City of Gold is a ninety-six minute documentary about food critic, Jonathan Gold, and how he sees his beloved city, Los Angeles, which I have only visited once. I probably put this documentary in my queue because as a person who consumes book and reality shows about food, Gold has been on the edges, but not the focal point so it felt like a golden (groan) opportunity to learn more about the man, and even if I did not find him interesting, there would probably be food porn so I would not lose. The bar was really low for this movie. There was the added bonus that the subject was innocuous enough that mom was willing to watch it too.
Other reviewers seemed to be quite torn about City of Gold deeming it a fluff piece or delightful, but they missed the fact that Laura Gabbert was audacious in attempting to do a cinematic adaptation of a food review. Has that ever happened before? If it has not, Gabbert deserves praise for trying it. People complain when filmmakers adapt books because they leave out so many details, and the reader’s imagination is better, but what about adapting a short essay about senses that cannot be communicated to the viewer at home? Whether or not Gabbert succeeded will be up to the individual viewer, but I was impressed. It is not simply a paean to a man and a place, but a quiet, modest attempt to do something innovative in filmmaking.
City of Gold is a documentary that finds its entry point of Gold’s life story through his reviews before broadening its scope and examining what the reviews leave out: his past, his family and his other interests. If you do not see the documentary in this way, the lack of chronological narrative may make the way that the Gabbert organizes the film’s events confusing and counterintuitive. Maybe it would have been more cohesive to stick to her original format of adapting reviews instead of gradually giving in to the more traditional biographical beats, but I do not think that Gabbert would have come out of it unscathed in that scenario either. There would have been complaints that we learned nothing about Gold outside of his work. When you are pioneering a new genre, innovation cannot be expected to look perfect.
City of Gold elevates the news magazine television program human interest story by taking the actual food review then doing mini-profiles on the restaurant and its owners before pulling back out to return its focus on Gold as the subject. The documentary praises Gold less as a critic and more as the white guy who uses his privilege to shine a light on under-appreciated cuisine from people of color by not simply focusing on high end restaurants. It is cynical and sad that to gain legitimacy, ethnic food, which should have innate and objective value irrelevant to who consumes their food, still need the legitimacy of the mainstream’s attention to survive. When people demand representation in the media and the cry is to build your own network, make your own movies, publish your own movies, restaurant owners can rightfully respond, “Done,” but still need foot traffic and attention to keep afloat. For restaurant owners, building it does not automatically mean that they will come. Recognition is important, and this documentary suggests that Gold’s function in Los Angeles is to provide a broader context and stage for talented food purveyors of color to shine and thrive.
Unfortunately City of Gold’s camera is never invisible. People are self-conscious around it so it feels less like a fly on the wall documentary than a highly constructed vanity project. Even though the documentaries in which the subjects seem to be acting naturally are probably more artificial than this one, it is hard to ignore the staging effect. Even though Gabbert may not have wanted to even inadvertently affect her documentary, she does because for whatever reason, the camera is obtrusive.
I did not realize that Gold died when I watched this documentary over a year ago. City of Gold gave me the impression that I would like him as a regular human being. He struck me as a nerd. He has a marmalade cat, tons of books and enjoys museums. His kids look like kids, and they appear to be cultivating personalities based on brains, not trends. He is busy making people, not photo ops, and it is nice to see that critical acclaim can lead to substance. It does not hurt that he and his wife have been together for quite some time. It is a shame that they did not get more time though working closely together certainly maximized it.
People of color is not interchangeable with black people though it can include them. While watching City of Gold, I did not keep a tally of the ethnicity or race of the food purveyors though I believe there were black people, but I did note that near the end of the documentary, Gold only expressed discomfort when the topic turned to Los Angeles’ African American population, specifically the Watts uprising. If I had to criticize this film, it was this hopefully unintentional misstep. I did not come to City of Gold to specifically hear about black people in Los Angeles though as people of color, they obviously should be included, explicitly how they contributed to that city’s food landscape, but I would not have noticed whether or not they were included if it was not for this standout negative moment, and it would require me rewatching this film to determine whether they were.
Being a black woman of a certain age, I am used to not expecting to see myself or being sufficiently delighted at another underrepresented group getting some much needed shine. If the Watts uprising was used as a way to compare and contrast the changes, negative and positive, to LA’s cuisine, then it would have made sense. It felt reductive to only mention this brief though pivotal moment in history, especially since it felt as if all other cultures were joyous and light then the entire mood of the documentary plummeted and almost came to an emotional halt at the mere mention of race, which is a negative representation even if strictly factual, since it is the only explicit moment devoted to race. It was apparently an important aspect of his childhood, but if the film went there, then why not explore it further and go into 1992 uprising after the acquittal of the LAPD officers who used excessive force on Rodney King. Because the film limits showing Gold’s relationship to the black community to this event, it could lead a viewer to infer that like many Americans, Gold’s relationship to black people was similar to a country’s relationship to a homegrown prophet. He needs to import other cultures to appreciate them, but it is hopefully more likely a clumsy moment, not an accurate reflection of the man.
My mom and I overall enjoyed City of Gold because we got to learn more about the critic and the city that he loved, but it was available for free on Hulu and about to be pulled from streaming. Do I love it enough to pay to see it again on another platform for $2.99, if only to clear up my unanswered lingering questions? No. You will have to decide how interested you are in food as art and city history.
