Top Chef Masters - S2E7 Postmortem

Wow... did the elves start passing around the surly pills before this episode?

I thought Waxman was gone the moment he decided to pit his steak tacos against Susan Feniger's. And in a goofy way, the fact that she won might've been the only thing that saved him. Unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat (which, to be fair, he's been known to do), he's going to score lower than her. So if the judges aren't thrilled with her taco? They're even less thrilled with his. This wasn't Ludo making quesadillas while Rick Bayless is on his arm, but it was almost as reckless.

And I love that Feniger won. She's just a swell lady, and I've always loved her food. It's big and bold and hearty and delicious. But she's playing on borrowed time, because even if she makes it to the finale, the judges are going to have Rick Bayless in the back of their minds. And even if she cooks to that level, could they really crown two Mexican specialists in a row? I just don't see that happening.

I love that Samuelsson went for frog legs. And I have to admit, I'm kind of flabbergasted by his cooking. I know he's been touring Africa and rediscovering his roots, but I guess I'm a little behind. The Samuelsson I know is still the Aquavit Samuelsson -- new Scandinavian, very clean, very refined, very restrained. This is like a whole different chef, and I wonder if old Marcus is going to come out and play at some point.

With every episode, though he's prone to lapses, Moonen shows that he can cook, and that he isn't a one trick pony. But I'm really surprised that he botched the octopus. I haven't cooked a whole lot of octopus, but two minutes or two hours is always the rule of thumb, and he did neither. Now, maybe when you're a seafood specialist, you know when and how to break the rules and he just happened to screw it up. Still surprising.

Really, I thought that was a great call by Mantuano. A creative use of the equipment that still had a kind of rustic, homey feel but worked in the char. It's been a long time, but I love grilling pizza. It gets incredibly crisp, and it soaks up that smoke, and it's a really fun way to make it. But I guess it didn't sit well with the judges. And even if you're inclined to think this was a matter of the judges nit-picking or even "not getting" his crust, bear in mind that he only got two and a half stars from the crowd... exactly the same as he got from the judges. For whatever reason, it just didn't work.

But I suppose the upside is that it won't be impossible to get into Spiaggia next time I'm in Chicago!

Discuss!

P.S. I haven't abandoned actual food posts during Top Chef season... it's just been a hectic couple of weeks. I should be getting some stuff up next week.

Comments

[garik16]

Okay, now this challenge bothered me. See this challenge is not terrible for regular top chef, but to me...this was very similar to the street food challenge we saw last year in Top Chef Masters 1 (Right down to a non-mexican chef doing a mexican dish while there was a chef more familiar with that cuisine). Except in that challenge, we had the restriction to offal. Here we had no such thing.

So our losing chef lost because he made a bad PIZZA with prosciutto. And he barely lost. Here's my point....if his pizza's crust wasn't poor, he might have been safe...with an ordinary pizza.

That's just plain silly. And not what i expect to see in this.

(Side Note: Susur's ignorance of tailgating was hilarious).

[aaalex]

hmmm ... a very odd feeling episode. mantuano calling susur on his "sopranos" reference was a little sour, given that susur almost certainly didn't intend to insult. (though, in the end, mantuano was absolutely right.) mantuano complaining about susur taking up space was also strange: why not simply say "i need the space"? i mean: who gets to be a successful businessman and renowned chef without learning to ask for - or TAKE - what they need? clearly susur annoyed him. and susur aggravated the situation by calling mantuano his "lucky charm", something mantuano rightly took as condescending, however susur meant it.

also contributing to the "sour" feel was mr rayner in the QF. as the chefs noted, rayner DID seem in a bad mood. it wasn't so much what he had to say as the way in which he said things: grumpy.

in the end, i was kind of relieved mantuano lost. the susur/mantuano thing, had it run another episode, would have begun to polarize viewers and take attention away from the food. plus, susur WAS very funny, in his complete ignorance of tailgating. even samuelsson was slightly exasperated by susur's ignorance.

garik16: i kind of agree with you about the pizza thing but, in the end, good crust or no - and mantuano himself thought the crust was good - i think he was likely docked for doing a simple pizza. there wasn't much imagination there and i bet that must have been reflected in the judges' scores. the problems with the pizzas' taste was reflected in the crowd's low average. but the judges probably would agree with your post.

the saddest thing about this episode for me, however, was that i kind of did lose a little of my feeling for susur after his inexplicable sopranos reference - clearly, his ignorance of american culture can lead to gaffes, but ignorance isn't a great excuse - and though i gained some of my enthusiasm back by the end of the show, i'm hoping next week fully restores my feeling for the man. his food, on the other hand, i respect as much as i ever did. it was pretty striking that his beef got the second highest score at a tailgating challenge.

[timothy]

I am still thinking about how to react to the Sopranos comment. On one hand I liked how it played out in the episode. Susur, who has been commenting all along about issues of culture in an "East meets West" kind of way, makes the remark and Tony listens, cocks an eyebrow, and says later, "that's kind of insulting." The exchange seems human to me and not beyond the type of interaction that would play itself out in any workplace amongst coworkers who are competitive but also fond of one another. That is one of the things I like about TCM: not only do we get a mastery level of skill, but we get a glimpse of what it would be like if these people all worked together. So on one hand the Sopranos comment didn't bother me and it just made them seem more human. On the other hand I did find myself getting annoyed when Jay Rayner made the comment about how unmanly James Oesland was. This wasn't the first time Raynor baited Oesland for supposed queeniness and it is getting on my nerves. So what I am basically saying is that I am a hypocrite. I give the show credit because it gets me thinking about this cultural stuff, but the "drama" is relatively minimal and the focus is still mostly culinary.

[aaalex]

timothy: i think - i just watched the segment again and i'm still a little unsure - mantuano says "that's sort of an insult" on the scene, not later. so, he says it to susur. (again: i THINK so. with the editing that goes on with this franchise, it's damned difficult to tell for sure.) and the look on mantuano's face is not happy, more like a strained forbearance. it's an uncomfortable moment. and susur walks into it with eyes wide open.

i completely agree about rayner's oseland comment, though. what with the brussel sprouts moment and the "i live in hope" moment, there's a kind of gay guy baiting that goes on. or you could call it "funnin'" that's edited wrong. rayner's comments may have come at the end of some exchange in which oseland made fun of himself first or otherwise invited the joke. he's clearly comfortable with his sexuality. at least comfortable enough to poke fun at his own queenly behaviour. but the oseland thing that really made me go "hmmm..." this week was his blog. he calls waxman's disagreement with his (that is, oseland's) comment about the cut of waxman's meat a "tsunami of rage". very interesting. it doesn't feel like rage to me. waxman is, categorically, defending a decision he made and his reasoning was very convincing. mantuano later talks about waxman "winning" the exchange. and i agreed with mantuano. waxman was right to stand up for his dish. his defense was solid and, as all sometimes need reminding, the judges here aren't always right. oseland's taking waxman's defense as "rage" is revealing of oseland's insecurity. and oseland follows up his "tsunami of rage" comment by saying that judging is difficult but someone's got to do it. which is true, but since when is the critic's opinion infallible? you don't get credit, as a judge, simply for the commission of a difficult job. nor should you expect a pass if you say something contestable.

a sour episode with susan feniger the lone, and much appreciated, sweet spot.

the sunniest thing about this episode was susan feniger.

[Independent George]

But I suppose the upside is that it won't be impossible to get into Spiaggia next time I'm in Chicago!

I wouldn't bet on that. Graham Elliott has been thoroughly packed even on weeknights since GEB's appearance last year; I haven't gone since his episode aired this year. I went to see Stephanie Izard at the farmer's market last weekend, and there was a crowd of around 500 people at her booth.

TC is a publicity boost on a massive, massive scale.

[Independent George]

Anyhoo, back to the show. This episode is exactly what's so annoying about the elves. The reason we're having so much trouble figuring out what really happened is that everything is edited to minimize context and maximize the drama.

So we have a 'tusnami of rage' without ever seeing anything substantive to the exchange other than 'I disagree. You're wrong.' I can guess what his defense was, and would probably agree with it, but we're still left guessing because it's more important to play up the drama than give us any insight into what was actually on the plate.

[gilmore]

I really do like Susan Feniger. Can you imagine a kitchen with her and Rick Moonen!?!?!

I am part of a large tailgating crowd (20 families) at an SEC school. We have anything from deer sausage to bringing in a chef to cook omelets and crepes (for an 11 am starting time) to ribs to pulled pork to tamales to chicken fingers. Tons of salads and sides. Tons of deserts. To pigeon hole tailgating food to burgers, sausages, beer, finger food and the like is doing an injustice to the experience. I believe Rick was criticized in Oseland's blog for being deconstructed and hard to eat. As in Waxman's response to Oseland, he is "wrong".

I make pizza on my Webber. The crust is never the same. It is hard to melt the cheese and not overdo the crust. While we love it, it is not something I would want to get rated on. Tony's food may be great, but he was my least favorite. I wish he smiled occasionally.

[Jake]

Re: Spiaggia and reservations -- I had no problem booking our anniversary dinner there, and they'll take reservations really far in advance. Also booked a table at Cafe Spiaggia for a Saturday night on a couple days' notice after Mantuano's first episode of the season aired.

Similarly, I haven't had many problems getting tables at Graham Elliot, although I haven't been in a few months.

Granted, I like to eat a little on the early side, but make the call and you can probably get in!

[Dave_P]

Susan absolutely should have won that episode, much like Susur in last week's, since they were both clearly in their elements. I was pretty worried about Susur and was surprised as heck when they called him up for the winning trio. And damn near took it too--lost by a star or less in both the QF & EC, both to Susan!

I thought Waxman was gone for sure, esp when they dubbed in Kelly's comments about how the crowd sometimes scores differently than the critics for Tony's pizza... and they scored it exactly the same! I figured they were setting up for a high crowd score for the pizza and Waxman (who was the current low score) would get axed. *Shakes fists at elves*

Everyone looked chippy too. Jay looked/sounded irritable during the QF. Oseland was just belligerent about Waxman's "thickly sliced" beef, which many others disagreed with, but likely led to his 2 star vote. Also, maybe Tony should've explained that a grilled pizza is likely going to be crispier than over baked? I'm thinking that was his intention and he was perfectly happy with the outcome--the judges (and the crowd), not so much.

On a non-food note, it's too bad Waxman didn't win the QF. I can imagine Kelly saying, "you will wear these USC clothes," and Waxman replying, "I will not." :)

--
Dave

[Independent George]

Jake - I've been using Open Table, and, admittedly, I'm booking for the week of. Still, I used to be able to get same-day reservations at 7 at GE during weeknights, and those seem to require at least a week's notice these days.

[Jake]

George: Ah, we seem to have slightly different definitions of ease of booking, then :). It's good to see an uptick of business for a good restaurant run by a good guy, though. We're definitely overdue for a return visit.

[Dan V.]

Waxman's defense seemed solid to me; not sure why it would be seen as rage. It sounds a bit sour grapey from Oseland, because Waxman defended himself admirably and it looked hard to argue with him.

This challenge was right in Susan's wheelhouse and she totally nailed it. I was quite surprised that Susur did as well as he did, but once again it's the damn elves playing tricks on me. I thought I wouldn't like Susur's style at first but he's grown on me a lot. A final of Susan, Waxman, Susur, and Marcus would be some amazing food. I don't have anything against Moonen, but he seems like the next one that would slip.

[rab01]

Feniger, Waxman and Susur are now my dream final 3. I am afraid, however, that Waxman looks more tired every episode; plus, he's had two bad days in a row. Obi Wan had better pull a jedi mind trick on the panel next week.

[Duffy]

Hmmmm. In the TC series, at this stage of the contest(almost to the finals) the comments here would fill up four pages. In TCM -- where comraderie, good sportsmanship and gracious deference abound -- comments from the few stalwart regulars cannot even reach a full page. Despite all our protestations, could it be that what we truly dig are the personal controversies, the high drama and the unseemly stuff of TC -- good cooking be damned???

[Skillet Doux]

FWIW, Duffy, traffic for TCM at this point in the season is about a tenth of what it is for TC. Whether that's due to a smaller base or less enthusiasm, I can't say.

Or maybe I've just jumped the shark :-)

[timothy]

Re the blog traffic as it applies to TC and TCM: I am sure there are many factors, but I think a lot of it has to do with the Power Rankings. The very nature of such rankings inspires debate, discussion, reflection, and comment. I don't think the blog traffic is a result of the show drama; I think the blog traffic is a result of the blog drama. And the Power Rankings are, by definition, more dramatic. But I for one enjoy the lower key discussions around here as well. One way to test my theory will be to see what happens when and if Dom posts a TC Power Ranking preview for the upcoming season.

[Jimmy]

Approaching the new season of the "real" Top Chef, I just have to say BRING BACK THE PODCAST. :D

[Òste e Còc]

I'm not sure how these chefs have achieved "master" status, but Waxman and Samuelsson should have been censured or at least penalized for their frighteningly unprofessional lapses of judgment in the quickfire thing:
1. Was Mr. Waxman channeling Gallagher when he decided that the best method of getting crab out of its shell was to bludgeon it with a frying pan?

2. Mr. Samuelsson's "hands on" approach may be a nod to his Ethiopian roots, but at that level and under the scrutiny of a television camera, use a spoon rather than fingers when fishing items (hot or otherwise) out of a pot.

Or perhaps the TCM kitchen should provide scissors and spoons to what are supposed to be culinary icons of some sort.

[altoids]

@ Duffy:

I think part of it might be that with Top Chef contestants, we feel more latitude for criticism, while with Top Chef masters, who are we mere mortals to question them?

We don't want drama, but we do want "food drama" - daring choices, culinary leaps-of-faith. With TCM, each chef is cooking within their own established style, and each cooks very well. There isn't much to say when each person turns out a good dish, and it's a musical chair game of who screwed up or whose dish was the least awesome.

[jh]

As for drama, LA Times had a behind the scenes article about TCM:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-topchef-20100421,0,5701757.story

There's a response by Jay Rayner in the comments section.

[Lon]

I've pondered several times on the reasons I'm not as jacked up about TCM as I get about Top Chef itself. Here's what I've decided.

1. Top Chef Masters isn't a contest on the same level as the standard Top Chef. Any prizes go to charity. There's not the "peeling" away of contestants, one leaving each week. I sort of look at TCM as more of a exhibition than a competition. The fact that more than half the chefs only got one shot on one show lends itself to that feeling.

2. The judging style is different. The star system used on TCM allows viewers to rank various performers based on their output that show. Not much need to debate after that point.

3. It's harder to assign any sort of rankings because TCM are all top performers, tried in the fire of many years of kitchens. We're at the point where differences are more the result of personal styles than compentence.

4. And finally, as a viewer, I know that any dishes prepared by TCM are probably better than 98 percent of what I would get in a normal restaurant. We know these people are successful and we're willing them give them leeway for bad days or tiredness. Oh, sure, there's the failures. But most of those failures are not the result of chef bad performance; they seem to be the result of things like cold stoves.

Put these same chefs in a standard Top Chef environment where some real money and prestige is at stake, and I think you'd see a totally different show.

[bryanD]

"In TCM -- where comraderie, good sportsmanship and gracious deference abound -- comments from the few stalwart regulars cannot even reach a full page."---duffy

That's natural, I think. TCM is a good show amongst summer junk, but I think I could have out-cooked 2 departed chefs this season and that ain't bragging.

After the first few pages (Dom's astute commentary and some others) what evolves into humurous pedantics late in a TC (Regular) thread, would be a puddle of ennui regarding TCM. This season is like watching a senior golf tourney. (I still give it a B, though...on a curve.)

[Independent George]

Jake: Slightly off-topic, but I went back to Graham Elliot last night. 8:45 was the earliest reservation available on 24 hours notice. By contrast, Crofton on Wells (just two blocks away) and Blackbird both had open slots freely available.

[doktarr]

While Mantuano's crust didn't fly with either the judges or the crowd, it's worth noting that Feniger's elimination this week DID run contrary to the crowd. I usually like Rayner's criticisms, but his "it's a sandwich" critique seems absurd to me. If it tastes good, it tastes good - who cares how it's constructed? Moreover, the coconut jam doesn't seem like an easy component to pull off. It's not like the overall dish was a cop-out.