"The Restaurant" Reality Show Season 1

[rich]

this bandwagon is overflowing.

I guess I'll get off the "wagon." I thought the show was well produced and entertaining. Did it show the workings of a "real" restaurant? Of course not. It wasn't supposed to achieve that goal. Its goal was to be noticed and entertaining. It obviously was noticed and it provided entertainment for all - from the people who couldn't stand it (yet watched it) to the "train wreck" crowd to the people who took the show for what it was worth - an hour of escapism.

Was Rocco's reputation sullied? Probably. Will people remember? Yes, for about fifteen minutes. We he do it again? Yes, you heard him at the end of the show. Will we watch? Without question -if nothing more than to bash him and the restaurant again. I guess he'll be crying all the way to the bank. Will any other chef consider doing this type of show? Only the ones that wish to be independently wealthy so they can run their own small place and don't need to answer to investors.

Does anyone believe the other reality programs show "real" occurrences? Nothing on TV that's taped is real. If you want reality TV, only watch live broadcasts. The networks can't script live TV to the same extent.

Edited August 25, 2003 by rich (log)

[tommy]

that Rich fellow makes sense.

[MatthewB]

Does anyone believe the other reality programs show "real" occurences? Nothing on TV that's taped is real. If you want reality TV, only watch live broadcasts. The networks can't script live TV to the same extent.

Good points.

And I'll take it upon myself to remind everyone of Daniel J. Boorstin's book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.

Though originally published ~40 years ago, one would be well-served by reading this now. (If you've got 6 hours to watch "The Restaurant," you've 6 hours to read this book. )

[tommy]

(If you've got 6 hours to watch "The Restaurant," you've 6 hours to read this book.  )

but i can play on egullet while i watch "the restaurant". can't do that when reading. don't like reading. not at all.

[MatthewB]

don't like reading.  not at all.

[shamrock]

That Boorstin book is crucial. Should be required reading in every American education.

[FoodZealot]

Thanks, shamrock & Matthew.

~Tad

edit: upon re-reading, not sure if I misinterpreted some sarcasm, but...

Edited August 25, 2003 by FoodZealot (log)

[MsRamsey]

Some people use being pretty as a life strategy.

Brilliantly said.

[madziast]

Bob "The Publicist's Friend" Lape is "reliable" , alright. Reliably worthless.  Makes Sheldon "Eat For Free" Landwehr in the Post look like Pulitzer-bait.

, i almost spilled my kir over the keyboard reading this. shouldn't sheldon retire, seeing how every other chef uses too much salt for his taste?

bob lape seems to be on target with a number of places, although a lot of time i'm mystified by the places he reviews (why review the tri-state area? isn't it called Crains NEW YORK????),. then again, grimes reviewed man ray for crying out loud!!! (and he plays favorites.) i though i was the only one reading sheldon these days!

can we have a peed-in-my-pants emoticon please

[rich]

Along with the Boorstin book (which is very crucial), read some of Marshall McLuhan's writings. The author of "The Medium is the Message" line wrote extensively about how feeling has replaced form in Western Society. In other words it wasn't what you said, but how you said it.

It goes hand and hand with - "What's more important - perception or reality?" Volumes could be written about that subject.

[madziast]

Along with the Boorstin book (which is very crucial), read some of Marshall McLuhan's writings. The author of "The Medium is the Message" line wrote extensively about how feeling has replaced form in Western Society. In other words it wasn't what you said, but how you said it.

It goes hand and hand with  - "What's more important - perception or reality?" Volumes could be written about that subject.

i better get on with Boorstin and McLuhan 'cause i don't get American media at all. then again, i didn't grow up here. what about Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly from the early '80s? man, this kir is going down really well

[MatthewB]

i better get on with Boorstin and McLuhan 'cause i don't get American media at all.  then again, i didn't grow up here.  what about Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly from the early '80s?  man, this kir is going down really well

Bagkikian has some interesting points--and even more salient for today's climate then when it was published.

But a whole different tack than Boorstin & McLuhan.

Edited August 25, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[ronnie_suburban]

Was Rocco's reputation sullied? Probably. Will people remember? Yes, for about fifteen minutes. We he do it again? Yes, you heard him at the end of the show. Will we watch? Without question -if nothing more than to bash him and the restaurant again. I guess he'll be crying all the way to the bank. Will any other chef consider doing this type of show? Only the ones that wish to be independently wealthy so they can run their own small place and don't need to answer to investors.

Does anyone believe the other reality programs show "real" occurrences? Nothing on TV that's taped is real. If you want reality TV, only watch live broadcasts. The networks can't script live TV to the same extent.

Great points....IMO, there will now be a group of hard-core food people who will forever exile/shun Rocco but there will be many more folks (who are not close to the world of food) who will now fill his restaurants and watch every minute of every one of his tv appearances. On balance, I'd bet that Rocco comes away from this wealthier and more widely-known than he ever would have been if he'd skipped it and just continued to toil away in 3-Star kitchens. That said, he did come off as a pompous and insensitive ass at times. Frankly, I get the feeling that he considered that eventuality before getting into this and decided that it didn't matter to him. He was ready to get out of the kitchen and this would be his vehicle.

I never expect 'true' reality--especially from a major network tv show. Does such a thing even exist? One way or another, there is always editorial bias to consider, even if it doesn't come up and beat you over the head. In this case, the bias is decidedly commercial, but even in a gritty documentary, the filmmaker is starting with a premise that he or she wants to 'sell' to the viewer.

=R=

[Mabelline]

The last show sucked so bad that it was an embarrassment to anything that has sucked in the past and an offront to anything that dreams of sucking in the fututre.

Also, that smart ass kid was a quasi regular on Rosie's old show when she needed smart assed kids.

Rocco really came off like a horse's ass.

Thanks so much for giving my braincells a cooldown! I have been trying to figure out where that little nematode was from! Now I can go back to particle physics (j/k).

[jhlurie]

Did it show the workings of a "real" restaurant? Of course not. It wasn't supposed to achieve that goal. Its goal was to be noticed and entertaining.

Okay... this is a part of Rich's statement I can't fully agree with.

The show had different purposes for different people. For Mark Burnett and NBC the point was to make money, and only as a side-product of that to entertain people. For Rocco, the point was... heck... probably money as well, but even more-so to go from being a slightly famous person to a slightly more famous person. AMEX wants small business owners to accept their cards instead of Visa, and for consumers to use their existing AMEX or Optima cards as often as possible. Coors wants to rehabilitate itself so people think that its served in fancy restaurants and isn't one step above toilet water. Topher, Gideon, Pete, Uzay and various others--well, the point was probably to get more guest starring roles on "Law & Order" going forward.

Isn't it somewhat sick that we are finding our entertainment in seeing people act like idiots? Does anyone out there REALLY want Pete, for example, to be their server at any restaurant anywhere? I think not. We simply think its funny to imagine other people having to put up with his antics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that "The Restaurant" toes some kind of line, because it pretends so hard to be real (and fails so spectacularly at it--but that's another subject entirely). Sure it was "unscripted". We've heard that a million and one times. But "reality"? Is Burnett's other production, "Survivor" even trying to pretend that a real group of people would gather on an island and act like that?

I say again... let us be disgusted at this show if we so wish. Yes we watched it. Then again, I also watched a squirrel get run over ten times yesterday without blinking or turning away. Does this mean I want to see squirrels get run over everyday? People can hate something and yet be bound by it--humans are complex creatures in that way.

Edited August 25, 2003 by jhlurie (log)

[scoodyboo]

this bandwagon is overflowing.

I'll be the first to admit that I watched all 6 episodes, cut other engagements short so I could run home to see it. Who knows why? It was different than most tv shows. The fact that several posters are posting negative comments isn't bandwagon-ing - it's called consensus. I don't know if Rocco had any say in editing, but a couple of the eps portrayed him as this really horny chef, kinda made me queasy. Maybe he's not like that. Anyway, doesn't mean I don't like the show. tommy

[bilrus]

Was Rocco's reputation sullied? Probably. Will people remember? Yes, for about fifteen minutes. We he do it again? Yes, you heard him at the end of the show. Will we watch? Without question -if nothing more than to bash him and the restaurant again. I guess he'll be crying all the way to the bank. Will any other chef consider doing this type of show? Only the ones that wish to be independently wealthy so they can run their own small place and don't need to answer to investors.

Does anyone believe the other reality programs show "real" occurrences? Nothing on TV that's taped is real. If you want reality TV, only watch live broadcasts. The networks can't script live TV to the same extent.

Great points....IMO, there will now be a group of hard-core food people who will forever exile/shun Rocco but there will be many more folks (who are not close to the world of food) who will now fill his restaurants and watch every minute of every one of his tv appearances. On balance, I'd bet that Rocco comes away from this wealthier and more widely-known than he ever would have been if he'd skipped it and just continued to toil away in 3-Star kitchens. That said, he did come off as a pompous and insensitive ass at times. Frankly, I get the feeling that he considered that eventuality before getting into this and decided that it didn't matter to him. He was ready to get out of the kitchen and this would be his vehicle.

I never expect 'true' reality--especially from a major network tv show. Does such a thing even exist? One way or another, there is always editorial bias to consider, even if it doesn't come up and beat you over the head. In this case, the bias is decidedly commercial, but even in a gritty documentary, the filmmaker is starting with a premise that he or she wants to 'sell' to the viewer.

=R=

Why do we assume that 'the average people' didn't pick up on the fact that Rocco and Rocco's both came off very badly in the show and would still be interested in going there?

Plus I don't think the average person who thinks Rocco and Rocco's looked interesting are going to be the same people who would go to Union Pacific or Tuscan.

I'm sure NBC is happy and Rocco's may see some benefit of the publicity, but I can't see Rocco or his other restaurants benefitting in the long run.

[bloviatrix]

.... but there will be many more folks (who are not close to the world of food) who will now fill his restaurants and watch every minute of every one of his tv appearances.  ......

I agree with you completely. Rocco's is going to be just another place to go on a certain type of tourist's list. It'll be up there with Hard Rock Cafe, FAO Schwartz and Macy's. Rocco's will survive, but only because tourists will eat there thinking they're getting a real NY dining experience.

[tommy]

The fact that several posters are posting negative comments isn't  bandwagon-ing - it's called consensus.

it sure does resemble a bandwagon in the sense that a bunch of people are doing the ol' i'll-pick-out-one-soundbite-and-proprose-that-it-makes-some-sort-of-grand-statement-about-rocco-the-person.

[ronnie_suburban]

Why do we assume that 'the average people' didn't pick up on the fact that Rocco and Rocco's both came off very badly in the show and would still be interested in going there?

Just basing this (admitted assumption) on the fact that people/tourists, even while on vacation in a great city like NYC, will go to TGIFridays and Bennigan's. Also, there are reports that Rocco's is still full on a constant basis. Just thinking too about the tv medium in general, and how many look at the very appearance or mention of a place on tv as an 'endorsement'. Of course, many are more discerning but IMO there are enough folks out there who are not, to keep the place full in perpetuity. I really hope that I'm wrong about this.

=R=

[MatthewB]

I'll point out again . . .

It's not about Rocco's the Restaurant or even any of Rocco's restaurants.

The guy realized he wanted to make money. The money isn't in the restaurants. The money is in book contracts, appearances, endorsements, etc.

Grimes has had it right all along: it's about Rocco's career.

And the guy is going to have a fine career--at least for awhile & at least economically.

Edited August 25, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[madziast]

.... but there will be many more folks (who are not close to the world of food) who will now fill his restaurants and watch every minute of every one of his tv appearances.  ......

I agree with you completely. Rocco's is going to be just another place to go on a certain type of tourist's list. It'll be up there with Hard Rock Cafe, FAO Schwartz and Macy's. Rocco's will survive, but only because tourists will eat there thinking they're getting a real NY dining experience.

i don't think they are even after "a real NY dining experience"--they just want to go to a place that was on TV--'cause if it's not on TV, it may very well not exist in this culture....

[Jinmyo]

that Rich fellow makes sense.

That's rich.

[scoodyboo]

Just basing this (admitted assumption) on the fact that people/tourists, even while on vacation in a great city like NYC, will go to TGIFridays and Bennigan's.  Also, there are reports that Rocco's is still full on a constant basis.  Just thinking too about the tv medium in general, and how many look at the very appearance or mention of a place on tv as an 'endorsement'.  Of course, many are more discerning but IMO there are enough folks out there who are not, to keep the place full in perpetuity.  I really hope that I'm wrong about this.

Relatives of mine in the midwest are asking if I've been there, how it is, etc. (I haven't & I don't know). They also ask if I've been to Topher's current place of employment. (no) I agree tourists will go looking for their "New York experience." People come here for Sex & the City tours, too bad Rocco didn't arrange a tie-in to that show, his restaurant would be booked until the next millennium.

[shamrock]

Seems to me that people are picking out highlights/lowlights about not just Rocco but other people on the show/in the restaurant as well.

Isn't everyone here simply trying to generate to brilliant bon mots with the material at hand?

In these myriad contextualizations Rocco functions as a cipher in the analytic matrix (or The Matrix, not sure) of real/fake, integrity vs. sellout, jerky boss vs. likeable guy, geniushead vs. cheeseball, sex symbol vs. enhh, charismatic leader vs. climber.