Cast Blog: #TOPCHEF

Isle Of Enchantment

Tom Colicchio shares his thoughts on the final four.

The finale marks my third trip to the beautiful island of Puerto Rico.The first trip, about ten years ago, was to cook at a charity dinner. My wife (then girlfriend) and I strolled happily around old San Juan enjoying the pastel Colonial architecture and ocean breezes. My second trip, a few years later, was to a large family resort where we ran through a trough of sunscreen and suffered through endless rounds of chicken fingers (even chefs' kids go through this phase).

This time around I was hoping for some better food. Puerto Rico does its own distinctive riff on Latin cuisine by marrying indigenous (fruit, seafood) Spanish (beef, pork, rice), and African slave ingredients (okra, taro) into something uniquely its own. I was interested to see how the cocina criolla, as the locals call it, would find it's way into the final four's efforts. I was also really curious to see how each of them would attack their pig.

Now people who know me know I take pig (what we chefs like to call "that magical animal") very seriously. Butchered well, an entire pig is capable of yielding up more satisfying culinary opportunities than any other creature on earth, down to their snouts and tails (haute dog cuisine). And as I said in my previous blog, I think butchering is a skill that every chef should have. I was lucky enough to be taught how to butcher from one of the cooks at a restaurant gig in Union, NJ that served a lot of veal (learn to butcher a young cow, and you can handle any mammal nature throws at you, with the exception of a whale). My suggestion to aspiring chefs -- if butchering isn't taught to you in culinary school (and even if it is) -- toss your charts and apprentice yourself on weekends to a local butcher. You will never have cause to regret it. Especially when you're handed an entire pig during an Elimination Challenge.


blogs_413_12.jpg

Our final four gave it their best shots. None were surgeons (I'm being kind), but they all emerged with usable pork. And for the most part, the dishes they made out of it were pretty darn good. In fact, Richard's was so good we gave him a car. But this is the stage in the competition when we start to nitpick mercilessly; the remaining chefs are all skilled enough that they rarely make huge mistakes, and execution is, for the most part, solid.

So who made the small mistakes? Lisa's puree was too sweet. Antonia's pigeon peas were undercooked and she opted to serve all of her offerings on one plate. Rather than giving it the rustic feel she was going for, this gave her food a muddy, jumbled quality, and turned the "al dente" peas into a spoiler for four dishes instead of just one.

One taste of each contestant's dishes was all it took for me to know immediately how the judging would play out, and a quick glance around the party confirmed it: As the guests queued up for seconds, a long, winding line snaked its way around Richard's table. Another line, of decent length, led to Stephanie's, and a short but interested one led to Lisa's. There was no line at Antonia's table.

Alas, we had to let Antonia go, which of course has brought a wellspring of vitriol from the theorists on our message boards. Therefore, I'm compelled to give my once-a-season response to those cynics out there who insist we make our decisions to manipulate the ratings. If I sound defensive, I think I'm entitled: Let's just say we were the types of judges that, in exchange for scaling the breathtaking heights of reality TV, yielded to the producers directives, in order to play to audiences. Wouldn't that mean we would have let Lisa go?


For the uninitiated: the bulk of the Top Chef season is shot over six grueling weeks some months before the show airs (up until the finale, which is shot as the early episodes air.) While we're shooting, I have very little contact with the contestants beyond those filmed kitchen forays where the chefs struggle to stay friendly to me as they're quietly freaking out, the rare interaction during a challenge (like my bout as expediter at Tramonto), and the couple of minutes it takes for us to taste the food, and share our judgment with them at the Judges' Table. We see tape of the chefs' interviews, and clips of them cooking, bonding, or fighting only after they've been cut into the final episode. It's thus impossible for us to draw anything other than the most cursory conclusions about the chefs, much less figure out ratings that don't yet exist, or who will eventually be "villain" or fan favorite.

If we had been able to somehow able to figure this out ahead of time and thereby act upon it, Tiffani would have been booted early in Season One (or Stephen, take your pick), Marcel would have never made it to the head-shaving incident, Sam would have won Season Two hands down on the female vote alone, and Tre would have stayed, despite screwing up, because he was such a likable and competent guy. In fact, we would have been compelled to ignore all of his subsequent mistakes because he had been such an able contender up to that point.

It seems that the theory-that-just-won't-die has surfaced yet again because of Lisa, who has enraged people with her defiant, arms-crossed Judges' Table scowl. She's clearly not as loved as some of the other chefs who have been sent packing, leading to the conspiracy theories: They kept her for the ratings! I can see why some take issue with Lisa -- she's been called out on the carpet a number of times and somehow seems to hang on. I think Lisa, along with a few chefs from past seasons (Dave Martin and Mike Midgley are two that come to mind,) benefited from a phenomenon I call the "lucky-dog-who-keeps-skating-by-effect," in which a chef of decent, but not stellar, skills gets lucky and doesn't screw up at precisely the moment that one of their more gifted opponents does. And since we judge each week's Elimination Challenge on its own merits, we are operating each time under the assumption that everyone still cooking deserves to be there.


blogs_413_06.jpg

Now you may hate us for standing in the "judge each week on it's own merits" corner, and personally subscribe to the "judge each week by overall performance" camp, but consider for a moment if we did judge each contestant based on their cumulative merits -- by whose analysis, exactly? And how do we arrive at a consensus? My idea of how the chefs rank may vary widely from Ted or Gail's. And what about our Guest Judge -- he or she doesn't know any of the chefs -- of what value at that point is their input? The debate would shift from "who won this episode?" to "who's won the most episodes?" and "should we factor in the Quickfires?" "Does attitude or likability count?" "How about we assign each dish a score, tally them up, and then knock people off by the numbers?" Etc. etc .... It opens a huge, even more contentious can of worms. The "week-by-week" logic may be only incrementally fairer than the "overall performance" argument, but it's our story, and we're sticking to it.

That said, I felt manipulated by the week-before-last's show -- it really did seem like Lisa should have been sent home over Dale. I wrote this in my blog not to sell my fellow judges up the river, but rather to empathize with viewers who are left to wonder, How did that happen?" It's hard to boil four or more hours of nuanced debate into a few minutes of screen time, and I can see why the results don't always mesh with what viewers have seen.

I can only resolve to follow my gut each week about the food in front of me, and hope that Top Chef fans stick it out with us and keep writing in. Your thoughts and comments, even when I don't agree, are an essential part of making this a dish that works.

Tom

Richard: "Winning Is Overrated"

Richard Blais congratulates Doug Adams on his admirable run and knows (from experience) this is just the beginning for this talented chef.

Doug Adams is not Top Chef.

Doug Adams is, however, the poster chef for what this competition is all about. A jumping off point for unrecognized or yet truly discovered talent.

Mr. Adams, yes I'm saying Mister because it pays respect to the man, and also because that's how The New York Times goes about things, came on to this season touting his resume of being a working class sous chef from Portland.

Doug Adams is not Top Chef. Doug Adams is, however, the poster chef for what this competition is all about.

Richard Blais

Sous chefs are on the line everyday (sous chefs from Portland I imagine are also butchering whole animals and foraging for botanicals, buts that's for a different blog). They are hands-on, blue collar grinders and early on Doug uses this statement to separate himself from the contestants who maybe are clipboard surfing, or worse, not even really in a restaurant at this stage of their careers. And although this is a part of his strategy or drive, and a very honest personal understanding and awareness of self, I have news for you...

Doug Adams is no longer a sous chef.

Sure, he may actually, technically still carry the title tonight, I'm not certain to be honest, but by his performance this season on Top Chef, he is now ready for the next stage in his career, and this is what can happen and should happen after Top Chef.

I can't imagine someone not taking a chance with giving Doug the opportunity to run a small restaurant. I can't imagine that someone out there tonight, hearing about Doug's goal of operating a Montana restaurant, connected in some way to hunting and fishing won't contact him. I can't imagine it; because it happened to me... My restaurant Juniper & Ivy in San Diego is a direct connection from my performance on Top Chef, and my gut tells me it had very little to do with "winning."

The fact is, winning is overrated.

Winning is fun. It may get you some cash or secure your ego, yes, but really, six months after this thing runs out on television, we are all just "that guy or girl from Top Chef.

Throughout this season, Doug has demonstrated everything one looks for in a great business partner. He cooks delicious, relatable, soulful food. He does it with a smile on his face. He cooks with a sense of authorship and knowledge of place and time. And perhaps most importantly (no, not his epic beard), most importantly, he communicates with his colleagues professionally and with integrity. I'd guess every cheftestant likes him. I know every judge likes him. He takes risks, like roasting a whole lobe of Foie gras, or say, blending up an aioli of ant eggs. Which, by the way, are you kidding me? Maybe he takes these chances because it's part of the game, but I think more so because Doug is a curious cook, which is a sure tell sign of a chef ready to do their own thing.

Doug, it may seem like I never had anything positive to say about your food, and maybe indeed that's how it played out on television, but it's not the case, Chef.

Congrats on an amazing run, one for all future contestants to take note of. And when rooms become available at your resort in Montana, I'm booking...

Blais
@RichardBlais (Instagram & Twitter)

Read more about: