Skip to main content

Shut up and taste this, amuse-douche.

Chef
(2014)

It’s quite understandable that reviewers have highlighted the perceived autobiographical elements of Jon Favreau’s Chef, the story of a successful man in his chosen field brought low by the critics. After rosy responses to Zathura , Elf and Iron Man, Favrea’s lustre was tarnished by back-to-back underwhelmers Iron Man II and Cowboys and Aliens. Following the line of thought that his Chef character in is commentary and payback for this doesn’t really follow, however, not unless Favreau wants us to believe those who brought him low are a sobering force of good. Whatever his intentions, the retreat into a small personal movie has done Favs the world of good; it’s his best picture since he made Marvel Studios what it is by casting Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark.


Favreau wrote, starred and directed, so he’s consciously setting his dish up to be wolfed down or regurgitated across the sidewalk. He plays Carl Casper, a Miami-born chef at a Riva’s (Dustin Hoffman) L.A. restaurant. When renowned critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt, vying with Favs for girth cred) slates Carl’s menu (“His dramatic weight gain can only be explained by the fact that he must be eating al the food sent back to the kitchen”), reserving particular venom for his lava cake, Carl takes to Twitter (“You wouldn’t know a good meal if it sat on your face”) and challenges Carl to a second round.


Riva refuses to let Carl decide the menu, and the chef walks out. This leads to a broadcast meltdown as Carl confronts Ramsey (“It hurts”).  Now without a job, Carl is persuaded by his ex-wife to buy a food truck. Aided and abetted by the son he has neglected and his devoted sous chef, Carl takes a road trip from Miami back to L.A. selling the Cuban cuisine he loves as he goes.


This is a fantasyland of a guy who has a whole lot anyway getting even more when he subtly course redirects. All he needs is a bit of cajoling from a wise ex who knows anyway that he wont be happy until he’s his own boss (and comes back to her with his tail between his legs). When Carl takes delivery the dilapidated truck there’s a mere modicum of spit and polish before it’s miraculously spick and span and spruced and painted. 


There’s very little conflict here; I was waiting for the son to get rushed to ER after burning himself on a hotplate, and Carl getting blamed by the ex, but it never happened. Favreau also really takes his time (a trim 90 minutes would probably have been the ideal). The subplot with his neglected son is on the clumsy side (that’s not Emjay Anthony’d fault), alternatively having Casper act the jerk or engage in cloying reconnection.


If the unlikelihood of Casper being surrounded by a bevy of beauties looks like wish fulfillment on an alarming scale, Favs at least presents it like he’s in on the joke. The succession of digs about Carl’s dramatic weight gain makes it marginally more feasible he might once have attracted Sofia Vergara, and it’s quite clear the only way to hostess Scarlett Johansson’s heart is through her stomach. Favreau shoots Molly’s anticipation of Casper’s dish like a response foreplay, followed by her raptures as she digs in.  Generally, Favreau does a fine job making the food look delicious. One might make cracks about how obvious it is that he likes his chow, but it really does come across on screen.


Much has been commented, not so glowingly, of Chef being built on Twitter, but it works pretty well, as device for spinning the plot and building up Favreau’s business. It even extends to building Carl’s relationship with his tech-savvy son.


As for Favs calling favours from his pals, mostly this pays off. ScarJo is hardly in it really, and the female characters suffer slightly as unimpeachable forces who guide Carl back to his calling, but she’s far more alive and present here than in any number of Black Widow outings. Vergara Inez is too good to be true, but she’s so likable the character gets a free pass. Amy Sedaris is very funny as the publicist who wants to get Carl on Hell’s Kitchen.


Then there’s John Leguizamo as faithful Martin. I don’t know if he’s got new management, but the last couple of times I’ve seen him on screen Leguizamo’s been playing likeable sorts. It comes as a bit of a shock after all those years of him embodying weasels. He’s a good fun, as is Bobby Carnavale. Dustin Hoffman’s great too (he’s really not looking like he’s nodding towards 80) delivering one of his increasingly finely chosen cameos. 


Downey Jr, as another of Inez’ ex-husbands, is okay, but he’s just showing up, coasting on the charisma (Will Smith did similarly recently, to more laughable effect, in Winter’s Tale). Platt’s always dependable, but even he struggles with the syrupy pixie dust of the final scenes (not only does Ramsey make up with Carl, but he puts his own money into a joint business venture!)


Interpreting the self-styled Hollywood metaphor, Hoffman becomes the disinterested studio boss, content with the bottom line and blanching at any prospect of “artsy shit”. Of course, Favreau has never made artsy shit and, as marginally indie as Chef is, there’s not really much danger of it being seen that way. But Carl’s excursion into a food van is Favs making this movie, basically. The critic finances his next venture is… what, crowdsourcing? The analogy drops out a bit there.


It also drops out in terms of the complaints over being criticised (we even get it rehearsed again at the end; “It hurts people like me”). It’s implicit that if Ramsey hadn’t stuck the boot in then Carl wouldn’t have regrouped and come out a better person. Perhaps Favs is just too nice a guy not to see all sides. Certainly, this doesn’t leave a bad taste in the way Shyamalan’s bite back in Lady in the Water does; there’s a sense of humour mixed with the grandstanding and saccharine denouement.   


Whatever Chef’s faults, you can tell Favs feels it, connects with it, which helps hugely. There’s no attack of indigestion here, just a mild bloaty feeling. And now, having got this out of his system, Favreau has forsaken the indie food truck and returned to the big studio eatery, tempting fate with one of the duelling Jungle Books. He may be putting his heart and soul into the picture, but is it personal, and meaningful? Will Shere Khan hurt people like him? 

Yes, the top-lining poster is shockingly real.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Time wounds all heels.

Go West (1940)
(SPOILERS) Comedy westerns were nothing new when the Marx Brothers succumbed – Buster Keaton had made one with the same title fifteen years earlier – but theirs served to underline how variable the results could be. For every Bob Hope (Son of Paleface) there’s a Seth McFarlane (A Million Ways to Die in the West). In theory, the brothers riding roughshod over such genre conventions ought to have been uproarious, but they’d rather run out of gas by this point, and the results are, for the most part, sadly pedestrian. Even Go West's big train-chase climax fails to elicit the once accustomed anarchy that was their stock in trade.

Shall we bind the deal with a kiss? Or, five dollars in cash? You lose either way.

The Big Store (1941)
(SPOILERS) Three go mad in a department store. The results are undoubtedly more diverting than low point Go West, but it feels as if there is even more flotsam to wade through to get to the good stuff in The Big Store, which is almost exclusively delivered by Groucho as private detective and bodyguard Wolf J Flywheel. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the climax is one of the better ones, an extended chase sequence through the store that is frequently quite inventive.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …