What’s Love Got to Do With It—On Food, Grief, and Learning to Taste Again

Listening Before Understanding

I watched Eat Drink Man Woman twice because something in me sensed I hadn’t finished receiving it.

The first viewing let the story move through me.

The second revealed how much had been happening quietly — in gesture, rhythm, silence, and what was left unsaid.

It felt like a film that did not reward haste.

It required listening.

That felt appropriate, given both the moment from which the film emerged and the director who made it.

The title itself reaches much further back than the film. Eat Drink Man Woman comes from the Book of Rites, one of the foundational Confucian texts, which names basic human desires not as moral failures, but as natural facts of being human.

The opening of the passage reads:
“The things which men greatly desire are comprehended in food and drink and sexual pleasure.”

In this framing, appetite and desire are not problems to be solved or sins to be overcome; they are realities to be understood, ordered, and lived with care. The phrase eat, drink, man, woman emerges from this lineage — not as indulgence, but as acknowledgment.

Ang Lee, whose work also includes Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain, and Life of Pi, has returned again and again to the tension between inner truth and inherited structure — the ways family, culture, gender, and duty shape what can be spoken or lived.

What remains unexpressed in his films does not disappear; it migrates. It moves into the body, into gesture, into repetition, into food. Eat Drink Man Woman speaks that language fluently.

Released in the early 1990s, during a period of profound cultural transition in Taiwan, the film arrives at a moment when women were entering the workforce in unprecedented numbers, gaining financial independence and real authority over their futures.

Marriage was no longer inevitable.

Choice had entered the conversation.

And yet tradition had not vanished. It lingered — shaping expectation, silence, and obligation — even as new possibilities pressed against it. The film lives inside that overlap.

Confucian hierarchy remains woven through family meals and filial duty.

Buddhist sensibilities surface in patience, impermanence, and the understanding that attachment causes suffering.

Alongside them, Christian ideas quietly emerge — not as doctrine, but as posture: confession, truth-telling, beginning again.

What we witness is not replacement, but coexistence. A family — and a culture — learning how to hold more than one truth at the same time.

What Eat Drink Man Woman understands, and patiently unfolds, is that love never actually disappears.

It changes form.

When it cannot be spoken, it is cooked.
When it cannot be claimed, it is carried through ritual, lineage, and care.

---

Love as Practice

The film opens not with romance or conflict, but with Master Chef Chu’s hands at work. A revered chef in Taipei, we watch technique forged over decades—knives moving with certainty, textures judged by feel, timing held in the body rather than the clock.

The skills of a chef are not mechanical; they are fluid and intuitive, shaped by repetition until thought disappears.

Chu does not measure so much as listen—to heat, to resistance, to the moment when something is ready to become something else. His restraint is not limitation but mastery: knowing precisely when not to intervene.

Fish are scaled and filleted, dough is kneaded, broths are tended; the camera lingers on hands, steam, and silence as cooking reveals itself not as preparation but as art.

When the elaborate Sunday meal finally reaches the table, its abundance is met with deliberateness rather than conversation—the food speaking where the family does not.

This is the first love the film offers us: Sunday dinner, devotion to craft. Before family, before romance, before disappointment or longing, there is mastery—earned through repetition, reserve, and care.

Chu’s precision is aesthetic as much as technical. Each dish is composed the way an artist approaches canvas and brush.

Balance is intentional.

Color is considered.

Texture, temperature, and timing are arranged with the same deliberation as line and negative space.

Nothing is casual.

Nothing is improvised.

The plate becomes a finished work—complete, exacting, and self-contained.

Cooking is not a backdrop to Eat Drink Man Woman; it is its original language. Love enters the film first as practice—as discipline, as art rendered through the body.

Like a monk who fasts while feeding others, Master Chef Chu prepares elaborate meals with extraordinary precision, yet cannot taste them himself. Though the cause is never addressed directly in the film, symbolically Chu’s loss of taste reflects a deeper emotional condition.

He has lived a life shaped by discipline, temperance, and self-erasure—cooking exquisitely for others while denying himself pleasure, expression, and vulnerability.

Over time, devotion hardens into distance.

Feeling, like tasting, atrophies when it is never received back. His tastelessness mirrors his emotional silence: he can produce beauty, abundance, and nourishment, yet cannot receive them.

Pleasure has been externalized.

Sensation has been replaced by control.

His love is expressed not through language but through labor, not through confession but through devotion.

What he offers is presence, not pleasure.

There is something distinctly Buddhist in this posture: self-erasure in service, mastery without indulgence, repetition as devotion.

This understanding of love extends beyond family and romance and is most clearly embodied in Chu’s relationship with Uncle Wen.

The two men have worked side by side in the same kitchen for more than thirty years, moving together through rhythm and muscle memory rather than conversation.

Their intimacy is procedural, wordless, earned over time.

Love, here, is not spoken.

It is practiced.

---

Love as Devotion

The film is precise about where urgency appears and where meaning settles.

Master Chu is at home when the call comes to help his longtime friend, Chef Wen, at the restaurant. The two men are like brothers cut from the same cloth, having grown old together in the kitchen, their lives shaped by shared labor and quiet reliance.

Something has gone wrong: the soup for the Governor’s son’s wedding has failed. Chu arrives without urgency or display, restores what has been disrupted, and saves the dish through skill rather than spectacle.

Only after the work is finished do the two men finally sit together.

They share a drink. Wen, half-teasing and wholly sincere, compares Chu to Ludwig van Beethoven—a master whose genius is disciplined, uncompromising, and forged through relentless devotion rather than charm.

The compliment is not grand; it is intimate, offered between equals who recognize what the other has endured.

It is there—after labor, after urgency—that the words are spoken aloud:

Eat. Drink. Man. Woman.

The line lands softly, almost in passing.

Not as a title.
Not as a declaration.
As recognition.

Life reduced to its essentials. Meaning does not arrive during the rush; it comes afterward, when there is room to sit.

After the Rush

Later, back in the kitchen, Chef Wen tastes a soup Chu has made. At first, the exchange reads as familiar banter—heat, spice, teasing between men who have shared decades of work. Then Wen collapses.

By the time Chu’s daughter, Jia-Chien, reaches the hospital, the crisis has already shifted into aftermath.

Fear remains, but softened.

Wen is fine.

When Jia-Chien addresses him, she calls him Uncle Wen. In Taiwanese culture, kinship is not limited to blood; older family friends—those woven into daily life through care and continuity—are often called uncle, a title that signals closeness rather than lineage.

Jia-Chien is still visibly shaken, but Chef Wen laughs it off as indigestion from eating her father’s food.

There is relief.

Familiar joking.

Mortality has brushed past, just enough to loosen the usual hierarchy.

It is in this softened space that Jia-Chien speaks. For the first time, she admits that she wanted to become a chef. Her father dismisses it immediately—education mattered more, he insists.

She bristles. No one ever asked me what I wanted.

The line presses against an older order, one in which daughters were shaped by duty and rarely consulted about desire. It is Wen who answers her, gently and without authority. He tells her she would have made a fine chef.

The sentence is small.

The recognition is not.

It is the first time her talent is named aloud by someone not threatened by it.

He was one of the few voices willing to see her clearly without trying to shape her future.

Later, when Jia-Chien returns to the hospital, she is told that Wen has already left. He was not discharged; he simply went. The absence lands quietly, but its meaning lingers. His role was never formal, yet his presence carried weight.

The next time we see him, he is back in the restaurant, among his friends. He walks through the familiar space, takes a seat, and dies there—not in a hospital room, but in the place where his life had been practiced and shared.

Only then does the meaning settle.

His leaving was not denial.
It was belonging.

In Buddhist terms, it is a right leaving—choosing the conditions of one’s final moments with awareness rather than resistance.

Love, here, is not sentimental.

It is fidelity.

---

The Daughters and the Inherited Script

At home, the phrase eat, drink, man, woman becomes an inherited framework — received differently by each daughter.

While the adults in Eat Drink Man Woman speak in philosophy, the daughters live love in practice — each discovering a different way it can become survivable, inhabitable, and real.

Jia-Jen, the eldest, is a chemistry teacher — resticent, cautious, almost deliberately plain. She does not wear makeup. She keeps her hair pulled back. Her clothing is modest, functional, designed not to draw attention. Having been hurt earlier in life, she moves through the world as though visibility itself were risky.

When anonymous love notes begin to appear, her first assumption is not desire but ridicule. She believes she is being mocked. That someone is playing a joke on her for daring to be noticed at all.

Love, to her, feels less like invitation than exposure.

It is in this state that she goes to confront the students at her school — and in that moment, something striking occurs.

She arrives transformed.

Her hair is styled.

She wears makeup.

She is dressed in a vivid red dress that refuses modesty or apology.

The shift is not flirtation. It is declaration.

The symbolism is unmistakable. She is not asking to be chosen; she is asserting that choice has always existed. The message beneath the confrontation is clear: I could be this if I wanted to be. The years of containment were not incapacity — they were protection.

Jia-Chien, the middle daughter, lives at the intersection of competence and restraint. She is an executive — capable, disciplined, respected — yet this life was not the one she originally wanted.

As a young woman, she longed to be a chef, to live inside the kitchen and the language of food. Her father shut that path down firmly, insisting she pursue education instead. What appears as success in adulthood still carries the residue of that early redirection.

In love, Jia-Chien remains unsettled. She drifts between relationships without fully committing, allowing closeness while keeping herself just beyond being claimed.

Most telling is her involvement with a man who insists he does not want to be tied down.

She accepts the terms — not because they satisfy her, but because they allow her to remain contained.

The arrangement feels honest, even safe, until she quietly learns that he has, in fact, chosen someone else to marry.

The rupture is internal and devastating.

There is no confrontation, no spectacle — only the confirmation of an old pattern: she has learned how to love without asking for more than is offered.

We see this most clearly in the kitchen, when Jia-Chien cooks dinner for him shortly after being offered a promotion at work. Professionally, she is ascending — recognized, expanded, rewarded. Yet the scene does not linger on her achievement.

Instead, it turns toward feeding him. Authority in the public world does not translate into claim or assertion in the private one. Intimacy remains the place where she offers rather than asks, balances rather than risks.

When Jia-Chien explains that she has prepared the duck two ways — one hot, one cold — she describes it simply. “Cooking is about balance,” she says. “Hot and cold have to be in harmony.”

When her boyfriend names it — yin and yang — she only nods.

Yes.

She frames it as culinary philosophy: cooling and warming, austerity and intensity held in careful proportion.

But what she is really describing is how she has learned to love.

The hot dish carries effort, care, and desire. The cold dish holds distance, control, and self-containment. Together, they allow her to remain present without being fully exposed.

Love, here, is not refused — it is portioned. Balanced carefully enough that nothing overwhelms, nothing demands too much.

This is not a failure of feeling, but an act of self-preservation. Jia-Chien does not lack depth or devotion; she has learned to regulate them precisely. Balance becomes a way of staying intact when full surrender feels too costly.

For now, her story remains suspended — between heat and cold, mastery and longing, offering and withholding — unresolved, but deeply alive.

Cooking is where she is most alive, most honest, most herself. Love, for Jia-Chien, does not culminate in a man but in vocation: in choosing a life shaped by devotion and being recognized within it.

Her arc does not resolve through romance, but through mutual recognition — finally being met by her father as an equal who speaks the same language of care.

The youngest, Jia-Ning, comes to love through ease rather than struggle. She falls for a man who is initially dating her friend — a woman who keeps him waiting, keeps him longing, keeps him suspended in emotional uncertainty.

Jia-Ning offers something radically different.

With her, he can speak freely, be himself, laugh, and rest. Their pivotal conversation is not about romance but about what it feels like to love someone — to be unguarded, to talk as you are, to exist without performance.

Love, for Jia-Ning, is not drama or longing. It is immediacy.

Honesty.

Shared presence.

Together, the daughters quietly expand the meaning of eat, drink, man, woman. Love is not a single destination. It is lived — as permission, as vocation, as home.

(Sidenote: In Taiwanese naming conventions, the family name comes first — Chu — followed by the given name. All three daughters share the generational name “Jia,” signaling lineage before individuality. Identity precedes choice.)

---

Mrs. Liang and the Language of Release

Into this household enters Mrs. Liang with a clear intention: to make Master Chef Chu her husband. But the self she brings with her is not an offering; it is an approximation.

Rather than attuning to who Chu actually is, she presents what she imagines might be desirable—performing sophistication, provocation, and worldliness.

She smokes.

She speaks in sharp aphorisms.

She carries herself as though sentiment were a weakness.

She presents herself as unencumbered by sentiment.

Yet she misses every cue he gives her.

The misattunement is constant and revealing. She smokes cigarettes beside him while he coughs, never pausing to notice his body’s response.

She puts her cigarette out not in an ashtray, but in the food he has prepared — a gesture so casually invasive it borders on desecration.

What he has made with care and precision becomes the surface onto which she extinguishes her impulse.

It is not intimacy; it is intrusion.

Symbolically, the moment says everything.

She wants closeness, but she cannot recognize the language of his devotion.

She wants to be desired, but she has no capacity for attunement.

Rather than meeting him where he lives — in stillness, ritual, sensory precision — she imposes herself onto his world, confusing presence with pressure.

Her contradictions stem from this same lack of integration. She speaks of detachment while craving attachment, dismisses children while interrogating the daughters about boyfriends, derides marriage while angling for proximity.

These are not complexities held in tension; they are fragments colliding without regulation.

Mrs. Liang does not metabolize experience — she reacts to it. Her nervous system leads, her philosophy follows.

In this way, she becomes a study in unintegrated desire: a woman who has language for suffering but no capacity to stay present inside relationship.

She wants to be what she thinks he wants, rather than perceiving who he is.

And in doing so, she illustrates one of the film’s sharpest truths — that desire without attunement does not create intimacy.

It creates noise.

---

Love, Pain, and Integration

Watching these stories unfold, I realized the film was no longer asking me to interpret love.
It was asking me to recognize it.

I thought of Sean, my first love. He carried a vision of adulthood shaped by youth, culture, and tradition—a future that was orderly and legible, oriented toward stability and the familiar promises of the American dream. Love, as he understood it, was meant to secure that future, not complicate it.

We did not yet have the language to understand one another. I was not bound by inherited expectations; I set my own. I lived by a different set of rules, saw the world less restrictively, trusted openness more than prescription.

I believed, then, that love could resolve difference if given enough room—that it could soften even the most rigid structures. What I did not yet understand was that love cannot always translate between worlds shaped by different grammars.

One night after work, Sean came to see me. He drove all the way from St. Louis to Columbia. We spent two days together—quiet, ordinary, intimate without declaration. And then I never heard from him again.

That was it.

It was over. No explanation. No late-night apologies. No attempt to soften the leaving.

Just gone.

Later, I learned he had already been in a relationship with his neighbor for much of that time—nearly six months. The knowledge did not arrive as betrayal so much as clarification.

The disappearance was not confusion; it was a choice made elsewhere, in a life already moving in a direction I was never meant to inhabit.

That kind of ending does something to a person. It teaches the wrong lesson with absolute clarity: that love disappears without warning, that closeness invites abandonment, that the safest way to survive attachment is to limit it.

Over time, love begins to feel less like shelter and more like risk—something to be approached carefully, or held at a distance.

Between the first viewing of the film and the second, a dream arrived—quietly—about him. I was at his mother’s house, a place dense with memory and lineage. She led me to his room gently, almost ceremonially.

Sean was thin, very sick. When I reached for him, even the slightest pressure caused him pain. I pulled back immediately. The message was unmistakable: love, even when tender, could not touch him without hurting him. Love did not heal. It witnessed.

Seen through the lens of the tarot spread I later pulled, the dream revealed itself not as loss, but as integration. Love and pain had long been bound together there, but not by necessity. The pain did not arise from love; it predated it.

In sitting with him—without fixing, without holding, without trying to take the suffering away—something finally settled. What my subconscious was releasing was an old equation it had carried for years: that love must always arrive through pain.

Last May, my heart broke once again—I received a phone call from my best friend telling me that Sean had died by suicide.

My heart broke not only because he was gone, but because no one had seen it coming. By all outward accounts, he was fine. He was working. He was partnered. He was building a life that appeared stable and legible.

Whatever pain he carried had remained carefully contained, invisible even to those closest to him.

There is one more detail I have never known what to do with. In the months before his death, someone reached out to me online under a benign, forgettable name.

He loved to cook.

He asked practical questions—about ingredients, about places I like to visit, about how I lived.

Nothing dramatic.

Nothing confessional.

It felt domestic.

Gentle.

Familiar.

Shortly before Sean died, the messages stopped.

Some connections do not announce themselves clearly. They arrive sideways—through food, curiosity, proximity—and sometimes leave the same way.

Without explanation.
Without resolution.

What remained was not closure, but recognition.

And it was only then that the film came back into focus—not as a story about love lost or love withheld, but as a meditation on what love requires when it can no longer act.

The deliberateness it asks for.

The listening it demands.

The courage to remain present without intrusion.

What the film also makes room for—quietly, without defense—is the idea that tradition is not the final authority on love. That inherited expectations, however well-intentioned, are not the same thing as truth.

Love does not always arrive in approved forms. It does not wait for consensus. Sometimes it appears where it is least expected, asking not for permission but for courage.

This was the lesson I could not yet see with Sean. We were both living inside visions shaped by tradition—his more tightly bound than mine—but neither of us yet knew how to step outside them together.

Love came anyway.

And when it left, it left behind a belief that would take years to loosen: that breaking from expectation leads only to loss.

The film gently argues otherwise.

In the world of the film, as in life, love does not always arrive as comfort.
Sometimes, it arrives as heartache.

And sometimes, it arrives asking to be chosen—despite tradition, despite appearances, despite what others think should make sense.

---

Balance at the Table

At the final dinner, Master Chef Chu, after throwing back a few glasses of sorghum liquor, announces that he has something he needs to tell everyone. The daughters do not speak. The table stills. What follows is not interruption or protest, but attention.

He tells them first that he is selling the house. The declaration lands not as logistics, but as rupture. The home that has held ritual, hierarchy, and inheritance will no longer anchor the family. What has been preserved for decades is being released.

And when he finally speaks again, it is not to reclaim control, but to relinquish it. The reason he’s selling the house is because he’s getting married.

The things we viewers have witnessed, a cardiologist visit. The herbal tonic prepared not out of vanity, but out of longing—all of it begins to align. Chu has been readying himself to love again, to risk desire with a body disciplined by decades of renunciation.

Seen this way, Chu was never simply guarding ritual or clinging to authority.

He was watching.

Waiting.

Preparing.

His marriage is not to Mrs. Liang, with her loud philosophies and invasive certainty, but to her daughter, Jin-Rong—a woman quieter in temperament, steadier in presence, attentive in ways her mother never was. The choice reframes everything that came before.

Chaos follows.
Food spills.
Control loosens.

The household unravels—not as failure, but as release. In that moment, the patriarch steps out of mastery and into appetite, and the family’s long-held balance finally tips, making room for a different kind of order.

Jin-Rong is younger, reserved, and almost self-effacing. She arrives not with philosophy or performance, but with presence. She has a small daughter whom Chu loves without hesitation, and whom she trusts him to love.

What becomes clear, without speech or insistence, is that Jin-Rong does not want what she imagines life with him could provide.

She does not project onto him or reshape herself to be desirable.

She sees him—not the master chef, not the patriarch, not the symbol—but the man himself.

And he loves her in return, not as a solution to loneliness or continuity, but as a mutual recognition.

In choosing her, Chu chooses attunement over provocation, integration over performance, and love that is practiced quietly rather than demanded loudly.

The film does not reward noise.
It rewards recognition.

And then the film ends where it began.

Learning to Taste Again

When Jia-Chien buys the family home, the gesture is quiet, almost easy to miss — and that is precisely its power. This is not nostalgia, nor retreat. It is not a daughter clinging to the past after the patriarch leaves.

It is inheritance transformed into choice.

For the first time, the house does not belong to authority or obligation; it belongs to someone who has consciously decided to remain.

Throughout the film, the house has functioned as an extension of Master Chu’s authority — a place governed by ritual, silence, and mastery. Jia-Chien once refused to cook in its kitchen, saying she would be stealing her father’s thunder.

Her talent was too close to his, too threatening in a world where kitchens were not meant to belong to daughters. Buying the house does not reverse that tension; it resolves it.

She does not take his place.

She takes responsibility on her own terms.

When Chu returns to the house at the end of the film, something essential has shifted. It is no longer his domain. Jia-Chien is in the kitchen, preparing food for him. The roles have changed without announcement.

They eat, and almost instinctively fall into critique. He tells her she has used too much ginger.

She fires back that he has always been too restrained.

The exchange is familiar — the language they have always shared.

And then, unexpectedly,

Chu stops.

He tastes again.

For the first time in years, he says he can actually taste the food.

The moment is revelatory for both of them.

For Chu, it suggests that mastery — repetition, control, perfection — had dulled sensation itself. He had been cooking endlessly, but no longer tasting.

Eating food prepared by someone else, especially by his daughter, returns him to the body, to appetite, to pleasure.

For Jia-Chien, it is confirmation that inheritance does not require imitation.

She has not surpassed him or replaced him.

She has allowed him to experience something new.

Buying the house makes this possible. It turns legacy into stewardship rather than dominance. The space is preserved, but softened.

Tradition remains, but it is no longer enforced through hierarchy. Jia-Chien becomes the holder of continuity without becoming its warden — capable of remaining without being trapped, of caring without controlling.

This is the same balance she once described with the duck: hot and cold, intensity and measuredness, held in proportion.

Each daughter resolves inheritance differently.

Jia-Jen chooses late love.

Jia-Ning chooses motion.

Jia-Chien chooses ground. Her decision to buy the house is not about settling down; it is about holding space.

And in that final act of tasting — ginger sharp on the tongue, restraint loosened just enough — the film closes not with mastery, but with reciprocity.

Authority gives way to relationship.

Silence gives way to recognition.

And for the first time, everyone can finally taste what has been there all along.

He takes her hands.

“Daughter.”
“Father.”

It is quiet.
It is everything.

---

Why This Soup

Earlier, Jia-Chien describes cooking duck two ways — one hot, one cold. Yin and yang. Balance, not resolution.

That is why I watched the film twice.

Some truths do not announce themselves. They reveal themselves only when we slow down enough to taste them.

I did not choose miso soup because it belongs neatly to the film’s geography. I chose it because it belongs to its philosophy.

Hot broth. Cold tofu.

Balance is not imposed.
It is honored.

In the Book of Rites, desire is not condemned — it is acknowledged, then held with care. Food and love are not problems to be solved, but realities to be tended.

And that, finally, is what love has to do with it.

Print