If they had wheat bread, which they did, and a toaster, which they did, what difference does it make?
My philosophy is that if you have the raw materials, then make me some G-D food, charge me the appropriate price, and leave me the hell alone. If you have tomatoes, corn or flour tortillas, ground beef, onions, cheese and lettuce, then you can make almost everything on Taco Bell’s menu (and they’ve been doing it for the last 40 odd years).
I have been to Chinese restaurants and ordered aromatic beef (it’s not on the menu). Chicken and shrimp are, and since the technique is stir frying your protein and dousing it with sauce, you could order aromatic duck, if they had duck in the cooler (and you weren’t an asshole).
Some people don’t like American Cheese. So when they order grilled cheese, they try to get Swiss or cheddar. If the restaurant has it, I have never seen them be turned down. They might get charged more, but they get what they wanted.
Back to original point: Yes, it would have been shitty risotto, but it’s my money being spent. The restaurant lost a customer (I frequented the place, but not after the incident), and the cost of the meal.
The difference is between one of cinema’s most memorable scenes and … not.
It’s a fuzzy line, but there must be some limits. A restaurant isn’t literally your personal servant. On the other hand, if it were me faced with a cantakerous customer like you describe, I’d offer mushrooms on the side and wash my hands of it.
I can’t believe no one here has had the experience of being trapped between stupid management policies and customer requests, it is like a catch 22 where either way you lose!
Have to go with the “Something else” option.
Upon reading Left Hand of Dorkness’ apt description, the thought that came to me was a low-rent TV show that might be called “When assholes collide”.
He made a reasonable request and got wrongly angry because of possibly silly rules. He humiliated a woman who was rude in doing her job and threw a tantrum over a matter that he should have brushed off.
Yes, it often makes sense to accomodate special requests like his. However, a restaurant has no obligation to offer what isn’t on the menu. They have no more obligation to justify what they offer than a customer has to justify what he asks for. Maybe management or the cooks find it’s too much trouble for the benefits or introduces too much variability into the process. Maybe they’re right in their particular circumstances or maybe they’re wrong. Let them try it and customers can decide if that particular policy is so big a deal that they won’t eat there.
It’s been a long time so I had to rewatch the scene.
waitress was a little snippy but Dupea should’ve spoken to the manager when she offered if he was so determined to get some goddamn wheat toast.
I was a waitress for years as well as various other kinds of peons. It is very frustrating to the be the front line person when a business has a stupid policy that you know is stupid. Or one that you know seems stupid but really makes sense because of a million things.
The scene is really an excellent example of the ratcheting effect of bad behavior.
Probably the point of no return was waitress’ “ya want me to hold the chicken??” with incredibly disrepectful tone and body language. Do you think if she’d suddenly relaxed and laughed and smiled at his clever circumventing of the rules that he would have gone to “I want you to hold it between your knees?”
Nevertheless that remark and the trashing of the table was completely inexcusable so Bobby Dupea loses the round (and gets no toast).
Ministryman, some chefs just don’t play that. They may worry that you will get a shitty mushroom risotto, then go and tell your friends how shitty it was. Bad word of mouth can hurt as much if not more than losing a customer. (Which, many restaurants will gamble that their regular customer won’t walk over something like this…they are regular customers because they are usually happy).
I have heard of chefs who won’t allow you to put ketchup on their steak (okay, that’s probably just an urban legend, but believing it amuses me.)
I know for a fact that some hairdressers will not do what their client suggests, even if it means losing that client. They refuse to have the client walking around looking what the hairstylist considers silly, and telling everyone that they had their hair done at Sassy’s. Sassy doesn’t want that kind of reputation.
And, if you will indulge me to ramble further (I’m a big fan of your posts…I always read your stuff, so humor me) I go to this little eyeglass frame shop for my eyeglasses. She considers herself an eyeglass purist; she sells only eyeglasses made by *eyeglass *designers…no Chanel or Prada or any other designer who designs more than frames. I had to argue with her about my glasses. She didn’t think the frames were right for me and she was visibly upset that I insisted on them. I had to put my foot down hard. She was almost rude about it, and I have never seen her rude before…she is normally sweet, meek and kind.
So yeah, I can believe that sometimes a chef just doesn’t want to do it the customer’s way, even if it means losing the customer. I’m glad you did get your mushroom risotto though. And free! Like you, I’m not surprised they are out of business.
While Rafaelson may have had a certain sympathy for Bobby, on the whole he makes him out to be a self-indulgent shit struggling in vain to find any fixed sense of identity. I suspect that within the next five or so years he found himself institutionalized. On a ward run by a crazy nurse.
Gotta side completely with Bobby.
First, he made a reasonable request and got turned down.
Second, he went out of his way to problem solve to provide a win-win scenario–he gets his request, is willing to pay a disproportionate amount for it, and the restaurant rules remain intact without causing anyone any extra work.
He’s not only rebuffed again (with no rationale whatsoever) but given a ton of extra attitude for it.
Now, should he have caused the vandalism? No. But all this hand-wringing about humiliating the waitress? No sympathy. She was a bitch. He went above and beyond what a customer should expect to face to get a reasonable order fulfilled and by her tone, she obviously understood his request (she wasn’t confused) but chose to be incredulous and sarcastic instead. Fuck her.
While I just voted that it was a reasonable request, I saw the movie in the theater upon release and would have said that I was 100% correct, watching it some many years later makes me, just a little , believe it was over the top unreasonable.
I think that’s entirely the wrong way to look at it. A business transaction is a meeting of minds: if you both agree that one party will provide a specific good or service in exchange for a specific amount of money, then the exchange is made. Otherwise it ain’t. Either outcome is acceptable.
The restaurant makes the opening offer of exchange, called “Menu.” You can accept that offer, or you can decline it, or you can make a counteroffer, called “Substitution.”
If you counteroffer, the restaurant can likewise accept or decline your counteroffer. In general it’s in their best interest to accept (or possibly make a counteroffer called “I’m gonna hafta charge you for that”). But whether they accept or decline is entirely their business, not yours. There’s absolutely no moral or ethical requirement for them to accept your counteroffer, and if they decline it, their reasons for declining it are none of your beeswax.
Jack was being an asshole. In fact I don’t think I have ever seen a Jack Nicholson movie where he wasn’t being an asshole.
Maybe I’m wrong and there exists an actual Jack Nicholson role where he isn’t an asshole, but I can’t think of it now.
I have never met him, but if I did I am pretty sure I would regard him as quite an asshole. Some actors are great at acting and some just play themselves. Jack seems to play himself.
But, but, what about…
Oh, yeah.
Never mind.
He started out polite and his request was well within reason. When she refused his first request (to make a substitution) he tried to accommodate her by making an alternative request (ordering the wheat toast as a side order) and then a second alternative (ordering a sandwich, hold the chicken). As for the general manners, he was polite long after she became rude.
I’ll certainly grant that Nicholson usually plays assholes. And he was an asshole overall in this movie. But he was justifiably driven to be an asshole in this particular scene.
I don’t get the sexually humiliate thing, I mean hold it between your legs is the equivalent of saying stick it up your ass or go fark yourself.
Way back I worked for a major chain where we had the “Five easy pieces” theory. If a customer wanted something, on or off the menu, and we HAD the ability to comply, then we did so.
I have seen way too many places fail because of “rules” that were self defeating.
I voted Jack was correct!
Out of curiosity, was the line “I want you to hold it between your knees” a euphemism to avoid 1960s Hollywood censorship? Somebody above made a reference to “sexually humiliating her” (or something like that), and I can’t find anything overtly sexual about “hold it between your knees”.
I’ve been a waiter, and I don’t think the waitress was right at all. If the customer asked for something non-standard, SHE should have asked the manager if it could be done, and then relayed the manager’s answer to the customer. This waitress was clearly trying to get away with doing as little as possible at her job by hiding behind the “no substitutions” clause in the menu rather than providing even a modicum of customer service.
In a profession where tips are a big part of your income, that’s a terrible way to work.
I was the one who made the reference, and I could well be wrong about what it meant. It reminded me of the idiot who recently said that girls in his day used aspirin as contraceptive–they held it between their knees. That, combined with Jack’s expression and the waitress’s reaction, made me think he was making a sexually crude insult toward her, an insult that would have made more sense to people watching the movie contemporaneously. But I might be wrong. If I am, what the hell does that line mean?