives ‘My Pafology’ he’s apprehensive about getting it read because it ‘scares me’.  Monk asks why:  ‘Because,’ says Arthur, ‘white people think they want the truth, but they don’t.  They just want to feel absolved’.   The runaway success of ‘My Pafology’/’Fuck’ vindicates Arthur:  a six-figure sum offered as a pre-emptive advance, a vastly more lucrative movie deal, eleventh-hour submission for a prestigious literary award.  The comic focus, of course, is on self-approving white liberal perceptions and reception of the book but the non-comic parts of the story offer white audiences the opportunity for another kind of complacency.  If the dramatis personae of American Fiction were white, their ordeals – bereavement, dementia, sexual identity, marriage breakdowns – would rightly be dismissed as items on a checklist.  Because the main characters are African-American, anxious white viewers are given an excuse to feel better about themselves:  look, the Black bourgeoisie is just like us!   There’s even a generic melancholy score (by Laura Karpman) to underline the point.  None of this would matter so much if Black audiences viewed the Ellison family and their dramatically tame travails as no less ridiculous than the film’s white personnel but this may not be the case – at least if the public reactions of some Black cineastes are anything to go by.  In a piece she contributed to Variety late last year, Gina Prince-Bythewood, director of The Woman King, admires American Fiction not only as ‘a searing indictment of biased norms’ but also as ‘a heartbreaking family drama … [with] characters who are flawed works of progress searching for peace within themselves, and with each other’.  You could say the same of characters in any self-respecting TV soap – if, that is, you’re as comfortable with silly hyperbole as Prince-Bythewood seems to be.

    The shallowness of the film’s but-seriously side also detracts from Jeffrey Wright’s portrait of Monk, which is absorbing but always tantalising.  Wright certainly looks the academic part but I never got the hang of why Monk – bespectacled, urbane, a few pounds overweight – was so isolated and miserable in his personal life as well as thwarted in his creative endeavours.  The plot depends on his keeping secret from Coraline his latest writing venture but not necessarily his past or his feelings, yet he’s silent on all these subjects.  When they first meet, he’s gratified to learn she’s one of the few people who buy his high-falutin novels; when they fall out and break up, it’s because Coraline is a less discriminating reader than Monk thought – she enjoys ‘Fuck’, too.  Are we meant to think Monk is so preoccupied with being a successful novelist that he can’t form successful personal relationships?  If so, Jeffrey Wright doesn’t convey that impression.  He suggests someone more fundamentally, though opaquely, dissatisfied.  He also renders implausible what proves to be a crucial plot development.  Monk is invited to join the panel of judges for the major annual award given by the New England Book Association, which is anxious to improve its diversity profile.  When Monk demurs, the Association’s director tells him, ‘This will literally allow you to judge other writers for once’; quick as a flash, Monk replies, ‘I’m in’.  It’s a dumb joke on rabid rivalry among writers:  how did Monk think this panel would work other than by literally judging literature?  Wright’s interpretation of him ensures the joke rings all the more false.

    Monk’s decision to judge is important for several reasons.  The panel’s first task is to rule on whether ‘Fuck’ can be admitted to the contest even though the nominating deadline has passed.  The book is rapidly becoming a cultural phenomenon and its author an intriguing and elusive new celebrity:  Stagg R Leigh, according to publishing hype, has previously done time inside and is now once more a fugitive from the law.  Trapped in his own tangled web, Monk argues in vain that ‘Fuck’ shouldn’t be eligible for consideration for the prize.  Each of the three whites on the five-strong panel is a crude caricature of a particular literary-political point of view; the other Black judge is Sintara Golden.  At the business end of judging, she and Monk are the minority voting against ‘Fuck’ for the award – an ironically amusing alliance that results from mixed motives:  Monk is full of contempt for what he has written and scared of being unmasked as the result of further public recognition; Sintara is irked that ‘Fuck’ is now upstaging ‘We’s Lives in Da Ghetto’.  In the panel’s discussion, she accuses Stagg R Leigh of ‘pandering’ to white preconceptions of non-white experience.  This is too much for Monk:  it’s the pot calling the kettle Black.  During the lunch break on judgment day, he catches Sintara alone and, taking pains not to give away too much, asks her to explain how it is that she wasn’t pandering.  Sintara explains herself in proudly self-justifying terms.  This well-written, well-played exchange is the best bit of American Fiction’s lampoon of literary amour propre and jealousy.  Like that opening sequence in the seminar room, comedy and urgency are held in tense balance.

    Jeffrey Wright is at his best in these scenes; the lunchtime discussion also gives Issa Rae the chance to show another side to Sintara.  Most of the supporting roles are either underwritten (Coraline, Arthur) or one-note (Lorraine and Maynard, the white panel judges (Jenn Harris, Neal Lerner, Bates Wilder) and publishing people (Miriam Shor, Michael Cyril Creighton), Cliff’s beach-house paramours (Alexander Pobutsky, Joshua Olumide)).  Although Cliff isn’t part of the ‘Fuck’ story, his behaviour, unlike that of the other people in Monk’s private life, involves comic elements.  They’re mostly coarse and Cliff is a plastic surgeon for the sake of a single one-liner but Sterling K Brown’s verve livens things up considerably.  The brazenly unprincipled Hollywood producer Wiley Valdespino (Adam Brody) may be the most carelessly conceived character of all.  Arthur sets up a meeting with him, telling Monk that Wiley ‘specializes in Oscar-baity “issue” movies’.  It turns out his latest movie is, as Wiley explains, ‘about this white couple.  They get married on an old plantation in Louisiana and all the slave ghosts come back, and they murder everyone. … Ryan Reynolds gets decapitated with an Afro pick in the opening scene’.  That’s a weird idea of Oscar bait – ‘Plantation Annihilation’ (as it’s called) doesn’t sound nearly worthy enough.  Adam Brody does pretty well, even so, in Wiley’s first meeting with the man behind ‘Fuck’ – a meeting Monk attends in a rare appearance as his Stagg R Leigh alter ego, though he’s half-hearted in the part.  Stagg talks rough but surprises Wiley by asking for a glass of dry white wine.

    American Fiction ends with a bang but, since it’s a meta bang, also a whimper.  When ‘Fuck’ is announced as the winner of the big literary prize, Monk goes to the stage and says he has a confession to make.  Cord Jefferson then cuts to Wiley telling Monk this won’t do as the climax to his screenplay for ‘Fuck’:  it leaves things up in the air.  Cut back to the ceremony:  this time, when the winner is announced, Monk exits and hotfoots it to Coraline’s house, to apologise to her.  Back to Wiley, who dismisses this as too much like romcom.  Monk tries again:  now armed white police, on the hunt for Stagg R Leigh, invade the ceremony and shoot him dead.  Perfect, says Wiley:  ‘Fuck’ will go into production.  As Cliff, belatedly in on Monk’s secret, drives his brother away from a studio backlot, Monk exchanges meaningful looks with an actor playing one of the plantation slaves in Wiley’s blaxploitation bloodbath.  By now, the racial point-making has elbowed the film’s supposedly realistic elements out of sight.  One upside to this is that the Ellison family drama etc has at long last been abandoned.  Another, from Cord Jefferson’s perspective, is that the point-making means American Fiction really is ‘Oscar-baity’ – with five nominations, including for Best Picture, to prove it.

    15 February 2024

Posts navigation