You’re far from the top, Chef

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.

Quote of the Day

Comes some unlikely advice from William Faulkner:

"...the best job that was ever offered to me was to become a landlord in a brothel. In my opinion it's the perfect milieu for an artist to work in."

Here, here.

Drastic Measures

Fringe and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles are both fairly new to the network scene. Fringe starts the back end of its first season tonight on FOX, and Connor, now well into its second season, starts up again next week. While they both fall comfortably under the science fiction banner, Fringe attempts a sort of quasi-science route, whereas Connor plays with temporal dilemmas and mommy issues (along with good, old fashioned, robot-fighting).
Both shows are usually crisply edited, well directed, nicely scored, and for the most part, well acted.

With Conner, I didn’t go in to the show expecting much. Terminator seemed like a failing franchise (this was before the buzz around Salvation, mind you), and save Lena Heady (as the titular character), there was no one in the cast or creative team to excite me. Fringe had big shoes to follow. As J.J. Abrams’ first hands-on show since LOST (I didn’t realize he wrote anymore either), a 10 million dollar pilot, Lance Reddick (The Wire), and the great John Noble, things were stacked in its favor. It also seemed like a rip-off of the X-files (a plus, in my book).

But then something strange happened. While I enjoyed Fringe from the start, Connor took time to build up the story. This, I expected. What I didn’t expect was that both lead characters, in both shows, would turn out to be massive anchors. In Fringe, the title goes to Anna Torv, the bland, vapid, and obnoxiously perfect Agent Dunham, whose acting is flatter than her hair. It’s an extremely disappointing performance, especially when you compare her character to Gillian Anderson’s Scully. While Jackson (the reluctant son) and Noble (the insane scientist) play off each other in some of the show’s more entertaining scenes, Torv’s are dull, and lack any emotional, or even comical, punch. She literally reminds me of a sack of potatoes in a pant suit.

For Connor, the character of infamous note here would be the savior of mankind, John Connor (played by Thomas Dekker, who you might remember as the no-name who bolted from Heroes right before they were about to out him). If this is indeed the leader of humanity then you might as well kill us all now, because we’re screwed. Dekker’s scenes are like nails on a chalkboard. You would think that someone with the task of saving civilization as we know it would have better things to do then steal his mom’s car to go see a girl. You’d be wrong. It’s funny, but when I heard Brian Austin Green (of 90210; also know as the Notorious B.A.G.) was joining the cast, I contemplated removing Connor from my DVR list. Instead, his character has turned into one of the more interesting, and it’s clear that as an actor, he’s working extremely hard to not come of off as a cheese-ball. In some ways I blame Connor’s writers more for Dekker’s predicament than the actor himself. Unfortunately they’ve already sullied the character to such a degree that there’s only one option. There’s no way anyone’s going to let this kid run an army, so....

KILL THEM BOTH. Neither show would suffer. In fact, for Heady, it would create some interesting and compelling storylines, and the timeline would be completely altered so that the show would no longer be tied to its strict canon. With Torv, who cares? Does anyone like this character? You could probably replace her with Mark Valley’s seemingly deceased character using some faux science mumbo-jumbo and no one would be the wiser. I guess Rupert Murdoch, Australian mogul, and, shocker, overlord of FOX, whose niece just happens to be – you guessed it – Anna Torv, might get a bit pissed, but isn’t it about time we end that sort of pervasive nepotistic Hollywood attitude?

See? Two birds with one stone.