Check, Please! auditions on January 29
Check, Please! auditions on January 29
-
-
-
-
-
Check, Please! auditions on January 29
-
Post #1 - January 18th, 2008, 3:23 pmJust got an e-mail today inviting me to the live audition event at Brasserie Jo. Vaguely recall filling out an online form earlier this week on a Crain's site where I quickly penned recommendations for Evanston's Prairie Joe's, Lucky Platter and Pete Miller's (and forgot to make a copy of what I said.) Very surprised to have been picked to come; I've tried this before and never even made this initial round. Is anyone else going?
>>Brent"Yankee bean soup, cole slaw and tuna surprise."
-
-
Post #2 - February 2nd, 2008, 4:05 pmJust wondering if you went to the audition and how it went?
-
-
Post #3 - February 6th, 2008, 6:22 amHi -- strange audition, but we'll see. There were three appointment times set at Brasserie Jo; roughly 5:30, 6:30 and 7:30 and I snagged the later one. Things were running behind, because when I arrived they were just starting interviews from the 6:30 group. The party room in the back was filled with prospects, wine and passed appetizers were served, and as we stood and schmoozed the producers called us in one by one to a smaller room where the camera was set up.
I had submitted three Evanston restaurants on the web application -- Prairie Joe's as my breakfast choice, Lucky Platter for lunch and Pete Miller's for dinner. When I checked in for my name tag, they told they wanted me to talk on camera about Lucky Platter. From talking to the other applicants, the producers had definitely selected a mixed bag of restaurants for our audition pool. The actual audition took about 5-10 minutes, and focused on the restaurant from an entertaining/business standpoint; the off-camera producer had me talk about why I liked to take clients there, why it was a good choice for a business lunch, and the famous "sum up the restaurant in one sentence" question.
I was satisfied with my performance, but of course who knows what the honchos back at the production office will say. I was surprised they didn't bring us into the room in groups of three to see how we would interact on camera with each other, and in that regard who knows how the casting process will go. So I'm not exactly holding my breath, but will report back on the board if the call suddenly comes!
>>Brent"Yankee bean soup, cole slaw and tuna surprise."
-
-
-
Post #4 - February 6th, 2008, 7:40 amGood luck, Brent. And thanks for the insight into the process.
To each his own, but I would never want to be a panelist on Check, Please. I suppose the upside would be getting to bring attention to a restaurant one felt was deserving of wider recognition; it's always fun to share one's enthusiasms. (It's the reason people, including me, have blogs.) The downside is that you'd have to sit there and listen to two idiots make inane comments about your choice (even if those inane comments were "positive"). And then you'd somehow get dragged down to their level, making inane responses to their inane comments. I suppose it wouldn't have to happen this way; but I have yet to see it happen any other way.
But that's just me, and since I know you want this, I want you to get it.
-
-
-
-
Post #5 - February 6th, 2008, 7:51 amriddlemay wrote:The downside is that you'd have to sit there and listen to two idiots make inane comments about your choice (even if those inane comments were "positive"). And then you'd somehow get dragged down to their level, making inane responses to their inane comments. I suppose it wouldn't have to happen this way; but I have yet to see it happen any other way.
I think one key value of "Check, Please" is that we get to hear civilians (non LTH folk) talk about food. My experiences trying to interview "real people" about food (for radio) has yielded up results that are vastly more dismal than what you describe on this program. That average joe or joan on the street simply does not have much of a vocabulary when it comes to food (many just say "it's good" or, if they care to embellish, "it's really good"). This is not a slam to any segment of the population, just that when you think and talk about food as much as we do, we may be lulled into thinking that most people should be able offer well-worded insights into the failings or successes of a specific pork belly creation or fish taco preparation, but that just ain't so. All things considered, the panelists on "Check, Please" seem to me to be fairly articulate regarding their choices.
Good luck, Brent!"Don't you ever underestimate the power of a female." Bootsy Collins
-
-
-
-
Post #6 - February 6th, 2008, 8:27 amDavid Hammond wrote:My experiences trying to interview "real people" about food (for radio) has yielded up results that are vastly more dismal than what you describe on this program.
David, my guess is the real people you've interviewed for radio have lowered your expectations so much that the panelists on Check Please look good in comparison, but compared to any other standard 99% of them are bad enough! I'm not a regular viewer (I'm not that big a glutton for punishment) but I catch it accidentally from time to time and usually stay with it (it is compelling viewing--I'll give it that), and I have yet to see anyone tell me anything I believed. I sort of feel like if a forum didn't elsewhere exist in which civilians could have intelligent dialogue about Chicago restaurants, Check Please would serve a purpose, but such a place does exist.
It could also be that LTH has spoiled me. In a way opposite yet analogous to how your radio interviewees make you appreciate Check Please more, LTH makes me appreciate Check Please less.
-
-
-
-
Post #7 - February 6th, 2008, 8:46 amriddlemay wrote:compared to any other standard 99% of them are bad enough!
Perhaps they fail to provide much insight into a restaurant's food, but what they do provide is insight into what some segments of the dining public are looking for. I am not saying you will be rocked by the observations on "Check, Please," but listening to the panelists does offer some perspective on what some (perhaps most) Chicago diners want. More importantly, it's usual that there's at least one restaurant reviewed on the show that I know almost nothing about."Don't you ever underestimate the power of a female." Bootsy Collins
-
-
-
-
Post #8 - February 6th, 2008, 9:24 amDavid Hammond wrote:Perhaps they fail to provide much insight into a restaurant's food...
Ironically (maybe), I just came across a post of mine that tried to describe a restaurant's food (someone else had just replied to it), and I saw it in the light of this discussion and found it wanting; i.e., I could see that if my words were spoken verbatim by a panelist on Check Please, I would have nothing but contempt for him. So I don't know how to write about food any better than the panelists on Check Please know how to talk about food. It just seems stupider on TV.
-
-
-
-
Post #9 - February 6th, 2008, 9:32 ambrotine wrote:.... and the famous "sum up the restaurant in one sentence" question....
I would honestly tune in to Check, Please! more often if they removed the one-sentence summary. I hate it. Oh my, do I hate it.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't follow another one-sentence summary at the top of the show and a second one-sentence summary at the beginning of the segment.
I can't think of any other shows - from any genre - that does this kind of thing. It wastes time. It treats the audience like they are children and need to be reminded of "take home points".
I also don't like the interviews with restaurant owners or managers. It's like a commercial in the middle of the show. Having said that, sometimes these interviews are revealing (in a bad way): when the owner of an Italian restaurant brags that they pour the largest glasses of wine, I know this isn't the restaurant for me.
This show could be so much better.
-
-
-
-
Post #10 - February 6th, 2008, 9:40 amDarren72 wrote:I also don't like the interviews with restaurant owners or managers. It's like a commercial in the middle of the show.
Notwithstanding the commercial feel of these pieces, isn't it good to get the perspective of people on the other side of the counter? That's what we try to do with our Professional Board. That's why I like Nagrant's Chefs on the Grill podcasts -- it's good to hear from these people, and of course they're going to talk up their places."Don't you ever underestimate the power of a female." Bootsy Collins
-
-
-
-
Post #11 - February 6th, 2008, 9:44 amDavid Hammond wrote:Darren72 wrote:I also don't like the interviews with restaurant owners or managers. It's like a commercial in the middle of the show.
Notwithstanding the commercial feel of these pieces, isn't it good to get the perspective of people on the other side of the counter? That's what we try to do with our Professional Board. That's why I like Nagrant's Chefs on the Grill podcasts -- it's good to hear from these people, and of course they're going to talk up their places.
Yeah, that's true. But it would be more interesting if it was more focused - for example, if Alpina interviewed the owner.
I should add that I do appreciate seeing the video from the restaurant. You get a very good sense of the style of the place, which you couldn't get as well simply from the panel discussion.
-
-
-
-
Post #12 - February 6th, 2008, 9:53 amDarren72 wrote:Yeah, that's true. But it would be more interesting if it was more focused - for example, if Alpina interviewed the owner.
Have you noticed how "in the background" Ms. Singh remains during much of the discussion. This is by design, I'm sure. Amanda Puck was also more a facilitator than a source of opinions."Don't you ever underestimate the power of a female." Bootsy Collins
-
-
-
Post #13 - February 6th, 2008, 3:45 pmriddlemay wrote:To each his own, but I would never want to be a panelist on Check, Please. I suppose the upside would be getting to bring attention to a restaurant one felt was deserving of wider recognition; it's always fun to share one's enthusiasms. (It's the reason people, including me, have blogs.) The downside is that you'd have to sit there and listen to two idiots make inane comments about your choice (even if those inane comments were "positive").
My experience with Check Please! was that is was very fun, and the staff did a very good job of keeping everyone relaxed, open, and talking. Alpana is very kind and professional, so much so that she sent personal emails to each guest that appeared on the show.
I can't say a single negative thing about the entire process and I definitely think there's a place for these regular-person-on-the-street type of culinary review programs on television. We may fancy ourselves a bit more discriminating in nature on this board, but the show is a good, middle-of-the-road production for the average viewer who may not be a rabid foodie like many of us on the board.
It's interesting to see they have an auditioning process now. When I got on the show, I submitted a form on the web in April, David Manilow called me in May, some assistant emailed me in June asking my schedule, and we taped in July. The only "audition" was the ten-minute phone call from David.
-
-
Post #14 - February 6th, 2008, 4:02 pmInterestingly, the Check Please spin off in the Bay Area seems to operate by different rules than the one here. Here's a discussion by a regular on the SF Chowhound board who appeared on the show:
http://www.chowhound.com/topics/456653#3090532
Morton the Mousse on Chowhound wrote:I liked the show at first, then I was a guest and learned how it is produced. Now I don't watch it.
My biggest complaint is that the restaurants are billed as the guests "favorite" place. That is simply not true. The producers have a lengthy set of restrictions - the restaurant has to be at least two years old, the style of food cannot be too similar to a restaurant they've profiled recently (no Indian food! no Soul food!), it has to be visually appealing enough to generate pretty film ops (no dives!), it has to fit properly in the producers' vision of the episode. I had five restaurants rejected before I found one we could agree on! My fellow guests had a similar problem with being forced to "settle" for a restaurant that was not their favorite. The result: lots of mediocre restaurants (like Bucca di Beppo) that no one really loves, except for the image-focused producers (who never actually try the places).
I could accept this if the guests were honest. Here's where the production methods get creepy. After filming was over, a fellow guest told me that she hadn't been to her restaurant in over a year when she recommended it (once again, it wasn't her first choice, but the producers rejected all of her first choices and she had run out of ideas.) When she actually returned to eat there, she had a so-so meal (totally understandable; places go downhill all the time). However, the producers instructed her to be positive and enthusiastic despite her experience so that the overall criticism was balanced. Yes, you read that correctly, they instructed a guest to mislead the audience about her experience. To be clear: I do not blame the guest for her selection or her performance; she was at the mercy of producers who favor form over substance.
Some of my hostility stems from the fact that I ended up eating two of the worst meals of my life on my own dime thanks to Check, Please! I'm not surprised the food was sub-par, given that my fellow guests would have much rather sent me to one of their favorite restaurants, and not whatever restaurant they could think up after the judges had summarily rejected all of their favorites. Some of my ill will comes from the fact that the editing was skewed to make me look like a confrontational asshole. Though I'll be the first to admit that I'm an incorrigible food snob, I was actually quiet and shy for most of the filming, only to become defensive when a fellow guest insulted my judgment (the insult was edited out and my response remained, naturally). The whole experience has made me sympathetic to reality-TV contestants who are depicted as jerks (Hung, Chris Cosentino) despite their actual personalities through conflict-driven production techniques.
