Dinner for Five

Okay, fair enough, I saw most of the "Dinner For Five" shows on Thanksgiving 2002 when IFC broadcasted a marathon of all the previous shows, so I probably overdosed on it. But seeing all the shows in a row gives you a good possibility to compare, without being interrupted.

A few weeks before Thanksgiving I saw episode 4, and yes I was amazed by the Daryl Hannah, Marilyn Manson, Andy Dick show. Michael Rapaport was supposed to be on it, but couldn't make it. This show impressed me, it was fresh, new, and about interesting topics. It had a kind of openness to it, hardly seen in American television. Whether it was about independent film remains questionable, at least in my opinion. It was more a group of people having a dinner and talking small talk. Nothing earth shattering. Little did I know, this was episode 4 out of 8 episodes in total.

Thanksgiving's marathon however did change my view of the show. Maybe I overdosed on it, yet a good show can get away with minor errors; a bad show with any errors starts to irritate. And I must say, quite bluntly, "Dinner for Five" sucks. Mostly due to the host Jon Favreau. He doesn't let any of the guests finish their anecdotes, who without exception are more interesting than him. Only people he highly respects, like Rod Steiger, or like the Andy Dick's (who don't stop talking) have a chance. Favreau, each and every time, interrupts his guests and continues talking about his own experiences, and frankly most of his work stinks. Only "Swingers" can be considered a small jewel, all other films he so endearingly refers to, are not even considered good films, except maybe for one: "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle". Favreau talks about them as if he was the next Scorsese or Coppola, to just name two people who really would have something to say about independent film or any hardship on the set. Besides that, it was very obvious that the conversations were staged, especially in the editing, plates with desert were handed out twice, etc.

Now why would I even bother to comment on a show that I liked, and now is a growing irritation? Well for a simple reason, I like and recognize a good idea, which this show certainly has the potential to be. Initially, if they were planning on making one or just a couple episodes, inviting most of your friends does seem natural -- but you can't keep that up for 8 shows, besides his colleagues/friends must be bored with his stories by now. Hopefully this idea will be continued again, but with a different host, Favreau should stick to do what he does best, playing in crappy films.

I don't get cable but I was able to rent the first season of this show and despite some problems, I really enjoyed it. I think it's a great idea and IFC and the producers (Jon plus others) really followed their instincts and got it right. Also, it's very rare to take chances in this town. I'll start off by saying what's great with this show is that the dinner setting and the drinking really does put the subjects at ease and you do get a sense of them as people and not just celebrities--very refreshing! I have to admit there are moments where the show simply gets boring and you fast forward, but these moments are only because real life and real people--yes, celebrities are just people--can be boring and this show so very well dispels any notion that celebrities are inherently exciting. It is ironically why the show works. There is obviously a lot of editing that goes into each of these shows and they show us the more select bits; and I'm sure legally cleared sections only. I do agree with some of the gripe mentioned by others that Jon has a tendency to cut his guests off and chime in himself--and even "toot his own horn." Maybe it was the first season and he was nervous and now has tapered this off a bit. Also, I noticed that some of the guests were a bit marginal and seemed to only be on the show because of their relationship with Jon outside the show? Also, there were not enough women guests and sometimes it felt like an all male poker game without the cards. On the whole, it's a decent show and will only get better as Jon gains confidence and the guest list evens out.

Get 5 hungry celebrities together at a table and see what goes in and out of their mouths. That's Dinner for Five. Jon Favreau, what a host. I've seen so many different types of celebrities sit together and meet on a common ground, on this program. It just gets better the more the wine is poured. I am a big fan of anything that is independently filmed and you see people doing what we all do, EAT. Well, maybe not a lot of the actual eating is shown, but the dinner conversation is excellent. I hope this program lasts a few years.

As a total outsider this seems like the most incredible insight to the Hollywood machine

This has never been more prescient, and it is all the more interesting because of Favreau's career trajectory

He is the perfect host in this environment, somehow managing to make everyone feel at ease and able to encourage guests to relay anecdotes you will never hear otherwise

You can tell it's real because sometimes guests are so relaxed you can't actually understand what they're saying - Colin Farrell is a case in point

DfF is perfect in all respects, I hope it will be reborn for the next generation

Favreau is the center square every week on this Hollywood non-talkshow. How refreshing to watch "them" talking like "we" do. Whatever. The show is as good as any on TV and it benefits from never appearing to try too hard. It's the best reality show on TV while never pandering for ratings or demographics. Tell your TiVo you want a season pass.