User Reviews

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.

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.

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 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.

The meaning of "taste" is in question throughout. Previous comments center only on psychopathology or cinematography, with little mention of language. I think the variable meanings of words, whether the French dialogue or the English subtitles, is the key to understanding this rather transparent but mildly engaging film.

The most obvious example has to do with the title, of course. When "taste" of any sort runs headlong into a wall of insensate and objective laws or rules of behavior, it is reduced to meaningless metaphor. Individuality is thus ultimately rendered a nullity. That is the central meaning of the film.

Self-destruction brought about by some sense of one's inability to achieve a perfect harmony with another's unique personality has therefore nothing and yet everything to do with "taste." It is as well the essence of narcissism.

This film could have been conceived and produced only in France.

What a sophisticated, engrossing roundelay! A wealthy neurotic man in his 50s leads an adventurous, susceptible younger man into a psychological/emotional dance that's at once intriguing and cruel. Bernard Rapp's direction is subtle and well-paced, with sudden twists and some stunning images. Both main actors, Bernard Giraudeau and Jean-Pierre Lorit (seen in "Red") perform as though custom-fitted to their roles. That takes professional skill! This film offers more than superficial entertainment. I highly recommend it!

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).

Critically acclaimed by some, but why? More slow paced eurodrama that goes absolutely nowhere hanging on by the barest thread of pseudo-intellectual underpinning. Totally preposterous plot. Every chance to spice up this supposed psychological "thriller" was passed over.

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.

Indeed, Une Affaire de Gout and another Bernard Rapp movie titled Tiré à Part share something in common. Both movies are strongly and quite realistically inspired by the trade of espionage. Not at all of the fantasy kind one can find in 007 movies, but of authentic dark and uncanny intrigues underlying an exciting visible side of the world of intelligence that, often, either owes little to commonly accepted realities, or is purposefully inspired by the most presentable historic examples. In other words, all those who feel attracted by the underground realm of espionage must first watch, among some other good movies on the subject, Une Affaire de Gout, and Tiré à Part.

To tell it straightforwardly, Une Affaire de Gout truly relates to a richly detailed recruitment process through classic Pavlovian methods. Just the real goals and aims are never explicitly and clearly explained, or even suggested, contrary to what is the case in other movies such as Spy Game, or The Recruit, or Nikita, or even Seconds, for example. That's the way things happen indeed in a middle that is constantly looking for burying all traces it can leave. Une Affaire de Gout and Tiré à Part are very close to the world of John le Carré and Graham Green, but in these cases neither the title nor the synopsis, nor even the official background of their author suggest us even a bit about. We don't know what is happening, and we really wonder what is going to happen next until the end. In an attempt to say what this movie resembles to, I hesitate between a Alfred Hitchcock and a good Colombo, though neither of these two examples apply. It's easy to feel uncomfortable while watching Une Affaire de Gout, though certainly not as with Seconds of John Frankenheimer.

Under the appearance of a surrealistic story, the purpose of the devilish Une Affaire de Gout is to show us how the unwilling and undocumented target of a Pavlovian experiment could understand and bear the absurd and weird events suddenly happening in is life? That's possibly the main purpose of this movie. In that case there is nothing that suggests what Nicolas Rivière, the target, was expected to do ultimately; nothing good to be sure, but a puppet whose fate is doomed, doubtless. The visible effects of the whole process are very close to those classic brainwashing can produce; but here, contrary to what happens to Michael Caine in The Ipcress File, Nicolas Riviere, the target, willingly submit to a transformation process, just because he is truly a weak and socially vulnerable person. It strikingly transforms him and gets him into abandoning his relatives, friends, girlfriend, and everything else belonging to his past life. As in the frame of any usual mind control process, the target must be isolated from any exterior influence and is compelled to get rid of all trace of self-esteem so as to be totally dependent of his master. An accomplice physician even poisons his preferred dishes so as to get him changing his tastes on food!

In exchange for his unconditional obedience, he seems to be well, but carefully, rewarded with goods that do not belong to him in title. From ill treated waiter in a restaurant to "adviser on taste" of a prominent businessman, the young Nicolas Rivière senses he is becoming overnight a Cindrella of a sort. It is made quite clear that all features of his "new life" may instantly disappear anytime were he chooses to stop going farther. So, Nicolas Rivière has no choice but to accept the unacceptable for not to return to his miserable life. In short, he is truly blackmailed, and compelled to submit to brainwashing.

Bernard Rapp, the French film director, purposefully managed to make the "stick and carrot" recurrent and conspicuous features all along the film. Also, spectators are expected to understand that all employees of Frédéric Delamont, the reckless and careless businessman, are all obedient accomplices in this plot. The collection of Japanese arms and armor of Nicolas Rivière that purposefully appear at some points certainly owe little to mere coincidence and seems to suggest a military background, but there is no other signs confirming it so as to stick to the general atmosphere filed with ambiguity. However, almighty Frédéric Delamont is mentally ill, doubtless, and suffers from antisocial disorder.

As predictable outcome, Nicolas Rivière looses progressively contact with the realities of life and gets psychologically lost and depressive. He finally lands into a psychiatric hospital for depressive disorder before killing symbolically his tormentor with his own Japanese arms. That's how the story ends, without any further explanation of any sort.

The French actors Bernard Giraudeau and Jean-Pierre Lorit respectively incarnate with brio the mad tormentor Frédéric Delamont and his victim Nicolas Rivière. The French touch is unmistakable in this movie though different from what French use to show us. This owes, I think, to the mastered know-how of the late Bernard Rap (deceased at 61 on August 17, 2006) and to his pronounced taste for the genre. Good French movies are rare nowadays. This one, as Tiré à Part alike, counts among exceptions that deserve to be seen across the Atlantic.

This second movie is not as good as the first one, "tiré à part" (please try to see it anywhere !), but it is smart, as Bernard Rapp is. The movie is too slow, in spite of the very orginal ambiguous relationship between the actors.

Bernard Rapp's second movie has really not much to boast about. It is a rather plain, predictable and boring effort. Besides Bernard Giraudeau, the direction of actors is one of the weakest points of the film. Thomassin and Lorit are one-dimensional and most of the " second hands" are totally insipid. If the film makes absolutely no effort to demark itself visually from the average t.v production, it uses a lousy and pretentious symbolic which is all too blatant to be effective. Cheapy all through.

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.

In this highly unusual film, Bernard Giraudeau perfectly embodies the ophidian lure of the subtle dominator...which engenders a good deal of sympathy for the young man experiencing the ongoing regimen of psychological manipulation, brainwashing, and downright torture imposed on him. M. Giraudeau is a wonderful actor, probably one of the very few who could portray this character. I could not help thinking that his character M. Delamont is exactly like Fassbinder's Leopold, the sinister and tyrannizing character who drove his younger roommate/lover to suicide in "Water Drops on Burning Rocks", released the same year as this film. This film almost seems a sequel: as if Leopold changed his name and refined his techniques enough to cause the events in this film. Bravo, M. Giraudeau. I can't imagine anyone else being able to play either of these difficult, fascinating and repellent roles.

Bernard Rapp has written and directed here his second film. A masterpiece of psychological study. Bernard Gireaudeau is perfectly ambivalent and equivocal. The others are good to excellent

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."

This film move than lived up to my expectations. It was stylish, clever, engrossing and, above all, entertaining. The story is well constructed and draws you in to the point of actually CARING what happens to the two main characters (a rarity nowadays). The relationship between the dual male protagonists is an enigma. Is it based on power?...On love?...On need?..On desire?...On sex? We are kept guessing and, even after the film is over, these questions still linger in our mind and are never totally resolved. For me, THAT is the mark of a successful film---one that entertains AND makes you think. I highly recommend "A Matter Of Taste" if you share the same criteria.