Just thought this documentary, directed by Laura Gabbert, was enjoyable as well as informative. It centers on Jonathan Gold, acclaimed food critic for the L.A. Times, and winner of the first Pulitzer Prize for food criticism, in 2007.We follow Gold as he cruises through the streets of Los Angeles, describing or visiting the many multi-cultural restaurants, or street vendors, along the way. Gold specializes in reviewing the smaller ethnically oriented establishments, often surprisingly located in small mini malls or even based out of food trucks. Based on interviews with his colleagues, Gold has a reputation of being extremely fair and empathetic towards those that he critiques, with Gold stating himself that he'll visit an establishment a minimum of 4 to 5 times before he'll write a review.The movie is not all food, as we learn about Gold's remarkable history and upbringing, and we'll get to meet his family as well. They'll also be quite a lot of humor in the film, as well as some heartfelt interviews with several of the restaurant owners. Finally, for those concerned about such, there is explicit language laced throughout the doc.All in all, I thought this film was quite interesting, and one of the better documentaries I've seen in s while.

Still not sure what the director or writer was going after here, except for a clever play on words that goes nowhere since we are quite frustrated by the end of the film. L.A. still remains a scattered mess with no design or purpose, and Gold's influence on the local scene looks at least, limited. Worse, it's hard to see the connections between his upbringing and the type of person he became.It's hard to appreciate a place like Los Angeles, with his scattered design, plenty of roads that go nowhere, freeways that shine for their lack of mobility, and poor public transportation. One struggles to go from place to another, but if you know where you're going and what you want, you might be rewarded. The documentary focuses on specific areas in the city, and for what we see, there might be four five types of cuisine in L.A., and it becomes pretty clear which one he favors. One of the pluses of living in a big urban setting is that you can find many types of offerings simply by crossing the street. According to the movie, there are only two countries in Latin America, one in Africa, and Asian cuisine is represented by three choices in Los Angeles.It is clear he loves to eat, and his followers are desperate to hear about the latest trend. Apparently, food trucks are one of the best signs of food offerings we can find. How would anyone like to wait in lines and love to stand up while eating goes beyond any comprehension. When we are lucky to actually see the inside of a restaurant, things are simplified to the point that we hear a family story, but this could have happened in any setting, and his presence would have been superfluous. The only time he shows much interest is when he's around Mexican fast food, and the culinary descriptions are minimal at best. He makes a big deal about spicy food, but we have no reference as to what makes the dish special or about its ingredients.Instead, the film indulges in his musical background??? Not sure how classical music is related to his appreciation for his favorite Latin American food, and I wonder if his rebellious procrastination originates from his punk music days. Truly, all this time I was wondering about the rest of Central American offerings, South America must have disappeared in the last ice age, and other than Ethiopia, you would think Africa doesn't exist. Worse is ignoring the varied and delicious Asian restaurants one can find all over the city. It's not like you blink you miss. I was confused.Ang Lee manages to show his love of food in his films, and one can look around cable shows to see how food critics travel all over the world and bring back a social experience where food is the star, and we understand its origins and its influence on society. "Gold" whatever its intentions might have been never succeeds at any of that.

Greetings again from the darkness. "First we eat. Then we do everything else". Filmmaker Laura Gabbert's film kicks off with that quote from MFK Fisher, author of "The Art of Eating". If Ms. Fisher looked at eating as art, then Jonathan Gold views it as a crucial piece of society that brings diverse cultures together.As the subject of the film, Mr. Gold is a pretty interesting character. Sure, he is a food critic for the LA Times, an author and a Pulitzer Prize winner; but, more than that, he is a man of the streets of Los Angeles, and is described as providing a new vision of the city while also changing the food critic world. He spurns the traditional idea of anonymity that typically cloaks food critics, and mostly ignores the hoity-toity French restaurants for the Taco Trucks and mom & pop joints scattered around LA.The real core of the story and of Mr. Gold is the cultural diversity that exists within the boundaries of an area that most TV shows and movies would have us believe is sterile, white and rich. The reality is that LA is a conglomerate of cities filled with migrants who have brought their culture, talents and especially their diverse homeland cuisine. Gold relishes the chance to explore every "hole-in-the-wall" … taste their food and learn their story. He takes us through Boyle Heights, Hollywood, the San Gabriel Valley and the full 15 mile stretch of Pico Blvd.As a reporter, Gold struggles with structure and deadlines, but as a writer his words are as tasty as the food of which he writes. In a day where Yelp and Twitter allow everyone to pretend they are an expert, Gold reminds us of the value real critics bring to a topic … experience, knowledge and a descriptive way with words.The film gets a bit loose in the second half as director Gabbert tries to cram in all there is to know about Gold. His background with music: cello, classical, punk, blues and hip-hop probably get more time than is necessary. The contrast with his environmentalist brother is worth it for no other reason than hearing the line: "he is eating everything I'm trying to save".Gold's legacy will be the culinary map of the region he has created with his work. He encourages us not just to sample new cuisine, but also to better understand the people that make up one of the most diverse and fascinating metropolitan areas in the world. Now how about a taco?!?!

You might approach this film in the same way that I did: with a deep respect for Gold's work and a general interest in so-called foodie culture. You might have even first encountered Gold's work in much the same way that I did--by stumbling upon a glowing review pasted near your table in some hole-in-the-wall eatery (in my case, the Chung King Restaurant in the Monterey Park location that now houses Huolala). Like me, you'll certainly find much to enjoy in this documentary such as the fascinating forays into some of his most liked restaurants (perhaps some of which you have even been to) and the bemusing insights into his personal life (as a "failed cellist"; as a man of voracious appetites for food, knowledge, culture, and so on). Unfortunately, these small vignettes amount to the entirety of the film's charm and there is little to elevate it to greater than the sum of its parts.City of Gold feels disjointed, fragmented, and altogether uncompleted to me. I don't necessarily feel that a documentary must ascribe some overarching meaning to its subject--a character study can often stand on its own--but even as a character study, the film fell flat. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what is included and when it is included in the film. Instead, even some of the most fascinating points simply feel shoehorned in at awkward times. The final twenty or thirty minutes, for instance, use a KCRW guest DJ appearance by Gold as a sort of refrain. It is a cheap way to investigate his persona and it fails to link up with much of anything else in the documentary. My biggest gripe with City of Gold is how it failed in a way that ultimately separates good documentaries from mediocre ones: much of it felt like performance rather than unadulterated insight. In some scenes, he is at the LA Times offices and in meeting with his editors and others to discuss upcoming pieces. Any notion of unfiltered access is immediately dispelled: much of the conversation seems addressed to the camera (the viewer) and it feels both stilted and pretending. The film, as short as it is, feels at least twenty minutes too long. At the conclusion, it fails to make up for this. There is a great documentary somewhere inside of City of Gold. Had I turned it off after the first 30 minutes, my review would likely be 8 stars but, well, it just kept going (nowhere).