"Top Chef" (2006-) Reality Chef-Competition Series on Bravo - Now in Season 16

[monavano]

The intense hostility Lisa both expresses and engenders in others, simultaneously demanding respect and admiration while claiming that she doesn't care what other people think about her, blaming others (projection) and rejecting feedback from the judges (defensiveness) are classic signs of a narcissistic borderline personality.

That makes sense. I think the first gut reaction that people have is to intensly dislike her. I mean, after all, her MO is to hurl insults and blame. But there's something pitiful about her that makes me feel a tad sorry for her lack of social and coping skills. You could see how excited she really was to be in PR and see the other 3 cheftestants. She seemingly had no idea that her being there sucked the joy out of the air.

Then, when she wasn't congratulated, she was hurt. It's got to be a tough way to go through life.

I can only hope that she has some introspection regarding her personality style once she sees herself. But, I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

[squidsdc]

Her body language whenever she's in front of the judges never changes. Crossed arms in front of her, pursed lips, ready for a fight. I also suspected from the beginning that Lisa would make it and Antonia would not, based on the editing and the show's history of keeping a controversial candidate in the running to keep everyone watching.

(She'd better NOT win)

[spiegelb]

So Top Chef is going on tour this summer, and they are hitting up every city in America. Oh, every city that it except for DC - what a diss!

[agm]

Uh, people - watch the closing credits of the show again. Pay special attention to the part where they say that the judges' decisions are discussed with the producers, and sometimes with the network. Assholes and controversy boost ratings. All of the nasty things being said here about this woman are making some network executives very, very happy.

[thistle]

You're right, it's probably all in the editing, I am one of those who has disliked Lisa all along, yet I don't really know what her cooking is like. I have favored either Richard or Stephanie for the win from the beginning, though, & thought Dale was the dark horse, can't believe he got booted before Lisa. I am enjoying the show, but I agree it has shifted more towards top caterer (food for the masses) rather than restaurant food, to order...

[hm212]

So Top Chef is going on tour this summer, and they are hitting up every city in America. Oh, every city that it except for DC - what a diss!

Road trip to Philly.

[Pool Boy]

Let's face it folks. Lisa is a dipwad. A real chowderhead. Nuff said.

[monavano]

Uh, people - watch the closing credits of the show again. Pay special attention to the part where they say that the judges' decisions are discussed with the producers, and sometimes with the network. Assholes and controversy boost ratings. All of the nasty things being said here about this woman are making some network executives very, very happy.

Tom C. makes some good points in his blog:

"Alas, we had to let Antonia go, which of course has brought a wellspring of vitriol from the theorists on our message boards. Therefore, I’m compelled to give my once-a-season response to those cynics out there who insist we make our decisions to manipulate the ratings. If I sound defensive, I think I’m entitled:"

Read on.

[Dmnkly]

Uh, people - watch the closing credits of the show again. Pay special attention to the part where they say that the judges' decisions are discussed with the producers, and sometimes with the network. Assholes and controversy boost ratings. All of the nasty things being said here about this woman are making some network executives very, very happy.

Known and acknowledged, agm... but here's my current list of the other things you must also believe if you believe the show is fixed:

• That keeping a person such as Lisa around until the end would have a significant impact on ratings.
  
• That the Top Chef audience isn't interested in seeing great chefs compete by making great food, and would rather see good guys vs. bad guys.
  
• That the producers believe the difference in ratings to be so significant that they're willing to risk completely destroying an already successful show if word ever got out that it was fixed.
  
• That the producers feel it is vitally important to the audience's enjoyment to help "villains" get deeper into the show, despite the howling and complaints and viewership that tunes out every time there's a controversial decision when a chef like Lisa is kept over a chef like Dale.
  
• That, in season two, the producers temporarily decided to ditch their "villain vs. good guy" formula for the finals in eliminating beloved Sam and lovely Elia, leaving the final battle between two snotty, obnoxious, unlikeable chefs and killing interest in the final episode.
  
• That the show's casting department is so incompetent, they can't achieve the same ends simply and with no risk to the show's credibility through careful casting.
  
• That the show's editors are so incompetent, they can't achieve the same ends simply and with no risk to the show's credibility through selective editing to portray certain people as "villains" (see many of the judges' posts, saying that Lisa isn't nearly as bad as she's been made out to be).
  
• That, because the entire season except for the finals is in the can before episode one is ever broadcast so they have no way of gauging fan reaction as a means of deciding who to eliminate, the producers are prescient enough to know who the fans will love and who they'll hate.
  
• That, despite the large number of snide, snotty chefs who started the season, it's still mathematically suspicious that one of them made the final three.
  
• That the judges are all in on the fix, and regular judges Tom and Ted, having stated in no uncertain terms that the producers have never influenced their decisions (with the exception of Cliff in season two -- a highly unusual circumstance and just the sort of thing the disclaimer is meant to address), are bald-faced liars.
  
• That numerous titans of the food world -- including Paul Kahan, Art Smith, Rick Bayless and José Andrés, just to name a few from this season -- are in on it as well.
  
• That Anthony Bourdain, another frequent judge who has explicitly stated that he doesn't give a damn what the producers want and has never received nor witnessed even the slightest attempt on the part of the producers to exert influence over the eliminations, is the kind of guy who's willing to preside over a fixed contest, and also a bald-faced liar.
  
• That of all of the people involved, not a single one has felt compelled to blow the whistle.
  

If all of the above strikes you as reasonable, then yes, it makes perfect sense to believe that Top Chef is fixed. It is a perfectly rational opinion to which you are absolutely entitled. But when you consider all of the other presumptions that must be made if this is the case, I personally find the simple, straightforward explanation -- that the judges try to be as objective as possible and Lisa's been lucky to frequenly be just better than one other person ("skimming the bottom like a stingray" is a line I read somewhere else and rather liked) -- to be far, far, far more compelling then accepting the entire grocery list above that ranges from possible to improbable to just plain ridiculous.

[Poivrot Farci]

[*]That of all of the people involved, not a single one has felt compelled to blow the whistle.

No one is allowed to. Whomever spills the beans on who couldn’t cook ‘em faces severe financial screwings and repercussions not only throughout their lifetime, but into their next one, even if they moved to a different planet. That’s enough to stun Kaiser Söze.

Threat of Big Penalties Keeps Reality Contestants Quiet: non-disclosure agreements

The "Survivor" confidentiality agreement puts the price of violating the contract at a minimum of $5 million. The agreement goes on to release to the producer, "in perpetuity and throughout the universe," exclusive rights to contestants' images and life stories - in fact to all incidents and exploits either on or off the program and to depicting contestants "either accurately or with such liberties and modifications as producer determines necessary."

In effect, signers give up control of their entire public persona.

Considering the numbers during Top Chef seasons 1-4:

Top Chef contestants “outed”: 0

Covert CIA operations officers “outed”: 1

Television executives apparently wield stronger threats towards” reality show” leaks than the US government does towards national security.

The show isn’t fixed. It is malleable. It is coddled and nurtured like a child to become successful. It is tailored in a very specific way to make the show's watchworthyness so intense. The elemental principles of anything that flirts with the senses is to always keep them wanting. TV people know “they’ll be back for more”. They have studied tabloids and understand that scandal sells and is easy to fabricate. They are experts at predicting viewer disgust and pleasure. It is their job and much money depends on it. The winner is most certainly left to merit, though everything running up to must be carefully formulated for excitement, lest it become a boring horse race. Pugilist’s pre-fight spats are more salacious than compliments, sharing lemonade and a waltz.

Tom is more naive than all the viewers if he thinks complacency trumps contemp in viewership or fanaticism (ie. Winning sports underdogs or the number of hits Lisagate generates on the BravoTV blog). I watch the show regardless.

[Dmnkly]

No one is allowed to. Whomever spills the beans on who couldn’t cook ‘em faces severe financial screwings and repercussions not only throughout their lifetime, but into their next one, even if they moved to a different planet. That’s enough to stun Kaiser Söze.

Well, this addresses revealing eliminations out of turn, which isn't the same thing. And if there's some provision that they cannot reveal that they're not the ones making the decisions, that presumes they're willing to sign on to such an arrangement in the first place. Not to mention which, it takes one kind of person to dodge the question of whether the producers influence them at all. It takes another kind of person entirely to go out of their way to flat-out lie about it. Call me naive, but those who have denied it -- very strongly and very clearly -- don't strike me as that kind of person.

I don't mean to suggest that the show isn't heavily manipulated. I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways they can do so without screwing with the intregrity of the judging.

[agm]

There's a significant difference between "fixing" the show in the sense of predetermining the final winner, which would be clearly unfair to the 2-3 people per season with a legitimate shot at it, and "fixing" in the sense of urging the judges to keep someone on the bottom of the pile around a little longer, which is only somewhat unfair to other people who clearly aren't going all the way either. Do I believe that all of the judges would willingly alter their votes to put Lisa into the top group each week? No, but that's not what happened. She's been at or near the bottom each week, and barely hung on at the end. Do I believe that one or more people - judge, producer, whoever - would argue in favor of keeping her around just one more week, persuasively enough to sneak her through? Using food-based arguments, not openly putting forth the ratings issue? Yes, I sure do, and that doesn't require Tony Bourdain or any other guest judge to vote against their conscience, it just requires them to be slightly swayed in a close decision. A judging panel can be influenced, and in some cases led around by the nose, through much more subtle means than by bluntly stating "Vote for Lisa." Do I think that TV executives would stoop to that level to ensure controversy on a show? That's a big hell yes.

[Dmnkly]

There's a significant difference between "fixing" the show in the sense of predetermining the final winner, which would be clearly unfair to the 2-3 people per season with a legitimate shot at it, and "fixing" in the sense of urging the judges to keep someone on the bottom of the pile around a little longer, which is only somewhat unfair to other people who clearly aren't going all the way either. Do I believe that all of the judges would willingly alter their votes to put Lisa into the top group each week? No, but that's not what happened. She's been at or near the bottom each week, and barely hung on at the end. Do I believe that one or more people - judge, producer, whoever - would argue in favor of keeping her around just one more week, persuasively enough to sneak her through? Using food-based arguments, not openly putting forth the ratings issue? Yes, I sure do, and that doesn't require Tony Bourdain or any other guest judge to vote against their conscience, it just requires them to be slightly swayed in a close decision.

That's true, they're very different things. However, Tom, Ted and Tony have all stated very clearly that the producers have never attempted to sway them in any way. All three have been exceedingly clear on this point. So the question is simply whether or not you believe them.

[agm]

That's true, they're very different things. However, Tom, Ted and Tony have all stated very clearly that the producers have never attempted to sway them in any way. All three have been exceedingly clear on this point. So the question is simply whether or not you believe them.

No, it's whether I believe them, AND whether I think they'd recognize it when it happened. I would also ask if you believe that the show's producers would really leave these decisions to be entirely based on food, and risk ending up with weeks of episodes that appeal ONLY to foodies, without the standard "reality-show" tensions that draw in additional viewers.

If I were behind a show like this, I wouldn't openly ask for specific actions from the judges. Too much risk of exposure, and too little chance of finding serious chefs willing to compromise their reputation. And yes, too little control over visiting chefs. I'd put someone on the panel who is not a working chef; someone whose career aspirations lie in television, not the kitchen, and work through that person to try to steer decisions in a more desirable direction. It wouldn't be anything big, but I would just whisper in that person's ear "if the decision of who to drop is at all close or debatable, it would really help the show to keep this person around another week."

Someone like, say, Padma, the woman who claimed on air that Lisa has an excellent palate, and who likely said other things at that time that didn't make it onto the show.

I'm NOT claiming that this is what's happening, since I have absolutely no special insight or knowledge of the show. I'm just putting this forward as one possible way in which producers could influence the outcome without ever saying a single word to Tom, Ted and Tony.

[Dmnkly]

No, it's whether I believe them, AND whether I think they'd recognize it when it happened. I would also ask if you believe that the show's producers would really leave these decisions to be entirely based on food, and risk ending up with weeks of episodes that appeal ONLY to foodies, without the standard "reality-show" tensions that draw in additional viewers.

You assume that traditional reality show drama and honest competition are mutually exclusive. Why can't they give the judges total autonomy and get their "reality-show tensions"? The point I make is they'd have to be totally incomptetnt to need to influence the judging in the manner you describe to achieve that end. The casting team can easily ensure that there are a few obnoxious nutjobs among the more talented chefs. And if, somehow, the stars align and all of their characters are eliminated early, the editors can easily pick up the slack. If you watch the show carefully, you've already seen this happen. Everything but the finals is shot before the editors get to work, so they can use the entire season to develop whatever arcs they want, and this is all done, as needed, to preserve the drama you describe. Heroes have morphed into villains. Villains have morphed into heroes. Dale was portrayed as obnoxious, but sympathetic. If he'd made the finals instead of Lisa, you don't think he would have been pushed into full-on villain status? I think you grossly underestimate the power of good editors. The point I make is that is that even if you believe the producers would influence the judging in such a manner (which is not at all unreasonable), unless their staff is totally incompetent there isn't any need -- any why take that chance in a situation where you have little, if anything, to gain and everything to lose?

[blakegwinn]

I think you grossly underestimate the power of good editors.

I love all the conspiracy theorists that talk about how "They want so and so to stay on for ratings" or whatever. I find it strange that these people often are of the opinion that contestants are edited to look one way or the other. Isn't that kind of contradictory in a way? If they are editing people to look like villains and heroes when they are not, what reason do they have to advance certain people? I agree completely with Dmnkly, why do you even need to bother fixing who advances? You have thousands and thousands of hours of videotaped arguments and conversations between judges, between contestants and between judges and contestants. Throw in an unlimited supply of booze and a severe lack of sleep and I guarantee the story possibilities are endless.

The cost-benefit for a producer to influence the judges, in any way shape or form, is just soooo loaded. One camera-guy, bagel delivery boy, righteous guest-judge or jilted ex contestant (including one who is now a producer!) overhears the converstion or gets wind of a fix, leaks it to the press or posts it on a foodie bulletin board and all hell would break loose. Someone higher up on the network foodchain would probably express "absolute shock" that something like this was going on and the offending producers would get sacrificially canned or reprimanded. The show would risk becoming a pariah among potential celebrity chef guests and potential contestants. Ex contestants would cry foul. And for what? I don't even know that who is in the finals makes much of a difference for ratings. Does it really matter to most Top Chef viewers if it is the villain versus the hero? Or two fan favorites? Or two villains? We are all watching the finals regardless. And as far as increasing ratings among non or casual-viewers, how would they really know the difference or have any stake in who makes it anyways? And how do the producers know that the "fixing" will have a positive effect on ratings? Maybe all the Dale or Antonia fans will feel disenfranchised now that Lisa made it through and won't watch.

I guess the way I see this whole business of fixing is that it would be a ton of work and risk to the future of the show for a very small and very uncertain reward. Networks love reality TV because it is easy. If I were a producer for Top Chef, I would cast a bunch of people with the perfect mix between talent and character, keep them from sleeping, slap them into random teams all the time, keep the booze flowing , let the cameras roll and go to Cabo for a couple of weeks. I am sure when I got back I would have a great show.

[agm]

I love all the conspiracy theorists

OK, I think this is really the heart of the disagreement. I don't see a conspiracy of people doing things they think are unethical or wrong. Or even things I think are unethical or wrong. I see TV people doing their jobs to boost their product.

[Dmnkly]

OK, I think this is really the heart of the disagreement. I don't see a conspiracy of people doing things they think are unethical or wrong. Or even things I think are unethical or wrong. I see TV people doing their jobs to boost their product.

Understood, and I'd agree if it weren't for the the angle that "doing their job" includes flat-out lying about the integrity of the judging in a competition where the dreams of (sometimes) talented chefs and $100,000 is at stake. On the continuum of unethical secret influence on contests of skill, I don't know that I'd put it as high as fixing the World Series, but Top Chef isn't pro wrestling, either. These are real people with real careers at stake, and the judges are well-respected industry professionals. It's wrapped up in an overly dramatized reality-show package, but at its heart is a real contest of skill with real consequences, both good and bad, for those who participate. If it were totally fictionalized and the whole thing was scripted, then I don't think there's an ethical issue at all... or at least it's a different one. Then the show's just a hoax. But with the given that these known and often respected chefs are coming in looking for an honest competition, if they don't get one, yeah, I think there are some serious ethical issues there -- potentially legal ones, too -- and I think to dismiss it as "just television" is to hold those who are involved in its making at arm's length and forget that they're real people who are putting real careers on hold to compete.

[blakegwinn]

I'd put someone on the panel who is not a working chef; someone whose career aspirations lie in television, not the kitchen, and work through that person to try to steer decisions in a more desirable direction. It wouldn't be anything big, but I would just whisper in that person's ear "if the decision of who to drop is at all close or debatable, it would really help the show to keep this person around another week."

Someone like, say, Padma, the woman who claimed on air that Lisa has an excellent palate, and who likely said other things at that time that didn't make it onto the show.

I'm NOT claiming that this is what's happening, since I have absolutely no special insight or knowledge of the show. I'm just putting this forward as one possible way in which producers could influence the outcome without ever saying a single word to Tom, Ted and Tony.

How many times do you think Tom has said something along the lines of "OK Padma, the grownups are talking now. Why don't you go play with your stairmaster?" Padma doesn't exactly strike me as the female version of Grima Wormtongue or anything. And even if she is more persuasive than I give her credit for, don't you think if the other 3 judges, all of whom have actual reputations in the food world to uphold, thought she was protesting some decision a litttttle too much at some point, they would just have turned against her from there on out thus ending the producers "inside" connection?

Again why bother with any of this? It is waaaaay too much work and risk. If they can't take the footage they already have (including all the random surprised, angry and smirking faces that they can splice in at any given time) and make a compelling story or evoke the proper emotions to keep viewers invested in the outcome they should probably just hang it up. (They might be better suited towards campaign work.... HI-YO!!!!)

[agm]

Understood, and I'd agree if it weren't for the the angle that "doing their job" includes flat-out lying about the integrity of the judging in a competition where the dreams of (sometimes) talented chefs and $100,000 is at stake.

Yes, but I'm not saying the winner is predetermined, I'm saying that someone who doesn't have a shot at the $100,000 might be kept around a little longer, at the expense ONLY of other people who don't have a shot either. The only harm done is kicking someone out during week five instead of seven.

[Dmnkly]

Yes, but I'm not saying the winner is predetermined, I'm saying that someone who doesn't have a shot at the $100,000 might be kept around a little longer, at the expense ONLY of other people who don't have a shot either. The only harm done is kicking someone out during week five instead of seven.

Tell that to Dale Levitski, who suddenly came on stong late in the season and narrowly lost in the final episode -- and never would have had that chance if he'd been eliminated early on as somebody who "[didn't] have a shot"... because he certainly didn't look like he did early in the season.

[agm]

Well, there's not much point in debating the specifics of this show over what comes down to differing opinions of the TV industry.

[hm212]

Throw in an unlimited supply of booze and a severe lack of sleep and I guarantee the story possibilities are endless.

I guess the way I see this whole business of fixing is that it would be a ton of work and risk to the future of the show for a very small and very uncertain reward. Networks love reality TV because it is easy. If I were a producer for Top Chef, I would cast a bunch of people with the perfect mix between talent and character, keep them from sleeping, slap them into random teams all the time, keep the booze flowing , let the cameras roll and go to Cabo for a couple of weeks. I am sure when I got back I would have a great show.

I agree - If there was a camera following any of us around 24-7 for a month, throw in some booze, hunger, lack of sleep and living with some people we don't really like - I bet they would come up with something very interesting segments that would have nothing to do with how we are in real life.

[DPop]

Hey, I picked Hung for the winner last year at the first episode. This year, I'm thinking it will be Richard. Unless the Bravo guys absolutely want to have a woman, in which case, it will be Stephanie (I think she's a great choice, also).

I think this assessment is dead-on. Richard is the most creative, has the most experience, and is just an all-around better chef than everyone else, although Stefanie really isn't too far behind in second. I would not be surprised, however, after the whole "never been a woman Top Chef" thing has been built up for weeks now, that they would give it to her. She is awesome, though, and it certainly would not be a travesty to see her win this season.

[Camille-Beau]

I think this assessment is dead-on. Richard is the most creative, has the most experience, and is just an all-around better chef than everyone else, although Stefanie really isn't too far behind in second. I would not be surprised, however, after the whole "never been a woman Top Chef" thing has been built up for weeks now, that they would give it to her. She is awesome, though, and it certainly would not be a travesty to see her win this season.

Richard is the most creative, but because of that he does take more risk and some of his dishes miss for various reasons, typically during the quickfire challenges. I think if Stephanie doesn't have a meltdown like Casey did last year, she'll win. Either one of them would be a good choice since they're both talented.

[dinwiddie]

Richard is the most creative, but because of that he does take more risk and some of his dishes miss for various reasons, typically during the quickfire challenges. I think if Stephanie doesn't have a meltdown like Casey did last year, she'll win. Either one of them would be a good choice since they're both talented.

I would doubt that Stephanie will have a meltdown, she has shown too much poise throughout the show. When Dale left out the porkbelly overnight, she didn't freak, she just worked with him to figure out what to do to get the job done. I think it is that poise under pressure that will make her the winner in the end.

[squidsdc]

Wow, Lisa is very confident, and Richard and Stephanie are nervous. I can only hope that will be Lisa's downfall. I'm fine with either Richard or Stephanie winning.

[monsterriffs]

That is an acceptable result. Whew.

[synaesthesia]

I loved that all the promos made it sound like Richard had totally dissed Lisa. While it's out of character for him, I would have laughed so hard if it had happened. It would have been so satisfying. And it will be interesting to see the recipe online for Lisa's soup dumplings, but I am pretty darn sure that what she made was NOT soup dumplings, but rather dumplings in soup. Asian specialist, my @$$.

[Dmnkly]

I loved that all the promos made it sound like Richard had totally dissed Lisa. While it's out of character for him, I would have laughed so hard if it had happened. It would have been so satisfying. And it will be interesting to see the recipe online for Lisa's soup dumplings, but I am pretty darn sure that what she made was NOT soup dumplings, but rather dumplings in soup. Asian specialist, my @$$.

No, she did, in fact, make soup dumplings... thickened the soup with agar agar, cut it into chunks and wrapped it so that it would liquefy while steaming.

Which is not to say that I disagree with your assessment of her at all :-)

[sacrilicious]

That is an acceptable result. Whew.

Ditto. It seemed scarily close to me between Stephanie and Lisa, but maybe that was editing to increase the tension.

Richard - again with the banana scallop dessert? (I know, it's not a dessert competition, but to me a tasting menu means a dessert.) Apparently they had 6 months before the finals. Is it really that hard to learn a new one? But the judges loved it, so what do I know. At least he left out the chocolate so it didn't look like a big piece of poop.

I thought Lisa's dessert would fail for sure, but I guess she spent the break learning how to cook rice.

[dinwiddie]

I think that one of the telling things was Stephanie's comment that Lisa was getting along very well with her sous chef, and that the lack of tension in a kitchen made it easier to make good food. Once Lisa calmed down she made some much better food apparently.

That said, I've always been pulling for Stephanie (I had figured that either she or Antonia would be the winner after about week 6) and think that her strength was her poise and demeanor and her overall ability. While all the other chefs may have had strenghts that exceeded hers in certain areas, the as an overall body of work, hers seem to be the most consistent.

[Pool Boy]

It's too bad Richard over thought things a bit, I'd eat at his restaurant any day. But it was good to see Stephanie win it, she was one of the three or four I was really hoping would win it (Richard, Stephanie, Dale and Antonia were probably my favorites this season). I was concerned that Lisa was doing so well, though. I thought it might have gone either way, but I guess it is all in the editing.

What do you all think a braised pistachio tastes like?

[pax]

You know, they make this big stinky fuss during the restaurant wars about leadership and stepping up and how a real chef needs to be a leader, but they repeatedly say they judge only on the food presented at that time.

It takes more than good food to be a good Top Chef, and I wish the poise and demeanor of the chefs was taken into consideration.

Lisa couldn't lead a piss up in a brewery.

Yay Stephanie! Yay Richard! You are both Top Chefs.

[blakegwinn]

Man did Richard look cracked out or what? Seriously man he looked terrible throughout the entire episode. Not that I was necessarily hoping he would win but I felt really bad that he crapped the bed so badly. He seemed to take it pretty hard. I still think on a day to day (non-competition) basis he is probably one of the better chefs to have been on the show along with the two finalists from season 1 and hung. They really dialed up that drama with the editing this time didn't they? It seemed like Lisa had it in the bag but I feel like they kept cutting away before the really got into the head to head comparison of Stephanie's vs. Lisa's dishes. I think they probably did a course by course tally and weighted it for margin of victory to break the 2-2 tie. Stephanie won the 3rd course in a big way and maybe the first by a slim margin. Richard might have acted as a spoiler by taking the dessert category but even if not I think Lisa won 2nd and fourth by a very very slim margin. curious to read the judge's blogs....

[monsterriffs]

What do you all think a braised pistachio tastes like?

Can't really speak on taste, but texturally, it's got to be akin to a boiled peanut.

[goldenticket]

It's time - maybe the early Stephanie wins will prove to be predictors of later (winning?) performance. I like what's she's done so far.

I'm so happy I was right - I think she was the Top Chef, mainly for the ultimate reason the judges gave - that she prepared a meal they would like to eat again. I think Richard is very talented and very creative, but Stephanie was the one cooking the food that I felt like I would really like to eat. It was also really nice to see her come into her own over the course of the season. As others have said, her poise and confidence were great assets throughout - even if she did lose a little confidence with her dessert in the finale.

When was the final show filmed? Richard's wife just had a baby at the end of May, so maybe he had other things on his mind...

I thought Lisa's dessert would fail for sure, but I guess she spent the break learning how to cook rice.

:lol: Lisa was slightly more tolerable last night. She definitely has a..."strong" personality, to say the least. But it was nice to see her actually enjoying herself and not being a total freak in the kitchen.

It did pain me to see Dale there in the closing scenes in street clothes - he really should have been one of the top 3!

Next season, I hope they let the competitors get back to some real cooking. The challenges this time around really didn't give the chefs a chance to shine on their own. So much catering, special circumstance crap - box lunches, school lunches, tailgating, community picnic, etc. Yes, it was a chance to show creativity, but so much depended on other team members, the facility/equipment they were provided, and so forth.

Anyway - YAY STEPHANIE!

[blakegwinn]

Next season, I hope they let the competitors get back to some real cooking. The challenges this time around really didn't give the chefs a chance to shine on their own. So much catering, special circumstance crap - box lunches, school lunches, tailgating, community picnic, etc. Yes, it was a chance to show creativity, but so much depended on other team members, the facility/equipment they were provided, and so forth.

I tend to agree with you but just to play devil's advocate it does seem as though (with the exception of the ridiculous way they judge/structure restaurant wars) the cream still rises to the finals every year.

[jiveturk21]

Next season, I hope they let the competitors get back to some real cooking. The challenges this time around really didn't give the chefs a chance to shine on their own. So much catering, special circumstance crap - box lunches, school lunches, tailgating, community picnic, etc. Yes, it was a chance to show creativity, but so much depended on other team members, the facility/equipment they were provided, and so forth.

I 100% agree with this, I saw it a lot this season on Top Chef and I have seen if before in my limited viewing of Project Runway (one time they had to make an outfit out of trash). I don't necessarily think that shows creativity, I think it is a pretty big product of luck in those cases.

For about two seconds last night, I was worried that Lisa may win, but I just have a really hard time believing that the judges would give the Top Chef crown to someone that won one challenge, while the other two won four challenges, and someone who was in the bottom group seemingly every week. Maybe if Stephanie totally, totally sucked last night, but even if her food was average, she was pretty safe after Richard lost his mind.

[monsterriffs]

Well, this is interesting - the lady and I went to Sola Restaurant last night in Chicago (great spot, btw) and I was surprised to see Dale from Season 3 working there as a waiter...unless this is old news.

It's just kind of a bummer that all the top competitors from Top Chef or Project Runway for example haven't really been able to parlay their success on the show into something greater.

[Dmnkly]

Well, this is interesting - the lady and I went to Sola Restaurant last night in Chicago (great spot, btw) and I was surprised to see Dale from Season 3 working there as a waiter...unless this is old news.

It's just kind of a bummer that all the top competitors from Top Chef or Project Runway for example haven't really been able to parlay their success on the show into something greater.

Word is he's doing a few guest bartending stints and occasionally helping out at Sola while trying to get his place, Town & Country, off the ground. Last I heard he still thought it was going to be a summer opening. Whether that's realistic or wishful thinking and where he is in the process, I don't know.

[synaesthesia]

Word is he's doing a few guest bartending stints and occasionally helping out at Sola while trying to get his place, Town & Country, off the ground. Last I heard he still thought it was going to be a summer opening. Whether that's realistic or wishful thinking and where he is in the process, I don't know.

Ah... well being a waiter isn't always necessarily a step for demotion. From what I understand at Alinea a lot of those who want to work in the kitchen, even somewhat well-established chefs work as servers so they can get familiarized with the food and the concept.

[monsterriffs]

Ah... well being a waiter isn't always necessarily a step for demotion. From what I understand at Alinea a lot of those who want to work in the kitchen, even somewhat well-established chefs work as servers so they can get familiarized with the food and the concept.

Apparently, he's also quite influenced by Carol Wallack so it seems only fitting that he's working for her while he tries to get his own operation up and running.

And even as I was writing that post, although it was early in the AM and the words just weren't coming, it was NEVER my intent to denigrate his choice to wait tables. Doing what he does probably takes far more school than anything I do on a daily basis...

[blakegwinn]

I definitely think she deserved it but did anyone else feel a little awkward when Stephanie won Top Chef? It felt like there was a really uncomfortable silence on the set. Traditionally it has seemed to be a consolation prize of sorts. I think a lot of the other contestants were hoping for a little redemption were pretty deflated when Stephanie took that home also. Maybe the winner should just be disqualified or something.

[cheezepowder]

In his interview with the Washingtonian (link), Spike says:

KN: Have you met any chefs here that you feel like would be good candidates for Top Chef?

SM: Yes. I've met a lot of great chefs here. Victor from BLT, actually, is hopefully going to be on next season, if not next season, the one after. I've met a couple other...

It's not clear if this means Victor Albisu will definitely be on Top Chef or is just in the running, but it would be fun to watch someone from DC compete on the show!

[zoramargolis]

it would be fun to watch someone from DC compete on the show!

I've been trying to convince Joey Zumpano, formerly Executive Chef now General Manager of BlackSalt, to apply. He's got the cooking chops, plus he's even-tempered and good-natured, and cute, too. He wouldn't be a candidate for villain, that's for sure.

[mktye]

and Rocco signing a book (hey, it was free...) Notice the "Chevron" jacket. Sponsor perhaps? New job maybe?

Wearing a Chevron jacket while promoting Fancy Feast. If this isn't selling out then I don't know what is.

Even better... click.

[Keithstg]

Even better... click.

Ouch! Oh well, I suppose this has been coming for a while now. I still remember the fantastic meal we had at Union Pacific when Rocco actually cooked for a living. What a waste...

[cheezepowder]

Season 5 in NY starts on Nov. 12. There's a contestant from DC -- Carla, owner/chef of Alchemy Caterers and graduate of L'Academie de Cuisine (her Bravo bio here).

There's also a contestant from Baltimore -- Jill, executive chef at Red Maple (her Bravo bio here). Bravo also has all the other contestant bios posted on its website.

I'm looking forward to the new season!

[Poivrot Farci]

Carla... Bravo also has all the other contestant bios posted on its website.

Far out. I can really dig that. I recognize her from one of my Sly and the Family Stone record covers

Thought at first it was Carla Thomas from Wattstax...but that would have made her 8 at the time. Whatever the case, I hope she brings her rollerskates to the quickfire.

Richard has a $22,000 Cracker-Jack “Diplome Professionale du (sic) Commis* de Cuisine" from SDCI.

Diploma Professionale di, capisco.

Diplôme Professionnel de, je comprends.

Diplome Professionale du, don’t mean shit.

The 60 second bios are like tapping a 10 penny nail 60 times into my thumbnail and make for a good TC5 primer

6 of 9 mantestants have facial hair and 5 of the 8 femtasties have skirts above the knees. Growl. Could be tough season. SkilletDoux will have to consider manscaping and Leggs sponsorship in his prophetic power rankings.

*trademark of the SDCI. Take that Carême.