Gourmet Cuisine as a Microcosm of Exclusion & Inequality: An Enquiry into the Culinary Thrillers The Menu (2022) & Hunger (2023)
Meeraz Hoque, Research Scholar, Department of English, Cooch Behar Panchanan Barma University.
Abstract
Gourmet cuisine has always been patronized by the upper crust of the society; thereby creating a distinction between the way eating, the most basic of all human functions, becomes a privilege in itself. The movies chosen for this paper, Sitisiri Mongkolsiri’s Hunger (2023) and Mark Mylod’s The Menu (2022) are powerful accounts of culinary excellence and the people who toil hard to make it a reality for the ultra rich. The price for entering these exclusive spaces is fame and exhilarating wealth. But the people working inside the kitchen , pouring their hearts out on a platter, come from the most marginalized and disadvantaged sections of the society, thereby highlighting the unequal nature of this industry. Mylod’s The Menu, takes a motley crew of industrialists, hedge fund owners, food critics and interlopers and holds them hostage to the whims and vagaries of a tyrannical celebrity chef. Mongkolsiri’s Hunger, focuses on the lived experiences of a young chef who is frustrated with the working conditions in her family owned noodle shop in the old quarters of Bangkok and highlights how she utilizes the opportunity presented to her by the most famous gourmet chefs in Thailand. Both these films are rooted in an understanding of the exploitative nature of 21st century culture of excessive consumption. Marxist analysis of the protagonists in both these films will prove useful for unearthing the ubiquitous rise of inequality and exclusion in the wider societies of these films through the microcosm of fine dining. In Marxist criticism, fetish refers to the symbolic value attached to an object that is held in esteem by the capitalist subject, a glimpse of which can be found in the treatment of food in these films, not by the chefs but by the patrons. The supply chain that keeps the kitchens of these films alive, is in itself a commentary upon the extractive nature of 21 st century urban living. This paper ishes to explore the latent narratives of exploitation and the dark side of Unethical Consumption that are prescient in these two films. Theoretical framework would include Marxism, Globalization and Feminist Analysis.
Keywords: Exclusion, Inequality, Exploitation, Wealth Divide, Feminism, Fetish.
Introduction
In a world that does not believe in creating a holistic and fully functional supply line for essential goods that are required by millions of people each day, it is no surprise that highly sought after product s and fast moving consumer goods will always be turned into an unrecognizable artisanal product that are consumed only by a select few and is the domain of the top one percent wealthy people in any given society in today’s time. My paper takes two films released in recent years to probe into questions regarding unethical consumerism, sycophant hero-worshipping, ecologically disastrous supply lines, exploitation of working class cooks & industry professionals and so on.
The Exclusionary Privilege in The Menu
The first film, Mark Mylod’s The Menu (2022) takes a few eccentric individuals and makes them hostage to the whims and vagaries of a celebrated chef turned egomaniac social justice warrior. The directorial commentary upon the distant nature of the wealthy patrons who have been secluded in a remote island to participate in a secret and special menu tasting, serves as a perfect metaphor for the tragedy, confusion and commotion that are to follow. Thrown into this motley crew of patrons is naïve and young couple who provide much of the human pulse in a narrative cinematically suited to inflict trauma upon the viewers. The often violent and horrifying ignominies that the patrons are subjected to throughout the tasting, are shown as chastising efforts undertaken by the chef who seems to serve the purpose of a moral touchstone in a film meant to tickle not just our visual senses, especially when the lens focuses on the gourmet dishes, but also our ambiguous ethical core.
Consumption as Catharsis: Satiric Comedy in The Menu
In the film The Menu, the band of people who are congregated in the island are not really interested (except for Tyler) in experiencing a truly immersive gastronomical fare; their aim to leave with commodifiable memories, memories that will bode well in the walls of their social media accounts. Tyler himself is an interloper, forever stuck in the make-believe game of consumption and appreciation. His attitude is on of eager learner who has rammed up the recipes of Chef Slowik but has forgotten how to savour the delicacies. The rest of the patrons are busy in virtue-signaling, creating an air of self-congratulatory aloofness. Tyler knows beforehand that Chef Slowik intends for everyone to die at the end of the dinner, yet he brings his date with him as single entry is not allowed. This highlights just how low the ultra-rich would go to satiate their needs, even at the cost of endangering a young woman’s life. The humiliations suffered by Tyler at the hands of the kitchen crew who invite him to are testament to the directorial suggestion that no amount of foodie, geeky posturing will be an alternative for actual skills that Slowik’s team possess. The moment Tyler realizes that he is out of his depths; he starts fumbling and making a fool of himself. Slowik relishes these moments of terrible discomfort and mockery that he is able to inflict upon his patrons, who otherwise don’t have any respect or appreciation for his creations and treat the dishes put forward to them as mere “foods”. The scenes involving Tyler’s mockery become a way for Slowik, a man of humble working class origins, to get back at his insensitive patrons and serve as a window into the harrowing deaths that are to follow.
No participant in the dining hall is exempt from the snarky comments and infantilizing attitude of Slowik’s right-hand woman Elsa, portrayed with gusto by Hong Chau. As Christy Lemire notes in her review of the film “Elsa briskly and efficiently provides the guests with a tour of how the island operates before sauntering among their tables, seeing to their every need and quietly judging them.” Elsa deals with the guests in an authoritative manner, something that they are not familiar with in their professional lives. Such a personalized treatment that each guest receives seems to be genuine and earnest at first, but with the progression of the narrative, the meticulously composed dishes become more intrusive and repugnant, bordering on satire.
Even more satirical is the build-up to the dining hall. The cinematography in these scenes is impeccable as we see a milieu of understated luxury and idyllic charm, one that immediately puts the viewers to ease, contrasting sharply with the shocking revelations that are to follow. Slowik seems to invite the patrons for two simple reasons: a) To exhibit his mastery over his craft & b) to humiliate them. Every patron is ultimately shown to be guilty of some horrendous sin. The snooty food critic is guilty of shutting down numerous small eateries during the COVID lockdown with unfavourable reviews, the old rich man of being a sex offender and the venture capitalists of being the employees of Slowik’s angel investor. The only innocent person in this film is Margot, Tyler’s date, who has been brought to the island with no knowledge of facing the catastrophe. Slowik himself gets stabbed by one of his female employees, Katherine, as a form of punitive measure. It is revealed that Katherine was the one who had suggested to Slowik that the guests be killed, a confession so revolting that the viewer cannot but pinch himself and realize that what he is seeing on screen has to be satire. The guests are “sentenced” to death by Slowik because he believes each one of them contributed to him losing the joy and passion for cooking; a punishment so disproportionate that it has to be a satirical invective against the obscenely rich.
Violation of the Ethics of Consumption in Hunger
As a cinematic narrative, Hunger is concerned with supply chain issues; both of the luxury and highly sought after ingredients that dazzle the taste buds of the ultra-rich and also of human resources, namely the plucky, highly skilled cooks and technicians that give shape to the gastronomic demands and whims of the patrons. The narrative sounds even more poignant when we consider the fact that almost the entirety of the action unfolds in Bangkok, Thailand, i.e., in the Global South, a region that is synonymous with poverty and deprivation. Thailand itself is country full of impoverished people. Celebrity Chef Paul, the magnetic maestro who serves the upper echelons of the Bangkok society, confesses to one of his crew members that his food is only for the people that can shell out the princely sum of hiring him. The impression that the audience get is that the patrons are not interested in savouring the food, rather they just want to experience Chef Paul’s mastery and want to be able to share with their fellow genteel class that they have the wealth to hire Chef Paul as an indulgent exercise; this is everything that normal gustatory experiences are not- selfish, cynical, egomaniac and exploitative; a working philosophy that also spills over in the way Paul deals with his crew, loud and abrasive, forever casting a shadow of doubt and dismay. In fact it is necessary for Paul to keep his crew on a tight leash as it serves him well when they are drowning in self-doubt and looking for validation from Paul, a phenomenon that feeds into his own megalomania, which is emblematic of the larger unethical setting of the movie.
As Chanun Poomsawai notes in her review of the film, “Hunger at its core deals with the base human desires and the lengths some are willing to go to get what they want- and the consequences they ultimately face”. We see Chef Paul’s associates go to fishing villages to procure rare marine fishes; we find Paul coking eviscerating and cooking an endangered bird deep inside a rainforest to serve the indulgences of a retired army general. When Aoy objects to such callousness, Paul sermonizes her about the value of life and how the life of an endangered bird id no more significant than the ordinary chicken. Such a flawed logic highlights the unethical consumption that Paul’s patrons engage in; which is a reflection of their class position and privilege, enabling them to bend the laws whenever they feel like it.
Having come from the working-class background, Paul became aware about class privilege the hard way and came to harbor contempt for the rich from a very young age. He says to Aoy “Food represents social status, not love…To me, food made with love doesn’t exist” As the narrative progresses, we realize that his disdain for the upper classes drove him to work very hard and become the “high priest of fine dining”, but in his mad pursuit of brilliance, he becomes the very thing that he despised from a very young age; again highlighting the unethical trend of consumption that Pervades much of the film. Paul is ambition incarnated, turning his craft into a buyable prestige marker for the rich and mighty. It becomes apparent that in order to secure the longevity and commercial viability of his craft, Chef Paul has turned his persona into a consumable commodity, one that emphasizes the desperate lengths that people go to achieve their long cherished goals. Nobody in the film understands the unethical nature of consumption better then Paul, so he does what is best for him and rakes in the big bucks from his wealthy clients.
Class Barrier, Inequality and Gourmet Ambitions in Hunger:
The second film, Sitisiri Mongkolsiri’s Hunger (2023) is a brutal exploration of the lack opportunities to young, desperate individuals eager to break out of the vicious cycle of poverty and how that compels them to push themselves out of their comfort zones. In the film, a young line cook leaves her family owned noodle shop behind to intern for and eventually become a salaried member of a mercurial and celebrated chef in Bangkok’s uber rich urban landscape. The crew cooks and feeds some of Bangkok’s most glamorous and seediest individuals, in exchange for exorbitant sums of money. The director’s commentary upon the exploitative nature inside the world of Fine dining is at its most scathing when we see a veteran member of the crew stabbing the celebrated chef Paul out of frustration and rage. Our protagonist Aoy soon replaces the disgracefully departed veteran member and has her day in the sun. Later in the film, she quits the crew citing personal reasons and is backed by a wealthy investor to open her own high end restaurant. The most severe trauma is suffered by the sous-chef Tone, who after being unceremoniously ousted from the crew, fails to secure investment and readies himself for a life of drudgery as a small time restaurant owner in the inner city, away from glitz and wealth of the downtown; which shows the intrinsic relationship between extreme wealth and gourmet cuisine.
The final scenes of the film are cinematized as a duel of sorts, featuring a culinary battle between Aoy and Paul, who are cooking for a young, wealthy upstart called Madam Milky, who pits the two master and the prodigy head to head, Aoy comes out triumphant after it is revealed that Paul is guilty of killing and cooking an endangered bird species after being asked to do so by a wealthy patron who happens to be a decorated military general, as the footage showing him to do so comes out in the open, recorded by Tone. Mongkolsiri seems to opine that there should be a limit to consumption and it should be rooted in ethics. Throughout the film we are shown visuals of rich patrons chomping on and guzzling down monstrous portions of gourmet food as the cooks, who have prepared it, engage in gruesome labour in the background; thereby highlighting the classist and exclusionary nature of Fine Dining.
Fetishizing Each Bite: The Commodification of Food
In his Fetishism and the Theory of Value (2021), Desmond McNeill, notes that in Marxist thought the symbolic and unquantifiable value attached to a commodity that elicits from the capitalist subject almost a sexual excitement, can be termed as “fetish”, a view that is also supported by Marxist literary theorists. In both the films analyzed in this essay, the food is the least important of the patrons’ concern. What these patrons want to achieve is the social status and prestige that comes with being able to afford to pay exorbitant sums of money for the simple affair of a dinner. The texture and the taste of the food hardly justify the price that these wealthy people pay, as Margot in The Menu complains to Slowik that she is still hungry even after eating through the whole tasting menu. The idea that emerges is one of pure disenchantment where the simple joys of cooking for your loved ones have been replaced by showmanship and toxic work environment. In Hunger too Chef Paul admits to her prodigy Aoy that he cooks to serve the inflated ego of the upper classes and aims to extract as much money as possible from them in the process. This is the highest form fetishization, one that is curated by the artisan, i.e., the chef.
Comparing the Two Films
Undoubtedly, both Slowik and Paul exhibit unsettling, toxic, and egotistical behaviors. Slowik, in particular, is labeled as a pervert, contributing to fans’ lack of sympathy for him. His demise is not only a result of the harm he inflicted on others but also for his acceptance of money from the very wealthy individuals he criticizes. The challenge lies in understanding the lack of background and context that explains his double standard and the reasons behind his betrayal of his clientele. The cult surrounding The Menu portrays Slowik as orchestrating a long-term plan to harm the bourgeoisie, but the details remain elusive.
In contrast, Paul receives a more detailed portrayal in Hunger, delving into his childhood where he witnessed his mother’s mistreatment as a maid. His desire for revenge stems from her months of labor to repay a boss for a broken caviar jar. This experience shapes his sadistic yet sympathetic character, as he aspires to mentally enslave and control the rich through his culinary skills. Paul’s journey from poverty to gaining the adoration of the bourgeoisie adds a layer of tragedy and success, making his eventual hypocrisy and submission to a façade more bitter for both Aoy and viewers. The narrative unfolds to the point where Paul cooks for a man in debt willing to commit secret atrocities against his own family.
“The Menu” explores various themes, including elitism and wealth disparity. Chef Slowik’s restaurant caters exclusively to the elite, who seem oblivious to the privilege of dining there. Similar sentiments are echoed in “Hunger,” where Aoy initially serves noodles at a modest family outpost. The cinematography emphasizes the appetizing nature of the food and the genuine enjoyment of the customers. However, scenes with Chef Paul reveal a stark contrast, portraying unappetizing dishes consumed by the rich, who show little appreciation for the culinary craftsmanship. This highlights a stark difference in how people value fine dining based on necessity versus indulgence.
Furthermore, a noticeable evolution is seen in Aoy’s approach to food preparation at the film’s beginning compared to Chef Paul’s meticulous and almost obsessive attention to every detail, no matter how superfluous. This parallel extends to “The Menu,” where Chef Slowik rediscovers his passion for cooking when tasked with creating a simple cheeseburger. Both films shed light on the pretentiousness surrounding impractical culinary creations, elevated in status merely due to the chef’s reputation.
Conclusion
The social commentary of these films is nuanced and peppered with lively dialogical scenes. The female protagonists Margot and Aoy are shown as being the moral touchstones, voices that disrupt the rampant toxicity and unethical, volatile settings. Inequality and social exclusion are shown as the foundations upon which the world of gourmet cuisine stands. Both Mylod and Mongkolsiri aim to incorporate a critique of the ultra-rich within their narratives, one that highlights the class divide and gender barriers inherent within the culinary industry.
Bibliography
Hunger. Directed by Sitisiri Mongkolsiri, Netflix, 2023.
Lemire, Christy. 2022. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-menu-movie-review-2022
McNeill, Desmond. Fetishisms and the Theory of Value, Palgrave MacMillan, 2021. Print
Poomsawai, Chanun. 2023 https://www.nme.com/en_asia/reviews/film-reviews/ hunger-movie-review-netflix-aokbab-sitisiri-mongkolsiri-3424869
The Menu. Directed by Mark Mylod, Searchlight Pictures, 2022.