Keely wrote:

While I agree that Dale and Brian used way too many ingredients, I disagree that Hung shows himself in his cooking. The boy (yes, I said boy) has no soul. He showed his true colors several episodes ago running through the kitchen with a knife held high, almost cutting Casey's throat. There's competition and there's an insane need to win at all costs to validate your undeserved arrogance, like "cutthroat" competition. I knew when Marcel and Hung recognized each other that here was another immature cook pretending to be excellent because of the skills he learned versus the love he had of food. At least Marcel had a "gimick".

posted on September 26, 2007 at 11:48 PM

SJSJ wrote:

Rocco, with regard to Hung, I see it too. Clearly, the man is all about the food and I could watch him chop stuff all day. I'm still pretty heavily in Casey's corner because her food just always seems to have such rich flavors. It makes me wish I was tasting it too. I'm not 100% sold on Dale yet, but he did impress me tonight. I think the finale should be a great show with some fantastic food and I'm really looking forward to watching it (and of course reading your blog after).

posted on September 26, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Travis wrote:

Nice recap. Where's Bourdain's blog?

posted on September 26, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Sharon wrote:

Rocco,

Thank you again. I wish that you were a judge on the show. I was getting so annoyed with the judging today, especially Tom saying that he didn't see Hung in Hung's food. Thank you so much for stating that you did.

Love ya!

Sharon

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Keri Story wrote:

Right On Rocco! The scenery could have been much better.
The quickfire challenge definitely smelled of rotten fish. If they were looking for great food to judge them on why did they choose those circumstances for them to cook in? You know how the judges like to say they didn't understand what the chef was trying to convey with components in the dish? Or, the dish just didn't make sense? Well, I am not sure the fans understood the cowboy components of Aspen when it is more related to skiing. If they wanted the chefs to cook with game, why didn't they have them go to Montana or something? It just didn't make sense. All in all, it was funny watching Brian explain his ingredients. He is so entertaining for sure! You will be missed in part 2 of the season finale. Great chefs this year guys!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Candice (not Candi) wrote:

In the first few minutes of the episode, I said to myself, "Dale is going home." Imagine my surprise to find out he managed to stay in it, though I don't think he has what it takes to win it.

I think Brian should have been given more credit, but at the same time I agree that he blew it on this challenge. I don't know if he had what it takes to really shine in the final episode, but I don't know if Dale does, either.

According to a lot of posters, Casey and Hung are the ones to beat. I'll give them that with Casey, but I have huge issues with Hung.

You said: "Hung... does recognize that he should cook a dish the judges will love, because they are the ultimate decision-makers."

I disagree with his "I don't give a damn who I cook for" attitude. How would that fare in a restaurant, if he only cooked great meals for reviewers/critics and food bloggers and said "to hell with everyone else. Their opinion doesn't matter. It's the judges' opinions that count."

I think that's a terrible point of view to have and I don't feel that he has what it takes to be a Top Chef. I agree wholeheartedly with Tom Colicchio in that Hung doesn't put enough of himself into his food. He may be a great technical cook, but his attitude sucks and his food lacks soul. If he makes a great chicken dish, what does that really say about him? That he can really make chicken... in a perfected cookbook fashion... but not with any Hung in it. It's like, "See? It tastes great, but ANYONE could have made it because it doesn't have my personal touch to it." And to me, that does not make a Top Chef.

Well, enough about Hung. I just had to disagree with you on your one point.

On another note, please come back. I had enough of Padma in episode 2, and I much prefer your personality and opinion.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Sandy wrote:

Rocco,

As a Coloradan, I KNEW elk would be on the menu, for all the reasons you said. It was fun to watch. The final three are so close to my mind that whoever wins deserves it.

Also, we could see in the previews that you're judging again on the final finale! Excellent. See you next week -- same bat time, same bat channel.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Ashley wrote:

Rocco, I love how quickly you seem to post your entries each week. They are always so great to look forward to. I appreciate the insights, knowledge, and humor that never fails to grace your writing. Thank you so much and I look forward to your reactions on the finale, part 2. Did I notice you dining in the previews?? :) Take care!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Bill Brigden wrote:

Great comments and observations Rocco! This was a great episode.

Big fan - great seeing you at Alinea a few months ago!

~Bill

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Bill Brigden wrote:

Great comments and observations Rocco! This was a great episode.

Big fan - great seeing you at Alinea a few months ago!

~Bill

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Denese wrote:

Chef Rocco, thank you so much for your comments regarding Chef Hung! We hope the Judges recognize the skills and talents he has, as you did, and factor those in to their decision. Last season seemed to include more "personality" based decisions than picking the true Top Chef. Hopefully this season will not.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Michelle wrote:

Who pissed in your cheerios? I could not bring myself to finish reading your blog this week and I usually enjoy it the most. While you may use acid in your food, your writing is better without it.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Deborah R wrote:

Up to the trees and fate--and did I see you among the visiting judges in the previews of next weeks finale? Considering how insightful you are just viewing the episodes like the rest of us, I can't wait to read your blog after you've actually tasted the food!

I was thrilled to see Dale exceed all expectations in this challenge, and agree that three exceptional chefs are in the finale (too bad the Tre zealots threw tantrums and stopped watching--they've missed an entertaining season). But I do have a question: The judges don't see Hung in his cooking, but you do. What are you seeing and what have they missed? How exactly can you tell that a dish has, or lacks, soul?

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Andy B. wrote:

Good blog Rocco. After reading your blog, I re think Hung's dish. He could have won. He used good precision and technique in cooking, slicing the Elk, and plating his dish. I suppose the flavors are there, at least according to Chef Ripert. Watching the episode, Chef Tom made it look like Hung's dish was disappointing. I'm not saying Dale didn't deserve to win. I'm happy Dale came back after some so, so weeks. Dale proved changing plans and executing to produce a good dish with great flavors is indeed possible. Getting tthe win at this stage speaks volumes for Dale's confidence, putting him in equal position with Hung, and Casey for the chance tto be Top Chef.
tI feel this season is a wonderful and exciting one for T.C. It takes away the stench of last year's T.C., which was all about drama, and little about the food. With a lousy cast of contestants, and a crappy, immature Champion. The real champ finished 3rd.
This season (T.C.3) Anyone of the three is a deserving champ. I feel the best cook is Hung. If he cooks well, he should win. The key being performance. That being said, may the best performance win and become Top Chef#3.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:26 AM

JF from Montana wrote:

Chef Rocco

This is the first time I have commented to any of these blogs. I greatly have enjoyed your comments over the past months, as this show has progressed. I also enjoyed watching your venture on that other network. I am not a chef. I have no formal training. But I have learned a great deal from these shows, which improves my home cooking.

With that said, I must put in my two cents your comments about the elk. I have grown up in Montana, hunting and eating all kinds of game animals; elk, deer, moose, and various game birds. I have never found elk to have a strong game taste, unless you choose to leave the bone in the meat when processing it. I frankly prefer it to even beef. If properly processed and harvested, there should be very little game flavor. As you so rightly stated, game meat tends to be far leaner than even the leanest of poultry. As with most meats, the game flavor comes from the fat in the animal. Since bones produce, and contain, a fair amount of fat, that game flavor will come from the bones and impart it into the meat.

Also, the diet of the animal, just as the diet of any other protein, will affect the flavor. If the animal eats a lot of sage, it will have a sage flavor. (Compare deer and elk harvested from the western part and eastern part of Montana and you will see the difference.) I would guess that this elk came from an elk farm, where its diet was not that of its wild counterparts. Having never eaten farm raised elk, I do not know this for sure, but I would guess that the animal also has more fat marbled in its meat than its wild counterparts do.

Finally, the sex of the animal, and the time of year it was harvested, will also have a great deal to do with its flavor. Males have a stronger flavor than females, especially in the early fall, when they are breeding the females and there are larger amounts of hormones in the system. Females will be stronger flavored in the winter, as most are pregnant and their hormones are running stronger.

Thank you for your comments, and I hope someday, you truly get to eat a piece of game that has been taken care of properly, so you can get its true joy it can provide. All of the rest of your comments about it were “spot on” as is the catch phrase.

JF from Montana

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:09 AM

Naruv wrote:

Your best blog yet, Chef!

I often wonder if they're not over-reaching looking for faults. I couldn't disagree with them more when they claim not to be able to see Hung in his food. But then I realized they don't have the benefit of seeing/eating the Quickfires. I'd much rather have his "ultra-refined dedication to the classic style" food, than a bad signature dish regardless of how much "Soul" is in it.

Casey and Dale blew me away this week as well. It should be a great finale. Looking forward to reading next weeks.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Jennifer wrote:

Great blog entry, I love your insights!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:25 AM

Kata wrote:

I don't know why Hung gets all the flack. I watch Top Chef because it's fascinating to learn and see how Chefs create a dish. It's the creativity that draws me in, not how lovey dovey the contestants are. Hung's skill is amazing. That's what I want to see more of. I'm glad he's in the final.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:36 AM

JLH wrote:

This is my first Top Chef experience and I've enjoyed it. I did find the portrayal of Aspen as "camp stove & cowboy" a bit odd, but I did appreciate the scenery. At the ranch, those "cowboys & cowgirls" looked more well-heeled than rough & tumble...more fitting the Aspen I'd imagined.
Overall a lot of fun so far.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:47 AM

Angel wrote:

Thanks for another great summary Rocco! I love your writing style and the added insights are really helpful. I live in Colorado and it is so funny the way tv shows always depict our state as some sort of throwback to the old westerns. Aspen is anything but a cowboy town! Can't wait for the finale - Dale surprised the heck out of me tonight and I'm hoping he wins, but it's anyone's game at this point. May the best chef win!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:49 AM

CR wrote:

Another great blog. I've never had elk and quite frankly don't ever care to try it. I think that given the fact that Hung had never cooked elk before, he did a remarkable job. If his only fault was paring summer veggies with heavy potatoes, then that is a very small mark against him. Seems as though the rare state of Casey's meat was a bigger mark against her.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 2:54 AM

JenSings wrote:

(I'm in a pleasant mood, please note the respectful address, Collichio got the same treatment)
Chef Rocco:

Not sure when it happened, but a hearty congratulations on growing a lovely new sense of humor. Bravo! You surely must have been nurturing this thing in a petrie dish somewhere because it wasn't to be found in earlier posts. Who knew you were funny? Could poke fun? Enjoyed a wicked wit as keen as your knives?

You've come many miles, grasshoppah. Like Bounty, you are the quicker picker upper. (Please note the clever product placement :D) Cheers!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:03 AM

Rick Douglas wrote:

Rocco: Right on about the Quickfire. I'm guessing the producers have rarely--if ever--ventured west of the Mississippi, which would explain why their take on Aspen would be more Buckaroo Bonzai than The Devil Dude Wears Prada. Once again, the American West is reduced to the cliches we've been force-fed by Hollywood for the past 75 years. But, hey, a meltdown by the river makes for great TV!

Brian demonstrated once again that showmanship will only get you so far in a competition called "Top Chef." He's always been good getting people into his tent. But just as often there wasn't much that was memorable once the tent flap closed.

Hung, while technically proficient, demonstrates each week that he talks a good game but clearly lacks the maturity demanded of a winner. He manages his time poorly, thinking that the first man at the finish line wins. Not when your entree is getting cold in the winner's circle!

Casey has been fairly consistent in her approach and execution. I am perplexed, however, by the fact that she really undercooked her meat. Sitting at home, even I could see that the center of the meat was dark, almost purple. Why couldn't she? And this from someone who professes to understand the challenge of cooking elk properly.

Dale was the surprise of this episode. He has shown occasional flashes of brilliance, but too often seemed unable to focus on the task at hand. As you say, you have to have a plan. At first I thought he would falter with boiled potatoes and cauliflower, but he clearly had more in mind than the simple dish he described at the outset. I hope his knack for creating palate-pleasing flavors carries him all the way. And if not Dale, then Casey for "Top Chef." Hung, in my opinion, is too smug and misanthropic, a "Top Chafe," if you will.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:03 AM

karen wrote:

Rocco, thanks for acknowledging the ridiculous nature of this week's challenge. Bravo, please give us more episodes like last week's featuring the French Culinary Institute.

It seems the judges are grasping for straws trying to come up with reasons why Hung is not far and away the winner. Many can see Hung in his food, and may the judges next week as well.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:18 AM

Jessica wrote:

Wow Rocco. Great play by play. I actually missed the episode due to work, however after reading your blog I didn't feel like I missed anything. You explained the episode to a "t", with some fabulous commentary. I always enjoy reading your blog. I'll miss it when this season is over.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 5:40 AM

ChocTaco wrote:

I think you and Bourdain are tied for the best blogs on this site.. both incredibly informative, well written and humorous. Bravo indeed! I see Hung in his food, too, btw. But I do think Hung has held back all season because he knows Tom Colicchio doesn't reward people taking chances or using what Tom views as pretentious techniques.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 5:50 AM

Mike wrote:

Ouch! This blog sounded pretentious and overly snarky.

Rocco, you've redeemed yourself from the "Restaurant" debacle in these blogs by focusing on the food that you actually tasted and the challenges that you have personal insight into. I've been very impressed by your comments.

My reaction after this blog: you seem too in love with your own words, more than what you're describing, and you seem to want to be Anthony Bourdain. Maybe those are the same thing. I know we don't need two Bourdains, TVGuide couldn't handle it.

Maybe 9 pages are too many if you didn't actually taste the food?

posted on September 27, 2007 at 6:10 AM

Marcus wrote:

Chef, your entry is insightful and gave me a better understanding of what was aired. "I/We didn't see you in the food/dish" is another way of saying, "I don't know you." Is it fair to say every dish at a certain level of execution is stamped by the Chef? I like the three finalists and (as a viewer) honestly consider each to be on the beginning of a long and prosperous career.

I can't wait to see what they dish up in the finale and, of course, check out the CLOGS ;)

posted on September 27, 2007 at 7:40 AM

julia wrote:

It's obvious that no matter what Hung does he will never win. He cooks great but "they don't see him in food" No matter it's a great finale way betterthan last year.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:34 AM

Fiorentina wrote:

Grazie Rocco! That was one of the best blog posts you have written so far. I like your writing style and the way you manage to capture the essence of each episode. No snark, just the facts and lovingly described details. Bravo!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:55 AM

dm00n wrote:

One of my favorite restaurants serves elk, and when I order it there it is a sweet meat, not gamey at all. I really don't get the comments about how terrible and gamey elk is, unless I have just always had some that is prepared in some very expert way.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 9:18 AM

FanFare wrote:

Dear Rocco,

This was another great blog with wonderful information. I have had elk when visiting Colorado. I loved it. I have also had their ostrich and of course, the ever present buffalo. All of these less common meats (to Eastcoasters) were well executed.

This week's challenge was frustrating to watch. I found it absolutely stupid. The QF was more like a fraternity prank than a serious test of cooking skill. The elimination challenge seemed also too narrow in focus to take seriously. I think that this week's challenges should have reversed roles with the FCI challenges.

I disagree that Dale belonged in the finale. He talks a good, noble, passionate game. However, by his own admission, he has been out of work for a year and a half! If he is such a great chef, why is that? Certainly there are plenty of kitchens in need of his services... Throughout the competition, Dale has made bold moves and most had backfired. For me, he is the S-3 version of S-1 Dave (i.e. whiney, broke and more lucky than smart). I am glad that Brian got the heave ho. For several episodes, he got by without cooking a thing! The last few challenges, I was surprised that I was actually rooting for long shot Hung. His skills are fascinating to watch. I do feel he cooks with heart AND with finesse. How great is that?! Casey still retains her professionalism throughout. For me, if either Casey or Hung is crowned TC, that would be mighty fine.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Sue wrote:

Thank you for such insightful comments. Your blog is like a wonderful teaching lesson to someone who doesn't know much about food. Especially the thing about braising, wow it makes sense that the dish would be better the next day. My stews never taste quite right the same day I cook them.

Anyway, thanks for the wonderful contribution. The only thing I can add to help is.. well.. maybe you don't need to summarize the *whole* show, as obviously we've all watched it and that is why we want to hear your comments and thoughts! Thanks!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Rachel wrote:

Congratulations to Casey, Dale and Hung for reaching the Top Chef Finale. All three of them deserve to be there. Casey's recent wins have demonstrated that she has a refined palate. Dale's dishes are thoughtful and show that he has a wide range. Hung's technical abilities are impressive. Best wishes to the three of you. Great job!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Marcy S wrote:

Mr. D, your blog gets the award for Top Chef Blogger this week. I thoroughly enjoyed your irony and the thoroughness with which you summarized last night's competition. Witty, ironic, and utter perfection. I don't know if you write a food column somewhere in the world, but I'm going to find out. If you care to send me an email with such info, I'd be delighted.

PS I'm not a chef. I'm a writer!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:05 AM

John wrote:

Well said, Rocco. I enjoyed reading your blog. I didn't know if Dale could hang on until the end, but you believed in him all along, and you were right. I was kind of surprised by the cowboy theme. I mean, this is ASPEN, not Steamboat Springs! Maybe they're saving the fine dining theme for the finale. But of course, you would know that as well as anyone -- you were there! Look forward to seeing you in the finale -- and my prediction -- Casey takes it.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:08 AM

matt wrote:

Interesting and fair points but why this continued adoration of Tre - he had some highs but an equal number of lows.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Lenora wrote:

Thanks for the great blog Rocco! I love reading what you have to say and appreciate the information you give. You Rock!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:16 AM

James wrote:

Thank you for having the insight and perception to say that you "see" Hung in his cooking. Unlike Tom Colicchio who can't seem to find the moose's head nailed firmly above the fireplace. It was very annoying and irksome to hear Tom say that he couldn't "see" Hung in his cooking. What was Tom expecting? Asian spices up the wazoo in every dish that Hung prepares? As we heard Hung reveal last night, Hung's life has been nothing but uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty since Day One of his life. He never got to see his father until he was 9 years old, and that was no guarantee. There was no guarantee that everyone in their family would make it to America alive. Hung's obsession with precision and technique in his cooking is a need to have CERTAINTY, CERTAINTY, CERTAINTY in his life. It's a manifestation of his need to control all the elements of his environment, including time. It's really a no-brainer. For a good cook, Tom is surprisingly without insight into the human character and condition. Even if Tom wasn't aware of Hung's personal story, he should have realized there was a reason why Hung is so obsessive, almost to a detrimental point. I am still rooting for Hung. This means a lot to him.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Mary Hart wrote:

Rocco, fun to read your blog chock full of useful information. Here's an insight from a former Aspen resident: the extreme high altitude causes water to boil at the lower temperature, so braising cannot successfully be undertaken in 3 hours. Up there in Pitkin County, I used to cook lentils overnight!
Great to see you back on TV - not only are you leaner, but it appears that the previous small screen restayrant disaster has trimmed your ego. You've still got that boyish confidence, but the brash has rubbed off. So how's your Mama?

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Joy wrote:

Hi Rocco,

Thanks for pointing out that Hung can be seen in his dishes! The fact that the judges keep pointing out his technical prowess as almost a negative to him is getting quite old. Seriously, what do they want from him, a piece of his actually heart carved out and placed reverently on his dish to them? I look forward to the final challenge and in spite of not being a big fan of his in the beginning, I hope that Hung emerges triumphant as Top Chef. He above all other contestants treated this competition as a competition and that should count for something. He just needs a safety net for his over-confidence. Taste things man!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Scott Lamont wrote:

Rocco, I disagree with you about you having seen Hung in his dish. He was completely removed from this challenge. What's worse, he lied to the judges. When asked about how he felt, he said "I loved it!" when in fact he said he hated it. He went Love love love. I love this that and the other thing. Maybe along the way Hung found himself in this challeng, but his arogance to me was in the way. He lied here big time. It showed to me, showed big time.

All the rest was spot on Rocco. You're one of the great Chef's in this country and are of the rare ability to Write well too. Great Job!!

I always look foward to your view and review! Thank You!!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Kristina wrote:

Hey Rocco,
I agree with you about Hung. I think he is pretty much universally misunderstood by the other contestants and most of the regular judges--with the possible exception of Tom. Hung, while arrogant on the outside, is clearly a very emotional chef who puts every bit of his heart, along with his incredible technique, into his food. I think the fact that the judges told Hung they don't see him in the food is a more a reflection of what they THINK they should be seeing. Maybe they need to look at the food and draw conclusions about Hung as a person, rather than looking at Hung and guessing what they should look for in the food! Just because he was born in Vietnam doesn't mean that's all there is to him, or that it has to be apparent in his food. Haven't they caught on yet that Hung is so defensive about his food because he LOVES it? That IS his soul they are criticizing; if he didn't care, he would shrug and go down without a fight! A few more points about Hung: He's hyper. He's a bit careless with the knives (which seem to be extensions of not just his hands and fingers but his lightning-quick brain). He drops food on the floor and doesn't pick it up (which I don't excuse in any way; all chefs know that is a serious kitchen hazard). But, THAT BOY CAN COOK! Watching him prepare a dish is something I could do all day, everyday--and I could learn a thing or two from him in the process. This whole "he doesn't help the other contestants" whine from the other contestants is getting old. The other chefs need to buck up and take some personal responsibility for their poor time management. As Hung stated in last night's episode...in a restaurant setting he would absolutely step in and help out. We saw that during the Restaurant Wars, when he was an incredibly valuable teammate and followed Sara's orders without complaint. However, this is a competition, and his strategy of not helping his competitors is a sound one. Why should he sacrifice his advantages to the benefit of others? That smacks of socialism, to me, and that's not the American way.
Hung is not only living the American Dream; he embodies the American Spirit. That is a strong independence, a fierce drive, a willingness to take risks, and a firm belief in one's cause. I wish Hung all the best and would be honored to someday cook and/or eat with him.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:26 AM

KatieJ wrote:

Reading your blog is a pleasure. I think your criticisms are fair and I enjoy seeing TopChef through your eyes.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Alex wrote:

Thanks for an intriguing take on last night's competition, Rocco. Sometimes, I think Top Chef goes for too much game and exotic proteins. It all sounded pretty nauseating, though I agree the chefs did a great job. Your final paragraph brilliantly encapsulates the rest of the competition. The days will drag until next Wednesday. I can't wait to see the live finale.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM

DC wrote:

great blog, as usual....
I gotta say, though....Dale, who did pull it out this time, and has in the past....shouldn't be in the finals.
he admitted himself during the mis en place quickfire, that he has poor knife skills, and so shouldn't dice the onions, has no butchery skilly, and so shouldn't break down the chickens, can't open oysters...so he beat egg whites. he has also said that he isn't great with fish. so how the hell is this guy not only on Top Chef, but in the final 3???? IT KILLS ME! maybe he can cook... but a TOP CHEF should have all those skills....am I crazy for thinking that?

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

TopFan wrote:

Humm, interesting that Dale had a total "makeover" in the weeks that had passed. No longer out of it and screwing up, but able to think on his feet when he didnt like the tart. Methinks the producers are going for The Big Gay Cook hook over the pretty boy. Remember, they did do in Sam. Strange, television usually is a medium of the lookers.
Elk? Easy...roll in flour, salt, pepper...pan fry for a sec....pour in a cup or two of good red wine and some raisins. Cover and simmer for an hour and good to go.
It a DEER, dear.
PS... Is Chef Ripert not one of the most handsome men ever?
Talk about HOT in the kitchen!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Christi C wrote:

Once again I am baffled why the judges didn't seem to notice Hung's arrogant attitude about WHO he cooks for. He cooked for the judges by his own admission in Aspen.

He looked down on the American Cowboy -- this sent Micah home but not Hung??? I am confused here. I don't want to eat any food prepared for me by someone that thinks because I am middle class, I can not appreciate delicate and refined cuisine. With the passing of each week, I keep hearing how Hung is techinally a good chef -- but he has no soul. He has no understanding of the average customer... He cooked for the JUDGES, not for the people of Aspen. I would not be interested in eating at his establishment - I am not interested in spending my hard earned money to eat food prepared by someone that thinks I am a peasant.

Shouldn't a good chef enjoy cooking for the common person? Shouldn't a good chef feel joy for what he or she has the power to impart to people? There is nothing on this earth like a good meal, cooked with love... NOTHING.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Nick wrote:

Lots of good humor in this blog. I enjoyed it. And I like how you get right down into educating the reader on how to cook in these blogs. Your description on how to braise-then-glaze really helped. Your blogs make me want to go into the kitchen and cook... or at least find something to eat!

I know the viewer gets a distorted view, but it appeared that the tasters did not find Brian's dish the worst, rather, if it were a truly blind tasting, it appeared that Casey's too-rare meat was enjoyed the least. However, I think it would have been too tragic to send her home, and thus this phase of the competition was judged on overall performance since the beginning of the season. Thus someone, not-Casey and not-Hung, had to go. But that's just how it appeared to one viewer, and I'm not saying it was the wrong thing either.

I am hoping that Hung really brings himself into his dishes next episode. I would love to see Hung really open up and do exactly what he wants to do. I love Vietnamese food, so if he wants to bring some of that into it, so much the better. Casey seems like the best chef overall, the best palate, the best food sense, the most finesee. Dale seems inconsistent to me, althought that elk dish with the berry sauce looked really good, like some kind of Scandinavian soul food. It will be interesting to see what kind of meals all three of them produce next week.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Angelique wrote:

Why is it that we love to see the Best Man/Woman not win? That we somehow find some joy, albeit in a very sadistic way, to see the Top Dog fall? The judges always acknowledge that Hung has the best technical skills, and yet for his dish last night, his criticism was "it didn't have soul?" Personally, I believe he should win this whole contest. Regardless of what is challenge is given to him, whether he personally likes it or not, i.e, last night's episode, he continually demonstrates that he can take something and create a wondeful dish out it. Even wonderful enough for the judges. To me, that makes a good chef. Each person can be good at a certain something, but it takes a certain skill to be able to think quick and spontaneously and react to the situation.

Next season the judges should judge a dish without knowing who created it. As someone in prior posts commented, when we eat at restaurants, the food is either good or bad (with varying degrees). But I never meet the chef. It shouldn't matter who cooked it. I either like it or I don't. The judges almost seem to be affected by who cooked the dish, sometimes almost to a contestant's disadavantage.

Rocco, I too see Hung's "soul" in every dish he creates. Heck, who, when presented with cereal, makes the best out of the situation and makes a Smurf-land diaroma? His focus and determination is very admirable and I feel giddy for him watching his expression as he meets the top masters in the culinary field.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM

marinaz wrote:

I always look forward to your blog! You always give excellent information and you fill in my culinary blanks. I am still missing Tre from this competition so it does my heart good to have you acknowledge his absence from the final three. Dale had a touching story about his journey and it was clear how important Top Chef has been for him. Thanks too for posting your blog so soon, you really start off my morning!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Shannon wrote:

Rocco,
I have really enjoyed reading your blogs, witty and insightful. I'm glad you take the time to write them.
Tre, Dale, and Casey have been my favorites from the beginning and while I was really upset to see Tre go, I am so happy to see Casey and Dale hitting their stride and doing so well! I was really impressed with Casey's quick fire and elimination performance, I hope she goes all the way and wins!!
Hope to see you more on the next season.
All the best

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Kathy wrote:

Thanks, Rocco, for explaining the show in chef's terms, from a chef's POV. It's essential to help us home-based foodies to understand why the judges make their decisions, why some things the cheftestants do are received well and why others aren't.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Jason wrote:

While the notion of food having a soul is likely romantic, the abstract description does little to help the audience nor the contestants determine issues with the presented food. A dish tastes as good as its components and cooking technique. If Casey's dish tastes better, it should be due to the concept and execution, not her personal backstory. Likewise for Hung, his food must actually taste good. Saying that Hung's food lacks soul is a way to avoid deeply examining what the flaws of the dish are. Apparently the concept was not quite as good as Casey's was to make up for the difference in execution (described by the level of cooking of the elk). I go a restaurant to eat well prepared food with creativity and execution that I cannot achieve at home, not because I care about the life of the chef. Judges and contestants can talk about passion, soul, and drive, but given that all of the contestants are on the show and have chosen to be chefs, it stands to reason that they enjoy cooking quite a bit. The soul comments remind me of the cliche sports interviews about heart and wanting it more than the other team. On a side note, Rocco, you have the most insightful blog on here. I hope you return in some capacity next season.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM

NANCY S. - MA wrote:

You said: "Hung... does recognize that he should cook a dish the judges will love, because they are the ultimate decision-makers."

I think this is the smartest thing I've heard Hung say all season. The judges very rarely listen to the reaction of other diners. Sometimes this is really blatant, and it is frustrating. So Hung thought, the heck with the cowboys, I'm cooking for Tom. Smart move.

(And while I agree with Candice above, it's important to remember that this is not a restaurant situation; this is a contest.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Lyn Hooker wrote:

Hey, Rocco:

Thanks for your great comments--expertise, soul, and common sense all in one place. I often feel frustrated with the "what if ?" thinking of an armchair quarterback. I lived in Utah for seven years, and we used to catch the beautiful brown or rainbow trout right out of an icy river. Then home with some fresh corn, and vine ripened tomatoes. A simple frying of the whole trout in butter and salt and pepper plus lemon juice on the side. Nothing else was needed to make a perfect meal. Choose the best ingredients, and try not to screw them up. I also actually shot a deer once. In cooking the venison (similar to elk) we had to cook it long and slow with intense flavoring to cover up the gamey taste. From my living room, I wondered, "How about a prize-winning chili that would really taste good, show thinking out of the box, and please the intended recipients--the guests?"

But no. Especially Hung thinks he is on "Survivor" rather than TC and that he must "win" by cooking for someone other than the "customers." This is why he is so often "shooting himself in the foot" so to speak. It reminds me of the story of the centipede who was asked how he managed to walk with so many feet? He began to think about it. At that point, he fell into a ditch.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Greta wrote:

Great blog! The funny thing is, Wednesday afternoon, I was prepping venison for Thursday's supper and thinking that some sort of game would be a good challenge, since it can be so tricky to make. And then I read your blog, and one of your suggestions of preparation methodds is what I was using! I use a triple marinade (venison chunks first marinated in a typical garlic-based marinade for a couple hours, then marinaded in apple juice for a longer period of time, then in bbq sauce for about the same time). Then I remove the sauce, skewer the chunks and wrap them with bacon and grill them. The individual chunks allow the venison to not have to stay on the grill terribly long, and the bacon keeps the moisture in. Plus, the BBQ sauce only adds a smoky flavoring - it definitely doesn't taste like meat dipped in a blob BBQ sauce. And the result tastes wonderful, without any gamey-aftertaste.

Hopefully we'll see your blong next season - I'll be waiting for it!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:19 PM

liz wrote:

People keep saying that being from Texas somehow gives Casey an insight into cowboys. Dallas is a large metropolitan city that was founded on banking and commerce, not cowboys. Casey cooks in an Asian restaurant. Not a cowboy diner.

For that matter, Chicago (Dale's home) was once home to the largest stockyards in the nation, San Diego has it's share of rodeos, and the National Rodeo competitions are being held in Las Vegas this year. If proximity somehow equals familiarity, the contestants are all on pretty equal footing.

Saying that being from Texas means you know cowboys is akin to saying walking down Wall Street means you are a stock market genius. Shinsei is located in one of the priciest sections of Dallas - believe me the boots she sees are Lucchese's finest, worn by the wealthy, not well-worn Ropers.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Julie wrote:

Just had an amazing elk dish at The Gage in CHICAGO. People were raving about it. Me thinks you are not that up on culinary fashion as you like to think.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Rique Harshman wrote:

Hi Rocco,

Thanks for another great blog!

I espeically like reading your blog because you explain all of the cooking techniques that the TCCs use, which is really helpful as a viewer to better understand the judges' decisions!

Also, I like the language you use to descirbe the cooking techniques and the special ingredients. I appreciate your clear explanations, and the fact that you never "talk down" to the viewers.

Your writing and explanations are clear, well-written, entertaining, and seem to really come from the heart.

Thank you so much for all that you put into your blog each week. By your posts, I can tell you spend a lot of time, and a lot of thought writing for the viewers, so I wanted to send you a huge THANK YOU, ROCCO!!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Lisa Kav wrote:

Anyone care to guess at the composition of Casey's smoky tomato butter? I want the recipe!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 3:47 PM

michael wrote:

Rocco, haha! I love the inital comments! ;)

Yeah, it was like a hodge-podge faux western comedy for a while, only to be brought to life by Brian at the end.

But what do you mean, supposedly? Who do you think should've been there?

Just wondering. :)

posted on September 27, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Justin D wrote:

Rocco, I'm so glad you mentioned larding. I've often wondered why we've seen so little "classic" technique in approach to proteins this season. I was dumbfounded no one simply roasted a chicken last week, and I'm wondering if larding (or even bacon wrapping) even occurred to these chefs. I know it's en vogue to serve measly lean protein portions but sometimes - especially for a great French chef - you need some richness that only fat can provide.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:01 PM

marccrand wrote:

Thanks for the great blog, Rocco! The show is so much fun to watch on Wednesday, and then I get to read all the blogs on Thursday - a twofer. I love the way your trained eyes see all the things that mine don't so you can tell me all I've missed. After season 2 I swore NEVER AGAIN, but I'm hooked and now I love it again.

I actually yelled at the TV when Casey said she was adding cauliflower chunks back into the puree, I knew Tom wouldn't like it. The cowboys and cowgirls are going to love pretty much anything they are served (how do I get invited to one of these parties? Boats, airplanes, Elks Lodge or a lodge to eat elk - just call me!) but, as Hung pointed out, you're cooking for the judges. At a restaurant you're cooking for the public, but in a contest? It's the judges you need to impress and Tom doesn't like lumpy sauces. I shuddered when I saw her elk (med-well for me) but really think it was the chunky sauce that put her over the edge. Dale's looked amazing though so I'm sure it would've been tough to beat him anyway.

The remaining three have all been my favorite at various times, so I'd be happy with any of them (thank goodness not like last year) but have to admit a small part of me would love to see a FEMALE Top Chef. Go Casey!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Nilo wrote:

Rocco,

Every week, I swing by here and tell you how much I love your Blog. I've started telling others how much I love your Blog. Many are convinced you've got a ghostwriter locked up somewhere writing this stuff.

Please assure them for me that your Blog is all Rocco all the time...

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Shaz D'Souza wrote:

I agree with Rocco

posted on September 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Scott wrote:

Rocco,

Now I know why a certain person ( initials A.B. mean anyting?) like to give you so much guff (is that clean enough for ya, Mr. Webmaster?) You obviously like to talk smack about things you don't anything about. Your little jab at western culture in the beggining speaks volumes. I was born and raised in northwestern Montana. Yes, we do have a culture all to our own. It's not like New York, or anyting in California, but I do believe that we have as rich and as colorful a culture as any in the United States. I could teach you a thing or two about how to cook trout using just camping gear (not that farm raised junk they had on the show, you can tell by the color of the flesh). So remember, respect the ingredients, no matter where they come from.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Juliette wrote:

Another enjoyable read.If Casey wins next week, it will at least be fun to read your take on events. You do not seem the "rubber stamp" for TC that Ted Allen is (and you "get" the audience's feelings, too--note, the continuing comments about Tre).

I hope you'll keep your independent, even edgy commentary--especially in the post-mortem, when the pressure mounts!

As for "Who will win?" I always favor the underdog.

But who is the greatest underdog here--the burned out gay chef making a comeback...the talented woman in a still-male dominated profession...or the earnest young immigrant sous chef with a passion for classic cooking?

Could be anyone, but due to some of the editing and Tom's comments...Hung has the "underdog" edge for me.

Still hoping....Go Hung!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Christina wrote:

I completely agree with you Rocco except about Hung. You can see he only cooks for himself and only puts his all into it on 'special occasions'

I want to see someone win who cooks every meal with reverence, with care and with pride in serving it to whomever he is serving it to - judge or cowboy!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Jodee wrote:

Rocco,
I want you to know, your blog is the first I go to each week. I am not a chief of even close to a foodie. I am a layman (woman) who when can afford likes good food. Each week you educate me and you are the only one I learn from. You relate to me in terms I can understand. And if I can understand, so can the rest of the Bravo fans. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for teaching me and your undieing wisedoom on your take of the TCCs. I only look for truth and wisdom, not smartass comments! Jodee from Ohio

posted on September 27, 2007 at 6:54 PM

suzanne wrote:

I totally agree with JF from Montana. I too have never posted a blog and was about to go into detail on what a flavorful meat elk is, but JF summed it up for me.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 7:01 PM

lynp wrote:

Chef Rocco - great blog. I appreciate Hung also. One of the most entertaining events on Top Chef, was Hung cutting up the chickens. I hope he wins. I do not know how Brian got as far as he did. Tre should have been in this foursome. CJ or Brian should have gone home that week.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Pooka wrote:

What does it men when

:) or ;)

end a sentence?

And does lol mean laugh out loud? If so, sure is used oddly, as in "thanks for a great episode lol."

While I'm asking, does anyone know why Brian said that seafood chefs don't consider trout seafood? Are there freshwater chefs vs. seafood chefs? Or what?

Thanks

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM

maddy wrote:

If there is anyone deserving to be Top Chef, that is Hung. Not only is he technically superb, he has shown himself to be consistently above the rest as far as food knowledge. I don't understand why he has received such bad review. I think the other chefs are afraid of him and are deliberately ganging up against him. Casey has shown that she is not a genuinely kind person. She is passive aggressive in her comments and plays the nice one when it is to her advantage. As for Dale, he is too quick to judge Hung. In last week's challenge, he was upset because Hung wouldn't reveal the secret of how to cook the fish at Le Cirque. If I were Dale, I would be ashamed; he was trying to cheat. It is a competition and Hung is only behaving appropriately. So, it seems like it's Casey and Dale working together to demoralize Hung. But they will not succeed because Hung is too focused, smart, and determine. He is the only logical winner.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:30 PM

maddy wrote:

If there is anyone deserving to be Top Chef, that is Hung. Not only is he technically superb, he has shown himself to be consistently above the rest as far as food knowledge. I don't understand why he has received such bad review. I think the other chefs are afraid of him and are deliberately ganging up against him. Casey has shown that she is not a genuinely kind person. She is passive aggressive in her comments and plays the nice one when it is to her advantage. As for Dale, he is too quick to judge Hung. In last week's challenge, he was upset because Hung wouldn't reveal the secret of how to cook the fish at Le Cirque. If I were Dale, I would be ashamed; he was trying to cheat. It is a competition and Hung is only behaving appropriately. So, it seems like it's Casey and Dale working together to demoralize Hung. But they will not succeed because Hung is too focused, smart, and determine. He is the only logical winner.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Kevin wrote:

I really think Le Bernardin is over rated. I went there years ago after reading Ripert makes a dead fish sings. I was expecting to be wow and blown away. Well, my fish was a tab bit dry and nothing I had was extraordinary. And I still remember it till this day (I believe it was 12 years ago) because I was soo disappointed.

As for who should win, I always believe the person who can cook the best should win. Not one who's the nicest or who gets along with everyone. This show is call Top Chef not Top person who gets along with everyone. I felt the first season should have been Tiffany because she was better. Last season should have been Marcel because his food is soo much more exciting than Ilan's. This season is definitely Hung. He's clearly the best of the bunch. Who care's if he's an ass, all I care when I go to a restaurant is that am I going to be wowed. Neither Casey nor Dale has the chops to top Hung. But we all know Casey's going to win because TC never had a woman win and she's nice to everyone. I just wish the judges have the guts to go with the person who deserve to win not the one who's nice to everyone.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

hank mccoy wrote:

All I can say is that hung's elk dish looked like a swanson's frozen dinner, with all the inspiration of a cafeteria on steroids...bland and blander. Apparently this "technique" he supposedly possessess appeals to the judges more than something I would have actually eaten (brian's). Seriously, as if the "hot chick judge that doesn't have a culinary clue in her body" isn't enough to ruin my appetite for authenticity, then this absurd obessession on ridiculous accents and technique certainly does.

posted on September 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM

kent glove wrote:

Here are some guidelines:

Keep it clean. You're a Bravo fan, you know better words than most TV audiences.
.............
too bad the chefs don't!

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Bob R. wrote:

After this episode, I really don't want Hung to win whereas before I was perfectly fine with that prospect. I think those who praise his technical process are absolutely correct - has there ever been any other competitor on TC with his knife skills and incredible speed? However, I agree with those who decry the lack of soul in his cooking. What really bothers me about Hung is his utter hypocrisy. He tells the camera he hates the fact that the challenge is elk. Then at the table he says how much he loved the challenge. All of a sudden when he hears Casey being praised for the "soul" in her cooking, he's all about soul. I certainly didn't believe his spiel. I think he is incredibly bright and he felt this is what he needed to say to stay in the competition and that it didn't mean a whole lot more than that to him. I would still be rather surprised if he does not win the competition but looking over the dishes created by the remaining contestants from the start of the competition (something I encourage all bloggers to do), my personal preferences are Casey and Dale. I'd be very happy to see either win. Sara noted in her exit interview that Hung was not a very creative chef and after looking at his dishes, I would agree. The question is - will technical finesse outweigh "soul?"

posted on September 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM

trish wrote:

All three you say? Maybe had Tre made it that would be possible. Maybe you can find one of them that possesses two of the qualities.

I get the impression it will be Casey but I think Hung is more skilled than the other two. You never know, Dale could possibly creep up on them and win. It really doesn't matter to me who takes the title of the three. The joy is gone for me.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Elyse wrote:

Thank you Rocco for standing by Hung when many others didn't with regard to the "no soul" comment. Why is everyone criticizing Hung? This is a serious cooking competition, not a popularity contest on who's the nicest or best looking. Sure, he sometimes annoys me when he comes off arrogant (at times) but now that I've been watching the show, I can see why! This guy is overly boastful because he does have the chops to back it up! Can you blame him? He creates beautiful food and he's awesome in the kitchen! If I could select one chef to cook for me, I would pick Hung over all the others. Hands down. I know I can count on exciting, memorable, refined, innovative cuisine. These are the reasons why I love to go out to eat and why he's the kind of chef that I would love to cook for me. He is clearly passionate about food and is inspired by it. Look at the Smurf Village he produced! It was fun, totally creative, out of the box thinking. That episode showed me the depths of his creative mind. This guy clearly is in his element and it consumes him completely! I certainly did not get that same passion and glee from the other chefs. Hung is underrated as a chef and I was thrilled that his talent was finally recognized by the esteemed panel of french culinary giants. That episode confirmed everything I had already known about the chef....he's truly gifted in his art and deserves to be Top Chef. I truly cannot wait to see what happens....you can bet that I'll be cheering him on!

posted on September 28, 2007 at 2:38 AM

Nate D. wrote:

Rocco,

Some of the people commenting on your blog are friggin kooks!! Sheesh people, lighten up. Rocco is commenting on the episode, not on you personally, your favorite fish, childhood pet elk or birthplace.

Chef, not that it matters, but I like your blog. I think you're funny, interesting and knowledgeable without being childish. And, I don't take your words perosnally nor as an invitation to attack you, your looks, talent, knowledge or writing skills. People are so odd and angry. One thing is for sure, you do get emotional responses from people that run from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I hope Hung wins, putting emotions aside, he obviously is the real talent on the show. I don't really see how a professional chef (Tom), could vote any other way. Don't you agree? In the long run, I guess it doesn't really matter who wins. they will all have benefited from the experience and exposure.

Your blog is a pleasure.

Nate

posted on September 28, 2007 at 9:28 AM

FrenchFry wrote:

Dear Rocco,

I liked your comments here very much. They are cutting yet well balanced. I must admit that I hated this episode as much as i adored last week's show. The QF was contrived and silly. It did not rise to the "Finale" occasion. The cowboy challenge was almost as bad. At least there was more time for prep and a little more space to work. However, both challenges did not play on Aspen's fine side. I hope next week (for Pt 2) the cooks are not expected to prepare a 4 course tasting meal while white water rafting.

For me, the cooks' end run pleas were almost comical. They most certainly all want the top spot. Their reasons are pretty standard fare. It is somewhat uncomfortable watching contestants beg for crumbs (or titles, as the case may be). I hope this is not a trend for the show.

To sum up: Dale - he is one lucky ducky who is cute, clever but lacks basic kitchen skills. Casey is a professional all the way. She remains calm under pressure. Hung is technically excellent and exudes sheer joy when he cooks. He seems shy toward letting his emotions pour out. Brian seemed full of Malarkey most of the time. His big personality covered up his clueless combos of flavor profiles. He skated by for far too long.

Thanks for your continued measured comments served up very well done!

posted on September 28, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Misty wrote:

Rocco,

Thanks for another great blog, and the education in how to cook leaner meats. I really love your perspective on this episode and the three remaining chefs.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Steve N wrote:

Rocco,

I love your blog. For those others who constantly whine that your blog is too *long*; please google for the funny pages. It's really short and has pictures in it. I love your blog because it is insightful; and you are not afraid to write however long it may take to get your message across.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Laura wrote:

Your blog is the best because you spend the most time of all the bloggers talking about the food -- the thought process, the technique and the taste!! I really appreciate your careful analysis.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM

willtasteanything wrote:

Now Rocco,

Let's be honest. Eric Ripert is talented, but Gilbert Le Coze was a genius.

Le Bernardin is indeed a superb restaurant and worthy of many stars. However, when Le Coze was alive, the menu was exciting and daring.

Honestly, I think Ripert is a bit like Ringo Starr; If Stuart Sutcliffe hadn't died...

Go Hung!

posted on September 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Alysabeth in Austin wrote:

Oh. You are the best. I'd like you to write everything I read. You,for me,are the sharpest knife in the drawer.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 10:54 PM

alysabeth in austin wrote:

WORD, Nate D. Word. I could not have said it better. Go,Nate D.

posted on September 28, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Ann wrote:

Rocco,

Is it true that the 20 ingrediants in Brian's dish eventually left an unpleasant aftertaste? Because I'm worried. The judges seemed to like his dish, the cowfolk liked it, then suddenly when his dish is up against Casey's, now the judges don't like it?
When Tre was eliminated, I thought it was a tough decision but ultimately fair. He was exec chef and his service was diasterous. So, even though he clearly was the better chef, it was right for him to go.
At the time it seemed as if Casey's dish was the worst. At the very least it wasn't very memorable -- the judges almost forgot to judge it. But she stays anyway. I hope it was because her dish was better than Brian's and not because she's overall the better chef ... Because a better chef got booted episodes ago.

posted on September 29, 2007 at 4:39 AM

carrie wrote:

Fraternity hazing is right. How excellent were the previous shows that had true integrity. What a bore the Aspen show was - watching evil producers demoralize talented chefs. I'm over this show.

posted on September 29, 2007 at 5:47 AM

diane diprete wrote:

i have watched top chef from day 1, and hve also read the conmments and the one thing i never understood is that a contestant is vilified-if he states he wants to win. this is a competition. that is why the show was nominated for x number of emmys. it is not a ridiculous reality show-it is an honest to god competition.a "playoff" series where the prize is not the superbowl ring or world series ring -but the exposure to whatever or whomever can help these professionals achieve their professional goals. what exactly is so wrong with that. so please criticize howie, hung,etc. for their cooking skills whatever, but not because you don't "like" them as people. they are there to win.

posted on September 29, 2007 at 8:16 AM

fran wrote:

great blog rocco
love your take...
would love to see you on weekly...
maybe Tom would share his spot.... u deserve more airtime

posted on September 29, 2007 at 9:09 AM

AuntieRuth wrote:

Trout is one fish that does not need to be scaled. It is also much faster to skin a fish than to scale it if indeed it needs scaling. 20 minutes to filet one of those little guys and saute it was plenty of time.

I totally agree with the other poster about Elk. It is very lean, but not "strong" unless it has been improperly handled. I find it easier to cook than venison. Larding it with bacon would overwhelm it in a bad way.

I wish they had made them use a wood fire that they had to build themselves. THAT would have been challenging. Trout and elk? I'll do that any day.

posted on September 29, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Rebecca wrote:

I hope you realize how tremendously your blogs have improved from your first adequate, but far from enthralling attempt at the outset of this season. Now, your humor, honesty and personality are shining through.

I began to read your blog at 10:30 last night while propping my eyelids open with Bic pencaps. I gave up, went to bed and was so glad to be able to savor your recap this weekend morning. What a fun read!

posted on September 29, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Charlie Rodchenko wrote:

It's reassuring to read your blogs; they reinforce my opinion of your expertise and fairness. In reading a recent response, I was infuriated to have you compared to Anthony Bourdain, who is admittedly and proudly profane; his vulgar humor evidently appeals to the uneducated. In contrast, your assessments of the competing chefs are thorough and amusing without having to rely on acerbic and tacky wit.

I know that your culinary training (and success) is equal to that of the other judges and that your approach to the competition is firmly based on knowledge and experience so your "take" on the challenges as well as the chefs is "right on".

How were you conned into that "Italian restaurant" reality show? With your background in French cuisine, it amazes me that people now think of you as an Italian 'cook'.

I hope to see more of you as a judge and less of that woman with the uneducated palate.

posted on September 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

zen wrote:

ROCCO
adore your bog, adored your food and love the man you have become..
Bravo to Bravo for making you a regualr on the show...

posted on September 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM

stewie wrote:

Let's have another mise en place with onions to determine the winner ;-)

posted on September 29, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Beth wrote:

Thanks for your blog. Your insight is helpful for us non-cooks and you praise and critize contestants and judges alike (in a very nice way, of course). I think most every one mis-understands Hung. He does not let his emotions really show, except the bravado; and I think his food does show the real Hung that we do not see.
Please continue commenting.

posted on September 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Elizabeth wrote:

I really don't appreciate the nasty comments about the Rocky Mountain West, our traditions, and our food. Criminy---if anybody should be sensitive to how damaging stereotypes are, it's a gay Italian from New York City!

For the record: Elk is delicious, if you have the skill to cook it right (cough, cough). Aspen, despite having been infested with New Yorkers, is still a very nice town in Colorado where you can still wear cowboy boots. Yes, we still have working cattle ranches here. And no, Rocco, we don't let boys who don't know how to pee outside come here for vacation.

posted on October 1, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Mike S., New Orleans wrote:

Rocco:

I loved this article and I'm very impressed by your beautiful writing style. I have to know though, is your line "a good vet could have brought this back to life" original, or a standard phrase for meat that is too rare? I've never heard it before and I can't wait to use it the next time I get served bloody meat.

Hung's dishes to me explemplify what I hate about many upper class restaurants: all presentation and precision, no soul. I think he may win this year's competition, but so far everything Casey made (except for the still-alive elk) sounded fantastic.

posted on October 1, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Lois Drake wrote:

Like your intelligent writing. Looking forward to the finale of the season 2 "soup opera".

posted on October 2, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Richard James Lane wrote:

Elizabeth, the only good food in the Western US comes out of New Mexico. I wouldn't toot your horn about western cuisine. I live in the west and I don't think it comes close to New York or Chicago in excitement or quality.... and I include Las vegas in the comparison.

posted on October 2, 2007 at 9:37 PM

zen wrote:

HI Rocco
saw you on the Today Show..
You were great and th recipe looked tasty. can yo reprint that for us...
I think you would have won the challenge with that one...
wow... could you be more handsome and sweet...Keep going..
we need you on the Today Show too.

posted on October 2, 2007 at 11:28 PM

lil wrote:

Good read. Now I am ready for the finale.Hung and Tre were my picks from episode 1. I agree HUng is evident in his food. He has what it takes to be top Chef. ( unlike the guy who won season 2)

posted on October 3, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Linda wrote:

My husband and I have been almost giddy anticipating this finale - it's so fun! We didn't know about Top Chef until this year and have also enjoyed the reruns of previous seasons when they are shown on Bravo.
We were sad when Tre was eliminated, but that was the only time we disagreed with the judges. Dale, Hung and Casey are definately the best of the bunch. My husband thinks Dale will win and I'm predicting it's Casey. Either way it's going to be a fun time - I'm preparing a bunch of snooty little treats to eat while we watch the show!

posted on October 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Dee wrote:

Great blog. That was one crazy quickfire. I still believe that Dale and Hung should have been the only two in the finale. No offense to Casey - you are a wonderful, beautiful, talented chef, but your talent as a chef do not quite match that of Dale and Hung's.

posted on October 3, 2007 at 6:12 PM

dawnica wrote:

Chef Rocco,

Enjoyed your blog this week. I learned a bit about cooking and you made me giggle.

I'd love to see you and Hung in partridge in a pear tree cook off.

Hung FTW

dawnica

posted on October 3, 2007 at 9:56 PM

betsy wrote:

it seems that Top chef likes to give the bad guys - Marcel last year- Hung this year too much importance - it seems that their professionalism should be part of the judging - instead it seems to be glorified.

there were at least twenty of us watching this last episode and all agreed that this would be the last time watch this show - it is not about the cooking (Hung was as mentioned technically good - but as chefs go he is not a team player or someone i would share a kitchen with. the final decision to elect him top chef sealed our decision not to watch this show again.

posted on October 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM

tracee wrote:

I just watched the season finale of Top Chef. I am very disappointed that Casey or Dale did not win. I do not think that Hung should have won. I understand it was a competition but all throughout the show, he never once was a team player. I think all he ever did was be really critical to his fellow teamates, Casey showed so much heart and soul. Everytime anyone needed help getting their plates out she was willing to help. She was not formally trained but always brought what looked like beautiful dishes to the table. Dale seemed to have spirt and executed well on the last four courses. Hung is very arrogant and to me he almost already knew he was going to be Top Chef. I thought it was totally wrong to pick him. I really hope one season they will pick a Woman Chef because I am a big fan of the show. To me right now it looks like women cannot make it as a Top Chef. Casey and Dale had so much personality and one of them should have won..

Thank you just my opinion.

posted on October 3, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Mark wrote:

Dearest Rocco,

Maybe I should be your cohost. I'm very good, especially on camera, and all you have to do is taste my food to realise I'm a great cook. And what is a chef if not a leader of cooks. And leading is what I do. However, I don't own a video camera. Tough luck on moi. ;-)

So, consider elk. Now, I've cooked elk and caribou. I prefer caribou. I've BBQ'ed both and caribou comes out better than elk but you can, if careful BBQ elk. Larding or barding, you really mean barding, don'tcha, is probably the best way to go with elk. Personally, I don't mind a very slow convection BBQ'ing texas style to give it a slow cook whilest catching the dripping for a nice sauce.

Open that restaurant with Hung. I'll be your first customer.

posted on October 3, 2007 at 11:48 PM

David Soda wrote:

I'm feeling a little sad. It's true, I've watched every episode of Top Chef with relish (and in re-run as thankfully Bravo runs episodes again for those of us who work and travel often.)

I was reading in one of those "Flyer" magazines at O'Hare Airport about Dale Levitsky several months ago and was really hoping he had in fact become the Top Chef. I promised at the end if he won we'd hunt down wherever he was working and go. Well, I've decided to hunt him down anyway. I've eaten at the restaurant in Dallas that Tres works at (Lobster Shooters WOO HOO) and the Tom C Restaurant at the W hotel there is very hip.

I liked Dale's irreverent style, what I would hope you'd find in a smart, talented, engaged, and yet flawed (human) man.
The immigrant story from Hung is honest as well, I'll admit, but I just wanted Dale to win. Oh well, I'm confident he'll go far. He has two fans already.
DALE, where are you now?

posted on October 3, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Steve wrote:

I am disgusted that Hung took Top Chef. He is to immature and not ready. As any Chef will tell you team work is what makes a dish taste great. I believe that Bravo was looking for the Drama to be the winner and not the talent.

posted on October 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Marion wrote:

STOP hating on Hung! He is the TOP CHEF by far. Rock on Hung! Some of us could learn something.

posted on October 4, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Jo Kinder wrote:

I agree with Betsy and her friends, hung winning was so unfair.
I will not bother with this show again

posted on October 5, 2007 at 10:53 PM

nicole jenison wrote:

Dale I loved from the very start and i stell love you if you were a little bit younger i would ask your hand in marage you have such a great sence of humier and i love that about you i wish you dident mess up that lobster dish but its ok hope you have a great life and future ps email me i also live in chigco il love you take care of your self from your biggest fan nicole rae jenison

posted on October 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Matthew Speed wrote:

I wanted Dale to win most favorite. I have had my eye on this guy on each and every episode! Dale is a hottie and If he is single, then I would love to come to Chicago and meet him. Cook me a romantic dinner and I'm all yours buddy!!

posted on October 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM