Top Chef Masters - S1E9 Postmortem

Well... that was... interesting. I'm, uh, going to let you guys comment on our little confrontation this week. I'm rather curious to hear how Chiarello came across to everybody.

Okay, I always dug Bayless, but the dude is totally my hero now. At this point, I'm ashamed to have doubted him earlier.

That said, yow... clean five star sweep from the critics for Keller. Odd that he actually scored lower with the crowd than Bayless. From the way they were raving, I thought he might've gone 20 straight across the board.

Fun, as well, to see... well... most of the old contestants. I have to admit, I was more than a little amused by Betty's "Yeah, guess that's me" look before Bayless could even open his mouth. Perhaps because she had been tasked with prettifying the table, but amusing nonetheless.

Tough break for Anita Lo. I liked her a lot and I'm looking forward to checking out Annisa next time I have a chance. The twists were particularly hard on her, but still, that was the whole point of the challenge.

Very much looking forward to the finale next Wednesday. I'd love to see Bayless win, but I think you still have to figure Keller is the odds-on favorite. Postmortem might be a little late in the evening next week. I'm traveling and might be catching the show on delay. But if nothing else, I'll try to get a placeholder post up to fill in later so you guys can get the ball rolling.

Discuss!

Comments

[Independent George]

Ok, this has been said before, but it's worth repeating on the off-chance that Bravo cares what its audience thinks: chefs behaving well is much, much, much more interesting than chefs behaving badly.

I LOVED watching Bayless and Blais work together. The both of them came out looking like champs. In fact, my single favorite moment of Top Chef was when Richard offered his prize to Stephanie in S4, so this just cements my place in the Richard Blais fan club.

How misleading was the editing about Chiarello's table? He got 4 stars from two different judges, but the way it was cut, I thought he was out for sure. Shocking, I know: something I saw on TV might not have been 100% accurate.

Next week: Stephanie's back! Huzzah!

[KinderJ]

I found the attention to detail in Keller's dish staggering. He presented, what, seventeen dishes and made staggeringly good use of all of them. That's... literally incredible. As in, I would not credit it if I did not believe in the judges. Just jaw dropping.

Which is not to dump on Bayless. I was damn impressed by him as well. He also put together quite an array of powerful dishes and then had the sheer balls to hand the dessert over to Blais. A move I also would have made in a heartbeat, but then again I think Blais walks on liquid nitrogen. I had heard of that ice cream trick before, it's pretty common and basic for the MG crowd but still a hell of a good idea.

Chiarello... did not come across well because his cooking style is non-collaborative. He has a menu and a vision, and his way of executing that is to have a staff diligently carry out his instructions. I think that is true of all the chefs, really, but his variety was of a more autocratic nature. Which is fine, if you are hiring for a restaurant and running a kitchen, but was problematic given that this is a TV show with tight time constraints. It's a rigid, but often powerful, organizational style as it gives clear directions to the staff. The problem is that it lacks flexibility, so when elements were taken out of his control, the system started to collapse.

That is sort of similar with what we saw with Lo. She managed to make an unfortunate blend of lack of clear direction with lack of flexibility, and that was her undoing. I should say that I am not a fan of raw bars at the best of times, but that rib seemed really excellent. There could have been more there, I think. Sad, she seemed really creative and interesting.

[suzanne]

He He ... I thought Ilan was Marcel at first. I've never even seen season 2 in its entirety, so I kinda had an excuse, but I'm sure they'd both still be horrified to be mistaken for the other.

Really surprised to see Elia. Though I didn't see season 2 when it aired, everything I've read about her since is very ... dismissive of the whole experience. Maybe it was the opportunity to work with the great chefs that brought her back?

Anyone else think the Masters got off really easy on the QF, as opposed to the regular cheftestants?

CHEF Michael came off as a complete ass; everything Blais wrote about last week makes complete sense. If anything, Blais was being charitable. Chiarello was condescending and obnoxious. Though I think Dale was a bit sensitive on the whole "young man" thing, I think I'll side with him; esp since we don't know what all was edited out.

Betty really could keep her (paraphrased) "we're all experienced, talented chefs" to herself.

I didn't find it all that surprising that Bayless scored higher than Keller with the diners. Bayless's food is more general-population friendly. I'm sure there were several diners that didn't like Keller's spicy soup.

[fifi]

See, I though Blais came off like kind of ass, although that was at least partially an editing thing. The editors didn't really need to include so many clips of Blais bashing Chiarello. It made Blais seem incredibly petty to me (I also didn't like how he told one chef-Anita, I think-that he came in 2nd on his season, but he should have won. Let it go).

How I saw it was Chiarello was taking the whole "hiring" thing more seriously than the other chefs so it made him seem like he was being a pain in the ass. The cheftestants had their egos bruised that Chiarello didn't treat them like they were on his level just because they competed on Top Chef. The man had a TV show. They aren't on the same level.

[Skillet Doux]

"The man had a TV show. They aren't on the same level."

I was following you right up until this point. Let's remember that Sandra Lee has two shows on the same network :-)

[kit]

fifi says: "How I saw it was Chiarello was taking the whole "hiring" thing more seriously than the other chefs so it made him seem like he was being a pain in the ass. The cheftestants had their egos bruised that Chiarello didn't treat them like they were on his level just because they competed on Top Chef. The man had a TV show. They aren't on the same level."

If that was Chiarello's thought process, I think he failed to take into consideration how the artificiality of this situation is different than hiring out in the real world. If in the real world, there are more candidates for positions in his restaurant than he needs, then he can afford to make them run the gauntlet and see who can handle it. On the flip side, potential sous-chefs will put up with some of his attitude if they feel they couldn't go elsewhere or otherwise are easily replaced. Here, all the sous-chefs will be assigned to someone, the question is how motivated they'll feel to work for and support whoever they end up with. Is it a really good idea, in a situation where you don't have complete control over who you end up with, to alienate most of the sous-chef pool?

And honestly, I don't buy his explanation that he just wanted to see who could chop while he threw questions at them (as it says in his blog), that doesn't mean he has to grill them about calling him chef. Yah, Dale is probably a hothead, but as Chiarello pointed out, he's a "young man" and no one is attaching the title "master" to Dale. I guess I'm just disappointed because I expect more out of the "masters" and up to this point I rather liked Chiarello. Oh well!

[Vega]

Is it weird that what annoyed me the most was that apparently no one told Antonia in the interim between S4 and this episode that it's pronounced "blee-nee", not "buh-lee-nee"?

I'm so weird.

Also, Spike is such a tool. And Michael Chiarello is...wow. I mean, Dale is such a dork, but double-yew-tee-eff.

[Dave_P]

You can't trust Bravo's edits. Sorry, there's just no way to know how things really went down. Neither Dale nor Michael looked good, and I'm sure they both share in the blame, but Dale looked like the bigger punk to me, and I was a big Dale supporter in season 4, right to the end. Still, you just can't tell with Bravo. I also thought a lot of the returning chefs looked a bit... full of themselves, but again, that might just have been the editing. I know those interviewers can be awfully manipulative to try to make you say misleading things in 5 second blurbs.

I was sorta disappointed with the QF. Only what, 5 or 6 out of 20 ingredients identified for most of them? No one got hoisin, not even Anita, who at least identified it, but got brain frozen--wonder if she got the shiso right? The men never even heard of umeboshi ('course, Choi butchered saying it)? I've been sorta mystified that many of the most accomplished chefs seem to have huge blind spots especially when it comes to Asian flavors. I remember Collichio saying some bizarre things in previous seasons. Then again, Anita thought PB was tahini, so maybe that blindfold is really unnerving (I'd love to take this challenge myself some day).

Bayless & Keller both were magnificent in the EC. I was doing some quick math during the judging and thought Rick had it in the bag, esp after Hubert's crowd score was announced. I mean, there's no way he was gonna get straight 5's from the critics, right? :) I can't wait to see these two go head-to-head along with Michael, though from one of the comments in an earlier posting over here, I get the feeling I know who's winning.

Too bad about Anita, but the combination of exhaustion and the outdoor serving seemed to do her in. I thought the judges were pretty cavalier about not switching up the raw bar for serving under the sun. After all the prep she'd done (which, I know they're not privy to), what exactly was she going to do? Make that seafood stew? I was happy to know that the braised pork rib is part of her menu and I'll have to try it out some day.

As for Michael, I really don't know what to make of his dishes since the editing made it look like a failure, but in fact, he got very respectable scores. Again, nice editing, Bravo.

Next week, looks like all the past winners are back. Looking forward to seeing Harold, Hung & Steph again, critiquing the dishes alongside Tom and the judges. In fact, I'm really looking forward to seeing what Tom has to say. Also, from the looks of surprises on the remaining chefs' faces, I wonder if they got the three eliminated chefs to serve as sous for the final challenge? I mean, considering it was all filmed inside of a week or so, I don't suppose it'd be too much of a hassle for them to hang around, and in fact, they prolly all made plans to stay the distance in case they won out.

--
Dave

[Independent George]

I think Chiarello was just playing up to the cameras, and didn't realize how it would be interpreted by either the Chefs or the audience. He saw he was in a phony TV situation, and decided to play the same game; if you're going to be on a game show, you may as well act like it. I think he made them dance because, well, it's TV, and that's just what you do on TV.

The problem is, that's the perspective of an established veteran having fun for a TV audience. For a younger chef trying to establish a reputation, being asked to dance is humiliating. Moreover, these aren't 20 year-old CIA grads he's working with; these were seasoned professionals. About half of the chefs either owned or ran their own restaurants, have people reporting to them, and (rightfully) expected some modicum of respect. He was a general amongst O-5s and O-6s, and he was acting as though they were Plebs.

Furthermore, as much as TC is a game show, it doesn't have a game show audience. As evidenced by the comments here, its core audience consists of serious foodies eager for a glimpse inside the kitchens of their favorite restaurants. What was, in his mind, good-natured fun for television, looked to us like a middle-manager on a power trip.

[Dave F]

I hated this episode, which was as gimmicky as the more annoying regular TC shows. Switching venues and discarding sous-chefs just randomizes the competition. Which is a shame.

I also hated the editing of the QF, which gave you no idea what was going on and again used the cheapest kind of "twist" editing (Michael got barely anything right). It would have been so much more interesting to show you one item at a time and see what all four judges guessed.

I'm not surprised that Bayless has weathered the pressure so well and gracefully, but surprised that Keller has been so unflappable. It's awfully hard to root against either Bayless or Keller.

[Independent George]

Dave F: "I hated this episode, which was as gimmicky as the more annoying regular TC shows. Switching venues and discarding sous-chefs just randomizes the competition. Which is a shame."

Agree. The best challenges are ones that put the contestants in a position to succeed, and not fail. But, Bravo being Bravo, they just couldn't help themselves.

I also wish they would have shown more details on how the chefs adapted their menus to the venue change. About all I learned was that Bayless and Keller did well, while Lo and Chiarello struggled. That's slightly less than useful.

[Peggasus]

Chiarello is a huge douche. Come on now, he's asking them to dice carrots to prove themselves worthy to work with him? I can dice carrots. Shiiiiit. I don't remember him taking on the 'onion chopping' challenge. (Wasn't he in that? I think he was.) Also, if even SPIKE thought he (Chiarello, and make SURE you pronounce it correctly or he will CUT YOU) was full of himself, what does THAT tell you? Even Key-a-rrrelll-o doesn't know how to pronounce Eye-talian words correctly.

I think the judges were more impressed by Keller's prodigious output (eighteen dishes? Are you kidding me?) than anything else, thought I don't doubt they were amazing. I'm just a big Bayless fan. I called those two weeks ago. NO WAY Chiarello is as good as those two. No WAY.

@ suzanne: Ha! Oh no, Marcel had WAY better hair than Ilan!

Best episode so far, if for nothing else but to see MC getting slammed by everyone he thinks are less than him. Karma dude, karma. You are going DOWN.

[timothy]

I think the conflict between Chiarello and the returning chefs came down to a contrast of perspectves. From a Top Chef perspective, one could argue that the returning chefs have more experience than Chiarello; they've played the game longer and, in some cases with more success. From an employment perspective, one could argue that Chiarello had more experience than the returning chefs; he's been in the food business longer and in certain ways had more success. Neither party seemed completely wrong or completely right. It seemed like one guy acted like the arrogant boss thtat he is and the others acted like the arrogant reality show competitors that they were, and conflict was inevitable. Bayless and Keller acted neither like bosses nor contestants. They acted like mentors which contributed to their success.

[Gilmore]

Anita - why did you take your first draft pick and have her shucking oysters and clams? Even if the food was served indoors and the raw bar would not have been repulsive, what a waste of a first pick. Especially since she worked with you before - let her COOK.

Rick and Hubert - WOW. How could Hubert put out so many dishes?

While I agree Rick and Hubert are the prohibitive favorites, I would not be surprised to see Michael pull out the win. Rick has not won an individual challenge (except for his elimination round) while Michael and Hubert have.

Michael was a bit of a jerk, but I understand why.
He knew what he wanted to make.
He wanted good indians, not chiefs - recall when Eric Ripert, etc. were sous chefs for season finales. They did not offer suggestions, they just prepped.
He is a fierce competitor (as are the others, just show it differently) and figured if you are going to lose, it will be because of me, not thee.
He wanted to put on a show for TV.

I have reserved my seat for next week.

[Shelly]

I really didn't have a problem with Michael Chiarello. He just has a different style of running his kitchen. It may not be how I would do it, but every chef is different. I see it like authors. Some are a$$holes, some are the sweetest people you'll ever meet. But when it comes down to it, it's the book they write that matters and makes me want to come back for more. (And frankly, Michael was tame compared to other chefs out there.)

I did think Bravo was manufacturing a lot of the drama. A whole lot of the drama. They need to stop misrepresenting things to such an extent. It's one thing to play up certain angles, but another entirely to imply a different set of events by the way they cut things together.

All in all, this was my least favorite episode. Did we even get a decent look at all the dishes served? Sorry for the oxymoron, but: Boooo Bravo!

[Kim-in-Chicago]

""The man had a TV show. They aren't on the same level.""

Did you ever see his tv show? There is a reason why it is on so early in the morning - it is dull, pretentious, condescending....it is just a vehicle to show off his Napa estate. Total dribble.

But then again, it is on FN. Enough said.

Rooting heavily for the hometown - Bayless...but I wouldn't mind too much if Keller sneaks it in.

[Independent George]

Shelly: "Did we even get a decent look at all the dishes served? Sorry for the oxymoron, but: Boooo Bravo!"

That's what bothers me the most about this episode. We're down to three competitors - THREE! And they barely show us anything about the actual food, in favor of more manufactured drama.

[Brent]

I think Chiarello's thought process was pretty simple: He was only interested in cheftestants who would be willing to work for him knowing they would have no input, and knowing they would be expected to strictly adhere to his vision and his directions. So he "interviewed" them accordingly.

Didn't look very good on TV - especially the "what's my name" stuff - but understandable, I think.

[Brent]

What was the most surprising miss in the QF? Bayless not getting mango?

Last week on root4rick.com, Rick responded to one of those "25 things about me ..." internet memes. One of the questions:

14 - Chocolate or vanilla?

His reply:

mango

[suzanne]

Brent: "I think Chiarello's thought process was pretty simple: He was only interested in cheftestants who would be willing to work for him knowing they would have no input, and knowing they would be expected to strictly adhere to his vision and his directions. So he "interviewed" them accordingly."

Maybe, but that isn't the only way to get sous chefs that will follow your vision. Though the others sous chefs seemed to appreciate that they were asked for input, I doubt they would have been offended if one of the other chefs had said "This is what we're going to do." Being an obnoxious ass isn't required.

[Bart]

I wasn't really that bothered with Chiarello's performance.

I remember reading somewhere in one of Bourdain's books that, in a busy kitchen, a head chef does not want aspiring young chefs in their kitchen - they want automatons. They want someone who can mindlessly execute the same dish over and over and over again. They don't need someone to get "creative" - that's the head chef's job. They need someone who can do what the head chef wants them to do, and to do it well, consistently.

That's what Chiarello wanted.

And, I hate to say it, but I think the Top Chef cheftestants (Dale, Blais) seemed a little full of themselves. I hate saying that, because I really, really, really like Blais, and that I know Bravo's edits aren't always to be trusted...but, nearly winning a game show does not make you a Master chef.

If that was the case, then why aren't the winners of Fox's Hell's Kitchen venerated as culinary gods?

Look, could Chiarello have done this differently? Of course. He's not blameless in this situation. But I think he wanted someone to execute his vision; he didn't want someone else's input. In other words, he wanted an automaton.

Having someone else's input could work fabulously (see Blais and Bayless). And sometimes it can be a disaster (remember Carla and Casey in last year's finale?). It really depends on the person. And it seems like Chiarello's a difficult person to get along with, if you're the type who likes to have a voice and input.

Chiarello clearly doesn't run a democratic kitchen. There's probably a very clearly defined hierarchy in his kitchen, and he definitely sits at the top. Clearly, Dale had a problem with that.

[Kathy]

Maybe its just my own warped view of things, but I find it interesting that the previous years Top Chef winners appear to be judges next week. All except Ilan Hall who was asked to be just a sous chef in this episode.

[mbosworth]

What do you make of Hubert telling Fabio that Fabio would be his first choice?

[aaalex]

i agree with everything Bart said. my sympathies were with chiarello, too. as it's his butt on the line, he gets to choose how he uses his sous chefs. (the carla/casey example is pretty instructive, i agree) in his email last week, blais called respect a two-way street - you have too give in order to get - and suggested that as chiarello did not give any, he was not likely to get any either. but, under the circumstances (ie. with his pride on the line in a television competition), chiarello did not have the time or inclination to coddle dale or anyone else. fair enough, i think. dale, who has been in these competitions, should have known exactly where chiarello was coming from. blais also mentioned, last week, that any good chef will be considered an asshole by at least someone they've worked with. (he included himself, dale, bayless, etc. in the potential "a-hole" catagory) the kitchen is a high pressure place. duties have to be understood and executed precisely, over and over. hard to imagine dale is mr happy j. cheerful when his vision and reputation are on the line at his restaurant. so, there was thoughtlessness and hypocrisy in dale's behaviour.

the question that makes me go hmmm, though, is: are the ratings for top chef masters as good as those for regular top chef? though most of us here love top chef masters for its (until now) LACK of interpersonal bitterness, top chef is a reality show part of whose point is the manufacture of artificially tense situations. top chef's set-up and format are as they are in order to create big, sometimes unpleasant drama. no offense intended but "peggasus" calling chiarello a "douche" is the kind of mean thoughtlessness that bravo is probably after. (you only have to look at any of bravo's other reality shows to know what their ideal is.) up to this episode, top chef masters has been sedate and instructive to look at, for those of us who are interested in the cooking more than the infighting. i'm thinking those who love the food more than the drama are in the minority. so, i wonder if there will even be a top chef masters 2?

there is a kind of contradiction at the heart of top chef. cooking is (or can be) an art form. so, it's a little odd to watch a program where it's treated as being like any old competition. at times, watching top chef is the equivalent of watching a wrestling match between leonardo da vinci and michelangelo to see who's the better painter. it's entertaining and all, bit it's also hopelessly weird.

[Chris W]

"And, I hate to say it, but I think the Top Chef cheftestants (Dale, Blais) seemed a little full of themselves. I hate saying that, because I really, really, really like Blais, and that I know Bravo's edits aren't always to be trusted...but, nearly winning a game show does not make you a Master chef.

If that was the case, then why aren't the winners of Fox's Hell's Kitchen venerated as culinary gods?"

I'm not saying you're wrong, but employing an unbelievably flawed analogy is not the most convincing way to get your point across.

[Independent George]

Bart: I agree - given the time constraints, the "chain of command' tactic might actually make the most sense; I think it might have worked better were it not for the sudden change in venues (have I mentioned how much I hate those gimmick twists?).

That said, the 'interview' process seemed rather humiliating, and I perfectly understand why the chefs reacted the way they did. That's not how you treat professionals, even if it is a TV Game Show. Actually, that's not how you treat professionals, ESPECIALLY if it's a TV Game Show.

[Brent]

oh man, leonardo would KICK MICHELANGELO'S ASS!!!! bring it!!!

[Bill]

I found that watching Hubert and Rick was so entertaining that I didn't even care about the MC/Dale feud. They want to act like jerks, go ahead, but please keep the camera on Rick/Hubert/Blais/Antonia.
It would have been interesting to see more of what the sous chefs actually contributed. I suspect Hubert's team really shined.
Sorry to see Anita go but she appeared totally worn out by the competition.

[Peggasus]

@ aaalex: No, I've believed that Chiarello was a douche long before he showed up on this. I save my really mean thoughtlessness for the Real Housewives. No offense.

[anon man]

As much as I like Chiarello, he came across as a jackass. These are executive chefs, by and large. They are going to know how to use a knife. They might be a little rusty, but what a waste of his 2 minutes. I was actually hoping they would show his interview of Fabio. I wonder if it was in Italian. I also thought it ironic that a man who became famous explaining how to do things via TV wouldn't be able to give instructions and trust his explanatory skills. I also thought it interesting the Keller grabbed Elia (presumably for her pastry skill). I wonder what Bayless would have done with her.

All that said, I didn't like all the twists. Maybe the way they edited it, it looked more twisty-turning than it was, but outside on a hot summer day is way different than inside. No really fair, IMHO.

But one thing did bug me through the entire show. It ended up only mattering as to which charity got 10K, but here it is: in the QF, Hubert finished last. He should have gotten three stars, not 3.5 When two people tie for second, the person behind them is in fourth. They gave him an extra half star for finishing with the "third highest score" which was actually fourth. I'm sure no one will rip money from Make-a-Wish, but can you imagine if that was the difference between staying and going? Yikes.

Oh, and who else thought it kind of funny that asshat stood up to MC and wouldn't chop for him in the 2 minutes. Never liked him much, and his restaurant here is mediocre, but gotta like a guy who sticks to his guns.

[Independent George]

aaalex: "up to this episode, top chef masters has been sedate and instructive to look at, for those of us who are interested in the cooking more than the infighting. i'm thinking those who love the food more than the drama are in the minority. so, i wonder if there will even be a top chef masters 2?"

That's a very interesting point. I'd always assumed that the core audience for TC was foodies, rather than reality show junkies, but now I wonder if that's true. Skillet Doux regulars are certainly not a random sample, but I used to also frequent the TWOP boards. Most of the participants there seemed to also favor food over drama. If I'm not mistaken, the TC ratings are significantly higher than the other fare on Bravo; is it just a matter of Reality watchers + Foodies, or are these two entirely different demographics?

[Skillet Doux]

I think you also have to consider that the "foodie pool", so to speak, is broadening. People who couldn't have cared less about good food five years ago now have enough interest to find this stuff compelling. So I suspect that intersection of reality show fans and food nerds is growing. Though it's just a hunch, I doubt Top Chef would hold a lot of interest for somebody who doesn't at least have some level of interest in food. But then there are foodies and there are food nerds and there are FOOD NERDS. At the risk of stratification (without value judgment!) I like to think present company skews towards the latter two categories :-)

[suzanne]

Kathy: I think I saw Ilan in the judging group for next week, too.

But then what do I know; I thought Ilan was Marcel

[anon man]

One other thing on Chiarello. Looking back at the comments, our general anti-FN bias is evident against him. His show wasn't anything special, but I think he's proven here that he can actually cook good food and isn't just a blow-dried hack. I'll admit that his show and a few others I found worth watching from time to time. (Giada, especially, if you must know, who despite being of fame is actually a trained cook as well and from time to time has some interesting stuff on the show.) There's a wide disparity of talent on the network from people with actual culinary backgrounds to people who throw shit together from a package (RR, SL, I'm looking at you)

[Kathy]

Anonman -- I've watched some of Giada's show, and she had couple of good ideas. However the way she over-enunciates any remotely Italian word is like fingernails on chalkboard -- makes me want to scream.

[aaalex]

brent: i am still laughing at your cheering the wwf/www cage match between leonardo and michelangelo. but michelangelo was considerably younger! i'm thinking a couple of early body slams, a chair across the face and leonardo taps out, weakly.

peggasus: fair enough, but calling chiarello a "douche" isn't, in this context, remotely fair for those of us who don't know him, and it's got nothing to do with his cooking, which has been great. maybe it's because i haven't watched chiarello on tv, but what is that makes him so hateful?

[Dave_P]

Re: Michael's interviewing process:

If he truly didn't know any of these guys and was planning on using them as just assistants, hell yes, he should make them show their knife skils!

I have a few years in various kitchens and can chop carrots too. I can't do a nice Brunoise. I can do a dice, but not a really fine, even cut, at least w/o taking forever. That's a completely valid test of a sous' technical skills. I'm rather sorry they didn't show some of the results, btw.

As an interviewing technique, it's also a good way to see how a prospective assistant handles orders, especially a perceived menial one. While watching, I was put off a bit too, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how good that simple task was in showing different things about each candidate. I'm not saying Chiarello had all these things in mind, but that simple "test" showed at the very least that a**hat was completely incompatible for MC's kitchen, didn't it? :)

Mind you, I'm hardly a Chiarello fan--I've never seen his show and I was pulling for him to be kicked instead of Anita. I just have no qualms about his interviewing technique and even applaud him a bit for it. Well, maybe not the "what's my name" bit.

BTW, I used to really watch the FN a lot, but of late, have been avoiding it like the plague unless someone/something specific is on, much like Bravo. I still love Alton Brown and will watch ICA if Batali or Morimoto are cooking (a freakin' rarity these days), but that's absolutely it. I didn't even know MC was on the FN.

--
Dave

[Dave_P]

Quick addition, Dale's non-apology is up on Bravo's blogs, as is MC's thoughts on the episode and his interviewing style. Worth a read.

http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef-masters/blogs/burning-questions/dale-talde

http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef-masters/blogs/burning-questions/michael-chiarello-reacting-to-curveballs

--
Dave

[Brent]

"but michelangelo was considerably younger! i'm thinking a couple of early body slams, a chair across the face and leonardo taps out, weakly."

Definitely an age advantage of Michelangelo, but Da Vinci has a workshop full of gadgets and gizmos that he's not afraid to use. He'd pull a "foreign object" from his trunks and it'd be lights out Mikey.

The funniest moment from TCM for me has been Spike's contention that he was picked last because the "masters" were worried he would outshine their food. Talk about cluelessness ... I'm thinking he was picked last because, hmmm, maybe the masters saw some of Season 4?

But even if not, they saw him judge the hamburger QF, where he couldn't differentiate between Bayless' three guacs, and said Anita's creation tasted like "boiled meat."

[anon man]

@Kathy, Yeah, that's annoying. Its like people who over trill their Rs when speaking Spanish. Highly irritating and maybe affected.

That said, she isn't just a pretty face. Not all her ideas are great and they aren't complicated, but they do have flavor. The corn-vanilla-rosemary dessert cake is very good and a great dessert for those of us who can take or leave chocolate or the cloyingly sweet.

[Kathy]

Anon man -- Sounds like a good dessert. However, with chocolate I've always been a take AND never leave it kinda gal. I consider it to be its own food group, just as I wood meat or dairy.

[Skillet Doux]

That's how I feel about pork fat, Kathy.

[BritBrit]

Brent: "The funniest moment from TCM for me has been Spike's contention that he was picked last because the "masters" were worried he would outshine their food."

I'd have to agree that Spike's cluelessness was quite funny, but nothing has topped Fabio's "sweating like a mountain goat at the beach" comment for me. I seriously laughed for about five minutes straight. I didn't realize how woefully devoid of Fabio my life has been for these last few months until he dropped that gem.

[jordan]

I was hoping someone would have commented on whose team of sous chefs they thought was strongest. Once they were drafted I ranked them as:

Anita - Far and away best team
Hubert - Definatly a step fown from anita
Michael- Pretty close to Hubert, could go either way
Rick- Wayyyyyyy down there.

Looking back on it my guess is Antonia was probably the star of the group and im guessing did a lot of solid work for Keller. Obviously Blais is up there to, but in his two appearances as a sous chef he seems to insist on getting his input onto the plate (Hosea's carbonated blackberries). If thats what you want from a sous hes probably the best, but how well would he have done if Rick simply said no to his ice cream.

[suzanne]

Dave:
"As an interviewing technique, it's also a good way to see how a prospective assistant handles orders, especially a perceived menial one. While watching, I was put off a bit too, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how good that simple task was in showing different things about each candidate. I'm not saying Chiarello had all these things in mind, but that simple "test" showed at the very least that a**hat was completely incompatible for MC's kitchen, didn't it? :)"

I didn't have a problem with that part of his interview. I thought that was pretty valid, actually. That's what Chairello wanted out of his sous chefs, so it was a smart way to check out the potential assistants.

It was the "run," (I know ... he didn't have a whole lot of time, but still...); the "what's my name?" and the "but what do you call me?" crap that I found obnoxious. Plus the drill-sergeant attitude.

[timothy]

i wonder how they came up with which former contestants to invite back. where was stefan, tiffany, andrew, and the other dale, for example? where was carla? the selection seemed kind of random to me, but then again their seemed to be some effort made to bring back people who could really cook (blais, jamie) and people who were known for their personalities (spike, betty). i wonder if there are some former contestants who just don't want to come back. for me, i'd like to see the best chefs invited back. that's purely subjective, but maybe they could start with the second, third, and fourth place finishers of each season. i would be happy never to see spike on my tv again. i mean, i used to think he was good eye candy, but even that appeal has long faded.

[Gilmore]

Chiarello's explanation on the Bravo site linked to above by Dave is insightful. If the sous chef knew his name, they may know his style of cooking which would be of benefit to him.
There is a method to his madness.
His comments on the help he got from his team was also insightful.

[aaalex]

chiarello's comments were helpful and dale t's were just childish. i respect talde even less for implying that he would have more easily accepted robuchon or thomas keller calling him "young man" than chiarelli. his whole petulant shtick was because chiarello isn't a good enough chef, in his mind, to treat him the way he did. in a way, then, dale is a rank, little snob. chiarello comes across much much better, after you read the exit interviews.

[Bill]

"i wonder how they came up with which former contestants to invite back"

I think C.J., Antonia & Betty are all L.A. based so they may have been trying to keep travel costs down.

[Independent George]

TC alumni I'd love to see back (excluding winners and LeeAnne):

1. Richard
2. Tiffani
3. Fabio
4. Tre
5. Carla
6. Stefan
7. Jamie
8. Antonia

[Dave_P]

Also, there's contractual obligations and such too. I think Harold more or less hates being called back to the show, and Hung's prolly got better things to concentrate on too (next week's appearance will be #3 for him, which I think is the magic number, and all of them will have been short). Then again, Harold's blogging for Bravo and appearing again after his mandatory stints back on TC were over. I wonder if business is down a bit at his restaurant in this economy.

"The funniest moment from TCM for me has been Spike's contention that he was picked last because the "masters" were worried he would outshine their food."

As much as I dislike Spike, I have to think he was being fairly tongue in cheek with that comment. Nonetheless, it's pretty telling that no one wanted him after his refusal to chop some carrots. I know some of the other former TC'ers were behind him, but I'm pretty sure the "masters" had quite a different opinion of a sous not taking orders gracefully. That and his hamburger judging.

--
Dave

[anon man]

@Bill, I thought CJ was in Chicago with the other Dale.

Clearly most of the people there are in SoCal (Brian is still in San Diego) and Spike was brought out for the burger thing too. Fabio and Ilan are out there too. No Stefan...?

[aaalex]

anon man: hard to imagine stefan as anyone's ideal of a sous chef. i'm a fan of stefan's and would love to see him on the show, but maybe as a judge ...

[Independent George]

aaalex: "anon man: hard to imagine stefan as anyone's ideal of a sous chef. i'm a fan of stefan's and would love to see him on the show, but maybe as a judge ..."

I disagree. Stefan was the most technically sound of the chefs in S5, had a lot of catering experience, and in fact offered a lot of constructive advice throughout the season (the delivery generally less than optimal, but the substance of his criticisms was usually spot-on).

[rab01]

I took the results of this episode to support my feeling that some of the better food we've been seeing during this series is due to the producers not throwing the Masters the same curveballs. Here, they finally did that (by forcing a location change and removing a sous chef) and some of the food had criticisms of the type we'd see on the regular Top Chef. Obviously, none of these Masters failed as spectacularly as the chaff would on the regular show but then these guys aren't the chaff of the Masters show either -- they are the best 4 out 24 master chefs.

The next time they do Top Chef Masters, I want them to do Restaurant Wars as the first challenge of the championship round. I would be fascinated to watch 6 of the most experienced and respected chef-owners in the country start a new restaurant in 2 days. In fact, I would probably be willing to watch a 2-part 6-hour special devoted to it.

[gilmore]

Stefan was so happy to win the prize to follow Eric Ripert around for a week at his restaurant. He may have said that that was the best prize of all. No reason to think he, like Richard, would not want to learn from one of the masters.

[Bill]

@Bill, I thought CJ was in Chicago with the other Dale.

Could be, I happened to see C.J. & Betty in an Iron Chef type competition at a culinary school in Hollywood so I just assumed he was an L.A. guy.

[aaalex]

anon man: i agree stefan was almost always right. his instincts were mostly trustworthy, until that last dessert. but you've got to admit, much as he was one of the best reasons for watching season 5 (in my opinion, THE best), he liked to do things his way. under these circumstances (ie. stefan as potential sous chef), i can't see anyone wanting to or having the time to talk it out with him. if one of the masters liked and trusted him and simply let him have things his way, then sure, but you usually want a sous chef to do what YOU want to do, no? (these words coming from a tc fan who has never spent a moment with anything like a sous chef, unless you count my 14 year old daughter, whom i can't get to do anything at all!)

gilmore: that moment with stefan winning time with chef ripert was just great. he respected ripert's food, clearly. you may be right, stefan may have wanted to play it straight/subservient with one of the masters, but stefan had/has a great, slightly obstreperous, creative mind of his own. not necessarily what you want in someone who has to execute your vision as opposed to his. this is just my opinion, though. i'd actually love to see how stefan would do in this situation. maybe near the end of season 6 we'll get to see him as one of the chef's choices for sous.

[Danny]

Michael and Dale's remarks at the shaky Bravo site were very instructive. I know, I know....editing, editing. That being said, Michael told Dale that Dale was putting stuff in Michael's space in the refrigerator. Dale blew him off and didn't respond in any way. Michael called him young man because Dale had refused to be interviewed by Michael and thus Michael didn't know Dale's name. Outside of TV, if I called someone "young man" (I'm 55, I'd love to be called young man) and their reaction was to try to engage me in a fist fight I would think that this is a person with just a wee bit of anger management issues.

I thought that Michael's interviewing technique was perfectly acceptable. Some have said, "they can all chop carrots" but the truth is that some of them can't do that kind of prep well (Dale, remember when your team lost over onions?). That was much of the basis of the removal of cheftestant #17 on S6.

The most shocking things about Dale's "apologia" on Bravo were that 1)he would have dealt differently with Keller and Baylss than Michael, and 2)Dale agreed that his own behavior was inappropriate but he'd still do it again because that's just how chefs act (maybe at a prison kitchen).

Hated to see Lo go. I'd love to eat her food. But I think that a raw bar - unless wildly creative - was kind of a cop-out in a cooking competition. I remember in season 2 when at the final four Tom C. noticed that one of the contestants had cooked nothing - all was raw - and he said when asked why it mattered, "It's a cooking competition".

Biggest surprise was seeing these remarkable, amazingly great chefs only able to identify a handful of ingredients (Bayless you are the best but you couldn't identify mango, a frequently used ingredient in the cuisine you cook).

One of the big differences I see between TC and TCM is that in TCM for Quickfire they seem to always get at least 30 minutes but on regular TC it's usually a much shorter timeframe. TCM also seems to give the chefs much larger budgets for their challenges. We didn't see them cater a party on a large boat for $5.00.

[Brent]

In Kelly Choi's blog, she wrote something I found very surprising about the QF: She said that neither Keller nor Bayless smelled the food in the blind taste test. Keller took each cup and tentatively took its contents into his mouth, without smelling first; Bayless, she said, just immediately turn the cup up, emptying the contents into his mouth, also without smelling.

Not that smelling first helped Chiarello and Lo all that much ... still, seems odd that when blindfolded, you wouldn't take a whiff of the mystery ingredient.

[Shelly]

Rick Bayless's has a blog entry about last night:

http://root4rick.com/

There are some interesting details, including the fact that they had an extra challenge that turned out to be so easy they didn't even mention it on TV.

[Brent]

Speaking of Bayless' blog ... the last sentence is pretty funny (to me, anyway):

"Now on to the hard part. This may sound like heresy, but none of us had watched all of the past seasons of Top Chef, so we didn’t know all of the players, their strengths and weaknesses. Hubert seemed genuinely excited to work with them, Michael sprouted a side none of us had ever seen in the competition, Anita seemed to hunker down and just want to get through the competition and I was worried about building a team that could do my food (guessing that none of them had experience with traditional Mexican cuisine). There was one thing we all agreed on, though: none of us wanted Spike. ..."

[Bob]

aaalex: Top Chef averages about 4 million viewers a week during it's summer/fall run. TCM has been getting about 1.5 million viewers. Also it's interesting to note that the finale of Next FoodNetwork Star scored an impressive 5.5 million viewers two weeks ago. The highest rated show in FoodNetwork history.

I found this site when Ted Allen mentioned in his blog in a previous TC season. I'm not a foodie, I like unscripted competition shows - but I've learned a lot from this site and now apperciate and enjoy all the effort that goes into a great dining experience.

[KimberH]

"Anonman -- I've watched some of Giada's show, and she had couple of good ideas. However the way she over-enunciates any remotely Italian word is like fingernails on chalkboard -- makes me want to scream."

@Kathy. So true, however I do believe that many Americans DO pronounce Italian words incorrectly. She does take it to an extreme. Unlike many stars on "that network", she actually worked on a line and is a chef.

[Cici]

As gimmicky and drama-laden as this episode was, boy are we all a-buzzing about it (even before it aired!). (I like it better without the gimmicks, too, just to clarify.) Count me in with the group that sees where Michael was coming from, although I agree that there are definitely other, more collaborative ways to be a boss.

Poor Anita just looked done in the entire time. However, I'd peg her stumble to more than just the exhaustion. She clearly stated that she was playing it safe with her buffet menu, and looking back I think she retreated creatively after the poor reception of her hamburger soup. She's made comments in previous episodes that showed how keenly she feels others' judgments of her food, and that soup was the first time her food wasn't praised highly in the competition. And with the grueling schedule, I bet she never had a moment to breathe and build her confidence back up. Such a shame. I'm laying Anita's crippling self-doubt since the QF on Spike's less-than-masterful shoulders, as he was one of the judges who couldn't appreciate the soup that Bayless in his blog deemed brilliant. Truly, I think none of the Masters wanting Spike for sous was driven more by him displaying such lack of discernment during the hamburger elimination, and less because of his show of defiance toward Michael.

Vega, regarding Antonia and her blini--I was so appalled that she'd offer up the dish that got her teammate eliminated from S4 because it was universally agreed upon that it was a poor, soggy choice for a buffet, that I missed her pronounciation. Oh, Antonia.

Thought Hubert had the team that best suited him (after he got to kick off Spike that is), of the four. Am I remembering correctly that Elia pretty much had the most classical style and training, and technical expertise, in the weak contestant pool that was S2? Both she and Antonia, with their calm and cool cooking styles and temperments were perfect acolytes to Hubert.

[gilmore]

I loved the Saturday Night Live skit where everyone grossly over-pronounced spanish words because Jimmy Smits was the guest host. They ordered lunch from a Mexican restaurant and Smits eventually erupted.

[Shelly]

@Cici, I think the hamburger judging had a lot to do with him being chosen last. Also, Betty was second to last, and I think that had to do with her judging of a QF and her dislike of, what was it, horseradish? Both of them showed on TCMs that their palettes left something to be desired.

[Marya]

I found it interesting that Chiarello was very reluctant to give his sous chefs any freedom, and ended up being upset that "someone" didn't cut the olive oil cake properly... and Bayless and Keller both respected their chefs enough to give them some leeway and real responsibility, and ended up being rewarded with some great, creative food.

Shows that sometimes you create the outcomes that you expect.

However, I can't really blame Chiarello for wanting proof of knife skills as part of his "interview" since we have seen that those vary widely.

And finally... why won't Betty go away? She's kind of embarrassing.

[gilmore]

When the chefs were talking, Chiarello said he told the person serving desserts to cut from the more cooked edges, and the person did not. It has nothing to do with being empowered or not. When he said he needed 14 more minutes to cook, it sounded like that particular cake was harmed by having to pack up and move to the hotel.

In sports, coaches and managers are "taskmasters" or "player's coaches". Both styles win, both styles lose. When a team goes bad, oftentimes they replace the taskmaster with the players coach, or vice versa.

Just like with chefs, no one style is the correct one. At times they both work and both fail.

[mar]

One thing I thought interesting regarding Anita was her relationship with Jamie. Jamie had worked with Anita previously, Anita immediately asked her who the best choices were. Smart. But, then later Anita started saying, oh, I forgot some things about Jamie - things that showed up in S5 - she gets flustered, can't move quickly. Anita expected a lot more out of Jamie than she got, and Jamie was the one let go at the end. That choice bit her, though even without that problem she didn't seem up to the challenge again this week.

Moving from an indoor to outdoor venue in the summer was downright mean, in my opinion.

The differing managerial styles of the master chefs was so fascinating. In a challenge like this with time-management issues and twists, it seems like you *have* to be willing to let your sous chefs manage things on their own and not be micro-managing like it seemed Chiarello wanted to do. Anita seemed mostly clueless about the whole thing to me. Bayless had his strong vision and directed masterfully. Keller seemed much more collaborative and would never have managed 17 dishes without letting his team go to it. Wish we could have seen more of the food, as others have mentioned.

[Marya]

Yeah, I know he asked the person to cut from the edges. In my experience (admittedly not in the kitchen) individuals who feel respected in their work are more likely to pay attention to that type of instruction. That was the point I was trying to make.

[Brent]

Anita Lo's response when asked if Chiarello got a "fair shake" in the editing for this episode:

"AL: When I was watching him I never saw him be as cocky as he was edited to be. So no, I don’t think he got a fair shake. He is a really great guy."

[Brent]

On Twitter, Blais deflects any credit for Bayless' buffet:

"Bayless would have done well with 3 monkeys helping."

[Bart]

I watched this episode again, and I stand by my original comments regarding Chiarello's interview process. He probably wanted people who he could count on to execute his vision. So some of the chefs were whining that he was being strict. Wah wah. Chiarello's the chef of his kitchen - all decisions are his to make. Sous chefs are expected to execute the head chef's vision. It's only a democracy if the head chef decides it is.

Having worked at a kitchen of sorts (shrimp bar - all seafood - I couldn't eat shrimp or tilapia for ages because of that place), I know how easy it is for cooks and chefs to get overwhelmed quickly, and the head chef in that position needs to know that the others will do their jobs and do it well. That's not the time to get cute or creative. The only creativity needed, when you're in the weeds, is finding the creativity to get out of the weeds.

So, obviously, Chiarello needed to know who had the basic cooking skills, who could (pun intended) cut it.

As I said before, could he have found a better way to come about this? Oh, absolutely. But I can't fault him for wanting to have complete control over HIS dishes; and needing to work with sous chefs who'd do what he says.

On another note, the more I watched the episode, the more I found I didn't like about it. In Season 4, I put up with Spike. Here, he seemed unusually arrogant.

Dale seemed chippier than usual - if what Chiarello said was right (that Dale was ignoring him), then Dale shouldn't have exploded the way he did. And worst of all, Blais seemed smug and judgmental. I couldn't help but feel like his (well-deserved) success got to his head. Some of the things he said were so un-Blais like, and so far removed from the humble wunderkind we all loved in S4.

And there were one too many curveballs thrown at the Masters:
1. They had 2 minutes per person for their "interviews."
2. They had 30 minutes to plan a menu for TWO HUNDRED people.
3. When they started working on the second day, they were told they had to relocate.
4. They found out, an hour before service, that they'd be serving their food in direct 90 degree sunlight.
5. They had to cut a member from their team.

I don't know. I felt uncomfortable watching them go through all of that. This was an uncomfortable episode to watch.

Still, I'm looking forward to the finale. I'm predicting Hubert will take it all.

[jse91]

This episode was way lame after the good work we have seen up to know. I agree with most of what has been said [including Blais getting a bit above his raisin'].

I see little difference between Bayless asking if they had been to Mexico and Chiarello asking to see knife skills. You had to figure out a way to discern quickly who could bring what to the table. No body refused to say if they had been to Mexico. If you have good knife skills, show me.

For me Dale and Spike were just competing to see who was the best douche.

But the most delusion person there had to be Betty: "We are all accomplished chefs" - right Betty, you and Blais are two of a pair! Why would they bring her back!

Full Disclosure: I have to fess up that I actually like quite a few shows on FN and Chiarello's is one of them. Some of his stuff is ridiculously easy and simple, yes - but sometimes easy and simple is magnificent. [Chocolate and Walnut Bread Panini]

[SorchaRei]

Just thought I'd post a link here. Rick Bayless is having a contest on his TCM site where you can win one of three invitations to his TCM Finale Viewing Party by concocting a haiku about the show thst makes him laugh.

http://www.root4rick.com/?p=136

[SorchaRei]

Now about the show . . . I see reality TV as sitting along a continuum. At one end is "throw people together and get drama", epitomized by Big Brother, where there is basically nothing going on other than people living together in isolation and being put in situations that encourage drama.

At the other end is pure documentary, something like Bourdain's video "Decoding Ferran Adria". Shows like Top Chef and Project Runway are somewhere in the middle. There's actual content (people doing stuff they care about and have real skills in) and there's what happens when you put these people in an isolated living situation and subject them to the stress of the competition, isolation, and any farm housing.

Top Chef Masters fits somewhere in between the TC and PR shows and the pure cooking documentary. There is a competition, and for the finale, the chefs are (by their own reports) not getting enough sleep. But it's mostly a food competition, not a personal drama show. When Dale did his thing on this episode, I hated it, and realized that I watch TC in spite of the drama, because I like the food and the competition.

However, I've heard and read plenty of comments from people that TCM is "boring" because there is essentially no drama between the contestants. I suspect that its audience tends to skew towards the real food nerds, and that the people who "need" drama to keep their interest in a cooking contest haven't stuck with this. I like to hope that people who don't care for drama have replaced them in the viewing audience, but I don't have any way of knowing.

For me, however, this was one of the least successful episodes of this series, simply because of the drama. I personally feel that the challenge would have been fine had they been told about the outdoor serving situation from the get-go. The removal of one sous partway through was enough of a twist. (And the added twist Rick Bayless mentions at his site where they had to make 100 extra canapes with stuff they ahd already bought -- he says it was so easy for everyone that the show just edited it out.)

I can live with a bit of drama in regular TC, although it's far from my favorite part. But this show is so dear to me partly because for the most part, the producers eschewed all that and just made it about the food and the challenges.

I'm hoping that the final show will go back to what I loved so much about this summer series: watching three incredible chefs cook incredible food under quite artificial conditions. And if they bake cookies together during judging, all the better.

[aaalex]

i guess everyone has pretty much had their say about this episode and i can only echo sorcharei's comments: the drama here was disappointing, not because drama is, per se, hard to take, but because top chef masters was a kind of oasis of camaraderie and friendship. i like it, in regular top chef, when they show the contestants relaxing and having fun together, but on tc masters you got the feeling of a deep respect that is based on the evident love for food that the chefs all share and common experience. (one of the best moments of the evening, for me, was at judges table when they cut away to the chefs and chiarello asked keller how he came up with the idea of using nutmeg with beets. keller's answer: "i had a smoke last night". hmmm ... marijuana as a chef's kitchen helper. seems right, somehow.)

this show had a number of peculiarities. first, it used richard blais in the worst way. i mean, the editors made blais look petty, insecure and mean-spirited in a way he never looked on season 4. his negative comments about chiarello made HIM look worse than chiarello. (describing chiarello's table as looking awful, like "a wedding from 1987" was incredibly petty (given the circumstances)and, again, said more about him than chiarello) however put off blais might have been by chiarello's attitude (an attitude chiarello defended very well in the interview posted on the bravo site), he should probably have kept his comments to himself, rather than arm the tc editors.

second, this show was edited to within an inch of its life to make chiarello seem a tyrant and an unsuccessful one at that. the editors made full use of blais' negative comments, played up dale talde's confrontational stupidity, and highlighted the judges' negative comments about chiarello's food. looking at matters a bit more objectively, though, chiarello didn't do that badly. the diners gave his food 3.5 stars (same as keller), gael greene and jay rayner gave his food 4 stars (only .5 stars less than rayner gave bayless). the only critic who went to town on chiarello was oseland who, obviously, never got over his bad shrimp. chiarello's food was clearly better than the editing made it out to be. all in all, it seems the tc editors felt they'd struck gold with chiarello's intial attitude and they rode that, making chiarello and his food out to be less than they were. lo suggested as much in her interview when she defended chiarello.

in a way, this show was a foretaste of top chef season 6. i'm hoping against hope that, this seaon, tc 6 will be all about the food. as dominic's rankings indicate, there's much talent here. i'm praying there are (personality-wise) no lisas, bettys or ilans on offer.

just one more thought, after watching this show and season four for a second time: i wonder if jamie (she of the endless scallops) isn't the single most overrated chef in all five seasons so far. she wasn't a terrible cook, but her attitude was dark and unhelpful and, on this episode of tc masters, she didn't help anita lo much at all. (how telling was it that lo, who was initially so pleased to have her, cut her before the end.) this all could be due to the editors trying to drum up drama, but after watching this episode of tc masters, i wonder if jamie didn't get let go (on season 5) at just about the right time, give or take a jeff...

[Dave F]

Richard Blais just posted a wonderful entry about his pov about this episode, focusing mostly on Bayless's technique:
http://richardblaisblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/ashes-to-asses.html

[aaalex]

dave f: thanks very for the link to blais' blog. he comes across much better there, of course, than he did on the show. on tc masters there was no humour, at least that i could detect, in his comments on chiarello and it didn't seem he was at all thoughtful.

blais mentions that ALL the chefs "talk smack" in the interview rooms. so, of course, it's tc editing that creates our sense of stefan as "difficult" while stephanie is a "good person". blais also hints at a kind of frustration at the "richard blais" - loveable loser, thoughtful, spontaneously kind - who is beloved of top chef fans. was he, maybe, trying to get away from that image by insulting chiarello?

in his blog entry, his admiration for bayless comes through (as bayless' admiration for him did on the episode). the interesting thing, though, is his insistence that bayless is completely in control, a bad ass, that all chefs can be a-holes, including himself, bayless, keller and chiarello. (if he had said words to that affect during his tc masters interview, he would have come across as much more honest and sympathetic.)

some of the questions i was left with, after reading his blog: "well, what impressions DO the chefs want to leave?" is it equally good to be despised, as lisa is, or admired, as stephanie is? is the goal of a top chef appearance to leave ANY vivid impression on the audience? how much does being admired translate into "good" attention? ie. genuine interest in your food or reataurant. how difficult does audience dislike make it for you afterwards?

(richard, if you read this: maybe you could say why you actually decided to do top chef and what it has meant since. why, for instance, do you go back to the show? affection for the concept or respect for the producers?)

[Julie]

I'm a long-time lurker to this blog but have only commented once. I'm posting now in response to a question posed by someone, I apologize because I can't remember whom, about who the audience for TC and TCM is. I've watched TC from day one and have loved it. I started watching for two reasons; I enjoy the competition aspect of it, especially as I am not the best of cooks and secondly, to learn more about food. I grew up in a home where my mother cooked because she had too. I was an adult before I realized that steak did not have to be broiled to the consistency of a hockey puck and that vegetables could be cooked fresh on days other than Thanksgiving. I love my mother beyond words but she hates to cook and gave it up as soon as we were all teenagers and seldom home at suppertime.

I understand that many posters here don't care for the Food Network and I understand why. However, for someone like me, it's been great. The hated Rachael Ray's of the "food nerd" world have been a big help to me. I've learned alot from her and Ina Garten because they cook simple things, explain the techniques simply and offer alternative ingredients. There was a time when I would turn to a cookbook to cook a recipe and if I didn't have one of the ingredients, I would either rush to the store to find it or not finish at all. Now, I find a way around whatever I'm missing.

While I will probably never make anything presented on TC, I love watching to see how the chefs handle the challenges and the creativity they use to get past whatever obstacle is put in their path. I've learned that true chefs are really artists at heart and I find the angst they sometimes express really interesting. The drama can be fun sometimes but I'd really rather "watch what happens" and listen to the judges than listening to them call each other names.

I LOVE Top Chef Masters precisely because there has been almost no drama. I've been so impressed by the comradarie and respect each has shown to the others. It's made me want to learn more about each of them.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the eye-opening posts you guys put here. I really have learned alot just by reading your opinions.

[gilmore]

Prediction:
1. Michael Chiarello (I think last weeks edit set him up for this weeks "surprise" winner
2. Rick Bayless (always seems to come in second on the elimination challenges)
3. Hubert Keller (just because there has to be a third)

There could be a tie for second place between Rick and Hubert.

I do not think the producers force the critics to change their votes, but they manipulate the guest judges combined scores (there is no way any of them would know as their vote is a compilation of many votes) to slot the chefs.

P.S. I have not seen or heard any conjecture, rumor, etc. on who won. Just my opinion and conspiracy theory here.

[Stephen]

" 'If that was the case, then why aren't the winners of Fox's Hell's Kitchen venerated as culinary gods?'

I'm not saying you're wrong, but employing an unbelievably flawed analogy is not the most convincing way to get your point across. "

I believe he was going for hyperbole...