Top Chef Masters - S2E10 Postmortem

You know, I never would have thought I'd find myself in this position, but by the time they sauntered up to critics table, I was a surprised to discover that I had absolutely no horse in this race. I loved all three of them. Loved their personalities, loved their stories, and would have loved to try their dishes. Well, I did try one of them. And I loved it. But we'll get to that.

Congratulations to Marcus Samuelsson. As expected, that was one heck of a compelling story. And in some ways, I find his success twice as impressive, given that he was working in not one but two culinary traditions that are a stretch for most Western diners. First off, I have to say, I've had that foie gras ganache, and it's incredible. And whichever diner used the word "genius" to describe it is right on. You know Jean-George Vongerichten's molten center chocolate cake that's been copied -- poorly -- everywhere? Think that, but made of foie. When I called it one of the best foie dishes I've ever tasted in the comments a couple of weeks back, I phrased it like that simply because I try not to declare winners in these sorts of things. It's one of those dishes that's a perfect intersection of brilliant creativity, technical mastery and jaw-dropping flavor, and the moment I saw that he was busting it out, I knew it was going to rock the table. Another thing that I loved about Samuelsson's meal is this idea that he's acting as an ambassador of African cuisine, trying to introduce it to the West. I have his cookbook, The Soul of a New Cuisine, and while it's always been fascinating to me on an intellectual level, since I know so little about African foods, seeing his connection to it, and how passionate he is about rediscovering his roots, that makes it downright moving as well. I know which cookbook I'll be perusing for dinners the next couple of weeks.

It's a bit of a tangent, but Rick Bayless, classy as always, said something that I loved, and that touched directly on something I've been thinking about a lot lately. In a modern internet food culture that's so opinion-based, it's refreshing to see a true master happy to simply step up and say that it's hard for him to get his head around a dish because he just doesn't know enough about the tradition that inspires it. It's a good reminder that for those who are passionate about food, the focus should always be on what you don't know rather than what you do. It's an old, old universal theme, but I love the idea that true mastery is a commitment to always improving, always learning, and always being curious about what you don't know. After growing up in Sweden and becoming an internationally recognized master of modern Scandinavian cuisine, it seems like he had a true epiphany, shifted gears, and suddenly devoted himself to learning all about a culinary tradition that while no less connected to him personally, must have been incredibly alien to him given how long he'd been away from Africa. If not for that curiosity, that openness, that desire not to rest on his laurels but rather to throw himself into the unknown and start all over again, is there any doubt that it would have been Moonen or Lee to earn the title rather than him?

I really do enjoy this series, and in particular, I love these final episodes. Here's hoping they come back to do it again.

Comments

[Independent George]

Hawks win!!!

Oh yeah - congratulations Marcus. All three chefs acquitted themselves quite well tonight - that looked like a genuinely difficult decision for them.

[DF]

Although I can't say I enjoyed this season of TCM as much as last year's, to me, this was a deeply rewarding finale. It might not work on TC, but on TCM, I don't think you need constant twists or, even more important, obstacles to hinder the chefs' performance other than tough tasks to accomplish. No gimmicks were necessary to absorb my attention tonight.

All three of them shined, and even though I didn't care that much who won, the suspense was still killing me, a sure sign of compelling personalities, great talent, and brilliant editing.

[DF]

Rick Bayless's words resonated with me, too. I've known a lot of musicians, and I know a lot of music critics and music fans, and (I know this is a horrible generalization) I'm always struck how much more tolerant, open, and wide-ranging the opinions of the musicians themselves are. I remember Cecil Taylor coming to our college, and emptying the concert hall with an interminable avant garde performance. When he (finally) finished, he went to a private party and what did he want to listen to? Martha and the Vandellas Greatest Hits.

I've found chefs to be enthusiastic and unpretentious eaters, and touching in their admiration for other chefs.

[Dawn]

I loved the finale. And you're right, Dom. Unlike last year's, I had no favorites. I was rooting for all three. Very moving stories, I think I might've got all choked up at certain parts.

That finale reminded me how beautiful food can be & how it connects us all. Looking forward to the new season of Top Chef. :)

[rab01]

How much would you pay to have been a diner at that table? From what we saw, each of the chefs served exactly the dishes they intended. I have never had a restaurant meal that felt like "the chef's soul on a plate" let alone three MASTER chefs all putting themselves out there, sigh.

[rab01]

I would never normally recommend that anyone visit the Bravo website but Rayner's blog is a must-read. Apparently, he lost his shit and yelled at Rick Moonen during the finale. Just, wow.

From the blog:

"Bloody hell, but I was furious. For weeks [Rick] had worn his green credentials on his sleeve, bigged himself up as the saviour of the planet. ... But, when it came to the last stage of a cooking competition, he shrugged it off. I felt like we’d been had, been spun a line by a shameless opportunist. ... I should say here and now that this is not why Marcus Samuelsson won. He won because his cooking was better, especially his duck dish with that fabulous foie gras ganache. But I can definitely tell you that Moonen’s craven attitude to environmental issues is why I scored him as I did. "

[Independent George]

The low scores of the night were 4-stars. 17.5 for Marcus, 17 apiece for Rick & Susur. Not a single dissatisfied diner.

Brilliant.

[Lon]

I felt any of the three could have won and I would have been happy.

Of all the episodes of Top Chef and Top Chef Masters, and there must be more than 100, fewer than 5 stand out me for their originality and the production of what seemed to be excellent food with solid reasoning behind it. This season's finale of TCM is one of those.

Both Samuelsson and Moonen really pushed their limits as chefs. Any of the three could have failed (and in TC itself we often see this reach failing). The fact they did not is what really makes them Masters and worthy of total respect.

[altoids]

I'm sorry, but the TCM finals left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. The elves telegraphed the win, and they telegraphed it so strongly that am still kicking myself that I didn't have the presence of mind to come here and post, during the commercial break before judging, that "MARCUS WILL WIN."

I want to be clear that I have have nothing against Marcus - I thought all the chefs on TCM performed did very well. They are all established chefs, without anything to prove. This is just a bit of intramural game to them.

What I despise - and I truly do despise it - is the "narrative" they edited for Marcus. They chose to edit in comments about African and Ethiopian cuisine. It seems that every other sentence from his mouth contained the words "My [relative], back in [Ethiopia/Africa]..." I have no doubt that Susur didn't also have comments about Asian cuisine, and Rick didn't have some words about sustainability, but those comments weren't highlighted the way Marcus' comments were.

This is unfortunate, because after hearing the thirteenth comment about how Marcus wants to bring "African food into the narrative", and after drawing the equivalence so strongly that a win for Marcus is a win for the legitimacy of African cuisine, it was simply unthinkable that anyone else could win.

Now, I understand that the editing is after the fact. I trust that food critics such as these would judge based on the food alone. I am bitter, however, that instead of presenting the TCM final as a contest of skill, they opted for the far-too-obvious affirmative-action-diversity narrative. The chefs deserve better treatment, we deserve a better story, and Marcus deserves a unsullied win, without the condescension of the editors.

Final note: In case it isn't clear, I believe Marcus won based on the strength of his food. I simply wish that the editors hadn't added on a heavy-handed narrative to go with it.

[Skillet Doux]

But that IS his narrative, altoids. And it's known widely enough that I talked about it a many points during the season even before they made a big deal out of on the show.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think it was artificially beefed up. It's a genuine story, it's a very compelling one, and it isn't like Samuelsson suddenly discovered it for Top Chef's sake. If you follow him at all, you get the impression that it's not lip service. It really is a passion for this guy. I suppose you could argue that the other chefs should have gotten "equal time", so to speak, but can you really blame them for focusing a little more on the eventual winner?

And allow me to proffer a question... I don't see the difference between Samuelsson championing the legitimacy of African cuisine and Bayless championing the legitimacy of Mexican cuisine. I think they're incredibly similar that way, they even use much of the same language, and I think the editors treated that desire to legitimize a cuisine similarly. Did last season's finale bug you for that reason as well? The only difference I can see is that Bayless' connection to the cuisine he's trying to legitimize is one of discovery, while Samuelsson's is one of heritage, and I don't see how that's a distinction that should make a difference.

[Anon Man]

Shouldn't you, Chicago's favorite son, have been watching the game and celebration?

[Skillet Doux]

Anon Man... that's what DVR is for!

(Top Chef, not the Hawks.)

[altoids]

@ Skillet Doux:

Yes, I did have the same feeling about Rick Bayless, although it wasn't nearly as blatant as it was this season.

I object, because there is a conflict of vision. Is TCM an objective contest of raw talent and skill, or is it a evangelistic tool for legitimizing different cuisines?

I'm reminded of season 3 (I think) when Hung Huynh turned out flawless French cuisine, only to have the judges complain about "not seeing him in it", and Dale piling on about "no soul". Why does heritage and narrative matter at all? Does the Vietnamese Hung have to use duck and lemongrass? (Which he used to win, thank god...he understood exactly what the judges were looking for - not him, but their idea of what he should be.)

I don't like this narrative stuff. Is this a cooking show or not? Why is Jay Raynor going on about sustainability? Is Moonen at fault for deciding to get expensively-sourced ingredients for a TCM final? Betrayal? It's food, people. He could have sold his soul to the devil for all I care.

Is TCM about food or not? Does food suddenly taste better or worse if you know the story behind the chef? I really don't think so. Can't we just have an honest cooking show?

I understand that certain demands must be made for TV. I regret that most of America demands feel-good narratives to go with their cooking.

[doktarr]

I'm glad they didn't tweak the format of the finale too much from last season. It makes for wonderful storytelling and wonderful food, and it's the perfect way to cap things off.

RE: Rayner's blog - I do see Moonen's position. First of all, he doesn't have the control over ingredient sourcing in a trip to Whole Foods that he has at his restaurant. He made the sustainable choice when possible (e.g. the Atlantic Sturgeon caviar) but had to compromise on the venison. If they had had a local one, I'm sure he would have grabbed it.

Secondly, I imagine Moonen sees a distinction between the carbon footprint of his food, and the sustainability of the animal populations involved. As Rayner points out, a high-end seafood restaurant in Las Vegas almost by definition has a huge carbon footprint. On the other hand, the venison he used is farmed sustainably, in the sense that wild populations are not being depleted. As I understand it, this is what Moonen is more interested in.

[Mitch Frank]

I thought it was a very good finale and a very good season. I missed last season so I don't have that point of reference.

The one thing I don't like about the format--this is TCM as opposed to normal Top Chef--is the 'review' that each critic gives before saying 'x stars.' In nearly every episode their blurbs struck me as poorly written and poorly delivered. I guess I understand the intention of the ceremony, but I think the execution sucked. Especially in this finale. The 'can I marry you' joke that Oseland made is cliched and really struck me as weirdly weird. People say all the time 'I want to marry that plate,' 'that piece of bacon;' 'I want to rub duck fat all over my body.' So as a punchline it's a yawner. I'm trying to figure out why I thought it was so dumb. I don't think it's a gay thing that's bothering me. It just seemed inappropriate. I think actually my beef may be with 'acting' ability. I thought the line reading sucked.

In any case, regardless of that specific comment, I think the feature as a whole is tone deaf. Food critics don't review restaurants in one sentence. Having them do it on this show makes them sound like pretentious commenters on a blog--no offense, everyone here is super cool. But this tone is made worse by the judges' poor readings. They're all perfectly fluent speakers normally. So why, when they say their blurbs, do they go 'lacking in refinement--would have been a poor showing--but buoyed by--a certain je ne sais qua.'

I thought everything else about the show was pret' near perfect, so that part always really bugged me. Which you can tell by this long comment that I am concluding with this sentence, right now.

[Independent George]

On the other hand, the venison he used is farmed sustainably, in the sense that wild populations are not being depleted.

Ok, now I'm picking nits (and off-topic to boot), but wild-caught venison is actually far more sustainable than a farmed population. In order to maintain a farm, you need clear-cut land, isolate it from the rest of the ecosystem, transport feed in, then collect, process, and transport wastes out. Establishing a hunting season on public land meanwhile preserves a complex ecosystem over a wider area at a fraction of the cost - both in terms of finances and environmental impact.

There is a well-established relationship between good stewardship over public lands and game hunters. For example, Ducks Unlimited has been at work restoring and preserving North American wetlands since 1938, decades before anyone ever heard the term 'environmentalilst'.

[Megan H.]

@altoids -

Does it make any difference that the challenge for the finale is to represent your personal story through food? So it's not just about the editors creating a narrative; we, as viewers, need that narrative to understand the food. I think this is the crux of why Jay Rayner was upset by the venison - because Moonen had been saying that sustainability is part of who he is as a chef, and when asked to create a dish that exhibits who he is as a chef, he chooses a very unsustainable main ingredient. He could have chosen any number of other ingredients that would have been more sustainable and proven he could do more than fish.

[doktarr]

IG, point taken on farmed versus hunted. I don't actually know the provenance of Moonen's Venison, only that he said something (anyone still have it on DVR?) about it being a sustainable population.

Megan, I agree that narrative played an appropriate role in this challenge and enhanced the show. However, I continue to see a meaningful distinction between the sustainability of the animal population of the product chosen (something Moonen is an unambiguous champion of) and the carbon footprint of the product on the table (something Moonen hasn't championed, as far as I can tell).

[Kirs]

I'm just a little sad and disappointed that it appeared that none of the judges had ever heard of or tried kitfo before. Ethiopian is a pretty popular cuisine- I've personally had it in Boston, New York, Denver, DC (and, of course, Ethiopia- yea, I went to Ethiopia cause I love the cuisine that much). It's an incredible food tradition and I'd like to think our illustrious judges would know a little bit about it.

[Dan Mantell]

I read through the comments, and I understand your frustration, altoids. I thought Dom and Meghan gave strong answers to your points, and hope you do too.

I had a hard time watching this season as well - and it wasn't that I didn't like the chefs (I liked Susur quite a bit), or the judges, or the outcome. I just felt increasingly frustrated as a viewer because I never felt like I was given enough information to develop much of an opinion of my own; to really connect with any of the food. Susur's food happened to appeal the most to me visually, so I glommed onto that, but the editing has become so precise, so careful in its narrative that it's really started to diminish my ability to connect.

Like the end montage with the chefs and their sous' with all the back slapping and hugging - on the one hand, it was sweet...but on the other, it took time away from what I really wanted to hear - reactions to the food. And the reactions themselves are so heavily edited that I can't have faith in any of them...one moment, Sammuelson's main course was overcooked, the next minute it was wonderful...I don't blame the judges for that disconnect, I blame the editors, and it's really killing the joy for me.

[Pei Sun]

Disapointing. Marcus' 3rd dish seemed to not be particularly liked, but because it's African in origin, well, we should like it...so it's my problem not the food. Ridiculous.

As for Rayner letting some nonsense over sustainability affect his score--- and given RM lost by one-half a star-- ABSURD! Rayner should never be allowed to judge on a show like this again.

Couple this with last season James letting his personal feelings for Michael to negatively affect his scoring [inappropriate portion removed -- please feel free to write me if you have any questions, Pei Sun]...well, critics have ruined this show. Hope it's done.

[altoids]

@ Dan:

I have a lot of respect for Dom and Meghan as fellow long-time TC/TCM fans, and I can see where they're coming from.

I think you aptly expressed a element of my frustration - the tight editing of the show, and the (IMO) forced narratives prevented me as a viewer from having the information to think independently. I haven't tasted, smelled, or felt the food. I really only have the comments of judges, a few glamor shots, and my intuition based on the ingredients and preparation methods. We are at their mercy.

If the show is scripted to mislead, misdirect, and force narratives, it stops being an honest show and just becomes a expectations roller-coaster where they want me to think one way before going another. Why would I watch that?

People watch TC/TCM for different reasons. For myself, it is a rare glimpse into the elite levels of cooking. If you lose the authenticity/honesty, than you lose its value to me.

Fortunately, TC/TCM has still has many more marks on the plus side than the negative. But for the TCM final, the negative aspects were especially, obtrusively, obvious.

[Wayman]

Pei is RIGHT! The integrity of the judgeing has been completely compromised by Rayner's admission (via his blog). I don't see how the show goes on-- and we are certainly not the only ones who think so based on the comments on said blog-- with him in a judging role, if not at all

[Skillet Doux]

Wayman... so a judge taking the challenge's theme into consideration and docking a contestant half a point for not conforming to the challenge has completely compromised the integrity of the judging?

We can certainly argue whether the punishment fit the crime, or whether Rayner was correct in making that determination. But many of the same folks -- I don't know if you're among them -- who howl and scream when somebody isn't penalized for not really following the challenge's theme are now calling it a travesty that Rayner did just that.

If it's me, I doubt I dock Moonen for that. But I also wasn't sitting at the table all season and I don't know how heavily Moonen was pushing his green credentials. If somebody all season long cooks vegan cuisine and takes everybody opportunity to talk about how it's wrong to exploit animals for food, and then when he's challenged to create a meal that represents what he is as a chef, cooks a big ol' steak, how could you not take that into consideration? I'm not suggesting that Moonen's transgression was as significant (if it was one at all, and there's some legitimate debate about that), but I'm merely trying to illustrate that unless you take the position that the challenge's theme doesn't matter and never should matter, the question is one of judgement, not of appropriateness.

[gilmore]

Just watched the episode. read the blogs on the Bravo site. Very disappointed.

It is supposed to be about the food. It is not. It is about political correctness and who knows what else.

Sustainability does not mean locally sourced. It seems that most farm raised venison I have seen is from New Zealand. Whole Foods is as PC as anyone. If they source it, why question it? Although they also question their carrying of sea bass.

I hate political correctness and will do anything to laugh in its face. Bravo goes overboard with it. I hate it.

Susur said he could have made the tuna purse smaller. But did he recreate the actual dish he and his wife had? Probably. He is very precise. Yet they questioned his dish, never having had it. They were not sure about Marcus' dish, but since they never had it, they gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Moonen got 5 stars from Oselin. He got 4 from all others. No 4 1/2 stars from anyone else? Come on!!!

I agree with prior posters that the integrity of the judging has been compromised. I love the show, love the interaction with the masters, hate the process of scoring.

[TxGriff]

@ gilmore- I feel as though you just addressed one of the issues you claim to have with Rayner. Everyone other than Oseland gave Moonen 4 stars- it's hardly as if Rayner scored him vastly differently and more harshly than everyone else. I would understand the criticism a bit more if Rayner's scores were so out of line with everyone else's that is clearly was a personal attack to keep Moonen from winning, but that's simply not the case.

Furthermore, it's not as if Rayner passive-aggressively docked Moonen without giving him a chance to defend himself. Moonen was given the opportunity to explain how his last meal was in line with his view of sustainable cooking, but his response was to just shrug and say "I'm not a tree hugger". That's fine if he is just serving a dish at his restaurant, but this was a challenge to create a dish that defined him as a chef! That's not a very rousing argument against what I think Rayner intended as an honest question, and one that is not without merit. Food sustainability/environmental sustainability/carbon footprinting are all somewhat ambiguous terms with no definitive distinction between them. They are not mutually exlusive. Even if Rayner misunderstood the relative sustainability of the NZ venison, that could have been explained. It wasn't. In any other TC challenge, if a competitor simply threw his hands in the air and said "I dunno" when Tom Colicchio asked a very valid question about their dish, we would be all over this blog talking about what a fool that person was. Indeed, it's happened before! (I'm thinking of Jill from season 5...I know there are others, she was just the most obvious example that came to me).

Ultimately, I just don't get the frustration with Rayner. This was NOT an open-ended, cook-whatever-you-want-and-wow-us challenge. This was a specifically designed, narrative driven progression in which each dish was supposed to reveal parts of the chefs' identities. I couldn't think of a challenge in which the judging of both the chef's narratives and dishes would be more appropriate. If Rayner's judgement of Moonen's final dish, the specific course that was supposed to directly reflect "who you are as a chef", was altered but his perceived disconnection between Moonen's season-long sustainability narrative and his food, who are we to say his is wrong for thinking so? You can disagree and think you would judge differently, but it's a bit unwarranted to claim that Rayner or the judging somehow ruined the season (which, for the record, I love the season and the finale, so I thought neither was ruined).

**Btw, sorry if some of this was posted twice, having some computer problems here.