Top (Executive) Chef

Long time readers have read my detailed thoughts about the unfortunate state of food programming that has slightly tormented me over the past few years.  (You can find my long rants on the Food Network here.)

One of the bright spots in the food television world has been Top Chef.    After season two, I was not only hooked on the show, but I thanked the culinary gods for finally putting food programming on the air that was somewhat entertaining.

Thankfully, my feelings for Top Chef have not changed much as we head into the thick of Season 4.   I still think the show has retained much of its heart and soul and continues to be at the top of my must see TV list.   

But.   

Yeah, but.

What could I possibly criticize about  the current state of Top Chef, considering it's must see TV and it's probably at its peak of popularity?

In a nutshell, I think the move to almost exclusively cast executive/sous/line cooks from high-end restaurants across the country has resulted in a homogeneous set of cooking styles and techniques on the show, resulting in Quickfire and Elimination challenges that serve up dishes from contestants that are all coming from the same perspective - that of the the two-four star, big city restaurant chef.

Let's take a step back.

There's no doubt that the quality of chefs across the board needed an upgrading from Season One.     At some point, it became clear to the viewer that the cute but slightly unpolished contestants with untraditional experiences (caterers, sommeliers, etc) were never going to win the top prize.   And as the seasons have gone on, contestants like Stephen from Season 1 have been slowly weeded out for the likes of high-end restaurant chefs from the culinary capitals of the country.   Sure, maybe  one or two folks with untraditional cooking experience have trickled into the pool (Betty was billed  as more of a caterer in Season 2, as was Micah in Season 3), but they proved to be either total hacks or inconsistent,  further pushing the producers of Season 4 down the path toward selecting candidates from the traditional restaurant pool.

My issue with this approach is based on an observation I've made as a passionate restaurant diner eating and living in NYC for the past ten years.    The high end dining  world  in a  city like NYC has created a restaurant formula upon which all of the current contestants from Top Chef are born and raised.   With all of these chefs coming from the same cooking and food culture, they all have similar philosophies, techniques and ideas.   Their food all has the same polish.   Their plating looks the same across the board.    The dishes that are being churned out each and every episode look very familiar to me.      Why? Because I have seen them all before.    Every Friday and Saturday night while eating out in New York City.

From a food perspective, I'd like to see a seasoned cook with untraditional experience in the mix as well.    Speaking from my own perspective, I can tell you that because I don't have traditional restaurant experience, I would most likely be cooking dishes that seemed a bit different from the rest of the restaurant chef contestants.  Why? I lead a different life from a line cook in a high end restaurant, for starters.   I have the time to travel.  Time to hit all the restaurants that could provide me with a new spark and a new inspiration.   Therefore, I think it would be hard to pin down what kind of food I'd crank out in a Top Chef atmosphere, because that's how I've trained myself to think and cook over the past ten years.   Like any person in any walk of life, untraditional  experiences lead to unique perspectives and talents, which is a philosophy I think Top Chef is currently lacking. 

This is not meant to read like an ad for me to be on Top Chef.   Rather, it makes me wonder what would happen to the level of culinary and entertainment excitement if the producers of Top Chef looked deeper into the culinary community of this country for high quality talent that could present a unique perspective. 

Imagine if an underdog won a Top Chef, or made it to the finale.  Imagine the home cook/caterer/food writer/unheralded cafe owner/Mexican taco truck owner/five room country bed and breakfast owner knocking off a sous chef from Le Cirque?  Imagine an underdog similar to Michael from Season 2 pulling out a stunning upset?  Imagine the buzz and excitement that would follow something like that.   Beyond cooking and food, there would be a whole human interest, underdog story that could give the show the potential to continue being fresh and exciting a few years down the road.

The question that immediately follows is...could this even happen?  I think the answer is definitely yes, it could.   It would be a long shot, but those rare occasions when long shots become reality are the types of TV moments we all crave.    You saw the Giants win the Super Bowl this year, right?

Clearly the producers of the show would have to give a thorough effort to make sure these wild card contestants could compete on a quality level.   Not only would the producers need to comb the country for this untraditional talent, but they'd also have to probably put them through a bunch of technique and cooking try-outs in order to feel confident these wild cards wouldn't take down the quality of the food on the show.   

My solution to all this would be to have one or two wild card cooks with non-traditional experience on the show each season.  In order to maintain quality, Top Chef should hold a nation wide search for non-restaurant chefs.  They would then invite a list of non-restaurant cooks and chefs to a week long competition and put them through demanding challenges as they'd encounter on the show.  After tasting their food over time and seeing them in battle, the judges would select two wild card contestants that they think can and will compete on a level of quality of the restaurant chefs.   

As of now, I worry that the current Top Chef formula of having restaurant chefs battle year after year will lead to one of my favorite shows becoming a bit predictable and generic.   

Hopefully, one of these seasons, a true wild card will emerge and shake things up a bit.

Comments

[Harlan]

For Top Chef to allow such a cook to win, they'd have to change the challenges. The range of ingredients that they use is huge, and includes things that your world-class taco truck owner never uses, like quail and lobster and exotic microgreens.

A thought on the caterers, though. Many of the early challenges this season have been basically catering challenges. Create a dish that will survive a three-hour delay from completion to service. Many of the big-city line chefs on the show would have benefited from that sort of experience.

[mark]

Yeah, I mostly agree with you, it's not that the quality hasn't been bumped up, it's that the dishes feel some how familiar. Nothing has really grabed me(well with 1 or 2 exceptions)I don't know if that is the nature of the chefs or the challenges, but the creativity of both seem to increase toward the end of the season.

[We Are Never Full]

I agree with what everyone has said here. And it would be nice to have the 'wildcard' contestants with no culinary training. With that said, it kind of scared me when during the first episode of this season and they had to cook the classics or something like that, the two people who had souffle couldn't cook them nor could the two that had friggin' chicken picatta! how do you have training and not have the base of all the classics from most types of food? that made me wonder a bit about the talent this season. just my 2 cents.

[Jessica@Foodmayhem.com]

Hey Joe, Lon and I would love to see you on Top Chef. We love your blog and only wish that you posted more often....which is why we've passed on the E award to you!

[mek]

Ultimately, the show (and consequently its contestants, judges, challenges, + winners) are working inside of a Western high-end restaurant framework. There are definitely occasional catering, dessert, "exotic", etc challenges, but even these don't take the restaurant chef too far out of their experience. For example, imagine a challenge where contestants had to cook exclusively out of a Thai or Japanese grocery, without use of the pantry. This would daunt even the best-trained Western chef. Or how about a make-a-great-curry challenge, or a cook-with-octopus challenge.

But the show is not about forcing chefs out of their comfort zone; instead it usually favours those who can take their comfort zone with them, who have restaurant experience broad and flexible enough to apply to a large amount of the challenges. Instead of really being challenged, the chefs work to leverage experience to eliminate potential difficulties.

So when you get down to it, the show favours experience over talent. The latter is still important, but not essential. Even (or especially) the grand finale challenge is basically a test of the chef's memorized repertoire.

I still think the best challenge ever was the first ep of season 1: here are 5 ingredients, cook with them. It was as close to a true test of skill and ability has the show has ever gotten. I also agree that the plethora of catering challenges this season has been odd, and the restaurant chef's failures to anticipate that pancakes/bread/corndogs/etc get soggy, extremely tedious.

[Niall Harbison]

I have just stumbled upon your blog. I love the clean design and fantastic photos. I am a blogger myself and always thought that design was key and you have certainly captured that! There are so many food blogs out there these days and being different to all the others is key. I have just started www.ifoods.tv which is a website for chefs, foodies and food bloggers to hand out, share recipes, photos and videos. When i was blogging I always thought i should be getting more traffic as my blog was getting lost in the masses of stuff out there so my new site is aimed at giving food bloggers and chefs a bigger platform! Hope you enjoy it and keep up the good writing and design here! I have now bookmarked you so will be regular reader, Cheers!

[Oatmeal Cookie Guy]

I see what you mean, but by bringing in non-restaurant chefs, you end up with Gordon Ramsay's "Hell's Kitchen" instead of "Top Chef." The point is to set up the winner with enough of a platform, money, and name recognition to make his/her restaurant a success. If a contestant has never worked in a restaurant but is a really talented and creative home cook, how could that person translate that experience to the restaurant kitchen? Tom Colichio is a self-taught/mentored chef--he didn't attend cooking school--as are quite a few of the "Top Chef" contestants. This, I think, is an important element of the show: formally trained/educated chefs vs. self-taught/"real world" experienced chefs.

[BrooklynQ]

I think the problem with Top Chef is that the judges want all of the food to look like the it just came off the pages of Food+Wine. There's no real room for creativity. If a dish doesn't look like it spent some time with a food stylist, it gets trashed by the judges.

And this season's chefs are just a bunch of snobs. They have no idea what real people eat or spend on food. Listen to the comments when they did the tailgate, the block party and the God forbid, Polish sausage.

[Baby Names]

i agree with almost everythink you said.

[Arlene]

I have been disappointed in many of the judges' comments this season, they show all too clearly that there are favorites. I also have to say I thought Rachel Ray was a true bitch to Kelsey. Think of her response when Kelsey asked her to scramble the eggs vs. when ?? (can't remember the goofball's name)asked her to do some chopping. I thought Shane should have stayed and Lisa should have been eliminated. That woman is a drama queen and her squinty-eyed looks at the camera would become tiresome quickly.