Top Chef - S7E4 Postmortem

Hey, all...

Staying on top of the rankings while traveling has been -- as you might have surmised from the fact that it's Monday and I only just now got the postmortem banner up -- a little trickier than anticipated. So I think now's the best time for me to cash in my once-per-season get out of the rankings free card. With apologies, I'm going to skip the rankings this week, and then I'll be back home and ready for the episode five rankings next Monday.

Thanks for your understanding, and I'll still have the postmortem thread for episode five up on Wednesday.

Comments

[Steve F.]

So close to having a heart attack...it seems Kenny was off tonight after winning the QF. He might have been fine except the challenge involved working on a team of two and their food while okay never took them out of contention for elimination.

Arnold was number four on my list of rankings too. But I'm not sure I mourn his loss. He showed a lot of flair and creativity but just never clicked well enough with Lynn to do well as he's done since the beginning of the season.

[JJH2]

Now that's more like it. From a food perspective, I was very happy with this episode. And because there was so much food that they were clearly struggling to fit in to the hour, there was a lot less bickering. I would have actually preferred we get one of those extended episodes so we could have seen every dish that was made for all three phases of the EC. But I won't gripe too much because it was by far the best episode of the season so far!

The baby food challenge was actually pretty interesting, I thought. Although I have very little interest in tasting the pureed versions of the dishes, I was impressed that so many of the chefs worked in interesting flavors and textures into both their actual dishes and the baby food versions. Frankly, I thought Angelo's multi-level baby food dish looked incredibly unappealing, but the Judges seemed to like it so what the heck do I know?

I thought the judging on the EC was weird because you could basically fail the first two rounds but win the EC because your last dish was awesome. It just seems kind of funny to me that a team from the last round won the whole EC, which of course meant that everyone at Judge's Table was from the last round. If they had called out a team from a prior round along with the two "losing" teams, it would have been pretty obvious who the winner was...

Based on Tom's blog, all three of the final dishes were good, which makes the double elimination a little tougher to swallow than usual. I would have been sad to see Kenny, Kevin, Kelly or Arnold go, based on their potential, so I knew once the last three teams were announced I was going to be at least a little bit sad at the result. I was hoping Kelly would go, but her team's rib dish looked pretty damn good. It's too bad too because Arnold's pasta dish was a little more adventurous, and it really looked like Lynne tanked the team with her undercooking of the pasta. Bummer.

Overall, solid episode!

[Daniel]

Odd night - on the one hand, I thought the way the challenge was set up was strange - in order to win, you essentially failed your way to the final step. I found the performances even stranger - who would have thought that Kenny, Kelly, and Arnold would be duking it out on the chopping block.

I was very disappointed to see Arnold go, and the competition will be less fun without him, but losing Kelly or Kenny would have been a much bigger blow to the food. I'm not sure where you see Kevin's potential, JJH2 - aside from some solid prep skills, I've seen nothing but mediocrity in execution and conception from him.

The edit certainly made Lynne seem clueless - not only did she lead a lousy looking breakfast and lunch, not only did she completely screw up the pasta despite Arnold's attempts to baby-sit her, but she also seemed completely clueless, blaming the problem on her not leading the group (which she did for two failed courses) rather than her mediocrity. I kind of wonder whether her screw-up was the result of her sulking. Who knows.

Very few of the courses looked particularly easy to prepare, and I'm left wondering how many of them really met the criteria of the competition.

On the whole though, I was certainly very engaged in the episode, which is a good thing.

[Danny]

Terrible episode. Terrible concept. Put all of your money into the breakfast and you have a better chance of winning the first round. Spend the money evenly, who knows? And the only way to win the whole thing is to fail at the first two meals. This makes sense?

[PerryMB]

I don't think the only way to win the whole thing was to fail at the first two meals. The judges said they picked the best the meal as the winning dish, not the best meal during dinner. If someone had blown the judges away during breakfast or lunch then they would have won.

I enjoyed concept of the EC, watching the chefs face the increasing pressure of each meal was exciting. I also think the EC structure was a major break for Amanda/Stephen and Timothy/Tiffany. The increasing pressure along with some of their past performances might have broken them.

I'd like to more of this type of EC in the future, maybe a three course meal with a desert. That would be pressure.

[Bart]

I wasn't happy at all with the outcome of this episode. In fact, I'm really disappointed. I was shocked to see that Kenny, Kevin and Arnold were 3 of the bottom four - and all of them deserved to stay.

The judges even said, about Arnold/Lynne's dish, "The only thing wrong was that the pasta was undercooked."

In other words, it was Lynne's mistake that sent Arnold packing. That pissed me off, because the judges clearly liked Arnold's sauce. Not only do we lose a viable upper-MOTPer, but we lose yet another interesting contestant.

Look, I get why the judges sent them home. Squid ink is NOT an attractive dish for hoteliers, and that was part of the challenge. I think that's what it boiled down to. And I'm definitely very happy that Kenny/Kevin stayed - losing them both would have been a tremendous blow.

Still, I'm frustrated by the outcome and wish it didn't end up that way. Not happy with this episode, at all.

[Independent George]

As soon as the breakfast winners were announced, I knew I was going to be pissed about the outcome no matter how it shook out. And that's why I hate the double-elimination.

Was anybody else annoyed with the fact that Lynne basically put the loss on "letting the young chef take the lead", when it was her technical mistake with the pasta that sank them? And it wasn't just a simple technical snafu - she was obstinate and condescending about it the entire time, and didn't have the self-awareness or humility to take responsibility or admit error at JT.

[Erin]

I have to agree with Danny - tank the first two rounds and get a trip to Italy or Spain? How is that right? I don't remember them telling the contestants the only way to win this was to stink up the place.

BTW - never commented before, but LOVE this site Dom. It made me realize I really could cook interesting food without any training. Your cavatapi & cali is one of my kids favorite things!

[UKMatt]

I enjoyed this episode and I like Kenny a lot... BUT... he really bugged me this week with his continued insistence that he was 'operating at a higher level' (or some such phrase) and his flavors and techniques were on point... while he lost the first two rounds to better dishes.

UKMatt

[gilmore]

Bart & Independent George - not only was Lynne's pasta a major reason for losing, she did not listen to Arnold about putting the pasta in sooner.

Understand a little bit about the hotel dish, but I thought that those that stay at the Hilton are "sophisticated" - why would the squid ink pasta be a turnoff?

I too hated that the three teams left at the end meant that at least one interesting chef had to go.

This EC would have been great in Vegas - the risk/reward factor for the last round was huge - if indeed the winner was meant to come from the dinner group. I did not think any of the breakfasts was that great. Can't remember about lunch (have to watch again).

Stephen should still be on the bottom.

At least some of the mid-level chefs got some air time and produced decent food.

[paula]

Kenny is starting to bug me on a personal level (enough with the "alpha male" crap), but this is the second time he's ended up on the bottom more for dramatic TV purposes than for his food. He's getting really screwed.

They were raving about that dish while they were eating it; the only complaint (yeah, I know, it's edited, but still) was that they didn't serve it with enough jus. Based on the comments they were making while they were eating the food, it seemed like a no-brainer that Arnold and Lynne would lose. But at JT, they sounded so harsh about Kenny and Kevin, which was kind of bullshit.

A couple more random thoughts:
* Mike, Spike and Brian: Just...why? They added nothing.
* Did I hear that wrong, or did it appear the chefs were fighting over who got to work with Tiffany in the QF? Very interesting.
* If Alex never spoke again this season, I would be a happy girl. What an asshat.

[Dreamboat]

I don't think the winner had to come from the 3 final teams. I think that the 3 final teams had to cook for their lives and it showed. Eric Ripert's blog indicates that both the breakfast and lunch rounds had a winner. In the extended judge's table footage Padma says that the dinner dishes were some of the best for the whole day. It also seems to indicate that Kevin and Kenny were in no danger of going home because the undercooked pasta in Arnold and Lynne's dish was such a bad execution error. There is no telling what would have happened if the pasta was cooked correctly.

I will miss Arnold. Lynne, not so much.

[TxGriff]

The winning dish did not have to come from dinner- the judges picked the overall best dish as the winning dish. It just so happens that the overall best dish was from the dinner round. No one had to throw anything to win. If someone had made an incredible breakfast or lunch, they might have had the overall best dish. I understand the frustration with loosing an interesting chef due to another's mistakes, but lets stop the "you had to suck until the last round to win" discussion but it's just not true (although you could argue that dinner would be the course most likely to have the most satisfying, memorable dish, but that's another discussion).

Personally, other than the team aspect, I enjoyed the progressive format because we got to see multiple dishes from some of the chefs, and the food overall looked more interesting than we've seen in the previous episodes.

[paula]

One more thing: I'm officially rooting for Kelley and Tiffany. And I'm getting a little uncomfortable that there's a current of chauvanism running under the surface this season, stronger than usual. Not cool.

[Erin]

Maybe it's just the edit, but thats how it looked to me.

If the others were good enough to be deemed "safe", and the remaining three teams were so bad the had to "cook for their lives", they should have picked a winner from the safe teams. The losing teams reward should have been not getting booted.

Kelly and Andrea failed first two rounds, yet were rewarded for doing so. The teams that "won" got nothing, not even a chance to compete for the prize, because they were to good? How does that make any sense at all?

[Bart]

gilmore: I think there's a fine line between being considering yourself a "sophisticated traveler" and actually being sophisticated.

I imagine that for many foodies like you and me, trying that squid ink pasta dish would be an exciting adventure... but for many upper-middle class travelers with disposable incomes, that might not be as appealing.

It may be an upscale chain hotel, but it's still going to have a sanitized element to it. My parents would stay at the Hilton, where I would try a locally owned/operated hotel for a more immersed experience.

I guess it's a minor (and now moot) point, but that's where I was coming from when I made that statement.

[Erin]

Eeek - typo city. Thats what I get for posting @ work!

[Independent George]

* Mike, Spike and Brian: Just...why? They added nothing.

Actually, Bryan had some pretty good comments on technique - it's just they got buried amidst the EIGHT judges. I also rather enjoyed him twisting knife into Mike regarding the egg... It's inevitable - the former contestants that I'd most like to see return as judges all tend to be the best chefs with the busiest professional schedules.

(although you could argue that dinner would be the course most likely to have the most satisfying, memorable dish, but that's another discussion).

This is precisely what I didn't like about the challenge - the more meals you cooked, the more chances you had to wow the judges. I'd have the same problem if the winner was selected from the lunch menu.

Furthermore, as you escalate from breakfast to dinner, you're working your way up in complexity. Part of the point of the challenge was how to plan your menu; theoretically, one of the optimal strategies would be to throw the breakfast challenge with the expectation that Kenny's or Angelo's team would win anyway, and then ramp it up for lunch against 'weaker' competition. Of course, it didn't shake out that way, but it's fun to consider all the angles.

[JJH2]

paula,

You are completely right about the former cheftestants adding nothing to the judging. Why were all three of them even there? I would have loved to have seen Brian V. again, possibly as a quickfire judge. But to have three former competitors plus the guest judge plus a full regular panel... it was too much. Plus, Mike I. looked constipated the entire time.

I don't know if I agree about the sexism this season. Honestly, I thought there was more sexism last season, especially with Mike I and the pileup on Robin (who was legitimately annoying at times). I admit that Kenny seems to have an odd fixation with being the "alpha male," and some of the more experienced men were piling on Amanda two episodes ago, but I guess I just don't really see it yet.

But, I do like Kelly's pluck and hope she sticks around for the finals so there's some gender balance. I would also love to see Amanda pull an Ashley from last season and do something really interesting before her inevitable flameout.

[Marlissa]

Hey, never posted before but I love these Top Chef discussions. I must compliment you, Dom, because you maintain what is easily the most thoughtful and thought-provoking forum I have ever come across on the web. Just wanted to add, in TOTAL agreement about not being sorry to see Lynne go. Boring food, condescending attitude and shocking lack of self-awareness for someone so, um, mature. But this episode was a barn-burner, foodwise, and I enjoyed it. Nice to see some of these folks reaching higher after last week's debacle. Poor Stephen just got a new lease on life! And we finally found out something about Tamesha - she's sexy. Oh, that's right, Angelo said it. Everything is "sexy" to him so take it with a grain of salt. But he didn't really bug me at all this episode. I will second, third and fourth the comment about Alex being an asshat.

[Esther]

Ugh. I'm still trying to be patient with the show this season, but that patience is rapidly running out.

The good: for once, they were cooking with full kitchen equipment, decent prep time, and sane proportions (a dinner party, not ANOTHER catering challenge). (Regarding the prep time: Dom, could you weigh in on the beans question? Based on my impression of the amount of time they had to make lunch, they really didn't have time to cook dry beans from scratch, which requires a minimum of 1.5 hours or so, even using a pressure cooker. So why were the judges so snarky?)

The bad: Another team challenge, so it's hard to separate who did what. (With yet another coming next week.) A ridiculous structure that meant that some crappy teams were safe for making a tasty breakfast, while the judges had to send home people for making what Tom agreed were all strong dishes. That just shouldn't be happening this early in the season. Kenny's team was a perfect example of this: if the elves can be trusted, none of his dishes were bad at all. They just barely missed the top tier for the breakfast and lunch. Yet if Team A/L hadn't undercooked their pasta, a frontrunner would have gone home.

I do understand that the producers are trying to find creative solutions to the early-season problem (too many contestants for viewers to understand each of their dishes). This, however, was just bizarre. I'm still depressed that the most interesting dish of the episode, which only had one flaw in its execution, was what sent a team home.

[timothy]

I agree with paula that there are threads of chauvanism running through many of the chefs' comments this year, and I agree it is not cool, but I think the women may have the last laugh. A female chef could certainly win it this season. In fact I think I can make a good case for putting Kelly #1 this week.

[nomnomnom]

I still don't understand the fascination with Kelly. She's a carbon copy of Fabio. She had a pork taco dish in her bag like he had some quick cured olives and put it in play early. And like Fabio not a damn thing was even remotely inspired since. She bottoms out in the QF, bottoms out in the first two portions of the EC where she was clearly in charge, and sits back on the third and wins a trip? Really?

I know Dom has hitched his wagon to her early, but I just don't get it. Maybe he's a fan of the Wire and Beadie Russel?

[Skillet Doux]

"Maybe he's a fan of the Wire and Beadie Russel?"

True, but irrelevant, I tell you! :-)

[paula]

You know what's missing from this season? An all-around "good guy." A Kevin, Bryan, Hootie, Richard Blais, or Stefanie. Someone who's a great chef AND is invariably respectful of all his/her competitors.

[TxGriff]

@ Erin- I understand the editing can be tricky, but just watch the show again. You will see the it is never stipulated that the best dish from the final course will be the overall winning dish. The judges clearly state that the overall best dish, be it breakfast, lunch or dinner, will be the winning dish. The winning dishes from breafkast and lunch were safe from having to move on to the next rounds, but they were NOT exempt from being considered the overall best dishes. It just so happens that the final three dishes (all from dinner) were really strong, probably because the final course tends to be the most complex anyways and because all the chefs were cooking for their lives. You can't blame the formatting of the episode for something it never set out to be.

Re: the chauvanism/sexism thing, I see have seen strands of that throughout most of the seasons, this one being no different. I'm sure we all remember Mike I. from last season ("I almost lost to a girl!") and whoever made that "So are you the pastry chef?" comment to Jen. It's one of those things that I don't work myself up over too much and hope that the women shine on their own. My hope is on Kelly this year, she looks strong.

[Naomi]

Did you see that Top Chef was nominated for an Emmy?
http://www.emmys.com/nominations?tid=104

[paula]

I hope I'm wrong about the sexism. But what makes me uncomfortable this year is that the frontrunners might be guilty of it. Like I said, I would feel better if there were a Kevin, Brian or Blais in the bunch to temper things--but there's not. I'm not all riled up about it or anything; just feeling a little uneasy.

[paula]

Oops. I keep alternating the spelling of poor Bryan's name.

[kit]

Re: former cheftestant selection for judging panel

I think they chose who to bring on as judges based on cost/convenience. I think all 3 are in the DC area (well Mike & Spike are, and Bryan's maybe 1-1.5 hours away) so it's just easier to schedule them, plus don't have to pay for flights/hotels. I'm guessing later on we'll get the usual "past winner(s) of Top Chef" visit?

It does make you wonder what the elves' collective opinion was of the other 2 guest judges. It makes it seem like the other 2 guest judges just weren't interesting enough on their own, so they had to pad the panel with some nearby former cheftestants.

[matthew]

The tournament-style EC did seem rather confusing. If the winner could have come from any group, why wouldn't Timothy and Tiffany come back? It seemed that their crab cake impressed the judges. The only knock was the hash. I am with others who see it a little convoluted and twisted that those who "survived" to the dinner round would win the EC. I don't get it, nor do I agree with the format. It seems to me the losers would be chosen from the dinner round, but the winner should have pulled in winners from breakfast and lunch.

Ok. Enough on that.

I agree that the judges panel was too crowded and a bit muddled. It seems to me that judges for the EC should have been the exec from Hilton, maybe an executive chef or consultant for a hotel. The prior contestants seemed a bit out of place for this challenge, particularly since the emphasis was on what would work well with a hotel's menu. They are all talented chefs, but what practical experience do any of them have with developing hotel menus? I don't know, maybe I'm seeing this wrong, but I think the DC-based chefs (where was Carla??) should have been featured in a challenge that is more DC-centric, if you will.

It may have something to do my impatience with petty people, but I am really tired of this running theme of Angela hating Kenny. It seems clear that the only reason Angelo wants Kenny out is because he's his stiffest competition. Why even get caught up in worrying about who stays? Just focus on you food, particularly since Angelo thinks it's the best anyway. I agree with JJH2 regarding Angelo's layered baby food. It did NOT look appealing.

This doesn't mean that Kenny is not an arrogant SOB. I found my eyes rolling when Kenny talked about his five-star restaurant experience. I get the bossiness of chefs. It's the nature of the beast to want food a certain way, but it seemed like Kevin just allowed Kenny to run him over. I suspect that had more to do with Kevin's insecurity after his poor performance in the last EC. Or, maybe Kevin's just not that in-your-face kind of guy. I can appreciate that, but when your time on the show depends on others, you have to speak up. Funny, though. Kevin thought there was too much horseradish in the sauce, and most of the judges felt the opposite.

I won't miss Arnold. He was way to narcissistic for my liking. It was all "me, me, me" with him.

I was happy to see Tamesha get a win in the QF. I bumped into her last night on the way to the opening for Spike's new spot called "We the Pizza." She's nice.

I know this may be petty, but I can't bear to listen to Tiffany speak. Her voice is very loud and very shrill.

Timothy needs to focus less on trying to be some sexy chef and actually cook some quality food.

I don't get Alex. I can't even say I'm actively trying. Personality aside, I just don't see anything spectacular with his cooking. The same for a bunch of chefs right now.

[TxGriff]

Matthew- I think they only called the three groups from the last round to hype the drama factor. They seem to be mixing things up this season with the JT formatting, ie. calling the losers first a couple of weeks ago. I could be wrong, but that's the way I took it. I am positive though that the winning dish did not have to be from dinner. Well, as positive as one can be from a third party perspective, at least.

And yes, where was Carla in the DC chef lineup??

Paula, I agree that the standard "good guy" is missing from this season, or at least one has not emerged yet. I miss the Kevins and Carlas of yore.

[Independent George]

Oops. I keep alternating the spelling of poor Bryan's name.

Stephanie, too :)

[Anon Man]

A few random comments:

1. The former contestants that were there were there because they are local (Brian is local-ish, but close enough). I thought Mike and Brian were fine and fun with each other, Spike was useless. His two restaurants here are equally useless. Carla Hall is also local, so I could see her dropping by at some point.

2. The baby food QF wasn't as bad as I had imagined. I thought Angelo's idea of "layered" baby food was neat, although it could also look a little off compared to traditional puree.

3. If I understood the challenge, any of the dishes could have won the ultimate prize, it just happened that it was one of the last three. I'm curious what the worst dish of the day was and if that group was on the chopping block at the end. As I noted yesterday, I was just starting to get interested in Arnold, and Lynne, while not a world beater seemed decent enough. I can think of others I would want to see go.

4. Let's talk pasta. Is 12 minutes before plating two early to drop fresh pasta? I think it should be. I'm not sure based on the editing what the problem was. 2-3 minutes to cook fresh pasta, 2 minutes to drain, finish in the sauce for a couple minutes and plate, say 5 minutes. That's twelve minutes, and I don't think plating takes five minutes. There's information missing here, whether Arnold told her to get the pasta out early, or she just did it, and it being undercooked was not told to Arnold, or some other variation.

[paula]

D'OH!

[dach]

tamesha looked very good this ep. she is youngest, but she has poise, skills, confidence, and will stand up for herself; and angelo, the strongest chef at this point chose to partner with her! I imagine Angelo had a choice of folks that want to partner with him. .... kenny alpha male comments notwithstanding

[Skillet Doux]

"tamesha looked very good this ep. she is youngest, but she has poise, skills, confidence, and will stand up for herself; and angelo, the strongest chef at this point chose to partner with her! I imagine Angelo had a choice of folks that want to partner with him. .... kenny alpha male comments notwithstanding"

The cynical interpretation would be that she's a young prep beast who he could treat like a sous without having to worry about her getting in the way of his vision.

Not saying that's the case, just proffering another possibility.

[Janet]

Quite unhappy with the judging format used this ep. I found myself getting annoyed with Kenny's attitude and wouldn't have been sad to see him and Kevin go. I really think Arnold had much more to show if he had continued in the competition.

Ironic that Kelly & Andrea's lunch (crispy red snapper?) was the one dish roundly blasted by all the judges ~ to the extent that Ripert said it shouldn't have been sent out!

[Independent George]

That's twelve minutes, and I don't think plating takes five minutes. There's information missing here, whether Arnold told her to get the pasta out early, or she just did it, and it being undercooked was not told to Arnold, or some other variation.

I don't know... I'll have to check my TiVo, but I thought they had the most exacting presentation of the three. Eight plates at 20 seconds per plate brings you to two minutes and forty seconds, with an extra 2:20 margin for disaster recovery. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[matthew]

I'll just say this: Unless something crops up for the finale, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting to see an appearance by Carla this season.

[paula]

Matthew: Boo. Tell Carla this season could use a little of her sunshine.

[Bart]

@matthew - That's too bad. I love Carla! Lucky, you get to see her more often than we do (and eat her food!)

[Anon Man]

@matthew, Is there some some of story there? I know Casey swore off the franchise forever, but I thought Carla went out with realtively good feelings.

[matthew]

@Paula - Thanks. I'll share that with her

@Bart - lol! I wish I got to eat her food. The closest I usually get is through the lens. (doing her food photography) I cook at home. I do get some job leftovers from time-to-time, and they're always delicious.

@Anon Man - I probably should be careful about what I say. It definitely is/was not a hard feelings thing. More about timing, or lack of advance notice. It's harder for Carla, as a caterer, to drop things on a dime than it might be for a restaurant chef who can lean on sous chefs to step in on a moment's notice (literally).

[matthew]

@Anon Man - Oh...According to what I read, Casey says she swore off the show because she never got a good edit or was portrayed unfairly. Can you see my eyes rolling?

[gilmore]

Anon - I thought Lynne said it only took one minute to cook fresh pasta. She blew it.

Paula - great point - missing the great person/great chef character.

chauvinism - maybe it reared its head during the grilling challenge. Then, the men got chopped down to size. I love to grill, but it does not make me superior to my wife or other women when they grill.

Alex - what a zero. Ed's rant against him earlier in the season was great.

[gilmore]

Matthew - what horrid planning that Carla was not included and asked well in advance.

[Polybus]

I thought it was a really good episode - lots of tension during the last part. I think some of us got caught up in the assumption that one of the breakfast dishes would be the winner, so it seemed a little weird when one of the "not safe" teams actually won. I like seeing JT mixed up a bit, like when they had the losing chefs out first two episodes ago. You get lulled into thinking that things are going to always be the same, then bam, something unexpected.

Just look at the discussion here - for the first time since last season lots of people are posting and the discussion is lively. It may not be a great season (so far) but I think that last night was a really good episode, both for the food and the tension. This year, truly, no one is safe. Lots of fun, I say!

Paula, I seriously think that the chauvanism has been worse in previous seasons. However, it is possible that it is beginning to have a cumulative effect. I wonder how much this occurs in real high-end kitchens...

[louc]

"Bart & Independent George - not only was Lynne's pasta a major reason for losing, she did not listen to Arnold about putting the pasta in sooner."

Not only that, but at judges' table, she seemed to lay the blame on him. I was pretty aghast when she responded right away that the pasta was undercooked. Maybe she went on to claim cupability, but the implication was her partner was at fault.

Poor Nora Pouillon. I think her restaurant, Nora, has seen better days, though Nora Asia is still pretty good. She is DC's version of Alice Waters, opened the first organic restaurant in the city. Why they didn't use her strengths is beyond me. I didn't even catch her name at first and wondered who the lady judge was with the funny accent.

[Anon Man]

@Matthew, thanks. I've always liked Carla as a contestant and have even considered her for catered events I've been involved in, since I'm in DC. The article in the WaPo magazine (maybe a year ago) about various exercise strategies of Washingtonians including Carla was a good read. I'll echo the wish that she comes back for the finals or some time in the future.

@gilmore, I'll watch that again. I thought it was "a couple minutes", plus it depends on what size pasta it was, of course. 1 minute for a thick pasta would not be sufficient.

@Louc, I was a rabid consumer of the Nora franchise. I liked its casual elegance, which reminded me of restaurants in my native California, the focus on organic, and the great (if pricey) wine list. But, the last time I was there, I vowed never to go back. The food was not cooked properly, the service was horrid, even by Washington standards (which is generally bad), and the place was empty. Its been 5 years I haven't been back. Asia Nora closed, which was too bad, since I think it was holding its own better. I think the building was torn down or some other space issue.

[paula]

Janet: Good point about Kelly/Andrea's fish. Universally panned by the judges, yet the two of them still get round-trip tickets to Europe. Whereas Kenny/Kevin serve three pretty well-received dishes, and almost got sent home.

[JJ]

In theory it was a good idea for an elimination challenge, but it just didn't work. Why? First, because it meant that teams who excelled at breakfast would automatically be given a free pass from elimination. Don't get me wrong. I love a good breakfast, but it was telling that the two winning teams in round one contained many of the weakest chefs on the show. (In Dom's rankings, nos. 9, 11, 13 and 14 were all saved by cooking a yummy breakfast.) Second, as someone else has already pointed out, it also meant that the winning team would *most likely* come from one of the three final teams since dinners typically are the place to develop complex flavors and demonstrate superior technique. (And who exactly were the competition for the win other than Kelly and Angela? None of the successful breakfast or lunch teams did anything particularly memorable.) The challenge was interesting enough to try again, but it really needs to be re-thought. I like the suggestion here that the teams should have been asked to do a two-course dinner plus a desert, or something like this.
As it stands, it was a confusing challenge poorly executed. And I still can't figure out how this was all meant to tie-in with Hilton. (Why breakfast, lunch and dinner? Why the questions about portability and audience appeal? I still don't get it.)

[doktarr]

Ugh. That was a total train wreck by the elves, there.

First, the positives: the basic parameters of the challenge - three plated meals for a panel of eight - is much more fitting of Top Chef than other challenges we've seen. And the restrictions (breakfast/lunch/dinner, suitable for a moderately high-end hotel restaurant, cook in teams) were all reasonable and still allowed the chefs to express their personal style.

But the STRUCTURE of the challenge was a total disaster, and as a result, nearly gave us a disastrous result. Kelly and Kenny simply should not be at risk at this stage, and the fact that they were was nothing but an artifact of the RIDICULOUS structure of this challenge. Heck, Arnold going home had a fair bit to do with the structure as well.

The correct way to run this challenge couldn't be simpler. Have everyone do ALL THREE meals. Bring up the teams that had the best overall meals and select a winner (or two). Then bring up the teams that had the weakest overall meals, and send home the worst (or two worst).

If you had done it this way, then you would have seen each team dividing work, with various chefs taking the lead on various parts of the meal. The judges would have had plenty to go on, and those who eliminated would have done something that richly deserved it. In stead, we had the judges eliminating one above-average and one average contestant, based on producing a flawed, but not terrible dish.

The fact that you could have the third-best breakfast, the third-best lunch, and the third-best dinner, and go home, when there are 14 people left in the competition, speaks to a terrible challenge structure. Ed and Alex produce one utter failure and one good meal, and they're OK, while the three up for elimination seemed to have unremarkable but not terrible meals on the first two stages.

Another bizarre choice was that all the winner/loser judging was entirely centered on the last dish. As far as I can tell, the quality of the first two dishes played absolutely zero role in who won and who went home. Again, this is just a failure of the format.

[Scott]

Like others, I have a big problem with the elimination format. First off, I do not like a team-work environment where you will be sent home if your partner fails. It just doesn't make sense especially after preaching individual dishes in team events in the previous few episodes. I felt blind-sighted by the elves and I feel bad that you can be sent home after making a great curry.

At this leg of the race, the only top contestant I like is Kelly, but I'm fairly surprised that that team won even though they lost two rounds. It's like a test of attrition and the prize is a trip to Europe. I suppose one can make the argument that cooking that far into the competition must've been quite stressful, but I don't think the prize justifies the win.

[louc]

I'm going to take back what I said about Lynne: the editing monkeys were very busy with this episode.
http://live.washingtonpost.com/top-chef-0708.html

@anon man. the last time I went to Nora was probably the same. the soft shell crab was so disappointing, was never motivated to go back. and yes, service was horrible. re: Asia Nora. sorry to hear that. three years ago for me so it wasn't a stunning experience, but it was good.

[jh]

Ditto on all the thoughts of the failed structure of the EC. I would have given a pass if it occurred during season 1 when you're working out all the kinks, but season 7? Really? My guess is that the TC people tried to do a similar format that worked for Top Chef Holiday special (cook a four course meal, worst two eliminated from prize after each course), but lacked the foresight on how things would work out when you "eliminate" the top dishes rather than the bottom ones.

Spike added nothing to the judges table. At least Bryan had some nice insights.

Where was Gail? Gail! Gail!

Is Angelo making the round of hitting on all the girls? (or do the elves want me to believe this)

From next week previews, it looks like they could have used a Jen, but I'm not sure if they would have listened to her anyways.

Beadie Russell had some spunk to her.

[TxGriff]

Re: the formatting, I agree that it might not have been perfect, but I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about it. I don't think the format would have worked if everyone cooked all three courses and the judges picked the best dish from each course to select a winner and the worst dish from each course to select the loser- what if a team had the best dish during one course, but the worst dish during another? How would they be judged? In fact, I believe this actually happened (Kelly and Andrea- seemingly worst second course, best third course/meal of the night). The only agrument that I can really understand is that the teams who were safe in the first two rounds had less of a chance to win because they only had one or two dishes, compared with three dishes overall (and therefore three shots at creating the best dish of the night) for those who had to cook dinner. But even then, if a team had made an absolutely incredible breakfast or lunch, they could have won the overall competition. That just wasn't the case here.

My main complaint is the team aspect. I know it's just part of the game, but it seems unfair to send one chef home for another's failures. And at a certain point, there is only so much you can do to change/monitor what your teammate is doing. I would be completely fine with this challenge again, minus the team aspect. Let them all cook individually.

[dach]

A saving grace, the teams where not formed by knife draw, they where formed by the chefs themselves. It was set up to knock off 2 of the weakest chefs. They cannot blame knife draw dysfunction team, like last season Mike I and Robin. Very fair.

It wasn't clear to me that each stage winners where eligible for the win, but that would make sense. If a dinner wasn't the winner, they would eliminate the losing team, then bring in 2 teams from the winning meal, and announce the winner from those 2, and award Hilton vacation prize. I'm just speculating.

[Nikki L]

I think this has been touched upon in other comments but I would have loved to see the order of the challenge reversed.

I really feel like any of the teams could have whipped up a fairly impressive dinner dish, and it sounds like the 3 teams all had great concepts. However, it's so much more difficult to thing of a creative, high end, original breakfast dish and the results would have probably left at least one team with a real stinker.

[David]

Doktarr--Totally agree that the EC format was ridiculous. I have one quibble with your proposed fix--if each team had prepared three dishes, we would have seen even more abbreviated snippets of the judges' critiques (of 21 total dishes) than the much-less-than-ideally-informative bits and pieces of criticism (of 15 total dishes) that we actually did see.

More generally, I think it doesn't make sense to have team ECs in which the team members' fates are tethered together. Top Chef is an individual competition, and the contestants should ultimated be judged (well, at least *eliminated*) on their own merits. Can you imagine if, in the Wimbledon singles tournament, the players were forced to play doubles matches in the quarterfinals?

As others have said, it was also patently dumb that the three (theoretically) weakest teams got three chances to produce the winning dish and receive prizes for it.

The simplest fix I can come up with for this challenge: (1) award "safety" to three teams, instead of two, following the lunch round; (2) have the four remaining "bottom" contestants *individually* prepare dinner entrees; (3) eliminate the contestant with the worst dinner entree, or, if you must, the two contestants with the worst dinner entrees; (4) award the Hilton menu item to the best dish of the day, but *do not award* any additional prizes.

Even more generally, I think Top Chef desperately needs some sort of Common Sense Competition Consultant. Someone (or someones) to vet each proposed challenge and say, "Gee, that idea betrays a lack of basic logical reasoning--were you lights-out drunk when you came up with that, or...?" And then fix things. It's very frustrating that the Elves make so many easily avoidable errors in designing the challenges--errors which usually make the competition less fair. It's a good show, but in this respect it wouldn't take much to make it better.

Any volunteers here for Common Sense Competition Consultant? (Half)-seriously...

[Erin]

@TxGriff:

Speaking for myself, I'm just having a hard time understanding why the team whose breakfast tanked and whose lunch was deemed inedible by The Fish God fifteen minutes later were awarded tickets to Europe. They were on the bottom because they failed! Twice! And then made what, the best course out of all the other bottom teams, so that merits winning the whole thing? Just doesn't make sense.

Have the 3 winning teams had a go at it for the prize, and pick the worst out of the three losers to go home - that would have made sense.

[Erin]

Well, more sense anyway. :)

[Polybus]

I agree with David re the Common Sense Competition Consultant. I believe that used to be Lee Anne.

Nikki L also makes a great point that logically the idea should have been reversed, as in this year's relay race, but at the same time I would hate to have any one eliminated for a breakfast, let alone two contestants!

If they were going to use teams, then they should have been chosen with a knife-draw and should have each been responsible for for their own work, so that the bottom two were - really - the bottom two.

All that being said, I still enjoyed it. At least we won't have to listen to Arnold whine about Kelly any more! :)

[TxGriff]

Erin- well I definitely agree that changes can be made to the format. I still think that it would be tricky to have everyone cook every course, then pick the top three from each course and bottom three from each course because some of the teams might have both top and bottom dishes (as you mentioned, possibly Andrea and Kelly). If that were the case, how would they be judged? Win a trip to Italy for one dish, but also get eliminated for another? And I would be concerned about the reverse order because someone would be sent home for creating a bad breakfast, with no other chance to redeem themselves. At least with the current order, you have three chances to not get eliminated.

I suppose this is why I am not a TV producer though. I can't even decide what changes I would make :).

[Nikki L]

Oh I also wanted to point out that for the second week in a row, I could guess the loser from the edit. In one of his confessions, Arnold says "I need to be safe in the lunch round, I need it." and then wipes his face as if he was tearing up. It's very common for the contestant going home to be very sad in the side commentary clips.

[Independent George]

louc - thanks for that find - it really does change my perspective on things. I take back everything I wrote about Lynne.

Lynne: I made a serious error in judgment. That's what happened. I was so stressed out about overcooking it, that I ended up undercooking it. Could have smacked myself for that. Even us old veterans make mistakes. It was unfortunate that Arnold had to pay for my mistake, but he loves me anyway.

Arnold: Yes, and I'll smack her when I see her.

[Jon Olsen]

BEADIE RUSSELL! Beadie Russell!!

And I'm spent.

[Independent George]

I loved Beadie. I missed her during seasons 3,4, and most of 5.

And yes, the resemblance really is uncanny.

[JJ]

Just want to add: good luck to Dom as he tries to figure out the new power rankings. Not only has the elimination of Arnold (last week's number 4) left a vacuum at the top, but for all the cooking that happened this week does anyone feel any clearer about the middle- and bottom- dwellers? Tamesha deserves to move up a few spots, but anyone else and based on what evidence? Despite being among the two top teams in the first round does anyone really think Amanda, Tiffany, Timothy or Stephen really deserve to move up (or by much)? None of them impressed me with their skills or creativity. But then neither Kevin nor Alex (who gets loonier by the second) seem to deserve to remain as high as 5 and 6. Overall, it's not a terribly impressive group is it? Although I don't think he would have made it all the way to the end, Arnold's personality and "outside the box" style will be sorely missed. A less-than-stellar season has become ... less stellar.

[garik16]

Odd, I LIKED the challenge format, despite the final three dinner dishes being not-traditionally-top chef loser quality.

By giving two chances to be safe, it SHOULD have inspired the chefs during breakfast and lunch to aim high and take chances so as to be safe...and then in dinner, knowing that one's odds of being eliminated were 1 in 3, they should STILL have aimed high (which they did seem to do).

Mind you, i'm annoyed because for breakfast and lunch, where there are interesting possibilities, no one seemed to be really impressive with what they went for. But that's a problem of this cast, not the challenge.

This was a challenge that would eliminate the hated strategy of "playing it safe" we saw in season 5 and were too worried about occurring so early in seasons.

[Anon Man]

Let me defend the challenge for the sake of defending the challenge: This a TV show, a game show if you will. The object isn't to find the best chef, its to be entertaining. While those of us here watch the show mainly for the food, others watch it for the drama or because they like the format. Someone suggested that all the chefs should have cooked all the course. Better food challenge but pretty boring TV. So, if you just assume that the "best" chef has a random chance of getting sent home purely to provide amusement to the viewers, and that the challenges are not required to be fair, then you're less likely to break out in hives or the like.

But, here's my suggested version: Teams who win immunity in the first rounds can try a later round and if they are the top 2 there, they get $10K and immunity, if they fail, they lose immunity. In this case, the breakfast chefs (being lower ranked) probably would have taken the immunity and ran. But, Angelo might have stuck around for dinner for cash.

[JJ]

"This was a challenge that would eliminate the hated strategy of "playing it safe" we saw in season 5 and were too worried about occurring so early in seasons"

This is an interesting comment considering what actually occurred. It was actually the safer dishes that kept most of the teams out of the final elimination round, and it was the least safe dish in the final round that got a team eliminated. (Why was this the case? Perhaps, because the clients were the Hilton. Perhaps because it's easier to be inventive on one's own then in a pair's environment where each person wants to contribute an element.) Again, I would say that the challenge has the *potential" to be a good one, but it needs a re-think. I very much like the earlier suggestion posted here that, at the end, the final six contestants should have been asked to cook individual dinners rather than group ones and then have the judges eliminate the two least impressive contestants. Whenever you have a double elimination it's imperative that the structure of the challenge be better thought though and carried out. Otherwise you end up with an awkward denouement that leaves a bad taste in the mouth (as the saying goes).

[Danny]

Well, I just read Tom's blog and I'm even grumpier. Tom seems to say that one of the main reasons the team lost was that they didn't make a dish appropriate for Hilton guests.

Here's where that gets complicated. I travel a lot. A lot. I do comedy for a company that charters cruise ships. If you travel a lot, you know that Hilton is not all that higher end. Scale of 1 to 100 about a 60 (although that depends on the city - the one in Praha is considered kinda high-end - amazing vodka bar).

For most people who don't travel lots, Hilton equals luxury. So making a squid ink pasta for a high-end clientele is perfectly appropriate. For the actual Hilton traveler? I have no idea. But why are the chefs being asked to make appropriate dishes for an undefined audience? Who that audience is, if not accurately described, could mean anything to any chef in a way that, say, thinking who an IHOP or Denny's audience is wouldn't. You go to IHOP you probably aren't looking for squid ink pasta. If you think that Hilton is high-end then squid ink pasta is reasonable. If you think that it is more middle of the road then it isn't.

Oh heck, I just hated this challenge. I'll get over it and I promise not to complain about it again. Sorry.

[suzanne]

I didn't hate this challenge, but I thought it would be better suited as an individual challenge, and in a later round (so that we could still see more of the food and the judges would be able to eat at least some of each dish).

I agree with whoever wrote that Tiffany's voice is shrill. It is. I like her enthusiasm and how candid she is, but man I just want to hit "mute" when she starts talking.

Angelo gets on my nerves more than Alex. The constant sex comments/comparisons are beginning to get skeevy.

I really like Tanisha, and I wish I thought she could go far.

[suzanne]

A couple of more thoughts as I'm rewatching:
-- Arnold was concerned that their lunch dish was too exotic for the Hilton clientele .... yet decided to make squid ink pasta for dinner?
-- the producers made it look like the breakfast was Lynn's dish, but according to the article linked above, it was Arnold's:
Lynne: The breakfast dish was just beautiful. Arnold serves that at his restaurant. I was stunned we got past breakfast.

The judge's surprise that Andrea and Kelly used canned beans makes me wonder if they could have started soaking those early (like during breakfast prep) -- surely not? Otherwise .... do the judges think that water soaks into a dried bean faster just because it is being prepped in the top chef kitchen?
I'm not a big fan of Andrea's for some reason, but I thought that was really unfair. Unless they could have started soaking them during breakfast prep. In which case, that was not only fair, but warranted.

That WP chat with Arnold and Lynn really showed Arnold to be all about the publicity. Not only for him, but he seems to view his fellow contestants from the same angle. Makes me wonder if TC is starting to attract more and more people who are more interested in the publicity (Spike) than the food (Harold).

[PerryMB]

I don’t have any problems with the structure of the elimination challenge. It was fun to watch, it created tension and drama and it gave the chefs a fair shot to survive. I would have liked it much better if this was an individual challenge but this is TV.

After reading the comments above there seems to be a perception here that the team of Andrea and Kelly shouldn’t of won the trip to Europe because they has failed twice already. They were also one of only three teams to win a challenge.

The top two teams from breakfast were the only teams that did not fail. Notice I didn’t say lose. One team won the breakfast challenge, the other team simply got to be safe for week.

Two teams survived the lunch challenge but again only one team has the best dish and that team already had a failure.

Only three teams had a shot at the trip to Europe and the winning dinner dish was clearly a better dish.

[Lon]

After reading the comments here, I watched the episode a second time. Still confused by the format, I am. But, oh well, that's TV.

What I enjoyed most is seeing several chefs like Tiffany, Tamesha, Andrea and Amanda show their truer colors. I think they all hold some promise, and if they don't hit a streak of bad luck, could produce some excitement.

After reading these comments and the interview with Lynne and Arnold that was referenced earlier, I am aware once again how much the editing influences our judgments on an episode. I wanted to see a comment from Tom about the format. Can't believe he liked it very much.

Sometimes what sounds good in concept doesn't play out very well and this episode would fall in that category for me.

As I said, the format was confusing because the chefs and judges clearly felt the "winners" of each round were those who were safe. Yet, the three "finalists" with poorer dishes in the first two rounds were the ones competing for the big prizes.

While I can not cite specifics, I do remember other years when episodes included formats and winners that clearly were as puzzling and confusing as this one was. And where the winner wasn't really the person who performed the best because of the way the episode was formatted. I think that's a product of so many chefs along with multiple cooking events for one challenge. There's probably no way to be fair to everyone.

I'm not as upset about the continual group and pairing challenges as some folks. I think the ability to know when to express your viewpoint and when to cooperate for the betterment of the group is a key component of a successful life. Being a top chef isn't just about cooking, it's about personality. Group challenges reveal much about a person.

The previews for next week show a lot of strong-willed chefs trying to work together. It will be interesting to see more detail.

[Polybus]

I think Eli makes a really good point in his blog:

"This season has been packed with departures from the norm in terms of layout and protocol. Bottom chefs coming into judges before winners a couple weeks back made that obvious, as did the elimination taking place in the Top Chef kitchen this week. It should develop interestingly if they can keep the chefs on their toes with all the format busters, As an audience member it keeps me guessing which I love."

Although the departures from protocol must have been planned out well in advance, I've got to say that with this particular group of chefs, it helps. But I don't envy them. I can't recall another instance where the losing teams were called to JT first. Must have been a shocker for them! Then, this last elimination challenge was also a shocker. Like Eli, I'm enjoying it.

[Luray]

I believe part of the challenge with the Hilton aspect isn't just something their guest would like, but also that their cooks can make and serve in the restaurant and for room service/take out. That's why the woman was asking how their lunch would transport and also why I think they were concerned about the squid ink. It's very conceivable that the guests would order squid ink pasta, but they have to consider if it's something that the hotel chefs can cook consistently. It also doesn't help sell that any cook can make it when this chef herself didn't make it properly.

[Naomi]

I found it interesting that there were a couple of comments during the episode that the losing chefs weren't getting any feedback so they were going into each round only knowing that they didn't succeed but not knowing why. I could see this having either a positive or negative impact on the next dish. Could be, for example, that the judges liked the direction a chef was taking but just had a few quibbles. That chef, without enough feedback, could then do an about face on the next round hoping for better results and miss the mark entirely. Certainly, continually losing each round would push you to get better each time, but without feeback, it could also cause you to correct or change the wrong things.

[JJ]

"Let me defend the challenge for the sake of defending the challenge: This a TV show, a game show if you will. The object isn't to find the best chef, its to be entertaining"

I would beg to differ. Yes, it is a reality TV competition. And the goal is, no doubt, to attract viewers. But the reason people are drawn to this show (along with PR) is because of the talent, and such audience members want to see the most talented contestants win. Admittedly, there are other types of viewers too, but those are surely not our concern here. There is another reason why finding the best chef has to be part of what the show is about. This is a credibility issue: in order to continue to draw real talent to the show, it needs to be taking seriously (or semi-seriously) in the industry. The more serious it is taken, the more prestigious (James Beard-feted) chefs will be convinced to compete, and the more prestigious the show becomes in the eyes of the industry. So the fine line is between drama and insuring that most of the serious contenders are not tripped up in an ill-conceived challenge like the one we had this week. Almost every season, a real contender is eliminated before their time (the most obvious example was Trey). But the majority of the contenders make it through to the end, and this *is" what the producers and judges need and want.

[Anon man]

@JJ, a fair critique, but I would question whether the non-Foodie crowd is a de minimis portion of the audience. I know nothing about fashion and care just as much, but my wife watches PR and I've grown to watch it too, not because I care about dresses, but because watching the people snipe at each other and melt down is highly amusing. While we the foodie types who read this blog clearly watch for the food, the way a home dress maker might watch PR, I don't think the majority of the audience watches TC and says "wow, lime gelee and sous vide duck, that's so cool. They watch to watch these people put through the ringer to entertain us. I'm only guessing about the audience, of course, as are you, but I think if they went pure foodie, they would find their audience greatly reduced. Its cable, so they could survive with lower ratings and niche programming is what cable is supposed to be able to do, but once you start getting Emmys, who wants to go back to niche?

[bryanD]

Great blog, Dom.

That being said, the (entertaining) nitpicking by the commentariat of this (surprisingly! re: episode 1) Onward-and-Upward season of Top Chef, is rather surprising(?).

Ejectee Arnold "thought" to incorporate Squid Ink into a corporate hotel menu and *expected" the Corporation not to lose money on Squid Ink!!!

Happy bird embryo, Arnie!

(And yes, the *takeaway* of this episode is Chefs Not Listening to Instructions Regarding Temp Workers In Kitchen Being Able To Reconstruct The Dish).

[Steve F.]

It was clear, if illogical, that those who didn't win the breakfast or lunch rounds, and thus earn immunity from elimination, would be on the block to be kicked off the competition. It just happened that Kelli and Andrea had to compete in the final round and also had the best dish of the day. Personally I think double eliminations are fine as they test chefs ability to work successfully with others.

It is pretty clear who the best chefs in this season are: Angelo, Kenny, and Kelli. None of the others, save Arnold, impress the judges consistently. It is a shame that Arnold went down with Lynne. It was too early for him, and he did try to push the pasta cooking issue, except Lynne was too obstinate.

I think the alpha male conflict next week is good for everyone - in particular Kenny. Kenny let his wins and placings amp his ego up about his position in the competition, and I think that that may have negatively affected his performance and judgment. While his and Kevin's food may have been fine during the breakfast and lunch rounds, the team didn't outshine the others. The pressure and stress from being competitive may move Kenny to be more humble and work harder to be perfect.

The middle of the pack hasn't made much noise. But Alex should be around just to bring some joie de vivre and comedy into the proceedings. He also has cooked a couple of impressive dishes so we can be assured of more of his ghastly, politically incorrect one-liners. Tamesha in her QF win showing creativity and technical precision is signaling that she could be the dark horse of the season.

I'm okay with this season's generally good crew despite being spoiled by last season's great contestants.

[Steve F.]

"Ejectee Arnold 'thought' to incorporate Squid Ink into a corporate hotel menu and 'expected' the Corporation not to lose money on Squid Ink!!!"

I missed this. If indeed the squid ink was Arnold's idea, then he provides another reason for his elimination from the competition. Another test of the elimination round was that of good judgment in devising a dish simple enough for a hotel's basic menu that also would appeal to the average hotel customer. Squid ink? Doesn't have much if any taste at all from my experience. But, would the idea appeal to guests or turn them off? I'm betting the latter.

[gilmore]

Watched part of it again. The challenge was to create a meal for Hilton hotels world-wide, not just in DC or the US. I don't know how squid ink plays world-wide. I guess short ribs play well world-wide except in India.

Lynn said that fresh pasta cooks up in about a minute.

[JJ]

"JJ, a fair critique, but I would question whether the non-Foodie crowd is a de minimis portion of the audience. I know nothing about fashion and care just as much, but my wife watches PR and I've grown to watch it too, not because I care about dresses, but because watching the people snipe at each other and melt down is highly amusing"

Again, I agree with PART of this. But I also think a part of the appeal of these shows, versus other kinds of reality TV competitions, is the demonstration of talent and skill. This doesn't override the non-foodie's cheering on a "fan favorite" over a "villain," but even the former has to demonstrate culinary skills of some sort. Yes, we watch PR for the drama as well as the fashion, but the show would not have enduring appeal (nor, and just as importantly, attract legitimate talent) if it completely sacrificed one for the other. I would say the same thing about TC. I would also add here that one of the strengths of PR and TC is to have demonstrated the inherent drama and entertainment of watching talented people work their magic.

[dach]

What's the big deal with squid ink? Just because TC JT knocked it to justify its elimination over 2 generic short-rib dishes? JT suppose to judge on flavor, flavor, flavor, before other considerations! If I order a special signature dish, I expect a twist. Squid ink is a twist. I've had squid ink pasta at popular mainstream Italian restaurant. It's not any different than other colored pasta -- from spinach green to beet red pasta.

The Arnold dish was mainstream, enough. Basically mussel pasta which is on nearly every chain diner menu. As a Top Chef contestant should, Arnold added personal style/twist, which was SE Asian fusion.

(BTW, Ripert interview: ER: "If the pasta was cooked, [Arnold & Lynne] could have stayed, and they could have even potentially won, because the flavors were delicious."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/top-chef-season-7-episode-4-070810 ) Note: Seafood compliment from Ripert!

I'd be pretty disappointed to open a Hilton menu and see the Top Chef signature dish was spare ribs on polenta. They went all the way to have Top Chef to create a signature dish looks indistinguishable from TGIF or Applebee's or already existing Hilton signature dish? How does that make Top Chef brand look to someone unfamiliar?

Unfortunately the losers lost because the pasta was prepared badly, and damning video clips of Lynne dismissing Arnold's concern over timing of pasta. No other reason. Team Lynne-Arnold, basically bobbled then dropped an easy fly ball. Arnold went down on a team challenge all because of Lynne... the failed breakfast and lunch dish where Lynne's (both even more exotic/esoteric/fussy than Arnold's dinner), and the dinner pasta was Lynne. I think Lynne's lack of recent working in a professional kitchen bit both of them. No line cook would mess up the timing for pasta in a time critical situation.

[Pants McCracky]

Yeah, short ribs on polenta...mushrooms...zzzzzz. I'm probably projecting, but I swear I saw a flash of desperate boredom on Tom's face as he contemplated that dish.

I'm not really seeing the problem with the EC. To me, it seemed designed to encourage boldness -- wow us with something special, you can relax (no risk of flopping later on), and if the risk doesn't pay off, you have two more chances. Nobody was preventing the teams from making an incredible winning breakfast. In fact, there was a strong disincentive to playing it safe, since you could win a round with an okay, boringly competent dish and disqualify yourself from the chance to pull out the stops and win later on.

Plus, each team had more opportunity than usual to save themselves -- you really had to be stinking this time to end up on the bottom after THREE losing dishes -- which was appropriate for a double EC with a losing team being eliminated (which normally has an innate unfairness).

[Independent George]

Why, oh, why, can Bravo not organize their website into something usable?

Anyway, I think people are getting a little too down on the short ribs. Yes, the prep is relatively simple, as all braises are - but there are still some pretty interesting textures and flavor combinations in them.

It's a shame the horseradish flavor was dulled in Kevin/Kenny's dish, because looking at the recipe, the horseradish jus and the horseradish tempura look like an interesting counterpoint to the sweetness of the spaghetti squash, and the funkiness of the juniper berries in the potatoes. I like the idea, though - it's just a shame they couldn't quite pull it off. I think they would have won had they done it right.

Kelly/Andrea's braise looks pretty classic (port wine, carrots, onions, celery, shallots, tomato paste), but they combined it with a sour (balsamic + lemon) sauce and the crispy shallot salad as a garnish. Likewise, the polenta looks like a standard recipe (cream + stock), but the addition of chevre was interesting; I can imagine it adding both a very rich texture and pungency. They didn't stretch far, but I can see where the flavor came from.

Arnold/Lynne's dish actually looked the most ordinary to me; if you're not automatically impressed by Asian fusion, the recipe looks pretty tame. Ginger, lemongrass, coconut milk, fish sauce, Thai basil, red curry, shellfish stock... there are a lot of ingredients, but Southeast Asian food as a whole has a lot of ingredients. All things considered, it looks like a pretty standard Thai curry sauce. So they basically did linguine with mussels, substituting an Italian red sauce for a Thai red curry, and added squid ink to the pasta primarily for the sake of aesthetics. I can imagine it tasting pretty damned good (I love red curry!), but I don't find it nearly as exotic as they made it out to be. Interestingly, on paper (or, er, pixels), I thought their lunch dish was the most interesting of all of them, so it really does come down to flavor & execution.

[jh]

Maybe the people that design the website also design the challenges...

I more I think about the format, the more I think it fails from a psychological point of view. The way it was done, I got the sense it was "I need to cook to be safe" rather than "I need to cook to win." The same team could have both the best dish and the worst dish and won (which seemed to happen). Though granted, you did need to have three bottom dishes in order to be eliminated.

I would have rather the competition have been eliminate the bottom 2 dishes from breakfast round and lunch round. The final three teams are then in the running for the prize. The four eliminated teams then have to cook for their lives to determine who need to PPYKAG. Perhaps the groups eliminated during the lunch round could be given an advantage, such as additional time, having survived an extra round. Thus, the winner must cook 3 good/great dishes, while the loser has 2 unsuccessful ones. Thus, the mentality changes to "I need to cook to be safe AND win." In addition, the judges have a better chance of eating better food after each round, since the top dishes are sent through rather than the bottom ones. A possible drawback from this logistically with the timing schedule, since an additional round is needed.

If the viewers are here for the drama and a touch of food, what is there to separate TC from Hell's Kitchen?

Has there been a dish yet that has really blown away the judges?

[suzanne]

@jh: I think that just depends on the chef. Someone with more confidence might take a risk on breakfast, in an attempt to wow the judges and win, rather than just be safe.

Knowing that if something goes horribly wrong with breakfast, you still have lunch (and possibly dinner) to save yourself.

That, I think, was what they were hoping to get out of the challenge: wow us with breakfast. If you fail, wow us with lunch. If you fail again, try to save yourself with dinner.

Of course, it can be a little tough to "wow" a top chef judge within the constraints of "make a dish suitable for the hilton guests and the hilton cooks/chefs," which I think might be the bigger limitation of the challenge.

I don't know that there is anyone this season that would be able to do this, but seasons 6 and 4 certainly had chefs that might have been able to pull it off.

I think it speaks volumes that the winning dish came from dinner, rather than breakfast or lunch, when the chefs had more breathing room to experiment.

[Mike Gebert]

I have no problem with this competition letting people "fail their way to the top." Immunity is a great prize that gives you more chances in future episodes; I'm sure no one who got it was too sorry to miss out on a win (though perhaps some hypercompetitive people in other seasons might have been). That the people at the end have a real win-or-lose chance-- go to Venice or go home-- heightens the drama. That might be a lousy format for the last episode, but not for one of the earliest.

That said, I wasn't impressed by much of any of the food at either breakfast or lunch. Breakfast all looked like the stuff where you pay $12 for it and wish you'd had the $5 ham and eggs at the greasy spoon down the street. Lunch was all entrees or weird salad-things. They should have forced them to make a sandwich or something, so it wouldn't just be dry run for dinner entrees.

Arnold probably went home early, but not that early. When I heard him say that he thought squid ink pasta and mussels were a brilliant visual combination, I knew that really, there's no depth there. If you're styling your food visually that much, you're probably not paying enough attention to flavor, and besides, black on black isn't that daring a combination. It was a bad idea for a hotel dish that would scare a lot of guests off, probably get screwed up half the time, and just wasn't as clever as it thought it was. THAT'S why it doomed them, at least as much as undercooking the pasta; you get sent home for completely ignoring the challenge.

And speaking of hotel staff robot-cooks who screw things up... Lynne seemed to be out to prove that as a teacher, she's where they come from. I know people thought she might demonstrate super-skillz later on, but did she ever make anything or even say anything that hinted at an interesting personality in the kitchen? Great, so she teaches Boiling Water 101 to the future scrambled egg chafing dish replenishers of tomorrow.

[gilmore]

Was this the first episode this year where the winner got a prize? If so, they may not have known that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Last year, Arianne took immunity in week 1 so she could play on.

Winning round 1 or round 2 meant immunity, not passing up a chance for a trip to Italy or Spain. If they had known the prize awaiting the ultimate winner, would they have cooked differently or strategized differently?

Again, last year, Jen, Kevin, Eli and Laurine passed up quickfire money and gambled (and lost) for a bigger payday in restaurant wars. I do not know if there are any on this seasons show other than Angelo that would have done that.

[paula]

I wouldn't automatically assume Angelo would do that. Dude made peanut butter and celery when he had immunity; he's not above playing it safe.

[aaalex]

gilmore, i think it was robin who took immunity in the first show last year, with michael isabella making a snide comment about robin's being scared. ("another old lady i don't have to worry about" is what i remember him saying.) i could be wrong - haven't looked - but the big debate about the "absolute value" of immunity started after the robin episode.

[gilmore]

aalex - you are right. I got my older contestant during a season mixed up.

I am not sure if she passed up the chance for a win and money in exchange for the immunity.

[Anon Man]

On immunity v. cash,

If I recall correctly, even the finalists who lose get nothing. Now, the publicity of making it to the finals certainly helps some of the contestants get publicity for their real work (Carla, Spike, etc.), so if you think you've have a decent chance of making the finals on talent, then take the cash, because it might be all you win. (I think Bryan V made the comment last season that he had won nothing, while his brother kept winning 10K extras and the car...)

[Polybus]

Isn't this actually the second high-stakes QF this season?

[Independent George]

I think Bryan V made the comment last season that he had won nothing, while his brother kept winning 10K extras and the car...

I believe he also made the comment that his mere appearance on TC may have saved his restaurant - that Volt was really struggling until the season aired, whereupon business immediately took off. It helps that he also (1) performed extremely well, and (2) presented himself with dignity and professionalism, but the publicity boost is a huge benefit.

[Gilmore]

Polybus - I am referring to EC prizes. Prior years, they got cookware, kitchens, trips, wine, autographed books, etc. This was the first I can recall for this season.

Independent George - Kevin also said that Top Chef saved his restaurant.

[Bart]

Dom - Sorry to hear you fell behind - I had a feeling, given the banner came up just now. Sucks that you had to use the get-out-of-jail-free card so early this season!

Pesky real life...always getting in the way of the things we REALLY want to do ;-)

[Independent George]

That's ok Dom - you've literally had more important things on your plate. So... when can we expect that Alinea write-up?

[Steve F.]

I guess that means us readers get to do the rankings this week... :)

1 Angelo
2 Kenny
3 Kelly
4 Alex
5 Ed
6 Tamesha
7 Tiffany
8 Andrea
9 Amanda
10 Kevin
11 Timothy
12 Stephen

[timothy]

1) Kelly
2) Angelo
3) Kenny
4) Ed
5) Alex
6) Tamesha
7) Andrea
8) Tiffany
9) Kevin
10) Amanda
11) Stephen
12) Timothy

[Kyle]

1) Angelo
2) Kelly
3) Kenny
4) Tiffany
5) Tamesha
6) Ed
7) Amanda
8) Alex
9) Kevin
10) Andrea
11) Timothy
12) Stephen

I'm tempted to even put Tiffany higher than Kenny based on her sweet potato dish, her crab cake breakfast, and the fact that they haven't really said much bad about her otherwise.

[dach]

1 angelo
2 kelly
3 kenny
== MOTP
4 alex
5 tiffany
6 tamesha
7 ed
8 andrea
9 kevin
== BOTTOM
10 amanda
11 timothy
12 stephen

[Anon Man]

@IG, I remember that as well. Now he's sort of a local foodie destination, since Frederick isn't exactly a usual haunt for DC locals. But, I sort of alluded to publicity being the real goal for the established contestants. I would put any number of owner/chefs in that category: Fabio, Carla, Arianne, Stephanie (kind of), Bryan, Kevin. They all came in with existing restraunts. Sure 100K would be great, but a parade of semi-local foodies would be better.

I contrast this from others who come in looking to make themselves more famous so they can open their own restaurant/business: most of the first 2 seasons, Spike, Stephan...

[Skillet Doux]

IG... I'm loathe to commit to anything datewise right now :-) But I hope to get some good stuff up next week, Alinea or otherwise. The first half of the Top Chef season is always when everything else seems to get squeezed out.

[JJ]

1. Angelo
2. Kelly
3. Kenny
4. Ed
5. Andrea
6. Tamesha
7. Kevin
8. Tiffany
9. Amanda
10. Alex
11. Timothy
12. Stephen

The top 3 are solidly in front (although Kenny has lost a bit of ground). I feel reasonably confident that nos. 4 through 6 will be around for a while. Meanwhile, it's still a bit of a crapshoot between nos. 7 and 12, any of whom I wouldn't be surprised to see going home this week. Glad to see that most/all of Dom's helpers here have basically ignored the results of the last elimination challenge and kept contestants like Stephen and Timothy at the bottom/near the bottom where they currently belong.

[TxGriff]

I'm surprised by all of the sudden love for Tamesha. She has done absolutely nothing all season until this episode, and even then, she was only strong in the quickfire. Same for Andrea (except she only did well in the elimination...after she was one of the worst teams in the first two rounds). I understand the most recent episode is where most people are coming up with their rankings, but I haven't really seen anything exciting from either of them. Then again, there's only a handful of people that are perfoming somewhat consistently so far, so the rankings are pretty debatable after 1-3.

[timothy]

@TxGriff, Re:tamesha- Yeah. I think I may have been inordinately impressed by the liquorice oil and by Tom's reaction to it.

[JJ]

"I'm surprised by all of the sudden love for Tamesha"

Actually, I'm still not that impressed with her. I'm just more impressed with her than with the others. Recall too that the producers have given us very little of her up to this point so it's hard to form a definite impression. And while that's not a great sign it's not necessarily a bad one either (since the producers don't forget to show us the stinkers).

"Same for Andrea"
Really? She has been solidly middle-of-the-pack the whole season, and this season middle of the pack, unfortunately, can mean being ranked as high as 5!

[Kyle]

Tamesha gets a few points in my book for making a dish that would've fit fine on the winning team in the cafeteria lunch and also trying to stop Amanda from using Sherry in her dish.

[dach]

My MOTP analysis ... going by memory:

#4 alex: I still remember his deconstructed borscht. Prev ep, he made successful scallops for Ripert last time. I don't remember him misstepping.

#5 tiffany: Prev ep, her successful breakfast crabcake sounded good. And it was seafood for Ripert. Other than that I don't remember his misstepping.

6 tamesha: hasn't done anything bad. She had a good outing last week: QF win, and solid/middle showing in EC.

7 ed: I don't think he's done anything of positive note. And I still have negative memory of his spicy sweet potato puree for the school kiddies.

8 andrea: I can't really say why I have her ranked near the bottom of MOTP other than I have no impression of her at all. I guess I credit anything good to her partner Kelly.

9 kevin: He's gotten more than a few dings at losers table. Going only by results he should probably be in bottom group, MOTP is too high for him. I'm giving him points because he talks like an experienced chef and strong contestants treat him with respect, like Kenny pairing up with him, and Angelo mentioning him by name as a threat he would like to see eliminated early.

[Steve F.]

The average contestant ranking from Skillet Doux posted comments post-Week 4:

1.2 Angelo
2.0 Kelly
2.8 Kenny

5.2 Ed
5.8 Tamesha
6.2 Alex
6.4 Tiffany

7.6 Andrea
8.8 Kevin
9 Amanda

11.2 Timothy
11.8 Stephen

[KinderJ]

Jumping in waaay late, but I have a thought for a challenge organization. Say up front that this challenge is for a serious prize- a trip, 10k, a lifetime supply of funyuns, whatever. Then tell them that whoever gets eliminated in the first round will be up for elimination. Best overall dish from three rounds wins. It puts the pressure of elimination on early, but still incentivizes further on. Just a thought.

I am too chicken to try and post a power list, but as much as I like the guy, I feel like Kenny should drop down to the MOTP. I like a lot of his ideas, but he consistently fails to execute them. Without execution, the best idea in the world is worthless. I think it's also a visceral reaction to his constant bravado. Projecting confidence is hugely important, both on how it impacts others and your own sense of self worth. Fake it until you make it is damn good advice, generally speaking. On the other hand, I am starting to smell someone who may be trying to cover insecurity or just trying to intimidate others. I am not saying he has no real skills, obviously he does. I am just not sold on Kenny at #3.

Lastly, on the saving your restaurant thing- I think Blais was also in a similar situation (could be completely wrong on that) but I do recall him writing a blog on Bravo's webpage comparing Top Chef to the goose that lays the golden eggs. 100k (125k now) is a hell of a nice golden egg. Convincing a nationwide audience that they want to eat at your restaurant? That's the goose.

I liked that.

[juli]

I'm also eagerly anticipating your Alinea write up. Bourdain has this interesting, rather ambivalent on Alinea's extensive tasting menu that makes me wonder if he's brilliant or just a cranky old man. He couldn't seem to decide which he was either!

However, whether the menu is art or bunk, Bourdain couldn't emphasize enough how much he respects Grant Achatz.

[Independent George]

I haven't been to Alinea (and probably won't until my mortgage is no longer underwater), but I think I might understand Bourdain's indifference. Not long ago, I was entertaining out-of-town guests for about two weeks straight, and we wound up hitting the usual dining establishments in downtown Chicago - Crofton on Wells, Graham Elliott, Blackbird, Topalobampo, etc. The food was all wonderful, but, by the end, it started to feel a little too much. After a while, you get sick of the elaborate presentations, and just want something simple and tasty - something more visceral than intellectual. I still love all those places, and am not about to turn down an expense-account invitation to any of them, but by the end, I just wanted a big, greasy cheeseburger.

I think I have a better appreciation for Colicchio's commentary now; beyond a certain point, refinement becomes a distraction. I don't need rose petals arranged in a fibonacci sequence around my steak; just make it taste good.

That said, the black rice gnocchi at Graham Elliott is inspired. That's on my short list of dining 'Eureka!' moments.

[Bart]

@ IG: Re: your point about Colicchio's commentary... this is evident in the food that his brand makes, too. I ate at 'wichcraft for dinner last night, and I remarked to my dining companion that everything was so clean, like it was colored inside the lines.

It was simple, and that simplicity created elegance. Certainly didn't hurt that the food was dynamite, too. The flavors popped, and at the end of the night, I cared more about the flavors than the presentation.

[Will Allen]

Hello, everyone. I've been watching the show on a delayed basis, since Comcast and Bravo won't let me see it in Highdef except through the OnDemand service.

Scanning previous threads quickly, I see that I am not alone in having been spoiled by last season. The cooking so far this season seems rather uninspired by comparison. Goodness, I'd be embarrassed to be a professional chef, have the opportunity to begin prep a day prior, and not be able to come up with food more interesting to prepare on a Weber grill, than what those chefs put out two weeks ago. Ugh.

Secondly, these people as a group just seem rather less interesting, as personalities. If I see one more interview spot where a chef portentously informs me how ruthlessly devoted to winning he or she is, I might be forced to go make myself a ham sandwich. Yawn. I guess the producers can be equally faulted for this, however.

Hopefully, as the field narrows, both the cooking and production values will improve.