Top Chef - S6E9 Power Rankings

PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING!!!
There's a lot of sneaky intel out there, but I'm endeavoring to keep this blog a spoiler-free zone. This isn't just for the readers, but for me, too -- I don't want to know what happens! As such, anything that's already been broadcast or has been posted on the official Bravo site is fair game for discussion. I will, for example, discuss the preview of next week's show at the end of the post. But if you've heard rumors that one chef has been hosting a lot of dinner parties, or that another chef was spotted boarding a plane to an exotic locale, please keep them to yourself... thanks!

Hey, all!

The rankings this week might be slightly abridged. I'm on vacation and don't have access to the episode for my usual second viewing.

What I can say, however, without the benefit of a second viewing is that I thought the quickfire was fantastic. The contestants seemed to think it was a little ridiculous, and it was. It didn't exactly mimic a real world situation. But it was a challenge that tested their abilities, it set them up for success despite its difficulty (evident in the final products, both of which looked great), and it was fascinating to watch. You can only have so many traditional challenges before they end up comprising half the season -- Restaurant Wars, the taste-off, the mise en place relay -- but provided they have the talent to handle it, and they don't try doing it early in the season when it's bound to be a train wreck, I heartily nominate the blindfolded dish relay as a regular Top Chef challenge. I'd love to see this one again.

My feelings are somewhat mixed on Restaurant Wars ditching the decor element. I realize this is probably somewhat out of character for me, being that I generally throw my support toward the purer challenges, and maybe it's just nostalgia talking, but I kind of feel like truly building the place from the ground up, in however crude a fashion, was what separated Restaurant Wars from any other dinner party challenge. Of course, of course, restaurant service isn't quite the same (as clearly demonstrated by the Jen/Kevin logjam) and there's the front of house element, but still, I kind of liked the idea that the restaurants they ended up presenting really were the complete package rather than guest menus served in somebody else's restaurant. Still, a minor complaint, and it's probably just because I'm getting soft after five and a half seasons.

One very, very tangential thing I'd like to address, and for anybody who's been keeping up with the comments, I apologize for the fact that this is going to be somewhat redundant. But I was really taken aback by Toby Young's blog this week. I'd recommend you give it a look yourself, but the brief synopsis is that he talks about how "in the real world", restaurant reviews aren't just about the food. Which would be an enormously ho-hum thing to say if it weren't for the degree to which Toby decided to make his point. But hey, let's look at his own words:

"This show is about finding the best cook, not the best restaurateur. But in the real world, a food critic will never base a review on food and service alone. They’re worth, at most, 50 percent of the final rating. And even that overstates their significance when it comes to assessing the overall experience. Whether you have a good time at a restaurant is dependent on many other factors, some of which are difficult to quantify. What’s the ambience like? What stage is the restaurant at in its life cycle? Has it captured the Zeitgeist? How many celebrities hang out there?"

So let's be clear. As far as Toby Young is concerned, in restaurant reviews in "the real world", the food AND service combined add up to less than half of the equation. Which relegates the food to... what, Toby... 25%? 30%? A third at most? And if it seems tempting to simply take this as a bit of hyperbolic rabblerousing, or a twisted way of making the point that even restaurant critics aren't impervious to the PR machine, he links to what he calls one of his "typical review[s]", a 672 word screed that devotes one sentence -- ONE SENTENCE -- to the description of what he ate there. He calls one dish "excellent" and the other "pretty good".

That's it.

And now, the obligatory list of caveats. I'm not suggesting Toby Young can't review restaurants however he damn well pleases. And I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't plenty of people out there who can hear one dish was "excellent" and the other "pretty good" and feel that gives them all of the culinary information they need about a place. Nor do I mean to imply for a moment that things like service and atmosphere aren't important parts of the dining experience. Heck, some of the paid reviews I've written only let me devote about half of my space to the food by virtue of their format. And if Toby Young, despite his acclaim, has found it impossible to work for a publication other than the one whose editor apparently brought him into the office, sat him down and said, "Now, Toby, we want you to write about restaurants, but whatever you do, be sure to write as LITTLE ABOUT THE FOOD AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE," I take it all back. It wouldn't make me any more interested in what he has to write, but at least then I could respect that he's simply doing the job he's been assigned. But somehow, I doubt that's the case. When Toby goes on to talk about how he sometimes feels as though he could write a review without even bothering to taste the food, he sure doesn't seem to be saying this ruefully, as though musing over the absurdities of the restaurant press, but rather he seems to revel in the notion that restaurants are all about PR and names and scene and buzz and the food -- well, who really cares about that?

So why does any of this matter? If you're somebody who makes your restaurant selections based on what's hot and where to be seen, it doesn't. But if you're a food nerd, it's everything. You don't need to be told how many glitzy places with mediocre food are jam-packed while other joints that turn out amazing food but are a little rough around the edges go out of business. Restaurants need the press to survive (though thankfully, they need the traditional press less and less with every passing day), they have to address those critiquing them, and the restaurant-going public, surely to some degree, takes its cues from what restaurant critics value and write about. And where do you want restaurateurs focusing their energies? Creating incredible food, or creating buzz with a hot concept? Spending money on the best EC and ingredients they can find, or spending money on mahogany instead of melamine? Point being, this mindset -- not at all unique to Toby Young but rarely laid so bare as he does here -- is a direct assault on good eating. People who write with passion and knowledge and a mission to shine a light on great food no matter where it comes from are slowly changing the landscape for the better. But much as Toby likes to savage bad food, he's actively making himself part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

It's frustrating. It's just frustrating. And the only good thing about Toby's blog this week is that the attitude he embodies is becoming less and less common. And our collective restaurant scene is better for it.

End of rant. On with the rankings. Less exciting than most of you probably anticipate, given how screwy this week's episode was, but the rankings tend to stabilize later in the season when we have a lot more historical data to take into consideration.

The power rankings are not purely a prediction of who is most likely to win, or an assessment of last episode's dishes, or a reflection of the contestants' historical performance, but rather a nebulous amalgam of all three, combined with a little bit of gut feeling, to provide a relative measure of current awesomeness.

Wins

Top

Bottom

1 Kevin Quickfires 3 5 0 Last Week: 1 Eliminations 3 5 1 Ugh... I hate it when I give somebody a nice bump only to have them immediately lay an egg. But I'm going to leave Kevin at number one for four reasons. First, despite screwing up Laurine's lamb, he nailed his own dish. Second, I held him out of the top spot long enough that I hate to bounce him out of it so easily. Third, show of hands, does anybody really think this was anything other than a freak aberration? Anybody? Didn't think so. And fourth, if there is one contestant who has the confidence and level-headedness to screw up like that and simply shake it off and go right back to his usual self, it has to be Kevin. I'm not going to leave him at number one just to be stubborn, but he gets a little bit of slack and he just used it. I look forward to seeing him operate at his usual kick-ass level tonight.

2 Michael V. Quickfires 1 3 1 Last Week: 3 Eliminations 2 7 1 I am, however, going to shuffle things around a little bit here. Did Bryan deserve to lose the number two spot? Probably not. But Mike V. just gave us a little reminder of why he's the most exciting chef in the field. Restaurant Wars is probably the closest thing we'll see to the finale before we get there: no gimmicks, no restrictions, cook us some incredible food. And he used that opportunity to turn out two dishes that had the judges fawning, and on the back of those two dishes, he had them declaring it the best Restaurant Wars restaurant ever. That has to count for something. And these recipes are really exciting. For his pressed chicken with calamari noodles, tomato confit and fennel salad, he first makes the sauce by reducing chicken stock waaaaaaaay down, jazzing it up with lemongrass, fennel seeds and tomato water, and mounting it with butter. The chicken gets the best of both worlds, cooked sous vide with butter, garlic and thyme, and then seared crispy before service. The calamari is simply rolled, sliced paper-thin on a meat slicer and then briefly sautéed, and the whole dish is accompanied by tomato confit, slowly intensified over two hours in an oven with olive oil, garlic, salt, sugar and thyme. Put me in the camp that's bored with "safe" restaurant preparations of chicken and rarely orders it. But who isn't ordering that? His other dish is no less exciting. Seared cod, parsley coulis, zucchini tenderloin -- some fancy technique involved in making those flavors pop, but still relatively straightforward. The mussel billi-bi croquettes, though? He cooks up shucked mussels, fennel seed, saffron, fennel, onion, Pernod and cream, blends the resulting mix with gelatin, freezes it in demi-spheres, assembles the frozen demi-spheres into full spheres, panko-breads them and deep fries them. I would really like to know what kind of a texture that produces. Anyway, as we get into the later stages, Top Chef is all about the wow factor. Everybody can execute... who can truly surprise and delight the judges? This week, the wow factor belonged to Mike V. So I'm bumping him up to number two.

3 Bryan Quickfires 0 2 2 Last Week: 2 Eliminations 3 6 0 This hardly seems fair. Bryan certainly didn't do anything wrong. He did quite well, in fact. But when put on the same team, working together with few restraints, one brother impressed while the other amazed. For this week, at least, Bryan is outpaced by his little brother.

4 Jennifer C. Quickfires 3 5 2 Last Week: 4 Eliminations 1 5 1 Well, Jennifer certainly gave us a scare, and the questions about her only seem to grow. Don't get me wrong, I want Jennifer Norris back as much as anybody, but she's lucky she's not down at number five this week. And if I really believed that she and Mike I. might be in the same league and that her recent troubles were anything more than competitive pressure getting to her, she would be. But we have to be realistic. This horseman is on the bubble. The obvious reason she's last among the leaders is the one that everybody's fretting about. She really seems lost the past few episodes. The confidence is gone and she just doesn't look like the same chef. We know the potential is there, but she's looking dangerously close to a meltdown. The question is whether this week's disaster will wake her up or break her. But even if we presume that she turns it around and gets back to her early season form, there's another thing that bothers me a little and might keep her in the fourth position anyway. As I've said many times before, official or not, there are really three primary things the judges look for in this competition. Can the contestants execute, can they create, and can they express a mature, personal style? And simply by virtue of how it shakes out, the three thirds of the season usually end up focusing on those three in sequence. The first contestants to go are the ones who make bad dishes because of an inability to cook proteins, balance flavors, season properly and such. You can make boring food extremely well and cruise through the first third of the competition, even with a field this strong. When you get into the middle, people are obviously still eliminated for technical mistakes, but you also see people getting themselves into trouble more frequently for conceptual issues, bad decisions, bad pairings, uninspired dishes, and the less creative competitors start to get weeded out. What you're left with at the end are a bunch of chefs who have good ideas and know how to put them on the plate. So what the judges really start to look for -- and watch, it's going to be even more important this season than it's ever been in the past -- is which chefs are displaying a confident, mature, personal style through their food. Who's putting their personality on the plate? In the finals, it isn't going to be enough to make a great dish. It's going to have to be a great Kevin dish, or a great Michael dish, or a great Jennifer dish. When you look at the other three at the top, their styles are very distinctive. Kevin's very ingredient-focused, a little rustic, his dishes play simple but that surface simplicity belies some very sophisticated layering of flavors underneath. Bryan straddles the old and the new, bringing MG techniques and bold presentations to very, very classic flavor combinations. And Michael V. is a wild man, bringing all kinds of flavors, wacky creativity and a healthy dose of MG elements together and somehow turning them into a very cohesive and yet surprising fine dining package. So how would you describe Jennifer's style? Seafood? Very refined seafood? Strong sauces? When -- if -- it comes down to these four, I think it's going to be easy for Jennifer, talented as she obviously is, to get lost among these very distinctive styles. And that's going to hurt her. Of course, she has to make it that far.

5 Michael I. Quickfires 2 4 0 Last Week: 5 Eliminations 0 2 2 Not sure how much there is to say about Michael I. this week. A commenter last week noted that he may be the most consistently-ranked contestant in Power Rankings history. He sometimes makes the judges very happy, sometimes leaves them a little wanting, but mostly continues to look like a fairly sharp cook who's most likely to be left standing if one of the top four stumble.

6 Eli Quickfires 1 2 2 Last Week: 7 Eliminations 0 3 1 While Eli's role in this week's episode was interesting, it didn't really have much bearing on the rest of the competition. His dish was a brined, smoked and sous vided (can that be a passive verb?) piece of arctic char with horseradish, beet and sour cream that went through a number of MG machinations. The judges seemed neither particularly impressed nor particularly unimpressed, which seems to sum up their reaction to the bulk of Eli's dishes. Full props to Eli, however, for doing yeoman's work in the front of the house. If not for Fabio completely rocking the role last season, we might have been looking at this as the most impressive performance in the most meaningless (in terms of the overall competition) role of the season. Still, though, well done.

7 Robin Quickfires 1 1 3 Last Week: 8 Eliminations 0 1 2 I've heard some calls for Robin to be moved up in deference to her exceptionally well-received pear pithivier. But even setting aside the numbers stacked against her, and setting aside how much trouble she's been in lately (this episode excepted), let's examine one question that's been asked in the wake of that praise and the little bit of JT jockeying that followed. How much of the dish was hers and how much was Michael's? We don't know and we're not going to. But even if I were inclined to consider the success of the dish in her ranking, I'm not sure Mike's involvement or lack thereof is a positive either way. We know the idea came about because Robin's singular win was (partly) for the apple crisp she made back in episode six. And while Michelle Bernstein seemed to really enjoy it, she wasn't exactly doing backflips over it like the judges were this time around. If it was Mike's influence that took it over the top and made it a dessert worthy of a fine dining finish, then I'm inclined to give Mike at least as much credit as Robin. And if Mike was barely an influence at all, then the only two times Robin's received top mention, it's been for variations on the same dish. Neither situation says mover to me.

8 Laurine Quickfires 1 2 1 Last Week: 7 Eliminations 0 2 4 Well, I suppose the upshot is that between Radhika and Laurine, we can put the "Executive Chef takes the bullet" myth to bed. Of course, I'm not so sure that front of house being the new Executive Chef is any better (or more valid). There are a lot of people who feel that Laurine got a raw deal here. Not that it wasn't roughly her time, of course, but that she may have been sacrificed for a more popular and capable chef who happened to throw up an airball this week. Everybody has their opinions, and while I don't want to kickstart this debate again, mostly because it's getting really, really old, I'll simply tell people to remember that these eliminations took place long before the season premiered, and the producers -- if they were going to nudge the judges -- could only make guesses as to who is and isn't going to be popular. I don't deny the possibility that there might have been a little cumulative judging going on here, but that's a feeling and not something I'm going to call obvious, because you're kidding yourself if you think anything can be "obvious" when you're dealing with footage that's been edited this heavily. But there are two reasons this elimination doesn't get my gander up. the first is that, frankly, I don't mind a little cumulative judging. Yes, every challenge should be on its own merits. And yes, if you have a clear loser, that person should go. But if it's a toss-up, I have no problem whatsoever with the judges sparing the chef who hasn't been in constant trouble. So whether or not they do so -- consciously or otherwise -- is pretty much immaterial to me. But more importantly, I think the degree to which Laurine screwed the pooch is getting underplayed a little bit, here. First off, what is undeniable is that Laurine was terrible in the front. Of course, nobody expects her to act like polished, professional waitstaff, but you don't have to be an experienced captain to know that dropping plates and walking away without a word is completely inexcusable. It would have been at any table, and the fact that she did it to the judges was beyond stupid. In a front of house context, that's a big a mistake as serving a raw lamb chop. Which she also did. Ahhhh, people will say, but that was Kevin's mistake! No, it wasn't. Yes, he may be the one who botched the cooking, but she's the one who let it go through -- on her own dish, no less. I think what really sunk Laurine was her conversation with Tom before service. She stood there and told him with conviction that anything that wasn't cooked properly wasn't getting by her (nor should it). She made it abundantly clear that she understood her responsibility and intended to perform it. And then she simply abdicated. So unlike Jen, who didn't have the foresight to avoid setting herself up for failure, Laurine had the foresight to know exactly what she had do to, and then didn't do it. There's no question in my mind which is the greater sin. And the end result was that Laurine's best defense was effectively "Kevin botched my lamb, even though I let him, and never mind that I screwed up everything else I did." At least Jen, despite her problems, had one semi-good dish to hang her hat on. And when you look at it that way, I think the elimination isn't so surprising.

And looking forward to next week...

WARNING : MINOR EPISODE TEN SPOILERS AHEAD

Theme for the quickfire is TV Dinners, but it (thankfully) doesn't appear that they're actually freezing anything -- rather, making some kind of dinner served in a TV tray that's thematically appropriate for the show the chef draws. A simple themed quickfire, nothing surprising there. Oh, and Jen hates what she's doing. So yeah, nothing surprising there.

As for the elimination challenge, I would really like this to be the first and the last time I find myself researching the eating habits of Hollywood starlets. Seriously, if we're going to bring in a screen beauty, can't we just bring in a good ol' carnivorous one? Stereotypes aside, I know they're not THAT hard to find. Ugh. Anyway, contradictory reports over whether Natalie Portman is vegetarian or vegan or vegan vegetarian (whatever that means) or lacto-vegetarian or vegga vegga vegan or whatever abound, and anything that may or may not have been correct at the time it was written doesn't necessarily apply to the point in time when the episode was shot, so I suppose we're just going to have to wait to see how restrictive the challenge is. It seems clear that the chefs will be teased with but not be allowed to work with Craftsteak's astounding assortment of beef, which is some serious cruelty to animals (of the human variety). Robin feels she's all over this one, and I've no doubt she thinks so, but if this show has taught us anything, it's that the cream usually rises to the top. Kevin may miss his pork fat, but that doesn't alter his ability to taste and balance and extract and combine flavors. If it's a full-on vegan challenge, that might change the game a bit. That's some seriously tricky stuff to do on the spur of the moment if you aren't accustomed to it. But if it's just a vegetarian challenge? I don't see it as much of a leg up for anybody. My money's still on Robin going home.

Discuss!!!

Comments

[gilmore]

Can't argue with the standings. Agree that Kevin still deserves number one, Michael V. deserves number 2 and Jen is just a hair ahead of Mike I at this point.

Robin's desert is not a simple pear crisp. It is a Pear & Ginger-Frangipane Pithivier with vanilla ice cream and elderflower syrup. There was also a garnish of almond brittle. The recipe is here.

http://www.bravotv.com/foodies/recipes/pear-pithivier-with-vanilla-ice-cream-and-elderflower-syrup

Does this sound like a Robin creation or Robin's base with major influence from a Voltaggio?

[Anne]

Dom, I always admire you for your intelligence and your sensitivity. This blog (and your comments) has always been very kind, and I attribute the functionality of the comments section to your leadership. That said, well, I've taken some abuse for being a vegetarian over the years from foodies, with reactions from bemused ignorance to downright insulting, and so I'm a bit sensitive. And I'm having trouble parsing your statement above. Is your annoyance a result of spending too much time Googling Natalie Portman or the vegetarianism itself? Which merits the "ugh"?

For the record, I've been a vegetarian since I was 14, and I haven't once criticized someone for eating meat (except for my high cholesterol dad and his morning bacon, but I digress). And I hope in the reactions to tonight show people remember that vegetarians are people, too. They just don't eat them.

Now I have to go take my protein powder and anemia pills and stare wanly in the distance.

[seanchai]

Dag, that was abridged? :) Keep it coming!

[Naomi]

Thanks Dom. Excellent as always.

[kit]

Re: Toby Young as a critic

I'm getting the sense that Toby, in terms of his marketability/strengths, is all about having a particular voice - snarky, British, arguably over-candid. And I understand that food/restaurant critics come in all varieties, from the scene-centric snarkfests (Toby) to food-centric salivate-while-reading (Dom). I know Toby acted like a crazed catfood-comparison-spewing banshee when he first arrived, but honestly if his shtick is to gibber about everything but the food, I don't think it's crazy for him to think that he was hired to bring that shtick to the judges table. I know some have said he should have researched the show and thereby known what kind of criticism was appropriate (and to his credit he's seriously toned it down). But on the flip side, I'm wondering if Top Chef researched him and whether they realized what kind of critique they'd be getting by bringing him on. My best guess is this was their attempt to get someone cutting and witty, and capable of writing an amusing blog, to replace Bourdain. The one consolation is on take 2 of find-the-British-critic, they hired Jay Raynor! (Could you imagine if Toby were on TC Masters!?)

[dc]

Really liked your Mike V entry describing his superb dishes in all their gory technical detail. Art! It is too easy to lose sight of those winning dishes as the rightful star of the episode as, sadly, we so easily slip into the weeds of the editing, the drama, the controversy. I suppose its human nature.

[scythide]

"So why does any of this matter? If you're somebody who makes your restaurant selections based on what's hot and where to be seen, it doesn't. But if you're a food nerd, it's everything."

He's clearly not writing for food nerds. But that's okay, just like some people like referring to Zagats and others to Michelin.

[Dan V.]

@Anne:

People don't want a repeat of the Zooey Deschanel challenge from TC:M.

[JB]

Well, in regards to Toby, one only needs to remember that you can always tell the English, you just can't tell them much. When you go for food, what is it that always brings you back? Great table scapes (I think not, pun intended) or is it the loud disco beat (nope, detest the Hard Rock's of the world). It is usually that one flavor or that combination that you have a hard time replicating at home. You are probably a lot like me in that I have a long list of one hit wonder resturants. The type that invoke the Jedi mind trick, move along nothing to see here. By the way, I agree that Kevin and the V Bros are the class of this year.

[Jon Olsen]

She's a level five vegan.

[anon man]

"Seriously, if we're going to bring in a screen beauty, can't we just bring in a good ol' carnivorous one?"

Agreed. If Natalie Portman liked a bloody rare porterhouse she would be even sexier in my eyes...

[Mariahe]

@ Jon Olsen: heee!

Re: Toby's review ethic. To me, it's as if an opera critic said that the singers and the orchestra make up no more than 50% of the review. The rest is the theatre's decor, how cool the audience is, whether the seats are cushy...

Re: Natalie Portman. She has a line of vegan shoes, so I'm pretty sure she's vegan.

I love that these are the abridged rankings.

[aaalex]

a few half-thoughts: "the cream usually rises to the top"? lisa fernandes kind of forces doubt over that one, no? and remember: ALL of these people can cook. in effect, they're all "cream". the question top chef addresses is: can they cook under extreme pressure in unnatural situations in strange surroundings. the reason there are surprises, like carla or ariane, is that it's very easy to forget they can all cook. this show is edited to within an inch of its life partly to entertain and partly to justify choosing one chef over another when, given the different styles and traditions they embody, such choices are not all that feasible. as bryan said about robin: "she cooks differently than i do. that doesn't make her better or worse". you could only be surprised about hearing that if you let yourself forget these people can all, actually, cook.

dominic: your toby young rant was very amusing and well expressed, but i want to take a moment not so much to defend toby as to express my appreciation for his words. first, they were honest, as you admit.
second, it's more than a little ironic that we're here, reading about a television reality show that forces us to ask the same basic question toby raises: just how much does food count for, in the success of the "top chef experience"? we've had debates about just this matter. the reality show fans care more for the drama than the cooking. someone here wrote: "if i want to watch a show just about the cooking, i'll watch iron chef". meaning, there are a lot of skillet doux readers who are more interested in the "peripherals": interpersonal drama, above all. for them, food is a kind of pretext, i guess.

what toby articulates is deeply true: food nerds (and i count myself as one) perhaps overestimate the importance of the food. i was kind of surprised when someone asked if anyone would like to eat eric ripert's food under a bridge while sitting on crates. and i think you, dominic, answered that you WOULD eat ripert's food there. (you may have been joking.) eating chef ripert's food in a place where you could smell garbage and car exhaust is an insult to the chef ripert's food. smell is a crucial aspect of taste. also, environment is crucial: if you're not relaxed, if you're distracted - because the waiter is a dick, because the water has unknown matter floating in it, because you ordered something rare and it came back like shoe leather, etc - you're not going to be able to keep your mind on the food. the human element is absolutely important. restauranteurs will spend lots of money getting the spot LIGHTING right, in a restaurant. (in one parisian restaurant, you were able to eat in the dark. the theory being that this would focus your taste buds. i think such a restaurant an abomination. we use and should use all our senses while eating. in fact, someone once told me that the reason we clink glasses before we drink is to add a little something for our ears, wine engaging our sense of smell, taste, touch, and sight already.)

i know, dominic, that you're not going to have problems with most of this. you admit that decor, atmosphere, etc. are important. it's a matter of degree and, for me, there's grounds to defend toby's idea of food and service being at 50%. what happens in a restaurant is a complex ritual, of which the food is only a part. think for a second: how often do you go to a restaurant at which you're served food that is better than anything you could make at home? different? sure. but the pleasures of eating at home are the pleasures of a known environment. a restauranteur will either try to compete with your home, by making his place as homey as possible, or doing something entirely, unforgettably different - and yet comfortable. take a look at bryan voltaggio's restaurant website. it's classic. the photo's are all of this old, stately but homey place. and there are maplethorpe-light photo's of bryan v. by a field or in front of cows. he's a great chef, but he's selling you an image. and he's not leaving a thing to chance, either. toby, in acknowledging the effort that goes into creating that IMAGE, is acknowledging the hyper-importance of the ritual surrounding food, especially surrounding food served in a restaurant (where, to begin with, we have to be put at ease about the credibility of the restauranteur and the credibility of the chef, etc)

sorry for going on so long. (though of course there's so much more to say.) i understand your argument with toby is an argument of degree. but i'm not sure you're really giving toby his due. eating out is a very very complex human ritual, anthropologically speaking, and while some may focus exclusively on the food and some exclusively on the atmosphere (or the caché of the place ... i've heard it's now almost impossible to get a place at VOLT), most of us fall in the middle somewhere, closer to the centre, i bet. we don't want the dickhead waiter, the stink of car exhaust (or vanilla candles, for that matter). we want the sense that we're doing something special, something we will remember fondly and we want the food, which is, after all, evanescent (hard to remember tastes) to be part of that memory.

(of course, we go out for different reasons. sometimes, we go out to impress our guests. in that case, it's even more difficult to assess the ultimate value of the food.)

[deesher]

This may help explain Natalie's diet preferences:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalie-portman/jonathan-safran-foers-iea_b_334407.html

[Danny]

First, aaalex, what a beautiful thing you wrote. Once I was in Thailand at an island called Kol Phi Phi. This island is spectacular but horrifyingly months after I was last there it was devestated by the tsunami. I often think of the amazing people that I've met there over the years and how horrible it is that the majority of them perished.

But I had an experience that I will never forget. Onne perfect night we were eating at a table on the beach. They brought the table and chairs to the water's edge. A band was playing with this beautiful woman with an amazing voice singing American Country/Western songs in phoenetic English. The most memorable dish was a ginormous Lobster that had been grilled with peppers, garlic, lemon grass and a bunch of stuff I didn't recognize infused into the lobster. It is the one meal of my life that I will never ever forget and it was because of all of the above. And in SF my favorite places to eat were hole-in-the-walls: amazing Hunan, a Pho to die for and a carnitas burrito that had me moaning as I ate it. Nuff said.

On to the power rankings. Assuming that it is a vegan/vegetarian challenge I think that some of those rankings should be changed. Mike I did something that has never ever occurred on TC. He created a dish that caused a judge to ask for salt!!!! Wow! Eli made an unremarkable dish that was said to have no excitement.

Robin, Robin, Robin. We know two things. Due to no fault of her own she was limited to one dish. Second, how much of the dessert was hers. We know that the basic concept was hers. We know that she changed it from apples to pears and we know that she wanted to use elderberry. As for the Ginger-Frangipane we know nothing. Was it Robin's idea or was it Mike V's? Any sure answer is merely speculation. More speculation - would it have been as enjoyed without it? Who knows. We know that the judges loved it and we were shown a diner who said it was the best dish of the meal. If it were anyone else we would be praising her. Instead, we are questioning her abilities even when she shines. Hmmm.

If it is indeed a Vegan challenge I would expect Robin to do very well and maybe make the top 3. I would guess that Eli was the most likely to fall. But we see a clip of Robin saying how great the challenge is for her which in reality TV-world is usually a sure sign of saying bye-bye. But we are seeing Jen steadily crumble. She always doubts her talents but this looks to be a serious meltdown. TC does not pick the best chef - it picks the person who is best at competing on TC with all the pressure, confined living, non-stop competition and cameras that this entails.

Can't wait. Bravo is also on the HD channel where I live which means I can see the East Coast feed. 7 instead of ten. Cooking starts at 5:30. Eating at 6:55, silence at 7!

[paula]

Awesome analysis, Dom. Just awesome. Well-written, well-reasoned, and I'm in agreement with almost every word you say. But I hope you have a sense of humor about yourself, because I can't help but point this out:

"But there are two reasons this elimination doesn't get my gander up."

Tee hee! I love it when people mix metaphors.

[Bart]

I'm amused that my "Eric Ripert on a milk crate" meme keeps popping up. aaalex and Danny, in total agreement with what you said about Toby's reviews.

What I do like though, is that even people who vehemently disagree with what Toby says are, in the same breath, thankful and appreciative of his candor. That's something. I wish more critics would be more forthright about what they value in their reviews.

On to the rankings...can't argue with them. And I'll concede the point that Robin, being praised for essentially the same dish, doesn't have enough going for her to warrant a bump. But if she knocks something out of the park tonight and outperforms Eli, I think it'd be high time to consider a switch.

But then, she's getting the "LOL I'M SO CONFIDENT YAY!" edit which inevitably means she's going to get the axe.

[KinderJ]

@Jon-

... I eat nothing that casts a shadow.

Danny- The food in Thailand is amazing, as are some of the restaurants. One meal I had there started with delicately battered and fried flowers, and they were far from the most memorable part of the meal. The way the lavenders and blues came through the fragile batter was incredible, and made even more striking by the fact that I was eating it in the garden courtyard of the restaurant. Just magical. Sure, ambiance and service are important, but would I have treasured my banana and sesame soup, made with small lavender bananas (true!) in a strip mall in Topeka? You bet. That was one great dish.

But eating it in a midnight garden under tropical stars with the woman you love makes it even finer.

[Dave_P]

Spot on rankings & comments, Dom. Nothing really to add other than wild speculation: Robin survives one more week thanks to the nature of the challenge... which also allows the V's to really rock it. Michael V ftw. Jen's back on bottom (again, due to challenge), but Eli is sent home.

My take on Toby & his bretheren is that they're "Lifestyle" writers, to be read alongside fashion reports and celebrity gossip. They are not really for foodies. Once, there was no alternative, but nowadays, people like Dom are here for some of us, and this trend will only get better. Not to say there isn't a place for Toby's reviews, since many, maybe even most of the high-end restaurant-going public will want to mingle with the stars more than eat amazing food, and more power to them.

--
Dave

[mncharm]

Dom, the only thing I would question you on is whether you know what "abridged" means. ;) Thanks for taking the time on your vacation to make our Wednesday at work a little easier to take!

[Mann of Sandd]

Hello all,

Just wanted to say thank you for the many responses to my post on last week's power rankings regarding my upcoming visit to Portland and Seattle. Your responses were researched and appreciated! I can't wait for the trip. So, thanks again!

[Skillet Doux]

Lots to respond to, but Anne, I just wanted to quickly address yours.

Let me be absolutely clear... though I've cracked what I hope were taken as friendly jokes about the same once or twice over the years, I have the utmost respect for anybody who decides to follow a vegan or vegetarian diet with conviction. Some of my extended family are the same, they believe what they believe, they walk the walk and I completely respect that. Those who I'll take shots at include:

1) Those who arrive at it because it's trendy rather than because it's the result of personally-held beliefs.

2) Those who arbitrarily decide what they want to eat and not eat and then construct elaborate, self-contradictory justifications for why they'll eat A but not B. Eat what you want, no problem, but don't pretend there's really any rule at work here. Plus, you just make life hard for those who really are acting on principle (ditto number 1, I suppose).

3) Those who propagate bogus medical/scientific information in support of their dietary habits.

And most importantly by a wide, wide, wide margin:

4) Those who attempt to dictate my choices through legislative or obnoxiously coercive means (foie gras, etc.). Talk about your beliefs, absolutely. If you believe you're right, try to change my mind in a respectful manner. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect.

Sadly, those last are the vocal fringe minority, but as with any group, to many they're the public face. But in case I haven't already made it clear, none of this really has anything to do with veganism/vegetarianism itself. You deserve to eat what you want to eat without having to take abuse for it, as far as I'm concerned.

Specifically, when I expressed exasperation about trying to look up Natalie Portman's dietary habits, it has nothing to do with whether she eats meat and/or dairy and everything to do with the fact that I loathe the cult of celebrity and the environment where her dietary habits have consumed as much online press as they have. I was also poking fun at the fact that TC was playing into the stereotype yet again. Hollywood starlet? Of COURSE she's a vegan or vegetarian. (Or, conversely, we want to do a vegan/vegetarian challenge... I know! Get a Hollywood starlet!)

Hopefully that makes where I stand clear :-)

[paula]

Well put, Dave. Also: Interesting prediction. You should get some sort of prize if that comes true. (Glad bags? An autographed cookbook?)

[Danny]

Kinder J.....isn't Thailand amazing? The most loving and accepting people I have ever met. And the food!!!! I've eaten in fancy restaurants, on street corners and yes, the occasional grasshopper. And I would have that beach meal anywhere. But like you, on the beach with the person you love and with spectacular atmosphere....nothing can replace that. Meanwhile, I really want to taste those fried flowers even if it is under a freeway!

[jse91]

Bart -

I have been hoping you could point me in the direction of the Eric Ripert place under the freeway!

[Sean]

Thank you for a terrific blog . In fact, I look foward to reading your blog at least as much as I anticipate watching the actual show!

[TokenOmnivore]

During Top Chef Masters vegan challenge, didn't one of the chefs mention that his daughter had some food restrictions? I think it was Rick Bayless's daughter Lanie, but I haven't been able to confirm it.

I'd much rather have Rick and Lanie show up (or whoever the pair is) and say "please cook for us" than have it be some random Hollywood starlet.

Or hell, what about that fire station that cooks vegan? (http://www.theengine2diet.com/)

[mncharm]

Let me just say, I would LOVE for Eric Ripert to open his new restaurant, Under the Bridge, in Minneapolis. Maybe he reads this blog and will take the hint!

[mncharm]

I don't really care if Natalie Portman is on the show or not -- sure, it's cheesy to put on Hollywood actors (although she at least has a demonstrated level of talent, class, and intelligence), but as long as the cooking competition is good, who really cares if she's on screen for a few minutes?

This is a game, after all, right? It's like fining NFL players for excessive celebrations. This isn't life or death, it's a cooking game show.

[Megan H.]

Dom -

Thanks for clarifying your veggie comments. Like Anne, as a long time vegetarian, I am SO STOKED about getting a vegetarian challenge!

FYI, the vegetarians that bother you, also bother me. ;-)

I will be interested to see reactions to this, because on one hand, I don't see how this is different from any of the other "dietary restriction" challenges (i.e. cook low fat/low carb/low cholesterol, etc), and it seems completely valid to see how chefs work with flavors when the ingredient list is limited. Plus, I don't know, but I would have to imagine that vegetarian has to be one of the more common special requests that chefs get. I know that when I go to a nicer restaurant, I *expect* to be able to ask for a veggie alteration.

[jh]

If the challenge is just vegetarian, then I roll my eyes. It's not extremely difficult and restrictive to cook vegetarian, and I'm sure that many, if not all, of the chefs have a vegetarian dish on their menu. Billions of people are vegetarians, granted many of them are in Asia. Vegan, on the other hand, is a little more difficult, especially if you don't know which food are no-nos, which includes bacon jam. There's a restaurant in the Bay Area that is vegan (they don't even use honey because of the working bees), and all their food is amazingly tasty...you wouldn't even know that it was vegan restaurant unless you read the small type at the bottom of the menu.

I would like to see them use harder restrictions. Perhaps a challenge where they have to cook for people with hypertension, and therefore, they must restrict their salt content. Then in true reality TV form, take away all the salt and salty condiments in the kitchen and see what type of deliciousness or disasters ensue. Another flightly challenge would be to cook a dish that adheres to a crazy diet fad, ala the detox diet of orange juice and molasses.

[gilmore]

Call me a skeptic. I don't think Robin has the advantage she thinks. Great cooks cook great. The top 4 probably have had to prepare vegan dishes, but more importantly, they make some great vegetable sides. I don't think it is a stretch to take a great vegetable side and make a great vegan dish out of it. I know that my wife can and does with her creativity.

If it was a kosher challenge, I don't think Robin or Eli would have an advantage. Given the same ingredients, a great cook should make a better kosher meal than an ok kosher cook. Given the nature of TC, the best cooks don't always win. I get that and robin may squeak through again. But I don't think there is any home field advantage to this challenge with this crew.

That said, if one of the chefs had a vegan restaurant or a significant vegan portion of their menu, they would have an advantage in creativity, etc. But these are all meat/fish cooks. No advantage to Robin.

[babyarm]

I looked at the remaining chef's menus where I could find them and Bryan has a fantastic sounding vegetarian tasting menu of 6 courses.

The rest seem hit or miss. The people you'd stereotypically expect to do well would be Robin and MikeI and you'd expect Eli and Redbeard to struggle a bit.

My money is on Bryan tonight, however.

[timothy]

Natalie Portman is a talented person, right? At least as talented in her way as Penn and Teller are in theirs? I am just saying... I am looking forward to seeing what she brings to the episode.

[zsparks]

Bart - You have just created the conditions for the next season's roughing-in challenge, and invited the guest judge. The cheftestants will be cursing you by name as they light their trash barrel fires and try to re-create a Ripert dish under a freeway bridge.

[marjorie]

as ever, delicious post, dom.

the folks at jewish web site i write for, Tablet magazine, were PRAYING (sic) that this would be a kosher challenge. portman (nee hershlag) did go to jewish day schools and she's very jewishly identified. but i think she was veg if not vegan when this ep was shot, and i think cooking truly kosher would be impossible on Top Chef. (sourcing kosher meat and a kosher kitchen, utensils, cookware, cutlery...being limited by not being able to use milk products when cooking with meat or within a 3-6 hr window afterward...) feh, as my people say. but fun to ponder! (and hey, we know hung huynh can cook kosher with the best of 'em. he worked at a glatt kosher -- aka SUPER-DUPER-MEGA-KOSHERER-THAN-THOU -- restaurant for a few months after the show.)

as for toby's writing-as-performance-art: whatever. (or hey, let me reuse "feh.") a few yrs ago i got an email from some unknown guy named Toby Young, writing a piece for Spy about "women who published books shortly after graduating from harvard." (i was one of them.) would i be willing to chat? i would not. didn't call him. i figured nothing good could come.

the piece ran a couple of months after that. its title: Horny Co-Ed Sluts Talk Dirty. it listed basically every female harvard grad under 35 who'd written a book, taking potshots at every last one, even though they had almost nothing in common. it said that male harvard grads don't have such opportunities because they are not a historically oppressed group. (ah yes, white men who went to harvard are terribly, terribly oppressed, and i'm sure NONE of them got book deals between 1987 and 2003.) the piece is full of the overwrought, tortured wordplay that always makes tom colicchio wince; the movie-comparison-laden last paragraph (what IS it with toby young and belabored movie parallels?) in particular would make poor tom have a seizure. (and then michelle bernstein would deck toby.)

anyway, now here he is on Top Chef! it is inspiring that being a marginally talented, people-alienating, non-harvardian white man hasn't stood in his way.

while i'm delighted that performance art can still survive in this economy, i wonder whether next season jay rayner will get bumped up from Top Chef Masters.

[rab01]

If they didn't just have Zooey Deschanel on Top Chef Masters for a vegan+ challenge (also no gluten), I'd be more stoked for a Natalie Portman vegetarian or vegan challenge.

Pretty much every season has a "make a meal for a celebrity and her friends" challenge. Those challenges are usually pretty good and I've got nothing against this one. They should've just waited until next season to bring in Natalie Portman.

My prediction is Kevin for the win, Eli for the boot, and (sadly) Jen to continue her slide. Everything is relative and the others have shown more flavors that don't depend on animal protein or milk/butter/cream. Her dish might be really good and still be near the bottom.

[meorav]

Watched it this morning on Amazon, and I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying that I found the guest judges quite likeable, and the episode full of good humor.

As for the food, well that's really such a small percentage of our overall experience that, as per Toby, I don't need to mention it (though I really should say that Natalie Portman and her dinner guests were hot! And she's a celebrity!).

On another topic, I want to suggest that RW should be saved for the penultimate episode - let the final 3 show their "chef-ness" by being the EC of their own place which they have to design, staff, and execute.

Having RW so early in the season will always lead to poor (and unjust) results, whether "EC"s competing against their "sous" chefs, or chefs going home for FOH failures, because it is by definition a skewed playing field. The judging will always be apples v oranges because not all are filling the same role/ competing on the same terms.

Only by giving all the competitors the same role (EC, for example,) do you have a level playing field for fair competition.

[nm]

I'm giving Jennifer a pass on the last couple of challenges because in real time she was just coming off the stomach flu when they were filmed. If she made it to the finals, as I expect, she ought to be Jennifer Norris once again.

[Jon Olsen]

This blog needs merch. Screw the "bacon is a vegetable" shirts. Just once I'd like to see a chef wearing "Guybrush Threepwood is my copilot" on a tshirt.

[babyarm]

how does one watch this on amazon ahead of time exactly?

[babyarm]

Ya, must have been an error, and you slipped one by them. It now shows unavailable due to rights.

[Dreamboat]

In the spirit of education, could someone post the rules and restrictions of Kosher cooking in a nutshell. While I am familiar with some of them (no pork, not meat and dairy on the same plate) I would like a fuller education.
Thanks!

[meorav]

Don't know what to tell you - I just checked again, and on my computer I can still access the episode at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002UNCVY8/ref=atv_dp_series?ie=UTF8&redirect=true

Plus, it's also downloaded to my machine. I got an email just before 6am from Amazon saying my Top Chef video order was available. This doesn't happen every time (early access), but it has happened a few times previously as well.

If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to make this a high-stakes quickfire :)

[Joanna]

Dreamboat: my understanding of kosher rules is somewhat limited, but I'm sure if I get something wrong, or miss a part, someone will come help me out. :)

1) Animal meat can only be kosher if it comes from an animal that has split hooves and chews its cud OR if it is poultry. The animal must be slaughtered in a specific way and the slaughter must be blessed by a rabbi.

2) Meat and dairy cannot be eaten in the same meal. (As far as I know, the amount of time between "meals" is a judgment call.)

3) Anything that is not meat or dairy is parve; this includes fish. (If fish counted as meat, there would be no bagels with cream cheese and lox!)

4) No shellfish.

5) Any plates, pots, pans, or cooking utensils that touch meat cannot be used for dairy, and vice versa.

I think that's most of it... from someone who never kept kosher, but lived with a kosher roommate for a few months!

[marjorie]

joanna's post is a good start. if you want more, this is a decent 101 kashrut (noun form of "keeping kosher") tutorial:

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

[kit]

Re: kosher

There are some pretty big prohibitions, like no pork and no shellfish, but the exact contours of what it means to be kosher can vary greatly, depending on how you (or your rabbi) interprets the requirements of Jewish law. For example, there was quite a debate a few years ago over whether NYC tap water was not kosher, due to very small crustaceans that were found in the water.

[FleetoPod]

Dreamboat: Joanna gave us the readers digest version of Kosher. For a more in depth look, google the word "Kashrut" (Jewish Dietary Laws) or check out following website: http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

BabyArm: Video on demand websites restrict access by users IP address. Meorav must be in location outside of Bravo/Broadcast TV restrictions. I live in NY and am subject to black out restrictions on the internet by the local sports teams. So I get around that by using my jobs network that show IP address out of the black out area.

[doktarr]

There's probably only two rules of kashrut that Joanna missed that could/would come up in a Top Chef challenge:

1) "The animal must be slaughtered in a specific way" involves a few things that cut down on options. Notably, the blood has to be allowed to drain from the animal, which is why most kosher red meat is brined.

2) Any wine used either in cooking, or drank with the meal, has to be made by Jews. There are more good kosher wines than there used to be, but it's a notable restriction.

[Jordan]

Im praying Robin goes tonight, heres why. If Robin goes I think the best 6 cheftestants made the top 6, i dont mean chefs i mean cheftestants. Id be willing to agree with anyone who says hector or ashley may be better chefs then eli or mike I, but they werent better cheftestants. From the start these top 6 have shown the most confidence, seemed to be playing to win and all seem to think they can/will win (in my opinion if there is one of the top 6 who doesnt think he can win its actually Mike I). They all seemed to have a good understandinf of the show and what it takes to survive on top chef. I would have been much more surprised/dissapointed if eli went when hector did even if hector is probably better.

If robin goes tonight that every episode here on out, someone good goes home, if she doesnt every episode can still be waiting for Robin to go. If Robin goes there isnt a Carla, Leah, Lisa, Spike, Sarah (the cheesemaker from seaon 3), or Mikey in the top 6. It will be 4 strait episodes of someone legit HAVING to be eliminated and i think that will make them all step up and cook.