I'm enjoying the whole Hosea/seafood chef/Boulder comments but there something else here that really confused me and continues to disappoint me about this season - the lack of professionalism or passion about what these people do for a living. I hear a lot of "cooking is my passion" or "THIS is what I do for a living" (therefor I'm really good at it). If they lose a challenge or don't know how to do something - basic or intermediate - they immediately get defensive and say something like, "I hate celery" or "I find this kind of food boring."

In regards to this episode, I heard Hosea say that he's not a technically trained chef (I must have missed something from previous episodes). - What?! Really!? How are you on a show that calls itself "Top Chef" which has guest judges grill you on technique, prep, ability to work in a kitchen, knife skills, etc.? Now, I understand that not every successful or talented chef has to be formally trained but it does better your chances - especially on a show that showcases all the facets of a skilled chef. In past seasons, watching a guy like Hung (sic?) dismantle every other chef more or less based on his experience and training should have tipped these contestants off.

Enough ranting and I understand that it may not even make sense or that people may not agree since I don't come from industry but I would never put myself on this show without the proper training and education.

That being said, I was shocked to see all the contestants enjoying lunch at Le Bernadin as if it was a "treat." Wouldn't you think that it was a set up in some way? Also, wouldn't you, as a professional chef or someone passionate about food, take extra care in examining each dish and inquire (at least in your head) about the technique or methodology of how the dish was prepared? Or even take some notes? I do that and I really don't know what the heck I'm talking about (not notes but at least look to see how its done). Maybe they did and it was edited out for effect but some of them seemed surprised by the challenge.

The clear leader this year is Stephan and if he doesn't win, I'd be shocked. Carla is the underdog and I'll be pulling for her but the rest are just not on the same level.

tyrus wrote:That being said, I was shocked to see all the contestants enjoying lunch at Le Bernadin as if it was a "treat." Wouldn't you think that it was a set up in some way? Also, wouldn't you, as a professional chef or someone passionate about food, take extra care in examining each dish and inquire (at least in your head) about the technique or methodology of how the dish was prepared? Or even take some notes? I do that and I really don't know what the heck I'm talking about (not notes but at least look to see how its done). Maybe they did and it was edited out for effect but some of them seemed surprised by the challenge.

Everybody totally knew something was coming. Jamie mentioned in her Q&A blog that half of them were taking notes under the table.

That's good to hear. I found myself yelling at the TV last night in frustration. First about the nail in the head of the eel and then the casual approach to the lunch but at least there is some hope.

Dmnkly wrote:

tyrus wrote:That being said, I was shocked to see all the contestants enjoying lunch at Le Bernadin as if it was a "treat." Wouldn't you think that it was a set up in some way? Also, wouldn't you, as a professional chef or someone passionate about food, take extra care in examining each dish and inquire (at least in your head) about the technique or methodology of how the dish was prepared? Or even take some notes? I do that and I really don't know what the heck I'm talking about (not notes but at least look to see how its done). Maybe they did and it was edited out for effect but some of them seemed surprised by the challenge.

Everybody totally knew something was coming. Jamie mentioned in her Q&A blog that half of them were taking notes under the table.

Ironic, given her comments about how uninspiring the food was to her.

=R=

I don't believe for a second that they didn't suspect that it would figure in their challenge in some way; everything else they've done has.

Mike G wrote:I don't believe for a second that they didn't suspect that it would figure in their challenge in some way; everything else they've done has.

Agreed.

"We like you guys so much that, along with guest judge Chef Ripert, are going to treat the SIX of you to a delicious SIX course lunch at the Chef Ripert's restaurant in a private dining room with the cameras rolling--just because we want to hang out with you".

eatchicago wrote:

Mike G wrote:I don't believe for a second that they didn't suspect that it would figure in their challenge in some way; everything else they've done has.

Agreed.

"We like you guys so much that, along with guest judge Chef Ripert, are going to treat the SIX of you to a delicious SIX course lunch at the Chef Ripert's restaurant in a private dining room with the cameras rolling--just because we want to hang out with you".

Ha Ha Ha ha! This had me laughing. It's like a Kids In The Hall skit - "we are going to treat the SIX of you to a delicious SIX course lunch... camera's rolling" - a SURPRISE challenge will follow!

I don't know why I find this so funny - maybe it's Friday...

rickster wrote:Obviously Hosea was not a fan of Iron Chef Japan, where eel was skinned at least once using the nail through the head method. I was much more surprised that he was so unfamiliar with Zatar than with skinning eels, whic I doubt more than a handful of restaurants in the US serve.

You know, I often find myself yelling at the set, "Don't you watch these competitions on TV?!" before remembering that these folks work in kitchens and, therefore, no... they do not watch TV cooking competitions...

You know, I often find myself yelling at the set, "Don't you watch these competitions on TV?!" before remembering that these folks work in kitchens and, therefore, no... they do not watch TV cooking competitions...

See, there's this little thing called TiVo....and I can tell you that a goodly number of the chefs with whom I've worked at the Botanic Garden over the past four years watch the competition shows a lot. Interestingly, "Hell's Kitchen" seemed to be very popular. Go figure.

Did anyone catch Ripert say that they don't cook the Asparagus? That was a surprise and I'm convinced I'm missing something.

Speaking of TiVo, my wife watched it last night and I made sure to look at the asparagus when Le Bernardin first serves the dish. No way that isn't cooked in some fashion, it's a lighter color and translucent. I think Ripert was saying something about the way they cook it vs. how the contestant (I forget who now) cooked it, and that got lost in the editing.

i think he was saying that stefan's asparagus was "not cooked", meaning that it was undercooked. that was my take on it when i watched the show.

chefs will often speak in extreme terms like that. something that's a bit under is "raw", etc...

I'm really wondering if these guys knew what a honor it is to cook for and in Ripert's kitchen? I only heard Karla say it was.

The contestant standing next to Carla (in the middle) at judge's table also mentioned it was an honor; I just can't remember who that was.

elakin wrote:i think he was saying that stefan's asparagus was "not cooked", meaning that it was undercooked. that was my take on it when i watched the show.

chefs will often speak in extreme terms like that. something that's a bit under is "raw", etc...

My recollection is that Ripert said "We don't cook the asparagus".
Then Jeff said "You don't cook it?"
Ripert said no.

So, unless my recollection is wrong, I don't think Ripert was saying that Jeff's was undercooked. I agree with Mike G that the editing must have removed part of the conversation because the asparagus was definitely not raw.

Darren72 wrote:

elakin wrote:i think he was saying that stefan's asparagus was "not cooked", meaning that it was undercooked. that was my take on it when i watched the show.

chefs will often speak in extreme terms like that. something that's a bit under is "raw", etc...

My recollection is that Ripert said "We don't cook the asparagus".
Then Jeff said "You don't cook it?"
Ripert said no.

So, unless my recollection is wrong, I don't think Ripert was saying that Jeff's was undercooked. I agree with Mike G that the editing must have removed part of the conversation because the asparagus was definitely not raw.

Not to impugn your recollection, but Jeff was eliminated two weeks ago

But it sounds like you're correct. Here's the exact exchange:

ER: One detail, our asparagus are not cooked.
SR: Not cooked?
ER: Not cooked.
SR: At all?
ER: But... that's all.
SR: Merci.

There could have been a cut in there, but if so, it was a smooth one. There's just the typical two camera back and forth and there aren't any obvious gaps in time other than right before the "merci".

It sure looks cooked to some degree on the plate and when he's firing the dish you can see the asparagus in a pan on the French burner off to the side. Is it possible Ripert, semantically speaking, would consider cooking and blanching two different things? Maybe it's raw, but glazed with something? I dunno... just tossing stuff out there.

Okay... way too much attention paid to this particular detail

Mike G wrote:I don't believe for a second that they didn't suspect that it would figure in their challenge in some way; everything else they've done has.

I think, for example, if a group of six LTHers were put into the situation of getting a private lunch at LaBernadin with Eric Rippert at the table, there would be scads of questions about the preparations of each dish and mucho discussion about the flavoring/technique and thought process behind each course (contest or not). I was surprised we didn't see any of that kind of discussion going on at the table. True, it might have been edited out, but if I had that opportunity, I'd surely be asking some pointed questions for my own education and filing away those tips for the future. The chefs seemed to be relegated to the role of fanboys and not the role as fellow chefs talking shop at the table.

I think all of that was edited out.

Darren72 wrote:I think all of that was edited out.

Either that, or they were somehow nudged into not asking questions, since it would kind of defeat the purpose of the challenge.

VERY nice to see Jacques Pepín on the show tonight. As soon as I saw him, I was wondering whose PROHPEAR TECHNIQUE he would call into question and I was not disappointed He totally zeroed in on the issues w/ the eggs benedict as were his observations of the duck (seemed overcooked, but wasn't) and the tomato provençal (bland; also looked like a turd covered in vomit to me).

Overall it was a very enjoyable episode. I think they made the right call knifing Leah. I think the final seedings are:

Stefan
Fabio
Carla
Hosea

Stefan screwed up, so they hurriedly took Leah out back and shot her to save him. Not that that isn't the right call judging by the whole season, obviously, but it was hard to see how it was justified by this episode alone.

So all these famous chefs want roast poultry for their last meal? Really? That seems bizarre to me. Nobody wanted a cheeseburger?

Since Toby was totally shoved aside in this one, I spent the whole episode making up Toby quips. "If I were to attend an American high school, I would definitely try this dish out for the Cheerleading Squab." "I thought the Hollandaise was so bad, I'd run from it in wooden shoes."

I eagerly await the posts defending the sui generis of each episode.

Although I was glad to see Leah go, it didn't seem really justified based upon the editing of this episode.

I'm glad less TV time was wasted on Toby's "clever" quips, and more TV time was spent on Fabio. He was on last night, what with offering to first cut off his thumb and sear it and later threatening to go out back and shoot himself.

Runny egg whites are worse then overcooked salmon. Sure, it was unanimous that the salmon was overdone, while there was one dissenter who actually thought the eggs were good. But that dissenter was Toby, whose opinion should always be discarded. The decision seemed justified based on the crappy eggs. Thin hollandaise sucks too. Also, she didn't cook anything. Store bought challah. Store bought bacon. Not even a hint of culinary skill went into that dish. It was right to send Leah packing based on what she did in this episode.

Last week the editors get reamed for making the loser too obvious early in the episode. This week they get reamed for not making it obvious enough. Tough job.

At first I felt that Stefan should have been sent home. However when I thought about it further I realized overcooked salmon was his only major mistake, while Leah made 2 significant errors with undercooked eggs and a runny hollandaise.

I think I may have missed exactly how Fabio broke his finger. Did they ever say what exactly happened to cause him to break his finger? Big props to him for soldiering on and taking it down!

Kennyz wrote:Last week the editors get reamed for making the loser too obvious early in the episode. This week they get reamed for not making it obvious enough. Tough job.

Actually, I don't think anyone was "reaming" anyone else. I was referring to the editing of the comments during the judges' deliberations and the dinner itself, not the editing of contestants' comments in the beginning of the episode which arguably reveal who is later going home that day.

Everything you said makes a case for Leah going home, but I don't recall seeing the judges comment about her store-bought items at all (let alone their inadequacy), whereas the judges seemed more offended by overcooked salmon. Again, something I'd chalk up to editing as I'm sure more was said by the judges and chefs about Leah's dish than was showed.

Kennyz wrote:
Last week the editors get reamed for making the loser too obvious early in the episode. This week they get reamed for not making it obvious enough. Tough job.

Yeah last week was pretty obvious, but I loved the little shell game they played this week.

aschie30 wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Last week the editors get reamed for making the loser too obvious early in the episode. This week they get reamed for not making it obvious enough. Tough job.

Actually, I don't think anyone was "reaming" anyone else.

True, that would be grounds for serious criminal prosecution. Especially if it were nonconsensual.

I agree that there must have been some fancy editing because it seemed Stephan was done for. On the basis of "making the dish that tasted worst" it seemed clear he should have been sent packing. But great point that Leah basically assembled a bunch of store bought ingredients and made a (poor) sauce to go on top. And I think everyone's in agreement that if you looked at the season as a whole (which I know they're not supposed to do, but get serious) she was the obvious choice.

It was also pretty fun to watch Stephan squirm a little, for once.

PitaChip wrote:I agree that there must have been some fancy editing because it seemed Stephan was done for. On the basis of "making the dish that tasted worst" it seemed clear he should have been sent packing.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think it was made fairly clear at judges' table that while his salmon was overcooked and some didn't understand why there were two types of spinach, that the seasoning and flavors of his dish were very good -- the potatoes were complimented, the dill sauce was complimented -- and they seemed to indicate that but for the overcooking of the salmon, it was a very good dish.

Leah, on the other hand, undercooked her egg and screwed up her hollandaise -- debateably similar technical gaffes (except for the fact that two of her components were off technically) -- but beyond that, what was there to compliment? Some bacon? They're playing up the drama as usual, but to say that the edit made it appear that his dish tasted worse. What I took away was, "This is a nice dish... too bad the salmon's overcooked."

Last week the editors get reamed for making the loser too obvious early in the episode. This week they get reamed for not making it obvious enough. Tough job.

Oh, poor TV people! Look, they obviously played up Stefan's peril in the editing to create suspense where there probably wasn't much. They're the ones who stressed not only that the salmon was overcooked-- to everyone-- but that the spinach was boring and undifferentiated too. So they can't blame the audience if it goes "Huh?" at the end. The evidence that Leah bombed out at something simple is contained in the episode, but they did their best to bury it (you know, kinda like Carla's classical French training).

I realize people say that the producers would never ever monkey with the results (and of course, it would never occur to Tom or Padma which contestants would make good TV), but I think everyone knew that Leah didn't belong in the final four and short of a game-redefining miracle dish, this was her week to get booted. That she made it so easy they had to manufacture suspense about somebody else (and possibly overdid it) doesn't change that.

Here's an interesting theory:

My theory is this: because they clearly casted for identity purposes (Euros! Gays!) rather than interesting individuals, they ended up with a cast of stiffs who aren't all that interesting. Some of them are nice, or amusing, but overall, eh. So their attempts at ginning up reality-show-style drama have been incredibly lame. E.g., Stefan is the evil Euro villain! (Except for his Commie-art t-shirts, he's not even close to the most obnoxious person on the show.) Team Rainbow! Europeans vs. Americans! Wheeze... [In Restaurant Wars] Leah saves her ass by making out with Hosea and therefore makes herself dramatically interesting... Leah's failures were more egregious (and she screwed up her own dish to boot), so the most obvious explanation is that she got kept because she and Hosea looked like they might fill the villain role that Stefan didn't seem to be fitting.

Though I suppose you could say if they were really manipulating it heavily, Leah and Hosea would have wound up pitted against each other at some point.