Top Chef Power Rankings

Rayner vs. Moonen

I usually try to avoid wading into discussion of the judging travesty du jour. There's so much we don't see, so much we don't know (including, most importantly, how everything tasted) that any discussion thereof is highly speculative. Which is fine and good. It's when speculative discussion takes on a strident and/or absolutist tone that I try to steer clear. But this particular controversy only seems to be heating up, so what the hell, let's open the floor.

For those who might have missed it, the aftermath of the Top Chef Masters finale has been a little bloody. And not just in the typical "some fans are pissed" manner. It actually started at critics table, where Rayner questioned Moonen's use of New Zealand venison given his opinions regarding sustainability. The discussion... escalated... before ending up on the editing room floor. We know about it because Rayner told us about it on his Bravo TV blog, embarrassed that he'd lost his cool, but unashamed of the fact that he docked Moonen half a point for not following his own philosophy in a final challenge that was supposed to do exactly that. It didn't quite end there. An eater.com writer stirred the pot a bit, and now Rayner and Moonen are going directly at each other (though Rayner, at last check, insists he's done).

A popular take on the situation seems to be that Moonen was robbed and that Rayner destroyed the integrity of the judging process, but I think two questions are being conflated, here:

1) Did Rayner make the right judgment call?
2) Was it appropriate for him TO make that judgment call?

The first is a tough one. Is New Zealand venison sustainable? Was using it in conflict with Moonen's stated philosophy? Did he even know at the time? Does it matter in the context of Top Chef Masters? Did it matter enough to merit a half a star deduction? They're all good questions that have launched good discussions... none of which I intend to tackle here and now (though you're more than welcome to do so... keep it constructive, please!)

The second is the one that's frustrating me. It's being suggested that Rayner was out of line, that it was inappropriate for him to dock Moonen, that talking about it on his blog constitutes an "admission," and that the final result is illegitimate.

While I understand the frustration of those who feel this cost Moonen a victory (though I think there's a certain amount of speculation involved even in that claim), I find this maddening. Over eight seasons of Top Chef and Top Chef Masters, thematic challenges have been a mainstay. Of course, it's generally acknowledged that food comes before theme. As long as you keep a tenuous hold on the theme, cook great food and you're probably going to do fine. But if you drift too far from the theme, it's understood that you might get dinged for it. And contestants have been dinged for it. In fact, unscientific personal observation leads me to believe that people are more often frustrated when the judges are too lenient about a theme rather than too strict. But the point is that it's been firmly established that it's perfectly within the scope of their duties to take adherence to the challenge's theme into account when judging.

So let's look at this finale. It was not, as some seem to be unaware or are conveniently ignoring in the rush to savage Rayner, to simply cook the tastiest meal. Like any other thematic challenge on Top Chef, it was to cook the tastiest meal within a certain context, and that context was for the chefs to express themselves, their careers, their styles, their lives on the plate (I'm paraphrasing, here). Sustainability is a very, very big part of Rick Moonen's work as a chef. And that's Rick Moonen talking, not me. What we don't know is how frequently or how strongly Moonen touted that philosophy in six episodes leading up to the finale (he wasn't in three of the preliminary rounds). But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he made it a central theme of his experience as a chef.

Now take this hypothetical. Let's say one of those finalists was a vegan. And let's say that this chef had spent those six episodes cooking vegan meals and taking time at critics table to talk about how he felt it was wrong to exploit animals, and that cooking vegan food was incredibly important to him. And let's say that after being told the final challenge was to cook a meal that expressed who he was as a chef, made one of his courses a big honking T-bone. And let's say that after being asked about that choice, he said, "Hey, it's a cooking competition." How could one not conclude that he had simply flaunted the theme of the challenge?

I put this forth not to suggest that Moonen's transgression (if, indeed, there was one at all) was as serious, but simply to illustrate that there is a point at which a chef is brazenly flaunting the theme of the challenge and should probably be called on it and/or scored accordingly. You may not like that as a final challenge. You may want it to be a straight-up cook the tastiest meal possible challenge without any theme at all. But that's not what it was. Rayner didn't judge the challenge all of us would have liked him to judge. He judged the challenge the chefs were given.

Jay Rayner may or may not have made the right call. But he did the right thing in making it.

Top Chef Masters - S2E10 Postmortem

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

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

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

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

Top Chef Masters - S2E9 Postmortem

Uhhhhh... better late than never?

While I can't say I've been troubled by this season like some others have, I expect that's what you've been missing.

The camaraderie was back in full swing, and even ultra-competitive Samuelsson was exceptionally gracious in talking about Waxman (though we don't know whether this took place before or after the elimination). The love is back in TCM, and this is a good thing.

First thing, chefs, clearly you haven't watched much Top Chef. A day off is NEVER a day off. We know you're doing important things like, you know, running restaurants, and it's hard to stay on top of watching a show where half the contestants couldn't survive on your line, much less run the place. But should you be asked to return in future seasons, I think you'll find a modicum of internet research most illuminating.

Also notable this week was, I thought, a little bit of vindication for the critics. It's been suggested lately that perhaps the critics are being too hard on certain dishes, or not getting others, but between Moonen's broth and Samuelsson's shrimp, it's nice to see that the critics are catching errors that the chefs recognize as such. You're not sneaking anything past them. No five-hole on this panel (sorry... um... playoff hockey time).

But the big news, of course, is that we have a field for the finale and have to bid Waxman goodbye. As much as I hate to see him go, much like Feniger, I think it was his time. It could very well be that his style of cooking simply isn't well-suited to winning a competition judged by this panel, and I'm open to the possibility that that's a failing on their part, not his. But again, it's really hard to say. While it's tough for a restaurant to go too simple if the execution's tack sharp (though the proverbial "figs on a plate" may be pushing it), I'm in the camp that believes you have to draw the line somewhere for a cooking competition. Either way, particularly with Waxman fading and Samuelsson finishing strong, I think we got the right trio for the finale.

And who's not jazzed to see what these guys come up with? I really hope they stick with the same format as last season. The "meal of your life" is such an elegant showcase and so perfect for the show's theme that I'd be more than okay with them never touching it as long as the show's on the air.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E8 Postmortem

Awwwwwww... so sad. But I'm not troubled with the judging like some (I'm looking at you, Doktarr!). So let me just address this quickly.

It's been suggested that Feniger's critic scores ran contrary to the crowd's score, and that Rayner was unusually harsh. Last point first. I didn't think his tone was particularly harsh, but even if it struck you as such, he was only half a star below Gael and Gail. That's hardly a curmudgeonly, aberrant score. As to whether the judges' scores were out of line with the crowd... well, sort of, but not as much as you think. Yes, the judges scores were about a full star lower than the crowd, but the crowd still gave Feniger their second-lowest rating out of all five chefs (Susur coming in last with the crowd). So the judges scored her fifth out of five, and the crowd scored her fourth out of five. I don't see any disconnect there. Yes, the crowd scores for her were marginally higher, but generally speaking, that's what you'd expect. Since the crowd score is an average of scores from a very large sample of diners, you'd expect, on average, the top scores to be a little lower and the bottom scores to be a little higher. So I think this idea that Rayner tipped the scales, or that the judges and the crowd weren't on the same page is a non-starter. Plus, Susur was only on the bottom because there wasn't enough room on the top. This was between Waxman and Feniger, and is anybody really surprised that Waxman edged her?

And yet, it's sad to see such an ebullient personality kicked to the curb. I'm guessing it was a very good dish, but when everybody is pretty much firing -- and it sounds like everybody pretty much was -- something on the simpler end of the spectrum is probably going to lose out to something that's a little more refined. I'll be curious to read the critics' blogs once they go up, but my hunch is that Feniger simply undershot the level of refinement that they expected for the event and the stage of the competition, which made her stick out. And when you're on the chopping block, the last thing you want to do is stick out.

On the other end, I get the feeling... and it's just a feeling... that Moonen is regarded by many as, perhaps, not on the same level as the rest, and I hope this week puts that notion to bed. If he survives next week and makes the finals, he'll have earned it.

Which brings us to what's always the best topic of conversation heading into the semis. Who do you want to see in the finals? As far as who's most deserving based on performance so far, it's hard to say. If the next episode were voided and the judges had to simply choose three to advance based on the season thus far, Susur is the only shoo-in. Though he's been a little inconsistent, I feel like Moonen probably deserves a free pass as well, especially coming off a week as strong as this one. My vague notion is that I'd place Samuelsson fourth based on performance thus far, though I wonder how much of that is simply because he really challenges the judges, and much as I love him, you could make a case for Waxman being the most deserving of the door. You just have to adore the guy, and there's always something so satisfying about seeing simple, soulful food rock the house, but he's obviously tired and hasn't shown us his best as of late. It's not a crash of Anita Lo proportions, but Episode 8 Waxman isn't Episode 5 Waxman.

As far as who I'd like to see in the finale? Susur, for sure. And even if he's the least deserving -- and I'm not conceding that he is -- I feel like Samuelsson could be so much fun in the finale. He has such a foreign, outlandish style, and if the last challenge is, once again, to cook your life's story, who isn't curious to see what he does with that? Waxman's a big ol' teddy bear whose food just makes people happy, and Moonen's a dynamo whose dishes keep sneaking up on people... can't we just skip episode nine and go straight to the finale with four chefs? Ah, well. I guess I can take solace that I'll be equally disappointed no matter what happens next week.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E7 Postmortem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss!

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

Top Chef Masters - S2E6 Postmortem

Awwww, man, just when I was starting to think Jody might make a run.

Though, truth be told, it's already at the point where I'd hate to see anybody go. I want to see Lee at the end, I'd love to see Waxman at the end, and for a third? Pick 'em. Anybody would make me happy. Every elimination from here on out will hurt.

It's funny, with the possible exception of the squid, and I'm not even sure about that, the goat leg struck me as by far the easiest ingredient to work with. Yet that's the only one that was botched by both chefs who picked it. Complacency, maybe? Or just chance. But interesting.

Waxman dodges a bullet. *phew!*

Love the little variation on Susur's reaction to a midrange score. Three and a half stars usually sets off a barrage of profanity, not a contented smile. Of course, he did do Marge Simpson in pork chop and purple potatoes. Hung's Smurf Village has a little competition.

Speaking of Susur, he had this one nailed from the word go. Mantuano thinks he could rock everything except the sea cucumber? Are you kidding, Tony? A chef from Hong Kong? I'm surprised he didn't pick it.

But even though 2.5 stars is a pretty wide margin, props to Moonen for hanging with Susur working in his comfort zone. He's right, we have kind of pigeon holed him as the fish guy. Okay, well, he kind of pigeon holed himself. But point being, the dude can cook.

And even more than that, props to Feniger for doing anything with sea cucumber. How do you approach an ingredient like that when you're not familiar with it? Yet another reminder... just because these people have very, very distinct personal styles, it doesn't mean they aren't flat-out talented across the board.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E5 Postmortem

Man, that's a tough one.

As much as you hate to see a taskmaster who spent so much time cracking the whip cut for not doing enough, Carmen's epitaph was pretty much written the moment the red team lost. I mean, yeah, it seems kind of unjust, but who else do you get rid of? Mantuano rocks two of three dishes. Lee does the work of three chefs. Samuelsson blew the beef, but it seems clear that his canapes were downplayed in the Critics Table editing to add a little suspense... anybody remember Rayner flipping over them and asking if he could marry Samuelsson? So what does Carmen have? A mini crabcake and some roasted corn. She was the object of two Top Chef team competition kisses of death: being the "leader" of the losing team, AND not putting out at least one great dish that she could hang her hat on when it came time for judging.

LOVE the fact that her teammates jumped in to defend her prep-light role so vociferously, though. And there's the difference between Top Chef Masters and Top Chef.

Nice win for Adams. That's a mighty big risk out-and-out ignoring the bride's instruction, but hey... it paid off.

Best part about the contestants for this Champions Round: Waxman's zenlike serenity, or Lee's F-Bombs?

Anybody else notice that Waxman marinated his chickens in garbage bags? Awesome.

"I think that crabcake would have held its own in Baltimore, the world's crabcake capital" -- Actually, James, after seeing the corn and avocado on top, nobody in Baltimore would have TOUCHED that crabcake. If there's one thing I learned from two years in Baltimore, it's that they don't like their crabcakes fancified.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E4 Postmortem

Hot damn! Susur Lee! Guess I know where I'm eating next time I'm in NYC. I actually expected him to do a lot better with the quickfire. He's from Hong Kong, and you get so much fruit for dessert in southern China, and often it's huge spreads of all kinds done up in a very ornate manner. Culturally speaking, he was coming from the right place to rock that up and down. And maybe there's merit to his suggestion that there was a bit of cultural disconnect with the judges. Or maybe it just didn't taste all that great. Talk about making up for it, though. Damn, I want that dish.

I really dug the look and theory behind Maria Hines' dish. But doing fish out of a chafing dish -- even one as oily and stable as salmon -- is just begging for trouble. Her scores seemed a little anemic given the judges' comments. I wonder if that's the elves at work to make us think we had another big winner and create more tension, or if a fish dish, no matter how beautifully conceived, just didn't travel so well.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Tramonto. Overall, Tru left me wanting both times I was there. But the guy can turn out some great dishes, and I suspect he just dialed it too far back for the elimination. There's minimal and there's plain. We can't all be Waxman. 'Course, Gail seemed to enjoy it a whole lot more than everybody else.

I'm torn on the episode overall. On one hand, the chefs were working it and I felt like we got a very good sense of what they were doing. On the other hand, the elves were pissing me off. Sending somebody through to the Champions Round on the quickfire just seems like needlessly grasping for drama. On the other hand, since they're not lumping in the QF scores this season, I suppose this is the only one that's actually had any bearing on the competition, so maybe I shouldn't complain.

Two groaners in the promos for those who were paying attention, however. First, a classic editor's misdirection, when we see Jay Rayner asking if the chef thought the dish was too salty and Tramonto replies "No." In case you needed a reminder, when it comes to the promos, unless you see both people standing together in frame, you can never assume that the two people cut together are actually talking to each other. And then, the commercial break before the results had a promo that gave away the winner, clear as day. That's probably a Bravo gaffe rather than an elves gaffe, but either way, well done, guys.

So there's the field for the Champions Round! No complaints whatsoever. Looks like a fun and diverse crowd, both from a food and personality standpoint.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E3 Postmortem

Now that's a little more like it. Drama's incidental, the chefs get to flex their muscles a little, the challenges are solid... great episode.

Ludo isn't winning any Top Chef congeniality awards. But in his defense -- much as it pains me to defend him (even if only from a food standpoint) -- he IS a French chef who's now drawn street food and pub food. The bravado looks especially bad given how he's performed, and he certainly should have done better with the Irish stew, but he hasn't exactly gotten a pitch he can handle. When he comes back for TCM3 (bank on it), if he gets anything even remotely close to his wheelhouse, I'm betting he makes a better showing for himself.

If Gail sticks with this rotation, it looks like that means Jay Rayner is going to the bench next week. Maybe I'll just wait for episode five.

Gael absolutely nailed my exact thoughts on the Yorkshire pudding debacle. That must have absolutely KILLED Peel to have to serve. Poor guy.

Sad to see GEB miss again purely for reasons of civic pride, but Waxman and Moonen should both be a lot of fun in the second half of the season. I'm not sure whether this pair is yin/yang or matter/antimatter, but just having them both in the same room ought to ensure that the show is at least entertaining.

Back to some grub shortly... been a little busy 'round these parts.

Discuss!

Top Chef Masters - S2E2 Postmortem

Well, I was hoping to see Samuelsson advance, but that wasn't a terribly flattering appearance. Here's hoping that was the villain edit. I've always liked the guy's food.

Not that there's anything wrong with simple, but Phifer certainly seemed to suggest that the food was supposed to be elevated somehow. I'm not sure Gonzalez' dish fit the challenge, but when every other dish out there is flawed, I suppose it's tough not to give high marks to the one that's spot-on, regardless of how simple it may be.

Ordinarily the purchased sausage would bug me for a show like this, but I kind of feel like the time element deserves some consideration. I suppose the stew could have been done on the second day, but if you presume it had to be done on the first, what are you going to do... stuff sausage AND make a stew out of it for 125 people in under an hour? I have a hard time finding fault with going to a good premade sausage.

Of COURSE James Oseland loved brussels sprouts as a kid.

Anybody else find Pope's reaction to losing oddly intense? Regular Top Chef, sure. You're a young turk looking for your big break, you've been thrown into a 24-hour pressure cooker, you're living in a dormitory with a horde of miscreants, you're not sleeping, and there's a ton of money and your whole career on the line. With Masters, you're an established chef and the only thing that hinges on the outcome of the competition is which worthy charity gets the money. Not saying there's anything wrong with a little emotion, it just seemed a little... strong, given the context.

Fireworks next week. Every time I think this season seems more drama-centric than the last, I remind myself of Chiarello and Dale Talde nearly coming to blows.

Discuss!

UPDATE : Anybody who thinks Pope got all upset because of Samuelsson's actions or because of what he said to her at the end should probably watch the extended exit interview on the Bravo website. She seems more broken up over the judges' criticisms than anything else. But even with the "extended" interview, who knows? It's still a tiny snippet of what I'm sure was a lengthy, weepy interview. Reading too much into it would be, I think, rather presumptuous.