oakapple

The editing did make it appear as if Carla's failures were mostly due to her accepting Casey's bad ideas. Colicchio even said, "You gave your sous-chef too much control," or words to that effect. So I can understand Casey wanting to set the record straight, but I don't think she helps herself with these ungenerous comments.

There certainly is an element of luck in the show. Sometimes you perform poorly, but luckily for you, someone else makes an even worse mistake. Hosea was in the bottom 3 four times, more than anyone else who has ever gone on to win the season.There are other examples. The penultimate episode clearly favored those who had deep experience with southern U.S. cuisine. The two worst performers in that episode (Stephan and Fabio) were the chefs to whom Creole cuisine was least familiar. Substitute another challenge where they were on more solid ground, and maybe Fabio would have been in the final 3 instead of Carla or Hosea. That kind of luck happens all season long. In the Restaurant Wars episode, Leah was the worst individual performer, but her team was rescued by Stephan's desserts. No one had wanted Stephan on their team: Leah was saved by a guy she was trying to avoid. As a result, Leah (a weaker chef) stuck around three more weeks, while a stronger chef (Radhika) was no longer around. This is not to deny that Hosea did a lot of things right, but he also got lucky.

Given the rules of the show as they stood, Hosea had to win. Three out of the four judges concluded that Hosea's final meal was better than Stefan's. If you take challenges one at a time, Hosea wins. It is that simple. Colicchio conceded that if it had been "a tie," Stefan would have won based on a stronger performance throughout the season. But Toby was the only judge who considered it a tie, and his judgment was consistently "off" all season long. None of us tasted the food, but as I've mentioned before, this was the least suspenseful conclusion of any episode this season. Hosea's win in this challenge was so overwhelming that even the "evil editors" weren't able to make it look close. In his online chat, Toby gave his theory as to why they they judge only one challenge at a time. If the results were cumulative, you could have a season where one contestant had such a huge lead that all he needed to do was show up. In baseball, they don't play the bottom of the ninth inning if the home team is far enough ahead. But it wouldn't make very good TV if they said, "We're cancelling the Top Chef finale because Stefan is already so far ahead that he can't lose."

In general, the editing has always struck me as highly manipulative. That's why it was so striking that there was no suspense at all in the final 15 minutes of the show. If they could have figured out a way to make it appear that the outcome was in doubt, they would have.

I'm not sure I agree. I would argue that had Casey NOT suggested what she did (i.e. sous vides on the beef and souffle on the dessert) (or had Carla NOT acted upon those suggestions), that Carla might have won rather handily. And, if we are to look back on a cumulative basis, I *think* (does someone have a running tally?) that Carla did have more overall wins than Hosea. Carla did indeed have more wins than Hosea, but she also had more of the really dumb moments that make you just shake your head in disbelief. Agreeing to prepare the steak sous vide when she'd never done it herself certainly fell into this category. Casey could have suggested anything she damn well pleased, but Carla didn't have to agree to it. On top of that, setting the oven to the wrong temperature for the soufflé seems to have been an unforced error.

Hosea wasn't the weakest of the finalists; he was the second-strongest. Despite his blandness, he is a much more dependable chef than Carla, who is far too uneven in the results she produces.I think cumulative judging could be helpful earlier in the season, when a good chef can be tossed due to one mistake. In the finale, I just don't see how you could credibly award the win to a chef that did not produce the best meal. All of which strongly suggests that they used the best stuff they had. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Obviously we'll never know unless an insider spills the beans, but he was kind of a "one-note" guy all season long. One would assume they used the best stuff they had.

Clearly I'm no expert on the filming of reality TV (or any other kind of TV)—this could easily be true. Assuming that it is, however, they would still have had quite a few episodes to work with, so I believe my point stands. Hosea was not a compelling winner, and to me this is a failure of the editors. ← I think you over-estimate what editing can do, especially as the vast majority of the season was already in the can by that point. They can only work with the footage they've got. Hosea is what he is.

It looked like the same old Gail to me.

Carla never quite convinced me she belonged in the Top 3. Neither Stefan nor Hosea acted like they considered her a serious threat. She had a lot of mid-season foul-ups, and there were several episodes when she could quite easily have been sent home early on. She had a great run near the end, winning the Super Bowl tickets and the car, but she wilted under the pressure. On the last episode of the season, you don't let your sous-chef talk you into making something you never prepared before. Stefan was the best chef this season, but he got over-confident and choked on two of his last four dishes. I agree with the comments that Hosea is a somewhat unexciting winner. It seemed he got there more because of other people's screw-ups than because of his own excellence. Still, Hosea's win last night was overwhelming. Not even the Bravo editors were able to make it look like Stefan had any real chance. Usually, when they go to the final commercial break, there's at least a twinge of doubt as to the outcome, but not this time. In essence, it was over when Fabio acknowledged in front of everyone that Hosea had cooked the best meal. Toby really showed why he doesn't belong on this show. If you tell the chefs that they don't have to cook a dessert, then you can't penalize Hosea for not cooking a dessert.

We liked Savoy when we visited in late 2006. They're running a series of cassoulet specials over the winter, so that prompted us to schedule a revisit the week after next.

Unfortunately, I was going to the theater afterwards and didn't feel like carrying around a half-pound of BBQ for the next several hours.

Astuteness doesn't figure into it. I think everyone here would like Shang to succeed. Some of us are a bit baffled as to why he took the approach he did. Either he got bad advice, or he got good advice that he ignored. It is exceedingly difficult to recover from reviews this bad, but I hope he will be the exception.

I paid another visit last night; ordered a mixture of the moist brisket and a beef shoulder special, plus a side of the German-fried potatoes. They have a way of talking you into too much food. When I asked for that mixture, the guy said "half & half"? I mindlessly said yes. He meant half a pound of each. On top of that, they erred on the high side, so I got 1.26lbs of fat-laden BBQ meats. I mean, think about that. If it were a burger, it would be a freak of nature. So I ate more than I should have, and still left quite a bit behind.

This is getting sad. Time Out New York, panned again:

I haven't figured out whether New Yorkers "penalize" chefs who open here without relocating, or if chefs who fail to make a full-time commitment have a tendency to fail at the food, too. But it seems to turn out that when the chef does not move here permanently, the result is less often successful.

Yet another ding from Steve Cuozzo in today's Post:

The published menu says that the $25 Monday special includes only the lean brisket. Apparently they throw in some of the moist brisket, but not enough of it. I really don't think the Monday special is that great a deal, because you're not getting their best stuff, and even on an ordinary day $25 worth of food is about as much as most people can eat.I agree that this style of BBQ, by its nature, really does not require sauce and is arguably even ruined by it.

They give you a bowl of popcorn, but that's it. The bar is small (and frankly not that comfortable), and intended only as a brief stopover for patrons not yet seated. People at the restaurant have twice told me that the seats were going to be replaced, but as of 2 weeks ago it had not happened yet.

Part of hospitality is the recognition that, while it may be banal to you, it is the first time for the visitor.

Susur Lee seems to be living here now, and he closed Susur to open Shang. I'm not sure that matters, but if anything he has followed the path that earns love for out-of-town chefs. ← My understanding is he closed one of his two Toronto restaurants (Susur, not Lee), and intends to open another one in the space Susur formerly occupied. I also believe that his move here is not permanent, but like anyone he is spending extended time here during the early period.

Both Le Bernardin and Masa closed in their original locations, and the chefs moved here permanently. Among those who've opened NYC restaurants without moving here permanently, the track record is pretty bad—at least in terms of reception. Keller is about the only successful high-profile example I can think of in recent memory.

Whenever a chef opens from out of town, the comparisons to what he's done elsewhere are inevitable. And I am not sure that Chef Lee did anything to discourage them (not that he could have in any case). You live by your record, and you also hang by it.

Critical bomb? That's a little harsh. I think the New Yorker liked it more then the Times but I can't think of many places hitting NY for the first time and hitting a home run right off the bat in the first 60 days. Not even your beloved ADNY if you recall. ← Ducasse was a critical bomb too. It ultimately survived for six years, but most places pilloried that badly do not. I wish Shang all the best (reminder: I liked the place), but this is an inauspicious beginning. That much can't be denied.

I have to agree, and that's from the perspective that I liked it more than most.