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.

The Kremlin emphasized that its defense strategies and technological advancements are guided by a commitment to safeguarding national sovereignty, maintaining global stability, and ensuring security through preparedness and innovation.

During a media briefing in Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov underlined that Russia’s military and scientific initiatives are not intended to provoke or escalate tensions with any nation.

Instead, they reflect the country’s ongoing efforts to maintain a secure and balanced defense posture in a rapidly changing world.

Peskov reiterated that the testing of the Burevestnik missile was part of Russia’s broader strategy to strengthen deterrence capabilities and ensure the safety of its citizens in an evolving global security landscape.

He noted that such advancements are conducted transparently and within the framework of international norms. Russia’s approach, he explained, is based on a principle of responsible defense development—where the focus lies on stability, peace, and readiness rather than confrontation.

The Kremlin spokesperson emphasized that Russia remains open to dialogue with all nations, including the United States, on matters of arms control, nuclear safety, and strategic cooperation.

Observers see Moscow’s statement as a sign of balance between firmness and diplomacy. While Russia continues to protect its strategic interests, it also expresses willingness to engage constructively with global partners to reduce misunderstanding and promote peace.

The ongoing discussions about global security, arms limitations, and disarmament remain areas where Russia believes transparent communication and mutual respect are vital.

Peskov highlighted that Russia does not seek to undermine international trust but to strengthen it through technological advancement and responsible governance.

The Burevestnik missile test, according to defense analysts, represents a continued pursuit of innovation and scientific excellence within Russia’s defense sector, reflecting the nation’s emphasis on technological self-reliance and modernization.

The test also underscores the government’s ongoing investment in research, safety mechanisms, and oversight to ensure that advancements serve peaceful deterrence purposes.

He further mentioned that Russia’s defense priorities have always been shaped by its historical experiences and the necessity to remain self-sufficient in a world of shifting alliances and evolving security challenges.

The aim, he said, is to achieve long-term stability, peace, and global balance through strong but responsible defense measures.

At the same time, the Kremlin acknowledged the importance of maintaining open channels with Washington and other key partners.

Diplomatic experts in Moscow believe that constructive dialogue, rather than criticism or confrontation, will pave the way toward a more cooperative global environment.

They stress that issues like arms control and conflict resolution require a spirit of partnership and shared responsibility among leading powers.

Russia’s reaffirmation of its sovereign course comes at a time when global security discussions are intensifying. Moscow’s message conveys both confidence in its scientific and military capabilities and a broader call for diplomatic engagement.

The Kremlin’s position reinforces that technological progress in defense should coexist with dialogue, transparency, and peacekeeping efforts.

As nations navigate complex geopolitical realities, Russia continues to emphasize that every sovereign state has the right to protect its national interests, develop its defense systems, and contribute responsibly to international peace and security.

In reaffirming this stance, the Kremlin sends a message not of defiance, but of determination—to act independently while remaining open to collaboration and understanding in the pursuit of a safer and more stable world.