Top Chef - S8E8 Postmortem

Feeling vindicated on many, many levels.

I cannot express how overjoyed I am to see the volume of love for dry pasta expressed both in the episode and in the blogs. Can we please make this mainstream knowledge? Are we finally shedding this pernicious myth that fresh pasta is superior?

That middle course really was a fantastic lesson on what not to do. And when we talk about how you can't say unless you taste -- almost always true -- Tre's risotto is a great example of how you only need to take one look at that picture to know so much is wrong. Yes, there's room for interpretation and personal spin, but some of the fundamentals have become so because they *work*.

I want to save some of this for the rankings. And I'd rather wait to write anything about the QF until I've had a chance to step back and be less annoyed by it as well (of course presentation is important, but really, what a joke).

Discuss!

Comments

[Tim]

Great episode, cooking is more often about simplicity than statements. And some of those guys should feel embarrassed for how they took being beat by Antonia, perhaps she's really irritating around the house? I don't know, I hope it's just them having the rug pulled out from under them that gave them that shock on their faces.

[Vega]

AAAAAGH I almost had a heart attack thinking Dale was gonna go home. I knew he probably wouldn't, but it still gave me heart palpitations.

I seem to recall Tre winning that first challenge of season 4 by a landslide. What were the judges' comments on that risotto? Clearly he didn't forget to make good risotto in the intervening period...

What the HELL is going on for the next episode? It seems like Crazy Carla's long-overdue return is here. I am both excited and terrified.

[KinderJ]

Kick ass, food centric episode. No spoilers until tomorrow, but we may want to fire up the Italian v. French debate, the Simple v. Complicated debate, and a new contender Italian American v. Actual Italian Food debate. We got the first two going pretty good on the last post mortem thread, and this episode kind of worked like an illustrated manual for a lot of that discussion. Really good fun.

[Nicole]

Wow. For years and years I've been pronouncing Rao's like "wows." Hanging my head in shame.

[nomnomnom]

The mrs. would have you know she's eaten Tre's rissoto in a cooking class as well as in his restaurant and says it is phenomenal. It is sort of what he's known for. For him to bomb this challenge like this says something.

Seemed to be a makeup call for Antonia after all those weeks of not being up for the win due to the team.

[EdT.]

Next week's Power Rankings ought to be interesting, to say the least. Moving up (IMO): Richard, Carla, Antonia, Fabio. Moving down: Dale, Angelo (notice the comment about "disrespecting the ingredients"?) Moving out: the "Black Italian".

Oh, and WTH? with Michael I. teaching folks how to make gnocchi? We all know that FABIO is #TopGnocchi!

Oh, and does it look to anyone else like Michael I. inherited the a-hole edit?

~EdT.

[Independent George]

1. We've talked about how to weight the different challenges; to me, it's not so much a distinction between a QF vs EC, solo vs team, but how much actual cooking is involved. I feel like going full Orwell and pretending that QF never existed.

2. Seriously, what was the point of that QF? If you're going to have a ridiculous NBC crossover judge for a QF unrelated to eating, I want Zamir from No Reservations.

3. I thought for sure it was going to be Mike, and I'm sure he did, too. For all his brashness, he didn't hide from his error, and looked genuinely chastened.

4. Colicchio's blog has a nice, succinct explanation of the distinction between Italian and Italian-American cuisine. I get irritated by purists who look down on Italian-American food, and it's a nice description of how food everywhere evolves. To paraphrase economist Tyler Cowen, "Every food is ethnic food; every food is fusion." Which is ironic, considering...

5. Tre got dinged because his risotto didn't match his platonic ideal of a true risotto. Fair enough, but did it really taste bad, or did it just not meet their expectations? I can understand if it was framed as a matter of not fulfilling the terms of the challenge (for a homey, comforting, Italian-American inspired dish), but instead, the commentary made it sound like he committed some sort of sin.

6. Yaaaaay Carla.

[Nicole]

Oh, and did Angelo spell crocodile "crocadile?" In giant letters across his table? And make a big deal about being inspired by crocodiles? And did NO ONE notice?

[dc]

From the JT comments and EC clips I thought it was Dale: underflavored, mixed ingredients separately, broken pasta. 3 strikes. Compared to Tre: thick risotto, strong (overwhelming?) flavor; which I always take by inference of omission to the contrary to mean good flavor.

I'm upset... I need to read judges blog to get the nasty editor fool me once, twice, three times taste out of my head.

[Kyle]

Nicole - Carla made a comment in the episode about Angelo writing it wrong. Hilarious!

[HF]

@Nicole, someone noticed, I think it was Carla.

Random thoughts...

I don't understand how Dale didn't lose, nothing positive was said about his dish by anyone.

The guys looked like complete dicks by their non-reaction to Antonia's win.

I thought Richard's QF looked pretty horrible. Fabio's too. I would have picked Carla's. BTW, immunity for that challenge? Boo!

Italian food was referenced as "simple" a half-dozen times?

I thought this episode was boring.

[doktarr]

That opening challenge was a joke. I bet all the chefs were laughing about it later. Fortunately the elimination challenge was a great one.

@Vega - actually, it was very close between Hung and Tre in that opening challenge. I specifically remember Tom saying how he wanted to emphasize how good both dishes were.

[nomnomnom]

There is absolutely no reason to shakeup the perception of any of the chefs based on this episode. The QF was a complete joke and the EC was equally as dumb really. A complete waste of a week (or two weeks if you count time off).

The only thing to shakeup to consider is that they have telegraphed the last two off chefs in the credits/previews and have already made a really hard case for #3. It will be interesting if Dom recognizes that, as this is about the only takeway to be had here.

It's been awhile, but I wish someone would paraphrase what was said about dry pasta vs. fresh during the TC:Masters episode where this came into play.

[KinderJ]

Bourdain and Colicchio's blogs are both up, and both are very good. This episode kind of hits me where I live, because so often the only times my family gets together as an extended family are for weddings, funerals and the holidays. Everybody eating together just... makes me feel good. Especially if I have cooked the food. Lots of laughing, arguing and watching my cousins eat their bodyweight in five minutes. The format of family style dishes and family style food really worked in this episode. I would not want to see it every episode, but for this episode I thought it was fantastic. It really showed who got the challenge, and could adapt their cooking to that.

IG- Couple of points. First "Fashion Show" is also on Bravo, so there is at least that much sense to it. Second, while you are of course correct about taste being completely absent from the QF, I think it is reasonable to judge contestants on their aesthetics. Beauty in plating does matter. What annoyed me was the criteria for 'Appealing'. I thought Richard's dish was highly sophisticated and had an elegant esthetic. It would look lovely in my living room- by a window for instance, or by a vase. I would not be motivated to eat it. Fabio's chicken and polenta in the EC were 'Appealing' to me. I would have taken one look at that and dove on it. Heck, a well made grilled cheese has an almost irresistible appeal. While I thought the QF was an interesting example of the chefs displaying creativity and artistic skill, it was really an abstract sculpture challenge, not a food challenge. Fun to watch, but not really what I'm here for.

[KinderJ]

Nomnomnom- Bourdain mentions it on his blog. Also if you scroll up the page and look on the top right hand side, you get Dom's Ten Commandments of dried pasta, which I think covers a lot of that same ground.

[KinderJ]

Hilarious line from Gawker's liveblog on the QF:

"In the quickfire challenge, famed fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi will judge the food by looking at it—which makes about as much sense to me as James Beard judging clothing by eating it."

http://gawker.com/5750332/live+blogging-top-chef-all+stars-week-8

[Wangus]

I too was initially shocked about how lackluster the congratulations were for Antonia. Was this a jab at Antonia or just an indication that everyone's starting to get tired? I've never really thought that anyone didn't respect Antonia as a chef.

I'll have to watch again before saying anything else.

[Redpoint]

Love Bourdain's comment on his blog about Padma looking like a Superfriend!

I was also wondering why Carla was up there for the win after the Wisconsin remark.

Being part Belgian, I was rooting for the mussels. (And how come we haven't fought about Belgian food as being one of the great cuisines?)

[bryanD]

(Ahhh! That roomful of Italians at Rao's passively agreed with my Italian food origins thesis from two threads back as expressed by Tom's "south of Rome" aside! Ahhh!)

As for the episode proper: well of course the QF was pathetic insult to its audience. AND everyone's "food" looked like crap.

The EC was fun, I thought, until it wound up and the bottom group were judged and the show ended...and then I thought: this episode was...a bit *dry*. Maybe this came to me during the next week's previews as I watched ANOTHER non-chef being set up as a judge. Yep. That's it. This actress, Loraine Bracco is not an interesting person and The Next Guy looks to be worse.

I gotta give the episode only a C. (Except for Tom's aside which gets an A+.)

[Madeye Gamgee]

I think Antonia's cool reception was related to the impression that some of the other chef's felt she'd just won a gold medal for a perfect swan dive, while they were trying to do double reverse flips with two and a half twists. There's simple, and then there's simplistic. Sure, a perfect plate of mussels is sublime, but is it Top Chef material?

[Joanna]

KinderJ, I'm really glad I read that line right after putting down my glass of water, otherwise I think my computer would be short-circuiting right now! Seriously, that quickfire was so dumb.

While I was a little surprised by the reaction to Antonia's win, I think it was more shock than a snub. The chefs left in the stew room seemed to have convinced themselves that the group that went in was the bottom; hearing that Antonia won meant that the first group was the top, and suddenly the remaining guys realized that they were up for elimination. Hence the stunned silence.

I thought for sure Dale was a goner. I think he is capable of great things, and I'm glad he's sticking around so we can see a few more of them. But as Tom said, I've had bad pasta dishes like that, and if it's anything like I'm imagining, well... Tre's risotto must have been truly awful.

Also, I kind of loved seeing all the girls on top. There's so few of them left, it was great to see them rocking a challenge together!

[Sweet Sue]

The way those three jerks reacted to Antonia's win was disgraceful; I wanted to send them all home.
I knew she had the win when Tom started talking about fishing with his nonno as a wee tyke.
Paging Proust.
Isn't that what wonderful food can do? Take us to a better place.

[Wangus]

It was five jerks, Sweet Sue, not three, remember Richard and Angelo were also there. And heck, you should probably count Fabio too with his comments; so all six of the boys were a bit unenthusiastic.

But I think (I hope) that Madeye Gamgee (fantastic username) is right. Maybe they thought those four going in were on the bottom. Though I can't imagine how Mike wouldn't have known that he was going to be in the bottom group.

[Krazikarl]

I think that Blais expected to be in the top. His food was good as you could tell from the comments. You could also see it when he was talking with somebody else about having 2 "bottoms" called first instead of the top being called first. He thought he was in the top and was therefore surprised that somebody else got it, which explains his reaction.

I wish that more time had been spent discussing whether or not Tre's food tasted good rather than whether or not it met the criteria for an ideal risotto. I wonder if he would have made it if he had acknowledged that he was riffing on the idea rather than doing it classically (although he obviously wouldnt have said this since he obviously didnt know that his dish didnt meet the classic ideal).

[Krazikarl]

Also, now I kind of wish that Marcel had made it to this episode. It would have driven him nuts and been really entertaining. The thought of him losing his mind and sticking some foam on something is just funny.

[Nsam]

@Krazikarl: "I wish that more time had been spent discussing whether or not Tre's food tasted good rather than whether or not it met the criteria for an ideal risotto." Colicchio and Bourdain's blogs (which are both very informative this week) do get into this, making it clear that Tre's dish was in fact unpleasant to eat, besides the fact that it was not classically or traditionally prepared. Which just makes me wonder, how did he win the challenge back in S3 with his risotto? I didn't see that episode. Anyone remember? Anyone?

[Skillet Doux]

"Which just makes me wonder, how did he win the challenge back in S3 with his risotto?"

I don't remember offhand, but I'd consider the possibility that the judging standards have simply come way, way up since then.

[Steve]

Yes, it would have been horrible for the best contestant so far, Dale, not to make it to the end. It did sound like his was the worst tasting dish; but it seems that the judges also heavily factored in the theme of the challenge, which gave the loss to Tre.

My bet is that Tiffany and Mike go next. Fabio's been holding on.

[Steve F.]

Correction: Fabio has been doing well lately.

[dc]

@Nsam, I've now read the judges blogs and still am not clear if Tre was eliminated because his food was genuinely unpleasant, untasty to eat, or entirely because Tre Risotto did not conform to a traditionalist risotto standard.

Tom's blog even admits there is a school of American chef / American-Italian restaurant that serve stiff risotto.

Maybe the too thick risotto was unpleasant to eat for those not used to it, or the close minded. Like I am happy eating sticky rice, or rice gruel (congee). But halfway between texture ... it would be too moist sticky rice, or too thick gruel, which I would not find good.

[Nsam]

@dc: Well, what Colicchio wrote is, "About 15 years ago, for whatever reason, people tried to mold risotto into a ring stand. This is simply wrong." There have been a lot of embarrassing culinary ideas in the last 15 years, I don't know if we should elevate this one to the level of "school" or should more accurately say that it was a bad idea that discerning people are happy to relegate to the ash bin of history. I'm not, personally, prepared to fight to the death about this one, but Colicchio clearly believes the latter.

This also fits in quite nicely with Dom's comment, if I remember correctly, from all the way back in the preaseason rankings, that Tre's style seems dated. Score another for the site admin.!

Yes, the diners and judges seemed put off that the risotto didn't meet a traditional, soupier standard, but Colicchio also writes that not only was Tre's risotto not loose, it wasn't even creamy. Bourdain writes, "It was thick, gluey, and closer to cement than one of God's Own Primi Piatti."

Whatever Tre's personal preference for risotto, I have difficulty imagining that I'd enjoy risotto that was gluey, cement-like and not creamy.

[Food Blogger]

Although not the greatest episode so far, it sure had me nerveous at the end. I do think Fabio was robbed and really should have won the challenge. And am I glad Dale did not go home. How did that happen. Even he was shocked!

Like they say, every chef has a bad day ...

[jh]

@nomnomnom- you mentioned that the mrs. has first-hand experience with Tre's risotto. Would you mind asking her the consistency, etc? Was the dish Tre presented somewhat similar to what she had, or did he royally screw up and have a bad day in the kitchen?

[Bart]

The quickfire was...interesting. I do like how the cheftestants tried to embrace the challenge, and I give them credit for mostly being enthusiastic about it (or pretending to be).

Mike's comment about Antonia's dish smacked of Mike Voltaggio's comments about Kevin's dishes: "But it's just _____ and _____. What's so great about it?"

That mussel dish looked AMAZING.

Tre's exit interview was pretty damn classy.

I'm thinking that Richard's QF immunity (yeah, yeah) and Dale's bottom showing means that Richard gets #1.

Time to seriously consider moving both Antonia and Carla above Angelo, methinks.

[paula]

That QF was appalling. Yes, presentation is important, but to disregard flavor altogether? Mizrahi looked like a moron, too (Joe Jonas was a better judge, for chrissakes).

I would like to believe that the male contingency's reaction to Antonia's win was indeed brought on by complete shock because a couple of them thought they were in the top for sure. But I can't shake a very strong undercurrent of misogyny this season among the contestants, even more so than past seasons. I hope it's just the editing, but I was really put off by all of those boys last night. Especially considering how graciously, classy and (for the most part) smart these three women have played the game so far.

I was glad to see Antonia get a proper win, even if was "just" for mussels. This challenge reminded me of Fabio's win for roast chicken in his season, and how gaga all the judges went in that same episode for Carla's peas.

[Dreamboat]

During the quickfire all I could think of was Hung's Smurf Village. :D

[timothy]

I don't get why people think this was a bad episode. Well, yeah, the QF was terrible (though I did laugh at Mizrahi's Charles Manson comment to Angelo...poor Angelo), but the EC was so great to me. First, it made me truly hungry. It's the next day and I am craving good Italian food. Second, it taught me a little about food what with the emphasis on the way Italian cuisine focuses on the ingredient and making it the feature. Third, there was drama, but it was culinary drama, the bad middle course versus the excellent polenta and the pleasing mussels. Fourth, I thought the guest judges were knowledgable and passionate. Fifth, lots of good Carla and Antonia action (that sounds wrong; I mean it in the best way)...All in all I really enjoyed this episode.

[redpoint]

I agree with Paula--I also sense a vibe of misogyny amongst certain participants. When the women got called up the immediate reaction from some of the players felt like they were thinking "surely these must be the bottom dishes." I'm also put out by this idea that Antonia shouldn't have won because she only cooked mussels. Ridiculous. The judges loved the food, while the overworked dishes of Richard and Angelo received only lukewarm praise.

Once again, we get a feeling for Antonia's food without tasting it. I think of the other challenges she aced during season 4: The steak house, the kids challenge. Simple, but soulfully delicious. To me, personally, this is more of what I really want to be eating than the showy and busier foods of Richard (not that Richard's food isn't probably divine) and Marcel. When executed perfectly, this kind of food hits people where they live.

I get Antonia's food. Then there are other contestants from the past -- I'm thinking of Hosea -- who's food I never had a handle on.

[momjamin]

Seems to me the judges were looking for a "Ratatouille" moment (when the critic takes the first dubious bite of the ratatouille and zooms back to childhood, one of the best moments on film ever, IMHO ;-), and Tom's fishing w/Grandpa flashback nailed it.

[EdT.]

"I would like to believe that the male contingency's reaction to Antonia's win was indeed brought on by complete shock because a couple of them thought they were in the top for sure. But I can't shake a very strong undercurrent of misogyny this season among the contestants, even more so than past seasons. I hope it's just the editing, but I was really put off by all of those boys last night..."

Actually, I suspect that the Scene of Stunned Incredulity that we saw when Antonia announced her win was the work of editing. Notice that they shifted from cheft to cheft, so it is entirely possible that the segment was made to appear longer than it actually was (probably for dramatic effect.) That having been said: there was a bit of misdirection based on some of the commentary aired during the meal - specifically, I was surprised that Richard wasn't in the top group, also that Fabio didn't win. By the same token, I had no doubt that, when they were called, this was the top group - Team #PASTAFAIL! was the obvious choice for bottom group.

~EdT.

[redpoint]

It's going to be a very interesting power rankings this week. Are the top three big guns going to be unseated a bit by the upwardly moving Antonia, and possibly Carla? It might be painful to unseat them, but do they really deserve these positions? (Maybe) Is Fabio, with two near wins, getting out of the basement? Is Mike I falling toward the bottom with Tiffany?

[nomnomnom]

Tre's rissoto are fairly well liked in Dallas. They have been mentioned positively in reviews, and they are not the soupy style. I guess I know very little of the dish to even understand it was supposed to be soupy and I guess to the unwashed masses of the South we don't know any better.

The one he made and won for in his season was not entirely dissimilar. I think he ran into the purists and got flattened. So it goes. Tre was at best a darkhorse to make the finals and the previews already laid out that he was in no better than a coinflip to stay on.

I still think this episode can be completely discarded, and start to finish probably was the worst one of the season. Next week holds some promise.

[Bill G]

Just want to echo some previous comments.
I was thinking the same thing about the other chefs reaction to Antonia in comparison to Mike V's comments about Kevin. A lot of chefs just don't seem to get how important it is for the food to taste good. They seem to want people to be impressed with their style more than they want people to enjoy eating their food.
+1 in support for the food of Belgium. Moules/frites with a Trappist Ale puts me right in one of my happiest culinary happy zones.

[Polybus]

@Dreamboat "During the quickfire all I could think of was Hung's Smurf Village. :D "

Now that was a true work of art!

[paula]

Oh, and Antonia's QF dish made me think of this recent article in the New Yorker, which fascinated me:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/03/110103fa_fact_gopnik

[Peter]

I don't remember offhand, but I'd consider the possibility that the judging standards have simply come way, way up since then.

I'm not sure this is the case; they criticized Howie's Restaurant Wars risotto (twice!) for mounding up and not running on the plate. I'm not sure that I agree that there's only One True Way to make risotto, though. I've had instances of both preparations that have been really stellar; it seems like they should just be considered different styles of the same dish. I can see where Tre would have run into trouble if they wanted them to make the food as traditional as possible, but I think Tom pointed out in his blog (when discussing Antonia's mussels) that they weren't actually even required to make authentic Italian food.

[HF]

momjamin said "Seems to me the judges were looking for a "Ratatouille" moment..."

Bingo! Brilliant!

[matthew]

I'm in agreement with those who feel the reaction to Antonia's win was poor form. I understand the shock of thinking, "Oh sh*t, that means we're in the bottom." But the overriding sentiment was, "She just cooked mussels." Fabio said it in the confessional. (Funnily enough, Antonia was playfully sticking it to Fabio last night on Twitter.) The win supports my opinion that it takes skill to make something (seemingly) simple taste really good. Even Lorraine Bracco comments, in the extended Judges Table clip, about the merits of simplicity.

[redpoint]

I think this was an important challenge. Unlike the QF it was was without any gimmick or unfairness (ie., someone having to do FOH, someone working with a difficult teamate or a tricky ingredient). It was pure. It showed which chefs could slow down and think about the food instead of showmanship, and create that peak, memorable, food experience.
I get why Mike and Tre bombed it, but I'm not sure why Dale did, so dramatically. Is he really that uncomfortable with pasta or Italian food?

[bryanD]

"I don't get why people think this was a bad episode."---timothy

It was a Talk Of the Town episode. I half-expected Ed Sullivan and Walter Winchell to conveniently drop by and compliment Miss Bracco on her newest SRO engagement at the Trocadero---appearing thru Tuesday!

And the food: now it's here, now it's there, magic wand: Presto-chango! The critiques were amateurish: a'la hard/soft; wet/dry; and of course Bourdain's me-happy/ me-sad.

"I guess I know very little of the dish to even understand it was supposed to be soupy and I guess to the unwashed masses of the South we don't know any better."---nomnomnom

Risotto is *In* here in Tulsa OK (with the ladies, anyway), and it is always served runny. (If were not exotically runny, it could never be sold for more that $3.50, as it would just be "rice" and DEFINITELY not *In* and priced at a 100% premium.) Which does bring us back to Top Chef contestants and their historically stiff and pasty "risottos", which in turn brings me back to Tiffani F and her All-Stars flop-performance: Was season 1 (her "good" season) just a bunch of bums + Harold???

[Polybus]

Maybe I'm misreading, but I think the issue with Antonia was more one of egos rather than mysogeny (although Mike I. certainly showed a tendency toward mysogeny during his season).

Also, you can count me among those surprised that Richard was not in the top - his dish was very highly praised at the table.

[Krazikarl]

Peter -

Yeah, I read that bit in Tom's blog where he said that it didnt necessarily have to be strictly Italian food, but could just be inspired by homey Italian-American food.

But I dont believe him here. I think that anybody who deviated from the accepted standard of how the dishes "should" be here in America (or Italy) was going to be VERY heavily dinged. There was no room for being inspired and going off in your own non classic direction on a dish.

To that end, I was a bit disappointed that the comments on screen and Tom's comments in his blog talked only about how risotto "should" and how Tre didnt hit that mark rather than whether or not it tasted good despite not being the correct way of making it. Bourdain's blog made a comment about cement, but even there its not clear if he is talking about taste or just that its not soupy.

I just wish that somebody had something along the lines of "the texture was off, but you could have been saved if it at least tasted good". But we never got that. That made me raise my eyebrows, especially in light of Tom's "you could just be inspired by homey Italian-American food" comment.

[Skillet Doux]

Regarding the "correct"-ness of risotto, of course you want to be open-minded about things, but I'm highly sympathetic to the judges here. When you've had stellar risotto in Italy, it's hard to accept that any other way is worthwhile. Since most people have less experience with risotto, what about pasta? Some people cook pasta until it's soft. But if you're accustomed to al dente, the chef can call it a stylistic choice as much as he likes, but isn't it hard to accept it as anything other than simply wrong? Where's the distinction between the two? Like I say, you don't want to be a slave to tradition. You want to have an open mind. But the reason some of these traditions are traditions is because they *work* so much better than other ways of doing it.

[rab01]

The quickfire -- a failed attempt by the elves to force a repeat of the magic of Humg's Smurf Village -- was clearly stupid but I think that's part of the point of quickfires, to let the Elves try out-there challenges and give the show some variety.

The elimination challenge itself was perfectly fine -- albeit a little too straightforward for exciting TV.

As for the "controversy" of the night -- yeah, totally bad form to not properly congratulate Antonia. I don't think Richard expected to be in the top. Unless the elves seeded his comments in from some completely different month, I think he expected Fabio to win and was disappointed for him. Richard's shown it before -- he's real slow to congratulate people that he didn't think deserved congratulations.

I also think some of the chefs were thinking along the lines of Dom's point about presenting a perfectly ripe peach while the other chefs are working their butts off. Not having tasted the food, I have no clue whether any of them had a legitimate point (though I doubt it highly).

[Liz]

If I'm not mistaken, aren't all the chefs from the first three seasons now gone? Coincidence, or did the caliber of the chefs get higher over time?

"When you've had stellar risotto in Italy, it's hard to accept that any other way is worthwhile."

I've never been very enthusiastic about any kind of rice, yet I had a risotto in Italy I would happily eat again for my last meal.

[momjamin]

Someone on another board made a good observation about the (throwaway) QF. They've tested their knife skills, mise en place speed, palate/flavor identification, and other QFs not directly about the flavor of the dish. This challenge isolated another component of restaurant work -- plating and presentation.

It wasn't at all clear to me, though, whether it was supposed to be attractive as "makes me want to eat it" or "makes me want to hang it over my fireplace."

[Ranhorn]

Meh episode.

Ridiculous QF.

I've been to Rao's three times...tables are not handed down or willed or whatever. It's okay, but just that. People like the Goodfellas vibe and the bar is kind of cool.

[Joanna]

I think that's what threw me off too, momjamin. Richard's plate had this dark artistic beauty to it, but would I want to eat it? Not so much. Whereas one of the other plates (Dale's?) got Isaac Mizrahi saying that it looked so appetizing, he wanted to eat a raw egg yolk -- and then it wasn't even mentioned in the top. It's one thing to try and present a plate of food that both tastes good and looks good; it's another thing entirely to treat food as an artist's medium. And frankly, when I go out to eat, I don't want to be served by a chef who sees food that way. Give me slightly unnatractive but delicious food any day.

[anne]

While I think misogyny is a strong word, I do think there's an undercurrent with the guys that the women just aren't playing the big boys. Dale's sneering comment about Carla's African Peanut Stew, the assumption that the women were in the bottom, the failure really to take any of them seriously as competition. What people have said above really seems right--that they just fail to see the value of simple food cooked wonderfully, or that soulful comfort food that just tastes really good. The food of the remaining guys, with the exception of Fabio--and I don't mean this as criticism--announces its own brilliance. Their mistake is not realizing that that's not the only path to good, smart food. One of the blogs commented on how well Antonia understands what's asked by a challenge, and adapts to it.

I wish Jen had stuck around, because she demands to be taken seriously by the guys--and without her things are feeling a little fratboyish. I really like all the remaining contestants, and I think their bias has more to do with food than gender, but it's also a gendered way of looking at food, and I find it a little uncomfortable.

[Sweet Sue]

It's possible that Tre and others confuse risotto with rice pilaf and they are two distinct dishes.

[paula]

Anne, you nailed it. That's exactly how I feel, though I haven't been able to articulate it. Jen's absence makes a huge difference: She was 100% "one of the boys" in terms of her attitude, demeanor and cooking style. Carla, Antonia and Tiffany share an approach to food, and to competition, that's in stark contrast to the boys. I don't think a single one of those guys sees any of those three as a threat, regardless of how they've fared in the challenges.

I suppose misogyny is too strong a word, and I don't like to throw it around lightly. But like you, some of the exchanges and comments and looks I've caught this year leave me uneasy. It makes the show slightly less fun to watch.

[Peter]

I would say that the distinction between "wrong" and "different" is the quality of the dish. As long as something tastes good and has a pleasing texture and isn't dog-ugly I don't think it can be considered "wrong." It's similar to that Top Chef phenomenon where contestants barely follow the rules of the challenge but make something really good and get a top mention anyway.

In this episode, Tre lost because he made a mounded risotto that was cement-like and added a quantity of vegetables that completely took the focus off the rice. I've had risottos like that, and I agree that they're far worse than most soupy versions.

As other posters have pointed out, Tre won Ep 1 of season 3 by making mounded risotto. In that case, he avoided the problems that led to the cement-like texture (which are possible to avoid) and made a dish that was judged better than all of the other competitors' dishes, even though the judges were already familiar with soupy risotto (as evidenced by their comments to Howie during RW).

I suppose, despite the fact that I'm posting in a topic about a food competition, that I don't really view food as a competition. When I eat something, I think more along the lines of, "is this good on its own merits" instead of, "this is not as good as the other version of it I had, so I am disappointed."

When you've had stellar risotto in Italy, it's hard to accept that any other way is worthwhile.

I admit, I've never actually had risotto in Italy (this may disqualify me from having a valid opinion). I have had Italian-style risotto prepared by Italians using Italian methods and imported Italian ingredients (ITALY!!), so that may count. I apologize if I'm reading a bit cynical at the moment, but I feel like implications like the one that the only way to get Maximum-Good Risotto is to go to Italy is one of the reasons many folks don't try venturing beyond the confines of the Olive Garden. I know that's not the way you intended it, though.

That said, any pasta that isn't al dente is an abomination (until someone serves me some that isn't, at least :P).

[Skillet Doux]

"I feel like implications like the one that the only way to get Maximum-Good Risotto is to go to Italy is one of the reasons many folks don't try venturing beyond the confines of the Olive Garden. I know that's not the way you intended it, though."

Quite right, and I thought that myself a couple of minutes after I wrote it. I sure don't want to be the "Oh, you haven't been to Italy? Then you've never had real Italian food," guy. It's just that while good pasta is pretty accessible here now, good risotto is still tricky to come by.

[paula]

I've only had non-soupy risotto (maybe we should call it "American risotto"?) and I admit, I like it a lot as good-old winter comfort food. But I'd love to try to make it the traditional Italian way, so I can taste the difference for myself. Dom, maybe you can devote a blog entry with step-by-step instructions for making an authentic risotto? (SCARE QUOTES!)

[JJ]

The QF was one of the dumbest in the show's history. The starting point for the challenge was okay, but it quickly descended into silliness. They needed to find a way to make a gimmicky challenge become something else, something more substantial, by the end. And they didn't succeed in doing this. While I'm sure the contestants wanted to win immunity, none of them clearly cared about what Isaac said, and for good reason. The EC was fun and I was more than OK to see the Pasta group sitting at the bottom (especially Mike, who just gets more annoying with each passing episode). Happy too for Antonia. I always kind of liked her, but even more so this season. Hope she lasts longer than some of the blowhards.

[Independent George]

I couldn't resist.

You sound like you really enjoyed your risotto...

[jh]

Apparently Eric Riper reads Skillet Doux and wanted to offer his own thoughts of Italian vs. French cooking :-) His vlog also defends Antonia's dish being Italian and not French.

The "Ratatouille" reference was perfect. After reading Tom's and Bourdain's blogs about this episode, they both make references to how the dish brought them back. When you eat something that creates that type of visceral emotion, almost no amount of MG or fancy knife techniques can top that. That why some people would prefer eating roasted chicken for a last meal than a concoction from Alinea. Great tasting food is great tasting food, but attach that to a fond memory and everything else is toast.

The QF was a joke. Only a non-chef could have thought of such a ridiculous challenge. I can get behind an Uncle Ben's QF, but this was beyond absurd. I'm hoping they do the blind tasting QF as a small redemption.

[Bart]

Joanne: I thought Mizrahi was being sarcastic when he said he wanted to try the raw egg and get salmonella.

Yeah, when I first heard the challenge, my first thought would have been to make something with a gorgeous sear on it, some nice roasted vegetables to get some reds and greens. When I heard the challenge, I took it as, "Make a dish that'll make me want to grab your food with my bare hands and stuff my face" and not "Make me a painting: the plate is your canvas and the food is your watercolor."

[Alamos Road]

What a classy exit interview from Tre. I'd eat at his restaurant just to send the business his way.

I'm pretty sure Antonia, Tiffany and Carla are used to dealing with misogyny in the "professional" kitchen, as well as what they were treated to in their previous Top Chef seasons. It's (still) a fact of life in this and many other professions. They don't seem to be letting it stand in their way.

[mar]

I don't think it is out of bounds to judge a quick-fire on presentation only. As another poster said, the chefts have been judged solely on palate, knife skills, etc. - why not presentation? BUT, there should have been a requirement that you actually cook, and that you make something that you'd actually serve. What was there to eat in Tre's dish? Or Antonia's? It was ridiculous in the end. You could argue that Hung's Smurf village was taking a silly challenge (using items from one grocery store aisle) to a silly end. But here, there was no need to go to silly extremes. Show us your chef skills. None of us watching can taste your food. Make us WANT to!

Have to say I was quite relieved that despite the knife pulls dividing the chefs up, it was not a team challenge. I avoid the previews and was going to be unhappy at another team challenge.

[matthew]

Funny sidebar: Carla said that all the chefs were in hysterics about Angelo's "crocadile" and Mizrahi's "Thumbs DOWN Angelo!" You could see them all cutting up in the background.

[dave_p]

Well, I haven't commented on an episode in a few seasons now, but...

Mussels? Seriously? Steamed mussels won? This far in? On "All Stars"? (BTW, I blame this, not sexism, for Antonia's cold shoulder treatment.)

I read both Tom's & Tony's blogs, and I totally get what they're saying. Antonia had the best tasting dish--by a hair, at least--over Fabio's. But not taking into degree of difficulty (as per the diving analogy by another poster) is ridiculous.

Having worked in Italian kitchens, I loved it when ppl ordered mussels. It's a total gimme dish. The only thing to do w/that is not fu** it up (i.e. don't overcook it). Sure, simple-but-tasty was what they were likely looking for, and not fu**ing it up should go a long way, esp in the early stages of competition, but this deep in, and with this level of competition, I would've expected a bit more from a winning dish.

Oh, and I totally thought Mike was going home. TC has always voted down "indeible" food in favor of simply badly made food. Undercooked pasta, much like under/overcooked proteins, is usually a kiss of death. Guess they really hate firm risotto (which I'm also guilty of, I'm ashamed to say--blame my teachers!).

Oh (pt 2), the QF was indeed a complete joke, esp compared to the wonderfully sublime QF from the last episode.

--
Dave

[Naomi]

So much I want to say but I have no time (dumb job...dumb kids...).

Quickly: I felt like I was watching last night with all of you in my living room with how many times I thought of this blog throughout the episode - particularly anytime someone used the words "simple" and "Italian" together. Combine that with Tom's blogs about how ethnic cuisines adapt and change and it was as if this episode was made just for the SkilletDoux community ;-)

I too was very worried Dale was going and was extremely relieved it was Tre (though I probably would have preferred it to be Mike). Never having made pasta myself I found it interesting that Tom could tell by looking at it (and Bourdain touched on this in his blog) that the pasta probably wasn't ever going to cook enough. Too much yolk, was it?

I think the points above about other quickfires that don't have as much to do with cooking - prep skills, tasting etc.. - is very interesting. What could have saved this QF was choosing the three dishes that truly enticed with their aesthetics and then picking the winner based on taste.

So much more I want to say but a Jr. High basketball game beckons.

[Naomi]

Good gravy my grammar was atrocious above. I was typing too fast. Sincere apologies.

[Bill G]

In regards to Fabio & Mike's dishes being so much more complex that Antonia's:
How difficult is chicken cacciotore and pasta? Didn't know it took Thomas Keller-like genius to master those.

[redpoint]

Dave--I'm going to guess that Antonia's dish was not just steamed mussels. Wine, garlic, bread, and broth all played roles to make the whole bigger than the parts. The judges have had steamed mussels before, and unless it was their favorite dish of all time, they wouldn't have given the win to just steamed mussels.

[Sweet Sue]

My husband had dinner with two Italian colleagues last night, and when he asked them why they hadn't ordered risotto, they said that it wouldn't be real risotto and risotto is always a stand alone and never a side dish.
He told me that, today, and I thought it was germane, or italiane.

[Rahul]

@Dave

The biggest sin on this show as a contestant seems to be not understanding where your dish went wrong. Not hemming and hawing about the quality of the dish, more lacking some basic standards (i.e. "rules" of risotto) which at this point on the show is like a slap in the face for the judges. I wouldn't doubt that Mike would have been in a worse position if he didn't immediately start apologizing for his pasta...

And I'm with redpoint, there had to be something pretty special about Antonia's dish besides the steamed clams...

[Rahul]

mussels I meant...

[Bill G]

Antonia's mussels:
http://www.bravotv.com/foodies/recipes/mussels-with-fennel-white-wine-garlic-amp-parsley-ciabatta

[Nikki L]

During the quickfire, my roommate and I kept hoping Padma would say "Just kidding! We are tasting your food!"

[Steve F.]

my view:

1. Dale - still the most praise overall
2. Angelo - his fire has dimmed, but still lots of cachet
3. Richard - while props for creativity, especially during Restaurant Wars, the judges seem to like his food more than rave about it

4. Carla - she's great but a notch below the leaders in esteem
5. Antonia - only one to win an EC aside from the top 4 (who have won two each)

6. Fabio - been generally consistently good

7. Mike - can be solid - but no top mentions outside of QFs
8. Tiffany - pulled herself up this episode but has not generally been on.

I'm ready for Mike and Tiffany to go and for more intense cooking fireworks.

[dave_p]

@Rahul

I did mentally note that Mike's contrite nature and completely owning his failures probably saved his pancetta. Still, I thought for sure it'd be him or Dale. Figured Tre was actually pretty safe of the three.

General responses re mussels:

Came back from reading the mussel recipe. Again, nothing special there--wine, butter, garlic, herbs, all par for the course. It's kinda like a BLT--easy, super tasty, and anyone can make it. Start with great ingredients, cook them well using basic techniques, put them together, and you have a great tasting dish. You can even jazz it up a little (make mayo/aioli from the rendered bacon fat). Likely crowd favorite? Sure. Good enough for a TC All Star EC this late in the game? I don't think so.

Cacciatore maybe a basic dish, but there are things you can do to elevate it. Thomas Keller makes an incredible roast chicken that I couldn't possibly duplicate w/o years (well, at least months) of practice. *Anyone* can make steamed mussels (broth and all), and damn near perfectly w/minimal training/practice.

If it's your belief that the best tasting dish should always win and the degree of difficulty does not matter, Antonia absolutely deserved to win. History teaches us otherwise--TC judges (esp Tom) *have* dinged chefs for not enough complexity/effort before, though obviously not at a setting like they were in. They were in the mood for something simple, tasty, maybe nostalgic, and Antonia delivered. The rest of the crowd can be forgiven for simply voting for the best tasting dish. I would expect the actual judges (minus the guest) to have a bit more exacting standards.

--
Dave

[timothy]

I am feeling a little bit of a need (or maybe not a need... a desire? a compulsion? an urge?) to stick up for Tiffany. She is in the top 8 of Top Chef All-Stars. She has lasted a lot longer than more esteemed competitors. Yes, some of that is luck, but she cooks food people want to eat more often than not. I remember in her season, she cooked a chicken tamale that people liked. Now she cooked a good polenta and sausage. She's good with cornmeal, I guess. She's good with comfort food done in an appetizing and elevated-but-not-fussy style. I am not saying she shouldn't be ranked near the bottom of the Power Rankings (though a case could be made for putting her above Isabella), but I don't think she should be dismissed as someone who doesn't belong. I would definitely eat her best food. Would I eat her worst food? No, but I wouldn't want to eat anyone's worst food. Okay. Done. Urge satisfied. (And I mean that in a culinary sense)

[Bill G]

@Dave
I think you have to take the nature of the challenge into account. The judges wanted family-style Italian-American. They wanted food they could pass around, use bread to soak up the sauce with , and generally have a great time eating. This wasn't a "wow us your most creative approach to a specific region of Italy" challenge.
Antonia, Fabio, Tiffany & Carla took into account what they were being asked to do and they did it. They gave the judges what they asked for.
Apparently the wizards of the kitchen did not.
Also; Fabio's chicken cacciatore recipe is up too and I don't think anyone would consider it particularly challenging.

[Danny]

I actually liked the QF because it showed which chefs were using their noggins and which weren't. Isaac talked about the dish's need to be appealing and is it any coincidence that the top 3 made appealing looking dishes that were in no small part appealing because it made you want to eat the dish? While Tre did a lovely abstract painting there was nothing about it that made me want to eat it - likewise Angelo's food in plastic bag or Antonia's forest or Tiffany's dirt.

I will admit to a prejudice. I like Mizrahi a lot. He is very immersed in all the arts and in many ways revolutionized the way clothes are done. He dared to do runway shows featuring clothes that real women would want to wear. In other words, they were appealing looking but the true art was in some way hidden. Yikes, I'm writing like I'm at a coffee house in Amsterdam.

Tre's risotto was a perfect example why I am extremely hesitant to order risotto in a restaurant. All too often it seems like a very stiff, starchy rice dish and I have learned that if the description has only a few ingredients I am more likely to enjoy it than one that lists twelve components in the menu.

I do think that there is a lot of mysogeny involved this season and it is very depressing. I also needed to add that the actual judges loved Carla's soup (which looked amazing) and it was one of the non-voting Rao guys who said he could get the soup in Wisconsin. I go to Wisconsin once a year. Please let me know where I can get that soup in Wisconsin.

I like Rao's dried pastas and I admit to using their jarred sauces when I have to slap a dinner together very quickly and I think they are the best jarred sauces I've ever tasted (I know, that's not saying much).

[natmicstef]

I was worried Dale would go home too..nothing about his food made it sound edible and I feel there was some subliminal consideration of his previous work and/or future potential in the show, that resulted in him not going. As for Tre's risotto. Early on Antonia remarked on camera that he was not giving his risotto the attention it needed and something like she'd be surprised if it was any good and well, seems she was right but the editing alone didn't seem convincing enough that Tre's food was worse than anyone's.

[Naomi]

During the quickfire, my roommate and I kept hoping Padma would say "Just kidding! We are tasting your food!"

I was thinking the same thing! I was wondering how many of the chefs were thinking it too. Antonia's dish sure couldn't have been eaten but some of them had to be thinking "this better taste damn good too" in anticipation of the twist that never came.

[rab01]

Danny - I'm not sure how much the judges really loved Carla's soup ... From Bourdain's blog - "For antipasti, we got a decent but over-refined and unassertive minestrone from Carla ..."

[Danielle]

@Danny—I bought Rao's jarred sauce about six months ago because it was the only brand in the aisle that contained only ingredients I would use at home: tomatoes, garlic, basil, etc. No corn syrup or dehydrated onion bits or "natural flavoring" or lecithin or the rest of the chemistry kit. Unsurprisingly, I liked it. Also unsurprisingly, man was that expensive. Must be the bikini principle: the less you have (and the fancier the logo) the more you pay.

[LB]

Ugh - it's that point in the season where I start worrying for Angelo. =(

Also did the previews give away next week's top group? Certainly seemed like it.

[timothy]

Angelo needs to go into his Shrine Of Chefs And Tony Robbins. Then he'll be fine.

[Alamos Road]

@rab01: Carla's "decent but over-refined and unassertive minestrone" still beat out 5 other dishes to make the top 4.

[Steve F.]

My only regrets so far are that Jennifer and Spike did not hang on for as long as they were capable. Jen was the big shocker. Spike, I felt was shafted because neither Mike nor Jamie were judged - it was generally felt that Jamie's dish would have been horrible. Spike's, we know was imperfect; but I don't recall it being considered bad.

[jh]

Although all of season 7 is still here, season 4 has really made a strong showing. 4,5, and 6 have all lost 1 person each (if I counted correctly).

Season 4 : A combined 11 wins for 3 people, all have QF and EC wins.
Season 5 : Carla's representing with 2. Fabio has top mentions, but no wins.
Season 6 : Mike has 1 QF.
Season 7: Angelo as all of season 7's two wins, with Tiffany shooting a blank.

Season 4 has a very strong case for saying that it was the strongest season even if someone from the season doesn't win it all. Granted, not all of the best people who didn't win compete this season, and some seasons had more players represented than others, but they can make a case in terms of breadth and depth. They also won the team QF challenge for bragging rights...

[DRL]

Without Brian V. or Kevin competing any attempts to claim that any season is the best based on the all-stars results are impossible.

I want to agree that the QF was horrid made more horrible, because Isaac Mizrahi is the biggest tool in the world. As somebody else mentioned its pretty pathetic when a Jonas brother made a far far better judge then Isaac did.

I would also say that as far as the EC is concerned the only reason Mike survived was because of his Mea Culpa to the judges.

Antonia being snubbed I think has more to do with her dish then anything to do with sexism.

[aaalex]

misogyny is the hatred of women. it has a long history in western culture. but to use it in reference to the situation we saw on this episode, when the contestants in the stew room were - with some justice - surprised that their dishes had lost to antonia's rather simple dish, is entirely inappropriate. if what we saw from the men in the stew room was "misogyny", what do you call rape or the domestic violence some women suffer? "chauvinist" the men's behaviour MIGHT have been - and BOTH sexes make assumptions about the other - but calling it misogyny is deeply insulting to the men in the stew room when
1. they were almost certainly reacting as chefs/professionals as much as they were as men
2. the meal they lost to WAS in fact a simple plate of steamed mussels, as dave_p called it.
3. the shock was played up by the show's editors - mostly by holding on mike isabella's face when isabella was, clearly, convinced the mussels were too simple to beat his dish. (he was wrong but his assumption doesn't make him a misogynist.)
4. once they got over their shock (the shock of losing when you were sure steamed mussels couldn't beat you), all the men applauded. to suggest they were applauding only out of some sense of duty is to call them hypocrites as well as woman haters. (btw ... isn't the assumption that the men could only have been reacting out of a "hatred for women" itself a form of chauvinism?)

re bourdain's blog ... as entertaining as bourdain is, he can be misleading. fabio did not say "fennel is french", as bourdain has him say. fabio said "a bowl of steamed mussels and fennel. it's a french dish." there's a difference. for one thing, being italian as opposed to only married to an italian, fabio probably knows better than bourdain does that fennel can be "italian". fabio was talking about how antonia used the fennel and the mussels. and he's got a point. mussels steamed in herbs and wine is known as "moules a la mariniere". it's brute basic french bistro food. antonia added fennel, which isn't usually part of "moules a la mariniere", but still ... "moules a la mariniere" is what antonia made. i'm not denying the mussels were great (i didn't taste them, after all) or that antonia cooked a "family meal" or even that she deserved to win, but fabio had a point, one that bourdain evades: were they supposed to make italian or italian-american food? more than that ... when bourdain writes

"I will tell you that had one of these contestants made a simple 25-minute pomodoro sauce with a mix of canned Italian plum tomatoes and a few fresh ones, a few cloves of garlic and a couple of leaves of basil, then served it properly with some linguine out of a box, they could have walked away with this challenge. "

i kind of wondered ... if the point was to make a "family meal" and if that point was so obvious, why wouldn't a good bibimbap have won or a plate of pirogies, for that matter? both of those are great "family meals" along with, say, southern fried chicken. why should bourdain insist on something italian or italian-american, after insisting so adamantly that it was the "family" element that mattered above all? to me, it feels as if he wants things both ways. if, as i think, fabio was right that this was about "italian" or "italian-american" family food, his point about antonia's moules a la mariniere was/is valid. (of course, if someone can tell me that mussels steamed in wine and herbs has a long, italian tradition, i'll happily stand corrected.)

[jh]

If I remember correctly, the challenge was to cook a meal that would fit in at the menu of Rao's, or something along those lines. I don't know the menu or dining style of Rao's, but I'm assuming that it's Italian, family style. Thus, both were necessary for the winner of the challenge. Besides, why would they have them serve antipasti, primo, and secondo if Italian food was not a constraint. In terms of Italian vs. Italian-American, I don't know.

I'm no expert in French or Italian cuisine, but could it also be possible the Fabio and others (not a dig at aaalex, but there has been a lot of talk about the French aspect) are narrow in thinking that Antonia's dish could only be French? I'm not going to delve back into the French and Italian food history, but I do know that Eric Ripert, an expert in French cuisine, defended Antonia's dish as Italian not French (video blog this week). Also, there's an Italian dish called cozze al vino bianco that is similar to Antonia's dish.

http://www.italianamericanwriter.com/2010/05/05/minnas-favorites-cozze-in-vino-bianco/

Do the French really have a stranglehold on mussels and white wine? To me, it would be like saying anything with white rice and soy sauce is Chinese.

[paula]

I've already conceded that my introduction of the word "misogyny" wasn't appropriate (I think most of us tend to post spur of the moment without parsing every word choice and running spellcheck), so aaalex, no need to get up in arms. No one (at least I'm not) is accusing the men on the show of hating women. I still feel there's a strong current of SEXISM running through this season, one that most people concede is fairly common in the restaurant industry, and while the boys' reaction to Antonia's win may indeed have been because she won with muscles, I still think that current is there.

[paula]

Ha! "muscles." Proving my point in the first sentence of my post.

[redpoint]

What Paula said, exactly.

[aaalex]

jh: thanks so much. one of the biggest frustrations watching this show from canada is that we canadians can't actually access the videos on bravo's website, so i haven't seen any of the ripert video-blogs or any of the extended sequences. last week, i wrote about how intimately connected all european cuisines are, so i should have known there is a "cozze in vino bianco" (who knows where it actually originated ... ) but i was reacting to bourdain's rather long and snide paragraph about this episode being about 'family meals". to my mind, he made it sound as if THAT - the family meal aspect - actually trumped anything else. clearly, it didn't. serving bibimbap at rao's almost certainly would NOT have won. so, if fabio thought of "moules a la mariniere" (and of french cuisine) when he saw antonia's dish, he had a point in saying that antonia's dish was "french" (and so not appropriate to the challenge) and bourdain's sneering dismissal of fabio's point is disingenuous and misleading.

paula: nor would i want you to parse every word before you posted it. i like your posts and i really like it that things can go politely awry, here, prompting a slew of responses and counter-responses. it makes things more interesting. but "misogyny" is a nuclear word and it shouldn't be used in relation to these men, in this situation. and the proper response to a misuse of the word IS to get "up in arms", because men have been guiltily taking that particular insult for too long. it's like the word "racist". it shouldn't be used in casual argument. (you're not the only user of the word, either. it occurs to me that I may have used it in relation to mike isabella at the start of season 6. so, one could ask me to mea my culpas as well. it's not only about you, paula.)

re this week's QF: i liked the challenge a lot, in principle. as has been pointed out, presentation is part of the pleasure of dining. a beautiful-looking plate is a great and rare thing. (i think it was one of judges on TC who said "you eat with your eyes first" - a troubling metaphor for those of us whose eyes don't have teeth, but the point's well taken.) still ... isaac misrahi as the judge? why? why not a visual artist/painter - like julian schnabel, say? the moment i knew the QF had lost its point, though, was antonia's tree: pure arts and crafts that had nothing to do with the visual component of cuisine and, worse, made it seem as if what a chef does is comparable to what's done in junior kindergarden. (i have to say, though, that - for me - although angelo's "crocadile" really was disturbing in a psycho killer kind of way, it's one of the funniest moments - visually - i've seen on this show in eight seasons and easily the most original - if wrongheaded - use of pineapple imaginable, outside of "little nicky", of course.)

[aaalex]

redpoint: uhm ... what i said in response to paula, exactly.

[Independent George]

aaalex - you can't access the Bravo videos from Canada? How is that even possible?

[nomnomnom]

Anyone watch the Finland top chef that started this week? It was interesting to see even if they were speaking ?Sweedish?

They also have set the debut date of the Canadian one, April 10th I think.

Dallas, other than trying to survive the weather is rallying around Tre and his stand-up rissoto.

[aaalex]

IG: i know, and it's even more frustrating than that. from canada, you click on one of the videos on the TC website and you get a commercial and THEN you get the message: "sorry, this video is not available in your area". so, you have to sit through the ads before seeing the "nyah, nyah nyah, nyaah nyaaah" screen. very annoying. the food network has the rights to TC here in canada but, here, we're two or three episodes behind. so, satellite or piracy are the only ways for canadians to keep up with the shows as they're actually on. for an addict like me, it's really disturbing, i can tell you that for free.

[aaalex]

nom(3) ... now, really, why would the FINNISH Top Chef - which features stefan in some capacity, i hear - take place in swedish? or are you just being funny, like asking what year the war of 1812 took place.

[mncharm]

Almost fell off the couch laughing at the numerous "simple" references. Too funny.

I'm in the camp that was initially irritated by the qf, but came around when I thought about the other qfs testing one individual skill. That said...why not just taste the dishes?

[spellcat]

I hated the QF, too. And I'm not convinced by the argument that it was a test of one important single skill. I have no problem with the idea of testing the chefs' skill in presentation, but I don't see how creating something beautiful that isn't required to taste good does this in a meaningful way. The challenge could have asked the chefs to focus on presentation while still making something delicious.

Just not a fan of food that isn't supposed to be eaten, I guess.

[ri]

I'm of two minds of the quickfire. On the one hand, I remember back in Season one when they had what I remember as being a very similar, if not the same, challenge. Stephen won, and Harold complained that his dish wasn't even edible, it just looked pretty. Here again, this was an issue. So while I think good plating is very important, I think it's heavy handed to do it the way they did.

I would have much rather they told them to make a beautiful dish without them telling them they wouldn't factor in taste, so they genuinely would have focused on creating a beautiful dish that was still focused on the food. I think that would have worked much better, personally.

Absolutely adored the elimination challenge. As for whether Bourdain would know if mussels were French or Italian, well Bourdain may not have lived as long in Italy as Fabio, he sure as hell has spent his life doing French cooking. He may not be turning out innovative dishes, but he is classically trained, very well traveled through France, and ran a brasserie. I think it's just a tad insulting to insinuate he didn't know what he was talking about when he said that was certainly an Italian dish and that Fabio was wrong to imply otherwise. For that matter, if Ripert says something isn't French, it's probably best to just let that argument go.

[SteveNJ]

I found Tom's blog interesting where he said "Truth be told, I don't even care that much for mussels. They're OK, but I have never been a big fan."
When my wife and I ate at Craft last year, (for my birthday. And my wife got us a tour of the kitchen at the end of our meal. Awesome, even if Tom was next door doing he Tom Tuesday Dinner), the Amuse we had was a mussel served with a spicy marmalade. Neither my wife or I are really fond of mussels, but that Amuse was fantastic.

[ri]

One last thought - didn't Amanda get her head bitten off by Tom and Eric Ripert for making an overly rustic Minestrone last year? Bourdain complemented it to some extent, but I'm sort of lost as to what makes for the right balance of rustic and refinement that isn't 'fussy.' I'm sure it's a matter of taste to the judges and Tom was much more complementary of this soup, but it comes across as being something that is too individualized to ever make everyone happy.

[aaalex]

ri: no, what bourdain said was that fabio, in saying that "fennel was french" should "go to sicily" where, presumably, fabio would discover that fennel is, in fact, "italian". bourdain MISQUOTED fabio, making fun of fabio's lack of knowledge about italy while he was doing so. one problem: fabio did NOT say that "fennel is french". fabio said something quite different, as i took some pains to point out. when you misquote someone and then make fun of an argument they did NOT make, you're doing what is called "attacking a straw man"

here's the wiki entry on it:

"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

no matter how long bourdain worked at french cuisine, no matter how classically trained the motherf*cker is, he still sinned against the laws of rhetoric. that is, he was being dishonest.

[Skillet Doux]

"no matter how long bourdain worked at french cuisine, no matter how classically trained the motherf*cker is, he still sinned against the laws of rhetoric. that is, he was being dishonest.

Unless he misheard or misunderstood Fabio's comment, in which case he was merely mistaken. But I will leave that speculation up to others :-)

[aaalex]

ri:

ps. sorry for being pedantic.
my point's true, though.

[aaalex]

dominic: yes, true. he may have been mistaken. bourdain writes with such conviction that he's right, though, that one sometimes forgets he's human. (i mean I sometimes forget he's human.)

dear mr bourdain: if you;re reading this, forgive me for forgetting your human fallibility.

[foodiewannabe]

If my memory serves, the criticism of Amanda's minestrone was that the vegetables were not evenly cut therefore texture was off.
Lorraine Bracco loved Carla's version especially integrating the parmesan into the soup. My sense is Carla hit the right note; using the traditional minestrone ingredents and added her own "classic" touch.

[John Coctostan]

My suspicion (based on no facts whatsoever) is that Carla's minestrone got a top mention based in large part on Lorraine Bracco's role as guest judge. It was semi-dismissed as "Wisconsin" minestrone, Bourdain called it unassertive, and it's not even mention in Colicchio's blog at all. Bracco loved it, though. I'm sure that everyone agreed it was good, but Bracco is the only one shown that thought it was great.

[Wangus]

aaalex brings up an interesting point about about the whole "family dish" vs "italian dish". The challenge was to create a dish inspired by the Rao's family. I have to think that, despite what the judge's blogs may indicate about it 'being all about family food', you had to make an italian style dish. With the being said, I find it interesting the Bourdain calls Tiffany's dish not Italian or even Italian-American and yet Tiffany was on top. Put that together with Carla's "unrefined and unassertive" minestrone, and it severely makes me wonder if everyone but Fabio and Antonia did a really poor job on this challenge.

[pietranseri]

aalex, "still ... isaac misrahi as the judge? why? why not a visual artist/painter - like julian schnabel, say?"

Or how about a chef known for knock out presentation? Somebody who is a master with both flavor and presentation. Heck, last season, Kevin got kudos for his presentation throughout the season. It is, apparently, one of his strong suits.

[aaalex]

you know, i guess this next item is NOT strictly speaking food related. it's vaguely i guess, but every once in a while a news item just makes me wonder about this thing called "life". this is from the bbc:

Malawi row over whether new law bans farting:

Two of Malawi's most senior judicial officials are arguing over whether a new bill includes a provision that outlaws breaking wind in public.

Justice Minister George Chaponda says the new bill would criminalise flatulence to promote "public decency".

"Just go to the toilet when you feel like farting," he told local radio.

However, he was directly contradicted by Solicitor General Anthony Kamanga, who says the reference to "fouling the air" means pollution.

"How any reasonable or sensible person can construe the provision to criminalising farting in public is beyond me," he said, adding that the prohibition contained in the new law has been in place since 1929.

The Local Courts Bill, to be introduced next week reads: "Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the public to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

Mr Chaponda, a trained lawyer, insists that this includes farting.

"Would you be happy to see people farting anyhow?" he asked on the popular "Straight Talk" programme on Malawi's Capital Radio.

He said that local chiefs would deal with any offenders.

When asked whether it could be enforced, he said it would be similar to laws banning urinating in public.
-----------

man ... i'm so glad i'm not living in malawi just at the moment. i'd seriously have to stop eating fruit ...

[Nikki L]

I kind of want to watch the episode again and drink everytime they say "simple." Anyone interested?

[redpoint]

For anyone who still doesn't think Antonia should have won, revisit Tom's words: " I felt definitively that Antonia's dish was the best of the evening. Anyone who writes to challenge the decision clearly did not taste the dish. Not only was Antonia's dish executed beautifully, but it also captured the spirit of the challenge of evoking family at the table in a simple and unforced way."

[redpoint]

I'm in, Nikki!

[aaalex]

pietranseri: very good point and years of watching iron chef has taught me just how beautifully even the simplest things can be presented.

dominic once spoke of grant achatz "painting" dessert on his table - which achatz apparently does do, literally. so, achatz or - now that he's unemployed - ferran adria would have been good candidates, too. but, if you were going for a sense of the plate as pure composition (as i assume the elves were), i think you'd do better with an accomplished visual artist than you would a fashion designer.

[Nikki L]

Redpoint - blogs count too! Thank goodness I just got new shipment of wine..

[Bill G]

@redpoint
That's exactly why it won't surprise me if Antonia ends up winning. She always seems to understand the challenge.
I think it's also possible they gifted her this one since she was definitely screwed out of one win and possibly two for the misfortune of having been on the wrong team.

[JJ]

John: I agree. Was surprised that Carla made the top four and Richard didn't. But more importantly: why was there a top four, instead of the typical top three, especially since, as Wangus notes, Bourdain was less than enthusiastic as well about Tiffany's dish? It seems to me that it was probably a deliberate strategy on the judges' part (with perhaps the encouragement of Lorraine B) to select all three women left in the competition for top mention. No doubt what rubbed the boys the wrong way when Antonia came back and announced that she had won the challenge was the men's incredulity that all three women were in the top three, and, worse, that Antonia had been given the win over Fabio. While I'm sure the food was all very tasty, I have to admit being less than overwhelmed by the creativity of their dishes, by which I mean just about everyone still in the competition. I would have liked some twist to the challenge, like making home-style food but from another country other than Italy and served to the same group of diners. Now that would have been a challenge!

[aaalex]

nikki: if you were serious about drinking every time someone said "simple" on this week's episode, i think you'd be too drunk once the show was over to find your computer, let alone turn it on and trawl the blogs for mentions of "simple".

unless, of course, you can drink a bottle of wine and still stand up. me, not so much ...

[Nikki L]

Oh, I can definitely drink a bottle of wine. Not too much more than that though...

[HF]

To those outside the U.S., do any of the links on this page allow you to watch the episode? (Try a few as they are of varying quality and format)...
http://www.fastpasstv.com/tv/top-chef/season-8/episode-8/

[timothy]

aaalex: I wish I could buy you a beer and a plate of mussels and continue the discussion about how misogyny is a nuclear word and shouldn't be used in connection with these men. I agree that if misogyny refers to a willful hatred, then that would be wrong to associate with these chefs. i don't see them as hateful, and I think it would be slanderous to imply that they wish any harm or ill-will when it comes to their female competitors. I looked up the word on dictionary.com, and while I wouldn't say that's the best source around, I was interested that one of the definitions of misogyny on their site is "chronic mistrust of women." You equate the charge of misogyny with the charge of racism, and I agree with that equation. I do think it is possible to be racist without being hateful. I have done or said things before that have grown out of a set of assumptions I have been raised with or socialized to accept, and in retrospect I can see some of these things as racist. I don't think I am a racist, but I think I have had racist thoughts or said racist things. Hopefully I learn from those mistakes. In the same kind of way, I think there are cultures that assimilate men to think it is normal to mistrust women. I am not 100% sure if "misogynist" is the right word to use to describe these cultures, but I think it might be. In general I think the women chefs on Top Chef have been trusted less than the male chefs. I think that has something to do with the way the professional kitchen has been male dominated. I am even suspicious of the way I praise Jen Carroll for being "Chuck Norris", and I always assume Carla is not going to win any of these long-term competitions because she is too nice. I don't think I am a misogynist, but I think some of my views reflect misogyny. I would say the same thing about some of the men on Top Chef All-Stars.

[bryanD]

What timothy is trying to say is that young men tying themselves to a hot stove with hopes of getting famous through a @#$% service industry position tend to be dicks just thinking about it.

OK, that's what I say, not timothy.

"I've been to Rao's three times...tables are not handed down or willed or whatever. It's okay, but just that."---Ranhorn

Velly intellesting. DO go on! (I hear this "family-style" joint demands everyone dress for a funeral, too. Something doesn't compute with Rao's. If it's a club, they should call it a club.)

[aaalex]

timothy: that's a great post and all i can do is lay out a few thoughts - imperfect though they will be - based on my own experience. first, i think it's important, on a sheer primate level, to know what is dangerous in one's environment and what isn't. being "black" myself, the word "racist"obviously has immediate significance to me. but i think it's crucial to really know who or what is potentially dangerous to me as a person of colour. (keep in mind that the assumptions made by other "black" people can be potentially dangerous to me as well.) when black people treat discrimination as "racism", they run the risk of obscuring what is ACTUALLY dangerous as opposed to annoying. the man or woman who thoughtlessly makes "racist jokes" is annoying. the man or woman who tries to intimidate me by constantly referring to my race as some sort of demerit, that could go either way. but there is such a thing as systemic racism - behaviour that is malign and covert and DIRECTED - and i'd prefer we kept the word "racism" for those situations and the word "racist" for those who engage in that behaviour.

no one doubts there's chauvinism or sexism in ALL walks of life. the food industry is one of many. and the kitchen is a place where sexism - both male and female - plays itself out. why wouldn't it be? (as i said, i think there are assumptions made about men by women. on TC just desserts, a female pastry chef qualified the work of one of the male contestants - morgan - as being typical of "male pastry chefs". no one batted an eyelid, though that was one of the most glaring moments of sexism on any of the TC series.) the men in this series are the product of sexism, sure. but to call them "misogynist", as far as i'm concerned, is to make assumptions about them based on little evidence gathered from situations that are highly (artificially) pressurized.

in the last episode, it so happened that a woman won the EC. antonia won with a dish that, legitimately, could be called "overly simple". it was steamed mussels. the men in the stew room were stunned that she had won. would they have been as stunned if either tiffany or carla had won? i don't think so because both tiffany and carla had made dishes that were manifestly more complicated than antonia's.

you've got to ask yourself: if there had been only women left in the competition, would a stew room full of jen, jamie, and elia (for instance) have been any less stunned that steamed mussels had won? i'm guessing that, as professionals, jen, elia and jamie would have been JUST as stunned as isabella, blais, and tre. they're all professional chefs, after all and, at some point, their mindsets intersect. they all think as chefs: jen is a "chef" in exactly the same way as isabella is a "chef. (see season 6 when jen also began to pick on robin ...)

the editors of this show have heightened the differences between males and females. they've used gender differences to provoke the chefs and, more importantly, to provoke the audience's reactions. the whole situation is so highly charged that it's difficult to keep things in perspective. BUT ...

to use the word "misogyny" in relation to what we saw on this episode does two things wrong
1. it makes serious assumptions about the character of the men in that room based on highly distorted data and
2. it cheapens the word "misogyny" by turning it into an epithet that can be used to describe examples of trivial behaviour. (yes, everything that takes place on TC is, by virtue of being manipulated, distorted and played for entertainment, "trivial", beside the real, not at all indicative of the real.)

one can make an argument that the way men and women live in north america is based on misogyny. but there's a deep problem with that, too. for one thing, it suggests that men can only be misogynist, that the system determines male behaviour absolutely. if ALL behaviour by men is inherently "misogynist", though, the word "misogyny" loses it's significance. "misogyny" becomes a given. so, to protest that "man x" is "misogynist" is to protest what is a given.

but i don't think we live in such a world. i think male behaviour is varied and unpredictable, tender, violent, thoughtless and thoughtful (i may be wrong) so, i think it's important to know when male behaviour is potentially dangerous and when it isn't. and in that battle, words are important. misogyny - which comes from the greek for hatred ("misos") and the greek for woman ("gyne") - is a serious accusation and should be used when what we're talking about is actual hatred for women by men. (rape, domestic abuse, psychological torment ...)

i think you could make a case that Top Chef itself - in trying to provoke gender reactions - is guilty of a form of psychological torture, that Top Chef the show is "misogynist". but the producers seem happy to psychologically abuse the men as well as the women, so ... to me, TC is an equal opportunity abuser. (i'm kidding ... i think ...)

but however sexist the men may be - and it's difficult to tell, given the situation - i don't think they're misogynist. in other words, their behaviour doesn't seem to warrant the use of a word that signifies "hatred towards women" any more than the telling of a racist joke necessarily warrants the use of the word "racist".

i admit, timothy, i could be completely wrong.

[redpoint]

Honestly, I always thought of misogyny was another word for sexism. I imagine many others do either. Is it sexism on steroids? I don't think most people consider it a nuclear word, but from now on I'll be more aware. Thanks.

[paula]

Just for the record, the only thing anyone on this board is guilty of is misusing the word misogyny. That's fair of you to call us on it, aaalex, and I respect your point.

But you're also getting all fired up and launching arguments because you think people here are calling the male contestants misogynist in the true, more sinister sense of the word. I don't think anybody here is actually doing that.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

[aaalex]

paula: what are you talking about?

in my first post, i pointed out that the word "misogynist" was too strong. you responded that you agreed and that you had already admitted as much. end of story. (more, i admitted that i, too, have been guilty of the same thoughtlessness. you did read what i wrote, right? or are you just gassing?)

timothy then began a "conversation" about the word "misogyny". i responded - admitting all the while that i was giving my personal opinion/position. at no time did i demolish any arguments. nor was i "fired up". i merely gave my opinion to someone who politely provoked it. (did you read what i wrote to timothy?)

though it appears difficult for you to understand, this has never been about you. it has been about a word, "misogyny", that is problematic to me for reasons i've outlined. so, what's your problem, exactly?

[timothy]

yeah. it's all just interesting conversation to me. one of the things that's good about this website, for me, is that the nucleus of all the conversation is food. food is a democratizing entity because everyone eats. so i think all the opinions here are valid and worth considering as long as they tie, in some way, to food. the misogyny conversation seemed related (tangential but related) to food because it has to do with the industry of food production. but i am fine with ending it. basically i appreciate the thought provoking nature of all the comments.

[redpoint]

Okay, something different. I was looking at the stats and I see that in season 6 Mike Isabella only placed high in the elimination challenges 2 times, never got a win (except one solo QF and one team QF) and came in 7th overall. I never considered him a contender in that season. I'm not sure what he is doing here among the All Stars. I would say the same but more emphatically for Spike, who was consistently a bottom performer, but of course he's gone.

[aaalex]

redpoint: the thing about isabella was, given his training - under jose andres - and his reputation, one wondered (at the start of season 6) if he wasn't going to be overshadowed by the voltaggio brothers. (he wondered too saying "maybe this wasn't such a good year to do Top Chef") as it turned out, he was right. but i think a lingering doubt about his real potential remained. when i saw him in the previews to this all-star season, that jose andres protege thing struck me and i wondered if he was better than he had been on season 6.

after 8 episodes this season , the answer seems to be "no". he's pretty underwhelming this year, though maybe he is a great chef in his own kitchen. the competition thing just seems to fluster and frustrate him. his reaction to marcel was partly marcel's personality, but partly his as well. he should have done better for the team in restaurant wars. it's pretty damning that antonia thinks he should go. she doesn't strike me as ungenerous or mean spirited.

[paula]

I don't think it's all about me, aaalex. I read your response to Timothy and, as I said, I respect your point about the incendiary nature of the word. But then you ended with this: "However sexist the men may be - and it's difficult to tell, given the situation - i don't think they're misogynist. in other words, their behaviour doesn't seem to warrant the use of a word that signifies "hatred towards women" any more than the telling of a racist joke necessarily warrants the use of the word "racist"."

I'm just pointing out that we're all in agreement with this already. The straw man quote was just a joke, me trying to tease you a bit. I'm sorry if that came across wrong.

[jh]

In terms of Mike in the All-Star competition, it seems like the casting producers needed at least 2 people represented from each season. Ideally, get the top performers that never won. From season 6, in order of elimination from the top was Bryan, Kevin, Jen, Eli, Robin, Mike. We know that Kevin was asked and declined, and I can only assume the same for Bryan. Jen came on the show. Don't know about Eli. Robin could have also been asked and declined (maybe she didn't want to handle the house drama). Next is Mike.

As for Spike and season 4, although Spike didn't win any EC, he won 2 QF, beat out Dale, and is a good TV character. And I'd rather have him on than Lisa.

I'm just wondering about Tiffany. She's gotten some praise lately, but I haven't really gotten anything from her all season. Seems to be just better than somebody, but not knocking it out of the park.

[paula]

Tiffany sort of baffles me. Like Timothy, I've always seen more in her than others have. She's gotten some very high praise on her dishes, both this season and last. But she's spent a bunch of time on the bottom, too, and that Restaurant Wars performance was truly dismal.

I somehow still have the feeling she's going to stick around for longer than anyone expects, and part of that's from the editing...I suppose what I say next could be considered a spoiler, but I doubt it; just pure conjecture:

But during her interviews in this week's episode, they showed her in at least three different outfits/hairdos. (I'd have to watch it again to be sure, but I noticed it, and I usually don't pick up on those things.)

[Alamos Road]

Let's all stipulate to "dismissive and disrespectful" instead of "misogynistic." You may (or may not) recall Season 6 Episode 1 when the chefs were introducing themselves, and someone (Hector?) said to Jennifer Carroll, after she introduced herself as chef at 10 Arts, "pastry chef?" "No," she calmly (and quite good-naturedly) replied, "I'm the chef." In this episode, the guys clearly believed 3 women being called out in the first group had to mean they were on the bottom, even though Fabio was included in the group. So let's stipulate to "delusional, dismissive and disrespectful."

[aaalex]

paula: okay, my bad, i didn't get the joke.

i WAS, though, just opening up to timothy about my feelings about these words (racism, misogyny). at no time, in my post to timothy, did i suggest i was ALONE in my feelings about the word "misogyny", i was just trying to convey my sense of its power. and wondering what he thought because, after all, he DID suggest that he could see the possibility of using the word "misogyny", despite its "true" meaning.

[Independent George]

From one of my favorite movies:

"Some critics say that your music is misogynistic."

*blank stare*

"Meaning you hate women..."

"Oh, no! We ain't done none of that since we were in prison!"

[aaalex]

alamos road: "delusional, dismissive and disrespectful" works for me. here's a transcription of the sequence.

(the three women and fabio are called to JT.)
angelo: fuck! now my heart's racing.
isabella: i really can't see us being in the bottom. one of them had a steamed mussels and one of them had that terrine made and had a salad.
blais: and had a soup made.
isabella: yeah, so it's like, how much work do you HAVE to do in the kitchen.
blais: did they ever call bottom in twice in in a row in your season?
dale: it's all stars, man. they're going to do whatever they want.

so ... angelo had an inkling things were not going their way. isabella was trying to convince himself that terrine, steamed mussels, soup ... none of those could beat his badly done pasta. and blais was trying to figure out if protocol was consistent.

really, isabella is the only dismissive and disrespectful one. dale isn't involved in the discussion. angelo is worried and doesn't say anything about the dishes cooked by tiff, carla, antonia, fabio. while blais is really just worried about the game ... though he does kind of diss carla's soup.

[paula]

Alamos Road: That was Mike I. He didn't really start to show Jen any respect until she started acting exactly like one of the boys (in other words, fitting his definition of what a "real" chef is). Well, that and she started kicking everyone's asses in the challenges. ;)

[paula]

...and that's not to imply that Jen was putting on an act. Instead of "until she started acting exactly like one of the boys," what I meant was: "until Mike saw that she acts exactly like one of the boys."

[aaalex]

paula: no, actually, the one who asked jen if she was the pastry chef at 10 arts was hector. (it seems to be my day to contradict you.)

[paula]

It was? Huh. Coulda sworn it was Isabella.

[aaalex]

isablla made the nasty/foolin' around comment about being beaten by a girl in the mise-en-place relay.

[ally]

I totally agree with John C. that Carla's presence at JT was due to guest judge Bracco. They also do this on former Bravo show Project Runway--sometimes it is obvious that one person is up there because of the guest judge, and the regular judges just hold their tongues.

With regard to the M word--it is just a fact that prejudices go along with certain professions, and perpetuating those prejudices still happens, and lessens over time. Besides some amount of sexism, there is also the true belief that many of the male chefs have that they are the best. Ever. Period. Women almost never have that kind of confidence, are thus perceived as nice, and also therefore don't sell themselves well in a society in which the selling of oneself well is rewarded to an astounding degree. Regardless, it seems to me that the judging is gender-blind. I think that chefs who have been around a while just recognize good food when they see it and really don't care who it is coming from, especially this season. Although I really think that Dale T.'s dish sounded like a total piece of crap, and here he is out of his Asian comfort zone and sucks...hmmm...I still don't think he deserves #1 ranking.

[timothy]

aaalex: I completely appreciate your musings in response to my post. I am not sure what I have to add except to say, as I think I said before, that it's all really thought provoking. paula's comments too. it's all food for thought. and now a thought for food: why would dale not have been at least somewhat comfortable with noodles and sauce? The flavors are different from Asian cuisines to Italian cuisines, but wouldn't there be cross-over in terms of noodle use? I remember that in the challenge where Fabio had to cook at David Chang's restaurant, we were surprised he couldn't transfer his pasta skill to that cuisine. Now I am surprised in the symmetrically parallel way with Dale.

[pietranseri]

timothy, I can say from experience, having grown up in an italian-american household (where things were, you know, 'simple,') mastering pasta took me a lot of years. If you do it every day in a restaurant, you could get good at it fast, but there's no substitute for experience. There is a certain feel for the dough that you get over time. Fabio has it. Isabella should have it, which is why I was surprised that he went ahead with his rigs, even though he knew or had to know, his dough wasn't right.

All of that said, even though noodle doughs are different in the specifics, Dale is an expert at cooking in another noodle based culture. So, he should know this rule of noodles/pasta: if dough feels like shit when it's raw - be it for use in pierogi, ravioli or dim sum - it's not going to be any better when you boil it.

[Naomi]

I would have much rather they told them to make a beautiful dish without them telling them they wouldn't factor in taste

Oh, this is so much better than my idea of throwing a "just kidding, we're totally gonna taste your food" twist at them near the end. Can you imagine how hilarious their faces would have been when the judges walked up to their table and then moved on without tasting. That actually would have made for some pretty entertaining TV - and there would have been more integrity in the challenge as well. I like it!

And to those suggesting a visual artist or a chef known for presentation should have judged, that would make sense assuming the producers created this challenge based on the idea of making the chefs focus on presentation. I doubt it. I think it went more like this: "Let's do a crossover to promote one of our shows. Let's use Mizrahi. Now let's create a challenge that fits." I don't ding them for that. I do think they could have done a better job designing (hah, designing, get it?) the challenge itself.

[redpoint]

Only you would have thought they would have had Isaac on before The Fashion Show was over for the season. Perhaps that was in error.

[Naomi]

...good point, redpoint...

[jh]

The Fashion Show just ended, but New York Fashion week starts Feb 9th. I thought they mentioned something about Padma's new jewelry line and Isaac showing at NYFW? That could be a possibility was to why they delayed this episode one week, but you'd think the producers would have better planned the episode airings. It not like the date for NYFW was decided a month ago.

[paula]

The recapper on Television Without Pity suggested they should have made the chefs themselves taste their own QF dishes in front of the judges. That would have been funny. :)

[Naomi]

Oh Paula, I would have loved that.

[deb]

I am truly impressed by the intelligent (rare on the internet) comments here. I doubt that my comments will be as brilliant, but here they are anyway...

The QF was a joke, how Mr. Miz would prefer Blaise's plate that looked subterranean (dirt with green mold) to Carla's beautifully composed plate, is beyond me. Do I need to mention that the QF was a blatant ad for Miz's new show/line (inspired by a Xerox?) and Padma's jewelry, which is in Mike I. speak, "whatever, whatever?"

I have not been a fan of Angelo, but his POS QF dish sealed that deal.

Onto the EC... loved the premise, love Lorraine Bracco and her sense of humor, loved the family theme. I personally think Fabio should have won, but oh well. I am beginning to worry, tho, next episode Jimmy Fallon, really? The challenges are really ridiculous, almost degrading to the chefs! LeeAnne, where are you? Please come back!!!

[deb]

P.S. Raos's is more famous for their reputation than their food.

[aaalex]

having accused anthony bourdain of misrepresenting fabio's position vis-a-vis the "frenchness" of fennel, i find this:

Thanks to an early cable-TV feed, [Fabio] often watches each new show at 7 p.m. with patrons at Cafe Firenze in Moorpark before jumping in the car and driving to North Hollywood to catch the 10 p.m. showing at Firenze Osteria. But on Wednesday, a manpower shortage at Cafe Firenze kept him cooking in — and Twittering from — the kitchen in Moorpark.

"Antonia why the fennel? That's so FRENCH!" he Twitter-teased Lofaso at one point.

from this website:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/03/moorpark-chef-survives-latest-challenge-on-chef/

in his post-JT interview, fabio said that he thought antonia's DISH was "french" - rather than fennel being french - but he tweeted what could be construed as the frenchification of fennel. thus, bourdain was perhaps right about fabio's position after all, yeah?

so ... having insulted mr bourdain for no good reason, i'm off to hammer my toe "like i was a pediatrician".

[Karen]

Question about risotto, what does Antonia mean by toasting the rice? I have always just coated my rice with melted butter and olive oil and then added my wine followed by broth. If you do toast the rice (which I tried unsuccessfully last night) do you toast until the grains turn white or let them get a little brown?

[KinderJ]

Karen- I toast them in a little olive oil until they just turn a touch golden. Sheer speculation on my part, but I suspect it changes the flavor of the grains somewhat by developing and caramelizing some of the sugars in them.

[Anon man]

Howdy all,

Finally got service back at the house and was able to watch this episode. I had been told by a colleague what happened, (even though I told him don't tell me who wins), so I've been lurking here and holding fire until I had a chance to watch. But, its also given me a chance to weigh the comments before viewing.

The QF had potential. As one commenter noted, QFs often isolate specific skills, in this case presentation. Therefore, the problem was the judge. It shouldn't have been "design food", but make a great presentation for noted food photographer or someone else. I think if they had all done highly vertical presentations of actual dishes we would be less annoyed then trees and bags and painted tables and the like.

On the EC, Fabio's comment that mussels were French I think was more of a vent than actual commentary. Fennel makes that dish more Italian than French, IMHO. I also thought it very interesting that Fabio tried to go old school Southern, which was ballsy. I thought the two other meat dishes looked interesting. Breaded and fried Pancetta? Interesting. Pork? Always. (Although it sounds like the ratio of meat to garnish was off.)

The pasta disaster. While I use dry pasta all the time, of course, let's be honest, if someone tells you to cook one pasta dish to wow us, you're going to want to do fresh. Remember in TCM, that Michael got berated for using dry. While his defense was admirable, he didn't win. Maybe if Tom was on TCM, he might have had an advocate on the jury. So, Mike I. went for extruded pasta and failed. Tom said dry pasta would have saved him, but that doesn't mean he would have won. You play to win or you risk getting called out for playing it safe. So, its an execution fail not a concept one, and the Monday morning quarterbacking is not entirely persuasive.

Ok, risotto. I love risotto. I have had it in Italy and yes, its better. I've also had it somewhat stiffer here in the states and enjoyed it. On the texture: I think that the American style is acceptable if not traditional. Tom's dismissal that a stiffer version "isn't risotto" is a little narrow-minded. Plenty of dishes, when brought to the U.S. get slightly changed for American pallets. Mexican and Chinese, for instance. You don't see a lot of burritos in Mexico, even if what goes in one are elements of Mexican cooking. Dishes get modified to appeal to a larger mass. Sure, it helps to go back to traditional when you need to, but I'm not going to write it off its a little stiffer than I would like. And, I do wonder whether Tre had an execution issue going beyond stiff to glue, and he was trying to defend it by saying he liked it firm. The pictures of the dish didn't look gluey, just a little drier than I would like. Maybe the version that got out there went too far toward the glue. Hard to say.

To me, the bigger crimes then making it slightly less runny than is traditional on the dish are two, one that Tre did and one he didn't. The one he didn't do was adding cream to make it creamy. That drives me insane and usually ruins the flavor of the dish. The one Tre did do is making the risotto a background within its own dish, by trying to feature the veggies or meat or whatever over the rice itself. The flavoring ingredients should flavor the rice, not stand on their own. The best risottos I have had (mostly in Italy, but one in New York and one in San Francisco) have little else visible in them, but taste like seafood or herbs or vegetables without really seeing them.

Lastly, I don't know what's up with the delay in applause on Antonia's win. I suspect that there's some cutting room footage of Mike I. talking about how awesome his dish was (his "shell", as he called it) and probably talking up Tre and Dale and talking down the others. So, when they came back in, maybe everyone had convinced themselves that craptastic pasta would win the day over a soup, mussels and a polenta cake. So, after that pep talk they were *shocked, shocked* that they hadn't called the losers out first. I dunno, just speculating.

[TxGriff]

Anon- if the TCM challenge you are referring to is the one with Zooey Deschanel (vegan/various allergies luncheon), I think Chiarello did win that challenge, dried pasta and all. I remember he did get some flack about using dried pasta at JT, but not nearly as much as Art Smith did for using store bought ice cream.

[KinderJ]

You all may have seen this before, but Blais is a new Daddy.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20464215,00.html?hpt=T2

Congratulations to the whole family!

[Tony]

Pietranseri-

"Or how about a chef known for knock out presentation? Somebody who is a master with both flavor and presentation. Heck, last season, Kevin got kudos for his presentation throughout the season. It is, apparently, one of his strong suits."

Perhaps the "Delacroix of French Cuisine" :)

[Anon Man]

@TxGriff, I thought he used dry in the finale, too, and got called out for it.

[TxGriff]

He might have in the finale as well...I can't remember the finale dishes right now, other than Bayless's mole. And in the vegan challenge, he used a specialty (quinoa?) dried pasta, so the judges may have been even more lenient with him.

Count me in with the group that thought the QF had potential, but missed the mark on multiple levels. I feel like the QFs have been especially gimmicky this season, at least since the days of the gas station and vending machine challenges.

[Anon Man]

Actually the ones that are completely gimmicky (super market aisle,vending machine) bother me WAAAAY less than ones that have potential and fail. As someone said earlier, having IM judge food by looking at it was like having James Beard judge clothes by eating them. While you can judge food by looking at it, if it had been a food person (a photographer, a chef known for off the charts presentation, as noteed abocve, etc.) then people wouldn't have gone so nuts with non-edible stuff. At least Hung, when he had breakfast cereal and a limited pantry decided to have fun with it, given how ridiculous that QF was, and there was still an egg to eat. I'm going to call this a Leann factor issue.

[jh]

For Chiarello and the dry pasta, Oseland called him out on using dry pasta, but Raynor defended the use of dry pasta.

Chiarello was in the stew room saying something along the lines of "If company X makes the best salami, why would I make my own salami? So if company Y makes the best dry pasta, I'm going to use their pasta."

[lou]

Since there has been some discussion about whether the women chefs get treated dismissively, I thought folks might be interested in reading this woman's take on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tara-sophia-mohr/top-chefs-recipe-for-gend_b_814278.html

[Skillet Doux]

Lou... she may or may not be right, but it sure took a lot of factual mistakes and convenient omissions to make the point.

[Anon Man]

@lou, interesting article. Dom, I think your analysis is probably right. If only there was an example of a woman being named Top Chef one season, then maybe we could...

[ally]

@Anon man: I think you're completely right about the dry vs fresh pasta question. Contestants get mixed signals on this show. They may get advice from the Rao guy (sorry I forgot which one), but who knows if that same guy will stand up for his advice *if someone gets the dry pasta wrong*. He could let dry pasta chef go down without defending his use of dry, had it been the reverse case. Who knows? In fact, noone used dried pasta at all, so I think they feared the "well you had 2 hours, why didn't you make your own pasta?" question at judge's table.

[Karen B]

Dom, what factual mistakes did she make? And what convienient omissions? I think it is 100% guaranteed all the judges have unconscious biases, as they are human and we all have them. Is it so hard to believe that an unconscious bias against women is at play? You have made a pretty strong dismissal without backing it up. I'd rather you not comment, or comment more fully- i.e. give some backup to your statement. Gender issues are always a hot button it seems! Oh, but I love your blog and your rankings-

[Skillet Doux]

There's more, but for starters, here's what I left as a comment:

That profession­al kitchens are particular­ly bad in terms of gender bias and discrimina­tion is well-known­. But while the author's conclusion­s regarding Top Chef may or may not be correct, her argument needs a lot of work.

1) How can you say Top Chef isn't a meritocrac­y when you haven't tasted the dishes? Unlike, say, American Idol, it's impossible for you to experience the performanc­e. For all you know, these particular judges are baised *towards* keeping women in the competitio­n.

2) The paragraph regarding judge compositio­n on the show convenient­ly ignores that the other primary food judge -- though she has only appeared in about half the episodes in recent seasons -- is Gail Simmons.

3) What the author asserts about the dim sum episode is flat-out false. Dale and Angelo also volunteere­d for extra dish duty, and Tre helped with serving.

4) And lastly, let's please be honest. Casey's dish failed because it was a terrible idea using a difficult ingredient she'd never cooked before, not because she was too busy serving.

Again, the author addresses important points, and her conclusion­s could be correct. But without the dishes in front of her, those conclusion­s are based on pure speculatio­n and a weak and factually challenged argument.

[Nsam]

The writer, Tara Sophia Mohr, "is a writer and leadership coach to women." A recent tweet by Seth McFarlane: "Why would someone put 'Life Coach' on his business card when “Tool” takes so much less space?" Ba-dum-bum.

[Karen B]

well, thanks Dom for addressing the problems in her argument. Nsam, quoting Seth McFarlane when discussing women and gender issues doesn't seem too appropriate. Dude is pretty sexist among other things. I think gender issues are hugely important and do think it is a fascinating discussion as it pertains to Top chef.

[Nsam]

@Karen B: Yes, agreed, the dude is pretty sexist among other things. For that reason I resist and rarely watch Family Guy, even though when occasionally I do see an episode I find it irrresistible when he skewers worthy targets, like life coaches.

I thought his tweet was hilarious, too. But your point is taken, no offense meant.

[Skillet Doux]

Another that I wasn't going to get into in HuffPost (trying to stay as much on point as possible with a limited number of words) is that the massive gender inequality is partially true, but not as severe as most seem to believe. By season, the number of episodes that featured an even (or one off, if there were an odd number of contestants) gender split:

Season 1: 9/10 (50/50 split at start)
Season 2: 1/13 (women started -1)
Season 3: 2/13 (women started -1)
Season 4: 12/14 (50/50)
Season 5: 12/14 (women started -1)
Season 6: 1/14 (women started -1)
Season 7: 7/14 (women started -1)

So roughly half the seasons so far have maintained a perfect gender split almost wire to wire. And if I recall, a couple of the seasons that missed that perfect split weren't THAT far off. The men, on the whole, have fared better. But winners aside, it's not the total landslide that it's been built up to be.

Also, the 800 pound gorilla is the idea that perhaps the female chefs haven't been as strong competitors as the males. We all know there's some heavy, heavy gender bias in professional kitchens, and I imagine it's much more difficult to find strong female contestants, not because they're any less capable as a matter of gender, but because their numbers are so few. I haven't seen any hard data, but anecdotally speaking, most people seem to throw around a 20:1 ratio of men to women in executive and sous chef roles. That's HUGE. And while it's sad, it's a reality the producers have to deal with. So to achieve a 50/50 gender split on the show, it's possible that casting to go a lot deeper into the female pool than they do into the male. So I don't think you can discount the possibility that the "chaff," so to speak, has been disproportionately female.

[Anon man]

@ally, yeah the mixed signals, at least from the editing, can be maddening. Tom goes to Dale in the fish challenge and asks if he made the tortillas. Come on. Tortillas aren't that hard, but if you haven't made them before, what's going to be better, a good local brand or yours? If Tom had come in and asked Mike about his dish and he had a box, you know he would have asked about making his own. Some of that is banter, but when the head judge asks you questions, you have to wonder if they aren't subtle critiques. I would love to hear a matthew comment on Carla's reaction to these interactions.

Maybe all the extra time they gave them in the challenge was "rope to hang yourself with". Anything beyond testing the recipes was probably a waste of time, except for the the secondi where they could marinate, etc.

Bourdain's blog (remember I'm 5 days behind the rest of you on this episode) has a nice discussion about dried pasta being standard unless its filled or a special reason and its resistance to starchiness being very suitable for family style. My personal approach is that for non-filled, I use dry unless its a wide noodle, and sometimes, ears. (or if I just feel like it.)

[ally]

Dom, I'm going to take away your shovel for that hole you're digging. Maybe you should have stopped before those last two sentences. Because what you're implying if you combine that with your earlier "statistics" is that if the female "chaff" are represented so well during the season, the judges have the bias "*towards* keeping women in the competition." By the way, it is a cheap debating trick to take someone's unfounded argument and suggest that in fact the opposite may be true, again without foundation.

Casting is one thing, and judging is another. I never think that the judges are biased except sometimes by past performances. And they never seem to shy away from something like a potentially cringe-inducing (for some of us) double-female elimination.

Back to the other issue--women notoriously either volunteer for service jobs or can't say no when asked, at least in academia. They didn't show on TV how the negotiations went for who the serving wenches would be (ahem), but noone who served that role was better off for doing so. Meanwhile, Dale is back in the kitchen polishing his shoes.

[Nsam]

Dom, Colicchio made the exact same point in an interview I read maybe about a year ago, saying that the show wants to cast approx. 50% females, but because professional kithens aren't even close to 50% female the number of qualified women to choose from is much smaller than the pool of qualifed men. Thus, the show may wind up casting females who are less culinarily qualified than the male chefs on the show.

Thus the untruth of Tara Sophia Mohr's opening salvo: "Each season starts off with a roughly equal number of male and female contestants. All have been through the same rigorous selection process." Well, no, the selection process may very well not be the same for women and men. Sloppy analysis by Mohr.

[Skillet Doux]

Hold on there, Ally, I think you do me wrong by reading something between the lines that isn't there.

If I'd stated that it's a myth that the men have fared better, yes, you'd be right. But I most certainly didn't. I think I said pretty clearly that they've definitely fared better, just that it's not quite the canyon-like gap it's become in many people's minds.

Second, I posit the second part as a possibility. I certainly don't know whether or not it's the case. For all I know, they've been *stronger* contestants and the show has a *massive* gender bias.

Stating that the gender success split is greater than many think and suggesting that the female contestants *might*, on average, be weaker due to the composition of the talent pool does *not* necessarily lead to the implication that there is gender bias towards the female chefs. It points to exactly what I suspect is the case. The men haven't done as much better as people think, but they have done better, and it might in part because the women have been a little weaker since they're probably harder to cast.

[jh]

The actual post from Tom about the casting:

And so, a note about casting: The casting directors of Top Chef always cast an equal number of male and female contestants, but this is a ratio not seen in the industry itself. There are not nearly as many women as men in the field. In past blogs I’ve delved into the inequities facing women in the workplace, so I won’t reiterate it all here. More men typically try out to be contestants on Top Chef, giving us a larger male talent pool to draw from. In no way does this mean that women are somehow deficient as chefs. It is simply a matter of the numbers. For those of you ready to flame away that four women were the first to leave the show, consider this: we judge every challenge on the food in front of us and the considerations of that particular challenge. The sexist and patronizing thing to do would be to give special consideration to anyone due to his/her gender.

The link to the blog post:
http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef/blogs/tom-colicchio/how-do-you-say-ouch-in-french

[rabrab]

On the comment that "they should do blind tasting -- That would be fair". Tom addressed that question in his blog during Season 5, when he said, "Which leads me to the notion of judging blind. Since Season One, I've frequently been exhorted to judge blind, as though we may be influenced in our decisions about the food by our knowledge of who created it. ... But as this challenge proves, it makes no difference whether we are judging blind or not - though we were not told in advance of eating the food, it was pretty obvious pretty quickly, at least to me, who had cooked what. Even without even tasting the food, you at home would have known right away that the Indian food was Radhika's and the Italian food was Fabio's. ... And beyond that, having actually eaten everyone's food through six prior challenges, it was readily apparent to me right away who had made what. So much for "blind." "

Blind tasting wouldn't solve anything after the first couple of episodes -- virtually all of the chefs that are cast have their preferred styles, and it only takes a few dishes for those preferences to be crystal clear.

[Jon Olsen]

Sometimes, I check this site at work on Mondays and Tuesdays, and I holler at the screen (I work from home) "MORE POWER RANKINGS, MULE!"

Today, however, I hollered "HEED. POWER RANKINGS. NOW!"

Neither of these things do I actually feel, but they amuse me. I hope they amuse you too.

[John Coctostan]

Well, now you've gone a bit offside. Dom's gonna cry himself to sleep on his huge pillow.

[Anon Man]

For those of you who follow Tom's twitter feed, he just let loose a nice little nugget with massive spoiler potential. So, I won't say what he just implied.

[pietranseri]

Thanks, Anon Man. I have followed Tom on twitter for some time, but I often forget to check my twitter feed. Which, I realize, kind of misses the whole point of twitter ...

I am jonesing for a new epi, but not at all looking forward to Jimmy Fallon as guest judge. I miss Gail Simmons. Desperately. (Of course, Fallon could not possibly be worse than Mizrahi was.)

[mncharm]

Dom, your analysis is cogent and fair. Not that you need the support, but I see nothing to suggest you aren't allowing for the possibility of the bias in your posts, and you've clearly recognized the broader issues of inequality in professional kitchens.

Could Top Chef do more to work on the gender inequality issue? Maybe, maybe not -- but the problem certainly doesn't start there.

[bryanD]

Re: the shrink's main point and rahab's Tom-quote:

Of course, Top Chef should use blind tasting. A lack of blind tasting is Top Chef's achilles heel. Tom's alibi that he has no idea whose food is before him before eating it is disproven by his kitchen walk-throughs.(!!)
The fact is that Tom's naming of dishes by chef during deliberations, ie "Tre's dish", "Arianne's dish", gives away the character-driven imperative of each episode; the characters become full co-stars with the dish. (This is where Tom's previous kitchen walk-through comes into its own as Tom narrates for Gail and ? the dish's backstory BASED ON the dish-preparer's kitchen mentality.
Thus: Tom and Top Chef DO leave themselves open to suspicions regarding Certain Unconscious Proclivities such as confirmation bias, etc.

Also, Tom's claim to know (with an "always" implied) who cooked what, blind or no, is pure bunkum. (Otherwise, how DARE Chef Tom not be behind the stove at CRAFT instead of feeding his paying customers cheap Guatamalan copies!)

(You might also note that Authorities as diverse as C-14 testing labs to the Antiques Roadshow require certain information from the submitting party before risking an "authoritative" opinion, result, or appraisal. Is Top Chef afraid of eliminating a botched Voltaggio? Yes.)

I still like TC. It's 90% on the up-and-up. It's a talent show set in a cauldron. Tom is the restaurant chef-owner-figure auditioning people he would be willing to "put up with", but with 2 other judges (let's call them busybody moneybags-co-owners, he must convince to get his way). If they just played it like that: straight(-er), it would be OK, and the PC police would not have a leg to stand on.

[dave_p]

A blind tasting wouldn't allow for chefs to defend or explain their dishes. A lot of times, the context or "story" of a dish makes for a big difference. Think of the TCM finale where the chefs are asked to tell their lives' stories through food. A challenge or two w/blind tastings (show all your work, just on the plate) may be an excellent idea, but I don't think it's entirely feasible for the whole season.

@Anon Man re: Tre's risotto. I think his biggest crime was covering up all the rice w/his vegetables. The rice should absolutely take center stage, and not be hidden or placed in the background. The stiffness was, maybe, the final straw, though it's hard to tell through the editing, since I was sure Tre was safe after watching JT.

--
Dave

[bryanD]

"Think of the TCM finale where the chefs are asked to tell their lives' stories through food."---dave_p

Good case in point: Okie Wunderkind, Rick Bayless, and his precocious and amazing encyclopedic devouring of Mexican food culture while of an age when he was still peeing all over the bathroom floor, whereas Chiarello and H Keller had to fall back on risible backyard reminiscences? That's piling on!

Re: earlier general risotto texture discussion:

I have it third-hand, via comments thread somewhere mumble-mumble, that Mario Batali says Milanese-style risotto is not so runny and does not flatten-out on the plate.

[John Coctostan]

BryanD, I have to disagree with almost everything you said in your two last posts. First, Tom has never claimed to have "no idea whose food is before him before eating it," so he has no need of an "alibi."

Second, knowing who cooked what dish without having to be told isn't "bunkum," because the style, sensibility, and (sometimes) technique of each chef is reflected in the way they craft their dishes. This was clearly demonstrated in Season 5, in the episode when each chef cooked an individual dish and served it to the other chefs (in two groups) and *everyone* knew who had cooked what without being told. Your counter-example is from a restaurant with cooks on the line who are meant to replicate a dish the same way repeatedly based on how the executive chef wants it. Top Chef exists outside that world. Even in RW episodes, each chef still brings their own skills and personality to their cooking.

Third, your opinion that Tom is judging based on people he would be willing "to put up with" is pure speculation. I've never gotten the sense that he's judging based on personality, and it only comes close when leadership *skills* are called into question. Anthony Bourdain is not Tom (obviously), but he even once explicitly stated that when he voted to send Dale Talde home in S4, over Lisa and Spike, he'd still rather hire Dale to work in his kitchen. So, at least for Bourdain (who is a close analog to Tom in this case), the judging on Top Chef is clearly not a job interview.

Finally, I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say in the last post re Top Chef Masters, but Rick Bayless' first finale course was a barbeque recipe based on his family's restaurant and was not a Mexican dish. (In fact, that whole paragraph about Bayless seems rather mean-spirited.)

The one thing I *will* agree with you on, is that a lack of blind tasting is a soft spot for the show. I know that it would be impossible to achieve given the nature of a cooking show, but, as another poster above mentioned, it's impossible for people not to have some unconcious biases when it comes to judging, because the judges are people.

[Kujo]

Tre got a raw deal imho. Mike should have been the one to go. The QF challenge was bizarre to say the least.

[jh]

I think a blind taste test would only work for the first couple of episodes.

A possible format (not for all challenges, maybe as one of their "gimmicks") is for both judges and contestants sample all the dishes and individually rank them from best to worst, akin to the AP basketball poll.

Biasesness could definitely come into play, but it could add some nice drama...

[EdT.]

I think the real underlying issue facing the judges on Top Chef is that, with the exception of a few QuickFire Challenges (like the fish-butchering QF), what is being judged is (1) highly subjective, and (2) not available to the viewers. Inevitable, when the competition is judged on a subjective criteria (such as taste, or "level of artistic performance"), there is a real possibility of bias coming into play - and thus people will tend to see almost any sort of judgement which doesn't conform to how they would have judged (presuming that, if they were there and had all the same input that the judges had, they would have reached the same conclusion) as being the result of some form of bias. (Here's a hint: look at the verdicts reached in some controversial trials, e.g. the OJ Simpson murder trial. Compare to the findings reached in the civil trial. Remember all the allegations of bias, in both trials?)

Bottom line: it doesn't matter whether or not they did "blind tasting", given the nature of the show (a Reality TV cooking competition) and the subjective nature of the criteria being used to judge the contestants (how their dishes taste), there will always be questions about whether or not the show is on the up-and-up, or whether the judges are biased. And, the "unintentional bias" that the author is describing is pretty much impossible to defend against, unless the *outcomes* tend to disprove it - in which case, a far more intentional bias may have come into play. (BTW, I tend to be suspicious of the HuffPo author's bias, whether unintentional or not. I think she started with the assumption that [1] there is bias in the chef world, and [2] this bias extends into the judging in Top Chef, so that [3] she cherry-picked her data points to include those which supported her hypothesis.)

Also BTW, as a comparison: Hell's Kitchen has a much higher percentage of female winners (which seems odd, since the show airs on FOX, which is perceived as "conservative" vs. the "liberal" BRAVO which airs TC), yet I think even that show has been accused of a bias against women (certainly there is evidence of rampant misogyny among the male contestants.)

I'm keeping my fingers x'd for Hootie Hoo!

~EdT.

[bryanD]

"BryanD, I have to disagree with almost everything you said in your two last posts. First, Tom has never claimed to have "no idea whose food is before him before eating it," so he has no need of an "alibi.""--John Coctostan

I present rabrab's Tom-quote above:

"But as this challenge proves, it makes no difference whether we are judging blind or not - though we were not told in advance of eating the food, it was pretty obvious pretty quickly, at least to me, who had cooked what."

...then Tom piles on with the cartoonish examples of Radhika and Fabio to seal his point. Puh-leez!

"Second, knowing who cooked what dish without having to be told isn't "bunkum," because the style, sensibility, and (sometimes) technique of each chef is reflected in the way they craft their dishes."---JC

"Craft" is the key word. "Craft" implies a full array of skills and knowledge learned over time. Something mutable and useful under whatever circumstance. S,S, and T are amorphous terms regarding end product.

"Third, your opinion that Tom is judging based on people he would be willing "to put up with" is pure speculation. I've never gotten the sense that he's judging based on personality.."----JC

Our beloved television program invites speculation up the ying-yang! Don't pin it on me! :-)

"(In fact, that whole paragraph about Bayless seems rather mean-spirited.)"---JC

You must not be conversant in Redneck. I practically french-kissed Bayless with those words.

[lou]

I was going to say what JH said: maybe it would work for the first or second episode when the judges are not familiar with the contestants' style. And I would argue that since the judges say they judge by the food in front of them, not having the contestants explain would be an interesting wrinkle. It might not make good tv.