Top Chef blog #1
Well, I'm going to do a Matty and blog about pop culture for a change instead of other unimportant things.
Tonight, it's Top Chef.
Last week's conclusion to Restaurant Wars was an experiement in "wtf?" deliberation. CJ showed over the span of two episodes that he wasn't engaged in the task by building what was considered to be the "dream team" of the remaining 8 (Tre, Casey, Brian and himself), and then taking a backseat, leaving Brian to run the front of the house and Tre to be executive chef. When the two restaurants hit a stalemate in part one, his second chance to shine proved to be... equally as tarnished. CJ had only one dish to work on, and did not assist the executive chef (the sous chef IS the assistant to the head chef).
Tre, however, did what an executive chef should: setting the overall tone of the menu, and taking the lead on the dishes being put out. He didn't get the help he needed, but that's as much CJ's fault as his own.
And, well, Brian did his front-of-the-house thing... poorly. Didn't even think about helping the kitchen or checking what came out. No tableside service either.
Casey was a good soldier... getting done what she needed to get done. Her dishes got the least praise but also the least criticism overall, and she didn't back up Tre when he needed help, but she at least put in effort that seemed to be missing from Brian and CJ for two weeks.
All of this commentary of course is to be taken with a grain of salt; editors and producers obviously cut content and add quick snippets of reactions to heighten the drama. Plus, a disclaimer is shown at the end of the episode saying that portions of each episode NOT affecting the outcome have to be edited out for length. Yet, something still did not add up with the whole situation, even taking into account that editing could have made something that wasn't there. Each has their own unique predicament that brings down the integrity of the show. Two scenarios are likely:
1) Concern at the Judge's Table for the lax work of Brian and CJ was truly there but could have been downplayed by editing. Their discussions about each of their faults were brief, interspersed with oddly-placed reaction shots and commentary, so there could have been some serious editing. Or, it is possible that the editors tried to make CJ and Brian look worse or downplay Tre's faults...
PROBLEM WITH THIS: The editors of Top Chef are screwing too much with what the overall opinion of the judges' deliberations and/or the actions of the chefs. Since the end result is Tre being eliminated, portions that didn't affect the outcome were eliminated (ala the clause), but the overall opinions of the judges might not have been accurately represented. Essentially, we might not have seen a lot of what really went on at the judges table...
2) There was truly little concern at the Judges' Table for Brian and CJ's lack of effort: therefore, the judges' commentary matched what they saw as the real problem; Tre's lack of leadership and too-many-dishes problem.
PROBLEM WITH THIS: While this scenario does follow the "portions that do not affect the outcome of the show" clause, this scenario would indicate a flawed thought process on the part of the judges. Never before has doing too little to help a team been a worthy, admirable trait for a Top Chef contestant, yet Brian and CJ seemed to do exactly that. This was skimmed over. This sets a dangerous precendent for the show and the judges.
Season 3 has been a refresher after the drama-over-food scenario of Season 2 (which led to no reunion episode, disqualification of one contestant after hazing another, lots of yelling, the accepted resignation of two other candidates for unrelated reasons, plus the assault by a fan of a contestant in a bar in Hawaii). The contestants mesh better together either because of built friendships or just a focus on the food over personalities... it feels like season one again, except with a set of chefs that has a slightly higher talent average. Yet, this episode's faults were very transparent, and the flaws in the show's design are growing more and more apparent.
As for the S1 vs. S2 charity cookoff, I found it amusing that Marcel and Stephen, the two weird, assy contestants got the team leader roles. Thankfully, both seemed to put that crap behind them and it was an entertaining show. The only gripe was the jarring chronology jump... this 1 vs. 2 thing could have been placed anywhere in season 3's run (like it has been) if it didn't include the Season 3 recruits. They hadn't started to compete, so the chronology felt weird. Plus, the competing chefs thought it was bullshit that the new recruits were judging them, having not been through the Top Chef gauntlet yet. If they were to include the Season 3ers, they should have led off Season 3 with a 2-hour premiere of this cookoff followed by the Season 3 premiere. It only makes sense.
That's it for me here. More later.
Tonight, it's Top Chef.
Last week's conclusion to Restaurant Wars was an experiement in "wtf?" deliberation. CJ showed over the span of two episodes that he wasn't engaged in the task by building what was considered to be the "dream team" of the remaining 8 (Tre, Casey, Brian and himself), and then taking a backseat, leaving Brian to run the front of the house and Tre to be executive chef. When the two restaurants hit a stalemate in part one, his second chance to shine proved to be... equally as tarnished. CJ had only one dish to work on, and did not assist the executive chef (the sous chef IS the assistant to the head chef).
Tre, however, did what an executive chef should: setting the overall tone of the menu, and taking the lead on the dishes being put out. He didn't get the help he needed, but that's as much CJ's fault as his own.
And, well, Brian did his front-of-the-house thing... poorly. Didn't even think about helping the kitchen or checking what came out. No tableside service either.
Casey was a good soldier... getting done what she needed to get done. Her dishes got the least praise but also the least criticism overall, and she didn't back up Tre when he needed help, but she at least put in effort that seemed to be missing from Brian and CJ for two weeks.
All of this commentary of course is to be taken with a grain of salt; editors and producers obviously cut content and add quick snippets of reactions to heighten the drama. Plus, a disclaimer is shown at the end of the episode saying that portions of each episode NOT affecting the outcome have to be edited out for length. Yet, something still did not add up with the whole situation, even taking into account that editing could have made something that wasn't there. Each has their own unique predicament that brings down the integrity of the show. Two scenarios are likely:
1) Concern at the Judge's Table for the lax work of Brian and CJ was truly there but could have been downplayed by editing. Their discussions about each of their faults were brief, interspersed with oddly-placed reaction shots and commentary, so there could have been some serious editing. Or, it is possible that the editors tried to make CJ and Brian look worse or downplay Tre's faults...
PROBLEM WITH THIS: The editors of Top Chef are screwing too much with what the overall opinion of the judges' deliberations and/or the actions of the chefs. Since the end result is Tre being eliminated, portions that didn't affect the outcome were eliminated (ala the clause), but the overall opinions of the judges might not have been accurately represented. Essentially, we might not have seen a lot of what really went on at the judges table...
2) There was truly little concern at the Judges' Table for Brian and CJ's lack of effort: therefore, the judges' commentary matched what they saw as the real problem; Tre's lack of leadership and too-many-dishes problem.
PROBLEM WITH THIS: While this scenario does follow the "portions that do not affect the outcome of the show" clause, this scenario would indicate a flawed thought process on the part of the judges. Never before has doing too little to help a team been a worthy, admirable trait for a Top Chef contestant, yet Brian and CJ seemed to do exactly that. This was skimmed over. This sets a dangerous precendent for the show and the judges.
Season 3 has been a refresher after the drama-over-food scenario of Season 2 (which led to no reunion episode, disqualification of one contestant after hazing another, lots of yelling, the accepted resignation of two other candidates for unrelated reasons, plus the assault by a fan of a contestant in a bar in Hawaii). The contestants mesh better together either because of built friendships or just a focus on the food over personalities... it feels like season one again, except with a set of chefs that has a slightly higher talent average. Yet, this episode's faults were very transparent, and the flaws in the show's design are growing more and more apparent.
As for the S1 vs. S2 charity cookoff, I found it amusing that Marcel and Stephen, the two weird, assy contestants got the team leader roles. Thankfully, both seemed to put that crap behind them and it was an entertaining show. The only gripe was the jarring chronology jump... this 1 vs. 2 thing could have been placed anywhere in season 3's run (like it has been) if it didn't include the Season 3 recruits. They hadn't started to compete, so the chronology felt weird. Plus, the competing chefs thought it was bullshit that the new recruits were judging them, having not been through the Top Chef gauntlet yet. If they were to include the Season 3ers, they should have led off Season 3 with a 2-hour premiere of this cookoff followed by the Season 3 premiere. It only makes sense.
That's it for me here. More later.