etee's Blog

Top Chef
January 17, 2007

You may notice the similarity between the title for this week's posting and the one from last week. This week, though, it isn't the judges whose (seeming) mental lapses I am calling into question: it is the contestants themselves, and to a (very slightly) lesser degree the production staff and Bravo TV.

Before we get on to this week's episode, though, I thought I would give some closure to the major topic from last week. Chef Tom addressed the issue of Marcel's appetizer which prominently featured RAW CHICKEN in his blog posting titled Questions? Answers! thusly, in response to many comments (many, many comments) from agitated readers:

Most likely Marcel cooked the wings at a temperature high enough to make them safe, but the faulty execution gave the dish a soft, undercooked texture and appearance.

OK, so I was right: it was, in fact under-cooked chicken, and even so not to the point it would have been dangerous. This makes sense, but I would suggest to Chef Tom and the others that they remember the following axiom: Words mean things. And, as several have already pointed out (and more undoubtedly will), what happens to the contestants on this show (and others like it), and what is said about them, will have an impact on their lives and careers far into the future. So, if you mean that the dish had an "undercooked texture and appearance", then say so - don't use the term "uncooked" several times during the episode.

He also, btw, explained the rationale behind Michael's being asked to leave:

Michael lapsed into a passive, list-following mode and then even failed as a mere line-cook, needing Sam to show him how to do some very basic tasks.

'Nuf said. Now, on to this week's fiasco feature.

Pages: 1 · 2