“Top Chef” races to the finish line on Wednesday
June 9th, 2008 by David Lee Simmons in RestaurantsFor years, I’ve studiously avoided “Top Chef,” Bravo’s reality chef-competition show — which is unusual for me considering my near obsession with practically all things Bravo reality-TV programming. (And in my defense, I do believe the best of the crop, “Project Runway,” is a multi-Emmy nominee, no?)
But “Top Chef” eluded me for years mainly on the argument that there was really no way for me to “judge” whether or not the resultant work was any good. And so, generally speaking, it all came down to the drama, and even during those unavoidable Bravo marathon screenings of the series — helpful at times, annoying the other 90 percent of the time — I just couldn’t get on board. Until now.
This fourth season represents a breakthrough, probably due to the presence of Atlanta’s own finalist, Richard Blais, who not only seems to be the most talented of the group but also seems the most level-headed. (For a chef, mind you. Those folks are nut-jobs! And some of them are friends of mine.) So Blais is in the final three after Antonia was bumped in last week’s part-one finale. The final finale hits the screen Wednesday at 10 p.m. I’m pulling for Blais, natch.
Whoever won, judge and chef Tom Colicchio ain’t talking, at least not in his interview posted this morning on Salon. But he does talk about almost everything else. Whether he likes to admit it or not, Colicchio is great TV; he’s the Simon Cowell of the judges even though he says he tries not to be nasty in his assessments. (“I don’t mug for the camera,” he tells Salon. Yeah, right!) Maybe not, but he’s brutally honest. He’s laser-sharp in his critiques, but you can tell he also likes to make blanket statements that sometimes ring just a bit hollow. I remember popping in one time a couple years ago and he was all indignant about a dish that essentially had not graced an oven and was served cold. When one judged questioned why that was such a big deal, Colicchio snapped, “It’s a cooking show. He’s supposed to cook,” or some such nonsense. (Actually, it’s a chef show, Tom. Try some sushi.)
One thing I love about the interview is how he takes fans to task for criticizing the judges’ decisions, as if viewers can taste the dishes the judges do. (Which was my original problem with the show, but of course I’ve slightly gotten over it.) The comment came in response to a question about why Dale, a popular contestant, was booted off. Colicchio’s response:
I wasn’t there that night. When I saw the episode the night it aired, I could see why people were upset. But I didn’t taste the food. And this is what I keep lecturing people about when they say we make bad decisions. I think, “Great, I’m glad you were next to me eating food. I don’t remember seeing you.”
June 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Actually, it’s not the judges’ palates that I quibble with – I’m sure they do kick people off for the worst dish of the challenge – (and yes, it is funny that Colicchio uses the show’s fatal flaw as a defense – you almost want to say – fine – you’re right – cooking really isn’t suited to television, let’s all tune out). What I quibble with is that very premise – if there’s two chefs with sub par dishes, but one of them has been a much stronger contestant throughout, it’s bad for the competition to refuse to take that into consideration. If you don’t, you end up with a chef like Lisa in the finale, when there are many better chefs who should have been there instead. I understand the idea that at this level one mistake can send a chef home, but I don’t think that should outweigh consistently sucking. At this level, consistently sucking should send you home.