I don’t understand why Luce got all the accolades, but The Dinner didn’t. Luce is a better movie in terms of overall quality, but The Dinner’s story felt more unexpectedly incisive regarding various socioeconomic and racial issues than Luce did. Luce felt like a popcorn movie with a respectable veneer. The Dinner was cinematically flawed, but the way that the story unfolded felt true to the characters that the viewers got to know, seemed realistic and reflected a political climate of people who may not have voted for Presidon’t, but helped create the climate that contributed to his rise on the international stage. Maybe everyone read the book, which was set in a different country and has already been adapted two times, in Italy and the book’s homeland, The Netherlands, and were annoyed at the changes made for it to work in the United States. The author hated it because of too much moralizing.
I enjoyed The Dinner for home viewing purposes, but in a theater, I may have felt claustrophobic and trapped with these people because it feels like a play, which I ordinarily do not enjoy in movies. The story is about a family dealing with fallout from their kids’ behavior. Paul, played by Steve Coogan, is a history lover and former teacher. He and his wife, Claire, played by Laura Linney, are still in love, and they have a child, Michael, whom I instantly didn’t like because his dialogue screamed of entitlement, which his parents clearly never considered a problem, but would not have been tolerated for a second in my home. Paul and Claire are going to have dinner at an exclusive restaurant with Paul’s brother, Stan, played by Richard Gere, who is a Congressman, and his (second) wife, Kate or Katelyn, who is played by Rebecca Hall.
Just based on the color palette of the characters’ surroundings when they are introduced, The Dinner plays on our assumptions and sympathies about each character then gradually reveal how characteristics that initially seemed charming or quirky are actually indicative of more than an acerbic wit. There are clues dropped as early as the opening credits to the odd detours and flashbacks that the film is going to take if you are an eagle-eyed viewer. If the film was only told from Paul’s perspective, then I think there would be less ground for a viewer to complain about these flights of fancy given what we discover about Paul, which raises more questions that are later answered. I really appreciate it when I mentally ask a question, and the filmmaker anticipates or cultivates the asking of that question then satisfies my curiosity. For this reason, the Civil War moments, which could be seen as random, meandering and self-indulgent, work though the film did lose my attention and momentum at those moments. The Civil War theme is heavy-handed, but is an effective historical metaphor for Paul and Stan’s relationship as seen through Paul’s eyes and explains the legacy of their actions as a broader metaphor for Americans descended from the right side of history. When we think that we have found solid ground, the film pulls the rug from under us once more so we are left questioning a character’s sincerity, which honestly was earned after all the paces that character was put through, or if it is just a master class in manipulation. This singular cynical moment had me questioning everything, and a part of me wishes that it was the true ending.
The Dinner is showing how from afar, these people are the best that American society has to offer with qualities that we either admire or disdain based on our assumptions. They know the right thing to say, but their actions reveal them to be liars at worst or on some level, not responsible for their actions. One character comments on how the first wife genuinely cared, but in flashbacks, that character could not be more dismissive and rude to this character if she didn’t. The flashbacks worked better than the tenuous structure of an elaborate multiple course dining experience, which never resonated with me. Maybe the courses as they relate to the flashbacks and present actually pair well together on repeat viewings, but this film isn’t the kind of film that you are going to want to watch repeatedly. Even though I saw certain revelations coming, they still managed to shock me though they did not surprise me. People do act like this, but perhaps that is why people didn’t like the movie because it reminds us of how we minimize behavior that if exhibited by various people in a different demographic, we would hear alarm bells screaming and pay heed.
I will still give a side eye to how The Dinner still plays into the white supremacist narrative of varying motives of criminals guilty of the same crime or bad behavior in general. Because this movie does not deal with gun violence, I think that it is a good example of what I’m referencing. If a brown person is responsible for a mass shooting, it is terrorism. If a black person does it, it is gang violence. If a white person is the perpetrator, people express sympathy and demand more understanding for mental illness. While I think that the film mostly succeeds at simultaneously depicting the real horror of mental illness by showing that experience from the inside out without sensationalizing it, glamorizing it or easily resolving it, which I loved, and showing the point of view of those who have to watch helplessly, I also think that on some level it punks out in its final scene with Michael by excusing a bad guy in the eleventh hour when he shows genuine signs of a trigger into madness, and the film is trying to get viewers to empathize with him suddenly as if he didn’t stand a chance. It feels like a pulled punch, especially given the ending which suggests that while mental illness could be a factor, it is not a determinative one for being an awful person.
Some reviewers have written that The Dinner reminds them of Roman Polanski’s Carnage, but I think Carnage is an optimistic work whereas The Dinner reflects the bleakness of this era, especially with respect to using the adoption a black child from a foreign country as a microcosm of the psychologically horrific dystopian landscape of this era in America, even or especially in the most privileged communities, and say, “Here is your home and family. You are not home, and you will never really be embraced as family. You will never be safe.” It is apocalypse by gaslighting. This child, Beau, is a minor character, but the way that various characters project their venality onto him is terrifying. Because I didn’t trust any character, I never believed that Beau was as mercenary as one character made him seem. The abusers consistently cast themselves as the victims while finding the weakest person in the room and hurting them. Run, Beau! This film was less problematic than Luce in terms of elaborating what the titular character meant when he suggested that he needed to be protected from his parents.
If you’re expecting Stan to go into Arbitrage mode because Gere is playing him, don’t. The Dinner leaves us hanging regarding how things will play out on the larger stage. In a way, it does not matter because it isn’t really the point of the film. The point is that for all their talk about love and wondering the best resolution for the kids, each person is completely absorbed in their own individual world, alone even while together, viciously selfish at their most selfless.
Side note: what does Claire do for a living? I saw Claire coming from the beginning of the film. Katelyn is the most underwritten character, but because Hall plays her with such intensity and fervor, you may not notice. Her ultimatums never quite make sense even within the context of the story, but she steals the best moment in a film with a lot of big moments. She gives one character a dose of his own medicine, and it’s not right, but it’s ok.
I liked The Dinner, but I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone. If you like the cast, definitely see it. If you don’t mind artsy fartsy narrative structure and perspective, then you will probably be able to get through it and enjoy it. If you hate anything but a conventional, chronological narrative, you should probably skip it. There are occasional acts of violence that are tastefully depicted. There is a lot of profanity so if you’re sensitive, don’t bother.