Top Chef - S6E3 Postmortem

"Pasta salad? Ohhhh, boy."
"Why 'oh boy'?"
"Nobody's impressed by pasta salad."

Especially when it's farfalle with broccoli, artichokes and sun-dried tomatoes. The centerpiece of every family picnic and pot luck meal you've ever been to. Oy.

So, Preeti's inability to grasp her mediocrity gets her the axe and we lose another bottom-of-the-rankings cheftestant (No, I do not expect this streak to continue). And Michael I. is a lucky, lucky man.

Speaking of which, how cool was that? I'm trying to decide whether to give him both a top AND a bottom on Monday, or treat it as though the bottom supplants the top. Well... not really trying to decide. But it's a fun question for a Top Chef first, anyway.

Meanwhile, Michael V. and Jennifer rock. *yawn*

Actually, the most impressive part of Jennifer's week was kicking ass and taking names in the kitchen. Freaking sweet.

And I have to say, for an episode that I was convinced was going to be one of those survival train wreck episodes, was that not a really impressive performance by the entire cast? I mean, seriously. No freaking out, no epic disasters... everybody just got it done, and for the most part they did it well. This season is seriously a joy to watch. They can't even flounder when they're supposed to.

Gotta get ready for a trip tomorrow... I'll save the rest for Monday.

Discuss!

Comments

[garik16]

Gotta say, Jennifer's Executive Chef performance was responsible for the no disasters that you're impressed by. Normally there's some issue regarding who's using what, but she had EVERYONE under control.

Meanwhile i got the feeling that Mike I didn't consult Jen on making a second dish, especially considering her thoughts on a second dish last episode....and look where that got him.

(ALSO: read Blais' blog for more Mike I vs Jen hilariousness.)

I think Jen should be atop of the power rankings at this point:

I think I'd go:

Jen
Mike V.
Kevin.
Brian V.
Eli.

With 1-3 being interchangable really and 4-5 being the same to me.

[Mann of Sandd]

Loved the episode, and holy cow, was judges table brutal (but fair). I was enthralled from beginning to end, and I thought the group did an impressive job, and I can't imagine how emotional it would have felt to be applauded by all those servicemen. It seemed like a truly special moment.

[anon man]

I love pasta salad. When its hot, I think I've thrown a dish that's very similar together and called it lunch. But, I'm a lawyer, not a chef...

The Michael I thing was funny. Did he not ever say in the bottom table "Yeah, that dish sucked but I helped on the winning dish, so its not like I just made half a crappy pasta salad". Because, that's what I would have said if I were him.

People who went up in my view: Ash and Mattin (for the shout out from Brian as being a good cook). People who went down: Michael I.

Worried about the teaser for next week: The elimination-quickfire? Oy. Could be a train wreck. As an example, Eli was in the bottom this week. He could have been history.

[dan_boston]

I think they should have awarded extra chips for the chef who managed to best showcase how incredibly, incredibly honored they were, or who could use the word 'hero' most.

Stay tuned next week as a very special episode of Top Chef visits a children's burn ward where Michael turns the collected tears of the remaining Top Chef's into a lovely stock.

Jennifer continues to impress. She's doesn't seem like the most pleasant person in the world, but I'm sure if Lisa had posessed half her talent, we would have loved her too.

Actually, both she and the brothers seem remarkably intense - almost grim. The food they are putting out looks fantastic, so I guess that's paying off.

The saddest moment of the episode was when Preeti and partner were asked if they wanted to win...I mean at this point, they already know they aren't going to win. Right now, folks aren't competing for the top, they are competing for the middle while the top competitors are given opportunities for wild-card screw ups.

[Independent George]

Does anybody else think that Jenn belonged at Judges Table for her performance as Executive Chef? The toughest part of every catering challenge is logistics - and they nailed it, in no small part due to her. I have no problems with Michael V. winning, but I thought she deserved more recognition from the judges. When you consider some of the Executive Chef disasters from previous seasons, combined with the degree of difficulty due to equipment rationing, I was absolutely blown away.

I'm wondering if we should put together an unofficial list of rules for winning Top Chef. I distinctly remember another chef from a previous season proclaiming explicitly, "I'm not going to win with pasta salad." (perhaps Nikki?). Michael I. and Ashley both broke the "Don't half-ass an extra dish if you don't have to" rule, and faced elimination for it.

[Independent George]

On second thought, if Kevin & Eli's potato salad was good enough to get them to Judges Table, then who's to say a really good pasta salad couldn't do the same.

[Skillet Doux]

"Does anybody else think that Jenn belonged at Judges Table for her performance as Executive Chef?

My thought exactly. Too bad the judges didn't see it until tonight.

"On second thought, if Kevin & Eli's potato salad was good enough to get them to Judges Table, then who's to say a really good pasta salad couldn't do the same."

They're different. I'm trying to put my finger on precisely why, but they just are.

(I'm sure somebody could put together some impressive, creative pasta salad... but let's just say that's a steep hill to climb.)

[Bart]

1. Just when I thought I couldn't love Jen any more, she goes ahead and steps up another notch on the ladder. She could get eliminated next week on a fluke through the quickfire, but she's made a HUGE impact this season.

2. WOW were the judges snippy or what?!

I mean, I get that the chefs need to defend their dishes, but they (Padma and Tom, in particular) just seemed unusually harsh. Wonder if they had diarrhea or something before judge's table.

[canasian]

I think Michael I. should get a bottom score, since that was the one he earned. The top slot was on MIke V's coattails.

Most impressive part of the episode for me was Ash's quickfire performance. All future reality competition participants should not be allowed to go on television without viewing this perfect example of how to, with less than three minutes left, effortlessly course correct when equipment doesn't work right, and then put on the poker face for the judges and pretend everything went according to plan. From my perspective, that officially pulls him out of the undistinguished middle and plants him just below the contenders, along with Eli and Ashley.

[dan_boston]

I'd bet Padma would look cool and collected, and maintain the same composure and gravitas throughout any and all intestinal distress.

[Independent George]

They're different. I'm trying to put my finger on precisely why, but they just are.

I think it comes down to the preparation of potatoes vs. the preparation of pasta - there's a lot more that can go wrong - and right - with the preparation of potatoes than with pasta. Once you get past the supermarket generic stuff, dry pasta is basically a blank canvas to paint on; it doesn't add much to the dish itself. You boil it in a lot of water, then add oil, seasonings, and veg. I'm sure it's theoretically possible to create something new (I keep thinking of your review of the fish noodles at Grace Garden... that would be an interesting variation for a pasta salad), but the options are by nature rather limited.

Potatoes, on the other hand, have both a lot of varieties (as demonstrated by this week's EC), and there's a heck of a lot of different ways to prepare them. Besides different natural flavors and textures, there's a lot of different ways to infuse other flavors into them, or the change their textures during preparation. There are also more substitutes available (I once had a great 'potato' salad made with taro root).

[Caulder]

...."On second thought, if Kevin & Eli's potato salad was good enough to get them to Judges Table, then who's to say a really good pasta salad couldn't do the same."

....They're different. I'm trying to put my finger on precisely why, but they just are.

I think they're different because almost anyone on earth could look at that pasta salad and know how to make it and predict what it was going to taste like. If you've ever been roped into a PTA type meeting/pot luck, that pasta salad would be something you'd make if you were too embarrassed to bring napkins but too busy to make cookies.

[Independent George]

It was omitted from her bio, but Jenn's real name is Norris; she changed it for the show so the other contestants wouldn't die of fright. Salmon swim upstream to find her. She boils water by staring at it.

[Ally]

IMO, because potatoes absorb flavors even when cold, and sauces cling to them, they make a great cold dish, with mayonaise or vinegar. Love it.

On the other hand, cold sauces just slide off of pasta. Unless its mayo-based, but mayonaise and pasta don't really taste good together (again, IMO). To be honest, I've never eaten a great pasta salad. They're bland! A puzzling choice.

[JH]

...."On second thought, if Kevin & Eli's potato salad was good enough to get them to Judges Table, then who's to say a really good pasta salad couldn't do the same."

Kevin and Eli also had a braised pork shoulder, so they had two great dishes that worked well together versus a mediocre pasta salad.

[SorchaRei]

I've eaten a great pasta salad. It was made by a chef who recognized that the problem with pasta salad is that the pasta doesn't soak up any flavors, so he cooked the flavors in. There were actually two different great pasta salads from that chef.

One used homemade pasta with herbs in it, cut and then dried before cooking and dressing. The other was made with orzo that was cooked in a strong curry broth. Somehow the store bought orzo soaked up the curry flavors. Dressed with mayo, tossed with crispy vegetabales, it was deeply flavorful. I'm pretty sure from looking at the orzo in the salad I ate that it was toasted before cooking, too, as it had a golden brown sheen in addition to the yellow from the turmeric in the curry mixture.

In both cases, the flavor was deeply developed within the pasta, not just around it. And you know what? I think that's exactly the difference between those two salads and the usual pasta salad. Like potato salad, great pasta salad has flavors infused in the pasta/potatoes.

Okay, note to self: find out where that chef is cooking these days and go get more pasta salad.

As to the show itself, Jen was impressive as anything in her role in the kitchen, and Tom recognizes it in his blog:

The decision to place Jennifer in the role of Executive Chef was a smart one, and she played the role expertly. In past seasons, the contestants who stepped into that role for various challenges never really fully inhabited the position, but Jennifer did, and the other chefs saw that she handled her responsibilities fairly and strongly, with professionalism and without ego. They realized that they were being well managed, and they never questioned her authority. Jennifer was concerned about ensuring that every chef create the best dish possible and she kept the kitchen running smoothly and well. For example, she was not unduly harsh with Hector when she reminded him to stay focused: other chefs awaited their turn with the equipment he was using, and she needed to keep him on schedule. She did a great job.

The top of this field is crazy strong. It seems like the show has reached some kind of gravitas among the chef community, so that people farther along in their professions are willing to come on it. That's great for us, but it does mean that it's not any longer a career accelerator for people early in their careers.

[JH]

After watching this, imagine Jen C. if she makes it to restaurant wars...and I think Mike V. is the only other person that could have kept the kitchen running as smoothly as she did.

[Azdahf]

I've had some great cold noodle dishes, so I'm not sure I buy that a great pasta salad is impossible. Although I'll admit I've never had one.

But are they that different? If the pickle brothers had served just potato salad they would have been making the same mistake that Laurine/Preeti made: deciding to make a dish certain not to win. As Blaise teaches, no one wins with salad.

Of course they never would have done that, instead pairing a 'classic' potato salad with a really tasty looking pulled pork and turning it into a statement about Southern Cuisine. Plus important info got revealed: Kevin's from a bbq family! Don't forget, that turned out to be Bayless's secret weapon.

[ddg]

This episode exceeded all expectations, I was actually really surprised they put Mike/Mike for the tops considering they had the dish that won and the dish that almost lost... usually when that happens they just get stuck in the middle, unfortunate for Kevin.

Looks like your streak is gonna have to be correct at 13 and 14 next week with maybe 2 eliminations?

I think this week Mike V and Jen have separated themselves as the top 2.

1-2: Mike V./Jen
3: Kevin
4-5: Bryan/Eli
6: Hector

[Chris W]

Dom said: "potato salad and pasta salad are just different...but I don't know why" (I paraphrase)

There's a number of reasons why I agree with this statement, but the best reasons, imo are

a.) Potato salad is a bigger risk since it's kind of a "lowbrow" food as opposed to a "vegetarian option pasta salad". The former seems designed to push the expectations and appeal to the judge's "comfort food zone" DESPITE the dish's reputation whereas the latter seems designed to coast by

b.) The potato salad was a brilliant side to a featured protein whereas the pasta salad was the extent of the dish. Actually, WAS there any protein in that pasta salad? Not that there needed to be...but....

[Lou_NJ]

Since his early display of talent has Mike I. done anything more than comment on other chefs - but he is getting lots of air time for his commentary. Early on he looked promising but now he just lobs insults or seemingly plays the "just survive till next round" game.

[Shelly]

Pasta in pasta salad picks up flavor while it's hot. Either cook it in a strong stock etc, or dress it with a strong spicy dressing while it's hot, then cool it before mixing it with the other ingredients. Most pasta salad fails because the cooks ignore this, think of the pasta as a filler, and dress the salad while it's cold. Cook's Illustrated dealt with this.

I really thought Jen deserved some honors for pulling them together and making it work. But too, Mike I had the idea in the first place to split everyone up the way they did, and that was part of the success as well. I hope he mentioned that.

Next week's previews worry me, because it makes me think shenanigans will be pulled at a later time. I hope not.

[Perry]

I think Michael I. should be credited with being at the bottom. I got the impression that the judges brought both Michaels out to see if they could find out who completed which part of the dishes. Michael I. sunk himself when he told the judges that the pork was Michael V. baby.

Michael I. reminds me of the baseball player that doesn’t run out ground balls. He has talent but he seems to believe he can take the night off.

Last night Jesses over seasoned her soup. She knows her ass is against the wall yet she keeps making silly mistakes over and over. I swear I had flashbacks of Dale Talde talking about making a soup during season four. He would add seasoning then taste the soup, add more seasoning, the taste again until the soup was perfect.

My stab at the rankings.
1 Michael V & Jen
3 Kevin
4 Bryan
5 Eli
6 Ashley
7 Michael I
8 Hector
9 Ash
10 Ron
11 Mattin
12 Robin
13 Laurine
14 Jesse

[Perry]

I think Michael I. should be credited with being at the bottom. I got the impression that the judges brought both Michaels out to see if they could find out who completed which part of the dishes. Michael I. sunk himself when he told the judges that the pork was Michael V. baby.

Michael I. reminds me of the baseball player that doesn’t run out ground balls. He has talent but he seems to believe he can take the night off.

Last night Jesses over seasoned her soup. She knows her ass is against the wall yet she keeps making silly mistakes over and over. I swear I had flashbacks of Dale Talde talking about making a soup during season four. He would add seasoning then taste the soup, add more seasoning, the taste again until the soup was perfect.

My stab at the rankings.
1 Michael V & Jen
3 Kevin
4 Bryan
5 Eli
6 Ashley
7 Michael I
8 Hector
9 Ash
10 Ron
11 Mattin
12 Robin
13 Laurine
14 Jesse

[Esther]

God, I love Jennifer. I'd just be less scared for her if I'd seen her cook one non-seafood dish. It would be such a shame for her to sink because they get a beef challenge.

I want to think that this is just a conspiracy theory + my deep dislike of Mike I., but I really wonder whether his scheme for organizing the kitchen was a deliberate maneuver to keep Jennifer out of the runnings for winning the Elimination Challenge. To my recollection, no contestant has ever won in RW without cooking a single dish -- and Jennifer showed that you can do an unbelievably good job as head chef and still get no recognition. His suggestion was plausible/reasonable enough that people would accept it, but designed to stop her from keeping the judging spotlight again.

Also, should I be looking for any deeper meaning than "Mike's an ass" for his comment about favoritism with Jennifer? I mean, have either he or she worked with the guest judge before?

[kit]

Perry says: "I swear I had flashbacks of Dale Talde talking about making a soup during season four. He would add seasoning then taste the soup, add more seasoning, the taste again until the soup was perfect."

Hmm...I thought that was Spike who said that? (The Spike who got into a huge fight with his team over whether they should make soup, then made a fab soup in a later challenge.)

[Esther]

Quick addendum: Blais, in his blog, agrees with a somewhat milder form of my "conspiracy theory":

Let’s ask the "girl cook" to take on an archaic title that can best be described as a substitute teacher. Classically, it refers to a cook who works all the stations in other cooks’ absence. A position of skill, sure, but not really of certified rank. A position that may be the proverbial glass ceiling for a woman in Mr. Isabella’s mind.

Yeah. That. At best, it displays disdain for her abilities; at worst, it's a deliberate ploy to keep her out of the winners.

[Skillet Doux]

"Also, should I be looking for any deeper meaning than "Mike's an ass" for his comment about favoritism with Jennifer? I mean, have either he or she worked with the guest judge before?"

Yeah, I was a bit puzzled by that comment as well. Jennifer's East Coast and Mark Peel is West Coast, so it seems unlikely that they've crossed paths. I'll look into it for Monday. But my guess is that Mike was just being an ass.

[Brent]

Let's pause for a moment and consider what this episode would have been like if the challenge had been handled by the Season 5 cast.

***Shudder***

Oh my god! Don't ever let me do that again!!

[jw]

I seem to remember that when Padma brought Mark Peel around to judge the QF Jen's response was a "Nice to meet you" not a "How have you been since I last worked with you" sort of response.

I think it's just that Mike I is an ass.

[Independent George]

I think we might be reading a bit too much into the 'favoritism' comments. That clip was just so abrupt - it looked & sounded lot like they cut into his interview mid-sentence. We have no idea what the context of that statement was - I think his tongue was planted firmly in cheek when he said it. I suspect that this is just another case of the infamous villain edit. Maybe he really is an asshat, but until I hear it from the other contestants, I'm calling shenanigans on the part of the editors. Shenanigans!

[Anne]

I think Jennifer just gave permission for every future executive chef on this show to be more of a hardass, and that is only going to be a positive thing.

I swear, I think Mike I is kidding with half the stuff he says--he's just throwing out obnoxious stuff for shits and giggles.

[Independent George]

The other thing to remember is, we never hear the actual questions during the interviews. The question immediately before Michael I.'s infamous 'beaten by a girl' comment could very well have been, "How would it have felt to be beaten by a girl?". We only hear the carefully selected bits of one side of a conversation; there's a lot of room for chicanery there.

[Skillet Doux]

Oh, when I say my guess is that Mike was just being an ass, I think you're right, he probably has his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.

But the two aren't mutually exclusive :-)

[forthrightfattie]

Could Mike I. have been referring to her position as Eric Ripert's executive chef? As in, she won because of her connections? Not that I would agree, and not that Peel would necessarily have known that. I think he's just been cranky ever since he found out she's not a pastry chef.

[paula]

Man, that episode kicked ass! I kept flashing back to the Foo Fighters challenge from last year and was floored by how spectacular this crew of chefs is in comparison. Also, I have a major girl crush on Jen now. Without question, her leadership helped every chef shine, as she curated the entire menu (she chose which dish each team should cook based on what they came up with) and because they had to cook WITHOUT A STOVE and she kept the schedule running. Loving her. Please let her make a steak or pork or chicken in the next episode.

[Danny]

I'm trying to ignore the condescending way that Mike I gave his cooking lesson to "the viewers" but was he even right? You all have more cooking knowledge than I do but is it true that risotto means a cooking method and has nothing to with rice? If so, why do we never see Rice Risotto on a menu in the way that we do see Beef Carpaccio on a menu (thanks Dom for that great discussion)? And why have I never heard anyone, anywhere say, "I'm going to take this eggplant and risotto it?" Answers would be greatly appreciated.

[John Coctostan]

Is that you, Danny Gagnon?

[babyarm]

Yeah, I'm now of the opinion that Mike2 is trying to be funny, but his jokes are falling super flat under the edit they are giving him.

They are desperate for a villain and he may be the best they can come up with on the spot.

The Washington Post chats about TC are filled with hate for the guy so people are buying what the editors are selling.

[Danny]

Oops, one other thing. Today the LA Times reported that Ilan's LA Restaurant, Gorbals, has been temporarily shut down by the Health Department during the restaurant's opening weekend due to ongoing problems with the restaurant's boiler system. No re-opening date has been set and the restaurant plans on installing its own boiler system.

[Dave_P]

There goes Dom saying making all the pithy observations I meant to make... again. :)

Yeah, pasta salad is the kiss of death on this show. As soon as they started up that road, I knew one of them was going home. Preeti's not "getting it" again seemed to put her over the edge.

Jen totally should've been up in the top judge's table. If you're going to have an exec. chef role (and they often do in team challenges, though some are more formal than this one), the judges have to see more of what occurs in the kitchen before tasting the food to see how well the kitchen was organized.

Re Mike I vs Jen, I thought they were friends, or at least knew each other fairly well prior to this? I thought he was just sorta busting her chops. Again, this doesn't preclude him also being an ass...

BTW, as a former Army cook, I've worked in that situation before and the ingredients you have to work can be very limiting. One observation is that you tend to get better stuff as you go south--the kitchens in San Antonio (Sam Houston) were far better stocked than say Ft Knox, KY. Not sure how a Nevada airbase fares, but if they're home to someone prestigious like the Thunderbirds, odds are they're better off than most. In any case, that was just an amazing spread they put together. The slab of bacon-as-braised pork belly was brilliant.

My top 4 is the same as pretty much everyone else (Jen, Kev, the V's) and then a pretty big gap, but Ashley and Ash are at least making some movement out of the pack, as are Eli and maybe Hector. Utterly unimpressed by Jesse, Robin, or Laurine. Jesse especially seems to be very prone to execution errors. Doubt she lasts more than a week or two.

--
Dave

[Independent George]

I'm not too familiar with the kitchen culture, but is it possible that Eric Ripert is at this very moment drunk-dialing Hubert Keller and Daniel Boloud, going, "My EC can kick your EC's ass!"?

Does this also mean that Ripert won't be guest-judging this season?

[kit]

Found this tidbit in an interview [1] with Mike I. before the season began:

CS: When you found out you were going to be competing, did you reach out to anyone for advice?

MI: I talked with Spike and Marcel [Vigneron, a competitor from Season 2], but neither one of them told me much. They didn’t want to give too much away.

Mike I. is friends with Spike and Marcel? The only thing I find shocking here is that he is also not BFF with Lisa. :)

Elsewhere [2], I've seen him "defend" his sexist comment in the 1st episode as his attempt at humor/sarcasm. And trot out the usual "but I have so many friends who are ____" excuse (pointing to the number of female chefs in his kitchen). So yah, I think alot of his obnoxious yapping is his attempt at humor, but like Dom says, that doesn't mean he's not an ass.

[1] http://capitalspice.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/top-chef-countdown-our-interview-with-chef-mike-isabella-of-zaytinya/

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/19/DI2009081902382.html

[paula]

I actually think Robin looks pretty good. She hasn't gotten much air time, but several of the dishes she's made have looked pretty impressive to me and like something I'd like to try. I think she may be a sleeper.

Another thing I'm jazzed about: The Voltaggio brothers, so far, are just fantastic to watch. The way they've balanced professionalism, mutual admiration AND sibling rivalry is so impressive. And they're both so talented. Did you see Michael V.'s Q&A on Bravo's site today? He thinks he and Michael I. both should have been judged for that salad.

[Independent George]

DaveP - I've also heard it said (or, rather, grumbled) that the Air Force as a whole got much better amenities than the other services. Is there any truth to that, or is that just regular inter-service trash talk?

[Julie]

I LOVED this entire episode! I've watched TC since it started but as a non-foodie and someone who's never worked in a restaurant, I'm completely ignorant about the day to day operations of a fine dining restaurant. I learned alot during this episode, especially the importance of a good executive chef. In seasons past, the EC always seemed to end up on the chopping block. While I understood why, now it's clear what they were doing wrong. As Blais wrote in his blog, a kitchen is really like a military operation.

As far as the pasta salad.....even I knew one of them would be going home for it. Pasta salad is one of the few things I can make blindfolded so it's pathetic that someone competing for Top Chef would think it was an appropriate dish for a competition. IMO, of course.

[Megan H.]

Raise your hand if you're already tired of the sibling rivalry angle.

*raises hand*

I understand this is something the editors have been salivating over, but when the first shot they show after Mike V's win is of his' brother's face....come on. They seem to have a very healthy, respectful rivalry...no need to make it seem more than it is.

Put me on the list of people who think Mike I deserves a check in the bottom column.

Someone mentioned the lack of protein in the pasta salad - I also wondered if the "nutrition" piece was going to come into play. Obviously, military folk probably need a good deal of protein in their day, and if there were any vegetarians there they were out of luck. (Perhaps the peanut butter sauce on the bread pudding could get them trough?) Also makes me wonder if a vegetarian would make it in the military....

[Megan H.]

er...."trough" = "through" Curse these fat fingers!

[Bill]

Interesting that the Desert Chowder didn't come under more scrutiny when the clips implied that it would.
When I was in the Navy in the early 80's and stationed in Antarctica the clam chowder on Fridays in the galley was the one thing that brought out the masses. I guess service people have a thing for chowder. Of course the weather conditions were very different.
I agreed with Gail's comment that it isn't necessarily the heat, as everyone liked the chili, but the cream that is less than desirable on a hot day.
If that chowder hadn't been above average I think they would have been battling with pasta salad for survival.

[anon man]

Re Mike I. I give him credit for being the guy (at least from the footage) who said "Jen, you're exempt, you direct; we'll cook for our lives." And the fact that they all agreed to that is encouraging for the maturity of this group. That said, he might be getting the asshole edit. Its been pretty consistent, so I'm guessing he sticks around awhile to be that ass. Otherwise, they could have grabbed comments from Eli or whomever and ripped them out of context and made them the ass. The editing effect this season is kind of clear. Remember last week our discussion on that social isse? It got a lot of airtime. This week's potential social issue (war/troops/etc.) got about .5 seconds (from Ash) of commentary. You know there was a longer discussion than that in the stew room.

re Pasta salad/potato salad. Dom: Yes, there are more accepted high end potato salads out there and a lot more traditional options. (vinegar, bacon, southern, veggies, skins on or off, sour cream, etc., etc. Pasta salad doesn't have the real basis in traditional Italian cooking that Potato salad goes in say German cooking, but you could make it interesting. That salad, as I noted last night, as did you, was as basic a Ladies Home Journal recipe as you will find. Maybe some shrimp or salmon or more interesting vegetable choice, or maybe an ethnic flair (Middle Eastern, Indian, Asian all come to mind immediately), something to make it interesting. Traditional is ok, boring is not. (A tenderloin carving station and Gratin aren't exactly novel either, but it not necessarily boring.)

[TonyH]

As for the concern that Jen may crash & burn when it comes to cooking something other than seafood, the menu at 10 Arts has plenty of non-seafood dishes, so I think she'll excel there as well. I'm sure she's very strong at seafood from her time at Le Bernadin, so she'd probably going to her strengths in the beginning to establish herself. Wouldn't you do the same?

I'm LOVING the high level of cooking right out of the shoot this season!

[Lon]

Wow, Wow and quadruple wow. I second the comments that the show exceeded expectations. Based on past shows where mass meals were prepped under less than stellar conditions, this one could have gone very wrong. I too was puzzled that Jen wasn't brought into the winners group, or at least something said by the judges during the show about her performance. But then, they may not have known totally about it. Remember that the judges really don't see what's happening until they start eating.

Considering the setting and the excellent performances, I think I would be pretty grumpy as a judge when it came to the three chefs in the bottom group. Judge Tom was simply astounded by some of the dishes, the first time I've ever seen him that surprised/impressed. When everything else is superb, harshness for the losers is to be expected.

As for the pasta dish, I second the notion of infusing the flavor as part of the cooking process. My mother used to mix her sauce and seasonings with the pasta while it cooked and now I understand why I loved her spaghetti so much better than I like it when the sauce is added afterwards as is the common style. Pasta by itself has very little taste.

Remember as well, even though the event was inside a hanger, it probably was still pretty hot, especially with video lighting. Heat can suck the niceness out of people.

All in all, another excellent show. While I look forward to the final four or five shows, I don't envy the judges trying to decide the winners in those last shows.

[Dave_P]

Independent George: I've never been on any non-army bases, but I'm sure those pansy fly boys have better food that we ever did. No, no inter-service bias, whatsoever! :p

Re Pasta Salad, really, you have to do something special with it to make it pop, esp for the TC judges who, like everyone else, have their biases. They like protein (read, meat). They like "well seasonsed" food (read, salt). They like heaps of flavors, and if you're going to do something "stale", like say a tuna tartare, you better load it with some good and maybe unusual flavors. A military kitchen is the last place I'd try to load up something potentially bland like a pasta salad w/enough flavors to wow that judging panel. A potato salad is easier to dress up, and easier still to pair w/some pulled pork to get some southern cooking love.

--
Dave

[paula]

TonyH: I don't think anyone expects Jen to "crash and burn" cooking another protein. There's no way she would have gotten as far as she did in her career on fish alone. Still, she's one JT away from getting the comment: "But can she break out of her comfort zone with fish?" And really, I'm eager for her to do so, with the secret hope that she'll blow everyone away with her dish, just to cement her awesomeness. (Jen "Norris" doesn't have to boil spaghetti; she just stares and it immediately goes limp.)

[Skillet Doux]

For the record, I don't mean to suggest for a second that I doubt Jennifer can handle non-fish. But in Colicchio, you have a judge who is especially sensitive about technical mastery of meats. I'm curious to see if she'll be AS strong with them.

[Independent George]

More Jennifer Norris facts:

Jennifer Norris doesn't use knives; she can butcher a moose with her fingernails.

Jennifer Norris doesn't cook with wine, because there's no whining in her kitchen. She squeezes grapes and they ferment out of fear.

Jennifer Norris doesn't buy eggs; she just glances at a chicken, and it lays an egg for her right then and there.

Why are truffles so rare? Because they're hiding from Jennifer Norris.

[Anne]

There's definitely more annoyance at Judge's table this year, because the top food is so good. There's a flavor of, "This is what you COULD be doing and you made me eat THIS????" I'm delighted they can expect the very best, and think eliminations are going to start getting very hard very soon.

[Dave]

Anyone notice that Padme called Mattin Stefan during the quickfire?

[Perry]

Kit said...

Hmm...I thought that was Spike who said that? (The Spike who got into a huge fight with his team over whether they should make soup, then made a fab soup in a later challenge.)

I think you are right about Spike. Must be dislike of Spike that I don't want to give him credit for anything.

[peterme]

I'm just sad we'll never get to hear Padma say "Preeti" with that oh-so-accurate Indian intonation again.

[Azdahf]

Anyone else notice that Ron called Mattin "Frenchy"? Yes, I laughed.

By the way, I liked what Ron did. Even though he admitted to "playing it safe", he made sure he played to his strengths. He basically said, "I make a great clam chowder, so I don't care if it's 90 degrees out, that's what we're making, and no we're not making it in a wok." This may have kept Jessie and him out of the bottom. Of course, if he takes this strategy next month when there aren't any really bad dishes he'll be gone, but this week it was a smart play.

[Azdahf]

How many episodes in do we have to be before it's appropriate to speculate if this is the best season of TC yet? Personally, I'm ready to do it now.

[Danielle]

Did anyone catch what Ashley did to cook the gnocchi once the water went down the drain?

Actually, WAS there any protein in that pasta salad? Not that there needed to be...but....

Didn't seem so to me or my fellow TV-watcher—thus making their "we need a vegetarian dish" excuse even more pathetic. At one point I turned to my friend and said "I think my mom made that pasta salad from the Silver Palate cookbook in 1983."

Speaking of, I couldn't get over how amateurish whatsername's soup seemed. An overly spicy sweet potato soup sounds like something I'd make... and I'm certainly not fit to be on TC.

[SinoSoul]

holy cow D, 62 comments.

Actually had Michael V's food at his "Hatchi" event a few weeks back. It was fun. There was too much nitrogen. There's way better out there.

Can only comment on actual food since I do not have cableTV.

[EdT.]

I don't know why a vegetarian *couldn't* make it in the military, personally (I seem to recall several when I was in, way back when.) Some might even have said that everyone was a vegetarian in the military, given that they didn't use real meat in their meatloaf :-)

Put me down as favoring a check for Michael I. in the "bottom" column. Also, I hope you give Jen a check in the "Top" column this week for the EC, Dom. She definitely earned it. In fact, her performance as Executive Chef was nothing short of phenomenal, as she didn't have the authority to compel the chefts to listen to her, so she had to be no-nonsense and *earn* their obedience. Also, when there was a bottleneck at one appliance, her ability to find ways around said bottleneck really helped them *all* out. I hope Eric Ripert is proud of her performance: he certainly *should* be.

One thing I noticed (and will pontificate on at greater length on my own blog) was that the chefts really didn't treat the EC like a competition, but got together *as a team* to serve one kick-ass meal to the troops. In that light, the decision of Laurine/Preeti to create a pasta salad (I think one of them said it "filled a niche") as a vegetarian alternative, as well as Laurine's admission at JT that she didn't really treat this EC as a competitive thing, makes sense.

~EdT.

[EdT.]

"More Jennifer Norris facts:"

Dom, I think we need a special post where people can contribute these. I personally am LOVING them!

~EdT.

[Dreamboat]

Laurine and Preeti mention that they wanted to do a vegetarian dish, which was one of their defenses of the dreaded pasta salad. Now compare what they created versus any of the dishes prepared on TCM for Zooey Deschanel in the vegan + no dairy + no gluten challenge.

‘Nuff said.

[Azdahf]

I can't help wondering if Jen may not have ended up looking as good as EC if she had been trying to herd the casts of some of the past seasons. I can't help wonder if, say, Spike or Stephen would have reacted as well as Hector did if she told them to shut up? But these guys are all too pro to let her rub them the wrong way. They all seemed to know that they needed her to have that power for them to all succeed.

[aaalex]

not to be argumentative, but i thought michael i. had a point and that he was justifiably angry to be on the bottom, however dull the shrimp turned out to be. (i would be very very happy if no one else even thought about using shrimp from here on in, but with top chef it seems like ideas circulate like measles among the chefs. last year: more scallops than you could shake a stick at.) the problem is one of consistency. though they didn't ask the chefs to team up, they invited both members of a team to judges' table, as if they were judging by teams. really, how long would it have taken to find out who handled what on the plates? five minutes? if the judges had wanted to treat this as an "every chef for his or her own self" proposition, they should have taken the five damned minutes to find out who exactly did what. instead, they bring the two winning teams to judges table, and THEN find out who did what. awkward. also, as michael v said: KNOWING that the chefs worked in pairs, it should have been acknowledged that each member of the pair had to sign off on the final decision. michael v signed off on michael i.'s shrimp disaster. presumably (as they were working in pairs) he tasted and approved michael i's contribution. he suggested as much in his interview. so, which is it? the chefs worked in pairs or they worked singly? the judges opted to treat it as singles but the reality was doubles. michael i got shafted by the decision. and he was right to be pissed. he should have gotten some credit for the bacon surprise.

michael i also seemed responsible for the single smartest decision made: to divide up into pairs (much easier than having everybody arguing for ingredients) AND to have the person with immunity take the EC role. brilliant. it's a surprise no one has thought of this before. with no stoves and competition for the resources available, it was a spectacularly good/lateral thinking decision to have jen as the EC. here again, the judges didn't keep up to the reality. jen was a magnificent executive chef and everybody got the time they needed at the resources. she most definitely should have been rewarded. last year, radikha was kicked off for being bad at front of house, a non-cooking function. fair decision, i thought. but a little consistency, please. jen should have been rewarded for being stunningly good in a non-cooking role. (to be honest, i think it was the judges, this week, who were the weakest element. the contestants were innovative, efficient, thoughtful and worked in unexpected ways. the judges simply didn't have the capacity to handle it.)

also, i don't get the way robin has been edited/treated. i think she's very talented. perhaps because hector is hispanic, he maybe gets credit (from some of the audience) for the three bean chili. but last week, robin did a duck mole that impressed gail very much. molés aren't easy and robin clearly has a handle on hispanic-based cuisine. if the chili was as good as everyone said it was - and it was called better of its kind than the clam chowder was of its - credit should go to her as much (maybe more, we don't know) as to hector.

also, re the hot food on a hot day thing: hector was absolutely right. a spicy chili on a hot day is perfection. ever notice that southern cuisines tends to be very spicy? hello? spicy dishes make you sweat and do cool you down. hot clam chowder, on the other hand ... not sure about that, but if it was good, its (physical) heat probably wouldn't bother me. (the troups loved it, so there you go ...)

i think, though i may be dead wrong, that jesse just isn't cut out for this competition. every week, she ruins her own ideas. she put too much cayenne in her soup? what did she do? put a bunch in and THEN taste? that's a really silly thing to do when every beginner knows you can add heat, but you can't take it away. she knows it too, but her nerves are clearly betraying her, here. she was lucky, in a way, to be paired with ron when he could make the thing that is his specialty. i like jesse, but i think she needs peace and quiet to bring out the best in her. not what she's going to get here, is it?

i'm with all those who loved this episode, but i think the judges let the contestants down.

[Brent]

Has Tom not done any kitchen walkthroughs yet this season? Had he done one in this episode, he would have seen Jen's EC performance, and might have figured out before judges table, at least in certain instances, who was responsible for what among the two-person cooperatives.

[Esther]

aaalex, you raise some good points. If I were at the judge's table, I might have taken the actual win away from Michael, just because he tasted that shrimp salad (presumably) and let it go out.

That said, Mike still produced a dish that should have been right in his comfort zone (fresh Mediterranean) but apparently had numerous, serious problems: too little salt, too little acid, raw and "unappealing" shrimp. A simple tossed salad may have been a throwaway dish, and I don't blame Mike for his simplicity -- he knew that it wasn't going to win the challenge, but assumed he'd be judged on the pork belly. Nonetheless, if you screw up a dish that simple on Top Chef -- "underseasoned to the point of being almost flavorless," Gail says in her blog -- I'm fine with you going home.

[aaalex]

brent: i know. a look around or a question here and there would have told tom c. exactly what was going on. it would have taken so little time for them to get a real sense of what was going on and who made what. the trouble is: this group is playing the game differently than in any other year. the contestants, this year, have obviously watched top chef, know the pitfalls and are using the set-up in unexpected ways. (pardon my language, but this year it's not a gaggle-f*ck in which it's every man/woman for him/herself.)

it would be good if the judges took from this that they have to be more on the ball. ie: pay attention, these people know the game and they know what they're doing.

(of course, it may just be that this year's crop is just that good. you have to try to imagine what the first year crew would do if they were the 6th year crew. i'm thinking they'd all have gone about things differently.)

[Independent George]

Aaalex - I agree with your conclusions regarding Jesse, which is a shame because I think she's got some great dishes in her if she just settles down. That said, I suspect her soup came down to one of two errors: she might have tried toasting the cayenne before adding the soup base, or she might have miscalculated how much or how quickly the potato starch would thicken the soup (since they had a 45 minute time limit, she didn't have as much room for error in gradually adding seasoning while it simmered slowly). Of course, both of those options make the decision to make a soup in a quickfire questionable to begin with.

[aaalex]

independent george: actually, you raised some nice mitigating circumstances for jesse. from your point of veiw, jesse's fatal error was making a soup that needed to be delicately spiced when she had only 45 minutes. on reflection, i think you're probably right. i'd love to eat at her restaurant,and see her in action in her natural habitat. i wonder if anyone here actually has?

(i guess, to me, she's a little like carla, last year. you can see potential there, but it's frustrating watching her constantly doing something to screw herself up. i just don't think she has the nerves - or the time, in this group - to pull it out.)

[doktarr]

A brief comment on the "villain edit":

Mike I strikes me as a bright and fairly socially aware guy. I'd guess he really is arrogant and inclined towards trashtalking and can tend to act like a bit of a dick. That doesn't mean he can't also be a nice and gracious guy; I don't know him. (I'd infer from the "mad at myself" comment from loser's table that did made the show that his defense was probably more nuanced than what we saw.)

My point is this: I think Mike I. realized from past seasons that talking a certain way in the interviews would get him the "villain edit". The realized this, but he doesn't mind. It's a TV show, after all, and nobody really gets hurt by anything he says. H decided to have some fun with his interviews. It's not an act, per se; talking trash and behaving like a bit of a dick comes naturally to him. He's just decided to let it hang out because, hey, why not be notorious?

[Anne]

Yeah, I'm a vegetarian, and if all I had to eat on that beautiful spread was pasta salad, I would have been seriously bummed.

[paula]

I just read Jaime's blog on Bravo. Wow. Somebody has a sincerely overdeveloped ego. As I read it, I thought, "Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten what a grump she was."

[Danny]

If what Tom saw at that meal was taken into account by the judges than that would mean that all the judges would have to assume that all of Tom's reporting and perceptions were dead-on accurate and that they wouldn't have looked at it in another way. That is why all of the judges say that the only thing that they know about is what's on the plate and what the cheftestants say at judges' table. They identified the dishes they liked and didn't like and Jenn didn't produce those so they would have had no independent way to reward her with a win or nomination.

As to the "villain edit" someone, I think it was Ted Allen, wrote eloquently about the chicken and egg. You may get TV exposure and you may even make the finals or win but ultimately end up with nothing. After S4, do you think that Lisa was besieged with job offers?

It is true that we don't know what question Michael I was asked to elicit the "I can't lose to girls" comment (or whatever the exact words were). But you can't get a "villain edit" if you don't say or do "villainous" things. If I was asked, "Do you hate losing to a girl" I would say, "I don't care what the gender of the other person is, I just hate to lose". There is nothing that could induce me to say Michael I's words.

Everyone, I was really serious with the risotto question. And I'm not Danny G. - I'm just a long time comic, world-traveler (I perform worldwide for a charter travel company) and a somewhat decent and adventurous cook. So please, help me with the risotto question!!! I'd love to know the answer and how I can risotto something.

[Danny]

Oops a second time. I meant to say, "If what Tom saw in the kitchen......"

[aaalex]

danny: while it's true that the other judges would have had to take tom's comments on the goings on without question and that's a difficult situation, it isn't any more difficult than the actual situation we saw (where a contestant did not get proper credit for her role.) but, in any case, tom wouldn't be the only way to get a sense of what was going on in the kitchen. watching closed circuit tv would have done as well, for the other judges, as listening to tom's comments. the point is, the judges were not equipped to judge this week's contest because they didn't have all the information they needed to make a decision. this led to michael i. being (perhaps) unfairly put on the bottom and jen c failing to get proper credit. (afain: if it wasn't about the cooking when radikha was tossed, it shouldn't have been all about the cooking when jen c. took on executive duties.) the show is changing because the contestants are changing. wouldn't it be fair to say the judging should change too or, at least, be made sensitive to new situations as they arrive?

re michael i: he has said some silly things, but we only hear those things out of context. my guess is he may not be media savvy. but you have to remember, even media savvy people say stupid things, from time to time, because they confuse reality and television or reality and radio. (uhm ... the phrase "nappy headed hos" comes to mind ...) as someone pointed out, michael i.'s comments were pretty tightly edited this week. it did seem as if he was being used to spice things up. also, we can all come up with better things to say in calm retrospect. michael i. is in the middle (or was in the middle) of a mighty confusing and hectic emotional roller coaster. harder to think straight then, i'd guess. i'm not totally defending him, but there are mitigating circumstances. also, i like how he is around michael v and i liked his conversation with bryan v after judges table. he seems good humoured and goofy, with a temper and attitude. not sure he's the "jersey douche", as he's called on other blogs.

"risotto" means rice in italian. a certain italian way of cooking rice has come to be known as "risotto", in english. (some dictionaries give the definition of "risotto" as "risotto"). so, "risotto" has come to mean something like the slow infusion of liquid into a pan full of arborio rice. you can slowly infuse stock or water into anything that will hold it and hold up. (wouldn't do it with eggplant) but i don't think you can call what you've done with potatoes a "risotto", even if you cook them as you would an arborio rice. i may be wrong here, but that's my understanding of things.

[Elise]

Anyone wondering if Ashley had comments about gays in the military that got edited out? Seems odd to me she'd be so upset about the marriage episode, but just fine as a fiddle when confronted by an Airforce that wouldn't let her cook for them as a service person.

Oh well.

Cool episode. I'm really liking the skill level of this season, especially compared to last season's moldering pile of dreck.

[Hillary]

I totally saw that switch on Mike I coming. As soon as the judges realized he made the shrimp dish only I could tell they regretted having him at the top. But it was definitely ballsy to bring him back for the bottom!

I agree with the first commenter's top 4. I'm not sure I see a huge strength in Eli yet but Mike V., Jen, Kevin and Brian V. have already proven themselves and are my pick for the final 4. And if I had to choose a fifth, I'd pick Ashley - she's got her cooking down too.

Love this season so far and while she was good spirited, I agree with the judges' decision to let Preeti go.

[Brent]

Re: Jamie's blog. All you need to know about Jamie's judgment is that she laments the absence of Spike-like characters.

I read somewhere - probably in comments here - that Tom recently renegotiated his contract. The speculation was that as part of that renegotiation, Tom demanded more say in how the field is filled out. No idea if that is true, but it's easy to imagine Tom telling producers, no more jokers - get me a truly strong field.

[KRK]

Last night's episode is up at Hulu! (In case there's anyone else out there who follows Top Chef without a television.) Hopefully they'll put the first two episodes of the season up at some point as well.

[Azdahf]

aaalex,

Would it make you feel better if instead of calling Mike I. "the Jersey douche", they referred to him as "he who may or may not be a douche, but has been arbitrarily selected to appear douche-ey by the editors, and as such appears to be douche-ey to me when I watch the show."?

Granted, the editors can exaggerate certain characteristics by only showing one side of a person, but they cannot create random qualities for a person out of whole cloth! I don't want to get too existential, but he says those things because he is the type of person who says those things, and that's why we see him saying them.

I'll repeat a point I made last time we had this debate: could they have edited TCM so that Bayless seemed like an asshole, and Chiarello seemed like the nicest guy in the world? I say no, and that's because Bayless is not an asshole, and Chiarello is not particularly nice.

[Danny]

aaalex, thank you. I have no clue how to make that bar thing run up the sides with someone else's comments. I am glad to read your take on risotto (if Mike I is being "funny" then as a comic I am in awe at his very subtle stylings). Carpaccio I got. Tartare I kind of get (cucumber tartare anyone?) but I just had trouble thinking of risotto as a style of cooking and not something inherently referring to arbrorio rice cooked in a certain way.

[aaalex]

azdahf: you can call michael i. whatever you like, whatever makes you happy. (and just how happy does it make you to call him "the jersey douche", i wonder?) my point is that the guy as presented on television is not the guy as he is in real life. does it matter, in a forum like this, that the difference between television and reality is unsuspected by some people? probably not. michael i.'s feelings aren't likely to be hurt whatever you call him. but as, in the past, there have been some really vile things said about contestants on top chef (said TO them) and marcel vigneron was attacked by someone who thought he was the man she saw on television, it probably makes sense to hold back on "hang him" sentiments.

again: this is a television show. you are being manipulated to see things not in terms of reality but in terms of drama. could they have turned rick bayless into an asshole? by that question i can tell you have absolutely no idea what editing is or how it works. the answer is yes, absolutely, yes, they could make rick bayless look like an asshole. you give me the right music, and the ability to cut out any generous things he or she said while highlighting the critical (or even vaguely negative) things and i could make anyone at all look like an asshole. i could also make chiarello seem like the best man on earth (keep in mind that the german media made hitler look like a saint, and chiarello was nowhere near that unlikeable. my first ever smiley:))

there's a reason that the first things taken over by successful dictatorships are media outlets. radio and television are among the most powerful arsenals of social control and radio and television work by choosing how a public sees things. it's that simple. unless you've met him, you have absolutely no idea what kind of man the real michael isabella is. just as you have no idea what kinds of men rick bayless or michael chiarello are.

[KRK]

Based on Gail's comment at the end of the judging excerpt reminding all of the judges that it was the chefs' choice to team up, not a challenge requirement, it makes sense that Jennifer wasn't in the top group despite doing such a great job (and that Tom didn't check in to see how well she was performing in that role). In this challenge, unlike the restaurant challenges, there was nothing that mandated that somebody forgo cooking and/or take the executive chef role. It worked really well and made perfect sense with Jen's abilities and her being safe from elimination, but it wasn't an inherent part of the challenge, so the judges stuck to judging the food that was actually put out.

[Independent George]

Granted, the editors can exaggerate certain characteristics by only showing one side of a person, but they cannot create random qualities for a person out of whole cloth! I don't want to get too existential, but he says those things because he is the type of person who says those things, and that's why we see him saying them.

Yes, they can. It's not always what you say, but how & why you said it. If I'm in a meeting, and suggest that we "burn his crops and salt the fields so that nothing grows again", I would hope that everyone understands that I'm not advocating biblical retribution against a co-worker, even if those are the actual words that came out of my mouth. If I say something along the lines of "Clearly, you are incapable of comprehending my unerring genius", it would be the height of arrogance if stated literally, but a (perhaps unsuccessful) attempt at humor when intended ironically. The only way to know is by examining the context of the line - and even then, it's not always obvious (in my opinion, the best deadpans are where you actually have to stop and wonder about it).

This week's big douche moment - "That's favoritism!" - was likely intended tongue-in-cheek, and clearly edited to obscure the context. By selectively splicing bits & pieces, you can make an ironic statement seem like a literal one.

Similarly, the "I'm not losing to a girl" comment which started the entire firestorm mean something entirely different if the prior ten minutes was a lighthearted, mocking dialogue. If the actual question was something along the lines of, "Do you think you'd get a lot of ribbing from your staff if you got out-shucked by a girl?", then the context of his answer changes dramatically.

[Azdahf]

Ok let me re-phrase: Could they have made Rick Bayless into an asshole without ruining their reputation in the culinary community, or making a show that cut out so much of the real context that it became unwatcheable? No, they couldn't have. This is why they try to cast interesting people. If editors can do anything effortlessly, why care who you have on the show? You're just going to change everything they did anyway.

I'm not saying there's no exaggeration. I'm not saying we see exactly how these people really are. But I am saying that the idea that we can't comment on their characters because we didn't meet them personally is just as bad as saying we can't comment on the food because we can't taste it. We see it and we see the reactions to it, and we get a pretty good idea from these things. Yes, they could have done camera tricks so one dish looks worse than it really did and the other looked better, but if so we're watching fiction and then there's no point in discussing it.

Maybe I don't know as much about editing as you, but I do know it would take more effort to turn reality into something that didn't really happen then it would to just show what really happened. These shows do not have unlimited time or unlimited budgets, and if they get to choose between arbitrarily making some one a douche and just showing some one be an actually douche, the path of least resistance is to do the the latter.

Independent George, sure, it's possible that all his comments were in the context of a nefarious set-up to get him to say something outrageous, but do you really think that's likely? That smacks of a wacky conspiracy theory to me, and I can't bring myself to take it any more seriously then I would political theories from some one wearing a foil hat.

Anyway, I don't see either of us changing the other minds. How about if I agree to not whine when people attribute things to a "villain edit", and you agree to not complain when people think that the qualities we see these people displaying are qualities that they actually have.

I should mention that I don't even dislike Mike I! I think he'd probably be one of the most fun of all this season's contestants to sit back and have a few drinks with. But if he were a friend of mine I'm sure I'd there'd be times I'd tell him, "Man, you're kinda being a douche."

[Azdahf]

Off on a tangent now. Top three that could be fun to drink with:
Mike I. -- see above.
Jen -- I'd love to see the "really stupid" stuff she claims that she does when she has too many.
Eli -- Just seems like a funny guy.

And not that fun:
The Volt brothers and Ashley. They're always so serious!

[aaalex]

azdahf: i don't think i've ever actually complained about anyone ascribing qualities to michael i. i've simply tried to point out that we just don't know who he is, so calling him a "douche" is probably (unless you've got other evidence) unjustified.

though i'm unlikely to change your mind, think about this: the context of a television show is the show itself. when i watch "top chef", i am in top chef world. so, what goes on has more of a relationship to top chef world than to the real world. ever notice how the music comes on at certain set times? how the speedy guitar music comes on when they're rushing about for the qf. how the slightly goofy music comes on when there's a moment of group fooling around? how the deadly serious music comes when the bottom performers are chosen? this show is done with modules: intro the chefs, go to the qf and meet the new judge, manic execution of qf. winner chosen. intro of the ec, etc. top chef is the equivalent of a model without a hair out of place. your assumption is that it would be difficult to present rick bayless negatively. it wouldn't. you simply take any critical or slightly negative things he said and put them in at moments when we've just seen something that calls for sympathy or good humour. and you leave out the positive things he said. (and by the way: no one but the editors and producers KNOW what was actually said. so, there is no one, aside from an editor or producer, who could tell how much your "rick bayless" had been created in the editing room. so, top chef is in no danger of losing credibility whatever the manner in which they present rick bayless. very very few people, out of the 2.5 million who watch an episode, would know or care who the "real" rick bayless actually is.) your further question is WHY would anyone do that to rick bayless when it would be easier to do it to, say, michael chiarello. that's a good question, but it's not a question that deals with what i'm getting at. sure, given the kinds of things a michael chiarello has said in the interview room, it's easier to make him into the "villain". granted. but that doesn't mean rick bayless isn't a dickhead or that chiarello absolutely is. it just means the editors have "better material" from chiarello. "bad chiarello" fits into top chef world more easily than "good chiarello" does. that's not a good basis for a judgment about either chiarello's OR bayless' actual character.

so just to be very clear: i'm not saying michael isabella ISN'T a dickhead. i've never met the man. i'm saying i don't know and, what's more, neither do you, if all you've got to go on is what you've seen on top chef. top chef is not real. it is an edited version of reality. on top of that, making him into a "real" villain has its dangers for isabella himself. just how many nuts are there out there who take it on themselves to mete out "justice" based on what they've seen on a tv show?

a little p.s.: i realize i don't know how you're using the word "douche". i'm in my fifties. a douche bag is something no one would tell me about until i was in my teens. it was a pretty nasty thing to call someone, in my day. maybe it's used differently these days. don't know. but if you'd tell a friend "man, you're kinda being a douche", maybe it's my equivalent of dickhead.

[momjamin]

>It was omitted from her bio, but Jenn's real name is
>Norris; she changed it for the show so the other
>contestants wouldn't die of fright. Salmon swim upstream
>to find her. She boils water by staring at it.

ROTFL

[Bart]

1. I'll be the first to admit that I thought Mike I. was a big villain after the first episode. But he said he was just trash talking when he said "oh, I can't let a girl beat me." He's the type of guy who would say things like that, have a playground mentality, just to get a rise out of others (in a humorous way). He might not have intended it to come across as sexist as it did.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think he's the type of guy who just lets his mouth run, but doesn't always mean what he says.

And 2. I'm from New Jersey. I resent the fact that Jersey and Douche seem to be mutually exchangeable :p

[Azdahf]

aaalex,

I don't think we disagree that strongly after all. I guess my point is that it's redundant to keep bringing up the fact that we're in the Top Chef world, we all know that. Just like it's not necessary to say "I know we don't taste it" every time we comment on the food, it's not necessary to say "I know I don't know Mike I. in real life" when we comment on the things he says. Where we differ is that I think we can tell pretty accurately what type of people they are from what we see, just like we can tell pretty accurately about the quality of the food, whereas I get the impression you think this is true only of the food.

I am, though, extremely wary of your fear of inspiring violent action from crazy people. I can't imagine ever changing anything I do out of fear of the reactions it might cause from the dangerously-insane community. That's assuming you could predict their reactions, which (while I hate to stereotype the dangerously insane) are notoriously unpredictable. And I don't mind saying that I hope the producers and editors of Top Chef, and most of all Mike I., feel the same way.

As for the word "douche", it's not something I generally say. I was riffing off the "Jersey douche" name that you quoted. I'm in my 30's, and when giving a friend a hard time I'd probably be much more likely to say "asshole". But it's not that uncommon, and I don't think it would be surprising to hear in that context.

[aaalex]

azdahf: i didn't mean to sound paranoid. i just thought the woman who hit marcel vigneron with a bottle was nuts, way out of line but not uncommon in her hatred for top chef's version of marcel. and i think her hatred was based on a misunderstanding of what goes on with television editing. sure, you can't live your life fearful of what crazy people will do, but not so crazy people have also been pretty hard on ilan hall, for instance. it got so bad that the man's mother went on record to say, wait, my son is not the guy you saw on television. (in her article, she mentioned that even people who knew him wondered if ilan wasn't a bit of a prick.)

what i'm really wary of is ignorance of television's workings. michael i is shown saying some apparently sexist things, so we turn on him. even richard blais, who knows just how much top chef warps a person's personality to suit its own needs, wrote about michael i. as if he really is sexist. if you asked blais, he would probably say that the michael i. he was referring to was the guy presented on the show itself. and i think he'd be right. but his words aren't necessarily taken that way by all who read his blog.

we all mostly know the difference between television and reality, but there are areas where we're not clear. for instance, you asked if it wasn't the case that "reality shows" are more about capturing "reality" than fiction. but you have to keep in mind that top chef is a show with ELEVEN editors. that's a lot of people cutting and pasting things together to create 50 minutes of television. (top chef has got as many cuts as your average music video.) nothing that has undergone that degree of intervention can reasonably be said to present the "real". but we do call it "reality television" and we tend to believe there's easily discernible truth somewhere in there.

i was amused by your analogy about people and food. you suggested that if we can make comments about the quality of food without having tasted it, we should be able to comment on personalities we see on the show, though we haven't met the people. your analogy is wrong, i think, because although we haven't tasted michael v.'s braised bacon, say, most of us have an idea of what bacon (or pork) tastes like. once we read the recipe, it's like interpreting a music score. some of us do it well, some not so well, but most of us have an idea of what watermelon carpaccio, for instance, is going to taste like. human personalities, though, are presented in a different way. television reduces people to types. they are purposely simplified, because they're easier to deal with that way. we relate to "villains" and "heroes" and "cheaters" and "sexist pigs", etc, more easily and more quickly. no human being is any one thing or even any couple of things. they're obviously much more complex. food doesn't get simplified on television. people do. you're right: i really don't think we can ACCURATELY tell what kind of person michael or jen or hector is from what we've been given on a television show. but that doesn't mean we can't tell anything about them. i'm not suggesting that, but i think the two of us would argue about just what and how much we can tell about a human being after seeing them on a "reality show" like top chef.

i completely with you that it would get incredibly tiresome to say "the michael i. as presented on top chef" all the time. it's easier to take for granted that we're talking about a televised creation. (as richard blais surely did.) and for the most part, that's what i do. but every once in a while, someone will write something that strikes me as unfair to the real person, as opposed to their top chef double, and then i start to wonder if we're talking about the actual person (more or less unknown) or the avatar we've see on television (a reduced version of the real created to provide entertainment). in the end, i just wondered who you meant when you were talking about "michael isabella".

[Ian]

I absolutely CANNOT wait until we hit Restaurant Wars with these cheftestants.

[Dreamboat]

I have another view of why Mike I ended up on the bottom 3, after being on the winning "team". Perhaps the judges wanted to send a strong message to not serve a “throwaway” dish that is not required and is not very good. Ashley did it last week and Mike did it this week. I got he sense that he was not in serious jeopardy of going home. The pasta salad just as an idea was that bad, and the execution made it worse. (I had visions of Zoe from the moment they said they were making pasta salad…).

Both Ashley (last week) and Mike made the extra dish, admitted at judges table that they knew the dish had issues, but they served it anyway. It is not like that HAD to serve it or serve nothing and automatically go home for giving the judges nothing. They did not have to serve it, they knew there were issues, they served it anyway. I think the judges were saying that the extra bad dish can land you in the bottom even if you had another great dish. JMHO

[SorchaRei]

I do think it's possible to distinguish between the Mike I that exists in the world, a nuanced complicated human being like the rest of us, and the Mike I that is being portrayed as a character in this reality play, by the editors choosing what to show and how to show it.

I feel no guilt in saying I find the latter to be a jerk. As to the real world Mike I? No idea. It doesn't matter. I'm commenting on what I see on my television.

[Marya]

I think there's a line that some people cross and some people don't. Rick Bayless probably does get snippy with people sometimes, so maybe he can get a "bad" edit that way... but I find it hard to believe that he would make gender-related aspersions, regardless of whether he was being tongue-in-cheek or not.

That's my problem with Michael I, I guess. He seems to think making jokes (if they were truly jokes) about people who "cook like girls" is a funny and fun thing to do.

I reserve the right to judge that regardless of whether it's editing or not. He said it, he owns it. I can't think of a context in which he could have said it where that would seem "OK."

Of course there's editing, and that can skew how we see people. But there's editing, and there's trying to excuse people for things they made the choice to say. (Your 'hos' example comes to mind...)

Back to the food. FYI for those of you who don't live in New England... we eat clam chowder year round. In fact, probably more often during summer months. The clams are good in the summer, after all. I never thought it was weird.

[Kim-in-Chicago]

"I read somewhere - probably in comments here - that Tom recently renegotiated his contract. The speculation was that as part of that renegotiation, Tom demanded more say in how the field is filled out. No idea if that is true, but it's easy to imagine Tom telling producers, no more jokers - get me a truly strong field."

As well as he should - the last thing you want to see is Top Chef turning into something that the FN churns out...

[gilmore]

What a great season so far. I am enjoying the food aspect and do not miss the antics of prior seasons.

Dreamboat - great point. I think the judges may have sent a message - and a strong one at that.

Top 6, if they hold to form will provide great TV drama as to who gets eliminated.

[Kathy V.]

With regards to the Michael I. top/bottom brouhaha, a few questions...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't actually remember the judges saying to the "top" four that they were the "top" four. The judges just said that the pork dishes were the favorites. With the editing imps at play, it is possible that they were brought out because the judges wanted to flesh out exactly who did what and reward appropriately. The judges already knew they wanted to award the top honors to whoever created the "baconed belly" (heh, I just love to verbize non-verb words).

Also, I did find it interesting when Michael I. was questioned when he was in the top 4 about his salad with shrimp, he said that he thought it was good. He was proud of the dish, until he realized they didn't like it. I guess my point is, he didn't really stand behind his dish so much as he was trying to play to the judges. It seems like its more of a game to him, and yes I know it is a game. But he seemed to be a bit of a "fair weather" cook when confronted with negative criticism. I know there is a point of stubbornness some cooks have displayed when defending their dishes, and some have taken the criticism much better. But he immediately reversed his stance from what a good dish I did to yeah, i knew it was bad, but we needed a salad, all without so much as a blink (perhaps there was a blink, but those impish editors deleted it.)

Well... that's my 2 cents for the day.

[TxGriff]

Hello- long time lurker, but first time blogger here!

I just want to offer my two cents about whether Mike I. should be in the "top" or "bottom" this week. I see several people referring to the fact that Mike I. made an "extra" dish, and is thus being judged for the extra dish he created. However, I think we are forgetting that he didn't make an "extra" dish, he was only responsible for one dish (this was of his admittance- he told the judges that Mike V. was totally in charge of the braised bacon). The parameters of the challenge did not include pairing up in teams- that was an element the chefs themselves added to make the challenge more possible (smart idea, btw). So, Mike I. initially put himself in a "team" with Mike V., however he lated admitted that Mike V. was comlpetely responsible for the braised bacon dish which was considered a top dish, while Mike I. was responsible for the ill-fated Greek salad. Therefore, we have to judge their dishes separately and forget the self-made teams they created. This was not a team challenge- Mike I. initially put himself in a team with Mike V., and upon seeing that Mike V. did not need help with the bacon dish, Mike I. at that point created his own individual dish and thus must be judged individually. During the episode it sounded like Mike V. was throwing out some ideas for the Greek salad, but ultimately it was Mike I. who conceptualized it and created it (just is Mike V. conceptualized and created the braised bacon), so they need to be judged separately. IMO, the juges only called Mike I. in the winning team to begin with because they thought he had more to do with the braised bacon, but upon seeing that his influence was little-to-none, I think the judges realized that he could not be associated with the top dish, and therefor was judged on the dish he created. So, count me in the people who think Mike I. should get a mark in the bottom rankings next week.

Anywways, just my two cents. Great season so far! I imagine the last half of this season is going to have some brutal eliminations. Can't wait to see how it turns out :)

[Kathy V.]

Guess they weren't questions so much as long winded comments. oopsie?

[anon man]

Random reality show convergence: For those who watch Project Runway (like my wife), they had their own "Michael I moment" this week. The team that won had the under-performing member sent home. No real commentary since I don't watch that show and it isn't the right blog for that, I just thought it interesting that both shows (which are similar in structure) had essentially the same thing happen for the first time in the same week.

[paula]

Anon man: I watch PR too, and yeah, that was an odd coincidence. If they were still on the same network I'd think something fishy was going on. Which reminds me:

Why does Jennifer Norris only cook fish? Because when she approaches animals with legs, they always end up in a roundhouse-kick fight.

[red plastic cup]

Jennifer Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
Just like God, Jennifer Norris kicks seitan's ass.

[paula]

Your worked seitan in! Well played, red plastic cup. (That's a sentence I certainly never imagined typing.)

[Duffy]

Watched the full episode again last night. "Someone" decided to call a meeting to organize the challenge -- not clear who. Michael I. appeared to chair the meeting, but this wasn't clear either. He certainly introduced the idea to set up teams and have Jen act as a tournant by saying, "We thought it would be a good idea...." Not clear who might have been included in this "we." If this was all Mike's idea, and he was the one who called the meeting and got everyone together, he deserves considerable credit. Having watched trainwreck after trainwreck on this type of challenge in the past, this one was amazing.

Suspect it was not his idea to have Jen be executive chef -- Richard Blais talks about this on his blog, and explains what a "tournant' really means. Jen gets credit her, for stepping in and taking over.

Jen's organizational skills became even more impressive the more times I watched. There was this huge discussion on the Top Chef Masters review about respect for the chef -- demand it or earn it. Jen gave us a beautiful example of how to earn it, and then use it to build an impressive, smooth, efficient operation that absolutely wowed everyone involved.

Great season -- absolutely the best one ever, so far.

[Cousin Sam]

Not to get too far off-topic but since we do have a couple other PR watchers... is it just my tv, or has anyone else experienced that when they run the TC promo during PR there's no sound? I swear it's happened two weeks in a row and there's no other drop in sound on anything else. A subtle little backslap from Lifetime to Bravo maybe? :)

And I agree, it was an odd coincidence that they aired at the same time, especially given how long ago this season of PR was filmed.

[JH]

Quick note on the PR and TC "coincidence." Even though the two shows are currently aired on different networks, both are produced by Magic Elves Productions.

[femmeperdue]

Perhaps I missed something, but I thought all the guys were granted immunity this week for winning the bachelorette party challenge? It would certainly take some of the fear/sting out of the bottom 3 when you know you can't be sent home at the end....

[SorchaRei]

I'm pretty sure that the immunity the guys won was for last week -- so even if you were on that team and made the worst dish in the whole state of Nevada that day, you were immune from elimination.

I watched it again tonight, and I was really struck by how Mike I's story changed from "I was happy with my dish" to "It was throw-away dish but it was an EXTRA dish" to "It should never have been served". I think he forgot that just because the chefs assigned themselves to teams of two, that didn't mean that the judges had to go along with that. (This is also my response to Mike V's blog that he should have been judged for the shrimp, too. The Mikes told the judges that one didhte bacon and one did the salad, and the judges went with that. It was NOT a team challenge, no matter what the chefs thought.)

[hayamyma]

I think Duffy expressed my take on Jennifer's performance as executive chef. Given the tight quarters, crazy equipment, and various egos, I thought she did an impressive job. I especially liked when she walked down the line at the end applauding the other chefs efforts. There is bonus footage, btw, of Tom Colicchio talking to Jennifer when he makes his usual kitchen walk through. Too bad it didn't make it to the episode (the clip ends right when TC asks Jen which chef is the weak link).

Kudos! red plastic cup. I laughed at Jennifer Norris' triumph over seitan. Someone earlier said they had a major girl crush on Jennifer Norris, and I do too. More Jennifer Norris . . . rules the world proclamations!

[cgrocho]

To wilt greens, gently whisper "Jennifer Norris" at them.

[cgrocho]

When Jennifer Norris enters the kitchen, the lobsters jump right into the pot.

[Independent George]

Ah, so Colicchio did do a kitchen walkthrough after all; Jennifer really should have gone to JT, then. I keep thinking of all the EC disasters from seasons past, and none involved the kind of logistical challenge they faced here.

[Skoolie]

I wish a comment was mentioned on the show about how well she executed. I think it is safe to say that if she didn't do a great job they would have put her in the bottom. Remember Rahdika(sp?) when she went home? I know Jen had immunity but that has never stopped them from putting the immune in the bottom.

Jen rocked and I'm sure she will continue to do so.

by the way when jen walks into a pastry shop, the patry's cream themselves.

and when she cuts onions she makes them cry.

[Esther]

Jennifer Norris doesn't need a blowtorch; she makes creme brulee by looking sternly at custard.

Jennifer Norris sleeps on a bed of razor clams.

Jennifer Norris is always in season.