oakapple
-
Posts
3,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by oakapple
-
-
La Grenouille has received three-star reviews on at least four occasions, and it also had four stars at one time. I suspect the Four Seasons has had that many, given that it has been around since the 1950s.
Le Bernardin has had four reviews of four stars each.
-
Great place, one of my favorites. In my experience, the waits these days are no longer quite long. Sure, Friday night at 9pm you'll wait a bit, but it's not crazy any more.
-
Much like Top Chef Masters, the list of candidate chefs is diluted compared to past seasons. I mean, Spike Mendelssohn??? He didn't even come particularly close to winning regular Top Chef (not Masters), and he had two shots at it.
-
Hmm, I notice there's now a smaller tasting menu now also available. I can't wait for my 15th trip at the end of this month!
I think you may have seen a lunch menu, where there is indeed a shorter option. At dinner in the main dining room, the menu remains $295 for nine courses. You can order à la carte in the Salon.
-
The list of competitors is up. Two women, 14 men. Hmm.
The chef profession is historically male dominated. On the original show, they've had a 50/50 mix (or pretty close to it) in most seasons, but only one woman has ever been named Top Chef. And invariably, as the season goes on, the women are eliminated at a faster rate.
For instance, on Top Chef All Stars, women were 8 out of 17 contestants; but the first two, and 5 of the first 8 eliminated, were women. The season before, 8 out of 17 contestants were women; but 3 of the first 4, and 5 of the first 8 eliminated, were women. In the previous season, the first 4 eliminated were women.
If women are (say) 30% of the candidate pool, it stands to reason that you cannot have a sex-balanced cast without choosing women who are, on average, not as good as the men. The only way to avoid this is if the better women chefs are more likely to apply than the better male chefs, but this is probably not what happens.
In case it's not clear, I'm not making a comment on whether women are intrinsically better chefs. I am only pointing out the numbers game in the profession itself.
-
Padma's pandering with the "motorboating" and bisexual innuendo was irritating.
For those of us who missed the show, can you summarize?
On a different topic, I was really amused by the reactions to Jamie and her comments. Tom C. didn't even bother to hiding his eye-rolling and, I have to say, Jen Carroll gives the most overt looks of dripping contempt that I've seen in a long, long time.
Ditto.
-
This season . . . boasts one or two somewhat boldface names, a few local/regional names, and a few head scratchers. It's a major drop off in quality, and I wonder if Bravo just can't get the real stars of cuisine to do the show any more.
I wonder whether the change of format reduced the candidate pool, or if the candidate pool was depleted in any case. There are a lot of chefs who have other priorities, who find the format demeaning, or who simply can't adjust their schedules for a TV show. There are many potential competitors of higher stature than the ones we have. I have to assume they were asked, and said no.
-
The format of the show. I like the drama and watching/rooting for particular chefs. With the format of 4 chefs/1 winner/back at end of season I never got to sorta know the contestants.
With all due respect to the current crop of competitors, I don't think they have quite the stature of the first two seasons, and the format may have something to do with it. The format of Seasons 1 & 2 required most of the chefs to be away from their kitchens for only a few days; and then, only the handful that made it to the finale had a second, slightly longer stint away from home.
The current format requires all the chefs to commit to being away for however long it takes fro the whole season to be shot. Of course, regular Top Chef works the same way, but for chefs without a lot of name recognition, the opportunity to win that show is well worth it. The trade-off for someone like a Hubert Keller, a Rick Bayless, a Wylie Dufresne, or an Anita Lo, is very different.
-
I think the only way it'll be topped is if they do another All-Stars in a few years.
I'd be ok with watching an all-stars with other chefs from past seasons. There were plenty of people who did not do this all stars that would have been worthy contenders. Maybe every other year to get a really good cast?
There aren't enough true "all stars" to do an all-star show every other year. As it is, they had to invite a number of "non-stars" to get a full cast, because some of the chefs they really wanted turned them down. From the chefs' perspective, there is less value in doing it a second time, which is why a number of the obvious candidates weren't there.
-
From the commercials they had been showing incessantly during Top Chef, Top Chef Masters looks absolutely horrid. I can't imagine why any self-respecting chef would participate in this ridiculous show.
Does it seem any more ridiculous to you than past seasons of Top Chef Masters?
Incidentally, today's inbox brings the news that New York's Danyelle Freeman (a/k/a/ Restaurant Girl) will be a guest judge on "several episodes".
-
I'm not sure if this season of Top Chef will ever be topped.
I think the only way it'll be topped is if they do another All-Stars in a few years. The bottom-rung chefs in this season were all (or mostly all) top-rung chefs from past seasons. Besides being better chefs, they'd all been through it before, and knew some of the pitfalls to avoid. There's no way they could assemble that level of talent when they bring in 17 or 18 brand new people.
Congrats to Blais. They both did a really fine job. I'm just glad they left them both alone and let them just cook, instead of putting some twist on it all. Tom's blog gives some great insight into why Richard won. Very reasonable explanation. He also mentioned that the oyster dish got no points because it was not a part of the dishes upon which Richard was judged. I don't recall them ever saying that during the course of the show. Hmm.
I could swear there've been challenges in the past where chefs made an extra dish not required by the challenge, and then were penalized when that dish turned out poorly. If Richard's amuse had been terrible, it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have counted against him. Even Colicchio acknowledged that, although they may not have put his amuse through the formal judging process, it had an intangible role in "setting the stage" for the meal to come.
-
After watching last night's finale, my wife and I both came to the same conclusion. That Richard was picked because of his story. For coming so close before. Because if you go by what the judges were saying about the food, it seemed to me that they preferred Mike's food and made more negative comments about Richard's. Sure, it was close but... Richard's Foie ice cream was basically described as a crumbly mess that the first judges could not even tell what it was. They didn't make such strong negative comments about Mike's food.
It must always be stressed: the show is edited selectively to put the outcome in doubt until the last minute. Since they know Richard won, they deliberately choose a few more comments favoring Michael, to make the outcome more of a surprise. Colicchio explains the decision on his blog.
-
I don't think it's a spoiler when it's so blatant. I wasn't even watching it very closely. When it was over, my wife asked me who I thought will win, and I said I already know Blaise wins, and rewound it for her.
I recall at least one other season where it was apparent in the preview, based on the direction Padma was looking. For that NOT to be the case, they would have needed to tape an extra scene in which she deliberately looked the wrong way, just to fool the audience.
-
I really, really loved the "sudden death OT" rules: I wish they had the time to do those for every elimination. So that every week the bottom three would compete in a head-to-head challenge that didn't depend on the vagaries of team challenges, or luck of the draw, or whatever, but just cooking your best. Worst bite goes home every time. So you never get eliminated based on getting screwed by the challenge, it always comes down to who is making better food.
Earlier in the season, there's usually someone who has screwed up pretty blatantly — often, several of them. It may still be a close call as to which errant chef gets sent home, but it's usually at least clear they did something to deserve their fate.
The overtime makes more sense later on, where every chef remaining has long since proven that they belong, and you don't want someone losing because they got "screwed by the challenge".
-
I really wanted to see Blais against Antonia also. Hearing Mike say that his challenge of cooking fried chicken was way harder that cooking for Morimoto made me wonder whether he needs meds. Less obnoxious then the first time around - maybe, but still obnoxious. I hate to admit it but I have to agree with others that his skills have improved a lot from his first season. Still don't want him in the final two.
I find Antonia more likable, and more genuine than Mike, and she never pilfered anyone's recipe. Nevertheless, given the rules, Mike made it to the finale fair & square, albeit by a whisker.
Nothing against Morimoto, but whichever chef had to cook his "last supper" was clearly going to be at a substantial disadvantage.
-
I guess that all makes sense. (thanks oakapple!) I'd be curious to know when were the more lenient challenges, when they were in the season, etc.
Lenient isn't the word I'd use, only that it was relatively gimmick-free. I don't have time to look up all of the past challenges, but there are usually at least one or two per season that are reasonably straightforward.
By my count, this is the third time on Top Chef that they decided to send no one home, so there is a precedent (albeit rare).Could anyone tell me when were the other two times?
The first time was in Season 3 (Miami). After the Restaurant Wars episode, the judges couldn't pick a loser, and they actually repeated the identical challenge the following week.
The second time was in Season 5 (New York). The chefs had to make a dish suggested by one of the 12 days of Christmas. But two of the chefs lost their prep work due to a refrigerator malfunction, which created an uneven playing field. The judges felt most of the dishes were underwhelming, but didn't want to pick a loser.
Or even challenges where most of the contestants did very well, even if someone did get sent home. I can't remember them.
It's a tough line to draw: there have certainly been times when the eliminated chef seemed to have made only a relatively small technical error.
-
Pondering the evil magical elves. I wonder if they conjured up the distant relation of Mike and what's her name.
Of all the conspiracy theories, surely this is the most absurd. Most genealogical data is freely researchable by anyone. If you're going to make something up, don't do it in a field where it can be so easily disproven.
I thought it very coincidental that the judges couldn’t come up with a loser on family night even though it all did look pretty good.
By my count, this is the third time on Top Chef that they decided to send no one home, so there is a precedent (albeit rare). If the food looked that good, maybe it was.
Tho I was a little peeved how much praise Isabella received for that fregin simplistic gnocchi.
Bear in mind that Colicchio is the High Priest of cooking simple things well. Whether or not you agree with that philosophy, it's no surprise that it would dominate a show on which he is head judge.
The thing with a "simple" dish like that, is you really can't tell how good it is on a TV screen. On TV, good gnocchi and bad gnocchi look about the same. But if you've ordered much gnocchi, you'll know that plenty of restaurants screw it up. It's not an easy dish to get right.
Btw, has it been discussed that the final credits state (at almost subliminal message speed) that challenge winners and losers are chosen by the judges in conjunction with the producers?
It's worth noting that there have been A LOT of elimination decisions this season that the producers surely couldn't have been happy with. Jennifer Carroll was a favorite with many of the fans, and she was sent home in Week 2. Fabio and Angelo got sent home much earlier than a lot of people expected. I think Spike is a mediocre chef, but there's no question he adds to the drama, and yet he went home in Week 4.
If the producers had been determined to influence the proceedings, there are a lot of things that could have gone differently.
The thing is, there was something fishy about this challenge. Usually challenges have that wacky twist, short time frame, surprise puppets or a blindfold. In this episode, not including the quick fire oc, nobody was crazy behind before their dish went out, everyone knew what they wanted to cook... They were given the time to plan and make perfect whatever went on the plate.
Although most challenges have a twist, sometimes they really DO just let the chefs cook; that tends to happen later in the season. These are all Top Chef veterans, who know by now how to manage these challenges. And they were cooking food from their "family heritage," which presumably they're amply familiar with. So it doesn't surprise me that we had a challenge without any obvious screw-ups.
I often wonder if all the dishes in other challenges would be this good if people didn't have the stress, the time factor or whatever. And many do have conceptual issues, but for the ones where execution is the main flaw? These are talented trained professionals. They should be able to do this kind of fabulous thing all the time.
Although they are all trained professionals, most of the challenges force them out of their comfort zone, often with absurd constraints you'd never find in real life. Any dish you eat in a restaurant is likely to have been tested many times before it is ever served to a paying customer, and restaurant chefs don't have to adhere strictly to a countdown clock. I mean, even on Top Chef Masters, some pretty impressive chefs have fallen to pieces when confronted with a contrived challenge.
-
I wonder how much of his pissed look is really deceptive editing and unrelated to what was said by the judge. Those magical elves have no scruples.
What's unscrupulous about it? They are producing entertainment. The edit is designed to draw out the chefs' more colorful comments and reactions. It is also designed to ensure that the outcome will be in doubt until the last 5 minutes, when the winner and the eliminated chef are announced.
-
Tiffany should have been sent home. She has never one a single challenge and continues to be on the bottom every week. Dale is amazing along with Angelo and Fabio. This series is getting ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the judging system produces that result sometimes --- where someone is on the bottom over & over again, but manages somehow to avoid cooking the absolute worst dish in any given episode.
But sometimes these things go in streaks. Tiffany had a stretch where she was in the top group three out of four weeks in a row. At one point, Antonia was in the bottom group three episodes in a row, but has now been in the top group for the last four, including one win.
I do think there ought to be a way to accumulate points, so that sustained excellence would be rewarded.
-
I didn't want to see any of the bottom three eliminated but I don't think, from what we were shown, that Fabio was the worst.
I think the edit is always designed to be ambiguous, or even downright deceptive, so that the elimination will remain in doubt until the very end.
-
I wonder how hard a tour of the premises would be considering all the snow, and an 8 month pregnant wife.
Offhand, it doesn't strike me as the best idea.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Angelo's strategy involved making crudos all the way to the finals. He seems really comfortable making them and while he might not win alot of challenges this way, the chances he gets sent home for one seems pretty low.
If it is, he needs to be careful. Early in the season, you can pretty much count on at least one chef making something horrible. In fact, it's a pretty smart strategy to keep making things that have a low potential for error, and let someone else make the big mistake. Casey would probably still be around if she hadn't made the odd choice of chicken feet for the dim sum episode.
But as the season moves on, there's a higher probability that no one will completely screw up, and in that case a chef can get sent home for being merely mediocre.
Good episode. Dale picking Marcel to captain the other team was a masterstroke as was his picking of Fabio for FOTH.
Yeah, picking Marcel was doubly good, in that: A) It meant that he wouldn't screw up Dale's team; and, B) There was a good chance he would screw up the other team.
Fabio absolutely nailed the FOH (as he did the first time he was on Top Chef), but I still think it's competitively unfair. Most of these chefs have little or no experience at running a dining room. The design of the challenge puts them at a dual disadvantage: first, in that they are thrust into a role they're unsuited for; and second, that they are still responsible for cooking something, without being able to give it their full attention.
Fortunately, Team Etch was so bad that even if Fabio had been on their team, he couldn't have saved it. And fortunately, Marcel screwed up badly enough that Tiffany didn't pay the price for taking on the FOH. (I haven't checked, but as I recall the FOH person has been the one sent home on quite a few of these Restaurant War callenges.)
-
Much like discussions in sports of how the greatest of yesteryear would compare with today's stars, I think it's pretty tough to postulate how Lutece would do now. Food culture evolves, and people's desires and tastes along with it. (Remember when sun dried tomatoes were first discovered by Americans and how "new" they felt?) It might be tough going for a traditional French place to fully bloom in today's NYC, even if it were in top form, like Lutece was in its prime.
Daniel, although clearly not a "La Grenouille" clone, is the closest thing we have to a traditional luxury French restaurant with four stars. But there are two crucial points worth noting.
First, although Daniel itself is perpetually packed (suggesting there is more demand than seats), the identical restaurant—if it opened today, without Boulud's name on it—would not do nearly as well. It survives mainly on its reputation and a core of regulars that have been with Boulud since before he had his own place.
Second, although Frank Bruni re-affirmed Daniel's four-star rating just two years ago, it was the least rapturous of his four-star reviews. He even said it: "while it yields fewer transcendent moments than its four-star brethren and falls prey to more inconsistency, it has a distinctive and important niche in that brood, a special reason to be treasured." If he had not reviewed it as an incumbent four-star restaurant, I am fairly certain it would have received three stars.
Do any of the "newer" places even come close - Benoit? Cafe Boulud? Lyon? Has Sheraton ever weighed in on any of those?
I never dined at Lutèce, but I don't think Benoit and Lyon even attempt to replicate it. Even if they executed their missions perfectly, no one would would suggest that they were playing in the same league as Lutèce. Café Boulud on its better days might come closer.
-
Something else worth noting is that they offer almost all of their wines by the half bottle, which is a great thing. They have an excellent wine selection, rife with interesting choices off the beaten path, as well as the better known stuff. The soms are well versed and made excellent recommendations. The half bottle program isn't limited to whatever they stock in pre-bottled halves. Instead, they happily open and decant half a bottle of most of the selections on the wine list, and then sell the remainder as another half bottle or by the glass. This is great for those who want to try a few things and experiment, without being limited to the by the glass selection. I wish more restaurants did this. The only caveat is that you may want to keep an eye on how long your bottle has been open if you get the second half of an already open one. All of ours were freshly opened so can't comment on that.
I've been to Ciano twice now, and both times the "half bottles" I ordered were full bottles that they opened in my presence, and then poured half into a caraffe. It may help that both of my visits were relatively early in the evening. I believe that any remaining half-bottles are generally sold by the glass to the bar crowd.
Gotham Bar and Grill 2011 - 6th Review; 5th 3 - Star
in New York: Dining
Posted
Sifton has now posted a correction.