A new documentary premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival explores the lives of personal chefs who worked for some of the world’s most feared authoritarian leaders, offering a rare perspective on the intersection of power, privilege and survival inside dictatorial regimes.

“How to Feed a Dictator,” directed by filmmaker Andrew Neel and based on a 2020 book by Polish journalist Witold Szabłowski, examines the experiences of five chefs who prepared meals for leaders including Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il. Through their accounts, the 95-minute documentary investigates how ordinary professions can become intertwined with systems of repression and political violence.

The film focuses on individuals who occupied unusual positions within authoritarian governments. While not political figures themselves, the chefs enjoyed close access to rulers whose decisions shaped the lives of millions. Their stories reveal both the privileges and risks associated with serving at the highest levels of power.

Neel said the project was partly inspired by the contrast between the familiarity of food and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the men who consumed it.

According to the director, everyday activities such as eating take on a different significance within authoritarian systems. Meals become not only private moments but also expressions of power, status and control, creating unique pressures for those responsible for preparing them.

The documentary presents a range of experiences and attitudes among its subjects. Some continue to express admiration for the leaders they served, while others describe deep personal regret over their involvement.

One of the most striking accounts comes from Keo Samoun, who worked for Cambodian leader Pol Pot. The film depicts her visiting his gravesite and presenting offerings of food, including fish, fruit and rice. According to the documentary, she continues to regard Pol Pot with reverence years after his death.

The perspective contrasts sharply with that of Italian pizza maker Ermanno Furlanis, who was recruited to prepare pizzas for North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Furlanis describes an environment characterized by intense surveillance and strict oversight.

According to his account, government officials closely monitored his activities, controlled his travel documents and supervised aspects of food preparation. One incident recalled in the film involved an official entering the kitchen to inspect the placement of olives on a pizza intended for Kim.

The documentary suggests that such episodes reflected broader systems of control operating within authoritarian states, where even routine tasks could become subject to political scrutiny.

Among the film’s participants, Ugandan chef Charles Otonde Odera provides one of the most detailed reflections on the personal compromises involved in serving a dictator. Odera worked for former Ugandan ruler Idi Amin during a period marked by political repression and widespread human rights abuses.

He describes how his appointment dramatically transformed his life. According to his account, he moved from poverty into a position of significant privilege, receiving financial benefits and access to a lifestyle unavailable to most citizens.

The film portrays this transformation as emblematic of a broader dynamic in which authoritarian governments rewarded loyalty and service with material advantages. For many individuals, those benefits created incentives to overlook or ignore the actions of the regimes they served.

Neel said that the notion of a “great job” emerged repeatedly throughout his conversations with former regime insiders. The director noted that personal rewards often played a central role in how individuals justified their participation in authoritarian systems.

The documentary cites examples of substantial perks enjoyed by those working close to political leaders. According to Neel, Saddam Hussein’s chef received a new vehicle annually as part of his position.

Yet the film also examines the psychological consequences of such arrangements. For Odera, the turning point came after the death of Kay Amin, one of Idi Amin’s wives. According to the documentary, reports and rumors surrounding her death prompted him to reconsider the value of the privileges he had received.

Odera recalls reaching a point where he preferred the financial hardships of his earlier life to the moral burden associated with serving the regime. His testimony forms one of the documentary’s clearest explorations of personal conflict and ethical compromise.

The film also devotes significant attention to the chef who served Saddam Hussein. Unlike other participants, the former Iraqi leader’s cook appears anonymously, speaking under a pseudonym and presented visually as a black silhouette.

Neel said extensive measures were taken to protect the individual’s identity. The director explained that concerns centered not on Saddam Hussein’s remaining associates but on potential hostility from others who might object to the chef’s continued expressions of loyalty toward the former Iraqi president.

According to the documentary, the chef remains emotionally attached to Saddam Hussein and speaks about his execution in deeply personal terms. The film portrays this loyalty as evidence of the lasting psychological impact that proximity to power can exert on individuals, even years after a regime has collapsed.

Neel said the decision to conceal the chef’s appearance was also intended to symbolize the personal costs associated with his experience. The visual presentation, he said, reflected the idea that the individual’s former relationship with Saddam had effectively separated him from normal public life.

Throughout the documentary, the chefs’ accounts raise broader questions about responsibility within authoritarian systems. Rather than focusing solely on political leaders, the film examines the roles played by ordinary people who help sustain governments through their daily work.

The documentary suggests that dictators rely not only on military, political and security structures but also on countless individuals performing routine functions. Chefs, drivers, aides and other staff members become part of the machinery that enables authoritarian leaders to maintain their lifestyles and authority.

Neel said this concept formed the central theme of the project. The film argues that understanding authoritarian rule requires examining not only the actions of dictators themselves but also the choices made by those around them.

The director briefly considered including a segment involving a chef who had worked for former U.S. President Donald Trump before his election. However, Neel said the individual ultimately declined to participate after Trump entered politics.

According to Neel, the chef stopped responding to requests for interviews, a development the director attributed to concerns about professional consequences.

While Neel explicitly stated that Trump is not a dictator, he said the abandoned interview highlighted one of the documentary’s recurring themes: the extent to which individuals may remain silent or avoid criticism when professional opportunities and personal interests are at stake.

By examining the experiences of chefs who operated behind the scenes of some of the twentieth century’s most notorious regimes, “How to Feed a Dictator” offers a portrait of how power functions through everyday relationships, and how ordinary people navigate the moral complexities of serving extraordinary leaders.

World leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image

Nearly two million Turks have gathered in Istanbul to protest President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decision to arrest his main political rival, Ekrem İmamoğlu, on what critics call fabricated corruption and terrorism charges. The move has ignited widespread outrage across Turkey, with demonstrators denouncing Erdoğan’s authoritarian grip on power and calling for his immediate resignation.

The arrest of İmamoğlu, who served as Istanbul’s mayor and was seen as Erdoğan’s strongest challenger in upcoming elections, has fueled speculation that the Turkish president is attempting to eliminate political competition ahead of a crucial vote. Protesters have taken to the streets chanting, “Enough is enough!” and “Turkey will not be silenced!” as security forces struggle to contain the surging crowds.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Middle East expert, has been vocal about the situation. “Turks are not stupid; they see through Erdoğan’s cynicism and comment on its ironies,” Rubin stated. “Erdoğan accuses İmamoğlu of corruption, but Erdoğan not only has pending corruption cases dating to his own tenure as mayor, but he has since accumulated billions of dollars in unexplained wealth. He accuses İmamoğlu of supporting terror, but Turkish journalists photographed Erdoğan’s intelligence service transporting weaponry to an Al Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.”

The controversy deepened when Erdoğan’s government reportedly annulled İmamoğlu’s university degree, a requirement for presidential candidates. Rubin pointed out the hypocrisy in this move, noting, “Not only was Erdoğan’s own degree fraudulent, but the grounds for dismissing İmamoğlu’s degree were the illegitimacy of the university he attended in occupied northern Cyprus. As with its universities, so too is it with its entire regime.”

The international community is closely watching the unfolding crisis, with speculation growing about how world leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image. “Trump sees himself as a winner and despises losers,” Rubin said. “Whereas he may once have seen Erdoğan as a strongman, it is now clear that the would-be sultan wears no clothes. Trump and his team are correct: Turkey is important, but Turkey and Erdoğan are not synonymous. Simply put, Trump should dump Erdoğan.”

The massive protests, among the largest in Turkey’s modern history, highlight a growing sense of urgency among citizens determined to reclaim their democracy. The Turkish military and law enforcement agencies now face a crucial test of allegiance. “Turkey’s elite soldiers swear allegiance to the state and the people of Turkey, not one man who holds the constitution and rule of law with disdain,” Rubin emphasized.

With tensions reaching a boiling point, many analysts fear that Turkey is approaching a breaking point. Some protesters argue that peaceful demonstrations may not be enough to bring about real change in a system they see as rigged in Erdoğan’s favor.

Rubin did not mince words when outlining what may be necessary for political transformation: “The Turkish protestors now fight for the soul of their nation. Every protestor on the streets of Istanbul is as consequential for the future of modern Turkey as was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Protests might matter in democracies; however, Turkey is not a democracy. To succeed, they must march on Turkey’s palaces and prisons. If Erdoğan does not helicopter to the airport and flee the country, they should detain him, pending trial, even if passions are such that those who reach him first might simply hang him and release political prisoners, ranging from İmamoğlu to detained Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş and philanthropist Osman Kavala.”

Rubin also hinted at the possibility of internal betrayal within Erdoğan’s own ranks. “Erdoğan, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, may be tempted to hang on. While the United States will never say directly, the White House likely would not look askance at regional states that would offer reward to any Erdoğan bodyguard who turns their guns on the would-be despot to arrest him or, if he resists, to kill him.”

The coming days will be critical for Turkey’s political future. Will the protests succeed in toppling Erdoğan’s rule, or will the regime resort to even harsher crackdowns to suppress dissent? What is clear, however, is that Turkey is at an inflection point. As Rubin put it, “The age of Erdoğan must end. Turks can either take the next step, or they will have no one but themselves to blame for Turkey’s descent into dictatorship, state failure, and eventual civil war.”