The Frugal Sea

Tom explains that you can't be a great chef if you can't run a kitchen.

Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship. ~Benjamin Franklin I'd like to start by explaining my absence all these weeks on the Top Chef Web site -- this summer I opened a new Craft in Los Angeles, a big, ambitious place that gives me an excuse to troll the marvelous Santa Monica greenmarket for the kind of produce I dream of (delicate heads of cauliflower, rainbow-hued heirloom tomatoes, tiny little roma beans that would make you weep...) The opening was a success thanks to my hardworking (and very tired) staff, but the effort demanded my full attention day in and day out for the last three months. As the season unfurled, I hoped that the foodies among you would understand my single-mindedness and not hold it against me.

Let me briefly address Tre's ousting two weeks ago, which I know from reading the message boards was an unpopular decision. It was hard to send Tre packing after the Restaurant Wars -- he was a good guy and, despite his share of missteps, an able competitor. But it brought to mind the same sports metaphor we used when hunky favorite Sam was sent packing in Season Two: Having a great season record doesn't mean you get handed the pennant -- you still need to win the World Series. I applaud Tre's decision to take on the role of team leader, but with that came the understanding that his neck was on the chopping block. If all went well, he'd emerge the hero ahead of those who played it safe. But if he failed -- and in my opinion, all three of Tre's dishes failed -- then he knew he'd be on the hot seat. Frankly, without that, the risk of leadership is no risk at all.
bourdain_310_05_320x240.jpg

As for tonight's Elimination Challenge, if you boil it down, it really was a very basic task: to stretch a buck. The chefs let themselves get thrown by the setting and circumstance (A rocking boat! A galley kitchen! A bunch of fashionistas!) But to be honest, the challenge was really about being creative and savvy within a limited budget. Something that millions of home cooks manage to do every day of the week. When I'm asked to cater an event, I often encounter people operating within a budget. If it's too low for me to deliver, I turn down the job. But if I do agree to it, then it's up to me to make it work; a lower budget doesn't entitle me to scrimp on technique or imagination. I felt Casey's beef carpaccio and Sara's tomato bread pudding were excellent examples of skillful, budget-friendly planning and execution. Neither dish featured pricey ingredients, yet both delivered maximum finesse and flavor for the money and time available. It would have been hard to improve on either appetizer by spending more money.
bourdain_310_04_320x240.jpg

A number of the chefs made a mistake by attempting to put out two appetizers instead of one; with only $50 in ingredients, why would you needlessly cut your resources in half? Howie clearly felt two items would redeem him after his disastrous (non)showing at the Quickfire, but that only would have worked if both dishes were exceptional, which neither was. His mushroom duxelles was a case in point: the trick there is to carefully cut away the mushroom's gills (to avoid turning the duxelles an unappetizing grayish black) and introduce a small amount of acid. It would have been achievable in the time allotted, but Howie was intent on banging the dish out so he could start in on his disastrous asparagus cigars. If he had used all of his time and money on one beautifully crafted hors d'oeuvre rather than two hasty ones, he -- and our guests -- would have been much better served.

Overall, Hung has shown an excitement for cooking that borders on zealotry, so I was surprised at the flaccid little bites he turned out in this challenge. I didn't buy his protests that these were classic combinations that have been around for 300 -- or was it 800? -- years (not sure where he got this historical tidbit, but we'll let it go.) There is a fine line between classic and dated, and his hors d'oeuvres fell on the unhappy side of that line. They showed Hung's usual technical finesse, but even he ultimately acknowledged that he could have done better.
bourdain_310_07_320x240.jpg

I'm of two minds about Brian's turn as team leader; at first I felt he should have stepped up during the challenge and done more to shape the overall vision of the food, vetoing the chefs' decisions to make more than one app apiece, for example. But after watching the episode I feel a little differently. Brian saw his role as motivator and manager -- not watchdog -- and in that sense he delivered. He helped to keep his team mindful of time and money, and that's a big part of succeeding as a chef. bourdain_310_02_320x240.jpg

Ultimately I think tonight's episode underscored a basic tenet of the restaurant world; there are plenty of great cooks out there who can make beautiful food but will never be great chefs because they can't run a kitchen. It involves hiring well and delegating appropriately. Keeping people motivated and mindful of time, as Brian did. Thinking on your feet and staying creative, even whimsical, in the face of obstacles, like being stuck in the cereal aisle during a Quickfire. And all the talent in the world won't save you from a lack of understanding about purchasing and quantities. If you can't spend your allotted cash with intelligence and moderation in a cocktail party competition, how do you expect to manage the day-to-day financial operations of a major restaurant? Folding under pressure is simply not an option. In the case of Howie, he wasn't overboard, he was in over his head.

You May Also Like...

Recommended by Zergnet