Hell's Kitchen (with comparison to Cooking Under Fire)

Cafe Society
1

FOX’s new reality TV series featuring 12 aspiring chefs and a new restaurant that Gordon Ramsay is opening in Los Angeles.

I watched it out of curiousity- to see how FOX might approach things differently than the PBS version of the same situation- “Cooking Under Fire”.

I will probably not watch Hell’s Kitchen (HK)again- but I have been watching and enjoying Cooking Under Fire (Fire) every week.

My number one peeve is this: I can not stand it when people use curse words casually despite knowing full well that they will be bleeped out on air.

OK, I admit it- I don’t like casual cursing either. I feel like Ramsay deliberately treats people like one of his favorite words- which was bleeped out repeated last night.

My second objection is this: Why in the world would you take twelve mostly untrained people, give them a two hour lesson in how to cook the foods on the menu and then attempt to open a new restaurant? It is no wonder that the customers were leaving in droves-mostly without their food.

And Ramsay would not send food out that didn’t meet his requirements- forcing people to recook dishes time and time again. (If one plate needs recooking- the others all do to in his world).

It just seemed cruel. On Fire, most of the finalists have shown greater knowledge of cooking and generally have been able to cook whatever they want to- with a few limitations. (one week the challenge was to recreate a dish that was demonstrated for them. Other times the judges have been critical–of both judgement and cooking skills- but without using curse words or being needlessly cruel).

On HK, the contestents are divided into two teams, and the best person on the weakest team (the other team was not characterized as winning the contest) was forced to select two people for possible elimination. Ramsay then picked which one to eliminate. Previews suggest that the noneliminated person looks forward to the chance to get revenge on the picker.

On Fire, the three judges just pick the weakest performer on a particular challenge and send him (or her) home. Some interpersonnal squabbles based on personality and two many cooks in one small kitchen, but attitude towards other finalists is unlikely to get you kicked off. (Attitude towards the judges is different.)

So anyway, am I the only one who has watched both shows? Anyone else have thoughts?

2

I rather liked it.

If Ramsey didn’t treat them like shit, and put them in the grinder of a restaurant on opening night w/ little prep, then it wouldnt be called Hell’s Kitchen then wouldn’t it?

I’ve worked in a restaurant. Casual and gratituous profanity is the norm in a restaurant kitchen.

3

There’s already a thread. Perhaps they can be merged? In any case, I agree with the OP. “CuF” seems like a legitimate attempt to find a chef. “HK” just seems like an excuse to watch someone freaking out on TV.

4

You have to remember Ramsey’s not acting. That’s the way he is. He has/had a couple of series on the BBC: Boiling point, and another whose title I can’t remember and quite frankly he was tame on Hell’s Kitchen.

Part of his “reputation” is that no food will be served unless it is perfect and part of that perfection is based on time. If part of your entree is ruined, then everything else will be too, because they need to be served at the same time. You can’t have food sitting under a heat lamp for 30 minutes while you recook the chicken, it ALL has to be redone.

Tough guy, but he’s not treating them any less than he would himself; but he is fair. If the meal’s good, he gives creds…if it’s not, well…