COOKING UNDER FIRE from PBS: April 27 premiere

[ronnie_suburban]

My favorite moment of last night's show was the sight of Ming doing a very silly dance in the background as Matt, Sara and Autumn huddled in the foreground. At the time, he was standing between Bernstein and Ruhlman, who also seemed to be highly amused.

I love Ming, but if Deney Terrio had been there last night, it would have been Ming who got 86'd.

=R=

[Genny]

Michael did say the show would get better and I think it has. I'm glad to have stuck with it. I think the half hour format is too ambitious when you have 12 people to cover but with the remaining 6 I was satisfied with the amount of cooking and team interaction challenge that was shown.

I don't really have a favorite but I think Katsuji is coming off as very underhanded (as he has the entire competition) and I can't really trust that he is as good as he thinks he is if he feels he needs to undermine others to succeed. IMHO.

[coquus]

Good commentary, now I don't even have to watch the shows, which everyone knows should be shown on Sunday or Monday, and rebroadcast late on Friday night. I have come full circle on Ming Tsai since his FN days when his food was too pretty and over the top expensive and unbalanced, in my opinion. Todd, you know, depending on your sex, you either love him or hate him. And Micheal Ruhlman, I don't think I know from anywhere but here, but seems to be someone who would be good to know. Micheal, I picture you as the taller? guy with thinning dark hair that is always on Simply Ming for the end segment, well as much as Gail Gand, Micheal Lomonaco, Jacques, and Mings Parents(who are my favorite because, and tell me if i'm wrong, he always needles with(something like), "Putting that engineering degree to work. . .huh, Pops?"). You know the guy who does the little plate sauce drags. Micheal, that's a good thing by the way, now sure if I made that clear.

I digress, my lack of lurker status in this thread is because of this. What does asparagus have to do with wine? I know it makes your pee smell funny, but never heard of it's implications with wine. If you're amazed at my ignorance, I knew that artichoke tidbit, and also know to be careful with serving it with anything sweeter than butter.

[ingridsf]

Sorry to say the show's losing me. PBS's fault -- it's too short and the scheduling blew any momentum it had.

Philistine Alert! Do Not Read if, Well, You're Not a Philistine:

I'm liking ol' Gordon's show better. There's so much more cooking in it. So much more portrayal of the push-push-push of cooking professionally. Cooking Under Fire needs more fire, dammit. Not cheesy fire necessarily.

[Phatlouie07]

when seeing the judges minus a guest judge, critiquing the contestants..they seemed like a buncha softies..michael you need a new 'do. ..after the series air..is there going to be a dvd or vhs featuring all episodes??

[Michael Ruhlman]

michael you need a new 'do.

←

I hope you're not suggesting i put that gel crap in my hair like my metrosexual co-judges.

And yes I think that at this stage all these cooks could work at an excellent restaurant.

[Mnehrling]

michael you need a new 'do.

←

I hope you're not suggesting i put that gel crap in my hair like my metrosexual co-judges.

And yes I think that at this stage all these cooks could work at an excellent restaurant.

←

Please no.. I actually respect the fact that you are taking notes when talking with the contestents and working like a teacher/mentor instead of a celeb.. I would like to see you do a show like Kitchen Nighmares here in the US.. We need a host that acts professional, not like a model..

[Phatlouie07]

michael you need a new 'do.

←

I hope you're not suggesting i put that gel crap in my hair like my metrosexual co-judges.

And yes I think that at this stage all these cooks could work at an excellent restaurant.

←

gel crap? no way. just something different, yet not like your metrosexual co-judges. bit off topic..but surfin' the net the other day...found a pic of tony back in '73...his hair was a bit howard stern-esque. how do you post a picture on gullet??

[coquus]

  how do you post a picture on gullet??

←

You find a free image host, search there are many. upload your image from your computer to the host, copy the address for your picture, post your message in your desired topic thread, and click the block above the "Enter Your Post" Block, paste your image location for picture name, paste your image location for picture location, submit your post. Done.

[Matthew Sievert]

Cooking Under Fire is a good show.

It has it's quirkyness, but not all great cooks can be coached and primped into being super stud food stars on television.

The tasks require skill and the feedback even when negative provides advice to the contestants.

With cable breathing down their neck. PBS can still deliver. Obviously, since most of you guys are watching the program.

I feel like buying some shrimp and fine All Clad products.

My question is... Do they get to keep the 86' pan?

[Grub]

I just saw the Chef Michelle Bernstein show, and felt kinda ambivalent about it. Maybe I've just happened to catch only the episodes where this happened, but there seemed to be a contrived focus on the female contestants.

The three female contestants are mostly commented on as a group, rather than individuals. Imagine if there were three black contestants, and they were constantly grouped together like this -- it's like "hey, lets give the darkies a hand, they did such a good job!"

In this episode, they split the six contestants up into two groups, where one contestant would take the role as the chef, and the two others to follow that chef's lead. And of course -- one group was lead by a female contestant (leading two males), and the other lead by a male contestant (leading two females). Cooking Under Fire? Sod that, this show oughta be called Gender Cooking Competition.

--- spoilers below ---

Now, the female lead team clearly seemed to be ahead. The chef appeared in charge, and pretty bossy -- which I'm sure is appropriate. The male lead team floundered because the chef seemed to want to take a more democratic approach to things. Both teams had some disasters, or near-disasters, but pulled things off in the end.

The final verdict was that the female chef had done superbly, because she had taken the lead and been in charge. The male chef had done poorly because he hadn't -- except towards the end when it seemed they were heading for disaster, which was a good thing. Surprisingly, the second team's food was judged to be the best, but that was mostly because the first team had strayed from the south Florida theme. This was blamed on the Latino male cook, since several dishes had a Latin flavor -- and although the Chef had proudly created a Kentucky twist to the main dish, this wasn't brought up.

The other guy on the female-lead team was surprisingly brought up to the front, along with the male Chef from the other team -- everyone expected the two leaders to be the ones who'd go up against each others. The male cook from team one got the axe, because he had been too much of a follower. This seemed weird to me -- of course he had to be a follower -- his Chef took completely charge and bossed them both around. The other guy didn't follow her lead as much, and she had to be on his back quite a lot (in fact, when a shot showed her telling him quite sternly to do as she wanted, because she wasn't going to go home today, they cut to a candid shot of him telling the camera "like hell you aren't going home today!")

So they penalized the guy for following his boss' orders.

On the male lead team, it was commented that the two cooks constantly questioned their Chef's decisions, and put it down to his lack of leadership. How can you penalize someone for not taking charge, when the boss IS taking charge -- yet have no complaints when a subordinate becomes insubordinate due to lack of leadership? In the latter case, you have two wrongs. In the first, you have two rights.

I'm sure the editing might create a different picture from what really goes on in the kitchen. But that's the final product: what you see in on the screen.

It didn't make much sense to me.

[Grub]

Has anybody read Katsuji bio?

←

Whoa! I just read that. That is an amazing story -- I would be proud to know an upstanding guy like that. The shows I've caught so far, he never seemed to come across as a very likeable character. But if his bio is accurate, he must be a helluva guy...

[AlexP]

The other guy on the female-lead team was surprisingly brought up to the front, along with the male Chef from the other team -- everyone expected the two leaders to be the ones who'd go up against each others. The male cook from team one got the axe, because he had been too much of a follower.

←

I do not disagree with you completely in your summary. I found the outcome a surprise. However, the judges never stated that the captains would face elimination alone. I think with all these reality TV shows, people assume that all elimination should be similar. In your case, you are assuming that this is like the Apprentice when the "captain" always goes to the boardroom. In Cooking under fire, they have been pretty consistent to eliminate the contestant that the judges felt did the worst (or others did much better) in the challenge. In this case, they felt that the two "finalists" have done poorly. Chef Ming stated that the final product is more important than what happens at closed doors in the kitchen and therefore, JP had to go since his team's food was the weakest.

As for your assessment that the women are been favored, I disagree. There has always been a male contestant doing worse than these women cooks in each specific challenge. Your observation does not appear true by watching all episodes, at least not based in the editing that we see.

Last night episode had something similar happening. Although one contestant did not complete the assignment (only cooked 2 dishes out of 3), the cook with the worst food was eliminated. The chef with two dishes prepared the best food among all of them. Although the show does not have written rules that have to be followed to the letter, I believe the judges have been fair.

Last night’s episode was good although I would have like to see the contestants picking up the fish. Therefore, the judges could evaluate them on their purchases as well. The challenge was difficult. I enjoyed seen the guest chef. He was tough.

All right, next week they are in a real kitchen working the line! Intense!

Alex

[Grub]

Chef Ming stated that the final product is more important than what happens at closed doors in the kitchen and therefore, JP had to go since his team's food was the weakest.

←

I think that's a completely valid observation -- except if this was the ground for JP's dismission, then it should have been the Chef of that team that should have gotten axed. Because, just as the final product is more important than what happens behind closed dores, the leader of the team is ultimate responsible for that final product.

I definitely don't think that she should have gotten axed, because she did a better leadership job -- I'm just saying that if the quality of the food is what got JP axed, they axed the peon, when the boss was the responsible person...

It seemed like a bit of a "heads I win, tails you lose" thing going on between the two teams.

[ronnie_suburban]

I really enjoyed this week's installment and I look forward to seeing all the remaining contestants cooking in an actual restaurant. I'll admit that Katie has really grown on me. I didn't like her very much at the outset.

And forgive the moderately snarky comment but wtf happened to Norman Van Aiken? When did he become so pompous and humorless? I remember seeing him years back on Food Network and he always seemed personable and easy-going. Oh well, maybe I'm just misinterpreting things but in last night's episode he seemed very crabby from the start -- long before he was served those bones by Matt.

=R=

[AlexP]

I think that's a completely valid observation -- except if this was the ground for JP's dismission, then it should have been the Chef of that team that should have gotten axed.

←

This was the ground for JP's dismissing once he was up for elimination against the other guy. He did got to that stage of the specific challenge once he did not work harder in helping Katie. The other guy got there for not being a good leader and he survived because the food was better. Was Katie willing to get any help from JP? That is another story.

Sorry, Grub, I might sound pedantic. I think you have good points. It was a tough spot for JP. He probably though that being a follower would carry him through the next stage and questioning Katie's judgement would be detrimental. Well, that was not the case in the judges’ minds. The show might have some flaws, but it is entertaining and with longer episodes could be more instructional.

I am curious to see your opinion on the following show that aired yesterday. Hopefully, you are able to catch it.

Alex

[ken T]

You'll have to excuse me if I do not define Katie's grandstanding as "leadership". IMHO leadership is more than gruffly ordering people about.

[Genny]

I certainly do agree that Katie was gruff last week, and as a woman, I do find that sometimes women can be overly agressive in leadership roles. OTOH, this is in a kitchen and although I don't work in one, everything I read on these boards and have seen in the 'reality' programs ("move your ass!" Gordy R.) her behavior wasn't uncalled for. JP really was not putting out good product, even with her direction. I think he was 86'd because he was the weakest link.

Now for last night's program. I was not surprised that John (?) was 86'd. He was a mess in the leadership challenge and although he had some good ideas, he wasn't able to logically present them and was again somewhat of a mess. I was surprised Katie only delivered 2 dishes. That really was something I thought could get her booted. Having said that, I think if she came out and just said that she didn't do a 3rd dish, poor planning, etc. then she would be gone. Instead, she explained her reasoning that the judges have said to NEVER deliver inedible product so she didn't. Smart thinking really. Although I was surprised at the repetition of ceviche, she could have maybe rinsed off that piece or gotten some of her scrap and made a carpaccio.

Really this game is a 'long haul' prospect and it appears they are looking at the person in total with what they know about them so far. One mistake for someone so strong as Katie shouldn't be grounds for expulsion. I imagine English has the 1.1 vote anyway since it is his restaurant that the person will be working in.

To be perfectly honest, I am surprised but think that the 3 female contestants are all very strong. The one with the hair coverings, Autumn (?) is the weakest one left, she has flown under the radar in some cases but when the spotlight has been on she has done well and others have done worse.

Any predictions who will win now that there is the Final Four?

[Grub]

AlexP, I don't think you're pedantic, but I thought that if any of her two cooks failed to support her it would be Katsuji. I mean, from the footage, it looked like he was gleefully hoping that she'd be eliminated, and that he was outright sabotaging her...

I did catch the last episode, and it was one of the better ones that I've seen so far. The women clearly did better than the two guys -- if I'd caught a few more episodes, and seen similar performances, maybe it wouldn't look so peculiar.

I mean, out of nine guys and three gals, eight guys are gone -- where'd they find those dudes? At the drive-through window at KFC? I'm thinking, this is like wrestling. Now, they'll throw a twist at us and have two women eliminated -- leaving Katsuji and Katie, and everyone will think Katsuji will win -- but then a counter-twist, and Katie steals the win at the last moment

From PBS.org, the viewer predictions for a winner goes like so:

Autumn: 32%

Sara: 14%

Katie: 6%

Katsuji: 3%

This show would be far more interesting if they got a 1-hour slot -- provided they used the extra time to focus on cooking.

And I also think PBS breaking the series up with a fundraiser did it a major disservice.

[BuzzDraft]

It's very clear to me that the finalists have been wired since the third or fourth episode..

Katie and Katsuji.

Katie has survived blatently and purposely ignoring the local guest chef's ingredients in one show, and just now the "Mortal sin" as Ming himself said of only serving two dishes when three was the clear minimum requirement, and Katsuji's attitude has put him in jeopardy several times, too. Both have violated the basic rules for their competition, yet they have been spared by the judges. Why?

Their strong personalities make it compelling TV so, guaranteed, the producers knew early who they want to be the final two. The judges realize who they've wanted to go head to head since early on, and have granted obvious "indulgences" to make it so. It's not about who the best cook is, it's about what brings the best ratings for the TV show. A TV show is about nothing more than entertainment. Even on the "hallowed" PBS.

Edited July 1, 2005 by BuzzDraft (log)

[JayBassin]

I certainly do agree that Katie was gruff last week, and as a woman, I do find that sometimes women can be overly agressive in leadership roles.  OTOH, this is in a kitchen and although I don't work in one, everything I read on these boards and have seen in the 'reality' programs ("move your ass!" Gordy R.) her behavior wasn't uncalled for.  JP really was not putting out good product, even with her direction.  I think he was 86'd because he was the weakest link.

Now for last night's program.  I was not surprised that John (?) was 86'd.  He was a mess in the leadership challenge and although he had some good ideas, he wasn't able to logically present them and was again somewhat of a mess.  I was surprised Katie only delivered 2 dishes.  That really was something I thought could get her booted.  Having said that, I think if she came out and just said that she didn't do a 3rd dish, poor planning, etc. then she would be gone.  Instead, she explained her reasoning that the judges have said to NEVER deliver inedible product so she didn't.  Smart thinking really.  Although I was surprised at the repetition of ceviche, she could have maybe rinsed off that piece or gotten some of her scrap and made a carpaccio. 

Really this game is a 'long haul' prospect and it appears they are looking at the person in total with what they know about them so far.  One mistake for someone so strong as Katie shouldn't be grounds for expulsion.  I imagine English has the 1.1 vote anyway since it is his restaurant that the person will be working in.

To be perfectly honest, I am surprised but think that the 3 female contestants are all very strong.  The one with the hair coverings, Autumn (?) is the weakest one left, she has flown under the radar in some cases but when the spotlight has been on she has done well and others have done worse. 

Any predictions who will win now that there is the Final Four?

←

Sarah Lawson will be the last one standing. She's quiet, respectful, competent, and just what TE wants in his kitchen. Katie and Katsuji are brash and come across as know-it-alls. They would be disruptive in a real kitchen.

[Phatlouie07]

i hope katie gets her stuff back on track. what about autumn, doe she stand the chance to be the last one standing?

[Michael Ruhlman]

Their strong personalities make it compelling TV so, guaranteed, the producers knew early who they want to be the final two.  The judges realize who they've wanted to go head to head since early on, and have granted obvious "indulgences" to make it so.  It's not about who the best cook is, it's about what brings the best ratings for the TV show.  A TV show is about nothing more than entertainment.  Even on the "hallowed" PBS.

←

Mais non, cynical buzzdraft. The producers made it clear from the outset our decision was ours to make alone. Moreover, todd really was thinking about his restaurant, not about ratings or personality. who was going to be the best cook--that was the bottom line. those who've observed that mistakes were overlooked in favor of better food are accurate. we were looking for the best cook. JP, in the team cooking, was the weakest link. So much cooking has been sliced out because of the awful time constraint. He made some pretty signicant cooking errors and decisions that weighed against him. in the next episode, katie's food was the best of any of the bunch, and we admired her decision making process, critical to be able to make the right decision in a stressful kitchen situation.

btw, if anybody's up at 8 am tomorrow, you can see ming and todd square off with a quickie mystery basket on the Weekend Today Show.

[Genny]

Although Katie wears her toughness on her sleeve, I think she is likely a cream puff on the inside. Not a bad thing but I think that although Sarah is quietly competent, she seems to have a spine of steele. I think I want her to win.

[JayBassin]

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why the original contestants would go through all this just for a job in NYC? Seems a lot easier to send in a resume directly to Todd English (or Craig Shelton, at Ryland Inn, which would be a much better learning experience).