The Menu (2022)

I watched The Menu at the cinema on December 15th, 2022. After two weeks of thinking about it, watching videos on it, and reading up on it, below is my deep-dive analysis into this insane film.

I would consider this a surrealist film, especially with the ending where customers wear marshmallow capes, have melted chocolate drip from their hats onto their faces, while they surrender themselves to death. I do not consider this a horror nor a thriller. I feel that the film was deliberately disciplined. Like how Ralph Fiennes as Chef is firm and usually unmoving, having control over the customers, it felt like the film wanted to feel controlled, without being continuously thrilling.

YouTube channel OneTake: "It was able to use satire without undercutting actual tension ... this is a black comedy, it's okay to laugh".

The main flaw is with the characters. The female lead, Anya-Taylor Joy's Margot (real name Erin) is a contradictory character. Perhaps the most powerful moment in the film is when Nicholas Hoult's Tyler calls her "a child", to which she demands to be apologised to. It conveyed to me that she would not allow herself to be pushed around, insistent on ethics. Similarly, she tells Chef, "I am perfectly capable of deciding when and what to eat". Margot tells Chef that she used to like her job, implying that she did it although she didn't need to. This would explain why she doesn't care about the fancy $1250 meal. She isn't desperate to survive. She's just there because Tyler was paying her to be. I thought she was caring and protective of herself and others. Thus, it shocked me when she did not yell or try to stop the dinner when sous-chef Jeremy shot himself in front of the customers.

As for the end of the film, some might see her as unfeeling, with her casually eating her cheeseburger and wiping her mouth with the paper menu even when she sees the restaurant explode with everyone in it. I do not strictly see her as uncaring and unbothered. Instead, I feel that it is understandable for her to be hungry now, with the film repeatedly making note that she barely eats during the dinner. It is further emphasised when she asks for the burger ("You're still hungry?" "Yes I am." "How hungry?" "Starved.") She is on the boat steering herself out from the island, probably to seek help. She can't do anything else while travelling in the boat. So, she's hungry and she eats. That is how I see the ending as.

My other interpretations of this scene:

- She realised the class divide through The Menu, and gave up trying to help.

- To show that she genuinely loves the burger. Ordering it was not just to remind Chef of his passion, and praising it was not just to convince Chef in letting her leave. Early in the film when on the ship to Hawthorn, Margot remarks that she prefers plain ordinary oysters rather than the fancy ones served. Throughout the dinner, she barely touched the fancy food. She much prefers the simple food that she is accustomed to.

However, there is one thing about this scene that I feel still destroys it. Margot doesn't just eat the burger and wipes her mouth with the menu, she does it right after the entire restaurant exploded in flames. Margot just watched all the guests die, many of whom are genuinely innocent and never actually harmed Chef. This scene alone reminds me of Marta in Knives Out, who wonders "This family, I should help them right?" (like Margot looking sympathetically at the other guests as she leaves) just before the ending shot of her looking down from the house and sipping her coffee. But Marta was clearly exploited by the family, whereas none of the guests (except Tyler who has already died) harmed her at all. Additionally, Marta is following Harlan's will here, which gives to her his inhertiance instead of to his family, but Margot is messed up here. Doing this right after she sees everyone die for good, reduces the credibility I gave her above. I thought she would just be seeking help for the others.

On the other hand, redditor ebolajones has another interesting take. Earlier in the film, Margot tells Slowik she used to enjoy her work as an escort but no longer does, the same sentiment Slowik now shares with cooking. The ending can then be interpreted as Margot rediscovering her ability to satisfy others. An escort's job is to help others realise their fantasies, and she nails it by reminding Slowik of his fond memories starting out as a cook, where his love for his craft had begun. Before Slowik kills himself along with everyone else, Margot gives him this opportunity to relive his love and passion, and cook for one who genuinely desires and enjoys the food. "Slowik honours her by letting her go, as a tip of the hat from one provider of transcendent experiences to another. The way she chows down at the end feels like a celebration, not just for narrowly escaping the jaws of death, but for finding joy in her craft for the first time in a long time." This does seem the most satisfying explanation.

As for Nicholas Hoult's Tyler, Chef had told him eight months in advance that everyone would die that night, and Tyler must have believed him for real because he did not react or care when sous-chef Jeremy killed himself or when one of the cooks chopped off Richard's finger. So why did Tyler not only not report Chef but also attend dinner that night? When Chef whispers in his ear after criticising Tyler's cooking, why does Tyler willingly hang himself to death? It seems that Tyler worships Chef to the point of being a slave. But why? It is likely that Tyler is mentally ill, with him telling Margot early in the film that he never went to prom as girls do not like him, which can imply an unusual incident in Tyler's youth that could have caused his alienation. But I nonetheless find it crucial to know what Tyler's reasoning was.

YouTube channel OneTake: He can't cook, so he fails, and Chef tells him so. His spirit gets utterly destroyed. That is the power of a cult leader, an influencer. They control the beliefs of their followers and can lead them to destructive actions.

As for the customers except Tyler (already dead) and Margot, why did they surrender to their deaths peacefully instead of yelling at Chef and trying to escape? Early in the film, Chef tells the customers to "accept", when telling them to taste and not eat. Just before Chef destroys the place near the end, he does mention that they didn't try hard enough. Nonetheless, their lack of action is impossible. You could say that they gave up presuming they would be stopped yet again, or that they were unwilling to be the one who takes action, but Chef was about to kill them and they knew it. There would be no use avoiding the reality when they were going to lose their lives. Some of them even say Chef's same words at the end, agreeing that they should die. Why did they believe this? ScreenRant: "even if they did manage to escape, the guests still felt stuck because he had information on them that they didn’t want to be made public. Chef Slowik knew that his guests’ reputation and pride took precedence over their survival instincts. Money talked above all else and The Menu’s guests would rather face death than deal with the consequences of Chef Slowik releasing certain information" (humiliation).

YouTube channel OneTake: "It's not just that they think they deserve to lose their lives. They also just don't see that they have lives worth living. We see it clearly with Chef - his life has become devoid of joy."

Chef's reasons for killing them are:

Tyler: appeared smarter than he was and liked to flaunt his knowledge of food (I do not even agree with this. He did in fact know a lot about food, with one of the chefs even saying this. He was always admiring Chef and apologising to him for his blunders. He did not want to cook but Chef urged him to.) When Chef looks at Margot early in the film, Tyler thinks he was looking at him. Tyler also took photos of the dishes despite Chef's request not to (Chef cherished the mystery of his art). YouTube channel Super HeroNexus suggests that Tyler's photographing was of a tourist, [regarding the documentation of it (and perhaps hard evidence that he had a $1250 meal) to be more important than the experience.] YouTube channel Heavy Spoilers Clips: "Tyler has taken the joy out of food by breaking it down to its minute components". At the end of the film when Chef criticises s'mores, he mentions its mass-produced marshmallows (done by factories and not by hand). Perhaps Chef felt that deconstructing it and knowing the recipe would make it like a staple that anyone could cook. Elsa also tells the guests not to take photos of the food as Chef liked the mystery, and Tyler defied this. Or perhaps Chef disliked that Tyler was more preoccupied with the details of the meal than in the pleasure it provided.

Lilian: a food critic whose criticism had closed down several restaurants, but her praise for Chef had helped him (Thing is, being a critic is Lilian's job. It's like Chef's job, which is naturally a behind-the-scenes one that results in Richard and Anne not remembering his dishes, which is his motivation for killing them). Chef also remarks that Lilian had a big ego.

Ted: Lilian's editor, whose reason for being chosen I do not even know. Was it just because he was working for Lilian? Chef says to him, "you enable her filth". YouTube channel OneTake: "Food critics editor Ted is clearly a sycophant (a person who acts obediently towards someone important in order to gain advantage), just telling Lilian what she wants to hear and staying on her good side". After Lilian points out a split emulsion on the bread plate, Ted says he had already noticed it but did not want to point it out. At the end of the dinner, Ted offers to pay for Lilian's $1250 meal.

Richard: a wealthy man who had betrayed his wife Anne and had eaten at the Hawthorn restaurant 11 times but was unable to recall any dish he previously ate.

Anne: Richard's wife who had eaten at the Hawthorn restaurant 11 times but was unable to accurately recall a dish she previously ate.

George: An actor who starred in a humiliating film when he was beginning to fade away as an artist. Chef has been unable to forget George's lack of dignity and lack of passion, which might have caused his own lack of love for the culinary arts. Early in the film, Felicity mentions that he has an apartment that his wife does not know about.

Felicity: George's personal assistant who went to a prestigious university but was not burdened by student loans. She confesses that she stole money from George.

Business colleagues Soren, Dave, and Bryce: embezzled money from their boss, the "angel investor" of Hawthorn. They also threaten Elsa using their employment under the investor of Hawthorn, when Elsa refuses to serve them bread. YouTube channel OneTake: "If you consider their friendship, you'll find it's empty. When they're given a chance to run for their lives, there's no semblance of working together to escape."

Soren, Dave, and Bryce are the only customers who committed a real crime, with Richard, Anne, George and Felicity not even having harmed the lower-class in any way (although Richard had harmed Anne by betraying her).

Chef revealed that the guests were selected because they either contributed to him losing his passion for his craft (Richard and Anne not treasuring his dishes, George caring little about the art of acting or the art of films, Tyler perhaps seeming to Chef to know less than he acts to know, Ted and Lilian perhaps for criticising other chefs and having big egos) or because they make a living off exploiting the work of artisans like him (Felicity for relying on someone else to pay her academic fees and Soren, Dave, and Bryce embezzling from the company they work for).

YouTube channel OneTake: "Committing fraud for financial gain, a food critic wielding power to deem what is good or bad and to make or break the careers of chefs, a wealthy couple eating delicacies just as a way to spend money but without taking a moment to appreciate the food, a washed-up actor looking for fame at any cost. These actions alone are self-destructive, not only the Menu. So these characters, when the truth is laid bare, accept their fate".

High on Films: "The celebrity chef wanted to bring the wealthy guests to their knees so that they realize what it feels like to be helpless and at the mercy of someone else ... believe they’re giving to the fine dining experience when in reality they’re very much leaching from it."

As for the cooks, it is never revealed why they agree to dying with Chef and the guests. I realised that every scene in the film is from the perspective of the guests. Every scene involves at least one of them and there are no scenes at all among the chefs alone. Guests are involved in all the scenes where cooks speak. Near the start of the film, Elsa shows the guests the living quarters of the cooks, which comprise multiple beds in a single room. Elsa remarks that dinners end at 2am and the cooks have to be begin preparing for the next dinner by the morning, hence they all live on the island. Perhaps the cooks have no family, hence being willing to kill themselves. Or perhaps the families of the cooks do not understand their complex skill and art, which is very relatable for artists - society's lack of empathy for art. The lifeless and cramped quarters, the cooks living on the island without cell service or internet connection, and the cooks turning to face and shouting "Yes Chef!" every time Chef claps his hands, evoke the military concept of control and forced obedience.

Chef's memory about stabbing his abusive father is clearly meant to be a contributor to his delusion, but from the filmmakers' side, why include his mother in this dinner? Chef goes to his mother and rests his forehead on her head, showing his affection. Throughout the dinner, she never speaks nor acknowledges anyone or anything around her, not even Chef. When the guests are told to leave the restaurant for the men to run away, she takes another bottle of alcohol. Why include her when she is irrelevant to the plot and adds nothing to understanding the film? Chef's memory could have been told only through the dish that is literally called "Memory". Chef's mother is not needed at all in that scene. Of course, she must be one of the guests who die at the end. But why would Chef want to kill her? Because she was an alcoholic, which would have been neglecting him? She should just not be included. It doesn't matter whether any adult protagonist's parents are alive or dead, with them around or not around.

With Chef deliberately asking Margot to retrieve the barrel for dessert, I would think that the object would play a big role in the story, perhaps as a plot device, a MacGuffin. I am unsure what Chef's intention was by asking Margot to go, or how the barrel was even used for the s'mores. Clearly it's for Margot to go to his house and see his humble beginnings making cheeseburgers, but how does the plot-wise reason seem absent?

Early in the film, Elsa reveals that one of the ingredients was used after 152 days of fermentation, and 153 days would cause them to die. This enforces that Chef could have killed the guests without them knowing, but chose to instead make them confront their behaviour and torture them.

Tyler is surprised when the cook knows his name. Margot, who works in the service industry, then remarks that Tyler did not bother asking for the cook's name.

Anya Taylor-Joy says Margot's seat in the restaurant is positioned such that her back is turned on Chef.

Chef tells the customers to savour, not eat. This symbolically means to be grateful for your privilege. Before Chef kills everyone, he declares that perfection is unattainable. This suggests that others consume the product and criticise it, instead of appreciating what is already there.

Chef gets Jeremy to kill himself because Jeremy seeked to be him. Chef feels Jeremy wanted the image and wanted to be the best, and aspired to follow what he had done, instead of wanting to practise the culinary arts for his passion, and instead of creating something original, which is what art exists for.

After Jeremy kills himself, Lilian convinces herself that it was performance art, not wanting to confront the truth. This is similar to the ape man sequence in The Square, where the wealthy in suits and gowns do not initially consider the performance art as a risk. When the man begins assaulting other guests, they remain afraid to step up and get involved. Instead, they try to ignore it, and wait for others to solve the problem. A real-life representation of this is the slap at the Oscars, in all seriousness.

Richard loses the finger that has his wedding ring. This is because Richard had cheated on his wife Anne with other women like Margot. [Tiny detail: In the opening scene, Richard sees Margot while boarding the ship and continues to look at her. Margot sees him and swears.]

Chef yells "There are no substitutions!" in regard to Hawthorn's investor calling for substitutions to be made. This can be likened to the presence of Margot foiling Chef's plans, where the guests for that night were specially chosen. Margot could not simply substitute Ms. Westervelt.

Chef yells "There are no substitutions!" in regard to Hawthorn's investor calling for substitutions to be made. This can be likened to the presence of Margot foiling Chef's plans, where the guests for that night were specially chosen. Margot could not simply substitute Ms. Westervelt, Tyler's ex-girlfriend who was targeted to die, the intended victim. The film chooses not to reveal who Ms. Westervelt is. Neither is the reason for her being targeted ever revealed. Considering Tyler always knew of the Chef's plan, perhaps he intentionally saved her by not bringing her there. Tyler says she had broken up with him and he brought Margot there because Hawthorn doesn't do seatings for one person.

Chef feels that he himself is wrong and partly responsible for losing his passion, or that he had to be punished for his mistakes since he was punishing the guests, hence he lets the female sous-chef he harassed stab him, and he dies with the guests. I find it strange that the film included the plot point of the female sous-chef having come up with the idea of everyone dying, making this scene the one and only scene that is focused on her. A plausible reason for making her the mastermind is that it is subverting presumptions in a meta way. With Chef's power in the film, we presumed this was his plan that his cooks were following. Turns out it was this female chef that had not spoken before this scene, as if telling us that we often see men in positions power, or that men discredit women. This could relate to Chef using his higher position as Head Chef to corner her and later stop speaking to her for eight months after she refused his advances.

It is smart and effective for the physical fight between Elsa and Margot to take place in Chef's home kitchen where there is echo, making the sounds feel threatening.

Director Mark Mylod points out that there is conflict and connection between Chef and Margot (both work in the service industry), which is of course ideal for hero vs. villain films.

As said, despite the absurd, the guests were served fine and expensive food. This $1250 dinner is their luxurious last meal as they are about to die. The Last Supper is referenced by Chef not giving the customers bread. In this passage of the bible, "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'" Throughout the Bible, bread is a symbol of God's life-sustaining provision. Jesus Himself is the "Bread of Life"—our true source of spiritual life. The bread that Jesus represents never perishes or spoils. www.learnreligions.com: "Throughout the Bible, bread is a symbol of God's life-sustaining provision. Jesus Himself is the "Bread of Life"—our true source of spiritual life. The bread that Jesus represents never perishes or spoils." Because bread is life-sustaining, the guests are not given bread. The filmmakers also make bread the signature dish of the Hawthorn restaurant, as if their bread sustains the life of Hawthorn. The restaurant serving bread means Chef serving bread. With the earlier reference, this implies that Chef is the deciding mind. He decides the fate of himself, the cooks and the guests. Jesus sacrificed his life for everyone else, but Chef discards his life unnecessarily and takes others down with him. High on Films: "If Slowik really wished to be free of the burden of appeasing the wealthy leeches of society, he could just leave his current restaurant and intentionally start one that is economically friendlier and aimed at the working class who would still appreciate him for who he is. But the chef instead chooses to murder his sycophants and admirers, while even taking his army of brainwashed cooks along with him." Also, George remarks that the emulsion that was to go with the bread is surprisingly good on its own, alluding to people not noticing others of certain jobs. In addition, the story of the Tower of Babel in the Biblical Book of Genesis has all people of the world initially united and speaking the same language. They begin to build a tower to reach the heavens and become godlike themselves, to which God confuses the language of the people and destroys the tower. When the people could no longer understand each other, they gave up work on the tower and spread out to different parts of the world. The film is akin to this, with sous-chef Jeremy wanting to be Chef and all the guests except Margot being of higher social status ("become godlike themselves"). Chef had already turned all his cooks to his side, then makes the guests examine themselves and is successful in changing the beliefs of at least some of them ("confuses the language of the people"), and perhaps the other guests give up trying to escape, never attempting to work together ("gave up work on the tower"). Chef then destroys them all ("destroys the tower").

When Margot angrily stands up to Chef at the end of the film, she wants to send the food back, because she wasn't in the first place interested in the fine dining, and also since she doesn't want to experience the true, violent Menu of the night. Margot argues that the Menu takes the joy out of eating, as all the customers except Tyler sit through the dinner in fear (Chef did this because the guests influenced the loss of his joy of cooking). Additionally, it is smart writing for her to argue that she's not full because the Menu consisted of expressionistic exercises like the bread plate served without bread, a suicide by sous-chef Jeremy (although a real dish named 'The Mess' was actually served after his suicide), and a segment where the men were ordered to run away only to get captured by the cooks (although the women including Margot were served another dish during this time). A missed opportunity was to criticise that fine dining serves food in small portions, which this scene might have meant to liken.

Margot says Chef's job has turned from love to obsession. This means that instead of working out of passion, Chef's precision and accuracy in his work is due to perfectionism and insistence. Margot then asks Chef to make a cheeseburger, because the old photo that she saw showed him grinning with love.

Margot says Chef's job has turned from love to obsession. This means that instead of working out of passion, Chef's precision and accuracy in his work is due to perfectionism and insistence. Margot then asks Chef to make a cheeseburger, because the old photo that she saw showed him beaming with love. As mentioned, Margot works in the service industry, she makes people feel good.

By indirectly reminding Chef of his beginning making cheeseburgers, Margot reminds him of his passion and allows him to practise it one last time, succeeding in moving him. This is very similar to Ratatouille, where Horst serves Anton Ego a ratatouille dish, reminding him of his childhood. This moves him and he gives the restaurant a good review.

YouTube channel Culture Elixir: "Somebody just enjoying his food because it was so good, not because of the status quo, not because of the clout that came with it ... she's not a taker"

Although Margot wanting to take it "to go" after having only one bite (so she could escape), at least she values it instead of discarding it, which the wealthy certainly wouldn't do. Chef did catch Margot smoking in the toilet earlier, which Tyler said would have ruined her taste palette, and while this does dampen the art, we do know she wasn't championing the superiority of its value.

Margot pays for the $9.95 burger using a crumpled banknote, which is how everyone would have paid during Chef's past making cheeseburgers, instead of credit cards like how all the other customers at Hawthorn pay for the dinner.

High on Films: "The guests’ wealth has ... made the dining experience costly by widening the gap between various socioeconomic classes."

Chef asks the guests to pay for their meals despite about to die himself. The guests throwing out their credit cards show them willing to pay for the Menu, as if the night was entertainment. It could also be seen like they are abandoning their wealth and privilege before they die. Both of these points contribute to them not fighting to survive and instead seemingly willing to die. Chef and the customers who actually chant his last words are liberated without the burden of their prestige. Before they die, they have managed to recognise their immorality and strip that away, giving themselves to the afterlife as reformed and pure beings. They find liberation before destruction, or you could say they find liberation in destruction - they want to atone for their sins by surrendering themselves to punishment. Their destruction is their redemption. It provides them relief that they can now pay for their faults. They die at dessert because everyone gets their just deserts (receive what one deserves, especially appropriate punishment).

Despite the problems I have exactly with the writing, the good points still shine through, with excellent original writing, performances, cinematography, sound, and original score.

Trivia:

• The Menu is Scott Derrickson's 10th favourite film of 2022, he posted on Twitter.