A bit of morning comedy does a body good.
The BBC reviewed the Brooklyn restaurant Eat, where punters are asked to dine in silence.
The owner explained that they encourage diners not to speak at all during their stay in the restaurant (90-minute set meal time). The interviewer asked about mobile phones and the owner replied that goodness no, he asks customer to please switch them off. Why the silent meals, is it to commune more deeply with the food?
The owner replies: "It can be whatever you want, I don't want to be dictatorial about it"
Props to the BBC guy for returning with: "Apart from asking them to shut up."
The owner also mentioned that every silent meal so far has ended in applause.
"Perhaps," replied the BBC, "out of relief that it was over".
Great interview. And stupid dining concept. IMHO. People: food IS sustenance and it IS communal. We eat because otherwise we die, and therefore if we must do it we may as well have fun doing it. And use it to our advantage: the meal is a time to come together and do nothing other than share. We share food, and we share stories. The whole point of food - beyond survival - is conversation. Even in Brooklyn.
The WSJ review brings up that whole dictatorial thing again:
Punishment for talking was having one’s plate–filled with handmade whole wheat pasta or scallops and calamari, among other dishes–removed and placed on a bench outside, where loudmouths could finish their meals.