The Menu, Criticism, And The Art Of Storytelling

This is NOT a review of The Menu. I have not seen The Menu. I do not PLAN to see The Menu in the future. If you try to tell me how great a movie it is, I will tell you that I don’t do thrillers, I’m happy my initial concern that he was planning to make gourmet Soylent Green ISN’T part of the plot (it’s not, is it?) but a movie where the staff is just going to kill everybody for being elitist jerks despite how little I care for elitist jerks is not something I want to watch. Unlike when I defend my review of trailers and press releases I can see where the confusion would lie so I am telling you straight up I am not reviewing the movie.

What I am doing is using a recent review of the movie by The Critical Drinker (so expect swearing in the video but he keeps the gory parts out of it) of The Menu, a movie he very much enjoys, thus proving he enjoys something other than Tatyana the…adult entertainment specialist and a tall scotch. I’m using it as a springboard to a larger discussion of the connection between critics and the audience with the artists who make our entertainment. I was listening to the Literature Devil‘s Morning Nonsense stream this morning when he and his guest hosts were analyzing the movie and the Drinker’s review, but they’ve seen and also enjoyed the movie.

It’s the Drinker’s analysis that I’m focusing on here because watching the review got some of my wheels going from an external perspective outside of the movie. Watch the review (again, cursing but no gore) and then I’ll explain what I mean.

I have sensitive taste buds so I can’t handle a high amount of flavor. Would Slowik be upset if I ordered a grilled cheese? Seriously, if you haven’t tried a grilled cheese at Panera Bread, where they make the bread fresh and use fresh ingredients in their food, you totally should. It’s amazing and I’m assuming a chef of Slowik’s supposed level would be amazing.

Okay, it’s a great movie with context, subtext, cheeseburgers, and pretentious putzes getting offed. Fine, special, okay. Not analyzing the message of the movie; I’m building off the Drinker’s analysis of how critics approach art. It should be noted that both Drinker and myself are not only critics but creatives. The difference is that Will Jordan has actually produced books and comics and I’ve produced…BW Media Spotlight, a few comics available on said site, The Clutter Reports, and a failed sprite comic plus a Tumblr I never actually have a chance to do a lot with so I don’t claim to be at the whippersnapper’s level. Yes, this makes me sad but let’s stick to the topic at hand: how the critical and the creative intermix.

I don’t know what the movie intended, and some of what I’m saying was from the Morning Nonsense stream, which I can’t show you because thanks to YouTube’s weird algorithm system he has to put the replay behind a paywall (I’m not even sure I can make a clip or how to embed one on this site using YT’s clip tool) but let’s talk about Slowik first, as the villain of the movie. If I follow the various analyses here, he’s someone obsessed with his craft the point that he sounds kind of pretentious himself. I’ve seen a few clips where the staff comes off so stiff, uniform, and almost cultish it makes Iron Chef look like The Kids’ Baking Challenge. I know which one I prefer. The kids compete but also help and cheer each other on. It’s amazing. My biggest cooking victory is putting chocolate chips in brownie mix and what they create is amazing. I can appreciate the effort that goes into some of these creations, including the wilder stuff like you see on Cake Boss where they have to make a cake to celebrate some event. Granted their the reason you can’t just get a formed pan that sort of resembles Superman and call it a good theme cake but that’s totally out of my element. I can’t even put the frosting on right.

What amazes me is the scene above, where Margot (yes, I looked the names up) simply orders a cheeseburger, Slowik declares he’ll make one on McDonalds’ level, and supposedly finds joy in making it because Margot’s request is just for the pure joy of the food she eats. (That was Lit Dev’s perspective I think.) He does request early on for the guests to not just eat the food but taste it and even I know there’s a difference. Not easy with my taste buds but I’m a mess. Imagine a director or writer doing something like that in a world where supervillains are turned into antiheroes in a style so far removed from the “hated genre” of superhero movies and comic book movies it might as well not use comic book characters, or video game adaptations that don’t follow the actual game. It’s why I’m not interested in Super Mario Brothers either, but I’ll save that for later in the week or next week, depending on my timing. Slowik really is giving the customer what she wants, which already puts him above modern Hollywood or the current crop of comic writers. You want a cheeseburger, I’ll give the best crappy cheeseburger you’ve ever had and I’ll enjoy doing it for the love of the craft I used to have rather than my self-important backside! Sounds like a unique entry in the wronged and vengeful villain trope, or whatever the official name is.

If Slowik represents the creative, Margo is the audience. She knows what she likes, she knows what she wants. “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.” Apparently she isn’t impressed with the presentation or Slowik’s attitude otherwise. I hope she calls out other people, including her date, but I don’t know. Look, Citizen Kane is a great movie I’m sure. It’s on the AFI 100, but it’s not a story I’m interested in. Loved Orson Wells as Unicron, though and The War Of The Worlds was a fascinating presentation. The sled represents his lost childhood innocence or something along those lines, the happiness that was lost as Kane pursued power the same way Slowik did the perfect meal, and probably for a less appreciate audience since the only ones doing the stabby stab in that room are Slowik and his devotees–or I guess that’s more of a slicey slice from the trailer. Margot isn’t impressed with high society (just the money and free meal) so the revelation in the video that she’s…a higher priced Tatyana (I’ll stop referencing that gag) doesn’t surprise me. She doesn’t sound like the target of this movie, which is interesting considering the average person seems to be the point of view less interesting to the Hollywood system and those who are now trying to emulate it in comics and video games.

Not in the Drinker’s video but again coming from Morning Nonsense (starts at 8:35 ET M-F if you’re ever curious), the description that most interested me of the “crimes” committed by the guests was the food critic. Apparently she was the uptight social version of the old “angry reviewer”, or what they degenerated into, and I used to hang with a bunch of them. (Still in contact with a few from my Reviewers Unknown days.) Even if they themselves weren’t as angry about it they still all wanted to be their genre and media’s version of The Angry Video Game Nerd and not everyone was cut out for it. As it is, James Rolfe and Doug “Nostalgia Critic” Walker (who I admittedly haven’t watched since the Change The Channel stuff, partly because my backlog is currently still a month behind and I’m not into his particular comedy style) softened over the years, trying to mix more honest criticism with the jokes, saving the rants for the really bad productions. The food critic’s reviews were so harsh that restaurants closed because the review chased customers off just to boost her own ego, like that one judicator in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

This is a terrible type of critic. Critique should be about elevating the craft, which admittedly will be different from each of us, or at least letting the viewer know if this is their type of [insert media format here]. I don’t always agree with the assessments of the critics I follow, and sometimes not even their world view, but I know their criticisms are about alerting the viewer to the type of story they’re in for and to improve the craft. Even Cinema Sins, a gag show, points out story flaws that may or may not be needed to push the story forward but note when possible a workaround to avoid the plotholes is possible. Too many critiques out there are just there to attack someone they don’t like or won’t join “the group”. You don’t have to like everything out there, and I’ve called out bad stories before and will again, even when made by writers I enjoy, even in a series or franchise I otherwise enjoy. I come at it as both critic and creative, but also as just the average fan who wants a good story whether original or based on something I already enjoy.

As far as the man responsible for Margot going through this–wait, sidebar. Judith Light is still getting praised work? Fantastic, she deserves it. And John Leguizamo is a pretentions movie star who gets offed at the end? Okay, this might be worth watching. Kidding. Sorry. Still salty about his treatment of Luigi in and out of performance.

Anyway, Tyler wants to dissect the magic of the meal. That’s fine. You can attempt to solve the magician’s trick without ruining the trick. Penn & Teller have shown that on their Fool Me show, plus the whole Masked Magician thing. Val Valentino didn’t ruin magic forever even though magicians still hate him. Revealing the secrets of professional wrestling may have actually elevated it in some peoples’ eyes. They may still call it a “false sport” but credit to the hard work and sacrifices for their art and to give the audience a performance worth their time and money–if they’re successful. We also have Corridor Crew’s “VFX Artist React” series on YouTube, and that doesn’t make the effects any less amazing or terrible as they try to figure out how they did the various special effects practically and/or digitally. There must be something else about Tyler, that maybe he’s doing it just to seem smart but doesn’t actually take the time to enjoy the food. He’s just there for the mystery. I can’t go by the movie’s portrayal obviously (though apparently he knows they’re all about to die and thus sentences this poor escort to death just to be there and not be there alone, so that’s at least awful–we’re not supposed to be sad any of them died after all, which is a whole other “not my style” discussion).

Drinker does have a point if Tyler indeed is a commentary on the deconstructionist, the one who wants to break it down without building it up better or saying “there’s nothing wrong with that because it’s still dang entertaining”. The trend of deconstructing by today’s writers gets on my nerves to the point that even supposedly good ones like Puella Magi Madoka Magica, a deconstruction of the “magical girl” Sailor Moon type stories, is something I have no interest in. Everybody wants to be Watchmen without understanding Watchmen. I mean, I hate the part of that story’s message I know about and I still have more respect and understanding for what Moore is going for than people who have read the full thing. How is that possible? Everyone else just seems to be attention seeking jerks and I don’t know what’s up with the old couple and what that message is supposed to be. “Consume product and prepare to consume more product” types, maybe? Kind of literal in this case. I don’t know. Nobody seems to be focusing on them, and by “nobody” I admittedly mean the two reviews I’ve seen.

Basically nobody is coming out of this unscathed–literally–except for the “audience member” who knows what they want and just wants to enjoy it while calling out the nonsense of a bad presentation. I’m hopefully that’s what I do here since the goal is to make myself a better storyteller by observing the successes and failure of others despite the quality of the final product. Sometimes we all just need a good cheeseburger. Or in my case, grilled cheese. Think I’ll have that for supper tonight.