I remember when I was a kid and my parents would come back from a business trip to Europe (particularly Paris) and the very first thing they would want to eat was a simple cheeseburger. After having all that rich and fancy cuisine they just hungered for something simple and filling. I often have the same urge when I come back from a trip anywhere where I have had a lot of fancy food. Just give me a simple hamburger or a taco, Lol. The joy that the chef gets from making that hamburger is also revealing in the movie. He is back to making something that somebody really wants to eat. He finally gets to enjoy the art of cooking once again with no ridiculous expectations.
I think it's the nostalgia and renewed connection to his younger self mainly. That's why the ATJ character asked specifically for a cheeseburger and not some other popular item.
I saw it last weekend. I thought it contained a germ of a good idea, but it really went awry and ended up misfiring quite a bit. The problem was that it wasn't a very good satire about foodies - most of the satire and "jokes" seemed from the perspective of someone who had learned what a high-end foodie was from reading about them, rather than actually knowing or experiencing anything. Some jokes hit, many missed. As an undressing of the wealthy/privileged, I thought it brought nothing that hadn't been done many times before. I think a scene from that restaurant, incorporating a couple of the better jokes - minus the overarching macabre designs of the chef - would have worked well in the context of a different movie. Because that's really all this was good for - not a single one of the characters being satirized were real people. They were Types, bound by tropes. Again, that can work comedically well in a scene of a movie that does have a better story and more fully realized characters, but this film was as empty as the breadless bread plate.
I watched it the other day, and chef used two slices for each patty of the double cheeseburger. I'm a man who loves cheese, and makes his grilled cheese sandwiches with two American slices, but four slices on one burger is a bit much. But, on the other hand, he smashed the patties with a burger press. I can tell you, the folks at the Cooking Lab, in their book, Modernist Cuisine, really don't like pressing burgers. It makes it cook quickly, then makes a lot of noise and is impressive, but that's the juice of the burger that you hear sizzling out onto the grill, and evaporating as a cloud of steam, when you obviously would prefer the juice remain in the meat. When I made burgers at home, I cook them over a low heat to get them done in the middle, and then crank up the heat to sear the outside.
This was the one thing I did not find believable in the movie, that in this fine establishment they would have had American Cheese and pre-made hamburger buns.
Read one of the Anthony Bourdain's books. There's the expensive food they make for the clientele, and then there's what they make as the "family meal" to feed the staff. When I worked at a very nice steak and seafood place as my first job while in high school, I could have a burger or a London broil. And no, "family" didn't get custom-made buns.
I saw an interview somewhere with a chef that apparently taught the actor how to make the burger with all of these details that would make it better. I remember things like the grill had to be very hot and the flipper had to be as thin as possible, but the other details just went over my head. Apparently, they actually tasted the burger and Fiennes actually got it right, according to the chef consultant. I wish I could find a clip online.
The thing is, even this part of the film - even if one likes it (and I don't; I thought it was a pretty lazy "payoff") - is compromised by something that occurred earlier. The salt-o-the-earth prostitute wants a cheeseburger and this is supposed to both expose the supposed BS of haute cuisine and enable the chef to make something simple that makes people happy.... but this is undercut by an earlier scene in the film. The breadless bread plate (by far the most on-point of the foodie gags) is called out by the tech/finance bros, who simply want the actual bread - which they are subsequently denied. Never mind that the bros are probably among the worst choices of the patrons to be asking for the bread (they'd almost certainly be on paleo or keto diets), but they did ask for it. They didn't want the fancy dabs of sauce; they just wanted the actual bread - getting right to the point made later with the cheeseburger, and quite early. The actual bread would have been simple - in fact there was a monologue about bread's humble and wholesome history prior to the breadplate-minus-bread course - and it would make them happy. But they don't get it. So... huh. Chef is only inspired to look inward when prompted by the pretty hooker? Egh, whatever.
As a professional dish-washer, I can't help but think there's an "SNL" sketch on what the dish-washers were doing during all this!
Speaking of.... I thought that was a missed opportunity, when Tyler criticizes Margot for smoking. She coulda said, "Anthony Bourdain used to smoke like a fiend, and his tastes were ok..."
Spoiler The cheeseburger reminded him of when he started cooking and how happy he was, which she knew from the photo she saw when in his house. You can see the look of surprise in his eye when she asks for it. Nothing in how they asked for bread would have affected him the same way.
Spoiler While this aspect of it is true (and it was quite an exercise in deus ex machina to have the girl hurriedly looking for a communication device to quickly observe a photograph and then somehow make this connection) the earlier scene undercuts it. The larger point of the later scene is that he is reminded of how making simple food can make people happy. That could have been done earlier with the bread. Granted, it would not have had the same personal impact for him as making the cheeseburger, but the bread nevertheless is a simple food that he made that cut through the BS and could have made people happy. It's sloppy writing/editing and could easily have been avoided with better attention to detail.
I kinda agree that more 'verbage' could have been written to the duality of a 'high-end' cook, that not only despises his clientele, but also tries to surprise and entertain them with new dishes.
...and it's not that big a deal and didn't detract, but the bored "regulars" who can't remember anything they ate - definitely a category of people who go to high-end restaurants, but IMO they were misplaced in this context. These are the kind of people who live in an upscale neighborhood and have a few expensive high-end restaurants that they habitually go to simply because they can. I get that. But there's also a laziness to those types, which doesn't quite compute with the context of the film, which is a restaurant on an island, that takes a lot of time and effort to get to, and which is also extremely difficult to get into. Why repeatedly go through the hassle (even if the expense - which, by the way, is significantly more expensive than the restaurants that may have been the inspiration for the film (French Laundry; Per Se; 11 Madison Park are the Michelin 3-star tasting menu establishments typically ranked in the top 5 restaurants in the US and cost "only" $350-$400 a person) is no object, if one isn't very attuned to the food? There are numerous other acclaimed places to be pampered and throw money around that would have to be much more convenient for that couple. But give credit to the guy - he took his particular come-uppance in stride; he kept on sitting there and eating, anyway.
I thought it was decent and entertaining, not the greatest movie but not horrible either. Fiennes is just a such a top notch actor it's really amazing, worth watching just to see him. It was also nice to see Judith Light. I liked the satire of it and thought the people it mocked were fair game.
There is a lot of contempt in the world of haute cuisine. Vickie and I saw a documentary about a restaurant known as el Bulle, open for a ridiculously short amount of time, costing an amount of money that is an offense to all that is holy. And the signature ingredient for this season was "water". I guarantee, if one survived a meal at el Bulle, you definitely would want to pick up a cheeseburger afterwards.
Have you tried doing it the opposite way? If you sear it first, then you can cook it until the middle is whatever temperature/level of doneness you desire. If you cook it first and then sear, you’re continuing to heat up the center while you sear. It seems like you’d have more control and be less likely to dry the burger out if you sear then cook. I believe that’s how steaks are supposed to be prepared in a cast iron pan - heat the pan to an extremely high temperature, put on the steak to quickly sear it until it develops a crust, and then cook it at a lower temperature (I’ve seen moving the pan from the burner to an oven suggested, although I don’t do that) until the center is done the way you want it.
The movie was over the top and silly. The best National Lampoon magazine articles showed that the more realistic the writers are, the more powerful the satire.
I saw it in the theater and liked it ok. The funny bits were the best part. Anya Taylor-Joy is always great, and her character was fun to watch. I like that she opted for crinkle fries. My wife and I really like the show The Great on Hulu, which also features Nicholas Hoult. He’s very food motivated on that show, and it was funny to see that same characteristic carry over here
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I’d like to see a satirical movie that skewers audiophiles—those with $50k speaker cables and the likes. Of course, it would probably have less appeal to the general public since it’s a niche target, as opposed to food, which everyone needs.
