The movie isn't about food necessarily, it's about all art. The movie was making fun of the snobs that try to gatekeep and insist there's a correct way to enjoy art. It could just as easily apply to people on this sub that get all snooty when someone says they liked a Michael Bay movie or whatever. The point is to just shut up, let people enjoy things, and don't be a jackass.

He knew that they were all going to die and wanted to eat there anyway. This particular character has made liking fancy food his entire personality.

As a chef of 20 years I could relate to "the annoying foodie" archetype as it was presented, cooking at home at whatever level simply is not comparable to working in/running a commerical kitchen.

Think of it like "the music nerd groupie" cliche, or someone who knows a few lines of code trying to be "in" with a developer

It happens in every industry and anyone who has done something that takes quite some skill and time to learn will recognise it.

I think it comes from the fact that he can’t cook. There exists a stereotype in the culinary world of the guy who knows how everything is done, but can’t do it himself. I know when I’ve gone to Michelin restaurants I’ve embodied that attitude. Part of it was me playing the part of connoisseur, and part of it was the excitement I felt at the time. Part of it came from my love of food, and part of it came from watching Top Chef and the like. I don’t know how to cook but I appreciate good food when I taste it. Again, I know why the stereotype exists, and the movie is very keen to satirize it.

> The movie was making fun of the snobs that try to gatekeep and insist there's a correct way to enjoy art

By... gatekeeping and refusing to engage with art that's not regular enough ("No bread? That's just pretentious, I'm not eating this")

I mean, there were only three real "foodies" in the movie, everyone else were just rich people who wanted an exclusive experience. It was just basically the critic and her assistant, and Holt's character who were being portrayed as "foodies", and they were both terrible people. The movie focused on those characters because that's what the movie was about. It's all satire. Remove them, and then it's just people enjoying a dinner.

Right, but I just feel like the "everyone's a critic who can't hang when their mouth is on the line" is better targeted at the likes of the food critic? Like, it's hard to blame patrons who are ultimately kind of regular joes for being excited about what they're eating and liking food, especially if they generally try to see where the chef is coming from. And for the record I'm not denying that maybe you could put someone from the general foodie archetype in the room, but to make him specifically the worst person (bringing his date to die, etc) feels remarkably off in terms of the hierarchy of shitty people. It's almost like the writers knew that his own sin wrt the chef wasn't enough to die, so they needed to give people something else to latch onto to kill him off.

Yes. Some of those people have a very specific idea of what the thing they like is supposed to be and they will get all pissed off the art they're looking at doesn't match exactly what they expected.

I suppose I'm talking about Holt's character here. It feels like he's a pitched up version of ... everyone who saves up to go to a restaurant and is excited about it? And it feels weird to dog on that specifically.

So, I think this is where I draw a distinction -- if we're talking about the guy who is like "I could make this myself! Why are these portions so tiny! Why does it cost $xxx!" then I understand how that's sucking the passion out of cooking, since like ... you're not paying to grandstand about how the guy who's feeding you is a dumb scammer.

But, the guy who goes there and is trying to understand what's going on? Like I don't know, it feels like of all the people sucking the love of your craft away, the guy who is ultimately a little too overenthusiastic and would commit a party foul if you ran into him at a mixer or something definitely doesn't strike me as the worst guy there -- certainly not to the degree the film focuses on painting him as unequivocally The Worst Person There of the diners. In fact, he's probably the most common, since we all have that one passion we focus on highly and love to talk/think about.

I don't think they were satirizing or antagonizing all foodies, just the pretentious pretend foodies that act like they love food but aren't willing to really learn everything that goes into it.

You know that scene in The Office where Dwight tries to tell the hibachi chef at Benihana that he should be using a different, more superior knife? Nicholas Holt's character was that guy turned up to eleven. He says he owns that fancy kitchen tool but he's never used it. He's someone who just repeats what he's heard/read with confidence without actually knowing anything about what he's talking about.

So I don't think it's necessarily saying people shouldn't be curious about the food and how it's made, just don't pretend to know for clout.

I don't think the Chef wanted to punish Holt's character. Unlike the others, he hadn't contributed to killing the Chef's passion in any way. The guy just volunteered to die.

I hear you. I’d agree with what someone else said about how all the characters are unlikable because that’s what the movie’s about. They all take on stereotypical roles to show the point that all these people are problematic types in the restaurant industry.

He is because that was the point - to be a caricature of a "stereotypical food snob" who actually knows nothing about cooking but acts like they do and takes it too seriously. The movie never made fun of people who legitimately enjoy food and want to save up to go to a fancy restaurant solely because they enjoy food. The entire menu of guests were people who were the antithesis of that.

Well I guess the writers wanted an "everyman" character that people could relate to as much as you have, only to pull the rug out from under you.

"I could be that guy, omg hes a murderer, is it then in me to be a murderer?" or something along those lines...

In Britain we call them "xxxxxx wanker". So food wanker, beer wanker, dnd wanker, porche wanker, etc in appreciation of this gem.. https://youtu.be/_XKh_WGg1_c

Not just that, but he brought someone with him that he knew would die!

I mean at a certain level a foodie would be annoying to a chef.

Not merely enjoying the food, he was obsessed with the chef and his approval, eager to drop unearned knowledge for clout, taking pictures of the food for posterity when asked not to, and uncaring, even vile, to those around him while he pursues that next hit of flavour. Does that sound like a great person to cook for? Like anything, a hobby or passion pushed to the point of an obsession can be unhealthy and unpleasant for those around you.

It’s also worth noting that Holt’s character chose to be there, and was treated rather benignly (of all the dark secrets brought up, “you took pictures when I asked you not to” was by far the mildest). That is until it came to light that he had basically sentenced an innocent, regular person to their death in pursuit of the food, at which point the chef turned harsh. Think about his statement about the wealthy basically pushing regular people out of being able to enjoy fine dining and making it an exclusive club from which they could look down on other. That was one of the chef’s sore spots, and I think the foodie inadvertently walked into that role as well.

Literally it's just someone the author finds annoying, the insufferable amateur foodie

lol havent seen that in years

Nostalgia wanker!

>But, the guy who goes there and is trying to understand what's going on?

Tyler doesn't go there 'trying to understand'. He goes there thinking he already knows everything. Tyler thinks he's a special little boy that the chef is going to love because he's going to show off how knowledgeable he is. He thinks he's above the rules laid out every time (taking photos, not running during the hunt, and honestly I think he expected to be spared). He expresses elitism over those who don't know as much as him, even though his own ability and knowledge is demonstrated to be lacklustre. He idolises the head chef whilst minimising the contributions of the other chefs (not asking the other chefs name early on, not recognising the whole menu is a collaborative process with others having input beyond Slowik) Oh yeah, and the whole thing about dragging another person to certain death.

Key to his character is 'I'm special and I can do what I want because of it.'

I do wonder if that happens though. Like there could be a director out there who really wants to make a Dwayne Johnson shooty bang film but their entire reputation is now staked to producing three-hour black and white misery-fests about poverty stricken Polish farmers.

So now they're really phoning it in. 'Oh yeah... The empty well is totally supposed to symbolise the hopes and dreams of the village, for sure. Whatever.' whilst quietly grumbling to themselves that they could be in Dubai blowing shit up and having fun.

But the critics keep praising them no matter what because they're convinced its still some auteur visionary stuff so the director is never getting free.

Apparently the movie is a commentary on movies,

The foodie is the worst person because they're representative of a film fan who obsesses so much about the technical aspects of film and consequently misses the fucking point of the movie... it's a whole made for a purpose.

Essentially the film is saying "why do you know these things if you aren't using that knowledge?"

>So, why focus on these people, who by and large are just regular people trying to enjoy their dinner?

This character is in the film and she >!survives!<.

Also, how does everyone in this thread misspell Nicholas H O U L T?

And probably didn't pay her in advance either.

Let's not forget the wannabe bus drivers

The chef's passion for his art was gone. Holt's character was the "worst person there" because he was willing to die and let a dozen other people die just so he could have a taste of something the chef now detested.

[deleted]

>He idolises the head chef whilst minimising the contributions of the other chefs (not asking the other chefs name early on, not recognising the whole menu is a collaborative process with others having input beyond Slowik)

I don't see your point. These are all things that Slowik plays into. He lives apart from the other workers, and is treated differently. He builds a reputation and mystique around himself, and his workers are treated in a dehumanized fashion. A point could be made that people like Tyler bring out the 'worst' in Slowik - their desire for spectacle over craft. But that's not the point that the movie articulates. Tyler is criticized for just being inauthentic, which is boring, because everyone already hates inauthenticity.

Also, like, I've worked in food service before. I never wanted any customer to ask my name.

I mean this sound like being a dick to me. Like, I don't think that sports stars or actors sneer or look down on their fans for being unable to play professional sports or act, and if they did, that would be totally unreasonable.

Even when it comes to satire, I try not to make assumptions on any value judgements that may or may not have been made by any film. I like avoiding that socio-political commentary layer of reading movies, unless it's to empathize (but not on any moral level per se). I much prefer keeping my thoughts confined to a diegetic level, where it's not that Tyler's the worst person because he's a foodie -- he commits foul after foul and it pissed off the wrong person. I can understand that sort of dynamic and see where both sides are coming from. Tyler's super enthusiastic, Slowik is super over it

Because when we use the term "worst person" can we really say it was the foodie? With those incriminating fajitas?

>These are all things that Slowik plays into. He lives apart from the other workers, and is treated differently. He builds a reputation and mystique around himself, and his workers are treated in a dehumanized fashion.

And arguably, Slowik punishes himself for exactly this. Or rather the sous chef is the one that came up with the idea for them to all die in the end. Slowik is not innocent, he knows this and accepts his own death as part of the piece.

> Like there could be a director out there who really wants to make a Dwayne Johnson shooty bang film but their entire reputation is now staked to producing three-hour black and white misery-fests about poverty stricken Polish farmers.

You are pretty much describing what happened to Chantal Akerman when she tried to get funding for her musical comedy Golden Eighties. She ended up cobbling together enough money though and it turned out awesome.

This is Anya Taylor Joy's character that does this and she's the ,"down to earth" one who's not into food

I think you’re probably right. However, it’s the filmmakers prerogative to make a film with situations and characters we don’t like just to prove a point. There are a lot of better food films out there that celebrate the customer.