Bourdain Lets It ALL Out

[pg13]

I am not talking about Ramsey, but Chef Bourdain, or anyone who is a better and more believable person than Tom and Gail would move this show to another level.

I don't understand what you mean by "more believable."

I find Tom to be EXTREMELY believable...and I have little reason to question Gail's opinion (I know less of her qualifications than I do Tom...)

And I think the Padma instead of Katie thing solved my major panel problem from last season... I'm fine with the judging core as is...but I agree that adding Ted Allen would be cool.

pg

[gizmo1]

People applaud Bourdain because they know it's not an act with Bourdain. He's been brutally honest since he started speaking to the masses, and he hasn't changed that at all.

Winston, I think the reason that he didn't slam Sam for the things you mentioned is that those were valid and fair defenses -- not excuses or blaming other people. In the camp glucose episode, Sam accused cheating, and there WAS cheating. That's quite different from Elia's accusations. The grey eggs and ham, Sam took full resonsibility for, and admitted that it didn't work the way he wanted it to. And the "If Mario made it" comment was arrogant -- but it also showed he stands behind his creations.

I LOVED reading that blog. Thanks for posting it Corprip!

It's not an act with Mike Yakura either. He was just as nasty in last season's hot dog cart challenge with Harold being one of the recipients of his bluntness. Harold got his revenge on Mike in his blog. At the same time Mike Yakura can go the other direction telling Lee Anne that he loved her char su pork and he would want to 'steal' her mojito and make it part of his restaurant's menu.

[j_mado]

I don't understand what you mean by "more believable."

I find Tom to be EXTREMELY believable...and I have little reason to question Gail's opinion (I know less of her qualifications than I do Tom...)

And I think the Padma instead of Katie thing solved my major panel problem from last season... I'm fine with the judging core as is...but I agree that adding Ted Allen would be cool.

pg

What I mean by that is sometimes they change their minds. They say they like a dish while eating, and then they complain about something at the judges table. They blame the group leader for everything in one episode, and they fire a team member in another episode just because he follows the orders of the leader. This list can go on and on. I might not have worded it right, but I would like to see judges who are more solid in their reasoning.

I agree with you about Padma. Especially in the first episode of the finals, when she stood up for Sam.

[Stargazer]

Great blog. I freaking love Anthony Bourdain.

[pg13]

What I mean by that is sometimes they change their minds. They say they like a dish while eating, and then they complain about something at the judges table. They blame the group leader for everything in one episode, and they fire a team member in another episode just because he follows the orders of the leader. This list can go on and on. I might not have worded it right, but I would like to see judges who are more solid in their reasoning.

This point was discussed in another thread, but Judges Table deliberations can take hours...and often, it takes awhile for the proper judging criteria to be determined through what are, according to reports, often lengthy debates.

Just like a jury room, I'd have to imagine that as someone makes a good point or expresses their point of view, that it could naturally help someone's opinion of what's important to evolve until a final decision is made.

However, in the editing...not only are the most dramatic statements cherrypicked, sometmes, perhaps, out of context...but they often set up the suspenseful or shocking elimination segments by editing in red herrings or editing out compensatory positive comments to give the viewer a different feeling about how the judges are coming to their decision than how they got to that decision, or what that decision ends up being.

And food IS esoteric at some level... The words we use can only convey, up to a point, how we truly feel about something that involves all of the senses.

On top of that, how we feel about food CHANGES over time...so, enjoying the first taste of something in your mouth...and enjoying a dish all the way through...and then thinking about how you enjoyed a dish a half hour (and more) after eating it are all different feelings.

It's not unusual to show a quick "oh, this is delicious" clip for a first bite...but, upon further reflection...problems with the dish, especially when another opinion is shared about the dish, become more clear.

I'll give a very NON-gourmet example. Pizza. I can't tell you how many times I've enjoyed a pizza...and said I've enjoyed a pizza...only to have someone ask "didn't you think it was too greasy?"--and then, I look at the pizza box and see the puddles of grease on the cardboard...and then feel that nastiness as it doesn't like sitting in my stomach as much as I liked putting it there.

If I was filmed all the way through the experience, I might say "Oh my GOD, this is so good." I might say "This pizza was so good, but I can't finish it...too much of a good thing, perhaps?" and I might say "You're right, the pizza was so greasy that I feel nauseous." I might even wake up the next morning saying "Whatever happens, don't let me eat that much of that kind of pizza ever again." All would be accurate...and all would indicate feeling differently about food, including a refinement of my opinion based on the shared opinion of someone else...

We'll never really know about the food on Top Chef, because we'll never get the chance to taste it... We have to rely on Tom, Gail, Padma and guest...and now that I've gotten to know them, I can usually tell what they're going to think about the food that they're being offered on the show...

Usually.
pg

PS--The last time I was truly surprised was in Season 1 when Ted Allen wanted Dave to have flopped that John Dory fish and vegetable dish (created by Angela in the "Everybody Switch Dishes" challenge) in a big slab of butter in a frying pan... I don't disagree with him--I was just surprised to hear him say it.

[nliedel]

Bourdain pisses me off when he starts bapping at folks like Rachel Ray. Dude, you don't have to like her, but she has her place. Not everyone's a chef and while I cherish my copy of the Les Halles Cookbook, I rarely do more than read the recipes (I read cookbooks like most people read novels).

Other than his tendancy to speak without an internal editor, he's usually right. In this blog post he's dead on. There's not a thing he wrote that I don't agree with. Which is not usually the case. He got the good and bad points about all of them.

[redsox girl]

What I mean by that is sometimes they change their minds. They say they like a dish while eating, and then they complain about something at the judges table. They blame the group leader for everything in one episode, and they fire a team member in another episode just because he follows the orders of the leader. This list can go on and on. I might not have worded it right, but I would like to see judges who are more solid in their reasoning.

I agree with you about Padma. Especially in the first episode of the finals, when she stood up for Sam.

You are making perfect sense to me and you are on point-it's incredibly frustrating aituation. in another thread some this incosistency in judging is balmed on the way the long hours of deliberation are edited. Boy, editors get blamed for everything on reality shows

[redsox girl]

Bourdain pisses me off when he starts bapping at folks like Rachel Ray. Dude, you don't have to like her, but she has her place. Not everyone's a chef and while I cherish my copy of the Les Halles Cookbook, I rarely do more than read the recipes (I read cookbooks like most people read novels).

Other than his tendancy to speak without an internal editor, he's usually right. In this blog post he's dead on. There's not a thing he wrote that I don't agree with. Which is not usually the case. He got the good and bad points about all of them.

Oh I had no idea he is one of those folks who is jealous of rays success- it speaks to the arrogance within the industry. There is a place for her and if the masses enjoy her, so freakin qwhat, you know, Maybe her appeal lies in the fact she's not going to scream at someone or humilate them. Is his blog spot on regarding his observations? More or less. But, I'll tel you what, at least for me, I don't care how talented a person is, I can't abide by them or respect them if they don't behave in a way which is courteous-talent should never be uses as a reason to excuse boorish behavior that would otherwise be damned as unacceptable.

[pg13]

You are making perfect sense to me and you are on point-it's incredibly frustrating aituation. in another thread some this incosistency in judging is balmed on the way the long hours of deliberation are edited. Boy, editors get blamed for everything on reality shows

I just want it made CRYSTAL clear that I've NEVER said that the incosistency in judging should be balmed on editing.

Let me try to be clear:

1) We see only part of an involved back-and-forth process, by which (like in a jury room) people try to make their points and convince others to see things their way. Like in the Hawaiian challenge, Chef Tom's comment about Sam not having cooked anything caused Chef Allan Wong to reconsider how he felt about Sam's dishes. Doesn't mean he was wrong when he said he enjoyed them, he just found that a different perspective can change how one sees something.

2) How someone feels about food can change over the course of time. You might LOVE the richness of flavors upon first bite. You might think that same dish is sickening towards the end of it, because of that same richness. We usually don't get to see how every judge responds to every step of the whole experience.

3) The fine folks at Magical Elves DO engage in a bit of deceptive editing--to try to bury the assumed conclusion for the sake of creating compelling television. It wouldn't be much of a Judges Table if it was absolutely clear how the judges were going to decide ten minutes before the end of the show, would it? So...in some cases, the negative comments about a good meal might go unbalanced by the appropriate amount of positive comments. Then, the reveal comes...and sometimes we're confused. Doesn't mean the judges were...

The prime example of this is the finale episode. I watched the show, it seemed to be even...judges generally preferred two Marcel dishes, two Ilan dishes...one seemed to be a tie. However, after reading the blogs of Tom, Gail and Padma, it seems clear that, in fact, in a direct course-by-course comparison of the dishes, Ilan won four dishes and Marcel only one.

...but I'd never balm anyone...believe me.

pg--So, redsox girl...where were you when the Mooninites attacked Beantown?--seattle

PS--I'm just teasing...and in a nice, not planning on shaving your head, sort of way...

[Jexter]

Yeah! I feel vindicated. Sam and Cliff = the best chefs and decent people (although, prone to human error from time to time)