Top Chef - S6E9 Postmortem

Okay, Tom, that was just mean.

I had Jen's departure notes half written. She's got another life and she'd better use it.

So why's Kevin angry? Because he screwed up the lamb? Because he feels guilty over having contributed to Laurine being sent home? Because he feels Laurine got a raw deal (no pun intended) and it should have been Jen? I doubt that last one. The first two seem more in character for him. But you wonder.

I'll let you guys take over tonight. Still digesting (the episode, not dinner. Well, both, but... nevermind.)

Oh, and what a brutal editing hit piece on Mike V., making no comment as to whether or not he deserved it. And interesting that Tom's blog for the same episode praised his kitchen demeanor.

The Four Horsemen of the Chefpocalypse still ride. Breathe easy, folks.

UPDATE : Some semi-related happy news. Top Chef Masters has been picked up for a second season and all judges are returning. Thanks for the heads-up, jh!

Comments

[Esther]

For me, the surprise wasn't Laurine; she got overwhelmed and was out of her league. She stayed classy, and I respect her.

The surprise also wasn't Kevin; even a supposedly terrible night for him put out one good dish. (I'm honestly not sure what to do with the lamb thing; was it equipment, Kevin, Laurine. . . ?)

What worried me was Jen. Her comment at the end about being "broken" wasn't just her usual self-deprecation; she really screwed up. Although I'm glad they kept her, because I think she has more to show, that trout dish was just worrying for someone from Le Bernadin. She's losing confidence fast.

If she can make it to the finals, I can believe that she'll use the break to regain her confidence and come back kicking ass again. But tonight definitely made her drop to the bottom of the top four in my mind for now.

(What about top? Hm. I want to let Kevin keep it, but it's hard to do so, after Michael V. did well and Kevin put out that "jello" lamb.)

At least another week of Robin-bashing to come. Sigh.

[KinderJ]

Cripes, when Mike I is the most consistent and least objectionable chef in a kitchen... Just brutal.

I'll start the blame ball rolling- my money is on lack of organization and leadership. We needed Jen of the Air Force episode, not everyone going along to get along. Anyone remember Chef Tom acting as an expediter a couple of seasons ago? Laurine could have taken a shot at that, might have made things run a bit better.

Interesting codicil- Jen pointed out, repeatedly, that anyone who did dessert on Restaurant wars got sent home, or at least their team lost. I immediately thought of Stefan last year, who rocked a dessert course. Thoughts, comments, how do you think they should have played it?

[Anne]

Tom totally did that on purpose.

And, VEGETARIAN CHALLENGE! I've been waiting six seasons for this. (Maybe even...VEGAN?)

[doktarr]

So, we will not get the superduper 4 horsemen finale, because Padma dropped the bomb: only 3 in the final.

[Steve]

Big relief tonight. Jen was definitely going to go if Laurine didn't. I agree with Dom though. Jen doesn't really have a personal and impressive vision for her food. But certainly she deserved to hang on until at least the final four.

Real glad Mike V. has gotten the recognition that has slipped through his fingers too many times. Previous to this, he had been in the top of the elimination challenges nine times, but only won once. This was well deserved, especially since he was acting as executive chef for all intents and purposes.

Can't wait to see how next week's twist throw our chefs off. Hopefully it will be Mike I., Eli or Robin that goes home.

[Esther]

doktarr, that threw me too. After I thought about it, though, I decided that maybe she meant "final episode" by "finale" (whereas we usually mean "final two episodes"). Otherwise, we'd have to have a double elimination very soon, right?

[KinderJ]

Esther- I second your sigh, with an added drooped shoulders.

Anne- Last season I would have been making rude gestures at your comment, relishing the comparative anonymity of the internet. Now, post Masters, my views have completely changed. I am quite curious to see what they put out, what sort of innovation they show, how Kevin, King of All Pork, adapts.

You know, I left it out of my last post, but despite it's goofy name, Revolt was 'easily the best restaurant in six years.' Ok, probably goofed the quote, but still...

[Jim D.]

Gee, Dom - thanks for jinxing Kevin with the 'never been on the bottom' line.

What a complete, utterly shocking disaster. Jen is seriously lucky to still be in this - had Laurine been even minimally competent in the front of the house, she would have gone home and rightfully so.

[Dawn]

I almost had a heart attack. Jen, Jen, Jen. Is she losing steam or what? I'm thankful for Tom's blog pointing out what's wrong with team Mission. Very bad planning, indeed.

In the back of my mind, I KNEW that out of the top four, Jen would be the one who most likely to get a suprise boot. I didn't say (or rather, write) it out loud, of course, since I'm rooting for her. But yes, my suspicion was true. In a twisted hero-worship context, I'm thoroughly disappointed cause she lets me down (though, honestly she doesn't owe me anything).

I'm glad you didn't have to use the departure notes, Dom. *Sigh*

[babyarm]

Yeah, appears to be a veg challenge next week at craft steak no less. Masters did one and it worked great.

No issue with how things went tonight. Jen may have skated, but wasn't the worst in her role.

[anon man]

In the end, an uneventful episode. 3 things that struck me, kind of random:

1. The discussion between the brothers about dessert and how Bryan's white and dark chocolate dessert bombed. Ironically, the Washington Post just had the annual dining guide and (for those of you who live elsewhere), VOLT's "Tasting of Chocolate" containing white, dark and milk chocolate, was voted one of the top 10 desserts in the area. (As an aside, they didn't do a top 50 this year, but a listing of the top 50 alphabetically, and then various top 10s - dessert, cocktail, table, etc.) It kind of cracked me up that he felt confident to do it again, with apparently good reason, even though it cratered.

2. They praised the chicken dish. Like most foodies, I can count on one hand the number times I order chicken at a high end restaurant. But every now and then you have one and go- WOW! This sounds like one of these.

3. Even before the Michael V. outtake, I was kind of like "Him? He curses like his sailor. If Bryan or Kevin demanded that kind of behavior it would have actual credibility."

[Bart]

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge sigh of relief. I kept thinking, "Oh, crap, it's Jennifer."

Not much to say on the Robin/Michael tiff, except that they both acted immaturely, and that Eli came across much better in this episode.

I did find it funny how Bravo juxtaposed Michael's qualities of a good chef with footage of him doing the exact opposite - and then him ending it with, "Yeah, I'm a good chef, God damn." (Ok, he didn't use those exact words, but you get the idea)

Robin's dessert looked tasty. I wonder how much of it was hers and how much of it was Michael's.

"Revolt"? Absolutely horrible name. Seriously.

Next week, I fully expect Jen to bounce back. I'm calling it - she's going to win the quickfire. EC? I dunno. But expect her to make a strong showing in the first half of the episode. She seems to perform best when there's less pressure.

[Stacy]

I think Kevin was disgusted with himself - I don't think he was upset for contributing to Laurine leaving. However, I think he will quickly bounce back. Jen received a gift tonight and I have a hard time believing that past performance, at least subconsciously, doesn't figure into the judges' decision, despite claims otherwise. As someone else said, Jen seems to be going down fast. I wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes that is contributing to this. Unlike Jen, Kevin, although he wasn't at his best, wasn't "broken."

[altoids]

Heh, I was crossing my fingers and chanting at the TV "Not Jen, not Jen." With Mike I. safe and Kevin putting out the only good dish, it was down to Jen and Laurine. Not great odds.

I think Kevin and Jennifer are both angry at letting the situation run away, and putting out food beneath their standards. I hope this setback doesn't rattle Jen too much, and she doesn't lose her confidence. The preview editing certainly makes her seem miserable, although she always has few moments of sheer panic and self-doubt in each episode.

This season's RW was a bit different in that the judges insisted that the FoH also take responsibility for dish, and there was no EC. For the V. Bros, this was no problem, they had both been successful leaders in team challenges, and their dominant, occasionally-dysfunctional oligarchy took responsibility for most of the menu, leaving Eli and Robin with a one first and last course. Eli read the tea leaves and stayed away from the Voltaggio steamroller, while Michael smartly suggested that Robin recreate her quickfire win, turning her dish into a known quantity. Good moves all around.

Kevin and Jen have developed a good rapport, and Jen and Mike I. are friends, so they perhaps didn't feel comfortable taking a leadership position among friends. I had expected Kevin and Jen to put their heads down and just put out good food - but I was surprised that Mike I. didn't step up when he saw the problem developing. Perhaps he knew it was a sinking ship, and smartly concentrated on saving himself.

[kit]

Did anyone else notice that after Jen & Mike V. drew the "choice" knives, the chefs were selected in the same order as Dom's Power Rankings? Go Dom!

Tom is downright evil. About midway through the episode I was Certain that Jen was going home. The outfit & hairstyle she was sporting in her interview changed, and for some reason my warped mind decided those wily elves had filmed an extra interview because they needed more footage for their "loser edit." I'm pretty sure I blacked out for huge portions of the rest of the episode.

I didn't think the Mike V. interlude was that bad for him, more just amusing. I'm sure he, and anyone who knows him, is aware that he can be prickly sometimes, and it would thus be inevitable that lots of prickly footage would accumulate, ripe for a snarky little edit.

Did anyone else love this quickfire? I'd love it if they made this one a recurring one as well. It's almost like each of them has to solve a little kitchen puzzle. Though I can imagine it must be very disorienting to spend 30 minutes blindfolded then have to suddenly bang out the end of a dish in 10 minutes, wow! (Of course, let's not get crazy here, nothing can top my affection for the mise en place relay race, heh.)

[Danielle]

I'm guessing that I'm not the only person who missed this damning Michael V. outtake because I was flipping back and forth to the Phillies game.

[Anne]

Rude gestures...but...but...I'm extremely nice, despite my lack of carnivore-ness!

I know we're going to see a lot of the typical foodie disdain for vegetarianism next week--Seriously, I actually do find it really unpleasant, because I don't begrudge anyone their choice to eat what they want, but I get a lot of crap for not eating meat from food-lovers, and I find it's those people who act sanctimonious (see: Anthony Bourdain) It bugs me, because I like good food, too, I never bother anyone else about what they eat, and I relish a chef that can have the vision to make a great vegetarian meal.

Now, vegans, man, that #@$#@ is crazy.

[Anne]

(That was a joke, by the way.)

[KinderJ]

altoids- I mostly agree with your analysis, but I don't think that's how it went with Mike I. He did the apps, one of which was mostly cold, so he was probably able to lend at least some help. I think it might have been more of an issue of not wanting to jog the elbows of chefs he respected. I do think he should have done something like starting to steam big batches of clams and mussles when he saw Jennifer in the weeds, but I don't really know what else he could have done to improve the situation. Taken over FOH? Dunno. A lot of bad planning went into that meal, I am sorry to say.

[KinderJ]

Joke? Joke, madam?! This is the Internet. Humor is utterly forbidden. As is smiling. These things are checked, you know.

Actually I sort of feel your pain from an odd direction, Anne. I hate fish. I mean really, really hate fish. I don't like the look, the smell, I have advanced the proposition, dismissed by the so called intellectuals and gray beards of academia, that all of human evolution is a determined effort to get away from sea food.

This, of course, is heresy to many people. Seemingly normal, wholesome people who will try and convince me that fish come in a wide range of flavors, textures, tastes, and that by ruling anything coming out of water is inedible, I am depriving my self of profound gastronomic joy. These people are, of course, wrong. So I kind of relate to the 'I don't eat meat' thing. Even though I eat meat. Because things with legs aren't weird like fish.

I tried to punch a fish once. Turns out water resistance kind of makes that impossible. Just, you know, FYI. In case someone else wanted to punch a fish...

[Dreamboat]

Anne,
How about vegans who also do not eat soy or wheat, ala Zooey Deschanel in TCM? YIKES!! Even with that, the Masters put out some serious food. That just goes to show that you do not need meat as a center piece to have great food. However, most "American" or "New American" food does center around meat or fish so it can be a challenge for those chefs. Chefs who are familiar with Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine (and I am sure other cuisines that I am not familiar with) will do well. OK, I am craving me some Indian Dal right now :)

[Nancy]

Okay, I admir it, the Elves got me. I thought Mike V. was a goner for sure. I am also a bit peeved at Tom's red herring in his last blog about a top contender possibly not surviving this week and the contention that this is a challenge-by-challenge elimination. Other FOH's have hid, recall sweating (and possibly smelly) Dale and were saved, but IIRC Dale also put out a servicable dish, which likely saved him.

Jen, as much as I adore her, knew she choked when this was a challenge she should have knocked out of the park. TO me, that's a worse sin than Laurine not being the best hostess (Radikha was far worse, completely flustered). Her dishes were universally acknowledged, even by Jen herself, as monumental failures. She should have walked and the fact she didn't proves once and for all that previous challenges ARE taken into account, especially when weighing cheftestants who are very close in skill, or as in this case, essentially top and bottom to date.

Congrats to Mike V., who wasn't THAT bad with Robin and his vision of her basic dessert was a winner. I would have eaten every dish REVOLT (wish they would have used a hyphen rather than the backwards "E" to make a better distinction of the concept (missed how well Eli actually explained it, but it seemed when the dishes came out, the judges got it). Can't wait to see how the guy with two killer dishes, and EC to boot (yes, they DID specify that there was going to be one), combined with Jen's failures, Kevin's hit and miss and Bryan's excellent dessert (but cold, but apparently otherwise successful main) will do to shake up the top 4?

God help us, does Mike I sneak in with his two mediocre dishes? Does Eli gain a spot for actually being a very pleasant, unflustered FOH? Robin can make pear desserts, but not much else. Keep her in the cellar. Hopefully after next week, the wine cellar.

[garik16]

Tom's blog makes it sound like we're suffering here from bad editing again.

For example, from his blog:

"Jennifer could have gone home for making the mistake of choosing to steam the clams and mussels to order, but we all liked the halibut."

LIKED THE HALIBUT? Yet they complained about the sauce being broken on air and seemed to hate the dish more than the Mussels and Clams! Clearly some editing was at work here.

This should be familiar btw from last year. Remember, last year Radhika's terrible FoHing was not really shown as much on camera and the focus more was on the terrible deserts.

While Jen's dishes may not have been up to her standards, the halibut can't have been as terrible as it seemed in editing and as such, she probably was in no danger of going home. Laurine was the only choice.

NOW Jen has to bounce back and come in the top of another challenge.

[Nancy]

Forgot to mention, Laurine's depature was telegraphed from scene 1. It was worse than America's Next "Top" Model. Usually the Elves are better than that. I wonder how many guys would have cried had they gotten only that one scene of Jen rocking her bikini, only to get the dreaded PYKAG. Poor, pathetic Laurene, who can't rock a swimsuit but can wade in the pool was TOO obvious.

[stevie]

This is the second week I was holding my breathe worrying over Jen (Last time was my own error, I turned on the 10pm airing early and saw Jen in tears hugging someone, though I ran hands-over-ears out of the room before I could identify who and was on seat's edge the entire episode). All I can say is 'whew!'

I am so freaking excited for a vegan challenge. I loved seeing what the Masters could come up with and this will be just as exciting. I usually can't get excited over American food because I can never eat it so doubly excited to see what the brothers whip up. That said, I think this will be Mike I's episode to shine. And gosh darn it, I just got worried for Jen and Kevin again.

[Joanna]

Gosh Bravo, way to TOTALLY rattle my nerves. It was obvious to me pretty early on which team won, because Kevin and Jen both looked a little teary-eyed in their interviews - but this also made me nervous that one of them would be going home. I feel bad for Laurine, because compared to Radhika's FOH last year, she seemed to have it somewhat more together, but I guess still not up to the standards that were expected of her.

Really, really hope Jen can pull herself together next week.

(Also, my favorite part of the episode? When Kevin said, "I think they all want me to poach the fish in this oil. But I don't want to, so I won't." Or something along those lines.)

[sprugman]

Personally, Mike V.'s "I'm not a prick" montage cracked me up. He may actually be a nice guy, with lots of heart, but clearly, he can be prickly at the very least.

I loved the blind relay QF. Reminded me of various improv games.

Jen: whew! That was lucky.

[Cousin Sam]

"LIKED THE HALIBUT? Yet they complained about the sauce being broken on air and seemed to hate the dish more than the Mussels and Clams! Clearly some editing was at work here."

IIRC it was her trout that had the broken sauce, not the halibut.

[rab01]

Mission's plan was admittedly bad but it sounded like the chaos in the FOH contributed a ton to their execution problems. Other than a lack of salt in one of Mike's apps and the monochrome color of one of Jen's dishes, all of the calamities sounded like the result of food sitting around too long before going out (like the sauce breaking) or being rushed out before it was finished (like the lamb not resting before it's cut).

[kit]

garik16 - According to Bravo's recipe finder, the halibut was the fish served in the same dish as the mussels and clams; while the disastrous dish, with the broken sauce, was a trout.

[Independent George]

I'm relieved that Jennifer stays, but I'm also disappointed.

I'm greedy. I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away.

Interestingly, I think that for a lot of us here, it was the Air Force episode that really got us to love Jennifer - and what their team needed most was someone to organize the kitchen, set the menu, and expedite the dishes. Was it a case of too much respect, maybe? Early on, she had no problem asserting herself to make sure things moved smoothly; maybe because of how well she knew her team at this stage, she thought they could actually pull it off?

[jonathan]

I've been thinking for a few weeks now, after his dish on the "ranch" challenge, that MIchael was the biggest wild card in the season. If he makes it to the final, I think his ceiling is higher than anyone's except for maybe Kevin's. If those two are both on their game I don't think anyone beats them.

Also, did anyone else think part of the reason Bryan was pissed after his brother won was partly due to Rick Moonen saying the victory was going to the (I think I'm quoting correctly) "chef with the most promise." Not saying it was the whole reason, because I think he was genuinely upset with his brother's behavior, but that's a classic older sibling reaction. Kinda amusing if it's true.

[garik16]

Ah My bad. Still, they didn't seem to like the halibut on air.

[Nancy]

Sorry to keep bursting in here, but I had this thought during the episode and it just reoccurred...

Name your place "Mission" and pick the white tablecloth approach versus the simple, dare I say, almost MISSION style motif? The white tablecloths might have lowered the overall impression of a place called Revolt (irony the judges MIGHT have gotten, although they knew they were stuck with the motif), but not something most guests would connect.

Just a thought for your riffing pleasure... :)

[Cousin Sam]

yeah, what was that all about with Bryan being pissed off? As dickish as Mike was being during the challenge, it *was* pretty nice of him to offer to split the $ and Bryan just threw it back in his face.

[altoids]

@ KinderJ:

I dunno. Like you (and Tom's blog) said, Mike I. should have helped more after his appetizers were done, and maybe he did, we'll never know. He must have done something for the last 40 minutes of service.

There's no way he could have taken over FoH, that would have been disrespectful and been a big red light to the judges. But I expected him to start keeping track of tickets and start telling Laurine what to do, as he's the least shy about taking over when something isn't getting done. Jen develops tunnel-vision when she gets flustered - we've seen it before. In that state, she won't talk to anyone, not even Tom! Kevin hasn't shown the temperament to start ordering people around. So that leaves Mike I.

Tom slammed them for their menu creation, but I think that had a lot to do with team selection. Jen is the seafood chef, Kevin is the meat chef, Mike I. isn't as good as either of them, and they all knew it. Jen wanted to cook fish, Kevin wanted to cook pork, and there was no way the Rupert-trained Jen was going to cook a heavier dish than competition-BBQ Kevin. If they were each doing two dishes, Kevin's had to follow Jen's. With two fish and two meat dishes, Mike I. had to do appetizers. So lack of leadership hurt them from the very beginning. With everyone doing what they were most comfortable with, they naturally ended up with a Mike-Jen-Kevin sequence.

[Ryan]

Interesting episode, I thought surely Jen was heading home - fancy editing huh? As for the likely vegetarian challenge, that should be pretty interesting to see what people come up with. And to those who are worried about Kevin cooking veggies, he does a fantastic vegetarian tasting menu at his restaurant that is (in my opinion at least) on par with his meat based tasting menu.

[garik16]

@Altoids, they still could have compensated:

For example, Jen does a Fish Appetizer and Fish Entree, Kevin does a Meat Appetizer and Meat Entree, Laurine and Mike I do Desserts.

I mean, Laurine was a caterer so she had to have some dessert credential and this way you stagger everyone else's dishes. Also with Mike doing just one dish, he could help the other two with their dishes, and Laurine could make sure that FoH would be going well before she really put together most of the effort in her dessert.

[Independent George]

Did any body else have a problem with Colicchio faulting Team Misssion for not doing a dessert, when, last season, he specifically praised Hosea for not doing a dessert in the finals?

On paper, their plan made perfect sense: dessert is typically the weakest link in Restaurant wars, so skipping it allowed their big guns to play to their strengths. Kevin gets to do two meat dishes, Jennifer gets to do two fish dishes, while Mike & Laurine just have to hold on. I actually thought they were going to win easily when they showed the planning stages.

It wasn't until I read Colicchio's blog that I realized how obvious the flaws were. If both fish courses and both meat courses have to go out at the same time, then of course they shouldn't both be prepared by the same chef. And if you skip dessert, of course you're going to be pressed for time, because you can't just prepare them and let them sit like you would a dessert.

I didn't pick up on it because I have no idea how a restaurant operates. I'm just so shocked that nobody on the team caught it - particularly Jennifer, who was so precise in the Air Force challenge.

[òste e còc]

Kev’lork of the Atlantaysian Clan may have lost 20 hit points after his failed RW cooking guild quest but hopefully he can pick up a dwarven executioner’s mace and leafweave leather cloak on the next mission. Jen’s chest-thumping quick-consommé (and cleaning/portioning trout) attempt might work in Terabithia’s solar system, but not in 3 pouting Earth hours. She must have been wearing those Bad Idea denim chef pants.

Kudos to MV for the cromesquis appellation, though it best be creamy inside.

[Shelly]

I have to say I was impressed with Mike V. It doesn't matter to me if he was aggressive and dominating and a bit of a dick, he was leading a team of forceful people and I think he did a good job, which showed in the results. What he did was what the other team needed.

Laurine has had a losing attitude for a while. In her exit interview she says she'd only have lasted a couple more episodes at most. Then she has the nerve to say Robin should have gone home before her. Whatever their cooking levels (and Laurine really shouldn't be dissing Robin's), Robin is at least still fighting. Laurine had already decided she was a loser. She got herself knocked off the show.

Now Jen has me very worried for similar reasons. Previews show that she still hasn't reclaimed her self-confidence. I know that these things can turn on a dime, and if she gets it back she'll be fine the rest of the competition. I just hope something turns around for her.

[jh]

Mike. Salt. Again.

[timothy]

So, I have a cooking question. What is the difference between poaching a fish in oil and frying? Is the oil poached fish at a lower temperature? That QF olive oil was up to a boiling point, so if Kevin dropped the sable fish in, why would that not have been frying? Just curious.

[Neil]

I think Mike V. has demonstrated he is one of the more dynamic contestants on the show. He seems to be a rising star in the culinary world as well, having worked in some impressive positions garnering great recognition at those places, including earning a Michelin star while serving as executive chef of Charlie Palmer's restaurant. I also saw somewhere that both Hung and Marcel, a former winner and former runner-up, have worked UNDER him in various places and were the ones who encouraged him to do the show. He's proven to exhibit the most range and the most creativity, yet still being French classically trained. The finals could provide him with a real stage to show off, as I think we saw with his two dishes this week. Also, I think his segment with the editing was actually sarcasm, even Ash points him out as being pretty humorous in his exit interview...I guess we just don't see it.

Kevin, even though he lost, still seems to be a real front-runner, putting out the best dish for his team. However, I have to wonder how far he can stretch his comfort zone, as I'm sure the path to the finals will require. Same goes for Jen who seems to be on a slippery slope. If she doesn't getting a handle on the mental aspect of the competition more than anything else, she could start a real downward slide.

[Dawn]

"Did any body else have a problem with Colicchio faulting Team Misssion for not doing a dessert, when, last season, he specifically praised Hosea for not doing a dessert in the finals?"

Having recently watched that episode, it befuddled me how different Tom's stance on the subject was then & now. It shows how fickle the judges could be. While I personally don't like when an individual/a team decides to skip dessert, I wouldn't fault them for doing so seeing as how desserts on Top Chef have fared in the past.

"I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away."

Oh, I agree. Whole-heartedly. Might make for a predictable & boring season, but the pay-off would be an awesome, drool-worthy top four finale. I want them to dominate & crush their competitors. I want them to be the AWESOME FOURSOME; complete with capes & golden cooking utensils.

"Interestingly, I think that for a lot of us here, it was the Air Force episode that really got us to love Jennifer - and what their team needed most was someone to organize the kitchen, set the menu, and expedite the dishes. Was it a case of too much respect, maybe?"

It was for me. She gained SO MUCH of my respect from that episode and others here as well, I'm sure. I mean, someone created the Jennifer Norris meme, forgodsakes!!! I remember specifically almost EVERYONE thought that she'll kick ass in Restaurant Wars, or at least has the potential to be. Never has a build-up for such greatness resulted in such failure. *Le sigh*

You know, a couple of episode back, I think starting with the Penn & Teller episode, I kind of enjoyed seeing Jen frazzled. It humanizes her & shows some of her vulnerabilities. Not to mention, she's rather adorable while being insecure, i.e running from Tom. Something I appreciate being shown as many people 'complained' that she's too robotic/ lacked emotions etc. But now, I just wish she could bounce back & be the badass chef she was at the start of the competition. I missed that Jennifer.

[babyarm]

I wasn't going to be the one to mention it first, but it's obvious they have shot the finale. Lisagate taught me enough to be able to spot those clues. It's not certain anymore that just making final 8 gets you a trip to the final destination, but it's at least worth monitoring.

Anyone else find it endearing that they make a breakfast for eachother every day. Better than watching Arianne slurp down oatmeal.

It's also funny they haven't released any episode details since dumping out 4 of them a month and a half ago.

[natmicstef]

I didn't see anything from Michael V that should have made Bryan so ticked off at the end; throwing the money back, figuratively, was mean; but they are brothers and according to Kevin, bicker non stop so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. I really felt that Laurine was a victim of cumulative judging; they just couldn't bear to throw off a superior chef for one less so.

Robin tried really hard to create some camaraderie at Restaurant Depot when she jokingly pushed around Laurine..unfortunately it didn't work but it was nice to see Robin and Eli put their feelings aside and work for the team.

I too, would like to know how poaching fish in oil would work.

[Karen]

Wow, Bryan really acted like a brat last night. Guess he REALLY hates having his little brother beat him. Hasn't he realized yet that the judges don't know or care about their kitchen behavior as long as great food is presented?

[suzanne]

I didn't find Tom's comments about the lack of dessert surprising at all.

I think there is a difference between skipping dessert at the finale vs. skipping it for a "restaurant opening." In the former, you're serving judges, and the focus is on making "the meal of your life." At the latter, you're also serving "patrons," the focus is on pleasing both them and the judges, and many customers expect dessert.

[EdT.]

Dom - I think Kevin's "anger" was a mixture of emotions: anger at himself for screwing up, guilt that his screwing up may have been partially responsible for Laurine's being sent home, shame for failing his team (in various ways, including failing to take leadership action when it was needed), as well as empathy for Jennifer (who I thought was going to have a nervous breakdown.) Kevin's "I don't want to talk about it" was a great line, though.

As far as Michael V's edit, was that him, or Bryan? I got the feeling that Bryan was being the pushy one (the one that Robin pushed back on), and certainly in the Stew Room he got the a-hole edit.

BTW, I was *so* glad to see the RvE drama die off, and to see Robin standing up to herself. I still don't see her winning (or even making the finals), but seriously if Ash had showed the cojones she displayed, he might have still been around.

~EdT.

[kit]

Re: Brothers V

I think it's hard to view Bryan's reaction to Michael's win as just based on what happened during this challenge. These are two brothers who are close in age and went into the same field. Anything that happens during a challenge is probably tapping into longstanding squabbles between the two of them, that are difficult to capture in this reality TV format. Given their relationship, it's probably easier for them to get angry or annoyed with one another, especially given they seem to care for each other deeply. (There's behavior that from a stranger I would find disappointing or annoying, but could ignore. But if a close friend or spouse behaved that way, I would be angry.) On the flip side, it's easier for them to create great food together. As Michael put it, he can put the period on any sentence that Bryan starts.

[Cheryl]

Ok..I thought Bryan was a complete jerk for declining Michael's offer to split the money. He was like a sulking child because his baby brother won the challenge. Just take the money and stick it in an account for the 2 nieces then. Give it back that way instead of being so ungracious. Bryan himself wasn't comfortable being the winner in team challenges previously; he just never won anything he could share.
The dessert discussion: Yes, Tom may have praised Hosea for NOT doing a dessert but the circumstances were completely different. Hosea was pretty much cooking on his own with the help of a sous chef who, based on prior years, could disappear at a moment's notice. He chose to stay completely with what he does well which doesn't include desserts. That's what Tom thought was smart. The fact that, knowing there is RW every year, none of those 4 had a single dessert in their back pocket was ridiculous. Yeah, maybe in alot of high end restaurants you don't eat dessert because you're full after eating intriguing apps and entrees but if the restaurant didn't have any on the menu, even some fresh fruit, wouldn't you wonder what the heck?! Stefan was praised for his desserts last year and the year before that, they liked the desserts the winning team put out - especially the one Steph put together if I recall correctly. Last year's losers lost for a lot of different reasons, including desserts which, unfortunately, are the last things someone might eat and so the last impression of the meal you served.
Laurine's downfall wasn't just bad FOH. The lamb was not cooked to her specifications and she served it anyway. That has been her problem all season. She doesn't want conflict with the other chefs and defers. She should have told Kevin, regardless of how great a chef he is, that the lamb needed more cooking time. That may have made the difference for her.
If Jen makes it to the finals, I think she will use the break to rest and come roaring back. However, one thing I have noticed is that the chef who wins part 1 doesn't win the final final. It's like an athlete who peaks too soon. I wonder if the chefs this season have what it takes to pace themselves and we'll have a winner who wins both final challenges.

[gilmore]

Big changes in the top 4. Does Jen drop to 5?

I thought the quickfire was great and would love to see it more than once a season (assuming this becomes a regular QF).

It was shocking to see Mission do so poorly. Reading Tom C's blog helps - what poor planning. That makes it even more difficult to understand how they could have let that happen.

Revolt - what a stupid name.

[Independent George]

She should have told Kevin, regardless of how great a chef he is, that the lamb needed more cooking time. That may have made the difference for her.

I think time was the overriding concern - they were already running late, and putting it back in the oven for another 5-10 minutes would have created an even bigger bottleneck.

Logistics is what killed them. Each dish sounded great in the abstract, but they didn't think about how long each would take to prepare, or divide their labor in a way that would have allowed them to succeed.

[Dave_P]

Haven't read the bravo blogs yet, but we always steamed our mussels to order in my last kitchen gig. In fact, I can't imagine pre-cooking them. I'm just sayin'.

#1 lesson no one ever seems to learn is not, "don't do a dessert." It's "don't make 2 lousy dishes, just make 1 fantastic one!" Seriously? 2 dishes apiece for Jen & Kev? When you're going to be slammed for a whole evening? Seriously?

Thank you Laurine for your brave sacrifice. It will not be in vain (hopefully). BTW, if a sauce breaks (Jen's trout) bet. the time it leaves the cook and reaches the table, it's on the FoH (and by extension, the wait-staff, who should be trained) to bring it the f*** back. You do *not* serve a plate of grease.

Have I mentioned I hate RW?

--
Dave

[Independent George]

So, I have a cooking question. What is the difference between poaching a fish in oil and frying? Is the oil poached fish at a lower temperature? That QF olive oil was up to a boiling point, so if Kevin dropped the sable fish in, why would that not have been frying? Just curious.

Yeah, that didn't make sense to me, either. The temperature is indeed the main difference between frying and poaching; frying imparts flavor by searing the outside in high heat, while poaching imparts flavor from the liquid itself at low heat. I always treated poaching as sous-vide without the vacuum bag - the lower temperature reduces the likelihood of overcooking, while the liquid imparts flavor. It's a good idea to start at a slightly higher temperature in order to pasteurize the outside of the meat, but it's not supposed to reach anywhere close to a full boil (stocks) or the smoke point (oils). Olive oil in particular loses its flavor somewhere in the neighborhood 180 degrees F, which is both well below the smoke point (210 degrees F), and way above the temperature you want to serve the fish at (USDA recommends 145 degrees, which, in my opinion, is horribly overcooked).

[TokenOmnivore]

If they were stuck on the name Revolt, I would have spelled it RE+VOLT.

[surrounded by vegans]

"I know we're going to see a lot of the typical foodie disdain for vegetarianism next week"
Seriously! I have no respect for any chef that can't easily put out a 5 course vegan meal. If you can't build flavor without duck fat, beef stock, and bacon - then you suck - period.

I'm a carnivore and I ain't no chef but I make a gluten free vegan meal every damn night of the week, so it just kills me when the pros bitch about dietary restrictions. Next season I hope they throw 'em a Kosher for Passover challenge.

Forgive me if I sound strident - I don't get enough bacon in my diet.

In non food related questions: Is anyone else distracted by Mike I's constant rocking side to side?

"I tried to punch a fish once"
I shot a fish in Reno, just to watch it die.

[anon man]

3 more things: yes, the planning at Mission was terrible. In theory, it makes sense: Jen, the fish gal does the fish course and Kevin, the meat guy does the meat. It also looked like Jen was the real bottleneck and that Kevin, while having his issues with the lamb was a little more in speed.

And the Brothers V: Kevin's first clip where he says the brothers are fighting all the time was very interesting. Yes, they squabble, but they've been fighting? Sounds like there is more tension there than we've seen before.

When I first saw Portman and the "just one thing" edit, I thought "Ok, she's kosher, sucks for Kevin", but then with Jen's complaint and me remembering somehow and interview where she discusses her vegetarianism, that made more sense.

[Dave_P]

Lots of good reasons why Kevin might not want to poach his fish. I recall that the oil was changed once already for getting too hot (think it was smoking). Entirely possible that the poaching liquid wasn't at the proper temperature, and w/only 10 minutes (far less, once you figure out what's actually going on), it's by far the safer bet to just fry them up on a skillet.

I think the QF deserves more analysis than RW, which we've all sat through 6 times now. I sorta dug the challenge, but like most other QFs, it was a sorta BS, gimmicky test. I read Tom's blog just now and thought some of his responses were ridiculous. He compares the QF to a collaboration. A collaboration requires communication. That QF was more of a puzzle-solving & tactical thinking contest. That makes it fun, esp for the viewer, but I can see it being very frustrating for a chef, esp one who doesn't enjoy puzzles and such.

My take: I think legs 2 & 3 should be the strongest parts, with an emphasis on 2. You don't leave it to the anchor to actually decide the dish, which was what ended up happening. Of course, this sort of thing needs to be worked out in the 30sec you have to choose the order--they said you can't talk about the food, nothing about general tactics.

#1 should be prep bit**, nothing more. Choose your proteins, sure, but grab a few, get some flavors prepped, but commit to nothing. Start on some basic sauces & bases, get a mirepiox going, maybe start a poaching liquid, but only as an option.

#2 is who actually decides the direction to take. #2 & 3 basically complete the dish, which means you have to "communicate". If you have to fire a protein at the last moment, place it near the proper utensil. Hell, draw an arrow w/a sprig of rosemary if you have to, but decide on what you want to do, and make it really clear to #3 (or #4) what your intentions are. #3 finishes up the concept applying his own interpretations & directions, and makes sure that everything is ready to finish up for the anchor.

#4 finishes the dish, but by this point, everything should be either done, or the remainder crystal clear. Finish the sauce, get the right temperature on the protein, plate.

BTW, you can convey the general gist of the last 3 paragraphs in about 10 seconds, plus an admonision to keep everything simple, so plenty of time to work it out while choosing the order. And yes, that's very easy to say when watching from the sidelines, just like every other cooking challenge. :)

--
Dave

[matthew]

I think Bryan is competitive, but don't think he acted like a brat. I think is brother takes the prize for being a dyck. I really had a hard time watching Mike V. operate in the kitchen. He was an ass toward everyone. I think, if anything. That back-and-forth with Robin was ridiculous--particularly given the way Mike V. speaks to everyone. What's clear is that Robin does not have the respect of most of the people on the show. Regardless, you don't muck with someone's dish, particularly when they're plating. I highly doubt Mike V. would have reached in on a male chef's dish like that. There might have been more than shouting if he did.

Laurine was clearly frazzled. I was more put off by her sit 'em and quit 'em approach to FOH. It wasn't just the judges that complained that Laurine didn't take time to explain the dishes. Add to that, if she disagreed with Kevin about the lamb, she should have pushed back. It was HER dish. Additionally, it's usually good for servers to inform you how the lamb is traditionally served, and ask if that's ok.

Poor Kevin (my favorite). I'd be interested to learn what he's pissed about, as well. We can speculate. I don't think his angst was directed at anyone in particular. I think it's more introspective because he knows how to run a restaurant and was not pleased with the overall performance.

As for Jen, we've seen season after season that someone is saved because someone else made a bigger gaffe (Laurine). It was somewhat the same as last season when Carla was saved by the poor FOH performance of Radhika. Meanwhile you had Leah, with clearly the worse dish of the night, skate because she was on the winning team.

I looked over at Carla last night when they introduced the rules for Restaurant Wars. She sighed, but managed to say that she thought it was done right. The chefs should focus on food not decor.

[matthew]

Oh...and I am tiring, just a bit, of Tom and others saying "This is the best ___ ever on Top Chef." Of course they are going to hype the current season. I think given the comments on the dishes, I don't see how this season RW rates as the best.

[Karen]

Nope, don't agree. It appears that they planned ahead what her dish would be and how it would be plated. If she took it upon herself to change what they had agreed to, then as EC he had every right to jump in and fix it. Bryan telling him to keep his money was an immature, bratty thing to do in the face of his brother's victory and it smacked of sour grapes to me. They were not rewarding his brother's unprofessional behavior (which they neither knew nor cared about anyway - they've made that clear in seasons past); they were rewarding his cooking.

[Jake]

I thought this QF was one of the most fun challenges this show has seen, and it really served to highlight the differences between the chefs. The top 4 chefs each considered not only what they were doing, but how they could prepare the next chef to succeed. Some of the bottom 4 did, to lesser degrees, but it seemed like Laurine and especially Robin were only focused on what they were doing. It could be editing, of course, but I thought it was a cool glimpse into how the chefs think about food, and about teamwork. That challenge could have been a disaster, but I think it turned out to be very cool to watch, and I hope they keep it for future seasons.

I think the editors were trying to show us Robin focusing on the wrong things -- the sparkling water, the not wanting anyone else to touch her dish (I can understand wanting to protect your turf in a contest, but it's still a team challenge). Whether that's true or not, we'll see, but I think that was the common thread for her through both challenges.

I thought Eli did a really impressive job with FOH, and they showed him expediting a bit, managing the diners' expectations, helping with pacing, explaining things well ... I think there can be a lot of shared skills between a good chef and a good FOH, and if done right, it doesn't have to be a place for someone to hide during Restaurant Wars. (Well that, and I can't blame him for not wanting to be in that kitchen.)

I thought the Mike V hit-job, as Dom put it, was brutal. Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it came across as a bit mean-spirited and undeserved to me.

[Jake]

Oh, and regardless of how he acted in the kitchen (which I don't think was all that bad this time anyway), asking to share the reward was classy, and I think shows how he thinks about team challenges.

[paula]

"I'm greedy. I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away."

Bingo, George. I hate to say it, but I'm kinda over Jen.

I loved that QF, even if it was gimmicky. Really, really cool to see how each team member approached the challenge and to hear what they were thinking as they went through it. Such interesting insight into each chef's personality and style, too. Loooooved it.

And I'm still fascinated watching the V Bros. dynamic. A big part of it is that they're both so freakin' talented--and yet, as much as they try, they can't quite overcome that natural sibling rivalry. AND, at the same time, they've got each other's back. What a twisted scenario this competition must be for them emotionally!

[Cheryl]

Natalie Portman is a kosher vegetarian. She supports PETA so chances are she doesn't do dairy either. I bet Robin does well in that challenge. Given her health issues, she probably has done alot of research/experimenting with vegetarian and macrobiotic recipes. Another chance for Eli to make some snarky remark I'm sure. I think the other chefs are going to have some trouble but I could be wrong. Hopefully they saw TCM and saw how those chefs handled an even more restrictive challenge than just vegan given the food intolerance issues with Zooey.

[aaalex]

re: the previews ... has anyone EVER said "i'm really comfortable with this and i'm going to shine on this challenge" (or words to that effect) and not been bitten in the arse for it? in the previews, we see robin talking about "shining" on the vegan challenge and, of all the preview shots we saw, that seemed to me the only one that has "hubris" written over it. i could almost hear the ominous music behind her. i still think there's more to this robin narrative to come, but next week could be her exit, in which case we'll probably hear even more of her story next episode.

i'm with those who loved the qf and was impressed by the judges' reaction to "revolt", but that must have been the weirdest winning team at judges' table i've ever seen. they'd WON and it was almost as tense as if they'd lost, with michael v basically trying to claim he'd fed robin the pithivier recipe and all she'd had to do was execute it though, in fact, she put it out HER way, after taking those of his suggestions she liked. (he HAD treated her with disrespect in the kitchen. she wasn't a sous chef per se. (michael v himself spoke of revolt as a collaboration) robin was a chef making a dessert. he came in and tried to change the way she put it out. a big no-no, since SHE would have been accountable for the dessert, if they had lost. that's as great a mark of disrespect as robin telling him to "fuck off". and if he'd tried to do that to a man (a man other than ash, i guess), it would have been war. she rightly stood up for herself and, as someone pointed out, standing up for herself is what distinguishes her from ash.) and then, in the stew room, the winning team - creators of the best restaurant wars restaurant in SIX years! - were still arguing over money or what have you. very, very strange.

i love RW. and though i may be in the minority, i regret that the teams didn't have to choose a decor. not having to choose a decor gave revolt an upper hand over some of the restaurants of past years, so i'm not sure if "best RW restaurant ever" is quite fair. i mean, it wasn't quite a level playing field.

[jh]

Dave, I disagree that #2 and 3 should be your strongest. I believe that you should always end with your strongest and that #2 should be your weakest (which was done by both teams). In a running relay, you put the slowest at #2. In the challenge, both teams approached it differently, as noted in Tom's blog, but one was not necessarily better than the other.

At the #1 spot, you want someone that is a strong prepper that either gives leaves a plethora of ideas (Eli) or a strong base to which to start the dish (Jen, when she make a sauce). The QF was going to be based on the taste and the cohesiveness, so it's important to start off on the right foot.

At the #2 spot, you just continue doing something, but if you screw up, there's still 20 minutes to fix it. (Laurine and Robin)

#3 And #4 is where ideas should mesh together and the final dish takes place. #4 should definitely be the strongest, because that person has to cook the protein (not always as elementary as it sounds), and make sure all the flavors work out right. With Kevin at #4, I was thinking, even if everyone screwed up, he could fix it at the end, but if Mike I were there, would we have salting issues? In addition, would you really want the final thing you plate in Robin's hands?

Also for the poaching in the oil, I think Jen put the pot out as a cue, and Laurine turned the heat up too high before realizing her mistake. Mike caught on to the idea, but realized the oil was too hot, and started a fresh one.

[aaalex]

matthew: i didnt see your post before i posted. i totally agree about what would have happened if michael v. had pulled what he pulled with robin on a male chef.

[aaalex]

matthew: a ps. i think the judges are simply blown away by the level of competition this year. though they offered criticisms of the dishes from the winning team, that has to be taken as relative. meaning: the criticisms they offered were still criticisms of some of the best food they've tasted over six years. a "bad" dish by bryan voltaggio could well be superior to a "great" dish by lisa fernandes. (chefs have different capacities as much as runners do. so, usain bolt's third or fourth best performance is still going to be beyond dwayne chambers'best.) so, you can't use their judges' table criticism as indicator of the relative quality of the food.

[Independent George]

I highly doubt Mike V. would have reached in on a male chef's dish like that. There might have been more than shouting if he did

Why make the immediate jump to sexism as the proximate cause? Why do you assume he did it because she's a woman, as opposed to because she's Robin? We already saw that Michael (a) is a micromanaging control freak (b) short-tempered, and (c) didn't particularly like Robin or her style of cooking. How do you immediately jump to (d) sexism! whan points (a), (b), and (c) are already out in the open? Remember - he basically rode roughshod over both Mike I and Ash in their team challenges, but played a collaberative role with Jennifer.

[mena]

I don't think Bryan was being bratty when he refused Michael's prize money. He seemed to be communicating displeasure in the same way everyone in that house has been communicating displeasure - in some weird roundabout way.

Their restaurant won, but did the end justify the means?

Michael V was pretty awful to his brother during the whole challenge. Others have written that they doubt Michael V would've treated a male chef the way he treated Robin. Along those same lines, I doubt Michael V would've treated a chef who wasn't his brother the way he treated Bryan.

Looks like the sibling rivalry thing is finally heating up.

[kit]

Dave_P says: I sorta dug the challenge, but like most other QFs, it was a sorta BS, gimmicky test. I read Tom's blog just now and thought some of his responses were ridiculous. He compares the QF to a collaboration. A collaboration requires communication. That QF was more of a puzzle-solving & tactical thinking contest.

I hear ya Dave_P, I loved this challenge for its puzzly qualities, and thought Tom had gone off the deep-end a bit with his comparison to the usual brainstorming, collaborative process that we've seen the chefs do millions of times whenever they have team challenges.

Then again, maybe Tom, in some post-modern experimental approach to dish-creation, runs his staff through these blind-folded cooking relays as a team-building/menu-devising/food-worshipping exercise, telling them they are not allowed to talk about the food, as they must learn to communicate solely through mise en place and random pans left gurgling on the stove (he likes to call it craftoglyphics). After the tasting, the weakest leg is fired. Who knows. Best explanation - I'm still miffed at Tom for that crazy comment at the end of his last blog, which irresponsibly lead to numerous panic attacks and blackouts during my watching of this episode. Darn you Colicchio!

[Amanda P.]

JH: Thanks for your summary of the QF order. I completely agree that #2 should be your weakest. Another reason to have a strong (or at least not the weakest) person as #1 is because you have to trust them to get things started - they have to pull the "right" items out and start anything that requires time. #2, I think, should be the weakest, because there's still time to fix any errors.

What I found interesting was about Robin. In the QF, she didn't work on the combined dish, she just set it all aside and made a salad. I'm not even sure if that was the salad that ended up on the plate (although I recall that one did - anyone know if it was Robin's?).

Robin seems to have gone the complete opposite of Jen and Kevin. While J&K followed collaboration into calamity, Robin seems to have taken the competition so to heart that she CAN'T collaborate, or even cooperate. Many of her interviews are about "this is a competition", and I think that was more of the focus of the "fight" with Mike V. than anything else. No, I don't think Mike V would have inserted himself into any of the remaining chef's dishes like he did with Robin, but I can see him doing that to some of the chefs who left.

Lastly, and I SOOOO hate to do this, I actually agree with something Toby said. It was a throw away line at Judges' Table about the review of REVolt starting with a comment about Eli's appearance. I know that it's about the food, most of the time, but for RW, FoH is important. If I were at a classy restaurant and the FoH had a jacket that didn't fit over an untucked dress shirt, I would worry that everything about the place was sloppy. The fact that everyone else on the team thought it was ok just bugs me...and I know I'm a stick in the mud, but I never thought I'd sound so much like my grandmother...ugh. :)

[.jokerr]

Hmm, speaking of the way the Eli dressed as FOH, I wonder if it's them trying for a younger, edgier vibe? Eli did ask Michael V whether his untucked shirt was OK, and got positive response. When I went to Bryan V's VOLT--all the waiters wore business suits, unbuttoned, with running shoes--but it was still definitely a classy fine-dinning place. Personally, casual dress would not bother me if it was part of a deliberate choice.

[Amanda P.]

I suppose the less formal attire suits Eli, and they were going for "new American", which doesn't have as fussy of a reputation as, say, French, but the waiters were were all neat and tidy, so it was just Eli looking out of place. I just kept wanting to yell "Tuck in your shirt" every time Eli was on screen.

Tennis shoes, on the other hand, make perfect sense to me!

Shoot - I had another thought and lost it. I think it was about Robin and Eli both acting like adults (except the shirt!), while the V-bros squabbled like children. Oh well, if it comes back, I'll post it. I'm sure it was a brilliant observation that I just didn't write down (or, maybe I just watched this week's episode of Mad Men too recently).

[gilmore]

Cheryl - maybe Natalie Portman is Koser lite. Unless they bring in all new cookware and plates, I doubt kosher food could be cooked in Tom C's kitchen. Eliminate the meat and several kosher issues are gone - meat and dairy served together, pork, shellfish.

aalex - If kosher lite is required, maybe Robin and Eli think they have the advantage. Robin's cockiness could be that combined with her perceived healthy cooking.

Amanda P. - I am starting to like Toby more and more. His blog this week was good as well.

[Dave_P]

JH, I don't think the racing analogy really works. In a relay race, you genearlly want your fastest runner to anchor, and your 2nd fastest to start (technically, you place your fastest starter off the blocks, assuming a sprint relay, who may not be the 2nd or even 3rd fastest runner), because you want to get out to a good start, and finish strong. Here, you want a core of 2 chefs to more or less complete the dish, so the question is, do you want those two at the beginning, middle or end? Or do you split them up as you would in a race?

Upon further reflection, I stick by my original strategem *only if* all four cooks are onboard, mostly skilled, and there's a bit more time to prepare tactics (w/o talking about the food itself, of course). If you're ad libbing like last night, I think you should place the strongest 3 & 4, in that you can more or less complete a dish in 10 minutes, certainly 20, regardless of what's occurred before. I would think though that placing the strongest in the middle is optimal as it allows you to "hide" your weakest as prep monkey, and your 2nd weakest as the plater--basically, they're your sous. The true collaboration would occur in the middle.

If this sort of thing was happening in Tom's kitchens (which honestly would be kinda cool, and prolly good for morale & creativity), that's how I'd play out my teams.

--
Dave

[matth]

Did anyone else think that Jennifer should have picked Bryan instead of Kevin first? I think had she done that Mike V would have chosen Mike I and then Jen could have taken Kevin with her second pick. Would have been interesting to see how that turned out.

[aaalex]

independent george: i think you're half right, re the potential sexism of michael v's behaviour. michael v has been overbearing with his collaborators - except, of course, jen. but we are watching a power dynamic at work. he is not friendly with robin. he does not treat her with respect. the people he has been overbearing with are people who like him, who respect him. a man he did not respect, one who was looking out for himself in this competition, would have been been rightfully angry to the point of violence by his behaviour. you can only behave as michael v. did with people who give you the authority to do so. robin didn't. a man in robin's position would not have. so, there is still an element of sexism at work here, though he may not have been aware of it. no need to call him "sexist" - though i can't get over the irony of jim assigning the one female on the red team to make the dessert - but in terms of human power dynamics, i will bet you he would have approached a male chef making that dessert in an entirely different way. if not, i agree with matthew, there would have been potentially physical consequences.

gilmore: yes, you're right about the source of robin's attitude, i think. but my question was more of a real question: HAS there been anybody who has said "i've got this challenge by the tail because ..." who HASN'T been made to "eat their own words"? the latest example being eli bragging about his ability to pair food with wine. he was confident. he was wrong. as was mattin with the french food and, last year, stefan with his dessert in the finals, or andrew with his healthy cooking at the firehall, etc, etc. the editors just seem to love to burst bubbles, though maybe robin really will rock this challenge. in which case: bye bye mike i. or maybe eli?

[lisa]

Being Vegetarian and my husband being Vegan I am looking forward to the Vegan challenge next week. I dont understand why so many chefs are thrown off by this. It is still about flavor, just change your proteins and make it work. I am hoping to pull at least one great recipe from this that I can make at home.

[Will Allen]

Surprising and fascinating episode, one that could be employed in a management school class. The losing team illustrated the dangers of group think and what bad things can occur when a group has a near complete lack of conflict or tension. The effective manager/leader will often deliberately create tension and conflict as a means of developing solutions, and the ineffective manager/leader often trys to avoid conflict and tension, and thus cuts the organization off from solutions. Here, no person was willing to be the dissident voice, so they all marched, in step, off the cliff. This happens even with extremely talented people. I think Kevin grasps this very well, and that is why he was angry.

As to who deserved to go, I don't think it is even very close. Yeah, Jen fouled up pretty badly (although the FOH is not blameless in serving a sauce that has broken), but there is one word to describe a FOH who doesn't make the effor to describe the food to diners: quitting. Fouling up badly is unfortunate, but quitting is completely unacceptable. It would be akin to Jen recognizing that she was fouling up, and simply deciding to not send any food out. I don't dislike Laurene, in fact I rather liked her farewell address, in which she indicated, or at least it seemed to me, that she was rather tired of living with these people, and thus leaving contained some pleasure. She quit, however, so it made sense for the judges to accept her resignation.

[Joanna]

aaalex: "HAS there been anybody who has said "i've got this challenge by the tail because ..." who HASN'T been made to "eat their own words"?"

I guess it depends on the tone, but what about Kevin in the Pigs and Pinot challenge? He said that he is so confident working with pig, he'd be embarrassed if he didn't win -- not just that he thought he'd do well, but that he was confident enough to think he should *win* even before the challenge started.

The thing is, because Kevin tends to be modest, it didn't come across as bragging - it came across as an honest assessment of his chances. And he was right.

[aaalex]

joanna: good counter example, especially as i remember feeling nervous about kevin's chances after he said it.

[Independent George]

Ah, yes, the old Not So Invincible After All play.

[karen]

aaalex: Remember, he specifically told Robin that she'd had success with her dessert, so why not go with that. Only his brother had previously prepared a dessert and it did not win, so he was actually showing confidence in Robin being able to pull that off successfully. Not sexist at all, just practical.

[jh]

Top Chef Masters has been renewed for a second season!! Kelly and the three judges will remain the same. I wonder which chefs will compete...

[aaalex]

karen: in his initial decision, you're right, i guess. but i was talking about michael v. actually HANDLING her dessert. a no-no and a deep insult. he may have done this to some man he disliked or did not respect, but that man would have felt compelled to stand up for himself (as robin did) or to repay the insult with a push or a punch. a man, in robin's place, would be a more dangerous proposition (in general, anyway. i'm sure there are more than a few women out there who would have decked him, too, if they'd felt pushed to it) and i imagine michael v. would have - even if unconsciously - taken that into account.

independent george: "not so invincible after all" exactly!

[aaalex]

jh: YES! best news i've heard on this blog in a long time. i can't wait for TCM season 2 and i'm salivating at teh thought of who will be the chefs.

[Skillet Doux]

"So, we will not get the superduper 4 horsemen finale, because Padma dropped the bomb: only 3 in the final."

Somebody else might have pointed this out already, but I suspect this is a matter of semantics -- the "finals" versus the "finale", the former being the last two episodes in an exotic locale, and the latter being the final final challenge. Of course, we don't know. They've messed with the format before, but it's been a long time.

"They praised the chicken dish. Like most foodies, I can count on one hand the number times I order chicken at a high end restaurant. But every now and then you have one and go- WOW! This sounds like one of these.
"

After being bored out of my skull with it for years, I've really been rediscovering chicken the past couple of years. When it's good, it can be sooooo freaking good. And I still usually avoid it in restaurants, partly because it's so often intended as the "safe" selection for non-adventurous eaters, but chicken and calamari? Yeah, that's hard to pass up.

"About midway through the episode I was Certain that Jen was going home. The outfit & hairstyle she was sporting in her interview changed, and for some reason my warped mind decided those wily elves had filmed an extra interview because they needed more footage for their "loser edit.""

I thought the same about Mike V. (they did the same with him) before remembering that that's not unusual.

" I had expected Kevin and Jen to put their heads down and just put out good food - but I was surprised that Mike I. didn't step up when he saw the problem developing."

It sure looked like he was sitting on the sidelines from the edit, and we know he made that crack about being done, but I wouldn't assume he wasn't on the stove helping as much as he could. We might just not have seen it.

"I'm greedy. I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away."

Agreed. You want them at their best. That's why last season's finale was so unsatisfying. But hey, it's one episode. No need to get despondent, I say.

"Ah My bad. Still, they didn't seem to like the halibut on air."

I believe they loved the halibut itself, and they dug her "consomme", but felt that something was lost in putting them together.

"Mike. Salt. Again."

It's definitely more of a trend than a blip at this point.

"So, I have a cooking question. What is the difference between poaching a fish in oil and frying? Is the oil poached fish at a lower temperature? That QF olive oil was up to a boiling point, so if Kevin dropped the sable fish in, why would that not have been frying? Just curious."

I think some others have jumped in on this, but yes, it's a matter of temperature. And I'm sure the high temperature was an accident due to the relay chaos... or, as somebody else mentioned, possibly one chef not picking up on her intention.

"Big changes in the top 4. Does Jen drop to 5?"

Ehhhh, we'll see. They tend to be less volatile later in the season. More history to refer to and easier to see particular episodes as exceptions. I haven't thought about it yet.

"Thank you Laurine for your brave sacrifice. It will not be in vain (hopefully). BTW, if a sauce breaks (Jen's trout) bet. the time it leaves the cook and reaches the table, it's on the FoH (and by extension, the wait-staff, who should be trained) to bring it the f*** back. You do *not* serve a plate of grease."

Yeah, this, I think, was one of the biggest issues... not just with her lamb. And the fact that she stated so emphatically to Tom that nothing was getting past her if it wasn't just right may very well be what clinched it for her.

"Oh...and I am tiring, just a bit, of Tom and others saying "This is the best ___ ever on Top Chef." Of course they are going to hype the current season. I think given the comments on the dishes, I don't see how this season RW rates as the best."

Glad to have you back, Matthew! I imagine this must get frustrating -- if not galling -- for a former contestant (or spouse thereof). But if it's any consolation, first of all, I believe they were specifically referring to the winning team, and certainly not the losing team. And secondly... well, you know the history of Restaurant Wars. It's kind of the Mission Impossible of Top Chef. There just aren't that many success stories to choose from :-)

"I am starting to like Toby more and more. His blog this week was good as well."

I actually had the opposite reaction to his blog this week. He laid out precisely why I have little to no use for traditional restaurant reviews. Except his wasn't a criticism. If you're telling me outright that the food and service combined comprise less than 50% of your score (relegating the quality of the food to... what?... 25%? 30%?) and actually name "how many celebrities hang out there" as one of your judging criteria, that pretty much sums up why I'm totally uninterested in what you have to say. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. He can review however he damn well pleases. And the audience for that type of review obviously exists (and may even be the majority). But that form of restaurant review is one that I'd really like to see go the way of the dinosaur.

"Being Vegetarian and my husband being Vegan I am looking forward to the Vegan challenge next week. I dont understand why so many chefs are thrown off by this."

Speaking only for myself as a total wannabe, it's because you want everything to be the best it can possibly be, and there's nothing more frustrating than saying to yourself, "Now, a little bit of pork fat would be the perfect way to-- oooooo, can't do that." Whenever I do something vegetarian or vegan, I always feel like I'm compromising. Not because I can't use meat or because I don't think you can do perfectly delicious things without it, but because I hate being in the position where I know that I can't use that one thing that I just know would make this dish perfect

Regarding the Mike V. vs. Robin thing, I don't want to get too much into the personal bickering, but I wonder if there isn't an alternate read. I'll have to watch it again, but these chefs always jump in to help each other out. Is it possible he was just jumping on the line to help get the food out the door, and she was overly defensive? I don't know that that's the case. I think it's hard to tell anything from what we're seeing. Mostly just positing a potential alternate read. Anybody who's worked in a kitchen like this... is jumping in on somebody's line without an invite a big no-no?

[matthew]

@independent george. Whoa...pump the brakes! Did you read my entire comment or just skip to the quoted line? I didn't make, as you suggest, "an immediate jump" to sexism. In fact, much aligned with your litany of counterpoints, my opinion (<- operative word) was prefaced with an observation that Mike V showed a complete lack of respect for Robin (gender neutral) generally. Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that I doubt Mike V. would have physically reached in on a male chef that way. That's just something you don't do--beit on the line in the kitchen, or at someone's computer in my office. I'm a photographer as well as a lawyer. I'd be ready to kick someone's ass if they tried to grab my camera to do something they felt was right/better.

[matthew]

Oh...I forgot to add that it was compounded by Mike V's scolding of Robin for cursing at him. I'm not invested in being right about my observation, but it did appear to me that Mike V tried to keep Robin in check. I'm sure if another male chef heard "Don't use that language with me" or "Calm down" or whatever he said, the response would be "F**k off!"

Funnily enough, it's been Mike I who has been, thus far, branded as the sexist.

[Kathy from Austin]

Will Allen makes some very good points. As it relates to FOH, Laurene KNOWINGLY served Jen's broken sauce to the judges (it was already late, why note take it back for fresh sauce) and also served the raw lamb. If she had been paying attention and was focused that would never have happened and Jen, Kevin and be extension the team might have won. Besides, she is purportedly a professional. Yet she doesn't take time to describe the dishes, even to the judges? I'm 100% convinced the right decision was made.

[Karen]

Interview with Laurine:

"I think if the playing field was equal and all things were fair, I think Jen was kind of instrumental in bringing the kitchen to a halt that evening."

"She's a perfectionist and I'm a perfectionist as well. I think the difference between us are when I fall short I'm clearly aware of it. I use those failures…With Jennifer...She's always shocked when she fails and is more defensive like, "I'm perfect so how can I possibly fail?"

Jen looked perfectly aware last night that she failed and has stated in the past that she felt she had not done well.

[Bart]

Dom: If you're telling me outright that the food and service combined comprise less than 50% of your score (relegating the quality of the food to... what?... 25%? 30%?) and actually name "how many celebrities hang out there" as one of your judging criteria, that pretty much sums up why I'm totally uninterested in what you have to say.

Just to clarify - you believe that restaurant reviews should be solely on the food? I'm just curious, because I don't think Toby was saying that the food is unimportant, just that the general atmosphere you get at a restaurant is equally important as the food. It's the cumulative experience.

Example, would you want to eat an Eric Ripert five-course meal while sitting on a milk crate, outside, under a freeway overpass? With someone just haphazardly handing off food in Glad containers?

Or, inversely, eating McDonald's served to you on fine china, linen plates, jazz in the background, tableside service? (I think this actually exists somewhere, in New York City... or used to)

Extreme examples, to be sure, but if only to illustrate his point

[aaalex]

dominic: you've got a plausible alternative, but i seem to remember michael v. wanted her to change what she was doing and jumped in to CHANGE it. to me, that's a no-no in a competition like this. robin is the only who's going to live or die by the dish, simple respect dictates that she be allowed the final decision. michael v. responded that he was only trying to help robin, but changing isn't helping. it's more like taking over.

it's an admittedly dicey situation. michael v. is acting like ec, and the kitchen needed a guiding hand. but he doesn't really have that authority. this isn't a normal kitchen, it's a competition. he can't decide another's fate, nor should anyone allow him to. i'm thinking this is why bryan was so pissed, at the end of the day. michael v. was, at times, close to abusing his authority.

interesting example from earlier this year: ashley's food was salted on the way out by eli. at judges table, she had to live with the dish, though eli may have fucked it up. grossly unfair for eli to have intervened. and it would have been unfair now, too, if michael v. had interfered in what was, when all is said and done, a successful dish by robin.

on the toby young blog: well, he's at least being honest. it's a bit like "the starf*ckers guide to restaurants" with all that time given to atmosphere and who's in the room, etc. but i imagine ALL food critics take the clientele into account, even jay rayner. the thing is, rayner's percentages are likely different. he probably gives more time to the food, but he'd likely start a review with words about the famous people hanging about, before getting to the food itself ... maybe...

[RIley]

^ First time commenter, long time lurker. Anyways, Laurine actually SAID that? Wow, guess she wasn't really ok/relieved at being eliminated. Understandably so, but that comment seems like a jab at Jen. I thought those two are friends?

Regardless, regardless. I feel that last night PYKAG decision was the right one. Even if it seems or was a pass, this was the freaking right time to give one.

And yes, Jen better pull herself out of that dark rotten hole & be amazing again. Enough with the off-sies, I want DOMINANCE.

[Skillet Doux]

"Just to clarify - you believe that restaurant reviews should be solely on the food?"

No, no, it's a package. I don't mean to deny the importance of everything else. (Well... celebrity presence... ugh.) But when the food isn't even half of the equation for you (and, presuming that service is rather important, considerably less), I find that ridiculous.

And also, to clarify, I don't think I used the word "should", and if I did, I shouldn't have. I don't mean to suggest that there's some "right" way to write a restaurant review. Merely that that kind of review and that kind of reviewer means nothing to me.

In short, finding that Toby Young places so much importance on so many other things only makes me less inclined to listen to what he has to say. And I think it lends an awful lot of credibility to the "style over substance" complaints about him -- when he seemed to be more interested in shoehorning in snarky one-liners than saying anything constructive (a trait that has, to his credit, diminished greatly as of late).

That blog post certainly didn't endear him to me, is all I'm saying.

[zsparks]

As the chief dissenter to RW, I have to say that I did breathe a sigh of relief when I saw them walk into the actual restaurants. On the other hand, it did make it about menu only, and it was clear that that's not all there is to creation of a destination. To top it off, abandoning decor did nothing whatsoever to help Jen and Kevin. What could they possibly have lost by spending time on a few decor selections? All the wrong decisions were made on their feet.

Mike V: I don't think any inter-personal stuff played out that wasn't what we should have expected. Edits to show Mike's immaturity (or pettiness?) have been escalating for awhile, and the Robin stuff was just an extension of what we spent the whole last seven days discussing here. People who complete the show without exchanging any smart remarks with anyone else are rare. When all that is edited out, it's TCM without the Masters'. Maybe that would be better, but Miguel and Tiffany closed that door for us long ago. Where would we be without our "I'm Not Your Bitch, Bitch" t-shirts?

[Skillet Doux]

"you've got a plausible alternative, but i seem to remember michael v. wanted her to change what she was doing and jumped in to CHANGE it. to me, that's a no-no in a competition like this."

Oh, there we're in total agreement. It just wasn't entirely clear to me that that's what was going on. And this may, indeed, have been primetime grade A jackassery on Mike V.'s part. I'm playing devil's advocate.

[Bart]

Dom - Thanks for the clarification!

[jse91]

"Example, would you want to eat an Eric Ripert five-course meal while sitting on a milk crate, outside, under a freeway overpass? With someone just haphazardly handing off food in Glad containers?"

Yes.

Karen - wow, that interview is something! I can't imagine what Laurine thinks happened in this competition. She is a legend in her own mind for sure. She's better than Robin, she's Jen's equal, they both deserved to go home even though her only win was for a group effort.

I thought she was pretty quiet for the most part, but her food never impressed me. Can't say I am sorry to see her go.

[gilmore]

Re Toby - I think he is more human this year and I enjoy what he has to say. Doesn't mean i always agree. But I learn from reading him more this year than the obnoxia he spouted last year. I think the 50% is low.
I hate celebrities (and would be inclined to not eat where they do, although the celebs near me are few and far between, and those that are here are down to earth athletes). They have been more at the dumps I eat at than the fancier places.
My wife and I won a trip to NY many years ago. We ate at Le Bernardin (pre Ripert), Lutece and La Cote Basque. Le Bernardin was #1 ranked in NY, Le Cote Basque was lower than Lutece, but we far and away enjoyed La Cote Basque due to the service and atmosphere. The food was all new to us, but LCB's tasted better and that perception may have been helped by the atmosphere.
Bottom line - Toby seems less of a jerk to me and I enjoy his comments and blogs (like pronouncing foreign words) much more this year.

[Skillet Doux]

Oh...

"Example, would you want to eat an Eric Ripert five-course meal while sitting on a milk crate, outside, under a freeway overpass? With someone just haphazardly handing off food in Glad containers?"

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I might not be willing to pay Le Bernardin's prices for it, but hell yeah!

It's about the food, baby. Everything else is secondary.

[Jimbobob]

I thought the Mike V hit-job, as Dom put it, was brutal. Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it came across as a bit mean-spirited and undeserved to me.

Really? Undeserved? They used Mike's own words, ones which are pretty hypocritical when you look at his behavior in the kitchen. He tells Robin that using foul language is disrespectful, yet he is as guilty of it as anyone in the kitchen. I think Mike V. is extremely talented, but he comes off as a bit of a jerk in the kitchen from what I have seen. Of course I am well aware, as we all should be, that we are only seeing a small window into these peoples personalities, one which has been heavily edited for TV.

As for the rest of this episode, I think they made the right decision. My guess is that we got an edit that made it seem closer than it was. When Laurine didn't even bother to describe the dishes, I knew she was toast (Mike I. would have been so much better). I do think the chances are getting higher and higher that someone out of the Fantastic Four will not make it to the final two episodes. Right now that person looks like Jen. What happened to her kick ass confidence that she showed early in the season?

[ddg]

I believe the cause of the Robin/Mike V. thing was that Michael felt that her portions were bigger than they had agreed on as a group previously, so he jumped in and tried to work on them. That's when Robin started cursing at him, Michael mentioned as he was backing away that she shouldn't change things they agreed on.

I think Robin just wanted a dish that she could say was all hers if she was up for elimination and Michael V. just wanted to put out the best effort possible in his eyes.

The idea Michael did this because Robin is a woman is sorta off. I believe if Ron was in Robin's place Michael would've done the same thing, but if Jen was in Robin's place he would not.

One comment about the team selection, how awful would it have been if one of the top 4 got 1st choice and one of the bottom 4 got 2nd choice? That would've guaranteed one team ended up with 3 of the top 4 and the other with only 1, I'm glad the teams broke down how they did. I actually thought REVOLT was a clever name until they judges mentioned the 'revolting' aspect of it but comeon R(obin) E(li) VOLT(aggio) or you can make a play of words and sorta interpret as a spin off of Bryan's VOLT restaurant.

It looks like the Finals will be 1 on 1 competition like the first 2 seasons and I for one am glad, I hated the 3 or 4 course meal thing served side by side, I thought the 5 course meal served separately felt more like a real dining experience rather than 3 dishes in front of you to compare and contrast, harder to get a flow going. If I were a betting man there are 2 matchups I see as the most likely: Michael vs Bryan or Michael vs Kevin.

[EdT.]

As I mentioned on Tom C's blog, I think the issue with Michael V. and Robin in the kitchen (and who is "right" or "unprofessional") is being taken out of context. In this case, they are in a cooking COMPETITION, and Michael V. and Robin are COMPETING with each other. So, leader or not, Michael had no business "taking over" Robin's dish, for which she would have been held responsible at JT had they lost (what a great way to throw somebody under the train - screw up their dish for them, then point out that they *agreed to be responsible* for it.) It is pretty apparent that Robin KNOWS the others don't hold her in high esteem, and she decided that should wouldn't allow herself to be walked over (as she re-emphasized at JT.) Of course, had they been in an actual restaurant, his word as EC and leader would have been law, and she would have been out of line for going off on him.

However, in context, I think that MV was being an ass. And that Robin was justified in telling him to effoff.

Now, had Ash/Ashley shown such cojones on the episodes where they were eliminated...

~EdT.

[KinderJ]

I also found the recent Toby blog post irritating. A little nauseating, actually. Toby seems to be writing for an era that, at least in America, appears to be fading- fine dining as an opportunity for conspicuous consumption. Just as an example, I imagine a restaurant run by, say, Rachel Ray and beloved of Brittney Spears would score quite well in a Young review, provided the place was not on fire, staffed by howler monkeys and openly poisoning the guests. I contrast that with, Hungry Mother or Oleana here in Cambridge, both of which do high end food at reasonable prices- and nary a celebrity/celebrity chef in sight.

I can be, and indeed am, an utterly patrician snob at times- but no one likes feeling ripped off. And if I am occasionally a patrician snob, I am a Yankee patrician snob, which means I find the notion of a $50 steak downright offensive, especially if $40 of that is for sitting in the same chair a Jonas bum once polished. Now, if someone was to review a place and tell me why that steak was worth $50, described the deliciousness, the succulence, everything that made that steak in that restaurant worth $50, I might think 'Hey, maybe I ought to save up and check this place out.' If they said 'You can still taste the D List in the air!' I would a) bin the magazine, swearing never to buy another and b) avoid that restaurant like the plague.

I guess what I am saying is that this is the golden age of food and fine dining, at least in North America and Europe. Historically food has never been this cheap, plentiful or in such variety. Food as culture has made an enormous renaissance, innovation joyfully competing with refinement of ancient dishes and skills. Why would you demean that? Why would you say that a restaurant is good because it caters to the famous and their arriviste stalkers? Sure, atmosphere matters. The decor, creating a mood, all these things can help guests enjoy their meal. In the world Toby sees, the atmosphere should be one of worth derived by proximity to fame. It feels sick, diseased. Where is the joy? Where's the fun? I hope this style of review, this assessment of worth, dies away soon. I doubt it will, but I hope.

[KinderJ]

It's about nightclubs, but it sort of illustrates my point...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/22/celebrities.pay.party/index.html

[paula]

Toby says in his blog: "I sometimes think I could write an accurate review of a restaurant without ever tasting the food."

I bet you dinner for two at La Bernadin Under the Overpass that he has, in fact, written (or at least conceived) many of his reviews without taking the food into consideration at all. You know those critics who are so enamored of their own brilliant prose that it hardly matters if its just criticism/praise? Yeah.

[mncharm]

I, for one, cannot get over how rare that lamb looks in the picture. Look at that piece on the left -- ridic! How either Kevin or Laurine let that out the door is insane.

I thought the group dynamics were interesting in both groups. For all the potential for a blow-up at Revolt (which, as others have noted, probably should have been spelled Re-Volt), they (for the most part) put their heads down and concentrated on banging out top dishes. Yeah, Michael and Bryan had their tiff, but whatever -- they're brothers; they know what the other can handle -- and the Robin/Michael dustup came at the very end, when it was clear that the meal was very much in hand. I get the sense that for wahtre

At Mission (the name of which I found amusing, because there is a restaurant in downtown Minneapolis by the same name that does decent modern American cuisine), everyone knew there wouldn't be any issues regarding chemistry...but no one seemed willing to step on any toes and push the others, and boom -- they failed. If a single one of them had stepped up: if Kevin or Jen had said "hey, I'm in trouble and totally overwhelmed; I need help", you have to wonder if they could have regrouped. Mike I. may have had enough time/flexibility to steam the mussels/clams, as someone noted. I doubt he wouldn't have been willing to help or was interested in sabotaging a teammate -- it may have been respect for Jen's abilities that kept him from interfering without a request for help. At a minimum, you'd think Mike I. or Kevin might have questioned whether she'd be able to pull off those two dishes simultaneously during the planning stages -- could Ripert even have done it? I have my doubts; I'm pretty sure he only has two hands.

[anon man]

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I might not be willing to pay Le Bernardin's prices for it, but hell yeah!

It's about the food, baby. Everything else is secondary.

Ok, I agree with this, but the part about not wanting to pay top dollar is very important. There's a reason that reviews talk about the service or the decibel level. If I go out, especially here in DC where service has a habit of being terrible, I want to that I will be served a good meal and taken care of and that wifey and I will be able to speak in normal voices. In some respects, the Bernadin on a dixie plate model is what Ilan tried to do. High end food, take out, with a corresponding less expensive price point. 'Nuff said.

I thought it was funny to see Toby admit that the D list viewing effects his reviews. This is from the same guy who once wrote an article about how much he hates "hot" restaurants. I've read a number of his reviews and they have sort of a formula. He starts off with why he should hate the place and then explains why he was wrong or why he was too easy on them. His takedown of Ramsay's flagship is one an example, but his review of Fat Duck is the one that sticks out. He starts the review by making fun of the place's widely reported financial problems and its remote location, and then proceeds to nearly reach tears in describing the food. I've eaten there. I almost cried too.

[dc]

EC experience imbalance really hurt Team Mission. Kevin is 'only' 26, and until recently Jen was a sous. The Voltaggios stronger EC backgrounds, further boosted by chemistry of common professional as well as literal pedigree.

On to Robin drama. Michael V used the same tactic as Mike I did in house party ep, limiting Robin tasks and risk as much as possible. Robin-risk containment. Bryan even made a backup dessert, they have so little respect for her. It turned out well for all, Robin focused on 1 dessert which was successful.

In Michael Robin flareup I can't tell what was the real issue -- we'll probably read about it in interviews. But w Michael immersed in the EC role, w Bryan the sous, Michael exploding is how I think most EC would react if in the middle of dinner rush a line cook talked back when s/he was only to be trying to speed up dessert service. He wasn't trying to sabotage Robin or throw out her dish. Think how captain of a vessel in a storm would react.

Robin snapping at Michael for doing his EC command mission of their RW team victorious is more evidence she doesn't work or play well with others. She's self-involved and very noisy about self-involved . Plus I don't think she is obsessed with art fine culinary creation as the rest of them, including Laurine. She's more a reality contestant who cooks well, than a chef. That's why she is the odd person out and outsider.

Random thought: Bryan demeanor and big eyed stares remind me of Phil Ivey (poker superstar).

[natmicstef]

I didn't see anything untoward in Michael V's running of the kitchen. He was the EC and said several times this is a team and we want to win and he was doing all that was necessary to steer the ship in that direction. Robin was too defensive. Yes she would have had to stand behind her dessert but as EC, Michael was ultimately responsible. It was interesting though that Mission did not have an EC or an operating one anyway and were not questioned about that.
Michael V would I think jump in to fix another chef's food if he was EC whether they were male or female - and ultimately in the work place, you garner respect from the quality of your work so if you're not getting it you should pause for thought. Finally, in a kitchen hierarchy you don't tell the EC to f...off if he touches your food.

[SorchaRei]

On the issue of Tom flip-flopping on dessert since last year's finals: the situations are not comparable.

This is RW6, and the goal is to create an entire menu for a restaurant. Unless you pick a cuisine that has no desserts (is there such a thing?), a restaurant menu has to have a dessert offering.

In the finals, they told the chefs that they didn't need to do dessert. Then some judges wanted to ding Hosea for doing what they said they could do. I think there's a good argument that the rule was stupid -- if it's a full meal, you normally want to see dessert -- but once the rule was in place, Tom was right not to allow them to penalize Hosea for having followed it.

On the other hand, it did make it about menu only, and it was clear that that's not all there is to creation of a destination.

I don't think it did make it all about menu. Laurine lost largely because the FoH was so badly handled in Mission. She served a broken sauce. She failed to describe the dishes. She did not oversee the service or make sure that food was being fired appropriately. The experience that the diners had would have been quite different had she done those three things differently.

[aaalex]

the point is this WASN'T a normail kitchen. it's a competition. michael v. was EC because the other chefs allowed him to be, but only within their own comfort zones. when he tried to change robin's dish, he was overstepping the bounds of his authority in this competition. he would NOT have been held responsible if robin's dessert had sucked or had been the weakest part of the losing team. the judges would, rightly, have said she ought to have stood up for her own dish. not a regular kitchen: a kitchen in a competition. so, michael v. was not an EC who had, at all costs, to be obeyed. he was the agreed upon leader with limitations. touching robin's dish was off base. also, when he tried to convince bryan not to do his ganache, bryan rightly told him to get lost. jennifer being EC in the airforce episode was a different situation. someone had to organize the kitchen to make sure everybody knew what was what and to marshall use of the resources. not the case, here, when everybody had his or her own station and his or her own job to do. i don't think michael v. is some sort of evil villain. he just had no right to touch another competitor's food and he knew it when he invented the excuse that he was just trying to help. you ASK if you can help a competitor. you don't just go in and change things. robin, whatever you think of her personality or failings, stood up for herself exactly as she should have. ash didn't stand up for himself. ashley let eli screw up her food. they aren't around and robin is. it's not a matter of pure luck. she has determination. the only question is whether she has he skills to back that dtermination up.

[jonathan]

Why didn't they just name their place REV so it caused people to think "revolution." Same concept as REVOLT but with out the likelihood of people thinking "revolting." Or they could have gone French (although their cooking wouldn't have matched) and used REVe.

[ddg]

aaalex, I understand your point, however iirc it was Robin who adjusted the size of her portions from what they originally had planned. You could say by the same reasoning that Robin overstepped her boundaries by changing what they had already planned and put Michael in a bad spot because he appeared to be the EC. If she puts out a dish not agreed on by the group and it puts them at the bottom, we've seen in the past (Lisa & Dale T.) it could be very likely that the EC gets the axe and not the one who made the poor dish(es).

[ddg]

jonathan, I mentioned it earlier I thought it was a really cool idea because Brian's restaurant is named VOLT probably after their last name VOLT(aggio) so they added R(obin) and E(li) you get REVOLT. Then everyone made a fuss about how it could be interpreted as revolting and whatnot but really I think it was made a bigger deal than I thought it should've.

[jh]

What about Voltare? It's a bit more enlightening and tad less revolting, and you still get to use their names. They could have also done EMBR.

[suzanne]

Aaalex -- I disagree.

Michale may have been exec chef via luck of the draw, but he was the exec chef, none the less. I think he agreed to go with Bryan's ganache because he really does trust his brother's judgment.

As EC, he was responsible for what went out of the kitchen. I'm not sure that an EC has been held accountable for a crappy dish that wasn't their own in the past -- Dale comes close, but his butterscotch scallops were ultimately his downfall, regardless of what Lisa served -- but they've certainly be questioned about it.

He may or may not have been correct in his assessment of Robin's dish, but he had the authority to make the call.

Had Robin been called out for something at JT that Michael had told her to do, I think he'd be held more responsible than her.

Likewise, I think that if Ashely had been assertive enough (or willing enough to be not a team player), to call out Eli out on the salt issue (and really, Mattin out on the asparagus issue), things may have turned out differently for her. As it was, she was unwilling to "throw her teammate under the bus" (I really hate that phrase); I really doubt either Michael or Robin would have had the same issue.

[Shelly]

ddg, watching the video, Mike V seemed to have given her no communication on the size he wanted until the dustup, at which point he changed what she was doing, which is fine. What I missed the first time though is that he walked into her area and started making her food, which you just don't do in competition. And he knew that, because just a little while earlier he bit Bryan's head off for suggesting that he help his brother. It was very hypocritical, and quite possibly why Bryan was angry.

About Toby's column, nowhere does he say that he gives a restaurant a better or worse review because of the presence of celebrities or a celebrity chef. He does say that the success and promotion of a restaurant are affected by these, and who would argue about that? It's his job as a restaurant critic to describe these things for diners, not just the food. Those who don't care will ignore that, and those that do will be glad he said something. But to castigate him for acknowledging this is his review just seems entirely silly.

[jonathan]

ddg - I completely agree about the name thing being overblown; I lived REVOLT with the backwards E.

jh - those are both great names. You'd have write VoltaiRE to highlight Robin and Eli. EMBR is fantastic, easily the best name out of all the suggestions.

[Skillet Doux]

Not so, Shelly... here's the quote:

"But in the real world, a food critic will never base a review on food and service alone. They’re worth, at most, 50 percent of the final rating. And even that overestates their significance when it comes to assessing the overall experience. Whether you have a good time at a restaurant is dependent on many other factors, some of which are difficult to quantify. What’s the ambience like? What stage is the restaurant at in its life cycle? Has it captured the Zeitgeist? How many celebrities hang out there?"

He states quite directly that food and service comprise, at most, 50% of the final rating. He then immediately lists a number of other factors. So if food and service comprise less than 50% of his final rating, and if those other items he lists do not figure into his final rating, what comprises that extra 50%+?

I'm not saying he looks around and says, "Let's see... um... nope, no celebrities, that's a half a star off," but he's clearly stating that all of these factors contribute, even if you read his words conservatively and presume that he means they do so indirectly.

[aaalex]

ddg: i see where you're coming from, but i can't think of a single example where a group leader was sent home for the bad cooking of a sub-chef. the dale/lisa fiasco was about more than who the leader was. dale made a butterscotch scallop that bourdain loathed. he didn't get dinged for lisa's failings as a cook. (in fact, tom colicchio has said that if he had been the judge, lisa fernandes would have gone. what was unfortunate about dale's going was that he would not have, if things were as they usually were.)

year one: miguel goes home (he's not team leader)
year two: michael goes home (sam the leader)
year three: no one sent home
year four: dale (first leader sent home, but for a foul scallop)
year five: radikha sent home (for her poor FOH skills, not for the so-so food cooked)
this year: laurine - NOT leader jennifer - for her own bad dish and poor FOH

robin changed the size of the dessert. if it had been a bad dessert, the increase in size would not have saved it or sank it. (slightly more or slightly less of a shitty dish isn't going to do much for the judges.) so, i can't see michael v going home for the increase. as it happens, the increase in size didn't hurt it at all. according to toby, everyone loved robin's dish.

the decision to cut it as she did made it look "homey", i imagine. exactly what she wanted and what she had every right to insist on. michael v. didn't have the right to jump in and change a competitor's dish, "EC" or not.

as bryan pointed out, michael v. is a control-freak who is being rewarded for his bad behaviour. he was being controlling when he tried to change robin's dish. he wasn't being "helpful". it's great that he volunteered to share the prize money with everyone. a good moment, but it doesn't change the fact robin had the right, as the one who would have been sent home for it if it had sucked, to put that dish out the way she wanted.

[jonathan]

Dominic, I took the celebrity comment as simply an example of how atmosphere matters. I don't think Toby has a chart that correlates celebrities with his overall rating. And I think he's right to point out that the overall rating is the reflection of the experience. Some people value different things in a restaurant. It's the text, not the rating, of a review that really matters anyway.

[jonathan]

"the decision to cut it as she did made it look "homey", i imagine. exactly what she wanted and what she had every right to insist on. michael v. didn't have the right to jump in and change a competitor's dish, "EC" or not"

But the fact was that they had agreed earlier to "classy" up the dish, so when Michael, and exec chef, saw her putting out something different he stepped in. Maybe he could have done it better, but if she puts out a dish that seems out of place from the rest of the meal, their chances to win drop (and at that time they had no idea how things were going upstairs).

[aaalex]

they had agreed to "classy" up the dish at the expense of robin. meaning: michael certainly didn't trust robin's ability.

he also took credit at judges table for her work, saying that he had given her a recipe that she simply followed. not exactly the case, since it began as her crisp and was turned into a pear crisp by her and modified - in some of its ingredients - to fit in with the rest of the meal. she put her stamp on it for exactly the same reason micheal v. wanted to put a stamp on it: because it's a competition and, unlike ash, she isn't about to allow anyone to render her invisible.

also: if their chances to win drop, it's on robin, not michael v. if she had chosen to do something that damaged the team, she would have paid for it. and, as it's a competition, it's her right to be helpful or stupid. that's how the weak are winnowed and the strong go on. as it happens, she was helpful, but she still didn't get any respect. she stood up for herself and made a good dish, and she still had michael v. suggesting she hadn't actually done much.

[Will Allen]

I dunno....a lot of people who pay attention to restaurant critics pay a lot of attention to the rating, and very little to the text. That's why a rating is published. Toby is saying that food and service comprise, at most, only 50% of the rating, and that which celebrities, if any, eat at a restaurant has significant impact on the rating. I congratulate Toby for being forthright, but this strikes me as akin to a music critic asserting that, say, William Shatner's musical stylings were improved by the fact that Ol' Cap'n Kirk hung out with with well-known actors.

[dc]

control freak or perfectionist? It takes either or both traits to be great. Like a Donald Trump or MJ. Our great top 4 all have extremely high standards, I could feel Jen/Kevin distress at their miss through the TV.

MV going all out to win this team challenge, he should be going around, check to insure everything he could influence be as flawless as possible. As he doesn't know that Team Kevin/Jen basically came out of the gate lame.

With so much time involved -- 3 hours prep, lets say 90 min meal service, I'm sure Michael eventually got his way and made the proper portion adjustment to Robin's dessert. I don't see Michael as the backing down type when it comes to something like that. Among his culinary strengths MV excels in presentation, maybe best ever TC in that regard. Portion size is a key part of presentation, and can make or break the harmony of a whole set of dishes. As in Applebee portions are not appropriate in fine dining setting.

[jonathan]

Will - I don't believe for a second that Toby was being serious when he mentioned celebrities affecting the rating. They could play into the restaurant's overall "zeitgeist" which is a legit part of a review. And the type of people who only pay attention to the end rating of a restaurant are EXACTLY the reason the rating should take into account much more than simply the food. I'm confident that someone like you or Dominic or anyone else on this site would read a review of a restaurant they wanted to go to and would then be able to weigh everything according to your personal criteria.

aaalex - I think they wanted the dish to fit in more with their menu. Without hearing/seeing more of the cooking and judge's table we can't say how much he actually influenced the dish so I don't want to debate that. But I think Michael simply wanted to win really really badly and wanted to put out the best dish. Sure he probably went about it poorly, but he did back away even though the dish probably wasn't what he wanted to send out. Don't really think it's a big deal though, stuff like that happens all the time in high pressure situations.

[Will Allen]

Well, perhaps I lack the ability to discern Toby's seriousness, but if he wasn't, it seems an odd way to be flippant or comic. Hey, I'm not trying to tell Toby how to write a review, and I really do appreciate his forthright discussion of how he does so. I'm just not interested in a lot of the stuff that Toby pays attention to.

[aaalex]

jonathan: true. i think you're absolutely right. it's propbably no big deal at all.

(a note: isn't it interesting that bryan, who complained about michael's controlling nature, made it a point to mention - in an exit interview - that he had NO problem with robin, that her style was simply different from his which did not make him better or her worse.)

i still can't get a handle on this robin thing, though. she has my sympathy, given the way she's been otracized, but i don't feel i've had a good chance to see what the woman can do on her own. next week, for instance, with a menu restriction that should be in her sweet spot, she'll do ... well? poorly? i can't think of another year when i've felt so unsure about a contestant's abilities. if i go by what the other chefs are saying: she's doomed, whatever the menu restrictions. but she won a qf cooking simply/"healthily". she was part of a winning team while cooking a pear pithivier with a vanilla bean ice cream. and the dessert was singled out for praise in a meal that included food by both voltaggios. that's in fact an accomplishment. so, what's the reality here?

next week will probably tell us, but it feels weird to me that i really can't get a good bead on her food at all.

[jonathan]

aaalex - I have a hard time getting a bead on Robin as well. My take is that she's putting out decent food that never really hits any grand creative highs but is generally tastes fine. I think that goes down poorly with some of the other chefs who see themselves as artists and see other talented chefs that they identify with going home (Ashley/Hector). Couple that with her passive aggressive personality, a stressful situation, and a bunch of Type A personalities and I completely see why the rest of the contestants don't like her to varying degrees. I do feel bad for her but I understand why it has happened. She's not at fault but she's not blameless either. The problem with her food is that good simple flavor can only go so far when the other chefs can do the same with a much higher level of creativity and complexity. She's going to need to pull a Carla and start busting out some better technique if she wants to continue competing with the chefs that are left.

[aaalex]

jonathan: i agree with everything you wrote. interestingly, this week robin explicitly mentioned that she doesn't have french training (as carla did) so i don't know what technique there is in there for her to draw on. she's someone who has survived on the strength of ideas that seem to come from all over. and, as dominic pointed out some time ago,she has a tendency to be kind of fussy. her dessert this week was: pear pithivier with vanilla bean ice cream, frangiapane, almond praline, and elderflower syrup. that must have been a complex mouthful of sweet. i'd love to try it. some of those ingredients may have come from michael v., but the way it's built up feels like her. so, interesting, unpredictable mind or new age wacko combo-nator? adding to the difficulty has been that she's been given so little kitchen time. we see more of her doing pilates than actually cutting things up and cooking. if there's going to be a real surprise, it'll come from robin, i bet. then again, i won't blink twice if she goes out soon. (she deserved to be around longer than lurlene the invisible, though.)

[Esther]

this strikes me as akin to a music critic asserting that, say, William Shatner's musical stylings were improved by the fact that Ol' Cap'n Kirk hung out with with well-known actors.

I can't believe I'm defending Toby, but here goes: I don't think the analogy quite holds, Will. I, and many/most of the readers of this blog, are interested in Really Good Food; to pick up on another comment, I'd happily eat incredible food on a milk crate beside the highway (and pay more for it than for mediocre food at a celebrity-filled hot spot). That said, I don't think that we constitute the majority of restaurant-goers. I know people for whom other factors take priority: the helpfulness of waitstaff, the efficiency of service, the ambiance and decorations, the chance of seeing Beautiful People, etc. For them, food is food; it's either "fine" or "bad." That doesn't mean they don't enjoy a fine dining experience. Thus, I think it's reasonable that Toby wants to write a restaurant review that speaks to those people's interests as well -- as long as he's clear that it's not just a barometer of food quality. Rather, it's a fuzzy estimation of "how much will the public like this restaurant, as I understand their interests."

Unrelatedly: it's a really important point that someone made, about Laurine serving a broken sauce. Either she saw that it was broken and didn't care (which is either ignorant or malicious), or she didn't even notice (which is irresponsible -- and these are the judges!). I'm not sure if Mission would have won even if the lamb had been right and the sauce had been smooth, but it would have been a lot less painful.

Finally, a question for people with better memory than me. As I recall, past RWs have also offered choices for each course. Did chefs always divide the courses up in the past, so they didn't have Mission's problem of logjam? If not, and if one chef doing both options succeeded in the past, then Tom's critique isn't quite fair.

[Pants McCracky]

I also can't believe I'm defending Toby -- I'll be off soaking my typing hands in bleach after posting this -- but I do think his blog post has gotten something of the "villain edit" here. Before reading it, the impression I had was that he'd said restaurant reviews were 50% food/service and 50% celebrity sightings. But actually, he was trying to make a fairly complicated, elusive point about the many intangible factors (of which trendiness/celeb-haunting is only one) that affect one's impression of a restaurant, that have nothing to do with food.

I think that's probably accurate and a brave thing for a critic to admit. Because, let's face it -- when we read a movie review, for instance, how much of that review reflects the critic's honest assessment of the film's artistic merits, and how much of it reflects, say, the filmmaker's national origins, or the reputation of the director, or how many other films of the same genre have come out that year...or, really, whether or not the critic was in a grumpy mood that afternoon because they'd just had an argument with the spouse?

What I got from Toby's remarks is a rather self-deprecating admission that restaurant criticism is a terribly fallible profession, one that depends heavily on impressions and emotions rather than clinical scientific analysis. And that rings true to my own experiences as a diner. I assume most of us don't dine out in the form of blind tastings; we go in with some level of expectation or prejudgment, even if it's based merely on the name of the restaurant or the design of the sign.

I think that in most experiences in life that we pass some type of judgment on, whether it be restaurants, movies, music, or what have you, we like to flatter ourselves that we're above petty concerns. That it's ALL ABOUT THE FOOD, or it's ALL ABOUT THE ART, etc. But we don't experience these things in a vacuum. And I think that becomes even more true, the more seasoned you become in a particular area of interest, because you're more aware of history, and of what else is going on in that field. Only a complete dining naif can walk into a restaurant totally oblivious to any other element than food and service.

So, yeah, it sucks that criticism isn't what it ideally ought to be, but I can't help but actually kind of admire Toby's candor in speaking a very uncomfortable truth. We all think of ourselves as a lot purer than we really are.

[Shelly]

Dom, yes, I was trying to say what you said, in rebuttal to another commenter who implied that he was enamored with celebrities. What I meant was not that it didn't contribute to his rating, but that he wasn't saying "Ooooh celebrities, 5 stars!" Someone else was arguing that he'd give a celebrity's restaurant higher marks because of her name, whereas he didn't say if it would be a positive or negative impact. Maybe some celebrity chefs would get bad marks because they weren't in the restaurant ever. And maybe others who were awful would get bad marks because of their annoying personalities. So saying that he's fawning over celebrities (not what you said, but what another commenter said) is not supported.

[Will Allen]

Well, Esther it was meant to be an analogy of the hyperbolic variety, but to defend it a bit, pop music consumers aren't strictly making their choices based on a critical appreciation of the music, either.

I understand your point about the audience for restaurant reviews, I certainly don't presume to know Toby's audience better than Toby, and I am sincere in expressing my appreciation for Toby's forthright explanation as to what comprises his rating of a restaurant. It simply makes me wary of his criticism, for I perceive that he is writing for people that have far, far, different values than I.

I don't pay attention to hardly any movie critics for much the same reason. In the same way I think an award-winning, near-universally critically acclaimed movie, like, say, "American Beauty", should have a subtitle of, "Cartoon characters behaving in ways that have absolutely no relationship to how human beings on earth behave.", I now suspect, perhaps unfairly, that a non- trivial number of restaurants that receive high ratings from Toby should have, on their signage somewhere, perhaps with an asterisk, "Overpriced, mediocre to poor dining, with the stars!"

Celebrity culture is something I find monumentally boring, so I guess I was just disappointed to hear that a food critic on a show I like so much would write what Toby wrote.

[Skillet Doux]

Whooooookay... I think some of what I wrote is getting exaggerated a bit here.

Let me be clear. I respect Toby's candor. I understand that there is more to a "restaurant experience" than just the food. I comprehend that the importance of food in a restaurant experience is different for everybody, and it covers a broad continuum. And I firmly believe that if he wants to rate restaurants based purely on how much cosmetic surgery is in the room (not that I'm suggesting that's the case), that's absolutely his right.

My point is simply that as a food critic, that makes me like him less because press that overvalues style and undervalues substance is very, very, very frustrating to me.

Anybody who reads this blog when I'm not posting about Top Chef knows that it's very food-centric. I mean, of course it's food-centric, it's a food blog. But what I'm trying to say is that it's primarily about the food... not the decor of the restaurants it's served in, not the lives of the chefs who produce it, not the ethics of how it reaches my table... but about the pure joy and exhilaration of a spectacular dish no matter where it comes from or how it got there. Which isn't to say that all of these other things aren't worthy topics, and that I don't write about some of them myself. But what I care about is incredible food. Everything else is secondary. Hence, I just don't care about reviewers and writers who are overly concerned with style and decor and service and pedigrees and whatever. That's not the root of where my passions lie.

What's more, it's frustrating to me when so much focus is put on these other elements. So much incredible food is overlooked -- lost even -- because people are too wrapped up in everything else. Snazzy mediocre restaurants thrive while incredible holes in the wall fail. So I find Toby's blog post extremely irritating because I sit there reading and thinking to myself that this is precisely the mindset that is one of the biggest impediments to good eating. If you can't even say that the food is half -- half! -- the equation in what makes a great restaurant great, and that that's how most reviews are written, then it explains why there's so much mediocrity, it explains why it's so hard for unassuming little gems to get the attention they deserve, and it explains why lists like Zagat are guides to competence rather than excellence.

This is a blog dedicated to good eating. And while it's written in a very personal fashion, that doesn't mean that I don't wish better eating for everybody else as well. Writers who enjoy food and understand food and can help people explore and discover and find more of it are one of the greatest tools in reducing the amount of crap out there. Look at what happened with LTH Forum in Chicago. You had a band of dedicated amateur food enthusiasts who, through their writing, essentially mainstreamed hole in the wall ethnic joints in Chicago. It used to be that LTH would flip out about a place, a couple months later the alternative papers would pick up on it, and a couple months later the mainstream press would tout this incredible hole-in-the-wall find. Now, some random, divey family-run joint in the north suburbs that never would have gotten close to the Reader's radar, much less the Tribune's, is covered by the mainstream press on opening day. That's real, transformative change that helps people on a large scale to learn more about a wider variety of better foods. And it's only possible because people were willing to look past the flat decor, look past the unpolished service, look past the fact that no scenester would be caught dead within 300 yards of the place, and see that all that mattered was that it served incredible food.

I desperately want to see more of this happen. And in that blog post, Toby clearly identified himself as the breed of critic that is, quite frankly, an impediment to good eating.

[Skillet Doux]

And P.S., Pants, I think you give Toby far too much credit. I don't see how that's a treatise on critical fallibility at all. Does he at any point give you the sense that he'd LIKE to be more focused on the food? Why suggest that he might even be able to write a review without even tasting it?

Quite the contrary, I think he's trying to make the point that restaurant reviews aren't purely about the food. Which is the case with all of them. It's not, as somebody said, a clinical blind tasting. I think the problem is that not only did he reveal that his are far less pure than than even the most cynical observer might have guessed, but he seemed to consciously revel in it.

[dc]

Someone asked if Jen can fall out of top 4 down to 5. Rewatching I have to say no way. The judges never say a thing negative about Jen's flavor, only her final finish aren't "Jen" standard technical perfect. Remember she is the strongest saucier. Whereas MookIsabella got another salt put-down. Also her finishing fish texture issue didn't sound near as bad as Laurine/Kevin raw lamb.

[kit]

Re: Mike I.'s allergy to salt

What I'd also like to know (darn editors!), is what dish of Mike I.'s (and at what stage of its creation) was Jen tasting in that scene where she told him it needed more acidity and salt? (Right after he said he thought it was fine, if I recall correctly.)

[Independent George]

Here's a possibly dumb question: how much of of salt/seasoning a matter of taste, and how much of a a consensus baseline is there for how much salt is needed? I remember another commenter here stated that, when she dined at Craft in NYC, she thought the food was over-salted. I, generally personally, prefer less salt to more in my own food. Why is it considered a mistake, rather than good practice, to under-salt the dish as served while leaving salt at the table for diners?

[Amanda P.]

Independent George - IIRC, part of the issue with the undersalting was that there WAS NO salt on the table for the judges. Laurine had to bring it out from the kitchen. So, if it was deliberately undersalted (and I can't answer that question, because I like salt, so a lot of things are undersalted to me!) with the intent to allow the diner to adjust, that turns into another strike against Laurine. I do think there is a minimum salt level, but I leave that to the better cooks/chefs out there to explain.

Regarding the reviews, since there aren't a lot of celebs in my neck of the woods, I find local restaurant reviews don't tend to address that issue. However, I will admit that FOR ME appropriate service for the restaurant's "level" is almost equal to the food quality. I will write off a restaurant with good food and bad service as quickly as I will write off a place with good service and bad (to mediocre) food. Celebs and ambiance are less than 10% of MY decision making, so I agree with Dom that Toby's post helps me to know that I would not rely on Toby's reviews. I do like to know going in if I will be able to talk though. :)

[Bart]

Will - Others have said this already, so I don't want to pile on, but what I got from Toby is that he's reviewing the whole restaurant. He's not reviewing part of the restaurant (that is, "just" the food) - but the total experience.

I guess it's sort of like someone reviewing a game-day experience at Fenway Park. Sure, you could focus totally on how well the field is manicured, the shape of the field, the height of Green Monster versus the low wall in right field... and leave it at that. Technically, yes, you're at Fenway to experience the baseball game, but wouldn't you also want to know that the 100-year old seats are uncomfortable, that some seats in the arena provide poor views, that the food in the stadium is terrible, so you should wait until you leave...and that parking is atrocious?

------

I'm starting to wonder if there's actually a market for an outdoor restaurant with milk crate seating and freeway views.

[Skillet Doux]

"I guess it's sort of like someone reviewing a game-day experience at Fenway Park. Sure, you could focus totally on how well the field is manicured, the shape of the field, the height of Green Monster versus the low wall in right field... and leave it at that. Technically, yes, you're at Fenway to experience the baseball game, but wouldn't you also want to know that the 100-year old seats are uncomfortable, that some seats in the arena provide poor views, that the food in the stadium is terrible, so you should wait until you leave...and that parking is atrocious?"

But to extend your analogy, Bart, it's also been suggested that hordes of fans who are more interested in the park experience than they are in the actual quality of play are detrimental to the team because as long as tickets are selling, there's no motivation to put a winning team on the field.

And in the end, would Fenway draw if it were the Nationals playing there instead of the Red Sox?

[Bart]

But to extend your analogy, Bart, it's also been suggested that hordes of fans who are more interested in the park experience than they are in the actual quality of play are detrimental to the team because as long as tickets are selling, there's no motivation to put a winning team on the field.

The opposite is true too. The Tampa Bay Rays were World Series finalists last year, and people hardly attended their games this year. Just like some restaurants put out excellent food, but nobody shows up to eat it.

I generally agree that reviews should focus on the food more than any other aspect, but we all know that food alone isn't enough to make a restaurant successful. In a perfect world, it would be, but...

[Skillet Doux]

"I generally agree that reviews should focus on the food more than any other aspect, but we all know that food alone isn't enough to make a restaurant successful. In a perfect world, it would be, but..."

But this is exactly my point! Some of the truly food-focused press of recent years HAS made it possible for places to succeed on food alone! A large part of what has caused some of these places to either fail financially or exist in obscurity is the press' unwillingness to write about restaurants on that basis. It's the eternal argument... is the media dictating popular trend or reflecting it? But either way, one half of the equation, historically, has been the press that is seduced by PR and scene and window dressing, or at the very least parrots it to the public. What we're seeing in recent years it that it doesn't have to be that way!

[zsparks]

Okay, which one of you guys wrote this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/television_processed_foods_couldnt

[mncharm]

I don't think Dom is suggesting that writing about a restaurant's service/ambiance/decor/whatever is not worthwhile. I think the idea is that for him, food should make up the bulk -- or all -- of a restaurant's rating, to the extent you're going to give one. I happen to agree, but I -- and I'm fairly certain Dom would agree -- can certainly understand that others may differ on that point.

I'm also fairly certain Dom would admit that this is a matter of personal preference, and that if you like the way Toby divvies up his rankings formula, more power to you -- but it isn't his cup of tea (or mine).

Frankly, in my mind, it just goes to show why rankings are silly. My personal favorite food critic, Dara Moskowitz (based in the Twin Cities), rarely/never gives rankings. She just writes about the restaurant, with a heavy concentration on the food -- and to me, that's a perfect restaurant review. I want to know first and foremost about the food, but of course am interested in whether torn jeans and a t-shirt would be frowned/smiled upon, whether I can expect to be treated rudely or put on a pedastal, whether I'll have a stunning view of one of the downtowns or if I'm looking at a brick wall. All of those things, at one time or another, play a factor into choosing a dining locale. To the extent someone is going to make a value judgment on those factors, though, the only opinion I'm interested in in that regard is mine.

[aaalex]

uhm, dominic, your ballpark analogy just doesn't work in boston. when you ask

"And in the end, would Fenway draw if it were the Nationals playing there instead of the Red Sox?"

the answer would be "yes". fenway draws no matter what caliber of red sox are playing. some of those red sox teams have been worse than the nationals and fenway is still packed. same with some restaurants, people go to them for the tradition, too say you've been there, and the food doesn't matter, so long as you're not poisoned.

admittedly, this is a long way from the toby discussion ...

[zsparks]

iGeorge - My mother considered it a grave insult if anyone salted or otherwise altered her food in any way. I find myself having the same reaction. If anybody puts something on it before tasting it (Z Son: hot sauce; Mr. Z: salt), that really blows a gasket. If they put anything on after tasting it, I feel I've failed to complete the dish correctly. And I am a lowly homecook who's not even a foodie, really.

[Skillet Doux]

Aaalex... no, you're right, and I'm not sure why I wrote that last bit. I'm a lifelong Cubs fan, so I'm familiar with the phenomenon.

Point being, if you're a die hard baseball fan, it isn't enough if the park's pretty, and it's frustrating to see people around you not give a damn whether the team wins or loses because it's a party and the beer's flowing and the kiss cam is on the jumbotron.

[MichaelG]

I enjoyed Top Chef Masters with the exception of Kelly Choi. She has no background, no chops, no personality, no nuttin'. She's too young and callow. Get Julie Chen. I've seen her as a judge on Top Chef. She'd be excellent.

[babyarm]

What people fail to see about salt is the RDA is 1 and 1/4 tsp for table salt and 1 and 1/2 tsp for most sea salts. Though the salinity can vary widely among those.

Humans were never, ever, ever meant to eat as much salt as we do now. The obesity epidemic aside it may be one of the largest preventable US health issues in this century. Heck, it might even pass smoking in the next 25 years at the rate things are going.

Everyone knows the past history of salt and it's extremely important role in civilization. Nowadays with the processed food industry using tablespoons of the stuff and restaurants giving you 3 days worth of salt in one dish it's really gotten to be a problem. Heck, some fast casual sandwiches and dishes have FIVE TIMES the RDA in one serving.

I accuse my wife (who will read this) of being salt-addicted. I try when possible to add chiles and heat rather than salt for flavor, but I too easily exceed my RDA on salt probably by 2 to 3 times. We use sea salt when possible, but that only is a minor knob to turn. I do worry I will never make it to Yountville at this rate...

[tennischef]

I'd like to point out that, imo, allowing two brothers to compete at the same time feels uncomfortably unfair to the other contestants. Despite the occasional sibling rivalry flare-up, underneath it all is sibling support. They can mock one another and even act hostile toward one another, but they still have each other's back, so to speak. In essence, they each enjoy the advantage of an unspoken sous chef, someone they can ultimately trust to give them just enough of a nod or wink toward their cooking. Furthermore, there has to be an advantage to having a family member with you back at the chef's residence. I'm sure at this point someone such as Jen or Robin could benefit from having someone close at hand.

Taking a cue from other reality type shows, the Brothers have formed a kind of alliance. Certainly not against the rules, but still, it's an advantage. Perhaps in the future if two brothers or siblings are competing, then the other chefs should be allowed to bring another member of their kitchen brigade or chef of their choice.

[Danny]

Dom, I love the passion you have for food. It's why I read your blog year round - not just during TC. I love your restaurant reviews even though I will probably never go to the restaurants due to location.

Food is very important to me. But other things are too when I go out to eat. There was a trend in the 90's in San Francisco (oh do I miss the food there - the food here in Palm Springs doesn't even remotely compare) to design restaurants so that they would be as noisy as possible. The idea being that this would make it seem like the restaurant was a happening place. Friends took me to one of these restaurants and the food was spectacular. And I never went back. I don't enjoy sitting at a table with everyone having to scream in order to be heard.

I went to Morimoto's and had their ten course tasting dinner. It was an amazing meal. One I frequently think about. And the decor was breathtaking. The service impeccable - the waiter was genuinely excited about the food. Everyone was dressed up nicely. The music was dreamy. Now, I'm all about the food, but that total experience is stuck in my head in a happy place! Similarly a Royal Thai dinner I had in Phuket is in that same happy place. The restaurant was not fancy by any means but the ambience and the kindness of the staff added to the absolutely astonishing food.

But I'll pass on going to see celebrities.

[Will Allen]

Bart, I understand that is what Toby is doing, and I really do commend him for being forthright about it. I just don't care to read a reviewer for whom the food comprises at best 50 percent of his rating, and who says that the degree to which diners/patrons have achieved celebrity is something that affects his rating of a restaurant. Toby, likely due to reasonable market-based goals, writes in a manner that I find uninteresting.

[paula]

I completely understand what Dom is trying to say, and I agree with him 100%. Though, for me, atmosphere is very important to determining where I'll go back. The food is my #1 driver, but if a restaurant is unpleasantly noisy/filled with twentysomething trendbots/really poorly lit (too much overhead lighting: ARGGGGH), I'm less likely to frequent it. I tend to go back again and again to places with amazing food AND nice ambiance and a good vibe. So, I'd eat Eric Ripert's food on a milk crate happily...but probably not more than once.

[kit]

While we're on the topic of Dom's quest for better eating...I'll take this opportunity to inquire when we might see the next Boston-located restaurant review (because Dom obviously doesn't do enough around here ;) ).

Speaking of, I'm wondering, Dom in particular but anyone else who feels like jumping in, if you've been to Zaytinya and what did you think of it. Just based on service alone, I'd hazard a guess it was a good thing Mike I. didn't take on FOH.

[Independent George]

It's not quite Ripert on a milk crate, but some of the best places to go are suburban strip malls in not-so-great neighborhoods. The places that often don't have English menus, and, upon entering, the patrons all turn and stare at you like you're... er, a Chinese guy in an Ethiopian restaurant.

Those are the kinds of places that Toby Young probably doesn't review, much to the detriment of the wider public.

[Skillet Doux]

Again, I'm not saying that decor, service, vibe, etc. aren't important and that I don't appreciate them. I'm saying that when a prominent critic and judge of a cooking compeition comes out and states that when he reviews restaurants, the food is something like 25% of the equation (since food + service < 50%, we can only guess), and when he seems to revel in the idea that he could write a review without ever tasting the food, I find that sad.

[Hiemdall]

I do not believe you are going to arrive at an agreement on how critic should focus on his/her reviews. They are writing for a large population of people who are not necessarily foodies. Even I, a huge foodie, will allow ambience and setting alter my decision depending on my mood. I think everyone has days where they do not feel like dealing with cramp tables and loud dining rooms. I would even go further and say that my mood would dictate the flavor profile or style I want to eat at a given time. That is why my answer to people who asked me what is my favorite restaurants in NYC? My answer always is “I have many, one for each mood.” I tend to favor critic that can articulate the dish and provide constructive feedback that makes sense to me. The other details such as room, service, etc can easily be identified by the zillions of restaurant broad.

As far as Aureole, I have gone to the one in NYC three times over the course of 15 years. I remember back in the mid 1990s, it certainly was one of the top restaurants in NYC and I was very impressed by the balanced meal I had. My second trip in the early 2000 was very disappointing. The flavor wasn’t fused well and the dish tasted disjointed. A month or so ago, after tasting Christopher Lee’s dish at a James Beard house event and, I decide to visit the new Aureole and I was once again impressed. I would not put it in the same level as other fine dining restaurants like Le Bernardin, Daniel, or Per Se. The food is not as refined but the flavor profile was great and executed well.

I have often compared my experiences at the James Beard house event to the RW. Granted the chefs who are cooking at the Beard house has advance planning on the menu and have more time to prepare. But the challenge is that the Beard house kitchen is really really small with limited equipments. You also have to serve up to 80 people all at the same time for each course (normally 5-6 courses with 4 hors d’oeuvres during cocktail hour). Which do you think is worst to cook at? It is interesting to see how each Chef perform. You have the expected one that hit out of the park (Daniel Boulud), the unsuccessful one such as Willie DuFresne (wd50), and pleasantly surprised one in Colby Armstrong (Eve’s from Alexandria, VA) as to named a few.

I highly recommend any foodie visiting NYC to try it. It is also I believe the best deal in town. There is a different chef cooking in the Beard house almost daily and each course is paired with a glass(or 2) of wine. They come from all over the country and sometime internationally. You will probably recognize many featured names from Top Chef, both judges and contestants. You will also get to meet them as well as the vineyard manager.

I will be going to VOLT and Eve’s on a trip to DC in a couple of weeks. I hope Brian is not eliminated before I get there!

[Bart]

...when he seems to revel in the idea that he could write a review without ever tasting the food, I find that sad.

Understandable, though. I used to be a movie critic for a paper in New Jersey - whenever I saw the coming attractions, I was usually able to (fairly accurately) predict how good or bad a movie could be based on the previews alone.

Of course, I always saw the whole movie before critiquing it, but I was pretty regularly able to predict how a movie would turn out. I imagine Toby - and most restaurant critics - are pretty good at predicting how the food will turn out.

[Independent George]

Dom, have you read Au Revoir to All That? One of the points the author makes is that part of the decline in France was due to Michelin's seeming obsession with ostentatious decor ahead of good food. A lot of talented chefs were presented with the choice of blowing their entire budget on ambience and marketing in pursuit of the elusive third star, or focusing on the food while being continually relegated to the 'minor leagues'. Toby Young obviously doesn't go that far (partly because he doesn't have the reach of Michelin), but the same mentality seems to be present.

[jse91]

I think the utility of Toby's reviewing philosophy was summed up when he wrote that he doesn't need to eat the food to write a review.

Doesn't that say everything?

[gilmore]

Good point Independent George - I remember a few years back when I was in Philadelphia, the big news was that Le Bec Fin gave up its Michelin stars and the owner was focusing more on the food and not wether the restrooms had fresh flowers in it, etc.
Dom-I love your reviews because they are all about the food.
Just thought Toby's comments were interesting as he does a restaurant review and not a food review.
I took my daughter to the OLD Yankee Stadium last year - I wanted her to see the original before it was destroyed. The game was great, she saw some future hall of famers, but the atmosphere - monument park, the facade, the crowd, the $10 water, etc. made the whole trip memorable.

[Megan H.]

@ Independent George -

Back to the salt conversation...I think that salting level would generally be quite personal. (My husband and I, unfortunately, having different personal preferences.) However, salting a dish before/during cooking vs. salting after create very different tastes. i.e. cook pasta in unsalted water - split in half, salt half. Then cook pasta in salted water. Each of the three piles of pasta will taste different, since the pasta absorbs the salt during cooking. Being a vegetarian, I'm not sure how this would play out with meat/fish, but certainly salting during cooking plays a large role in starchy items.

[anon man]

@meganH, and items with high water content like mushrooms or onions. If you don't salt, you will have a harder time removing the water.

To whom ever referenced the RDA above, let's take the governement recommendations with (sorry) a grain of salt. The goverment also has meat cooking temperature recommendations that ensure dried chicken or pork.

[Duffy]

On this salt business -- I relate to the writer above who's mother was offended if anyone added salt before tasting. Mine was the same way, but had no objection to anyone adjusting the salt after tasting. She regularly cooked for about six, mostly regulars with a few hangers-on, all with differing tastes on the final seasoning.

On almost every recipe I read, there are directions on specific amounts of salt to add here and there during preparation -- so much salt in the water, so much to the onions and mushrooms during cooking, etc. Then at the very end, there will be the final "salt and pepper to taste." The inference, at least, is that some salt is essential but perhaps no salt need be added at the end.

The local diners and dives I frequent, there are always salt and pepper on the table. I ate at a classy joint in Denver not long ago where there was no salt and pepper on the table at all. I am not sure I understand what the dividing line here is. Do fine dining establishments regularly offer or regularly not offer salt and pepper on the table? In order to be considered a fine dining establishment, take away the salt?

In the case of Isabella -- is the criticism that he is leaving essential salt out of the cooking or preparation steps -- or that he is not predicting the correct amount of salt to satisfy the taster? If it is the former, adding salt at the table won't help. If it is the latter, isn't this really criticism of the wait staff or FOH for failing to set the table properly?

[KathyV]

Megan H. you are absolutely correct. You must salt (/season) food during the entire cooking process. If you salt as you cook, in the end the food is what you taste, not the salt. However, if you were to simply wait until the end, the food wouldn't be seasoned, it would merely taste salty. Colicchio's book, "Think like a chef", has a very cute anecdote of when he was a youth, he salted and cooked some steaks, salting in varying degrees during the cooking process and discovered this truth. Of course, in the process he ate everyone's steak.

[Ooba]

Kit - I've been to Zaytinya many times and it is excellent. Service is excellent as well. I'm actually a little surprised that Mike I is not doing better given how much I like the food. At the restaurant - the food is very well seasoned and cooked. However, two of my friends that I went with on separate occasions got food poisoning there. One from eating a cheese that had gone bad and one from drinking coffee. (we think it was the coffee - it was the only thing, none of us tried.

[jh]

In my experience, the finer the dining, the less likely I am to find salt and pepper on the table. I am also less likely to want to add salt and pepper anyways.

I think that there's a certain level of saltiness that is agreeable to most people, and that there are those few that like things saltier or less salty than the norm. Salt, in the correct amounts, has the ability to bring out other flavors of a dish without being overpowering. My philosophy is that you should cook the dish as you intend for it to taste. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, you should never purposely under/over salt a dish. It's a huge pet peeve of mine when people add salt or any other condiment (soy sauce, hot sauce, etc.) to any dish before tasting the dish as the chef intended. Less so when it's after. It is an insult to the chef. Imagine going to the French Laundry and adding salt or Tabasco sauce to any of Keller's dishes. You could get away with it at Fuddruckers, but the at FL, the staff and other patrons would probably think you're off the deep end.

In the case of Mike I., IF he is not predicting the correct amount of salt to satisfy the taster, then I'm guessing his palate is out of tune with the general public, since his food has been tasted by well known people in the industry (Gail, Tom, guest judges, etc.).

[Kate]

salt factor... Didn't a contestant last season make a comment regarding the judges ( or specifically Padma's) love of salt?

[Lon]

In his intro, Dom wonders why Kevin was angry. I'm not sure anyone else addressed that issue, but before I do, let me say I missed the show and was not able to watch it until Friday night. I didn't have the gumption to read all 170-plus comments before I added my two cents worth.

Perhaps disgust might have been a better word for Kevin. After watching the show, anger/disgust is how I felt. Two top chefs in Kevin and Jen and two MOP chefs like Mike and Laurene blowing it as badly as they did was horrible. If Mike V's team was the best of all six seasons, it appears Mission probably was one of the worst at the same time. It would make me so angry I would not want to talk about it at all. Just general disgust and anger at my performance and of those of my team.

I fear for Jen. She seems to really be wearing down. Her performance appears to be getting worse each show. Competition like Top Chef is often heavily mental and she is literally killing her chances through worry.

Hopefully, Kevin and Jen recognized (since their performance is now long past) that they got a second chance and performed much better after that point.

[dc]

You know, this is the first time for both Kevin and Jen to face JT as bottoms. They where virgins O_o. Based on prior contestants post-ppykag interviews about JT, my impression is JT _interrogation_ is a very unpleasant++ humbling demeaning colonic-esque experience. That could explain much of the raw emotion state of Kevin and Jen coming out of JT.

BTW, only Bryan remains with no EC bottoms. Still pure. -.-

[Duffy]

One last query on this salt business. I would assume that omitting salt in an essential cooking step would constitute a significant infraction in execution, warranting a stern correction at JT, and a potential PPYKAG.

But what about missing the taster's preferred level in the final "salt and pepper to taste" stage? Can this warrant anything but a mere comment? Akin to Padma's observation about Ashley's donuts early on that she didn't have the sweet tooth,Ashley did?

Or is missing the taster's preferred salt level also an misstep in execution that can put the chef in jeopardy?

[gilmore]

Earlier in the season, Kevin's first mole at the ranch (Tim Love episode) did not place him in the top 3. It also did not place him in the bottom 3, but Kevin felt it was a failure. When Kevin did the deconstructed mole for Penn & Teller, he looked at that as a chance to redeem himself. Which he did. For Kevin, anything less than top 3 seems to be looked on as a failure. RW is the same.

[ROBO-PUNTER]

Well, unfortunately our strongest field yet did not manage to put out two great restaurants. On the plus side, they did manage ONE great restaurant! I'm definitely disappointed in the Jen and Kevin Show -- they failed conceptually, failed in execution, and both made serious enough mistakes that they might have been eliminated if things had worked out a little differently (only Mike I. was not in the crosshairs).

The Voltaggio brothers are terrifying. Eli put together a cold appetizer, then after one hour into prep, was released to handle front of the house. Robin made one dessert. Everything else was on the Volts, and they knocked it out of the park. Michael's chicken/calamari dish and fish entree received the highest praise of the night, Bryan's dessert received universal praise, and his meat entree, while not perfect, was still good enough to get called out at Judges' Table.

Am I wrong to be blown away by the fact that Jennifer failed completely to cook her two dishes, Kevin made one excellent dish but could not cook a second (that someone else had conceptualized), while each brother easily handled two complicated, multi-part, elaborate exercise in plating dishes (look at how beautiful the fish plate was, with the sauce designs, or the modern-art ganache)? Drama aside, Michael V came out of this one looking like a star.

The talk about hostility between the brothers at the end of the episode kind of confuses me. Maybe it's just because they way they interact has a lot of similarities to the way my siblings and I do (or my mother and her many brothers). They are a lot alike, and I don't think either one of them is completely comfortable admitting just how similar. Being forced into constant proximity just keeps on reminding Bryan that he has the same petulant, whiny, bossy characteristics as his brother -- maybe not as much, maybe in different ways, but it's there. That's not easy. Meanwhile Michael has admitted openly that he envies his brother's success and self-assuredness, and now he gets to have it rubbed in his face non-stop.

They obviously love each other, which is why they are so damn charming and likable, but that doesn't mean that they are always really excited and happy to be living together. If they both go the distance, the finale will be like having Hung cook against Blais, in an alternative universe where Hung and Blais are BROTHERS. How freaking cool is that?!

[garik16]

Robo-punter, the key thing from the blogs on Bravo is that the Volt's success was aided by HOW they scheduled their dishes.

Neither Brother had 2 dishes go out at the same time, making it easier to handle getting each dish perfectly. Whereas Team Mission had Kevin and Jen both working on what were essentially Main Course dishes SIMULTANEOUSLY. That's poor planning, all in the name of not doing Dessert.

Dessert might send a contestant home, but its so much less taxing than doing an extra 2 entrees. Thus, Team reVolt had a much easier load that was easier to handle. Not saying they didn't knock it out of the park, but i'm just saying as a sign of individual performances, its not as big of a negative for Kevin and Jen as you might think.

[Anne]

Just watched the preview video and the impish look on Tom's face as he comes in to the Craftsteak kitchen with his guest is just awesome.

[SorchaRei]

Anyone who reads these conversations knows I am not a Mike I. fan. I think his food is derivative and often uninteresting, that his palate is unreliable, and he seems to have a seasoning problem. (I don't care for him as a person, either, but I don't think that is affecting my assessment of his food.) In general, I think his understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses is skewed -- I don't think he's nearly as good as he thinks he is. He may well be the best of the MotP, but he's not that much better than they are, and certainly not in the same league as Kevin, the Volts, or even Jen on a good day. To a large degree, I see him running on ego beyond where his cooking chops can actually take him, at least for the moment.

That said, there's a really nice moment in the QF. When the teams ae setting their batting order and "they get to Jen, then Robin, now who?" someone asks which of Kevin and Mike I is etter at plating and Mike instantly says that Kevin is. There was no ego, just an acknowledgment of something Kevin does better than Mike does.

Since I have spent a fair amount of time writing about the things I don't like about him, I thought it was worth pointing out a moment where I found him quite likable and realistic.

[Allison]

As someone who cannot eat shellfish without becoming violently ill (luckily meat is still fine), I am looking forward to next week's challenge. Dietary restrictions are a fact of life for many of us. Shrimp was on my top 10 list of foods to eat until I became allergic.

And though I am not at all a vegetarian, I became a big fan of vegetarian food in college ... Moosewood & Cabbagetown. Still cook their food.

[garik16]

I gotta say, the preview for the elimination is mean. If it's not edited weirdly, it looks like the contestants are sent to Craft without any words of the true type of challenge it is.

The contestants each go for the beautiful steaks....only to be told that it's a vegetarian challenge 5 minutes later. That IS CRUEEEEEL

(Also, as someone who keeps kosher, I would love if the chefs would try a kosher challenge, but they couldn't pull that off at Craft. The utensils and kitchen are definitely not proper for that)

[Steve]

So who do we think is most at risk during next week's vegan elimination challenge? Mike I or Eli? Or would one of the top four be deficient in their understanding of vegan?
Mediterranean seems like an easy conversion over to vegan. But Mike I hasn't impressed lately. Eli's managed not to make critical mistakes. But with a couple of exceptions, he's not been competitive with the others.

I almost forgot about Robin. This next challenge should be right in her alley, right? She shouldn't be at risk, right?

[lamelama22]

Quote by Hiemdall:
"...and pleasantly surprised one in Colby Armstrong (Eve’s from Alexandria, VA) as to named a few.

I will be going to VOLT and Eve’s on a trip to DC in a couple of weeks."

Interesting, I live in Alexandria, VA, within walking distance of Eve's. Even though I'm very picky and definitely not a fine dining kind of person (judging on my trip to Jen's restaurant), I think I'm going to have to try it out now, thanks for mentioning it!

Quote by Independent George:
"I took my daughter to the OLD Yankee Stadium last year - I wanted her to see the original before it was destroyed. The game was great, she saw some future hall of famers, but the atmosphere - monument park, the facade, the crowd, the $10 water, etc. made the whole trip memorable."

Yea, I fought hard and had to pay tons of extra $ on Stubhub to get a last minute tour of Yankee Stadium before last season ended. I'd been to lots of games there, but I wanted to see the behind-the-scenes stuff, the atmosphere and charm, firsthand - and it was well worth it.

It's amazing just how badly the Yankees failed to recreate that in the sterile, emotionless, terribly designed, and poorly managed new stadium they've built. Especially compared to the new Mets stadium, Citifield, which is spectacular and amazing and outdoes the New Yankee Stadium in every way, without them really having any history and at half the cost! I like to take my Mom's opinion on the stadium, because she's not a baseball fan, but she loved the Old Yankee Stadium and could feel its history/atmosphere/etc, but her reaction to the new one was that it both looked, was designed as, and felt like a mausoleum. It was weird because both me and my dad got the same vibes from it. Atmosphere certainly goes a long way.

Re: Mike I.'s Salt
I think this is probably a preference issue, as it is well documented from previous seasons that the judges, particularly Padma, love their heapings of salt. My main problem with it is this: if you're Mike I., and you're getting called out virtually every challenge for a lack of salt, wouldn't you adjust a little and add some more?

Re: 3-Person Finale and Changes to RW
I just read through 180+ comments to make sure no one mentioned this. The changes to RW and the possibility of a smaller Finale are due to Tom Colicchio's expanded influence in the show. I don't remember the blog references or links right off the top of my head, but I remember hearing, here I think, that he would have more influence on the challenges themselves.

I remember him explicitly saying that he wished RW would not focus on things like the decor - hence why I think we saw the changes this year. Also, I remember him explicitly saying he didn't like the finale format and wished it was only 3 people competing and then a 2 person 1on1 final episode (like in Season 1). So I don't think Padma's mention of a 3 person finale was a mistake in the wording... I think that's what we are going to be seeing (I'd prefer the standard 4 person format personally, or actually, I'd most like to see Season 2's finale format, where there were 4 people in part 1 and 2 were eliminated leaving a 1on1 final challenge).

Re: The perceived sexism
I don't get it. Mike V. is the executive chef, they had a plan, everything seemed to be going well, and then inexplicably Robin decides mid-service to change how she's cutting/plating her dish. At this point Mike V., who's responsibility it is to make sure everything is going out correctly, as advertised, and perfect, jumps in to correct the problem. Would he have done this to another chef, god forbid the other chef be MALE, I think yes. Some people here just seem to be looking for sexism, and blowing anything that could be possibly interpreted at all as being sexist (ie. any normal stressed interaction between male/female chefs, any jokes, or angry offhand comments that would otherwise be completely ignored) as being a condemnation on all females on Earth. I think people just need to chill out a little - you're reading too much into things.

Me
My favorite is still Jen. I'm rooting for Norris to roundhouse kick her self-doubts and destroy all comers. No idea who is actually going to win - any of the top 4 could do it, but I'm rooting for Jen. :)

[jh]

lamelama22, I agree with your take of the sexism thing, but have one small issue with your take on the Mike I/judges salt issue. I don't recall the judges commenting on how their palates err on the side of salty. I do remember Tom saying a few times how with a little bit a salt, the dish could have been a winning one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he likes with "heapings of salt"; it could just mean that it wasn't seasoned correctly to bring out all the flavors of the dish. If you also assume that the judges prefer items quite salty, then what does that say about the palate of chefs of the winning dishes? It would imply that the Volt brothers, Kevin, Jen, Hung, Richard, Harold, Stephanie, etc. all cook their dishes on the saltier side.

I wonder what would happen if Mike I was given the following scenario of the appetizer dish the judges requested more salt for: There are two seemingly identical dishes that Mike I has cooked. One is exactly as he has cooked it, and the other with just the little bit of salt to the judges preference. He doesn't know which one is which, but tastes both of them. Which does he think is the better dish?

[SorchaRei]

I'm not willing to go back and watch Mike I. to discover what I want to know right now, so can someone with a better memory answer this question for me, please . . .

Has Mike I. always been dinged for undersalting, or is it sometimes too much and sometimes too little?

[jh]

Feel free to correct, but from what I can remember, most of his dishes have come from undersalting, but he did oversalt his potato risotto dish for the QF.

[Duffy]

The scorn on Mike I's talents seems excessive to me. Despite the acid tongue caught by the edits, it appears that he is very well liked. He has been on the bottom only once, for the salad he telephoned in. The salt comments seem nothing more than preferences -- fine distinctions between really good and really, really good. The comment that his cooking is derivative is pointless -- everyone's cooking is derivative to at least some degree -- they all have recipes in mind that they apply or modify depending upon their experience. Some of these differences may keep Mike I out of the chefpocolypse four, but still his overall talents put him substantially ahead of the rest of the pack and keep him right up there close to the top.

[SorchaRei]

"The comment that his cooking is derivative is pointless -- everyone's cooking is derivative to at least some degree -- they all have recipes in mind that they apply or modify depending upon their experience."

Well, I made the original derivative comment, and your response to it missed my point. Of course all chefs are influenced to a great degree by other people. Mike and Bryan talked about this very thing when they described how Bryan worked for Charlie Palmer for a really long time, and learned one style of cooking very very swell, where Mike moved around more and learned more styles, not (it was implied) to the same bone-deep level.

The question is whether a chef has an independent point of view, a vision, if you will, that the influence works on, or if he's simply copying what the influence does.

Here in Seattle, there is a chef by the name of Tom Douglas who is enormously influential. He has several restaurants, all quite good, and a ridiculously large percentage of the great chefs in this town worked for Douglas at some point in their own careers, often as a sous or even exec.

When a Tom Douglas trained chef opens a new place here, it's a crap shoot whether what's about to open is a really good restaurant where the food is creative, thoughtful, and sometimes unexpected, or if it's just going to be a copy of one of Douglas' restaurants. There is a difference, and it's not hard to spot it when you eat in a new place run by a Douglas alumnus.

This is the difference between derivative and influenced. Now, I haven't tasted Mike I's food, but it looks derivative to me, in that I don't really see a cohesive vision emerging from the stuff he makes as to what food is and can be. To be honest, I worry that Jen has a similar problem, although that's masked by her extreme competence.

Based solely on my visual response to their food and the ways they talk about it, I see Mike as more likely to be derivative, where Jen seems like she's creative and technically very very good, but has not yet developed a strong vision of what kind of food she wants to produce.

[lamelama22]

jh:
Yea, with the Mike I. salt thing, there's no immediate instance I can point to off the top of my head and say "that's where they liked lots of salt"... It's just a feeling I've gotten over the seasons because the judges, especially Tom/Padma/Gail, call out lots of contestants over the years for a "lack of salt" when according to them and more interestingly, many times their fellow contestants and the guest judges, disagree and say they thought it was fine. I'm pretty sure, but could be mistaken, that more than one contestant called them out on it in interviews or confessionals. I would look, but I don't have time to re-watch the Top Chef library at the moment. ;)

However, I think, as someone else said, Padma mentioned that she loved things to have tons of salt...

I admit I used the term "heapings of salt" for exaggerative effect. I just did it because I do think, just from watching the show and occasionally reading the blogs, that the judges do like their food salted a bit more than the average. But still, in a competition of any type, you need to adapt to the judging, so no excuse for Mike I.

[Duffy]

SorchaRei: But this is a matter of fine degree, isn't it -- and not the basis for criticism? We don't expect a fine chef to produce just one great dish, we expect him to produce 150 of them -- and to do it again and again, the same way, every night, ad infinitum. What is creative to one will become derivative to the next and the inspiration to a third. I just watched an Iron Chef wannabe incorporate a mistake into the dish the received praise from the judges -- where does this fit?

I think the derivative comment may be a valid description of certain dishes -- and perhaps of a chef's performance from time to time -- but is it valid negative criticism of his skill?

Unless the conditions of contest require that the dish be original from scratch, (and as far as I know the conditions on TC do not) how do you measure the performance of one who dredges up a recipe from his mother vs a recipe from his personal file vs a suggestion from another chef? Isn't it only whether the final dish is executed properly and tastes good? I am not aware of any examination into the origination of the dish, with marks taken off for any part of it that is not created from scratch.

[Maria]

Let me see if I can fix this. There, did it work?

[Maria]

Too bad...

I'm happy Jen survived to cook another day, but she seems the least stable (competition wise, not mentally). I still would put her in fourth place - When she's on, she's better than Mike I.

[babyarm]

I don't know where people think that the finale will be smaller. I think people are reading far too much into his one throwaway line about 3 person FINAL. The production cost for the final episodes has to be nearly 3 if not 5 times a normal episode and shooting just one would be ludicrous. This is Bravo, not Fox doing this.

That being said they have announced the next show after Meat Natalie. Nothing about the EC, but the QF will be a breakfast in bed and Nigella Lawson is the guest judge.

[gilmore]

On Mike I - He seems to laugh at himself in several episodes.

When he had to make the 150 stuffed pork ????kibbee???? for the Pigs and Pinot, he was laughing at how tired his hands were, how many he had to do, etc.

The chilaquiles for Charlie Palmer's quickfire were spicy and he laughed at himself for that as well.

It seems that many of the chef's like him a lot. He has gotten the villain edit, but he sure seems to be much nicer than Lisa or Spike or Marcel - villains from prior seasons.

[anon man]

"That being said they have announced the next show after Meat Natalie. Nothing about the EC, but the QF will be a breakfast in bed and Nigella Lawson is the guest judge."

Too bad Toby is going. My sense is she hates him after he wrote a lot of unflattering things about her in one of his books. Maybe they could have a fight to the death or something. With any luck, it would be a draw.

[FleetoPod]

Found the following tid bit while reading the NY Post:

Bravo announces another spin off, "Top Chef: Just Desserts"

How sweet it is.

Pastry junkies will get their fix when "Top Chef: Just Desserts" makes its debut sometime in 2010, Variety reports. The spinoff comes on the heels of the hit show's celebrity-chef version, "Top Chef Masters," getting a second-season pickup.

Bravo execs say no host or judges are yet in place, but they will be selected in the coming weeks. With "Top Chef," "Masters" and now "Just Desserts," the hope is that there will be a version of "Top Chef" on the tube year-round.

Open casting calls for the new series begins today in Chicago and continues over the next few weeks in cities across the country.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010386.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

[anne]

Those judges are going to need adjustable pantwaists.

[babyarm]

They are certainly running the risk of overexposure. Could follow the path of the QEFTSG.

[Bart]

Not sure how I feel about the desserts one. On the one hand, I'd like to see the high standards of Top Chef applied to pastry makers and dessert chefs...

On the other hand, don't we have enough dessert shows as is?

Don't get me wrong, I love desserts. LOVE them. I think they're more important than appetizers (appetizers are good for getting you started in the meal, but you walk away with the dessert)... but can a whole show revolve around desserts?

I'll have to see it in action, but I'm just a wee bit skeptical.

[anon man]

I wouldn't want Top Chef to have its franchise desroyed by too many spin-offs, but a dessert show with the intellegence and quality of Top Chef would be a welcome change from the Food Network's silly dessert shows like "Ace of Cakes" and "Food Network Challenge". These shows have little about actual dessert and more on fairy tale cakes that may or may not taste good. The latter one always especially bugs me, because if I see it on the guide, I feel compelled to check and see if maybe its a non-idiotic cake decorating challenge. Nope. Always a cake. If they renamed it "Cake Decorating Challenge", I could just skip it.

[Karen]

I, too, fear overexposure. However, TC Masters was wonderful and if they can pull off a second well-made cooking contest, then surely they can do a third without screwing it up. I certainly would not stretch it any further than that. Since I don't watch the Food Network, I am not in any danger of overdosing on dessert shows.

[Bart]

I admit to watching the Food Network. Giada sometimes puts out good food (and like Mario Batali said of her, she's not a model pretending to cook - she can actually cook). Alton Brown usually gets me watching. Guilty pleasure would have to be Ina Garten. But I'd never watch Rachael Ray or Sandra Lee. Those are forbidden from my TV.

My two absolute favorite cooking shows are not on the Food network (surprise) - Lidia Bastianich and Jacques Pepin. No matter what Lidia makes, I want to eat it. And her restaurant, Becco, is phenomenal. And Jacques? Who doesn't like the man? I wish he was in my family.

[Duffy]

Is it a sign that it is time for Dom to come to the rescue when this thread degenerates into the relative merits of the Food Network?

[Bart]

:(

[zsparks]

AnonMan: I love Ace of Cakes, in smaller doses. I appreciate that they do address the idea that Duff is not a chef or even a baker; and it's really a sculpting-to-order show, not a cooking show.

Bart: Giada's show is offensive because it is the true food porn. The lingering, orgasmic shots of butter, or Giada's ponytail - on film! - I can just hear guys beating off to it. The pseudo-filmic elements have no content value whatsoever - it's insulting.

[Danny]

Up for the new TC Desserts show as long as they don't get all Food Networky (I exempt this season of The Next ICA) and have them make cakes that resemble buildings, National Monuments and minivans. And I especially hope that they don't give or take away points for being able to move the cake from one table to the next. Please no sugar sculptures. In other words, just stick to desserts that are actually meant to be eaten.

[aaalex]

wow. i always suspected americans were strange, but beating off to a shot of giada's ponytail? that's weirder than i CAN imagine. respect.

on another topic ... a good post, as always, from laurine wickett. i think she deserved to go and so does she, though not necessarily for her performance on RW:

http://www.leftcoastcatering.com/blog/

[aaalex]

wow. i always suspected americans were strange, but beating off to a shot of giada's ponytail? that's weirder than i CAN imagine. respect.

on another topic ... a good post, as always, from laurine wickett. i think she deserved to go and so does she, though not necessarily for her performance on RW:

http://www.leftcoastcatering.com/blog/

[aaalex]

ooops. sorry about the double post. weird pc behaviour.

[aaalex]

and just as i was thinking things couldn't possibly get any weirder than the giada ponytail thing: anthony bourdain animated ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjHFaDt1s0U&feature=player_embedded

[FleetoPod]

Thanks for the link to the Robo Chef episode aalex. Apparently "Alternate Universe" is going to be a 6-part animated web series beginning in 2010 from Anthony Bourdain.

I know this is totally off topic (apologies in advance) but I so appreciated his taking us behind the scenes in his book Kitchen Confidential. Check out Bourdain's blog for a little background to these upcoming webisodes.

http://anthony-bourdain-blog.travelchannel.com/read/alternate-universe

[Janet]

I've been wondering how things might've developed if Jen had chosen to break up the Volts by picking Bryan first. I suspect Mike V.'s first choice would've then been Mike I., who he has worked with before and is good friends with. That leaves Kevin free for Jen's second pick. Mike V. picks Eli again, and likewise, Jen picks Laurene next, leaving Robin again on Mike V.'s team.

I think that Bryan/Mike I. switch would have altered the team dynamics substantially.

Mike V. would've been the undisputed leader of his team. I also think there's a good chance they would have relegated Robin to FOH. Eli was willing to put animosity aside, but my guess would be Mike I. would want her out of the kitchen.

Over on the other team, I suspect Bryan would have voiced strong concern about the prep/plating logistics and they likely would have avoided the one chef per course bottlenecks. I also think they might not have dismissed dessert so quickly. Laurene would likely still have ended up FOH, but without the kitchen melting down, she may have performed better. Who knows?

We've seen Jen successfully work in tandem with Mike V. and Kevin both, but I'd really like to see the dynamic between Kevin and either of the Volts, seeing as their styles are so different.

[Esther]

Hopefully this is appropriate, but I wanted to warn those who (like me) occasionally read eater.com TC posts. They recently had a photo relating to the finale (currently filming, apparently) that seems to spoil us for one current contestant not being in it. Without any spoiler cut or warning. So if you don't want to get any hints, don't look over there.

(I could be misinterpreting what's going on with the photo, of course, but I thought I'd warn people since eater.com hasn't been very careful about spoilers in the past, either.)

((And yes, I'm only checking eater.com because I'm itching to see Dom's new set of rankings for this week, after last week's interesting events!))