I had a few issues with this one. I'm still trying to... DIGEST it π
β’ All the staff was ok with the foolishness π€
β’ The chef's motivation wasn't consistent with each of the guests. One didn't have student loans, one couldn't name something on the menu and another was into wire fraud. Was he mad people didn't respect his craft or that they were bad people? π€
β’ Only the men were able to make a run for it while the women went back to grab a drink. What purpose did that serve?ππΎββ
β’ Besides that Margot was able to get away, they all saw what she did (which makes no sense jus by her looking at some pics on the wall) and nobody else decided to order a cheeseburger to go π€·πΎββοΈ π
β’ They all just sat there (right after he said nobody tried to get away) and let the staff dress them in s'more costumes and nobody tried to escape before being burned to death? π«π₯
I think it was intentional that the staff/restaurant is a literal cult that the chef had created.
The chef's motivation wasn't consistent with each of the guests.
I didn't like that either. Someone as meticulous as he is, I would have expected more. And the student loans thing worked great as a quick joke but eh. I guess it is a black comedy but still. Actually, I think that's probably why I didn't care about the customers' lack of fight (versus a movie like Speak No Evil).
Besides that Margot was able to get away, they all saw what she did (which makes no sense jus by her looking at some pics on the wall) and nobody else decided to order a cheeseburger to go
She saw how much the chef used to love cooking, and a simple burger no less. So she made a gamble that she could appeal to the Chef that he used to be before he sank into the pretentious world of fine dining.
Also, he's not stupid; he wouldn't have let them go if they all ordered burgers.
reply share
I see what you're saying, but don't see that as a flawed plot, more that you (or perhaps anyone) don't truly understand the motivations of any or all of the characters.
β’ Yeah, they seemed to be. The female sous chef said it was her idea, and it looks like everyone embraced it. For all we know, there were other staff members who didn't go along with it, and they weren't forced to work that evening.
β’ No, it wasn't consistent from guest to guest, but it didn't have to be. These were all the different types of people he was sick of and who made him lose his motivation and love for his work. (The student loan one was more of a joke for the audience.)
β’ That was the point of that specific dish, the Folly of Man.
β’ Ha, what are you saying, after she pulls that genius/lucky nonsense move and is allowed to go free, you think the other guests would have gotten away with it too? "I'll, uh...I'll have the same please." That was a shared moment of understanding between the two; she allowed him to get his love for his craft back for one fleeting moment.
β’ Yes. They had resigned themselves to their fate at that point; they spent the entire movie trying to escape, why should they be able to now? Time to become a giant mother fucking s'more.
lmao! similar indeed. Even when we didn't necessarily agree on some bits, we still came at the movie similarly (like how the student loans joke was really just for the moviegoer lol)
It was supposed to be theatrical and as such it does not require suspension of disbelief - you just accept it with an open mind. However, I think that some of the stupidity of the characters and their interactions went too far even for a whimsical play. I also think that the writer failed miserably to deliver a fun movie, or to quote one of the characters: "Every dish you have served tonight has been an intellectual exercise rather that something you want to sit and enjoy".
It is somewhat reminiscent of "Triangle of sadness" with similar morale and approach, but it felt flat.
The way I interpreted it, the chef had built what was more or less a cult. It reminded me a lot of Jim Jones' People's Temple. He had them living there in spartan quarters, sleeping on cots, sharing one toilet out in the open, doing nothing with their lives but worshipping and working for him from waking to sleeping.
Early on, it wasn't clear what the chef's purpose was, but at a certain point it was made clear that he had simply gone insane. He was completely off his rocker, and taking his cult with him, again just like Jim Jones, and other such figures. Before that, we were led to believe that perhaps he had a specific agenda, or had hand selected everyone for a reason, but that wasn't the case. He was legit crazy.
I believe the men running was part of the "men's folly" course? Their folly was thinking they could escape.
It seemed very clear that Margot didn't belong there, and I don't think anyone believed they could duplicate her ploy to escape. But at that point, I think they were well into shock, and resigned to their fate. I imagine if that situation played out in real life, most people would be in denial, telling themselves it's not real, that it's all a part of an act, and that everything will be okay. It's easy to tell yourself in a situation like that you'll leap up and fight, but the truth is most people sit and take it. This plays out daily, and you see it in videos of muggings, beatings, robberies, attacks, etc. For every one person who does stand up, 100 more sit in shock and take it, especially people like those in the film who have lived lives of privilege, shletered from reality.
Thatβs just not true though. People actually not only fight when threatened, they will do some seriously bad things to stay alive. A more realistic scenario would have the Chef saying they need to decide who stays and who goes. Watch them turn on each other, sometimes even against their own partners.