Something struck me a few weeks ago, six episodes deep into this season of Bravo’s Top Chef. It wasn’t anything good. Yes, the show has become predictable; a head chef during Restaurant Wars got voted off (again), the new judge is a bald Simon Cowell rip-off, and the product placements are beyond out of control (this week make a soufflé out of EXXON gasoline! Yummy!). But above all I’ve found one glaring problem; the contestants just aren’t that good. True, I’m probably jaded, and I’ll admit to that right of the bat. I was lucky enough to have grown up in Manhattan, one of the culinary capitals of the world, and it’s the city I currently call home. I wholeheartedly take advantage of the metropolis’ culinary offerings. But the lack of talent among the Top Chef cast is especially depressing when you think about the kind of resumes floating around out there. It’s a fact compounded by the scores articles I’ve come across detailing the sorry state of employment for chefs recently graduated from some of the nation’s top culinary institutes. I’m talking about people who’ve gone to The Culinary Institute of America, are fluent in three languages, and have slaved away as line cooks in France and Italy. These are the poor saps being turned down for a gourmet hotdog cart position. Sadly, I’m not making this up.
So I’ve tried to think of why the contestants are so poor this year (and that’s not to say they wouldn’t blow my pants off in the kitchen), and I’ve come to a conclusion that’s probably wrong (but I’m going to spit it out anyways). Celebrity. These chefs want to play it safe. If they cook scallops four episodes in a row, because, hell, that’s what they can cook well, then screw it, they’re going to cook scallops (but hey ma, this scallop is chilled! Whoopee!). Anything to stay one more week in the public eye. In New York City there’s evidence that at least to an extent this strategy pays off. I can name off the top of my head at least three chefs (Maria, the Bitchy One, and the Australian dude – ok so maybe not name), who failed to crack the top five last season, that slid into cushy positions at some fairly high-profile city eateries (and what do you know, a publicist let it slip to Page Six!). Hey, if these guys can get there by lasting five or six episodes, then why can’t these guys? Who needs the talent to win? They just need to be seen. Don’t take my word on this season’s uninspired cooking, take Stephen Starr’s, last night’s guest judge, and restaurateur: “I don't know if there's anyone I would hire as an execute chef. A sous chef maybe [from eater.com].”
Sadly, I also don’t think the producers have thought enough about the style of cook they want to attract. Take for instance the culinary style of molecular gastronomy (a type of cooking where the chef becomes a sort of chef scientist).
As the study of the physical and chemical processes that occur in cooking, the food created is often unique, playful, and occasionally a work of art (I would look to Wylie Dufresne’s wd-50, and Grant Achatz’s Alinea for good examples). I can think of several reasons why Top Chef has shied away from such contestants. One, they probably couldn’t win the ten minute, lets all try and make a Spam and Velveeta amuse-bouche (or amuse-douche, as I like to call it), and two, the kitchen would need a whole new slew of culinary instruments (not to mention a wide variety chemicals and atomic scales).So instead of Marcel’s foams, or Richard’s smoker, we get a chef who makes a tomato and mozzarella salad. And wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment