Dmnkly wrote:Did you miss that the benefit-goers voted the carpaccio the worst dish of the evening?

No, I didn't. Not every piece of salmon had scales on it, so I'm sure several people preferred it to the carpaccio. However, for even ONE piece of salmon to have scales on it shows a lack of planning and a worse lack of execution. Apparently, there were several. That is unacceptable.

The earth team suffered from poor execution. The water team had poor conception, poor preparation and poor execution.

If I had been served both courses at a restaurant, I wouldn't eat the carpaccio if it was that bad, but I'd simply move on. If I were served a piece of fish with scales on it, the person in charge would get an earful, believe me.

I won't debate the judging with you any longer. I surrender.

jaybo wrote:I won't debate the judging with you any longer. I surrender.

I'm not trying to beat you into submission, man, just trying to make a few points in my typically long-winded fashion

Dmnkly wrote:

jaybo wrote:I won't debate the judging with you any longer. I surrender.

I'm not trying to beat you into submission, man, just trying to make a few points in my typically long-winded fashion

And let's face it, when it comes to matters of opinion -- especially in this case, where editing is involved -- consensus is tough to come by.

The main thing is that watching the show and reading about it are, for the most part, fun. This is television candy, especially with the backdrop being Chicago. Yeah, I cringe everytime they show Elan with the other previous winners in the opening montage but nearly every successful reality series has its red-headed step children. Still, Top Chef manages to entertain in a very satisfying way.

I thoroughly enjoy coming here (especially on Thursday mornings) and reading everyone's comments. And Dom, I love the Power Rankings at your blog. I also enjoy reading Joe Gray's updates at the The Stew. All the peripheral discussion just adds to the fun for me. I don't always agree with everything that's written but being that it's reality tv, I try not to get too invested in the outcome.

Anyway, is it Wednesday yet?

=R=

Top Chef casting call:

http://www.bravotv.com/Casting/top_chef/index.php

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/ ... allin.html

Close one for Stephanie. She's definitely still in the top 3 but thank GOD Ms. Imdoingthisforzoi, you know imdoingthisforzoi, zoizoizoizoizoi got knifed.

Ugh. She sealed her fate when she basically said that she did most of the work and Stephanie did the gastrique and the prep work. You conceptualize a weak dish, you pay the price.

Nikki has definitely got to be next.

Ugh, it FIGURES Nikki would fly under the radar this week

I'm not sure I agree that Stephanie and Jennifer were as egregious in ignoring the challenge as Antonia and Lisa. They had orange asparagus lust (?- something like that, turned on, maybe?), and they had orange and asparagus on the plate, and while it was a mess, they were attempting to follow the rules of the challenge. Antonia and Lisa essentially said, eh, screw that, polish sausage can't possibly be good, so we'll just do whatever we want, and made a dish with NO RELATION to the words they were given. Further, maybe it's just me, but I can think if plenty of ways to make a delicious drunk polish sausage, and none of them involve Ekrich. Your own poor understanding of a food item doesn't make it worthless.

sweetsalty wrote:Antonia and Lisa essentially said, eh, screw that, polish sausage can't possibly be good, so we'll just do whatever we want, and made a dish with NO RELATION to the words they were given. Further, maybe it's just me, but I can think if plenty of ways to make a delicious drunk polish sausage, and none of them involve Ekrich. Your own poor understanding of a food item doesn't make it worthless.

Amen to that. Colicchio made a point of emphasizing at least twice that all they had to go on was the technicalities and then the judges ignore the fact that one of the two "worst" teams completely failed to include the named food. We'll even look past their arrogance and ignorance. Man, did you see Lisa's face during the judge's critiques?

This is just one of countless examples over the past four years where the result is incomprehensible. I fully recognize that we are not privy to everything that occurred. Why then, at the very least, could the producers not include a few moments of tape making the decision comprehensible, if not logical?

sweetsalty wrote:Ugh, it FIGURES Nikki would fly under the radar this week

I'm not sure I agree that Stephanie and Jennifer were as egregious in ignoring the challenge as Antonia and Lisa. They had orange asparagus lust (?- something like that, turned on, maybe?), and they had orange and asparagus on the plate, and while it was a mess, they were attempting to follow the rules of the challenge. Antonia and Lisa essentially said, eh, screw that, polish sausage can't possibly be good, so we'll just do whatever we want, and made a dish with NO RELATION to the words they were given. Further, maybe it's just me, but I can think if plenty of ways to make a delicious drunk polish sausage, and none of them involve Ekrich. Your own poor understanding of a food item doesn't make it worthless.

Yeah, I can't remember ever seeing somebody disregard the challenge so completely as Antonia and Lisa did. I'm disappointed they got away with it. I'm thinking the gap between the quality of the dishes must've been pretty vast.

Dmnkly wrote:I'm thinking the gap between the quality of the dishes must've been pretty vast.

One can only presume that something like that is the reason. In which case, I can't understand why the judges didn't flat out say so. Their failure to do so leaves, at the very least, the impression that their only real objection was that the asparagus wasn't featured. No, maybe it wasn't. But at least it was included; they followed the rules. As presented to the audience, the decision is well-nigh incomprehensible.

I'm not sure how both Antonia and Lisa made it out either, although I wont miss Ms. ImdoingitforZoi either.

How hard would it have been to make a food that has some sort of booze in it? In a scene at the grocery store Lisa is all "I don't cook with beer". Well that only leaves how many other variations of alcohol that you could how many different things with? They didn't even try, and I really dislike Lisa. Her one win came from Stephanie being to modest at the judges table.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:I'm thinking the gap between the quality of the dishes must've been pretty vast.

One can only presume that something like that is the reason. In which case, I can't understand why the judges didn't flat out say so. Their failure to do so leaves, at the very least, the impression that their only real objection was that the asparagus wasn't featured. No, maybe it wasn't. But at least it was included; they followed the rules. As presented to the audience, the decision is well-nigh incomprehensible.

Oh, I think they did. Rewatching (thanks, DVR!), they come right out and ask which is the bigger sin -- to ignore the challenge or cook a terrible dish (I'm paraphrasing). Then in a roundabout manner, prompted by Colicchio, they started talking about whether Stephanie/Jennifer's dish was all that great an expression of the challenge either. It seems to me that they were really in a bind, with a big gap in quality and one dish that almost completely ignored the challenge, and they kind of talked themselves into overcriticizing the asparagus dish's adherence to the theme as a way of talking themselves into a decision they'd already made. That's the sense I get, anyway. If so, I don't think they needed to approach it that way. Though a ton of fans would rant and rave about "the rules" (which don't exist), I don't think it would have been ridiculous for them to tell Steph and Jennifer, look, we know they went astray of the challenge, but you have to give us something to hang our hat on here, and you just didn't. My suspicion is that they were looking to justify a decision they really didn't need to justify.

In any case, the blogs suggest that this is only a mild preview of the controversial eliminations to come. Given how tight this thing is right now, that doesn't surprise me.

Dmnkly wrote:Rewatching (thanks, DVR!), they come right out and ask which is the bigger sin -- to ignore the challenge or cook a terrible dish (I'm paraphrasing).

Yes, I remember the moment. But, relying entirely on an inadequate memory here, my recollection is that the only real criticism of the food itself was that the bread was (a) too large a piece and (b) tough to cut. I honestly don't recall any other complaints about the food itself. And I recall that Colicchio's question, which is the bigger sin, seemed to come out of nowhere since there had been so little criticism of the quality or taste of the food. Indeed, I remember being struck by the fact that he went out of his way, twice, to say that they had so little to go on. If the quality of the one dish was so inferior, why did he say that?

I wish I had the ability to go back and look, but I'll be curious to hear what your research reveals.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Rewatching (thanks, DVR!), they come right out and ask which is the bigger sin -- to ignore the challenge or cook a terrible dish (I'm paraphrasing).

I wish I had the ability to go back and look, but I'll be curious to hear what your research reveals.

I just watched it again. They definitely say the "polish sausage" dish was better, but they didn't draw that stark contrast you (and I) would have liked to see. We didn't get much in the way of specific criticism, but again, that may be the fault of the editors rather than the fault of the judges (or not!). Tom's blog posts are usually very illuminating when it comes to the finer points of their decisions, but he's been mostly AWOL this season so far (sounds like he's in the middle of a restaurant opening). Sometimes more blog posts pop up later in the week, so we'll see what turns up.

One thing that IS very interesting is that the recipe for the "asparagus" dish on the Bravo website completely omits the asparagus! It wouldn't be the first time one of the posted recipes has been missing a component, but it's definitely amusing, if not telling. And looking at photos of the dish, yeah, I'm more inclined to think that the asparagus was buried by other elements of the dish. It wouldn't pass the Iron Chef thematic test, anyway. Point being, there may be some validity to the suggestion that their approach to their theme ingredient may have been somewhat suboptimal as well (though obviously not on the level of the "polish sausage" dish).

hey- i didn't get to see it last night, who was the guest chef?

Johnny Iuzzini was the guest chef. I thought it was weird that the quickfire award was to get your dessert recipe in a cookbook when you don't claim to be a pastry chef.

I don't think Whole Foods sells Polish sausage, at least not a decent one.

The guest chef thing was interesting. I hear some somebody named Gale is from Chicago and knows a bit about pastry.

With my limited expertise and experience, I was playing along last night and trying to figure out what I would make if I had drunken purple polish sausage (I think that was Antonia's and Lisa's "inspiration") and thought what about some take on choucroute garni (sp?) with a splash of gin to go with the juniper berries in the dish and then purple potatoes? Or would the purple potatoes color the dish an unappetizing purple? Or could you just boil them separately and then add them in?

Which is worse, ignoring the challenge or making a terrible dish?

I wish I could remember the specific cases, but this has definitely come up a number of times over the last few seasons. IIRC, making a terrible dish is the far worse sin in the world of Top Chef.

I think the convoluted explanation at the end of the judging last night was at least partially due to some pretty sloppy editing.

I was playing along last night and trying to figure out what I would make if I had drunken purple polish sausage

I was doing the same thing. I can't imagine doing a sausage-stuffed pierogi wouldn't have filled the improvisational requirements of the challenge. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Especially if you don't want to work with actual polish sausage. Maybe use some beets to color the dough maroonish? I dunno.

I was playing along last night and trying to figure out what I would make if I had drunken purple polish sausage

Choucroute with purple cabbage? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I was doing the same thing. I can't imagine doing a sausage-stuffed pierogi wouldn't have filled the improvisational requirements of the challenge. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Especially if you don't want to work with actual polish sausage. Maybe use some beets to color the dough maroonish? I dunno.

They could have used red cabbage or beets to "color" the pierogi dough, and stuffed it with whichever sausage could go along with that- even if it wasnt' polish, they could use the pierogi as their polish component. Not sure about the drunken part, but it's not a far step from that.

This season has been irritating me more and more each week, and this episode was absolutely awful.

First, the guest judge. I'm usually not concerned with the guest judges having local roots, but this particular episode seemed to be tailor made for Gale Gand (Quickfire) and Rick Tramonto (Elimination). I can understand Johnny Iuzzini being the guest judge for the Quickfire, but why was he the guest judge for the Elimination Challenge as well?

On to the Elimination Challenge itself. Unless Jennifer and Stephanie's dish was "slip it to the dog" bad, either Antonia or Lisa should have been given the boot. They blatantly, knowingly, ignored the guidelines of the challenge and did what they wanted to do. Isn't that one of the reasons why Ryan was criticized so heavily in the previous episode? Sandee was eliminated in Episode 2 of Season Three for a similar indiscretion, and what Sandee did was nowhere near as bad as what these two did. A horrible precedent was set in this episode.

I still maintain that the judging is more biased this season than any other. I'm not saying that Bravo or the producers are saying, "This chef has to go instead of this chef." What I am saying is that if there is a close decision to be made, everyone knows who the likely chef out is. For instance, if I knew before this episode aired that the four chefs up for elimination were Jennifer, Stephanie, Antonia and Lisa, Jennifer would have been my hands-down favorite to get cut.

I'll say now that next week it's curtains for Mark or Spike. They're not going to eliminate another female at this point. I can't believe that Mikey, er, Nikki is going to make it to Restaurant Wars.

jaybo wrote:I still maintain that the judging is more biased this season than any other. I'm not saying that Bravo or the producers are saying, "This chef has to go instead of this chef." What I am saying is that if there is a close decision to be made, everyone knows who the likely chef out is.

Here, we actually agree, Jaybo... I'm just not convinced this is a bad thing. And I don't think it's limited to this season, I think it's just that the unusually strong field makes it more obvious.

If somebody who clearly outperformed the others up for elimination goes, yeah, I definitely have a serious problem with that. But I've never seen the judges make a decision that I thought was indefensible (I realize this is not an opinion that is universally shared). If the judges are going with their gut on these coin flip eliminations and favoring those who have shown well and who have a chance to go all the way, I don't see that as a problem. I know many do, and I respect that. But I like that they don't really have hard and fast RULES that they go by. They have some leeway and some discretion so that they can eliminate the folks they feel should be eliminated and not feel like they're just totaling up a scorecard and the most points stays. It opens them up to a lot of criticism, and it makes it harder for them to defend their decisions, but I think the end result is more just, even if it seems at times, on the small scale, that it isn't fair.

rickster wrote:Johnny Iuzzini was the guest chef. I thought it was weird that the quickfire award was to get your dessert recipe in a cookbook when you don't claim to be a pastry chef.

I don't think Whole Foods sells Polish sausage, at least not a decent one.

Johnny Iuzzini(beyond his credentials as sorta-bad boy, somewhat-agent provocateur, kinda-maybe bete noir) is also Paula Deen's creepy lust du jour.

just imagine her mangling the syllables of his last name while pawing his tattoos...yum-o

---

regardless of the supposed unpalatability of the orange/lust dish...the sheer ignorance and chutzpah of "team piscine polish chorizo" should've garnered an immediate expulsion

You know, I go back and forth on whether or not I think this is actually significant or just a personal bias. I really can't decide. But I'm just going to say it- if Lisa doesn't wash her hair soon, I'm going to vomit.

And on the one hand, I know that a chef's physical appearance is insigificant. On the other hand? When it's a personal hygiene issue, it makes me wonder about their other hygiene habits.

So there. I said it. I'm already biased against her, because while she still doesn't bug me as much as Nikki, her seriously rotten (and uninformed) attitude about Polish sausage makes me want her to go home almost as badly. The hygiene issue doesn't help.

sweetsalty wrote:Your own poor understanding of a food item doesn't make it worthless.

I couldn't agree more. I really get a 'bad attitude vibe' from Lisa. It seems like she feels as if her personal preferences are more important than the judges' parameters. It's too bad that categorically avoiding polish sausage the way she did didn't cost her. That said, I cannot imagine a decent version being available at WF.

=R=

Lee Anne's blog (late post), our first good description of the losing dish:

Lee Anne wrote:However, Jen’s continual phallic references bothered me, as the plate itself did not look remotely sexual, just a big mess of food. The main ingredient was asparagus. The piece of Bucheron on each plate was EASILY a 3-ounce chunk of cheese, which is not only too big of a portion in any sense, but taste-wise drowned out the delicate flavor of the asparagus. When you cook a semi-aged goat cheese such as Bucheron, the texture does not lend itself well to heat. The fat separated out of their goat cheese, leaving a greasy, unpleasantly mealy consistency. The bread was a leaden addition to the plate, and all in all just a mediocre dish.

At the time, even though I wished the other team had lost, I was relatively "at peace" with the decision, because it made sense to me that the true worst sin a chef can commit is to make bad food. Good food is the bottom line, right? If you can't deliver that, you don't belong. And apparently the not-polish-sausage did taste good.

But now that I think about it, it seems to me that anyone can make good food when he makes his own rules. For gosh sakes, I can make good food by putting a decent frozen pizza in the oven, or opening a can of decent soup. The whole point of any contest is to see how well you can do when given a challenge. So I'm back to thinking that, short of the turned-on asparagus tasting like lark's vomit or giving the judges food poisoning, the polish sausage team should have lost.

In their defense -- at least they used a version of sausage. It would have been nice to see Lisa go home, if only because she is a big whiner, but at least she made food that tastes good and it did include "sausage" (although not Polish).

Overall, I agree with the rip on her though. Make your own rules and you can make a great dish.

It does appear clear though that if you are going to push (or ignore) the rules, the food better be good. Ryan among others learned that lesson.

I hope nobody takes this wrong, but did anybody else think it was sort of funny that Jennifer did not quite understand the phallic concept?

I was hoping they'd make a fish sausage using pollack.

please don't hate me, I really don't mean it to offend anyone