An interesting article:
'Top Chef' Mixes It Up With New JudgeWhen I first heard that "Top Chef" judge Gail Simmons was leaving the cooking competition mid-season in order to plan and partake in her wedding, I got nervous. By no means am I her biggest fan. In fact, I think she adds very little spice to the judges' table, where she holds court alongside head judge Tom Colicchio and hostess with the mostess Padma Lakshmi. I just had this terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that she'd be replaced with someone even less appealing, or worse… British.
Don't get me wrong. I love Brits. Kate Winslet, David Beckham, Ricky Gervais, even Madonna when she assumes her faux accent. However, when it comes to British reality show judges, enough is enough. "American Idol's" Simon Cowell is undoubtedly the leader of the pack. Far behind in second place, you'll find Sharon Osbourne ("Rock of Love: Charm School"), and bringing up the rear is Sharon's former "America's Got Talent" cohort Piers Morgan. Each one of them is sarcastic, surly, and anything but sweet.
So, do we really need another one mucking up a credible program like "Top Chef" with their stale smackdowns? No! And especially not another Brit with a reputation as infamous as Gail's replacement, Toby Young, the failed Vanity Fair contributor turned food critic.
I, too, was suspicious. Then, I interviewed Young following his Bravo debut, and my opinion changed. Dramatically. Not only did I find his remarks thoughtful and on point, I also found myself quickly forgetting about Gail.
Perhaps you'll do the same. Or, perhaps you should learn to live with it because Toby Young is here to stay… at least for the remainder of the Season 5.
So, without further ado, meet "Top Chef's" tasty new treat:
Matt: How did you become interested in food?
Toby: I was asked if I wanted to write a restaurant column for Evening Standard Magazine in 2002, and I did that for five years. Over here, I didn't have any formal qualifications for the job -- I don't know what qualifications you need to have to be a food critic in America -- but in Britain it generally is a job just given to a journalist who's been working away for a few years.
So, would you not have considered food a passion of yours going into the job, or did it just land on your plate, no pun intended?
When I first took the job, I only received one note from my editor which was to never write more than a paragraph about the food on the grounds that… it's boring. And quite often, I would write more than a paragraph about what I'd eaten and it would always be cut by my editor, and she would say, "Tell me more about who else was in the restaurant and how hard is it to get a table and what was the décor like?"
Would you consider the writing and the critiquing more of the passion as opposed to the food, or did you grow into appreciating the food?
Well, I think I was fairly keen on food before I started writing the column, but I guess I developed a deeper love in the course of educating my palate.
You're married and have four kids. Who does the cooking in your home?
I used to cook before I got married, but my wife's a very good cook, so regretfully, I've given up.
And, you don't have to critique any of her dishes?
No, but I can tell you that Nigella Lawson, who is a chef, came to dinner at our house and my wife was so anxious -- not least [of all] because we had almost every other celebrity chef's cookbook on our bookshelf apart from Nigella's -- that I ran fast to the local book shop to buy one of Nigella's books so it could be prominently displayed in our kitchen.
How did you become involved with "Top Chef" and Bravo?
Well, I think I received a call out of the blue by one of the executive producers last year to ask if I’d be interested in appearing on the show, and I think the reason she thought of me is because I've been a judge on a few reality shows. I think any food critic, if they were asked if they wanted to appear as a judge on "Top Chef," would say yes. So the question isn't why I said yes. It is why did they ask me?
So you had no relationship with head judge Tom Colicchio or host Padma Lakshmi before the show began?
That is absolutely correct. I did once try to interview Padma for a British society magazine called Tattler, but she point-blank refused to be interviewed by me. But when we wrapped one of the episodes, Padma and I went out for a drink and she explained to me that it was because she was married to Salman [Rushdie] at the time, and he had forbidden her to be interviewed by me.
Do you think that your accent helped you land a spot at the judges' table?
America obviously has a penchant for British judges. I imagine so. None of the producers ever said to me, "We've been looking for a Brit." I've gotten a lot of [flack] from various American food critics since my debut last week including [from] Adam Platt -- the food critic of New York magazine -- and I dare say that they're all very cross that they weren't asked to appear as judges on "Top Chef." But, I think the reason why they asked a Brit is because we're much more outspoken and rude than our American counterparts. I imagine someone like Adam Platt would be very fair-minded, very judicious, and would spend several minutes advertising just how much he knew about each dish that was placed before him. And, as my old editor knows, that's very boring for people who just have a general interest in a subject.
After your debut last week, Tom wrote in his Bravo.com blog that you might have thought when you initially joined the show that you were there to be witty and sarcastic and take shots at everybody, but that things changed as you started filming more episodes and that you actually became involved with the program and that you were enjoying it and the food -- not just tossing out one-liners. Is that true?
Yeah, I think that is probably true. Tom is so serious about the show, and I think because he's the head judge, some of his seriousness may have rubbed off on me in the course of filming the episodes.
Since you joined "Top Chef" in the middle of the season, were you able to review the previous episodes to learn more about the chefs before you just jumped into the middle of things?
When I joined, they hadn't finished editing even the first episode of the current season, so it wasn't like I was able to sit down and watch the episodes that had been made already.
So, they weren't like, "FYI, Jamie cooks scallops every week"?
No, I went in completely unbriefed. Tom explained to me at the very beginning that you have to judge each dish entirely on its merit and you can't take the history of their contributions to the show up until that point into account in judging that dish or in deciding whether or not to throw them off the show. It has to be entirely [based] on their performance within the challenge.
Then does the Quickfire Challenge actually play a factor, or does it really just come down to the Elimination Challenge?
When it comes to eliminating the remaining contestants, the Quickfire is irrelevant. I've never tasted any of the Quickfire dishes.
How long are your actual deliberations?
Certainly a good deal longer than they appear on screen. There have been days when we've been in the studio 'til 4am. Sometimes there's a real disagreement about who to keep and who to eliminate.
Is it really up to you, Tom, and Padma, or do the producers have any influence?
It is entirely up to me, Tom, Padma, and the guest judge. The producers are incredibly circumspect.
Is it difficult for you to tell an aspiring master chef to pack his or her knives and go?
Or is that just part of the game? Fortunately, that's Padma's job. As the show progresses, you begin to have a bit of sympathy for the contestants, and it becomes harder to eliminate them each time, but one of the things the producers do discourage is for the judges to form any kind of personal relationships with the contestants.
So, is there zero contact with the contestants outside of the kitchen?
Zero.
How are ties broken? Does it come down to Tom because he's the head judge?
No. I can recall a couple of occasions in which there was a deadlock, and there isn't a formal procedure whereby in the event of deadlock Tom has the casting vote. If you're deadlocked at 4am and you have to take your kid to school at 8am the following day, you know, you just want to go home. You can appeal to different things like how closely the contestants have stuck to the brief. There are no hard and fast rules about how the judging should proceed. Obviously, you're judging them entirely on the dish they've produced, but even that doesn't mean that you necessarily get a clear answer. You're taking into account their technical expertise, their willingness to take risks, and not just how successfully-executed the dish in question is.
The message boards have lit up! Obviously, you're a polarizing figure. Why do you think that is?
I'm used to provoking a strong reaction, and this is nothing new. Generally speaking, I've always thought that if people initially take an immediate dislike to you, but are then gradually and grudgingly won 'round, they end up with a much deeper attachment than if they like you from the get-go. Now, whether people will be won 'round in the course of this show remains to be seen, but I hope they will.
I have a feeling that your name is going to appear at the top of a reality TV villains list come the end of the year.
That would be the fulfillment of my life's dream.
I'm noting some sarcasm there. You don't mind playing the villain?
I think it may have been Harry Truman who said, "Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role." But, in fact, we have found a role -- and it is to play villains on reality shows.
Obviously, some people are automatically against you because they miss Gail, but at the same time, there are a ton of people who are actually defending you and saying, "Hey, he's a critic, he's more qualified than an actual chef or a model/actress/cookbook author to critique these plates." Do you feel that you might be more qualified than any of the other judges?
[Sighs] I wouldn't say I'm more or less qualified. I think the only qualification you need to critique food is an educated palate and the ability to express yourself fairly concisely.
Are your remarks rehearsed, or are you just being who you are?
I lived in America for five years and at dinner parties, whenever I came out with a bon mot, I would always be accused of having written it beforehand, rehearsed it, and then recited it at the dinner party, which was never true. Similarly, it's not true that on "Top Chef" I rehearsed any of my lines beforehand. I think the reason people think that I do is only because I tend to speak in grammatically-correct sentences and that's partly just a hallmark of having had a decent British education. I think it's something so unusual in America -- particularly in informal context like making a remark at judges table or coming out with a witticism at a dinner party -- that people naturally assume you must have written down and memorized the line in question because it's just inconceivable you could have come up with something grammatically-correct and which sounds quite polished on the spot. But, actually, British people can do that. [Laughs]
On the last episode, you compared (eliminated contestant) Melissa's dish to cat food. Have you ever tasted cat food?
Uh, no I haven't.
You also noticed a chink in her armor when you said she lacked self-confidence. Is that something all top chefs should aspire to have?
I think so, yes. I think part of becoming a really successful professional chef is acquiring a kernel of self-confidence, and that's something that doesn't come easily.
Have you made any of the chefs cry?
Not that I'm aware of. So far, I've only seen two of the episodes I am in.
Do you think that any of this season's contestants have the potential to become a top chef?
They need to be bold enough to take risks and not just strive for formal perfection.
Are there any other traits you think top chefs should aspire to have?
I think they need to have some personality, too.
Link to the article: http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/top-chef-mixes-it-up-with-new-judge--79