Cuestión de buen gusto

This movie completely fascinated me. Nicolas, is a young waiter at a first class restaurant where Monsieur Frederic Delamont, a multimillionaire businessman, spots him as the ideal candidate as his taster.

Nicolas' job is to taste all the dishes his boss is going to eat, since he can't eat fish nor cheese. However, the relation between both men starts to get deeper as the old man starts to get obsessed with Nicolas and controls his life. He then bestows on his taster all kinds of gifts. Nicola can't believe his luck, but he doesn't know the stakes he's risking for all this luxury. Frederic manipulates his employee into doing all sort of things and Nicolas doesn't even know why he agrees. At first, Nicolas acts for money, but after a while he falls prey to Frederic's obsessions even though this means destroying his relationship with his girlfriend, Beatrice. She sees how this man has changed his boyfriend and Nicolas doesn't even realize it.

I invite you to enjoy this movie, it'll make you think about how human beings are let into situations they can't control, and no matter how much harm they get out of them, they can't stop playing that auto-destructive game.

Bernard Giraudeau plays Frederic Delamont, a wealthy, and eccentric, middle aged man who hires Nicolas Riviere, a waiter in an upscale restaurant, to be his "taster". It's a premise that is at least unusual, if not downright unique. Delamont has phobias for certain foods, especially fish and cheese. It's up to Nicolas to shield Delamont from these offensive foods.

As the story unfolds, Nicolas, who has a girlfriend and seems reasonably well adjusted, becomes gradually more ensnared into Delamont's life, to the dismay of the girlfriend. But the perks are nice for Nicolas, so he continues. It's a trap, though, and the question becomes: can Nicolas escape the trap before it's too late.

Although the film's premise is interesting, the plot is slow going, and at times tedious. I'm baffled at Delamont's motivations. He's a powerful businessman who can presumably pull the strings of any number of employees or business associates. Why does he feel the need to control someone in his personal life? I would think his impulse would be the exact opposite.

In any event, this psycho-drama has a "spider and fly" quality to it. The screen story is told in flashbacks, which makes the film confusing, at the beginning. The acting is quite good, overall.

Ultimately though, I just could not identify with the characters in this film. They seemed too remote and too thinly drawn to care about. And the film's dry plot quickly becomes tiresome and dull.

Bernard Rapp's previous feature Tiré à part (Limited Edition) had prepared me for this stimulating exercise in domination by mind games. It is very impressive, the way Rapp lays out the slow decline of Nicolas Rivière through luxury, laziness and the unwillingness to look squarely at the danger he's in. His job description is taster, but really he is living a surrogate life for his boss Delamont (for the latter, think Howard Hughes). The older man wants to watch the younger go parachuting, skiing, take a trip into the desert to sharpen his senses,even make love to a blonde at a party. For those who are looking for a homosexual basis for the relationship between these two men, the scene with Nicolas starting to warm up the blonde in bed, only to be dismissed by Delamont who wants to claim his prize will provide more than enough ammunition.

Bernard Giraudeau is splendid as Delamont; he understands how to make a young man feel favored then inadequate through a minimum of words. He used that purring voice and sly grin before, in Drops of Water on Burning Rocks (Ozon), where he made life hell for his teenage lover. Jean-Pierre Lorit is adequate, but no more, as Nicolas. Florence Thomassin reminds me of a fashion model who has strayed into acting; her height and good bones don't make me forget how stiff she is.

This is a story of a beautiful innocent young man destroyed by a rich old geezer. What exactly leads to our little pal's doom? Maybe he's destroyed by his Dorian-Grayish self? I don't know, and I doubt anyone would sympathize with the characters and learn a lesson or two. This movie is too weak to be a thought-provoking fable. It's not even intense enough to pass as a second-rate crime thriller.

What distinguishes it from a Hollywood psycho flick is the French gourmandism. The food here could have been effectively symbolic. Unfortunately, the camera does not linger long enough to let it speak for itself.

It's not that the director favors his actors. Giraudeau has one facial expression throughout, and Lorit two---happy and unhappy. What a waste of such a fine actor, who has done much better in Kieslowski's Red? The rest of the characters function no more than a walking tree in your high school musical.

I adore French films, but this one is a downer. If you want to see a film about unspoken homosexual relationship, there's "Beau Travail." If you want to see a film about a lonely human being who does not get sexual fulfillment, there's Catherine Breillat's "Romance." If you want to see a film in which the main character's inner self comes alive on screen, there's Philippe Harel's "Whatever.' If you just want to get a kick out of knowing who kills the ol' villain, any Hollywood thriller will do. Do not waste your time on "Une affaire de gout."

Bernard Rapp's "Une affaire de gout" has an unusual take on the controversial and sensational subject of homosexual love and passion:the leitmotif is food and the eroticism is more on the psychological than on the physical side.

A big-shot businessman employs a young and good-looking waiter to be his "taste-tester," as he is extremely meticulous when it comes to food quality, suspects that someone might put his life on danger by poisoning him, and is particularly averse to cheese and fish.He pays the young man a hefty salary, shelters him in a nice and comfy mansion and subjects him to a rigorous "fasting" and "asceticism"---in the process, he becomes the businessman's most trusted and influential right-hand man.The young man is all too willing to let all this pass,as, according to him, he wants to be absorbed in the tycoon's "craziness."

In the course of the film, we learn that the tycoon harbors a deep-seated pain and trauma, for his father died of drowning brought about by a ship mishap as he was about to bring them home some "cheese" and when his body was found, it was discovered to have been eaten by "fish" (thus, the businessman's aversion to them).

Therefore, we may reasonably assume that by having his food tasted first by the young man, the businessman is seeking once again the approval and assurance of a father-figure (though admittedly much younger than him)---the things which he never had because of his father's untimely death.

Or, conversely, the wealthy man is trying to act out the role of a caring and concerned father to the guy, a kind of living up to the legacy of his late father so that his death may not be so much of a burden and a source of guilt for him.

But, as the relationship between the two men is pathological in nature, it reaches the point where the wealthy man starts insulting and eventually abandons among the rags the young man, culminating in a tragic event that, in a different mode and context, makes the former suffer the same fate as his father.

With this, "Une affaire de gout" feels like a case history by Freud or, in some respects, by Menninger, as the homoerotic element is subtly manifested in certain forms of behavior and action that the characters take, whether they're aware of it or not, and the instances wherein they injure themselves or suffer from certain kinds of organic illness suggest a form of self-destruction that they're covertly aiming at, both as a means of punishment (for some "guilty" and "immoral" act) and a source of pleasure (serving as an "outlet" for homoerotic impulses and cravings).

Well, I guess it's "a matter of taste" whether one can accept the film's revealing and disturbing premises or not.