Une affaire de goût

This movie isn't a whodunit, since we know from the start pretty much what happens--it's just a question of WHY? And the movie answered that question to my satisfaction. Interesting and plausible psychologically, and the food presentations woven throughout are mouth-watering. Best of all to a non-native French speaker, I found it fairly easy to understand all the dialogue.

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.

I actually enjoyed this smooth and somehow predictible thriller from former TV-show host bernard Rapp (ok, he is a film maker now, this movie prooves that). It reminded me that you eat very well in the good old city of Lyon. What else can I say ? A little Chabrol (Claude)-style maybe. The acting is okay, I specialy enjoyed Bernard Giraudeau. It was a pleasure to see again Jean-Pierre Leaud (the "antoine Doisnel" of François Truffaut's 400 blows).

Bernard Rapp's first work is not that much original:a strong Chabrol influence can be felt here there and everywhere.Two movie comes to mind "les biches" (1967) and "Betty" in the nineties.Both stories concern women,but it does not make a big difference.There's also "une étrange affaire" (1981) a Pierre Granier-Deferre effort,in which Michel Piccoli and Gérard Lanvin had a relationship close to that of Rapp's heroes.And let's not forget the classic Losey's "the servant" (1963)

That said,it's a watchable movie though,thanks to Bernard Giraudeau's sensational portrayal;if an actor can redeem a somewhat hackneyed script,this must be Giraudeau:smooth but threatening,affable bon vivant but subtile tyrant,he completely mesmerizes not only his young taster but also the whole audience.He's so powerful that the other actors (including an aging Jean-Pierre Léaud) stay on the bench.I wish he could find a director worth of his exceptional gifts.

The movie uses flashbacks and its construction recalls "les aveux de l'innocent" (1996) ,another offbeat story.The ending is rather unlikely and disappoints a lot.The female part is a cardboard character,and the actress is unable to act as a counterbalance;in "une étrange affaire" ,Nathalie Baye made all her scenes count.

See it anyway!every time Giraudeau is on the screen will make all worthwhile.And try ,if "une affaire de goût" is for you an acquired taste,to see the other movies I mention.

This is a very unconventional and one of the more "un-Hollywood" films I have seen in quite some time. It is a somewhat slow-moving story about one strange rich man and the way he gradually seduces another man in a seemingly non-sexual way. The acting and writing are excellent, but what I really like are the MANY many ways that the movie can be interpreted and nothing is completely spelled out for the viewer. Some will no doubt find this maddening, but I thought this made the film a dandy psychological study. You are left with so many possible questions such what exactly was psychologically wrong with the rich guy (clinically, he's pretty hard to pin down), is the poor guy also out of his mind, was there deliberate mind control, did the rich guy plan the film's conclusion all along and was there some sort of homosexual undercurrent. I'm sure if you see the film, you'll have even more questions. And, for me, I like this ambiguity--it makes for a great movie to discuss with your friends.