•
Rating:
After watching the film "The Taste of Things" by Tran Anh Hung, I found myself wondering what did not fully convince me about the movie. And this without taking away from the formal elegance of what I saw, as well as the impeccable acting of the actors and actresses involved (primarily Benoit Mangimel and Juliette Binoche, respectively in the roles of chef Dodin Bouffant and the capable assistant Eugénie). But there are films (and "The Taste of Things" is one of them) that question the viewer on substantial themes, and the subject of food and our relationship with it is fully part of these themes (even if to some it might not seem so). So much so that a question that is fair to ask is the following: do we eat to live or live to eat?
The story is set in 1885 France, in the Loire department where the two protagonists prepare sumptuous meals for high society clients. Their working relationship has lasted for twenty years, and the professional understanding is solid, to the point that there exists a mutual fondness. But while the chef would be willing to marry the collaborator, she hesitates due to her tendency to remain a free woman. One day Eugénie falls ill and, on the doctor's advice, rests. Dodin then decides to prepare a series of delicacies for the woman, also to win her heart. The ensuing story seems to take a favorable turn but, as well known, the unexpected is around the corner, and life, in general, can be bitter...
Without adding more to the unfolding of the events, I must say that I found the film certainly impeccable both for the acting and for certain scenes outside the domestic walls shot in the sunny French countryside (with strong references to the impressionist painting style very much in vogue at the end of the nineteenth century). The theme of solid work collaboration is also evoked in the story, and it is undoubtedly a difficult condition to create in workplaces as well known.
What did not enthuse me, in all honesty, is the considerable emphasis on the preparation phase of the food to be served. Essentially, the director leads us to see gastronomy as a rite of intense sensuality, a means to seduce the diners. Surely, French cuisine tends to offer heavily seasoned dishes, presented in a sumptuous manner. But since this is about a film, try to imagine how an audience member still fasting feels going to see a film like "The Taste of Things." Just to say, the specialties prepared are vol-au-vent with vegetables, roast veal rack, various types of fish cooked and accompanied by copious amounts of béchamel, Norwegian omelette (a type of dessert that could raise the dead...), and so on, accompanied by vintage Burgundy wines. In short, the saturation effect is guaranteed, and I confess to having felt a certain boredom.
Hence the question posed above: do we eat to live or live to eat? Obviously, gourmets à la Tognazzi would lean toward the second option. Personally, over time, I have learned to appreciate the first hypothesis, as food should only be a source of sustenance. Sure, quality demands its due, and a large sandwich at Burghy is not for me. A sober choice like the one suggested in Spanish taverns, where by opting for the "plato do dia" or "pescado do dia," one satisfies enough without overindulging, is welcome.
Yes, because I do not hide the fact that what I once saw in Ferreri's "La grande bouffe" prompted me to revise certain eating habits. Indeed, gluttony, as well as the inclination to consume as much as possible, ultimately harms those who cannot set a limit (always present in nature).
Loading comments slowly
