I didn’t remember her blaming her team at all. I thought she was very gracious in defeat, although I think the most puzzling storyline of the show has been how she was so dominant the first episode of masters and so terrible since then.
At least this episode gave us someone to root against (Michael). Rick and Hubert have been my favorites all along, so I’ll be happy if either of them wins. They both seem like genuinely nice people, and are obviously tremendous chefs.
I think the right 3 made the finals. She may be a great chef and a nice person, but Anita Lo was the Debbie Downer of this enterprise, and a real buzzkill as an interviewee.
I didn’t catch the “what’s my name” incident, but for the life of me, I can’t imagine what Dale think he gains from coming across as a thin-skinned knee-jerk thug on national TV. With other wanna-bes, that’s one thing–but with a “Master” chef? Really?
I think the right three made the finals, but I thought it was grotesquely unfair to change to outside in hot sun. Anita was dead as soon as they did that. It was malicious for them to suggest that she should have “rethought” her plan – it wasn’t like she could go shop for a different menu. She’d bought for a raw bar, which she wouldn’t have done had she known it was outside. Even though I thought she was weakest of the four, their change in set-up killed her, rather than her cooking or choices.
And I thought the past contestants were just like they were before. Dale was always ready to fight with anyone over anything, with a major chip on his shoulder. Wossname with the hat was an arrogant ass during the season he was a contestant. I think that they are who they are, with over-inflated egos.
As an aside, we met Dale at the restaurant in NYC (I forget the name of it, Buddha-something? Chinese-ish) and he was very pleasant. We said we were from Chicago and he posed with us for pictures, nice as could be.
That’s a big part of what bugged me about the episode. How is Anita supposed to rethink her plan/menu AFTER they’ve spent all the money they’re allotted shopping AND after almost all the prep work is done? It makes me wonder if the judges knew all the challenges the chefs had been given, and the timing of them.
Spike is the douchebag with the hat (he also judged the burger Quickfire recently). But my greatest joy was not only seeing paprika-prick Ilan getting virtually no face time (and no credit for a dish), but he wasn’t even picked in the first round (and he was, IIRC, the only TC winner in the crowd). Delicious!
I think they thought out the twists well in advance (out of event-planning necessity), so it would have been logistically impossible to change things from the outdoor venue, even if meant a huge additional disadvantage for Anita.
I found this ep simultaneously wildly entertaining and oddly disappointing. Douchiness abounded, and while I enjoy that on Top Chef, it’s not what I watch THIS show for.
I’m pretty sure that being able to correctly pronounce “Chiarello” is not indicative of being able to make risotto, so it’s a piss poor interview question. Also, as much of an ass as Dale is, that was the most ridiculous spat ever. Michael was bitching that Dale took his refrigerator, and pulling rank with Dale, as though Dale wasn’t acting on Anita’s behalf. Work out the resource sharing with your competition, not with the kitchen staff.
The Anita/Jamie thing was funny, it was so “Hey, I know you!!! Oh wait, I forgot I hate you.” Jamie’s remark that “I’m not responsible for anything, I’m just shucking oysters*” annoyed me. You’re responsible for shucking oysters, get to it. All the previous contestants seemed to expect a little too much deference, which was just ridiculous. If your boss wants your input, that’s fabulous. If not, well… you’re here to be a sous chef, so suck it up and do what you’re told.
I’m not sorry to see Anita go, since as others have mentioned, she doesn’t make for great tv, and I expected Michael to win based on that. But it was still a little disconcerting to hear the scores given, since they had almost nothing good to say about Michael’s food, and Anita, though she got hosed with the raw bar, got rave reviews for her other dish.
I’m a little in love with Rick Bayless, so I’ll be rooting for him next week, but a Hubert win certainly wouldn’t make me unhappy. They’re each a joy to watch.
*And yes, I understand she meant that she hadn’t been assigned a dish. But it was a RAW BAR. The oysters ARE the dish. I assume Anita was doing all the sauces and condiments, and having her sous chefs shucking and cutting, because that’s what sous chefs are for.
I’m just glad Spike had the graciousness not to outshine any of the master chefs, which is what he said they were afraid of.
I’m sure a lot of the obnoxiousness is a put-up by the producers, but, gah, there’s just something about Spike that makes me want to knock that stupid hat off his smirking head. I agree with the other dopers that I don’t watch this show for the Big Brother type antics, but to admire the skill of the chefs.
As for Michael, my opinion of him has actually gone up with each episode since I expected him to be just a pretty-boy TV chef put in the mix to add variety. He is a very solid chef. (But, really, the best the chefs could do was to name 7 of the 20 ingredients, even with gimmes like peanut butter?)
I loved how Hubert booted Spike without a moment’s hesitation.
[Nelson Muntz] Ha ha! [/Nelson Muntz]
He wasn’t? I thought all of the returning cheftestants were picked? Although you’re right, I can’t remember seeing him actually do anything.
They were all picked, but he wasn’t one of the first four chosen … i.e., not in the first round.
I think the right 3 chefs moved on to the finals, though I’m not the biggest fan of Michael. I have to say I also wasn’t the biggest fan of Rick’s in his first appearance, but now he’s completely won me over. I’d be happy with either him or Hubert winning. Rick even has a commentary blog for the series.
Anita seemed like she is a very good chef, but not good at all in dealing with surprises or special challenges. She did very well in the Magic challenge, where the only thing special was the “illusion theme.” She also did well in the first Champion’s round episode, where they got a free hand to reinterpret another chef’s dish. She did poorly last episode with the food restriction challenge, and poorly in this one with too many curve balls.
It was interesting to see the different kinds of leading styles. Hubert and Rick definitely seemed to lead by commanding the respect of their assistants, and trusting them too. Michael seemed more like the kind of person who leads as a commander, and he seemed to have a personality clash with his sous chefs.
I’m not saying his leading style is necessary a wrong one in general, but for a challenge like this it probably wasn’t the wisest. Hubert and Rick made their assistants want to win too, but I got the impression that some of Michael’s assistants were not very keen on helping him. Michael was treating the sous chefs as if he was conducting a job interview on them, while I got the impression that Rick and Hubert were more co-operating with their sous chefs while still acting as their leader.
I think a leading style like Michael’s can only work when you are actually working with real employees. The former contestants are not real employees, as the boss doesn’t have any real power over them other than respect that’s earned. The worst that can happen to the Sous Chefs in this challenge is to look bad on camera and ruin their reputation. If they make a mistake in the food preparation or don’t give it their all, they themselves don’t lose anything except an opportunity to impress others. In a way the chefs are their bosses in name only.
While I think in general Top Chef Masters is amazing and in many ways better than the regular Top Chef, I’m really not a fan of the quickfire scoring thing. It didn’t make a difference in this round, but it could have easily made one. Someone gets a 2 star advantage because they picked 2 more ingredients correctly in a tasting challenge? That’s ridiculous. At least it was a bit more tolerable when the quickfires were actually about cooking something.
While I like the star judging system in general a lot, they should separate the quickfire judging from the elimination scores. The quickfire should give a significant advantage in the elimination challenge like it does on Top Chef, but I don’t want it to have such a huge emphasis in the eliminations. Giving both an advantage in the challenge and a potentially huge score difference is too much.
Great link!
The judging seemed little strange. The critics criticized Chiarello’s dishes endlessly while giving him four stars. They also did not let us see enough of Keller’s dishes. Why did he wind up with only three stars from the laypeople yet five stars from all the judges? They did not make that clear at all.
I would have much preferred to hear more about the food served by Keller and far less time listening to people like Dale make asses of themselves on national television.
I think the difference between the judges comments and the scoring can be explained by editing shenanigans. If they show the judges praising 3 chefs food and not liking the fourth one’s, it’ll be obvious to everyone who’ll get eliminated. To create suspense for who is going home, they likely showed more of the negative comments about Michael’s food, and not so much of the praise that resulted in the good scores in the end. I’ve seen a few similar situations in the regular Top Chef series.
The laypeople gave Hubert 3½ stars compared to the critics 5 stars each. I’m guessing that the difference mostly comes down to invidual palates. Hubert’s french dishes may have been more appealing to the critics, and less approachable for the laypeople. The critics seemed to give value to the sheer amount of dishes he had prepared as well.
I’ll be the first to admit that given the choice between a well prepared mexican and a well prepared french dish, I’d probably rate the mexican one higher by just because it’s more familiar and more suited to my palate. It seemed to me that Hubert’s dishes were more subtle, and Bayless’ dishes were more bold. I personally prefer bold over subtle in cooking any day as a layperson, but the critics may appreciate french cooking the same way. Not that Bayless’ dishes weren’t suited for critics, as obviously they praised his work a lot tool.
I find it a bit too much of a coincidence that they never tie with scores though. I suspect the critics first give their scores in private, and the producers check if there is a tie. My guess is that if there is a tie, the critics discuss amongst themselves who should win, and someone agrees to lower or raise their rating by half a star.
Which is always confusing. It’s pretty strange when you hear nothing but criticism yet a good score is handed out. For all we heard about the old swordfish, you’d think he was out.
I think the vegan episode showed that there is some tampering made with the scores. The only tie I remember was from this episode, where Anita and Rick tied in the quickfire challenge, which led to Rick getting the advantage (being second in choosing his first teammate).
I didn’t like this episode. While at the one hand it was very essentially Top Chef, I think it’s a real disservice to the viewers to see top class haute cuisine degrade. Besides, I would much rather see that Anita lost due to somebody else being slightly more brilliant, than to see her food get spoiled because somebody thought it was a fun idea to completely change the environment and conditions for the challenge.
I’m very pleased with the results. I’d love to try Hubert’s casserole-thingy. My heart did sink a bit when I saw the foam on Rick’s dish, but it all worked out in the end. What a great series!
StG
I agree completely. While Hubert Keller is The Chef, there’s something about Rick Bayless that’s comforting. I’ve seen many of his programs on PBS and he has a way of imparting lots of information in an easy way (if tha makes sense). Chiarello, OTOH, I was glad to get off my screen. When the critic from Savour again gave him 3.5 stars, I snerked. I’m just put off by him.
I was tickled that Rick won. I have an irrational hate-on for Michael Chiarello at this point (smug is my ultimate turn-off), and while I think Hubert is both a great guy and an amazing chef, I don’t think that the Make A Wish Foundation has much of a problem fund-raising. It’s nice to see the prize go to both a deserving competitor, and a deserving but much more obscure charity.
On a side note, that reminds me that a few weeks ago, people were up in arms about Art Smith playing for his own charity, apparently without realizing that Rick Bayless was doing the same (and unsurprisingly, most of them, when it was pointed out, found some reason that it was suddenly okay). Note to Art - that “Welcome to The Me Show, All Me, All the Time” thing can really work to your disadvantage.
What a great series- especially to watch it after the regular Top Chef. The masters are so professional and congenial. It’s great to watch.
Love Rick Bayless and Hubert.
I was pleased with the results from last night. Bayless comes across as a wonderful person: calm, pleasant, cool under fire and totally mature. I really enjoyed this series. The opportunity to watch people at the top of their craft (even if you couldn’t taste the food) was a pleasure. I hope they do it again next summer.
Yeah, I think there was at least one other competitor that had his/her own charity too, but Smith apparently has a knack - as does Chiarello! - for rubbing people the wrong way.
I was peeved at Gael Greene saying she was shocked to see such a refined dish (specifically talking about the sunchoke puree, I think) from Bayless. Then immediately afterwards, I was pleased at (IIRC) Padma Lakshmi interjecting that Mexican food gets shortchanged by many who find it tough to believe it can be a fine cuisine.
<hijack> This reminded me of the last time I went to Frontera Grill - I was waiting outside on a Wednesday night, at about quarter to 5, in the middle of a line extending maybe half the block. A couple of women walked by, tourists by the sound of their accents, and asked what we were waiting in line for. I explained it was for the doors to open; they don’t take many reservations at Frontera. They asked if it was for a special event, and I explained no, they’re just very popular and delicious. It sounded like (from their confusing explanation) they’d had a taco at the little Frontera “outpost” at Macy’s and didn’t get the big deal. Then they were asking if there were any “Happy Hour” specials or any tapas. :smack: Nope, Mexican restaurant, they do have a special selection of ceviches though. I just couldn’t convey that he’s really a respected chef and the restaurants have exquisite food (unsaid: if you’re willing to open your mind a little and believe that there is really something to it).</hijack>
I was personally tickled to see that a suckling pig dish was on Bayless’ menu; last time we went, my husband picked a dish involving a super-slow-roasted suckling pig that was then shredded up into meat for a “make your own tacos” type of dish. He just loved it.
Keller is amazing too, and his food was frankly almost astonishing to look at. I’m really considering making a reservation at his restaurant for the next time we travel to San Francisco.