| Top Chef Masters Episode 9 |
| Tuesday, 18 August 2009 | |
|
Thank you to all my fans for supporting my efforts on Top Chef Masters. What an amazing experience! Make sure to watch the finale this Wednesday night. It's a great end to what was an intense and interesting experience. So far, I'm proud to say that I have won $20,000 for my charity, Clinic Ole in the Napa Valley, and am really glad that I took this opportunity to step into the murky waters of "reality television," for the chance to support such a great cause. I have the utmost respect for all 24 of the chefs who took on this challenge in order to do good, and in the balance, it was worth it. As you probably know, 'Reality TV' is anything but real, and if you've been a fan of my shows on Food Network, Fine Living, and PBS over the past 9 years, you also know that last week's show (episode 9) was not a true reflection of who I am, or of what really happened during those 2 long days of filming the episode. Top Chef Masters Judge James Oseland's blog (8/17/09): I don't know about you, but watching Episode Nine of Top Chef Masters ("Masters of Disaster") put me on edge. Maybe it was those left-hook, increasingly baroque Elimination Challenges that were thrown at the chefs (e.g., "Now, guys, you have to lose one of your sous-chefs!"). Maybe it was all the cranky exchanges between the former Top Chef contestants and Anita, Rick, Michael, and Hubert (I promise to divulge more about my feelings on that topic in next week's blog). Or maybe it was merely the fact that, with only one more episode to go, we're all nearly at the end of our journey together. As I was contemplating what to blog about this week-hmmm, should I write about what chef X could have done differently or how chef Y stumbled?-I kept wanting to slow down and take a breath. So I did. And some feelings bubbled up to the surface, feelings I'd like to share with all 24 contestants who have appeared on the entire run of the series, from Michael Schlow to Rick Bayless. Here goes: I don't blame you if you think I'm a jerk. I mean, I sit there all pursed-lipped in my suit and tie, quibbling about foods that you've slaved over and poured your hearts into for hours while meeting seemingly insurmountable obstacles-including, for starters, working in an unfamiliar kitchen without your usual staff. I complain about the too-briny shrimp. I criticize the plating of the dish that you had to get to the table at a speed that would make a hummingbird collapse. I make frowny faces at your food. But here's the thing: though I have tasted some foods during the past episodes that were less than life-changing, all in all every single dish I encountered exhibited in some big or small way why each and every one of you was brought on this show in the first place: you really are master chefs. As critics on the show, Gael, Jay, and I were so often caught up in chronicling the itty-bitty, mosquito-in-the-room mistakes that we rarely had the opportunity to acknowledge the vastness of the challenges you rose to, episode after episode. There was also too little time to celebrate how each of you channeled your unique approach to food into your dishes. What you do, and what you accomplished for us on Top Chef Masters, is nothing short of astonishing. Your knowledge of ingredients, your innate skill with those ingredients, your generosity under pressure: all of those things are testaments to how gifted you are as chefs-or, perhaps more important, as cooks. To Douglas Rodriguez: I'd like you know that I think you're a brilliant composer of dishes, a real maestro when it comes to bold flavor pairings. (And I loved the Gilligan's Island wackiness of your flaming coconuts.) To Michael Chiarello: Few cooks I know understand the byways of Mediterranean herbs more intimately. To John Besh: I'd love to cook with you; your creative energy gave rise to some of the dishes I'll remember the most fondly. Wait a minute; I'd better stop. I wanted to keep this blog post short! In parting, I'll just say this: I once read that to understand someone, you must first sit down and have a meal with the person. With all of you, I would love nothing more than to do just that. And next time, I'm cooking. LA Times Blog, Denise Martin (8/13/09) The week Art Smith made those undercooked, baseball-sized scotch egg monstrosities. I thought he was toast. Gael called it "grotesque" and "horrifying." And yet, Suzanne Tracht's dish of cold and possibly overcooked grouper was deemed the night's worst offering. It was puzzling the way the show was put together, but reality TV competitions enjoy a good red herring, so OK, I gave the show a pass. "Top Chef Masters" is still one classy show, I said to myself. Full of genuinely talented and -- as far as the six finalists are concerned -- genuinely good sports, all of whom are rooting for one another as much as they are themselves. Then there was last night's episode. We'll talk about Dale, Michael Chiarello and the fight that almost was in a bit -- in short, Dale was in the wrong -- but what was up with cutting Anita? I'm not saying I don't understand why she went home. Raw bar in the sun on a hot, sunny day? I get it. But I heard a lot more about Michael's too-briny shrimp, his unimpressive risotto, his "mushy" swordfish, and his extra-oily olive oil cake. I didn't hear anything good about any of his offerings, while Anita's pork dish seemed to at least win her some praise among the judges. What didn't the producers show us? They showed us all the criticism for Michael, and then next thing you know, they're awarding him four-star ratings. Something doesn't fit. According to a set of Burning Questions Michael answered on BravoTV.com , the judges did like his "antipasti, risotto, lamb and veggies." Really? Producers didn't let on. Which I think is unfair. A surprise elimination (or a twist elimination, whatever you want to call it) is no fun if we don't understand that the contestant we think should be going home actually did a few things right. As for Dale vs. Michael... The thing about working in a kitchen is it's a lot like the military. There is a definite hierarchy, a chain of command. So Michael acted like a drill sergeant -- so what? All of the former contestants know how these things work. But a look around the blogosphere, and it's clear that because of Michael's approach -- demanding that his interviewees prove themselves with a chopping board, asking if they knew how to pronounce his name -- a lot of people like Michael a little less this morning. (Among them Richard Blais, who described Michael's spread as wedding food circa 1987. Ouch.) He defends some of that on the Bravo website. A lot of charity money is on the line, and asking the "Top Chef" alumni to dice a few carrots during their interview, I think, wasn't a bad way to tell if they could handle taking orders. (Longtime viewers know many past contestants have considerable egos.) Asking them what they call him in a kitchen? (Answer: Chef) They all know that. And as for asking them about his name, Michael says, "If they knew who I was I felt they had a better chance of knowing my style of cooking Â? which would be a huge benefit." Fair enough. Was it good to hear Michael say that in his early career he'd eat three Dales for breakfast? It wasn't a high point, having watched "Easy Entertaining with Michael Chiarello" for years. But Dale was in the wrong. Michael calling him "young man" was hardly a reason to erupt, and any chefs watching the episode would have deemed him unprofessional and unhireable. Working in a kitchen is all about taking orders -- unless you're the chef. Dale realizes that, reluctantly it seems, and more or less apologized. It's a bummer to see Anita go. She was one of the more inventive chefs left standing, and I was pulling for a showdown between her, Rick Bayless and Hubert Keller. If I had to choose, my money is on Bayless for the win. Who is your pick to win? -- Denise Martin
|
|
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 18 August 2009 ) |