Other Great Reality Shows > Other Reality TV Shows & News

Top Chef New York Season 5

<< < (32/73) > >>

marigold:
An interesting article:

'Top Chef' top dog: Yes, he can cook

On a recent Tuesday in Manhattan, Tom Colicchio could be found doing something that the millions of Americans who know him chiefly as the snarling top dog on "Top Chef" might never expect.

He was cooking.

In a serious restaurant.

For an entire evening.

The setup, in an annex of Colicchio's Flatiron district flagship, Craft, was such that there was no missing him, a bald, hulking presence dead center in an open kitchen framed so much like a stage that I half expected him to pause while plating the scallops and belt out a number from "The King and I."

The few dozen of us who had finagled coveted seats could watch him fuss over herbs, fret over condiments and furrow his formidable brow. We could even read his thoughts, because the menu provided not only descriptions of the dishes but also musings from the man.

"All young chefs dream of cooking nightly at the small, signature place that defines them," read the missive from Colicchio, who also mentioned the joy of touching "every plate that leaves the kitchen."

"Through the years," he went on, "I've never let go of this ideal."

At Tom: Tuesday Dinner, the name that he has given this occasional restaurant-within-a-restaurant, he reconnects with his roots, reclaims his spatula and shows diners what he's really all about, or wants to believe he's all about.

For performer and audience alike, that's the promise and peculiar spectacle of the so-called chef's table, which Tom: Tuesday Dinner presents in an unusually large format.

I recently sampled three such experiences, counting Colicchio's. Each had a fixed multicourse menu, as chef's tables typically do. Each positioned me and my fellow diners close enough to the kitchen to see its monarch put the finishing touches on the food or, at a minimum, give it a theatrical once-over before blessing its delivery. And each showed a chef pushing back at — and maybe in some sense apologizing for — the financial ambitions, practical concerns and compromises prevalent in his other work.

At Bloomingdale Road, what we got at the chef's table was a far cry from the upscale snacks that Ed Witt serves the regular diners. For $55 a person my companions and I got six courses in all, but we didn't get much that we actually enjoyed eating. The squash bullied the lobster. The risotto managed to be too sweet, too murky, too musky and too salty all at once. The roasted squab included half of a little birdie head that had been cut vertically in two. "Grab the beak and suck out the brains," instructed Witt. We glanced longingly at yet another plate of sliders bound for diners less privileged than we. Witt is throwing off the shackles of conformity at this chef's table, but freedom may not be the thing for him.

At Beacon, Waldy Malouf declared, "This is an evening of experimentation. You're going to have to trust me."

In truth, it wasn't particularly experimental: oysters with shallots; duck with orange and arugula; short rib with Cheddar grits; a lamb chop with capers. But it was more ambitious than the usual meal at Beacon, a large-scale trough for businesspeople, theatergoers and shoppers often looking for nothing more elaborate than roasted chicken.

Although my companion and I had been told to arrive by 7 p.m., we weren't seated until 7:40. Then, midway through 12 courses for $109 — definitely a deal, because that included alcohol, tax and tip, and because some dishes were enjoyable — Malouf vanished and a different chef presented the remaining courses. This other chef never noted the departure of Malouf, who never said goodbye.

Tom: Tuesday Dinner is an infinitely more impressive operation. The service is coddling, the pacing smooth, the wine pairings spot on, the delicacies abundant and the pleasures intense.

That's as it should be, given the competition for admission — these dinners happen only every other Tuesday, and book up six weeks in advance — and how much the meal costs. For 10 courses the price is usually $150, not including tax, tip and drinks.

The initial courses made it immediately clear that Colicchio was doing something different — more particular and composed, less conceit-driven — from the food at Craft, Craftsteak and 'Wichcraft, an empire whose management often takes him far from the skillet.

Out came a circle of boneless crispy pig trotter, the richness and enticing funkiness of the meat offset by the sharpness of a pickled quail egg with it. Scattered around both were tiny hon shimeji mushrooms.

Right after that it was time for the scallops. They were Nantucket Bay scallops, to be precise, reflecting the menu's sustained effort to speak to — and take advantage of — the seasons.

And bringing the scallops' sweetness into bold relief were earthy accents: crushed sunchoke; separate sunchoke chips as light, crunchy and irresistible as anything ever shaved from a potato; and Pιrigord truffle with an honest, generous truffle flavor.

For this and every other dish, including fallow deer with farro and monkfish with bone marrow and chanterelles, Colicchio had chosen his ingredients with real discernment. And with the exception of wild Scottish partridge served too rare, everything was superbly cooked.

But the overall arc of the meal — the rhythm of it — wasn't exactly right.

The partridge was wrapped in cabbage; the veal breast that came next was paired with bitter greens. Bitter and peppery notes recurred too often. Across the first seven savory courses there was almost nothing — on the plate or the palate — with much brightness.

Yes, it was a meal for late autumn, but not for late autumn in Scandinavia. If food could brood, Colicchio's did.

The setting was a modestly lovely, utterly comfortable room with a long, anticipation-building walk from the entrance to the first tables and well-spaced artwork on exposed brick.

The kitchen spanned almost the length of the back wall, and it was laid out and equipped so that nothing obstructed the view of Colicchio in his unnatural habitat. He did some of his cooking on an electric stove rather than a gas one, which most chefs favor but which would have required a scene-scarring hood.

And he experienced the downside of performing in the open, where no one can doubt your involvement but anyone can register your distraction.

Riveted at one point by his BlackBerry — Padma calling? — he fiddled with the keys for a good 30 seconds and then, to fiddle some more, crouched down below counter level.

Although Tom: Tuesday Dinner lets him show that he's still cooking, it's not much for privacy.

Link to the article: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11386502?source=rss

marigold:

Rich Top Chef Interview

Top Chef contestant Rich Sweeney was interviewed by 944

and gave out some inside information about his time on the show

marigold:

 :popcorn: sooooo looking forward to tonights episode with Toby Young

Ted is forgettable to me he certainly didn't stand out, Ted who   ;)  hehehe

marigold:

Toby Young's Blog:

The Demon Belcher of Fleet Street

Well, I guess you've all met me by now: the Demon Belcher of Fleet Street. Watching the way I was billed in last night's episode, you were probably expecting the British equivalent of Anton Ego, the fearsome food critic in Ratatouille - particularly as I've written a book called How to Lose Friends & Alienate People. But the truth is, I'm not your typical food snob. When I review a restaurant, I try to be as straightforward and unpretentious as possible. I get hung up on the little things that most foodies could care less about. For instance, when I reviewed Royal Hospital Road, Gordon Ramsay's flagship restaurant in London, I couldn't get past the fact that the tasting menu was described as "Menu Prestige." Isn't the adjective supposed to come before the noun? It was typical of the garbled Franglais that passes for English in high-end restaurants. When the waiter appeared I was tempted to launch into a Yoda impression: "Menu Prestige have I will."

Luckily, the remaining contestants in Top Chef seem like a pretty down-to-earth bunch - with the exception of Carla, obviously, who's from outer space. I love it when she just bursts out laughing, apropos of nothing. She has real charm, which is a fairly rare commodity in a chef. In my experience, chefs are much more like Gene - scrappy little hard nuts, ready to take on all comers. I was sorry to see him go.

The blind tasting was a great way to be introduced to the contestants - by their dishes you shall know them -- and I felt honoured that this week's challenge was dreamt up for my benefit. I was a little harsh about some of the dishes, but in general I was very impressed by the standard of the cooking. What the contestants lack in confidence, they make up for in technique. I'm going to enjoy being a judge for the next six episodes.

My one big worry in last night's episode is that there's a bit of history between Jean-Christophe Novelli and me. A few years ago, I appeared as a judge on an episode of the British version of Hell's Kitchen and Jean-Christophe was one of two celebrity chefs leading a team of contestants. To cut a long story short, he took such violent exception to my remarks about his team's food that he banned me from all his restaurants. Until last night, our paths hadn't crossed and I was concerned that the tension between us might spill out on to the show.

In fact, after some perfunctory squaring off, we decided to bury the hatchet and - as is the way with these things - ended up getting horribly drunk together when the show had wrapped. We may have even pricked our fingers and become blood brothers - I'm afraid I don't remember.

It was the first of what I hope will be many wonderful experiences working on Top Chef.

Link to the blog: http://www.bravotv.com/Top_Chef/season/5/blogs/index.php?blog=toby_young&article=2009/01/the_demon_belcher_of_fleet_str#breadcrumbs

marigold:

Tom Colicchio's Blog:

Rolling with Role Reversal

People think that I have a hand in the weekly Elimination Challenges. I generally don't, but this week was the exception to that rule. With Chef Jean-Christophe Novelli as guest judge, there would have been some sort of pastry challenge, but in light of my locker-room pep talk to the cheftestants last week, the other producers and I decided to scrap it and, instead, to implement a challenge that would accomplish two things:

The chefs had started this Season on good footing, cooking well in the first episode, but they seemed to be struggling after that. So the first thing we wanted was to give them a chance to cook whatever they wished with no restraints from us, to just lay it all out there. Second, whenever we criticized their food, this season's chefs tended to have looks on their faces that said that they thought we were just out of our minds. So we wanted them to taste each other's food and learn firsthand where the judge's comments were coming from.

And I'm pleased to be able to say that overall the dishes were better. As I've said before, the contestants tend to get bogged down in what the challenge is, to over-think it, and to forget that the point is to make great food. Here, the challenge was simply to make great food. Jeff's dish had nice components, all very good, but it seemed like amuses on a plate as opposed to a cohering dish. Radhika's soup was a bit overspiced, but I thought it was good. Fabio was getting a little overconfident. He should most certainly have checked his lamb; he would have had time to make it perfect. His pasta was great, the ravioli filling and mushroom sauce were all really good. Toby's analogy to British stars cast in a film in supporting roles and upstaging the lead actors was very apt for Hosea's dish. His vegetables were great, but the halibut was overcooked. And Jamie's dish was great. There's no rule that says she can't continue to make scallops, and her frequent decision to use them probably had a lot to do with the offerings available at Whole Foods Market while we were shooting the season. I thought the chefs' personalities came through; I thought their limitations did, too.

Which leads me to the notion of judging blind. Since Season One, I've frequently been exhorted to judge blind, as though we may be influenced in our decisions about the food by our knowledge of who created it. As I've said before, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes all season (until we watch it much later, when it airs!), nor do we make decisions based on personalities. We just judge the food. But as this challenge proves, it makes no difference whether we are judging blind or not - though we were not told in advance of eating the food, it was pretty obvious pretty quickly, at least to me, who had cooked what. Even without even tasting the food, you at home would have known right away that the Indian food was Radhika's and the Italian food was Fabio's. (As with Jamie's scallops, there was no reason Radhika couldn't continue to infuse her food with an Indian sensibility despite her protestations in Episode One that she would not be doing so, or that Fabio couldn't continue to draw his selections from Italian cuisine.) And beyond that, having actually eaten everyone's food through six prior challenges, it was readily apparent to me right away who had made what. So much for "blind."

Toby and Jean-Christophe were the only ones at the table truly judging blind. As an aside, I think this was a good introduction to Toby. He's exceptionally witty and thought at first that he was being called on as a judge to use that wit and take potshots at the chefs, but he quickly realized that they were all very serious-minded about their food and about this competition, and he switched gears and began assessing the food in earnest. He's fun to work with and I know you'll enjoy him as the season progresses.

Meanwhile, blind or otherwise, all of the judges were in accord about the two weakest dishes. Interestingly, they were the weakest for opposite reasons, both involving creativity in cooking. Unlike last week's challenge, this one was not the producers' attempt to be creative but, rather, an open invitation to the chefs to be so; the contestants could not have had a greater opportunity to show us who they were as chefs. And Melissa gave us fish tacos. I stand by what I said at the Judges' Table.

Eugene, on the other hand, went in the other direction and was being creative for creativity's own sake. It would take a far more skilled and experienced chef than Eugene to find a way to make daikon meld well with basil and tomato. OK, he wanted to use it in lieu of a noodle - great. But that doesn't mean it can just be substituted for pasta. It still tastes radishy. I'm not saying not to try unconventional pairings. A dish by Pierre Garnier with duck breast, clams, and truffle comes to mind, for example, that was delicious. But that's because Garnier is both talented and seasoned enough to pull it off. Eugene is getting too far ahead of himself. He's not yet far enough along to connect those dots effectively. If he wanted to use basil, perhaps the daikon could have stood in for a rice noodle in a Thai-inspired dish. But what was nice to see was his willingness to take risks and push the envelope.

In general, I was glad to see the chefs step up their game this week and put more of themselves into their work. This week marked the midpoint of the season. Roughly half of the chefs are left, and now that they've tasted and judged each others' foods, let's see if that affects how they move forward from here...

Link to the blog: http://www.bravotv.com/Top_Chef/season/5/blogs/index.php?blog=tom_colicchio&article=2009/01/rolling_with_role_reversal#breadcrumbs

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page