Top Chef - S6E9 Postmortem

Okay, Tom, that was just mean.

I had Jen's departure notes half written. She's got another life and she'd better use it.

So why's Kevin angry? Because he screwed up the lamb? Because he feels guilty over having contributed to Laurine being sent home? Because he feels Laurine got a raw deal (no pun intended) and it should have been Jen? I doubt that last one. The first two seem more in character for him. But you wonder.

I'll let you guys take over tonight. Still digesting (the episode, not dinner. Well, both, but... nevermind.)

Oh, and what a brutal editing hit piece on Mike V., making no comment as to whether or not he deserved it. And interesting that Tom's blog for the same episode praised his kitchen demeanor.

The Four Horsemen of the Chefpocalypse still ride. Breathe easy, folks.

UPDATE : Some semi-related happy news. Top Chef Masters has been picked up for a second season and all judges are returning. Thanks for the heads-up, jh!

Comments

[kit]

Re: Brothers V

I think it's hard to view Bryan's reaction to Michael's win as just based on what happened during this challenge. These are two brothers who are close in age and went into the same field. Anything that happens during a challenge is probably tapping into longstanding squabbles between the two of them, that are difficult to capture in this reality TV format. Given their relationship, it's probably easier for them to get angry or annoyed with one another, especially given they seem to care for each other deeply. (There's behavior that from a stranger I would find disappointing or annoying, but could ignore. But if a close friend or spouse behaved that way, I would be angry.) On the flip side, it's easier for them to create great food together. As Michael put it, he can put the period on any sentence that Bryan starts.

[Cheryl]

Ok..I thought Bryan was a complete jerk for declining Michael's offer to split the money. He was like a sulking child because his baby brother won the challenge. Just take the money and stick it in an account for the 2 nieces then. Give it back that way instead of being so ungracious. Bryan himself wasn't comfortable being the winner in team challenges previously; he just never won anything he could share.
The dessert discussion: Yes, Tom may have praised Hosea for NOT doing a dessert but the circumstances were completely different. Hosea was pretty much cooking on his own with the help of a sous chef who, based on prior years, could disappear at a moment's notice. He chose to stay completely with what he does well which doesn't include desserts. That's what Tom thought was smart. The fact that, knowing there is RW every year, none of those 4 had a single dessert in their back pocket was ridiculous. Yeah, maybe in alot of high end restaurants you don't eat dessert because you're full after eating intriguing apps and entrees but if the restaurant didn't have any on the menu, even some fresh fruit, wouldn't you wonder what the heck?! Stefan was praised for his desserts last year and the year before that, they liked the desserts the winning team put out - especially the one Steph put together if I recall correctly. Last year's losers lost for a lot of different reasons, including desserts which, unfortunately, are the last things someone might eat and so the last impression of the meal you served.
Laurine's downfall wasn't just bad FOH. The lamb was not cooked to her specifications and she served it anyway. That has been her problem all season. She doesn't want conflict with the other chefs and defers. She should have told Kevin, regardless of how great a chef he is, that the lamb needed more cooking time. That may have made the difference for her.
If Jen makes it to the finals, I think she will use the break to rest and come roaring back. However, one thing I have noticed is that the chef who wins part 1 doesn't win the final final. It's like an athlete who peaks too soon. I wonder if the chefs this season have what it takes to pace themselves and we'll have a winner who wins both final challenges.

[gilmore]

Big changes in the top 4. Does Jen drop to 5?

I thought the quickfire was great and would love to see it more than once a season (assuming this becomes a regular QF).

It was shocking to see Mission do so poorly. Reading Tom C's blog helps - what poor planning. That makes it even more difficult to understand how they could have let that happen.

Revolt - what a stupid name.

[Independent George]

She should have told Kevin, regardless of how great a chef he is, that the lamb needed more cooking time. That may have made the difference for her.

I think time was the overriding concern - they were already running late, and putting it back in the oven for another 5-10 minutes would have created an even bigger bottleneck.

Logistics is what killed them. Each dish sounded great in the abstract, but they didn't think about how long each would take to prepare, or divide their labor in a way that would have allowed them to succeed.

[Dave_P]

Haven't read the bravo blogs yet, but we always steamed our mussels to order in my last kitchen gig. In fact, I can't imagine pre-cooking them. I'm just sayin'.

#1 lesson no one ever seems to learn is not, "don't do a dessert." It's "don't make 2 lousy dishes, just make 1 fantastic one!" Seriously? 2 dishes apiece for Jen & Kev? When you're going to be slammed for a whole evening? Seriously?

Thank you Laurine for your brave sacrifice. It will not be in vain (hopefully). BTW, if a sauce breaks (Jen's trout) bet. the time it leaves the cook and reaches the table, it's on the FoH (and by extension, the wait-staff, who should be trained) to bring it the f*** back. You do *not* serve a plate of grease.

Have I mentioned I hate RW?

--
Dave

[Independent George]

So, I have a cooking question. What is the difference between poaching a fish in oil and frying? Is the oil poached fish at a lower temperature? That QF olive oil was up to a boiling point, so if Kevin dropped the sable fish in, why would that not have been frying? Just curious.

Yeah, that didn't make sense to me, either. The temperature is indeed the main difference between frying and poaching; frying imparts flavor by searing the outside in high heat, while poaching imparts flavor from the liquid itself at low heat. I always treated poaching as sous-vide without the vacuum bag - the lower temperature reduces the likelihood of overcooking, while the liquid imparts flavor. It's a good idea to start at a slightly higher temperature in order to pasteurize the outside of the meat, but it's not supposed to reach anywhere close to a full boil (stocks) or the smoke point (oils). Olive oil in particular loses its flavor somewhere in the neighborhood 180 degrees F, which is both well below the smoke point (210 degrees F), and way above the temperature you want to serve the fish at (USDA recommends 145 degrees, which, in my opinion, is horribly overcooked).

[TokenOmnivore]

If they were stuck on the name Revolt, I would have spelled it RE+VOLT.

[surrounded by vegans]

"I know we're going to see a lot of the typical foodie disdain for vegetarianism next week"
Seriously! I have no respect for any chef that can't easily put out a 5 course vegan meal. If you can't build flavor without duck fat, beef stock, and bacon - then you suck - period.

I'm a carnivore and I ain't no chef but I make a gluten free vegan meal every damn night of the week, so it just kills me when the pros bitch about dietary restrictions. Next season I hope they throw 'em a Kosher for Passover challenge.

Forgive me if I sound strident - I don't get enough bacon in my diet.

In non food related questions: Is anyone else distracted by Mike I's constant rocking side to side?

"I tried to punch a fish once"
I shot a fish in Reno, just to watch it die.

[anon man]

3 more things: yes, the planning at Mission was terrible. In theory, it makes sense: Jen, the fish gal does the fish course and Kevin, the meat guy does the meat. It also looked like Jen was the real bottleneck and that Kevin, while having his issues with the lamb was a little more in speed.

And the Brothers V: Kevin's first clip where he says the brothers are fighting all the time was very interesting. Yes, they squabble, but they've been fighting? Sounds like there is more tension there than we've seen before.

When I first saw Portman and the "just one thing" edit, I thought "Ok, she's kosher, sucks for Kevin", but then with Jen's complaint and me remembering somehow and interview where she discusses her vegetarianism, that made more sense.

[Dave_P]

Lots of good reasons why Kevin might not want to poach his fish. I recall that the oil was changed once already for getting too hot (think it was smoking). Entirely possible that the poaching liquid wasn't at the proper temperature, and w/only 10 minutes (far less, once you figure out what's actually going on), it's by far the safer bet to just fry them up on a skillet.

I think the QF deserves more analysis than RW, which we've all sat through 6 times now. I sorta dug the challenge, but like most other QFs, it was a sorta BS, gimmicky test. I read Tom's blog just now and thought some of his responses were ridiculous. He compares the QF to a collaboration. A collaboration requires communication. That QF was more of a puzzle-solving & tactical thinking contest. That makes it fun, esp for the viewer, but I can see it being very frustrating for a chef, esp one who doesn't enjoy puzzles and such.

My take: I think legs 2 & 3 should be the strongest parts, with an emphasis on 2. You don't leave it to the anchor to actually decide the dish, which was what ended up happening. Of course, this sort of thing needs to be worked out in the 30sec you have to choose the order--they said you can't talk about the food, nothing about general tactics.

#1 should be prep bit**, nothing more. Choose your proteins, sure, but grab a few, get some flavors prepped, but commit to nothing. Start on some basic sauces & bases, get a mirepiox going, maybe start a poaching liquid, but only as an option.

#2 is who actually decides the direction to take. #2 & 3 basically complete the dish, which means you have to "communicate". If you have to fire a protein at the last moment, place it near the proper utensil. Hell, draw an arrow w/a sprig of rosemary if you have to, but decide on what you want to do, and make it really clear to #3 (or #4) what your intentions are. #3 finishes up the concept applying his own interpretations & directions, and makes sure that everything is ready to finish up for the anchor.

#4 finishes the dish, but by this point, everything should be either done, or the remainder crystal clear. Finish the sauce, get the right temperature on the protein, plate.

BTW, you can convey the general gist of the last 3 paragraphs in about 10 seconds, plus an admonision to keep everything simple, so plenty of time to work it out while choosing the order. And yes, that's very easy to say when watching from the sidelines, just like every other cooking challenge. :)

--
Dave

[matthew]

I think Bryan is competitive, but don't think he acted like a brat. I think is brother takes the prize for being a dyck. I really had a hard time watching Mike V. operate in the kitchen. He was an ass toward everyone. I think, if anything. That back-and-forth with Robin was ridiculous--particularly given the way Mike V. speaks to everyone. What's clear is that Robin does not have the respect of most of the people on the show. Regardless, you don't muck with someone's dish, particularly when they're plating. I highly doubt Mike V. would have reached in on a male chef's dish like that. There might have been more than shouting if he did.

Laurine was clearly frazzled. I was more put off by her sit 'em and quit 'em approach to FOH. It wasn't just the judges that complained that Laurine didn't take time to explain the dishes. Add to that, if she disagreed with Kevin about the lamb, she should have pushed back. It was HER dish. Additionally, it's usually good for servers to inform you how the lamb is traditionally served, and ask if that's ok.

Poor Kevin (my favorite). I'd be interested to learn what he's pissed about, as well. We can speculate. I don't think his angst was directed at anyone in particular. I think it's more introspective because he knows how to run a restaurant and was not pleased with the overall performance.

As for Jen, we've seen season after season that someone is saved because someone else made a bigger gaffe (Laurine). It was somewhat the same as last season when Carla was saved by the poor FOH performance of Radhika. Meanwhile you had Leah, with clearly the worse dish of the night, skate because she was on the winning team.

I looked over at Carla last night when they introduced the rules for Restaurant Wars. She sighed, but managed to say that she thought it was done right. The chefs should focus on food not decor.

[matthew]

Oh...and I am tiring, just a bit, of Tom and others saying "This is the best ___ ever on Top Chef." Of course they are going to hype the current season. I think given the comments on the dishes, I don't see how this season RW rates as the best.

[Karen]

Nope, don't agree. It appears that they planned ahead what her dish would be and how it would be plated. If she took it upon herself to change what they had agreed to, then as EC he had every right to jump in and fix it. Bryan telling him to keep his money was an immature, bratty thing to do in the face of his brother's victory and it smacked of sour grapes to me. They were not rewarding his brother's unprofessional behavior (which they neither knew nor cared about anyway - they've made that clear in seasons past); they were rewarding his cooking.

[Jake]

I thought this QF was one of the most fun challenges this show has seen, and it really served to highlight the differences between the chefs. The top 4 chefs each considered not only what they were doing, but how they could prepare the next chef to succeed. Some of the bottom 4 did, to lesser degrees, but it seemed like Laurine and especially Robin were only focused on what they were doing. It could be editing, of course, but I thought it was a cool glimpse into how the chefs think about food, and about teamwork. That challenge could have been a disaster, but I think it turned out to be very cool to watch, and I hope they keep it for future seasons.

I think the editors were trying to show us Robin focusing on the wrong things -- the sparkling water, the not wanting anyone else to touch her dish (I can understand wanting to protect your turf in a contest, but it's still a team challenge). Whether that's true or not, we'll see, but I think that was the common thread for her through both challenges.

I thought Eli did a really impressive job with FOH, and they showed him expediting a bit, managing the diners' expectations, helping with pacing, explaining things well ... I think there can be a lot of shared skills between a good chef and a good FOH, and if done right, it doesn't have to be a place for someone to hide during Restaurant Wars. (Well that, and I can't blame him for not wanting to be in that kitchen.)

I thought the Mike V hit-job, as Dom put it, was brutal. Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it came across as a bit mean-spirited and undeserved to me.

[Jake]

Oh, and regardless of how he acted in the kitchen (which I don't think was all that bad this time anyway), asking to share the reward was classy, and I think shows how he thinks about team challenges.

[paula]

"I'm greedy. I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away."

Bingo, George. I hate to say it, but I'm kinda over Jen.

I loved that QF, even if it was gimmicky. Really, really cool to see how each team member approached the challenge and to hear what they were thinking as they went through it. Such interesting insight into each chef's personality and style, too. Loooooved it.

And I'm still fascinated watching the V Bros. dynamic. A big part of it is that they're both so freakin' talented--and yet, as much as they try, they can't quite overcome that natural sibling rivalry. AND, at the same time, they've got each other's back. What a twisted scenario this competition must be for them emotionally!

[Cheryl]

Natalie Portman is a kosher vegetarian. She supports PETA so chances are she doesn't do dairy either. I bet Robin does well in that challenge. Given her health issues, she probably has done alot of research/experimenting with vegetarian and macrobiotic recipes. Another chance for Eli to make some snarky remark I'm sure. I think the other chefs are going to have some trouble but I could be wrong. Hopefully they saw TCM and saw how those chefs handled an even more restrictive challenge than just vegan given the food intolerance issues with Zooey.

[aaalex]

re: the previews ... has anyone EVER said "i'm really comfortable with this and i'm going to shine on this challenge" (or words to that effect) and not been bitten in the arse for it? in the previews, we see robin talking about "shining" on the vegan challenge and, of all the preview shots we saw, that seemed to me the only one that has "hubris" written over it. i could almost hear the ominous music behind her. i still think there's more to this robin narrative to come, but next week could be her exit, in which case we'll probably hear even more of her story next episode.

i'm with those who loved the qf and was impressed by the judges' reaction to "revolt", but that must have been the weirdest winning team at judges' table i've ever seen. they'd WON and it was almost as tense as if they'd lost, with michael v basically trying to claim he'd fed robin the pithivier recipe and all she'd had to do was execute it though, in fact, she put it out HER way, after taking those of his suggestions she liked. (he HAD treated her with disrespect in the kitchen. she wasn't a sous chef per se. (michael v himself spoke of revolt as a collaboration) robin was a chef making a dessert. he came in and tried to change the way she put it out. a big no-no, since SHE would have been accountable for the dessert, if they had lost. that's as great a mark of disrespect as robin telling him to "fuck off". and if he'd tried to do that to a man (a man other than ash, i guess), it would have been war. she rightly stood up for herself and, as someone pointed out, standing up for herself is what distinguishes her from ash.) and then, in the stew room, the winning team - creators of the best restaurant wars restaurant in SIX years! - were still arguing over money or what have you. very, very strange.

i love RW. and though i may be in the minority, i regret that the teams didn't have to choose a decor. not having to choose a decor gave revolt an upper hand over some of the restaurants of past years, so i'm not sure if "best RW restaurant ever" is quite fair. i mean, it wasn't quite a level playing field.

[jh]

Dave, I disagree that #2 and 3 should be your strongest. I believe that you should always end with your strongest and that #2 should be your weakest (which was done by both teams). In a running relay, you put the slowest at #2. In the challenge, both teams approached it differently, as noted in Tom's blog, but one was not necessarily better than the other.

At the #1 spot, you want someone that is a strong prepper that either gives leaves a plethora of ideas (Eli) or a strong base to which to start the dish (Jen, when she make a sauce). The QF was going to be based on the taste and the cohesiveness, so it's important to start off on the right foot.

At the #2 spot, you just continue doing something, but if you screw up, there's still 20 minutes to fix it. (Laurine and Robin)

#3 And #4 is where ideas should mesh together and the final dish takes place. #4 should definitely be the strongest, because that person has to cook the protein (not always as elementary as it sounds), and make sure all the flavors work out right. With Kevin at #4, I was thinking, even if everyone screwed up, he could fix it at the end, but if Mike I were there, would we have salting issues? In addition, would you really want the final thing you plate in Robin's hands?

Also for the poaching in the oil, I think Jen put the pot out as a cue, and Laurine turned the heat up too high before realizing her mistake. Mike caught on to the idea, but realized the oil was too hot, and started a fresh one.

[aaalex]

matthew: i didnt see your post before i posted. i totally agree about what would have happened if michael v. had pulled what he pulled with robin on a male chef.

[aaalex]

matthew: a ps. i think the judges are simply blown away by the level of competition this year. though they offered criticisms of the dishes from the winning team, that has to be taken as relative. meaning: the criticisms they offered were still criticisms of some of the best food they've tasted over six years. a "bad" dish by bryan voltaggio could well be superior to a "great" dish by lisa fernandes. (chefs have different capacities as much as runners do. so, usain bolt's third or fourth best performance is still going to be beyond dwayne chambers'best.) so, you can't use their judges' table criticism as indicator of the relative quality of the food.

[Independent George]

I highly doubt Mike V. would have reached in on a male chef's dish like that. There might have been more than shouting if he did

Why make the immediate jump to sexism as the proximate cause? Why do you assume he did it because she's a woman, as opposed to because she's Robin? We already saw that Michael (a) is a micromanaging control freak (b) short-tempered, and (c) didn't particularly like Robin or her style of cooking. How do you immediately jump to (d) sexism! whan points (a), (b), and (c) are already out in the open? Remember - he basically rode roughshod over both Mike I and Ash in their team challenges, but played a collaberative role with Jennifer.

[mena]

I don't think Bryan was being bratty when he refused Michael's prize money. He seemed to be communicating displeasure in the same way everyone in that house has been communicating displeasure - in some weird roundabout way.

Their restaurant won, but did the end justify the means?

Michael V was pretty awful to his brother during the whole challenge. Others have written that they doubt Michael V would've treated a male chef the way he treated Robin. Along those same lines, I doubt Michael V would've treated a chef who wasn't his brother the way he treated Bryan.

Looks like the sibling rivalry thing is finally heating up.

[kit]

Dave_P says: I sorta dug the challenge, but like most other QFs, it was a sorta BS, gimmicky test. I read Tom's blog just now and thought some of his responses were ridiculous. He compares the QF to a collaboration. A collaboration requires communication. That QF was more of a puzzle-solving & tactical thinking contest.

I hear ya Dave_P, I loved this challenge for its puzzly qualities, and thought Tom had gone off the deep-end a bit with his comparison to the usual brainstorming, collaborative process that we've seen the chefs do millions of times whenever they have team challenges.

Then again, maybe Tom, in some post-modern experimental approach to dish-creation, runs his staff through these blind-folded cooking relays as a team-building/menu-devising/food-worshipping exercise, telling them they are not allowed to talk about the food, as they must learn to communicate solely through mise en place and random pans left gurgling on the stove (he likes to call it craftoglyphics). After the tasting, the weakest leg is fired. Who knows. Best explanation - I'm still miffed at Tom for that crazy comment at the end of his last blog, which irresponsibly lead to numerous panic attacks and blackouts during my watching of this episode. Darn you Colicchio!

[Amanda P.]

JH: Thanks for your summary of the QF order. I completely agree that #2 should be your weakest. Another reason to have a strong (or at least not the weakest) person as #1 is because you have to trust them to get things started - they have to pull the "right" items out and start anything that requires time. #2, I think, should be the weakest, because there's still time to fix any errors.

What I found interesting was about Robin. In the QF, she didn't work on the combined dish, she just set it all aside and made a salad. I'm not even sure if that was the salad that ended up on the plate (although I recall that one did - anyone know if it was Robin's?).

Robin seems to have gone the complete opposite of Jen and Kevin. While J&K followed collaboration into calamity, Robin seems to have taken the competition so to heart that she CAN'T collaborate, or even cooperate. Many of her interviews are about "this is a competition", and I think that was more of the focus of the "fight" with Mike V. than anything else. No, I don't think Mike V would have inserted himself into any of the remaining chef's dishes like he did with Robin, but I can see him doing that to some of the chefs who left.

Lastly, and I SOOOO hate to do this, I actually agree with something Toby said. It was a throw away line at Judges' Table about the review of REVolt starting with a comment about Eli's appearance. I know that it's about the food, most of the time, but for RW, FoH is important. If I were at a classy restaurant and the FoH had a jacket that didn't fit over an untucked dress shirt, I would worry that everything about the place was sloppy. The fact that everyone else on the team thought it was ok just bugs me...and I know I'm a stick in the mud, but I never thought I'd sound so much like my grandmother...ugh. :)

[.jokerr]

Hmm, speaking of the way the Eli dressed as FOH, I wonder if it's them trying for a younger, edgier vibe? Eli did ask Michael V whether his untucked shirt was OK, and got positive response. When I went to Bryan V's VOLT--all the waiters wore business suits, unbuttoned, with running shoes--but it was still definitely a classy fine-dinning place. Personally, casual dress would not bother me if it was part of a deliberate choice.

[Amanda P.]

I suppose the less formal attire suits Eli, and they were going for "new American", which doesn't have as fussy of a reputation as, say, French, but the waiters were were all neat and tidy, so it was just Eli looking out of place. I just kept wanting to yell "Tuck in your shirt" every time Eli was on screen.

Tennis shoes, on the other hand, make perfect sense to me!

Shoot - I had another thought and lost it. I think it was about Robin and Eli both acting like adults (except the shirt!), while the V-bros squabbled like children. Oh well, if it comes back, I'll post it. I'm sure it was a brilliant observation that I just didn't write down (or, maybe I just watched this week's episode of Mad Men too recently).

[gilmore]

Cheryl - maybe Natalie Portman is Koser lite. Unless they bring in all new cookware and plates, I doubt kosher food could be cooked in Tom C's kitchen. Eliminate the meat and several kosher issues are gone - meat and dairy served together, pork, shellfish.

aalex - If kosher lite is required, maybe Robin and Eli think they have the advantage. Robin's cockiness could be that combined with her perceived healthy cooking.

Amanda P. - I am starting to like Toby more and more. His blog this week was good as well.

[Dave_P]

JH, I don't think the racing analogy really works. In a relay race, you genearlly want your fastest runner to anchor, and your 2nd fastest to start (technically, you place your fastest starter off the blocks, assuming a sprint relay, who may not be the 2nd or even 3rd fastest runner), because you want to get out to a good start, and finish strong. Here, you want a core of 2 chefs to more or less complete the dish, so the question is, do you want those two at the beginning, middle or end? Or do you split them up as you would in a race?

Upon further reflection, I stick by my original strategem *only if* all four cooks are onboard, mostly skilled, and there's a bit more time to prepare tactics (w/o talking about the food itself, of course). If you're ad libbing like last night, I think you should place the strongest 3 & 4, in that you can more or less complete a dish in 10 minutes, certainly 20, regardless of what's occurred before. I would think though that placing the strongest in the middle is optimal as it allows you to "hide" your weakest as prep monkey, and your 2nd weakest as the plater--basically, they're your sous. The true collaboration would occur in the middle.

If this sort of thing was happening in Tom's kitchens (which honestly would be kinda cool, and prolly good for morale & creativity), that's how I'd play out my teams.

--
Dave

[matth]

Did anyone else think that Jennifer should have picked Bryan instead of Kevin first? I think had she done that Mike V would have chosen Mike I and then Jen could have taken Kevin with her second pick. Would have been interesting to see how that turned out.

[aaalex]

independent george: i think you're half right, re the potential sexism of michael v's behaviour. michael v has been overbearing with his collaborators - except, of course, jen. but we are watching a power dynamic at work. he is not friendly with robin. he does not treat her with respect. the people he has been overbearing with are people who like him, who respect him. a man he did not respect, one who was looking out for himself in this competition, would have been been rightfully angry to the point of violence by his behaviour. you can only behave as michael v. did with people who give you the authority to do so. robin didn't. a man in robin's position would not have. so, there is still an element of sexism at work here, though he may not have been aware of it. no need to call him "sexist" - though i can't get over the irony of jim assigning the one female on the red team to make the dessert - but in terms of human power dynamics, i will bet you he would have approached a male chef making that dessert in an entirely different way. if not, i agree with matthew, there would have been potentially physical consequences.

gilmore: yes, you're right about the source of robin's attitude, i think. but my question was more of a real question: HAS there been anybody who has said "i've got this challenge by the tail because ..." who HASN'T been made to "eat their own words"? the latest example being eli bragging about his ability to pair food with wine. he was confident. he was wrong. as was mattin with the french food and, last year, stefan with his dessert in the finals, or andrew with his healthy cooking at the firehall, etc, etc. the editors just seem to love to burst bubbles, though maybe robin really will rock this challenge. in which case: bye bye mike i. or maybe eli?

[lisa]

Being Vegetarian and my husband being Vegan I am looking forward to the Vegan challenge next week. I dont understand why so many chefs are thrown off by this. It is still about flavor, just change your proteins and make it work. I am hoping to pull at least one great recipe from this that I can make at home.

[Will Allen]

Surprising and fascinating episode, one that could be employed in a management school class. The losing team illustrated the dangers of group think and what bad things can occur when a group has a near complete lack of conflict or tension. The effective manager/leader will often deliberately create tension and conflict as a means of developing solutions, and the ineffective manager/leader often trys to avoid conflict and tension, and thus cuts the organization off from solutions. Here, no person was willing to be the dissident voice, so they all marched, in step, off the cliff. This happens even with extremely talented people. I think Kevin grasps this very well, and that is why he was angry.

As to who deserved to go, I don't think it is even very close. Yeah, Jen fouled up pretty badly (although the FOH is not blameless in serving a sauce that has broken), but there is one word to describe a FOH who doesn't make the effor to describe the food to diners: quitting. Fouling up badly is unfortunate, but quitting is completely unacceptable. It would be akin to Jen recognizing that she was fouling up, and simply deciding to not send any food out. I don't dislike Laurene, in fact I rather liked her farewell address, in which she indicated, or at least it seemed to me, that she was rather tired of living with these people, and thus leaving contained some pleasure. She quit, however, so it made sense for the judges to accept her resignation.

[Joanna]

aaalex: "HAS there been anybody who has said "i've got this challenge by the tail because ..." who HASN'T been made to "eat their own words"?"

I guess it depends on the tone, but what about Kevin in the Pigs and Pinot challenge? He said that he is so confident working with pig, he'd be embarrassed if he didn't win -- not just that he thought he'd do well, but that he was confident enough to think he should *win* even before the challenge started.

The thing is, because Kevin tends to be modest, it didn't come across as bragging - it came across as an honest assessment of his chances. And he was right.

[aaalex]

joanna: good counter example, especially as i remember feeling nervous about kevin's chances after he said it.

[Independent George]

Ah, yes, the old Not So Invincible After All play.

[karen]

aaalex: Remember, he specifically told Robin that she'd had success with her dessert, so why not go with that. Only his brother had previously prepared a dessert and it did not win, so he was actually showing confidence in Robin being able to pull that off successfully. Not sexist at all, just practical.

[jh]

Top Chef Masters has been renewed for a second season!! Kelly and the three judges will remain the same. I wonder which chefs will compete...

[aaalex]

karen: in his initial decision, you're right, i guess. but i was talking about michael v. actually HANDLING her dessert. a no-no and a deep insult. he may have done this to some man he disliked or did not respect, but that man would have felt compelled to stand up for himself (as robin did) or to repay the insult with a push or a punch. a man, in robin's place, would be a more dangerous proposition (in general, anyway. i'm sure there are more than a few women out there who would have decked him, too, if they'd felt pushed to it) and i imagine michael v. would have - even if unconsciously - taken that into account.

independent george: "not so invincible after all" exactly!

[aaalex]

jh: YES! best news i've heard on this blog in a long time. i can't wait for TCM season 2 and i'm salivating at teh thought of who will be the chefs.

[Skillet Doux]

"So, we will not get the superduper 4 horsemen finale, because Padma dropped the bomb: only 3 in the final."

Somebody else might have pointed this out already, but I suspect this is a matter of semantics -- the "finals" versus the "finale", the former being the last two episodes in an exotic locale, and the latter being the final final challenge. Of course, we don't know. They've messed with the format before, but it's been a long time.

"They praised the chicken dish. Like most foodies, I can count on one hand the number times I order chicken at a high end restaurant. But every now and then you have one and go- WOW! This sounds like one of these.
"

After being bored out of my skull with it for years, I've really been rediscovering chicken the past couple of years. When it's good, it can be sooooo freaking good. And I still usually avoid it in restaurants, partly because it's so often intended as the "safe" selection for non-adventurous eaters, but chicken and calamari? Yeah, that's hard to pass up.

"About midway through the episode I was Certain that Jen was going home. The outfit & hairstyle she was sporting in her interview changed, and for some reason my warped mind decided those wily elves had filmed an extra interview because they needed more footage for their "loser edit.""

I thought the same about Mike V. (they did the same with him) before remembering that that's not unusual.

" I had expected Kevin and Jen to put their heads down and just put out good food - but I was surprised that Mike I. didn't step up when he saw the problem developing."

It sure looked like he was sitting on the sidelines from the edit, and we know he made that crack about being done, but I wouldn't assume he wasn't on the stove helping as much as he could. We might just not have seen it.

"I'm greedy. I don't just want our Top 4 to survive, I want them to thrive. I want to be blown away."

Agreed. You want them at their best. That's why last season's finale was so unsatisfying. But hey, it's one episode. No need to get despondent, I say.

"Ah My bad. Still, they didn't seem to like the halibut on air."

I believe they loved the halibut itself, and they dug her "consomme", but felt that something was lost in putting them together.

"Mike. Salt. Again."

It's definitely more of a trend than a blip at this point.

"So, I have a cooking question. What is the difference between poaching a fish in oil and frying? Is the oil poached fish at a lower temperature? That QF olive oil was up to a boiling point, so if Kevin dropped the sable fish in, why would that not have been frying? Just curious."

I think some others have jumped in on this, but yes, it's a matter of temperature. And I'm sure the high temperature was an accident due to the relay chaos... or, as somebody else mentioned, possibly one chef not picking up on her intention.

"Big changes in the top 4. Does Jen drop to 5?"

Ehhhh, we'll see. They tend to be less volatile later in the season. More history to refer to and easier to see particular episodes as exceptions. I haven't thought about it yet.

"Thank you Laurine for your brave sacrifice. It will not be in vain (hopefully). BTW, if a sauce breaks (Jen's trout) bet. the time it leaves the cook and reaches the table, it's on the FoH (and by extension, the wait-staff, who should be trained) to bring it the f*** back. You do *not* serve a plate of grease."

Yeah, this, I think, was one of the biggest issues... not just with her lamb. And the fact that she stated so emphatically to Tom that nothing was getting past her if it wasn't just right may very well be what clinched it for her.

"Oh...and I am tiring, just a bit, of Tom and others saying "This is the best ___ ever on Top Chef." Of course they are going to hype the current season. I think given the comments on the dishes, I don't see how this season RW rates as the best."

Glad to have you back, Matthew! I imagine this must get frustrating -- if not galling -- for a former contestant (or spouse thereof). But if it's any consolation, first of all, I believe they were specifically referring to the winning team, and certainly not the losing team. And secondly... well, you know the history of Restaurant Wars. It's kind of the Mission Impossible of Top Chef. There just aren't that many success stories to choose from :-)

"I am starting to like Toby more and more. His blog this week was good as well."

I actually had the opposite reaction to his blog this week. He laid out precisely why I have little to no use for traditional restaurant reviews. Except his wasn't a criticism. If you're telling me outright that the food and service combined comprise less than 50% of your score (relegating the quality of the food to... what?... 25%? 30%?) and actually name "how many celebrities hang out there" as one of your judging criteria, that pretty much sums up why I'm totally uninterested in what you have to say. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. He can review however he damn well pleases. And the audience for that type of review obviously exists (and may even be the majority). But that form of restaurant review is one that I'd really like to see go the way of the dinosaur.

"Being Vegetarian and my husband being Vegan I am looking forward to the Vegan challenge next week. I dont understand why so many chefs are thrown off by this."

Speaking only for myself as a total wannabe, it's because you want everything to be the best it can possibly be, and there's nothing more frustrating than saying to yourself, "Now, a little bit of pork fat would be the perfect way to-- oooooo, can't do that." Whenever I do something vegetarian or vegan, I always feel like I'm compromising. Not because I can't use meat or because I don't think you can do perfectly delicious things without it, but because I hate being in the position where I know that I can't use that one thing that I just know would make this dish perfect

Regarding the Mike V. vs. Robin thing, I don't want to get too much into the personal bickering, but I wonder if there isn't an alternate read. I'll have to watch it again, but these chefs always jump in to help each other out. Is it possible he was just jumping on the line to help get the food out the door, and she was overly defensive? I don't know that that's the case. I think it's hard to tell anything from what we're seeing. Mostly just positing a potential alternate read. Anybody who's worked in a kitchen like this... is jumping in on somebody's line without an invite a big no-no?

[matthew]

@independent george. Whoa...pump the brakes! Did you read my entire comment or just skip to the quoted line? I didn't make, as you suggest, "an immediate jump" to sexism. In fact, much aligned with your litany of counterpoints, my opinion (<- operative word) was prefaced with an observation that Mike V showed a complete lack of respect for Robin (gender neutral) generally. Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that I doubt Mike V. would have physically reached in on a male chef that way. That's just something you don't do--beit on the line in the kitchen, or at someone's computer in my office. I'm a photographer as well as a lawyer. I'd be ready to kick someone's ass if they tried to grab my camera to do something they felt was right/better.

[matthew]

Oh...I forgot to add that it was compounded by Mike V's scolding of Robin for cursing at him. I'm not invested in being right about my observation, but it did appear to me that Mike V tried to keep Robin in check. I'm sure if another male chef heard "Don't use that language with me" or "Calm down" or whatever he said, the response would be "F**k off!"

Funnily enough, it's been Mike I who has been, thus far, branded as the sexist.

[Kathy from Austin]

Will Allen makes some very good points. As it relates to FOH, Laurene KNOWINGLY served Jen's broken sauce to the judges (it was already late, why note take it back for fresh sauce) and also served the raw lamb. If she had been paying attention and was focused that would never have happened and Jen, Kevin and be extension the team might have won. Besides, she is purportedly a professional. Yet she doesn't take time to describe the dishes, even to the judges? I'm 100% convinced the right decision was made.

[Karen]

Interview with Laurine:

"I think if the playing field was equal and all things were fair, I think Jen was kind of instrumental in bringing the kitchen to a halt that evening."

"She's a perfectionist and I'm a perfectionist as well. I think the difference between us are when I fall short I'm clearly aware of it. I use those failures…With Jennifer...She's always shocked when she fails and is more defensive like, "I'm perfect so how can I possibly fail?"

Jen looked perfectly aware last night that she failed and has stated in the past that she felt she had not done well.

[Bart]

Dom: If you're telling me outright that the food and service combined comprise less than 50% of your score (relegating the quality of the food to... what?... 25%? 30%?) and actually name "how many celebrities hang out there" as one of your judging criteria, that pretty much sums up why I'm totally uninterested in what you have to say.

Just to clarify - you believe that restaurant reviews should be solely on the food? I'm just curious, because I don't think Toby was saying that the food is unimportant, just that the general atmosphere you get at a restaurant is equally important as the food. It's the cumulative experience.

Example, would you want to eat an Eric Ripert five-course meal while sitting on a milk crate, outside, under a freeway overpass? With someone just haphazardly handing off food in Glad containers?

Or, inversely, eating McDonald's served to you on fine china, linen plates, jazz in the background, tableside service? (I think this actually exists somewhere, in New York City... or used to)

Extreme examples, to be sure, but if only to illustrate his point

[aaalex]

dominic: you've got a plausible alternative, but i seem to remember michael v. wanted her to change what she was doing and jumped in to CHANGE it. to me, that's a no-no in a competition like this. robin is the only who's going to live or die by the dish, simple respect dictates that she be allowed the final decision. michael v. responded that he was only trying to help robin, but changing isn't helping. it's more like taking over.

it's an admittedly dicey situation. michael v. is acting like ec, and the kitchen needed a guiding hand. but he doesn't really have that authority. this isn't a normal kitchen, it's a competition. he can't decide another's fate, nor should anyone allow him to. i'm thinking this is why bryan was so pissed, at the end of the day. michael v. was, at times, close to abusing his authority.

interesting example from earlier this year: ashley's food was salted on the way out by eli. at judges table, she had to live with the dish, though eli may have fucked it up. grossly unfair for eli to have intervened. and it would have been unfair now, too, if michael v. had interfered in what was, when all is said and done, a successful dish by robin.

on the toby young blog: well, he's at least being honest. it's a bit like "the starf*ckers guide to restaurants" with all that time given to atmosphere and who's in the room, etc. but i imagine ALL food critics take the clientele into account, even jay rayner. the thing is, rayner's percentages are likely different. he probably gives more time to the food, but he'd likely start a review with words about the famous people hanging about, before getting to the food itself ... maybe...

[RIley]

^ First time commenter, long time lurker. Anyways, Laurine actually SAID that? Wow, guess she wasn't really ok/relieved at being eliminated. Understandably so, but that comment seems like a jab at Jen. I thought those two are friends?

Regardless, regardless. I feel that last night PYKAG decision was the right one. Even if it seems or was a pass, this was the freaking right time to give one.

And yes, Jen better pull herself out of that dark rotten hole & be amazing again. Enough with the off-sies, I want DOMINANCE.

[Skillet Doux]

"Just to clarify - you believe that restaurant reviews should be solely on the food?"

No, no, it's a package. I don't mean to deny the importance of everything else. (Well... celebrity presence... ugh.) But when the food isn't even half of the equation for you (and, presuming that service is rather important, considerably less), I find that ridiculous.

And also, to clarify, I don't think I used the word "should", and if I did, I shouldn't have. I don't mean to suggest that there's some "right" way to write a restaurant review. Merely that that kind of review and that kind of reviewer means nothing to me.

In short, finding that Toby Young places so much importance on so many other things only makes me less inclined to listen to what he has to say. And I think it lends an awful lot of credibility to the "style over substance" complaints about him -- when he seemed to be more interested in shoehorning in snarky one-liners than saying anything constructive (a trait that has, to his credit, diminished greatly as of late).

That blog post certainly didn't endear him to me, is all I'm saying.

[zsparks]

As the chief dissenter to RW, I have to say that I did breathe a sigh of relief when I saw them walk into the actual restaurants. On the other hand, it did make it about menu only, and it was clear that that's not all there is to creation of a destination. To top it off, abandoning decor did nothing whatsoever to help Jen and Kevin. What could they possibly have lost by spending time on a few decor selections? All the wrong decisions were made on their feet.

Mike V: I don't think any inter-personal stuff played out that wasn't what we should have expected. Edits to show Mike's immaturity (or pettiness?) have been escalating for awhile, and the Robin stuff was just an extension of what we spent the whole last seven days discussing here. People who complete the show without exchanging any smart remarks with anyone else are rare. When all that is edited out, it's TCM without the Masters'. Maybe that would be better, but Miguel and Tiffany closed that door for us long ago. Where would we be without our "I'm Not Your Bitch, Bitch" t-shirts?