By the time Flamin’ Hot co-writer Linda Yvette Chávez was tasked with turning the life of Richard Montañez—the Frito-Lay janitor who claims he invented Flamin’ Hot Cheetos—into a movie, much of the story was already in place. “There was a foundation laid with DeVon [Franklin, producer] and Lewis [Colick, co-writer],” Chávez told Decider in an interview.
That first draft of Flamin’ Hot—which began streaming on Hulu and Disney+ today, and is based on Montañez’s 2013 memoir—got a major overhaul when Eva Longoria was brought on to direct in 2019. Longoria brought Chávez on to rewrite the screenplay after reading Chávez’s previous script, I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter. Longoria told Chávez she wanted “a comedic, effervescent, fast-paced, inspiring story,” so that’s what Chávez delivered. But then, in 2021, a new version of the story came to light, thanks to Los Angeles Times reporter Sam Dean.
Dean’s story, “The man who didn’t invent Flamin’ Hot Cheetos,” makes the compelling case that, despite Montañez’s claims, the Flamin’ Hot Cheetos line was helmed and named by a junior employee named Lynne Greenfeld. Montañez did rise through the ranks of Frito Lay, from janitor to executive, and he did spearhead a line of less popular products, called Sabrositas, aimed at the Latino demographic. But he did not, according to Dean’s reporting, invent Flamin’ Hot Cheetos.
Where did that leave the Flamin’ Hot movie? Chávez told Decider the script did go through additional rewrites as a result of the LA Times story, including a scene that alludes to Greenfeld’s team in the Midwest. “We got new information, so, [it was like,] ‘Let’s go ahead and add that to the story as well,'” Chávez told Decider. But, at the end of the day, Chávez said she was hired to tell Richard Montañez’s story, and that’s what she feels she did. “I think it’s an accurate representation of what I heard from Richard and Judy, and from his family, and what they experienced. That’s the story that I heard, that story I was told.”
Chávez spoke to Decider about her feelings about the LA Times story, meeting with the Montañez family, the WGA strike, and more.
I read in the press notes that Eva Longoria reached out to you for this project. I’d love to hear what those early conversations were like. What did she want from you, or from a script?
There was a foundation laid with DeVon [Franklin, producer] and Lewis [Colick, co-writer]. And then when they hired Eva— Eva came in like a wrecking ball, but in a good way. [Laughs.] She came in and said, “This is my vision, this is what I want to do.” Her vision was very different from what was there on the page. Richard’s story was really powerful and palpable in that [first] script. She knew that it was an important story, but she also knew it needed an authentic voice to bring out what the story was. She sent me her deck and it was like, “I want it to be this comedic, effervescent, fast-paced, inspiring story that captures Richard’s voice.” And I was here for it! I saw McKay and Scorsese references in her deck. I was hungry for something like this for our community. When I saw that, I was like, “Please count me in!”
And working with her is a friggin’ dream. When I met up with her, I felt like I was working with my prima. We had a shorthand, because we didn’t need to explain anything to each other. I was like, “You know how it is, girl. I know how it is.” She’s just this comedic genius who is like pitching ideas constantly, and she’s very flexible. She’s the type of person who’s like, “You can use this, or you don’t have to use this! Whatever you think.”
How did you bring that sort of McKay-esque humor to the script that Eva was looking for?
Eva was like, “Give me everything! Go crazy!” She just wanted me to go nuts. So there’s a lot of stuff that didn’t end up in the final film that were, like crazy sequences that I had done, and she really liked it. There was a whole animated Donkey Kong sequence, when [Richard] talks about the different levels of people at the plants, like, “You have the managers, and you have the directors, and then us at the very bottom.” That didn’t ultimately make it into the cut.
But we did include the cholos—the executives, the gangster C suite. Having [Richard’s] voice come through [to voiceover the executives] was the cherry on top. Ultimately, that’s what’s so cool about him. He’s so charismatic. He has these stories that are really incredible. And yeah, maybe sometimes you’re like, “Wait, Richard, are you exaggerating that?” That’s the fun of him. He is like, this Mexican uncle, this Mexican tio, who tells you his story, that you’re just like, ”OK, Mexican tio, did it really go down like that?” It was fun to let that be the fun of the film.
Right, you and Eva met with the real Richard and Judy—tell me what that meeting was like. Was there anything that was important for them to make sure got into the movie?
The first thing Eva told me was, “You have to meet Richard!” So we drove all the way out to the IE. I thought I was meeting with just Richard and Judy, but in true Mexican-American family fashion, we showed up! All the cousins, the grandkids, and the tios were there. But it was beautiful, because as they were telling us their story firsthand, they were all there to pitch in ideas. “Oh, but Grandpa, tell them about this! And Dad, don’t forget that part!” It was so quintessentially Mexican. I friggin’ loved it. They were very vulnerable with us. I think having a Latino writer come in, and having a Latino director come in—it was such a relief for them to be able to share, again, a shorthand with people and relate their story to us.
The biggest thing I took away from that conversation was the power that Richard gave Judy. He was like, “Listen, Judy was my person. She was with me the whole time. I want her to have her flowers.” That was something I took with me. I left the meeting electrified. When I got home, the first thing I did—I wrote on a Post-It: “This is for the men in my community and the women that lift them up.” I put that on my wall. That was my North Star. Through all the hard stuff, that’s the thing I looked to, to bring this to fruition.
One theme that stuck out to me was that both Richard and his son are made fun of at school for their lunches, but later embracing Mexican food leads to Richard’s success. Tell me about how you wove that theme into the script.
In the draft that I was given to revamp, the burrito story was not in there. I had read it in his book, and I was like, “How are we not using this burrito story!” It was true—when he was a kid, he would bring burritos to school, and then he started to sell them and started making a lot of money off of the white kids in his school, who had never eaten burritos. That was his first time being an entrepreneur, and this is a movie about an entrepreneur. You don’t often get the story of people from our community, and their beginnings in this way. You see that the genius was there from the beginning, and I felt like we needed to show it. The theme in the film that comes up a lot is: How is our culture our superpower? As a kid, he used culture as a superpower in that moment.
There have been a few “product” movies recently—Tetris, Air—that have a lot of nostalgia for the business boom of the eighties. But I appreciated that Flamin’ Hot made it clear that the Reagan policies weren’t so great for poor people.
Right out of the gate, that was one of the first things Eva said to me. She was like, “I want to show that the ‘80s were not that were not good.” I did so much research around the Reagan years, and my family had gone through that time as well. Being able to see how that impacted our community through research and statistics—I knew that what Richard had gone through was that. Eva really wanted to show that these things were different for different people. And for [Richard and Judy], it was not a positive experience, ultimately. They needed to find a way out. It’s interesting, because someone recently, in one of the screenings, came up to me afterward and was like, “Oh my God, Like, seeing that brought me back to the ‘80s and how hard it was for our family, because we were in the same position.” So, you know, the complexities of the American dream. It’s not perfect. It’s flawed.
I have to ask about the L.A. Times story that disputes Richard’s claim that he invented Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. First of all, have you read it?
I have, I have read it.
There was quite a bit of backlash to this article when it came out. People felt it was trying to take away from Richard’s accomplishments. What were your feelings when you read it?
When I met Richard and Judy, part of the electrifying feeling was hearing the challenges that they came across to do what they did. That was something that I related to in such a visceral way. For me, what I signed on for, was to tell Richard’s story—the story of him becoming this larger-than-life figure, which he did become, at PepsiCo. He rose through the ranks and contributed to Latino marketing. That was the story I signed up to tell. And also, you know, as a Latina who is growing up in a country that doesn’t always want us, I know what that feels like—the ways in which we are erased and silenced. There are countless ways that that happens. I don’t need someone to tell me what I know in my gut, and what I feel in my heart. And what I felt for Richard and Judy was this beautiful love story of a family trying to survive poverty during a very difficult time. That is the story that I was in love with and that I wanted to tell. And that’s, I think, what we did.
I noticed that the film includes moments brought up in the article— like the Midwest branch working on another formula for Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. Did the article affect rewrites? Were there things that you added, to make sure the stories matched up?
I think ultimately there’s always going to be many sides to any story, right? So what we knew was Richard’s story, and that’s the story we put on screen. Then we got new information, so, let’s go ahead and add that to the story as well. But ultimately, the story is Richard’s, and what he experienced. When you see on screen, when he’s like, “I don’t know what’s happening over there, but what I know is what I did, and what’s in my DNA, what’s in my family.” That’s the thing that we focus on. It’s ultimately wanting to make sure that that is clear to people—that his story is his and it’s nobody else’s. And that’s the story that we were trying to tell.
So, overall, do you feel like the movie is an accurate representation of what happened?
I think it’s an accurate representation of what I heard from Richard and Judy, and from his family, and what they experienced. That’s the story that I heard, that story I was told. And that’s the story that I love that the world gets to see, because it’s so powerful, important, and poignant.
Fair enough. This movie is about the importance of working-class people. Currently, writers are on strike in Hollywood. Is there anything you’re hoping studios might take from the message of this film as it applies to the writers’ strike?
I do think this film resonates so hard with this experience. Last night I was watching a screening, and the moment he goes up on one of the machines, and he does his speech and is like, “None of this exists without us. Yeah, we’re at the bottom, but this can’t happen unless we’re here.” That’s the same thing with us. As writers, oftentimes, for some reason, we’re kind of erased after the fact. But none of this exists if we don’t put pen to paper; if we don’t put fingertips to keyboard. Respect is something that oftentimes we have to demand by removing ourselves from the equation, so that people can see, “Oh, wait a second, they are important.” You don’t know what you got till it’s gone. Right now, the studios are seeing that, in the ways that they’re losing money. Hopefully, they can see that we are worthy of equality, in the same way that Richard was worthy of equality. He fought for it and built it himself. That’s what we’re doing out here on these picket lines—we’re building it ourselves. We’re going to get it, however long it takes.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
