Does Top Chef Need fixing?
I finally caught up with Top Chef Season 5 since I've been home for a few days (thank you, DVR), and I was mostly satisfied with the winning chef. However, many people weren't.
For those who did not watch the finale (Semi-spoilers), it became quite apparent that there was a three-way decision to be made: 1) Pick the chef who cooked the best meal that day 2) pick the one that has had the best track record over the season with challenge wins, but who had seriously low lows on his off days notoriously bad attitude 3) Pick the chef whose meal that day was a disaster, but was a self-described "tortoise" in a competition of hares, who had been wowing the judges the most the past few weeks.
All had a good shot going into the finale, and the final decision has brought forth discussion about the show's selection process of season winners.
Every season, the finale's competition has mostly been free-form. Often, the only limitations placed on the meal are how many courses must be presented and whether or not one of those has to be a dessert. Head judge chef Tom Collichio usually finished the challenge description by saying "cook us the best meal you have ever cooked", or something to that effect.
Now, (semi-spoilers again), the aforementioned Chef #1 won the competition. He presented the best meal of that round of the competition according to the judges. The question is, should improvement, attitude, a good track record... should any of that stuff be factored in for the finale?
Michael Park offered up many great suggestions, including the changing of the winner selection process. His main argument is that the winner of one week (which just happens to be the final one) determines the winner of the whole season, which feels unbalanced when he phrases it that way. One, such as myself, would argue that the chefs that make it to the final round have run a dozen-plus-week screening process to get to the finale, and finally giving them a chance to really cook for themselves without limitation really is the proper way. Track record and momentum are irrelevant by format of the competition, and here's why:
1) heavily-winning chef like a Hung or a Stephan could be knocked out just before the finale. If that happened, track record would not be an issue. So, whether a chef has won numerous challenges before cannot have bearing on the finale selection process, for the simple reason that it can easily be counted out. If all finale-advancing chefs won challenges equally, it can't be systematized into the selection process. And if it can't be systematized, then it lacks objective qualification.
2) Momentum does not prove a chef's worthiness because. If someone rises to the top late in the competition, one can make the argument that they improved over the course of the competition and deserves an extra boost for "learning something" or stepping up one's game. But isn't this "Top Chef", not "Most Improved Chef"? It's the first.
Also, while attitude is a consideration, chefs like Howie, Stephan and Tiffany cannot be actually faulted for these things unless it actually disrupts the competition. Top Chef judges have been incredibly fair about this -- only during team events like restaurant wars or competitive foul play happens do the judges take it into account. In the case of Stephan, I actually think he was advanced in the last few rounds before the finale so Hosea and him could have a showdown, which is something I never really noticed before. Sure, there is the villain on every season, but those villains only seem to advance when the their product makes it valid. This season, Stephan had some bad meals in the few weeks leading up to the finale (or so the editors led us to believe). Yet, somehow he kept advancing, including knocking out Leah, whose judging commentary was much more positive than Stephan's in the final edit of the show.
Park's other suggestions are mostly good. I do have to respond to his "focus on food, not personalities" idea -- yes, personalities clashed with Hosea and Stephan this season. It was palpable, frankly. The show has had a pretty interesting track record with this, and has mostly sought to find equilibrium between the serious competition aspects (which far surpass any major network cooking show) and the human elements:
Season 1 was frankly bland in terms of the food competition AND the personalities in my opinion. I'm surprised it made it to Season 2, which tried to jazz up the personality side of the show TOO much (remember Marcel getting beaten up and head shaved?). Yet, the show recovered from that as well: Season 3 was a love fest, seemingly a casting reaction to the bad blood of Season 2, since everyone, even the gruff Howie, seemed to clink beers at the end of the night and not hold grudges. Season 4 went back to bland mostly -- the challenges were a little more boring, and the chefs were mostly subdued to match, aside from some bubblies (Stephanie) and crazies (Andrew). This was probably a reaction to the sugariness of 3. Season 5 seemed to be a bit of a reaction to the soulless season 4 by trying to get people invested again by presenting conflicts and relationships that people would care about (Fabio and Stephan, the ridic Jamie/Stephan, etc.) Every season seemed to follow this continuing dialectic, and it's kind of a wild card -- Every season has something to like, every season (except maybe 3, which I feel had the best talent and best challenges) had something to dislike.
So, Season 6 is on its way. Casting calls are going on as I type this. To conclude this ramble, let me sum up: yes, there are reasons to fix the selection process for the finale, but actually a lot of the cited reasons don't hold water. If the show ain't super-broke, it doesn't need fixing. As for the other aspects I see in the show that need fixing, let's hope Top Chef's goal of the perfect balance of competition and personality is finally struck next season. Let's also hope it's in a good venue (or they do a Top Chef USA Road trip -- because I don't know if you can really theme enough challenges around Phoenix, Memphis, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Seattle, Dallas, San Antonio, Denver, or Boston alone -- all cities I heard thrown around as possible venues for next season. Bravo hasn't confirmed the new location yet, though I doubt New Orleans would get the nod since the finale was just there).
Sixth time's the charm, right? Isn't that what they say?
For those who did not watch the finale (Semi-spoilers), it became quite apparent that there was a three-way decision to be made: 1) Pick the chef who cooked the best meal that day 2) pick the one that has had the best track record over the season with challenge wins, but who had seriously low lows on his off days notoriously bad attitude 3) Pick the chef whose meal that day was a disaster, but was a self-described "tortoise" in a competition of hares, who had been wowing the judges the most the past few weeks.
All had a good shot going into the finale, and the final decision has brought forth discussion about the show's selection process of season winners.
Every season, the finale's competition has mostly been free-form. Often, the only limitations placed on the meal are how many courses must be presented and whether or not one of those has to be a dessert. Head judge chef Tom Collichio usually finished the challenge description by saying "cook us the best meal you have ever cooked", or something to that effect.
Now, (semi-spoilers again), the aforementioned Chef #1 won the competition. He presented the best meal of that round of the competition according to the judges. The question is, should improvement, attitude, a good track record... should any of that stuff be factored in for the finale?
Michael Park offered up many great suggestions, including the changing of the winner selection process. His main argument is that the winner of one week (which just happens to be the final one) determines the winner of the whole season, which feels unbalanced when he phrases it that way. One, such as myself, would argue that the chefs that make it to the final round have run a dozen-plus-week screening process to get to the finale, and finally giving them a chance to really cook for themselves without limitation really is the proper way. Track record and momentum are irrelevant by format of the competition, and here's why:
1) heavily-winning chef like a Hung or a Stephan could be knocked out just before the finale. If that happened, track record would not be an issue. So, whether a chef has won numerous challenges before cannot have bearing on the finale selection process, for the simple reason that it can easily be counted out. If all finale-advancing chefs won challenges equally, it can't be systematized into the selection process. And if it can't be systematized, then it lacks objective qualification.
2) Momentum does not prove a chef's worthiness because. If someone rises to the top late in the competition, one can make the argument that they improved over the course of the competition and deserves an extra boost for "learning something" or stepping up one's game. But isn't this "Top Chef", not "Most Improved Chef"? It's the first.
Also, while attitude is a consideration, chefs like Howie, Stephan and Tiffany cannot be actually faulted for these things unless it actually disrupts the competition. Top Chef judges have been incredibly fair about this -- only during team events like restaurant wars or competitive foul play happens do the judges take it into account. In the case of Stephan, I actually think he was advanced in the last few rounds before the finale so Hosea and him could have a showdown, which is something I never really noticed before. Sure, there is the villain on every season, but those villains only seem to advance when the their product makes it valid. This season, Stephan had some bad meals in the few weeks leading up to the finale (or so the editors led us to believe). Yet, somehow he kept advancing, including knocking out Leah, whose judging commentary was much more positive than Stephan's in the final edit of the show.
Park's other suggestions are mostly good. I do have to respond to his "focus on food, not personalities" idea -- yes, personalities clashed with Hosea and Stephan this season. It was palpable, frankly. The show has had a pretty interesting track record with this, and has mostly sought to find equilibrium between the serious competition aspects (which far surpass any major network cooking show) and the human elements:
Season 1 was frankly bland in terms of the food competition AND the personalities in my opinion. I'm surprised it made it to Season 2, which tried to jazz up the personality side of the show TOO much (remember Marcel getting beaten up and head shaved?). Yet, the show recovered from that as well: Season 3 was a love fest, seemingly a casting reaction to the bad blood of Season 2, since everyone, even the gruff Howie, seemed to clink beers at the end of the night and not hold grudges. Season 4 went back to bland mostly -- the challenges were a little more boring, and the chefs were mostly subdued to match, aside from some bubblies (Stephanie) and crazies (Andrew). This was probably a reaction to the sugariness of 3. Season 5 seemed to be a bit of a reaction to the soulless season 4 by trying to get people invested again by presenting conflicts and relationships that people would care about (Fabio and Stephan, the ridic Jamie/Stephan, etc.) Every season seemed to follow this continuing dialectic, and it's kind of a wild card -- Every season has something to like, every season (except maybe 3, which I feel had the best talent and best challenges) had something to dislike.
So, Season 6 is on its way. Casting calls are going on as I type this. To conclude this ramble, let me sum up: yes, there are reasons to fix the selection process for the finale, but actually a lot of the cited reasons don't hold water. If the show ain't super-broke, it doesn't need fixing. As for the other aspects I see in the show that need fixing, let's hope Top Chef's goal of the perfect balance of competition and personality is finally struck next season. Let's also hope it's in a good venue (or they do a Top Chef USA Road trip -- because I don't know if you can really theme enough challenges around Phoenix, Memphis, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Seattle, Dallas, San Antonio, Denver, or Boston alone -- all cities I heard thrown around as possible venues for next season. Bravo hasn't confirmed the new location yet, though I doubt New Orleans would get the nod since the finale was just there).
Sixth time's the charm, right? Isn't that what they say?