The Menu (Disney Plus)

[Khev]

Anyone else watched this?

Yes but not on Disney+. What version do you have?

It was engaging but in the end felt a little too tame and half-baked (no pun intended). What's his name knows he's going to be dead in a few hours but takes pictures of the meals anyway? Why?

They should have taken a little more time constructing a tighter narrative that really disturbs or gets under your skin. I feel that this story would have been in much better hands if it had been done by A24. Ralph Fiennes was amazing as always. Few can seemingly so effortlessly portray someone who is both sympathetic and monstrous.

 

[chrisstbh]

Yes but not on Disney+. What version do you have?

It's on the Star section of the UK Disney+.

 

[Khev]

Ah, UK. Apparently you guys get different stuff. I watched The Menu on HBO Max.

 

[ajp4mgs]

I enjoyed this one a great deal. I really appreciated the themes surrounding the culture of consuming and critiquing art. It's a self-destructive exercise: to take what had been a pursuit of passionate, personal expression and let it become joyless and diminished by others who are only interested in self-advancement via criticism, in obsessiveness, or in status elevation.

The delivery vehicle of satire is the perfect instrument for this. With the plot/narrative not intended to be realistic or logic driven, the enjoyment for me was entirely based on how well the themes are woven through the satire, how good the performances and production value are, how well it's paced, and if I just had fun watching. It checked all those boxes with high marks.

The "okay, 'expert,' now go do it yourself" sequence with the Nicholas Hoult character cooking was the most satisfying scene. Probably a top-10 film of 2022 for me.

 

[Khev]

The "okay, 'expert,' now go do it yourself" sequence with the Nicholas Hoult character cooking was the most satisfying scene. Probably a top-10 film of 2022 for me.

That bit fell flat for me because he seemed to be a genuine fan who was quite gracious and respectful to the process and expertise of the professional "artists." Like much of the film's themes it seemed like just another one that needed a little more setup and justification for the end result.

 

[ajp4mgs]

That bit fell flat for me because he seemed to be a genuine fan who was quite gracious and respectful to the process and expertise of the professional "artists." Like much of the film's themes it seemed like just another one that needed a little more setup and justification for the end result.

I might have agreed with you if that character wasn't so clearly portrayed as an obsessive and selfish a-hole. He didn't respect the request to not photograph the food (another of the obvious film/cinema metaphors), he brought someone to dinner knowing she'd be killed, and then was belligerent to her. I saw his Tyler character as a certain "fan" type that was being lampooned and I appreciated it on that level.

 

[R_R_X]

I might have agreed with you if that character wasn't so clearly portrayed as an obsessive and selfish a-hole. He didn't respect the request to not photograph the food (another of the obvious film/cinema metaphors), he brought someone to dinner knowing she'd be killed, and then was belligerent to her. I saw his Tyler character as a certain "fan" type that was being lampooned and I appreciated it on that level.

Yeah he was obssessed with Chef the way Chef was obssessed with food, there was no love and he didn't care about the process or the food he stuffed in his mouth, he just parroted things he heard and read and even tho he was an obssessed fan he was probably the one who understood "the menu" the least which I assume is what Chef whispered to him which completely destroyed his already brittle psyche and ego.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Yeah he was obssessed with Chef the way Chef was obssessed with food, there was no love and he didn't care about the process or the food he stuffed in his mouth, he just parroted things he heard and read and even tho he was an obssessed fan he was probably the one who understood "the menu" the least which I assume is what Chef whispered to him which completely destroyed his already brittle psyche and ego.

Yep! The Tyler character came across to me as the embodiment of pretentiousness. His love wasn't for the food/art, but rather it was a love of feeling self-importance by way of his "expertise."

One of the better chuckles I got from his characterization was when he was close up observing a chef, asked him a question (just to demonstrate his own "expertise"), and then was elated when the chef answered addressing him by name. "You know my name!?" And then the chef's response that, yeah, they have to learn *all* the guests names. Tyler had actually gotten so lost in his self-importance that he thought he was recognized for his mighty knowledge.

 

[Khev]

I might have agreed with you if that character wasn't so clearly portrayed as an obsessive and selfish a-hole. He didn't respect the request to not photograph the food (another of the obvious film/cinema metaphors), he brought someone to dinner knowing she'd be killed, and then was belligerent to her.

To me that explained why he was marked for death (yes he was a horrible person) but it didn't gel with why he had to be humiliated and then killed (so to speak) in such a manner. It seems like the know-it-all fan who could barely make an edible meal should have been someone more belligerently critical of the professionals themselves.

I saw his Tyler character as a certain "fan" type that was being lampooned and I appreciated it on that level.

See for me the movie still has to stand on its own two legs apart from what was simply being symbolized. And I didn't feel like the film made any real effort to present an internally credible universe where characters who acted as symbols of our own culture functioned autonomously. The original Scream is a perfect example of doing it right IMO. A full deconstruction of slasher film tropes while simultaneously showing characters fulfilling or breaking those tropes in a way that felt logical, organic and credible. In short you could laugh at the commentary OR you could appreciate it as a straight up thriller, it literally worked on both levels.

But if you ignore the symbolism and metaphors of The Menu what are you left with? A series of characters and situations that really don't make sense and make it very hard to invest in the stakes or conflict that is being depicted. Again why was Nicolas Hoult taking pictures if he knew he was about to die? And if the pictures on the pancakes call out the sins for which the characters are being judged then what was his sin going to be if he didn't take the pictures? Sure we as the audience see examples of him being a terrible person but what would the Chef's justification prior to the invite have been? And if Chef had decided that Anya-Taylor joy needed to die and simply needed to choose which side (givers or takers) to die on prior to knowing a single thing about her then what does that say about everyone else's supposed crimes? If an anonymous person can show up and instantly be marked for death then by that logic the whole world needs to die which totally dilutes the commentary (or logic) on why everyone else was chosen to be there. Apparently Chef just wanted to kill any and everyone for no rhyme or reason unless you appeal to his inner burger flipper by ordering something from a happier time in his life and ask to have it to go like a normal person.

And it would have been fine if he was just an indiscriminate killer (the Jason Vorhees of the restaurant industry) with Anya finding his shrine and using that knowledge against him like Ginny in F13 Pt 2 but then that all undermines all of the commentary on who was invited and why.

Like I said it did some things really well and had rock solid performances all around but for me just leaned too heavily on symbolism and forgot that it still needed to function as a legitimate thriller apart from that.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Like I said it did some things really well and had rock solid performances all around but for me just leaned too heavily on symbolism and forgot that it still needed to function as a legitimate thriller apart from that.

I'm not trying to reduce your argument to merely just the section that I'm quoting here, but it captures the fuller reason why you and I view this film differently. But before I get to that, I'd just refer to my latest post about the Tyler character to address why I felt his treatment by Chef was what it was.

In the bigger picture, I think satire should be free of some of the constraints of portraying believable scenarios. Sure, it needs to stand on its own by way of consistent internal logic, but not to the degree of a story which takes itself seriously or isn't constructed almost entirely to convey a message by way of symbolism/metaphor/allegory/what-have-you.

I'm not going to criticize Dr. Strangelove for having scenes that stay true to real-world military culture and Cold War tensions but then have a scene where a bomber pilot rides a bomb through the air, all the way to its target, swinging his cowboy hat. The satire goes back and forth for greater effect. The message wouldn't be as entertaining or as profound if there had to be the type of logic consistency we expect from straightforward screenplays. IMO, satire should be able to choose moments to be "free" in order to accentuate the message with outlandish or highly exaggerated examples, and breaking consistency can sometimes elevate how that comes across. Be it to emphasize the zealotry in Dr. Strangelove, or to convey the pretentiousness in The Menu.

To be clear, I'm not equating the two films. Dr. Strangelove is on another level entirely, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from with the comparison. I think it somewhat defeats the purpose of satire to be bothered by metaphors that play better only as symbolism rather than also working as straightforward components of the narrative. Scream was lampooning tropes while still being a slasher/horror film, but was able to do so because the traditional movies it was lampooning were already full of preposterous scenarios. It could get away with pretty much any level of silliness and still maintain that "working on two levels" criteria you're talking about.

 

[R_R_X]

Yep! The Tyler character came across to me as the embodiment of pretentiousness. His love wasn't for the food/art, but rather it was a love of feeling self-importance by way of his "expertise."

One of the better chuckles I got from his characterization was when he was close up observing a chef, asked him a question (just to demonstrate his own "expertise"), and then was elated when the chef answered addressing him by name. "You know my name!?" And then the chef's response that, yeah, they have to learn *all* the guests names. Tyler had actually gotten so lost in his self-importance that he thought he was recognized for his mighty knowledge.

To me that explained why he was marked for death (yes he was a horrible person) but it didn't gel with why he had to be humiliated and then killed (so to speak) in such a manner. It seems like the know-it-all fan who could barely make an edible meal should have been someone more belligerently critical of the professionals themselves.

See for me the movie still has to stand on its own two legs apart from what was simply being symbolized. And I didn't feel like the film made any real effort to present an internally credible universe where characters who acted as symbols of our own culture functioned autonomously. The original Scream is a perfect example of doing it right IMO. A full deconstruction of slasher film tropes while simultaneously showing characters fulfilling or breaking those tropes in a way that felt logical, organic and credible. In short you could laugh at the commentary OR you could appreciate it as a straight up thriller, it literally worked on both levels.

But if you ignore the symbolism and metaphors of The Menu what are you left with? A series of characters and situations that really don't make sense and make it very hard to invest in the stakes or conflict that is being depicted. Again why was Nicolas Hoult taking pictures if he knew he was about to die? And if the pictures on the pancakes call out the sins for which the characters are being judged then what was his sin going to be if he didn't take the pictures? Sure we as the audience see examples of him being a terrible person but what would the Chef's justification prior to the invite have been? And if Chef had decided that Anya-Taylor joy needed to die and simply needed to choose which side (givers or takers) to die on prior to knowing a single thing about her then what does that say about everyone else's supposed crimes? If an anonymous person can show up and instantly be marked for death then by that logic the whole world needs to die which totally dilutes the commentary (or logic) on why everyone else was chosen to be there. Apparently Chef just wanted to kill any and everyone for no rhyme or reason unless you appeal to his inner burger flipper by ordering something from a happier time in his life and ask to have it to go like a normal person.

And it would have been fine if he was just an indiscriminate killer (the Jason Vorhees of the restaurant industry) with Anya finding his shrine and using that knowledge against him like Ginny in F13 Pt 2 but then that all undermines all of the commentary on who was invited and why.

Like I said it did some things really well and had rock solid performances all around but for me just leaned too heavily on symbolism and forgot that it still needed to function as a legitimate thriller apart from that.

The Chef knew Tyler wouldn't get the menu that's why he humiliates him and cuts his time short, forbidding him from being "made anew" with the rest of the sinners because he was just too far gone.

For me it was just a fun flick with some good satire commenting on society, I wouldn't say it's a flawless deeply psychological flick because obviously the characters don't act like you would expect real people to act and some of them are very much on the nose caricatures but that's what made it enjoyable for me.

I would say just a fun flick with enjoyable performances, an interesting plot and killer soundtrack and camera work.
And it wasn't the chef who actually decided everyone needed to die it was the female sous-chef that Chef tried to sexually assualt who suggested that the menu end with everyone dying, you can see Chef kind of struggling with it at first but by the end of the night he just can't care about any of the people he's feeding, the same way they didn't care about him, the way it came across to me was Chef and his crew had been worn down to broken husks being on that island and they became a cult of personality who plotted their own suicide like we've seen other cults do in real life but they wanted to get pay back for where they ended up at by punishing selected people who they believed were the ruin of their craft and themselves.

I don't think it was only Chef being reminded of his younger self flipping burgers that saved Margot's life but that she, out of anyone in that room was the only one who didn't simply "eat".

And that's perfectly understandable, you shouldn't feel forced to like something just because others disagree I liked it but totally get why others won't.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

The Menu just made me want a cheeseburger.

 

[R_R_X]

The Menu just made me want a cheeseburger.

A cheap one.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

A cheap one.

I wanted a Hardees Famous Star.

'Murica! ​

 

[Khev]

I'm not trying to reduce your argument to merely just the section that I'm quoting here, but it captures the fuller reason why you and I view this film differently. But before I get to that, I'd just refer to my latest post about the Tyler character to address why I felt his treatment by Chef was what it was.

In the bigger picture, I think satire should be free of some of the constraints of portraying believable scenarios. Sure, it needs to stand on its own by way of consistent internal logic, but not to the degree of a story which takes itself seriously or isn't constructed almost entirely to convey a message by way of symbolism/metaphor/allegory/what-have-you.

I'm not going to criticize Dr. Strangelove for having scenes that stay true to real-world military culture and Cold War tensions but then have a scene where a bomber pilot rides a bomb through the air, all the way to its target, swinging his cowboy hat. The satire goes back and forth for greater effect. The message wouldn't be as entertaining or as profound if there had to be the type of logic consistency we expect from straightforward screenplays. IMO, satire should be able to choose moments to be "free" in order to accentuate the message with outlandish or highly exaggerated examples, and breaking consistency can sometimes elevate how that comes across. Be it to emphasize the zealotry in Dr. Strangelove, or to convey the pretentiousness in The Menu.

To be clear, I'm not equating the two films. Dr. Strangelove is on another level entirely, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from with the comparison. I think it somewhat defeats the purpose of satire to be bothered by metaphors that play better only as symbolism rather than also working as straightforward components of the narrative. Scream was lampooning tropes while still being a slasher/horror film, but was able to do so because the traditional movies it was lampooning were already full of preposterous scenarios. It could get away with pretty much any level of silliness and still maintain that "working on two levels" criteria you're talking about.

Nicely put and certainly a valid take.

Maybe I'd appreciate the satire more on a rewatch. As it stands I was looking forward to something more realistically horrifying and was bummed that it didn't provide that but I can understand what it did bring to the table (ha ha) for you and others.

On a somewhat side note what did you think of Glass Onion? I loved the first Knives Out but thought that RJ leaned too heavily on caricature for this new one as well and I felt the same about Starship Troopers back in the day so maybe I'm just not the right audience for these types of flicks, lol.

 

[Khev]

The Menu just made me want a cheeseburger.

Can't argue with that, lol.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Can't argue with that, lol.

 

[Wor-Gar]

RJ leaned too heavily on caricature for this new one

Wow, if Knives Out wasn't caricature enough, Glass Onion is even moreso? I definitely don't need to see Glass Onion then.

 

[Khev]

Wow, if Knives Out wasn't caricature enough, Glass Onion is even moreso?

I thought so.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Nicely put and certainly a valid take.

Maybe I'd appreciate the satire more on a rewatch. As it stands I was looking forward to something more realistically horrifying and was bummed that it didn't provide that but I can understand what it did bring to the table (ha ha) for you and others.

On a somewhat side note what did you think of Glass Onion? I loved the first Knives Out but thought that RJ leaned too heavily on caricature for this new one as well and I felt the same about Starship Troopers back in the day so maybe I'm just not the right audience for these types of flicks, lol.

A lot of times, expectations alone will dictate enjoyment versus apathy/disappointment. On that front, and to answer your question... I consider Knives Out superior on many different levels, but I found Glass Onion equally entertaining and even more rewatchable. And, yes, that has almost everything to do with my awareness of tone going in and my willingness to grant RJ satirist conceit. By doing so (particularly on rewatch), I can sit back and just enjoy without being bothered by the departure from the first film. I knew it was coming. The "caricatures" don't bother me because I wasn't expecting anything else.

Perfect that you brought it up in a thread about The Menu because I've seen much of the same reaction and discourse. Some of the best laughs I've had recently were the criticisms of Glass Onion for not being realistic. The interpretation that RJ intended for it to be a conventional murder mystery whodunit with realistic portrayals and plot logic is so hilarious to me. It could not have been more obvious from the opening minutes that this *wasn't* going to be that, and was never meant to be. It's pure farcical satire with a whodunit structure in bones only.

But, on the earlier point of a movie failing to work on two levels, I can relate to your view because of how I perceive The Babadook. That movie is supposed to be a horror film on one level and an allegory on the other, but it just doesn't work *at all* on the litaralist level. It only works as a metaphor for grief/depression/postpartum. For it to work as a horror, the "monster" would have to be literally viable as an actual real-world entity. But the ending undoes that so completely that it doesn't work on both levels. For most people who think the film is a triumph, they value just the metaphor and don't worry about the logical integrity as a straightforward narrative. I only allow that grace to satire, however. But I do get how/why some people apply it more broadly. After all, anything positive (be it food for thought or pure enjoyment) is what movies are meant for, IMO.