My review of the cooperative boardgame Forbidden Desert, from the designer of Pandemic (reviewed in 2010), is up at Paste magazine. I held my regular Klawchat today as well.
On to the semifinals…
* We get a few quotes up front from three of the remaining chefs. Of interest, Carlos says he came “to cook and not to make friends.” Sure, you want to win, but you can cook AND be nice to everyone else too. There are no style points for being a jerk in the kitchen. (Except for Michael Voltaggio.) Shirley, meanwhile, points out that Carlos always does Mexican food … and goes so far as to say “I think I can beat him” if they’re facing each other in the finale. I think she’d wipe the comal with him, but it’s not in her nature to say something like that.
* Quickfire: No immunity, finally, just the prize of a new Toyota Corolla. This quickfire has two parts, with two of the four chefs eliminated after the first part. Gail’s half comes first: Create one “perfect bite” on a cocktail fork, including sweet, salty, sour, and spicy all in one bite.
* Okay, I may have been wrong last week – Gail isn’t as far along in her pregnancy in these episodes as I thought when I accused the editors of hiding her belly. Still lookin’ fine, though.
* Random musing: If Shirley were a native English speaker, would it have been evident from the start how good she is? I’m asking that of myself, not just all of you. I may have underestimated her because she couldn’t express her culinary vision as well in English as other chefs – but that’s my problem, not hers, and it’s clear now that she has as much vision and creativity as anyone else this season.
* Carlos is grilling mango for his bite. I’ve had lots of grilled tropical fruits, and have grilled pineapple and peaches with success, but man do those things burn quickly. You’re not trying to use heat to coax sugar out of cells and then caramelize it; the sugar is already there, and if you’re not fast, you’ll end up with charcoal.
* Shirley drops a sort-of-boardgame reference, saying “I feel like I’m playing Jenga” trying getting everything on to each fork.
* The food: Carlos serves grilled mango with shrimp and a chile de arbol glaze. Nick serves beef deckle (the cap of a ribeye) with aged balsamic vinegar, purple potato chips, and yogurt. Shirley makes a tataki-style flank steak with fresno chilies, crispy onions, mint, and a black pepper cherry sauce. Everything falls off Gail’s fork, unfortunately, so while Shirley tries to fix it I doubt Gail got the full effect. Nina does a shrimp escabeche with potato aioli, pickled shallots, and fennel.
* All four were good – I wouldn’t expect any less by this point in the competition. Shirley’s bite had a little too much soy, and Nina’s was a touch greasy. That leaves Carlos and Nick as the winners.
* Tom’s half of the challenge is built around what he says is his inspiration in the kitchen – great produce, not meat. The chefs must showcase red bell pepper or eggplant and have to run up to the podium to grab the one they want, which I hate because it has nothing to do with cooking. If the contestants included a chef who was plus-sized, or in a wheelchair, would they alter the challenge? What if one of the chefs could Apparate? Well?
* I hate that they don’t use the blender lids. Nick is sticking his hand into the blender while it’s running. That’s about as stupid and dangerous as failing to vaccinate your kids.
* Carlos makes just one dish – fried red pepper soup with fennel, basil, and onion. Tom seems taken aback by the spice, but otherwise likes it. Nick does the eggplant two ways, cut like a scallop and roasted, and pureed with rosemary, sesame seed, sriracha, and tahini, all topped with chili threads.
* Nick’s was a little underseasoned, so even though Carlos was about half as ambitious, he wins. I don’t get that at all – they rewarded the chef who played it safe.
* Elimination challenge: Create a dish that reflects your time in New Orleans, what the city means to you, yata yata yata. Basically make a dish that reflects some local ingredients or cuisine and hit it out of the park. Guest diners include Grant Achatz
* Nina plans to make BBQ shrimp and trout amandine, both very standard New Orleans specialties that would show no creativity on her part, just execution.
* Shirley plans to build her dish around west lake fish in vinegar, a traditional dish in Hangzhou, a coastal city in east-central China, saying its combination of sweet, sour, and spice reminds her of New Orleans flavors. We see her banging stalks of lemongrass with the back of her knife; I just learned yesterday afternoon from the newest issue of Bon Appetit that you need to do that to release some of the aromatic oils in the stalk before chopping it.
* The four chefs go to Emeril’s namesake restaurant, where he’s in the kitchen overseeing an extensive dinner for them, served at a chef’s table in the kitchen. Can you imagine what seats at that table might go for at auction? Emeril could probably fund a lot of cleanup in the Ninth Ward that way.
* Emeril’s BBQ shrimp comes out with some petite rosemary biscuits. I’ve had BBQ shrimp a few times – it’s shrimp drowned in a pool of its own vomit, assuming shrimp vomit is basically garlic butter. Emeril’s version looks way more refined, with the shrimp glazed in the sauce rather than subsumed by it.
* Showing the chefs get out of bed is not fair. That’s a reality-show staple that needs to die. If someone shoved a camera in my face at 6 in the morning they’d be extracting the camera from someone’s small intestine.
* Nina tells Shirley “you really don’t want to make a mistake at the end.” This, kids, is known as foreshadowing.
* Nick is once again trying to do too much, overthinking his dish, even though he knows that’s his downfall. This is the definition of insanity, right?
* Carlos making a seafood tamal, but without corn – so it’s really a seafood mousse, cooked in a banana leaf. I’ll give him credit for doing something ambitious and a little out of his comfort zone, but this doesn’t sound remotely appealing to me.
* Nina has changed her dish and is now making a riff on BBQ shrimp with malfatti dumplings, usually made with ricotta and herbs or spinach rolled in flour (and/or mixed with bread crumbs) and quickly boiled like fresh pasta before they hit the sauce. Tom seems excited for these, as Nina has nailed Italian foods every time she’s cooked them (although I think malfatti are actually American in origin).
* Nick says “I don’t know if Carlos has grown much at all” during the course of the season. This from the guy who threw a hissyfit about people touching his pots in the last episode.
* And Nina forgets to plate her malfatti. Who saw that coming? Oh yes … everyone.
* Nina does serve a pretty good dish after all – pan seared speckled trout with baby veg and barbecue sauce. Tom remembers the malfatti, asks Nina where they are, and Nina suddenly looks like she’d rather fall into a black hole than be standing there at that moment. Tom ends up saying that the dish didn’t need the ricotta and might have suffered from it, although I think any twist on BBQ shrimp has to have some kind of bread component, whether it’s pasta, biscuits, fresh bread, or something else (waffles?).
* Nick’s dish is lengthy: a shrimp-based broth with shrimp dumplings, charred cobia, roasted bass, tuna confit, fresh herbs, fried rice, and I think something else too. Grant says the dish needed a little flaked salt on top to finish it – Hugh said the same thing about one of Nick’s dishes in an earlier challenge, I believe. The good news for Nick is that he cooked all of the fish correctly even though each required a different method and different cooking time.
* Carlos’ seafood tamal is served without the banana leaf, a brick of seafood mousse with chunks of crab folded into it, topped with a saffron cream sauce and pickled okra. Everyone likes the concept and the fact that he left the shellfish in chunks rather than pureed.
* Shirley makes a seared black drum with Zhejiang vinegar-butter sauce, a sauté of “hidden” holy trinity, braised celery, and mushrooms. She wanted to make the diners feel like they could be on West Lake in Hangzhou or on the bayou of Louisiana. Grant adores everything about this dish, including the story. I’d put big money on her winning the challenge based just on what we see of the diners’ comments.
* I don’t pay much attention to Watch What Happens Live, but the episode that aired after Top Chef last night had Laura Ingalls and the Douche as guests.
* We go straight to judges’ table this time.
* It quickly becomes apparent that the two women nailed their dishes. Nina’s plate didn’t need the malfatti, which apparently she never even cooked. Shirley is showered with praise for every aspect of her dish. Nick’s fish wasn’t seasoned properly, yet again. Carlos’ dish gets dinged for lack of acidity (that’s Gail’s frequent complaint) and, once he’s out of the room, Emeril points out that his tamal was “not so warm” because Carlos chose to serve them without the banana leaves to keep them hot.
* Padma totally draws it out, but Nina and Shirley are the top two. Shirley’s in tears, saying “I’m really happy to find myself,” and now she’s got Emeril tearing up too – and that’s before she’s named the winner of the challenge, too.
* Padma makes a salient point in the discussion of who to send to Last Chance Kitchen, asking why in the semifinals they’re still talking about Nick’s failure to properly season his food. Tom doesn’t seem to have an answer for that.
* Carlos is eliminated. Nick “just stepped it up a little bit more” per Tom, which I interpreted as a comment on the higher level of difficulty in his dish. Also, maybe the fact that Carlos’ mousse looked like baby food had something to do with it.
* LCK: We don’t know. Louis overcooked his fish a little; Carlos underseasoned everything but his fish. I’m guessing Carlos but I’m not sure.
* Rankings: I’ll include all five, since we don’t know who won LCK, leaving me with Shirley, Nina, Louis, Nick, Carlos. I’d give Shirley even money to win at this point, especially given who’s left. If I knew Louis had won LCK, I might have him second over Nina, just because he’s much more likely to do something inventive than she is, while Nick will do something inventive but likely err on execution.
Yeah, I am pretty much sick to death of Nick and his comments at this point. He was even pretty dickish to Shirley in this episode. Also thought it was pretty rude of the the two ladies to make remarks to Nick in the stew room like, “I hope you’ll move on,” and “You’re going to go through,” while Carlos is sitting right there. That being said, Shirley is the clear favorite and I have a ton of respect for how Louis has been able to battle through LCK. I will be disappointed if Nina or especially Nick are able to pull it off and win.
really don’t think much of nick as a chef. he looks like a chef. he talks like one. he dreams big like one. but his meals are almost always underwhelming. he never won a quickfire. he won two challenges. he finished in the bottom far more than anyone left and in the top far less. carlos had 2 wins and 6 other top finishes. nick had 2 and 2. carlos had two low finishes prior to being eliminated. nick had 5 before this last round, including the immunity debacle.
in general, because he’s male and he makes complicated dishes, I think nick gets treated as a much better chef than he is. he’s been wholly underwhelming on this show.
I think carlos is a better chef than nicholas.
sorry, nick won 1 quickfire. my mistake.
Disappointing result for me. Just cannot stand Nick; he makes the show hard to watch.
I don’t understand why everyone says, “Carlos always makes mexican food” but don’t say that, “Shirley always cooks Asian food” too. And really, doesn’t Nina usually do something Italian?
@Morgan: Two reasons. One, Shirley doesn’t cook just Asian food; she uses Asian (mostly Chinese, but not exclusively) influences to alter other dishes or create new ones. Two, Shirley has a foundation in French cuisine that is evident in most of her dishes. Three, Asia is a freaking continent with dozens of cuisines; Mexico is a country, and while it has various regional cuisines, Carlos focuses on those in the southern half of the country. There’s a huge difference.
I’m not a huge Nina fan, but she mixes tropical/Caribbean styles with classical Italian.
Although the cooking is the star of this episode, it makes me have the following observation, particularly with how the ladies gravitate towards Nick.
They don’t care much that he’s neurotic and unpleasant. What they care about is that he’s more “one of them” in their eyes than Carlos. Now, maybe Carlos isn’t necessarily a joy in person, and I don’t mean to pretend to know characters from tv editing. But it reminds that niche professions, whether it be baseball writers (see HOF), stand-up comedians, or what have you, seem tremendously more comfortable with the a-hole they know or think belongs, then change from outside.
I’m sure Shirley and Nina are respectful of Carlos, but it just seems revealing that Nick gets a ‘pass’ from the ladies, even after the immunity debacle (I’m fine with him staying, but it was a debacle). Carlos, the guy who busted his ass in his home country to raise his own talent without advanced training (and is clearly a very competent chef) gets viewed as the outsider who should go home.
I think that is a fantastic observation by you Nick Christie.
@Nick Christie
I think that’s a salient point but it’s pretty amusing if you consider Carlos’ credentials compared to those of his competitors. Mexique’s a Michelin starred restaurant that’s always been lauded around Chicago and has been open for half a decade now. If anything, he should be looking down on the other 3. Despite their formal training, he’s been more successful in the industry than any of them (although he is older, IIRC).
I’ve always felt that if Carlos could somehow sneak his way into the final challenge, where the chefs are allowed to cook basically whatever and range doesn’t matter as much, that he could really be a threat to sneak the whole thing.
While I like both Louis and Carlos, really if it wasn’t for Shirley I’d probably just skip the final. Nick is just impossible to take at this point and his food always falls short. The slamming of Carlos for “only” cooking Mexican is totally unfair considering:
1) Nia is pretty much a one note chef “only” cooking Italian (though she has shown some range at times)
2) The chefs come across as if Mexican cuisine is inferior to, I assume, European and specifically French cuisine. It’s not like Carlos is cooking Taco Bell dishes here.
And LP is right… Mexique is a great restaurant.
Keith, Malfatti is one of the oldest dishes in Italy. It is definitely not American.
@Kaitlan: I think the version Nina was making, with ricotta and bread crumbs, is American in origin. I could be wrong, but I did try to research it online before writing that. I only know malfatti as a dish made from the scraps of leftover pasta dough, which is Italian (again, so I believe), but found a few citations for Nina’s style as American, only dating back to the 1920s. Again, I could be wrong – it’s what I found after a little research.
I find it interesting so many people find Carlos likeable and are confused as to why Shirely and Nina seem to like Nick more. I do think Nick Christie above made a good point, but I don’t think that’s the main reason. I think on TV, despite his real world success, Carlos keeps playing the underdog card – repeatedly citing his lack of training and even in the last episode saying, “I don’t want to be a dishwasher my entire life.” I think this makes viewers gravitate towards him and root for him. While Nick always seems to attacking him unfairly in the edits. But I think the evidence is clear in the show if you don’t pay attention to the commentary – Carlos has repeatedly disrespected the other chefs (most notably Nick which is why he’s so angry all the time). Carlos begged Shirely to change stations with him at the college chanellenge and then threw Nick under the bus saying he stole his oven – which he didn’t. Carlos then pestered Nick to lend him knives, which Nick eventually did, and then showed him no respect by not cleaning the knives and really not even thanking Nick for letting him use them. And as the show makes clear, the knives are the most important thing the chefs have. Carlos is also the one most likely to say, “I’m here to win, it’s a competition,” but he’s also most likely the one to ask someone else for something. I think the others see through his act because they don’t get the “poor me” edit that we get.
Now, having said that, I think Nick’s a jerk too, and I don’t think his food has been outstanding. I love Shirely and if she doesn’t win the season will almost be a waste. I think Louis is second best and hopefully he beats Carlos.
Agree with “I love Shirley and if she doesn’t win the season will almost be a waste.” I would also be cool with Nina winning, since she started out so strong and it would be a fine ending, but it’s Shirley’s to lose.
I got annoyed that there was a buzz of “Mexican AGAIN?” at Carlos when he was clearly doing a pretty radical riff on something he knows and loves; the only similarity to the actual Mexican dish was the construction.
I try to be super careful about disliking the chefs on the show for anything but outright meanness a la Heather a couple years ago, because editing. Especially the idea of portraying Carlos, a Latino immigrant (who openly – bravely – admitted to having initially entered the country illegally) as disrespectful or underhanded. I find him grating to watch, and honestly I thought he was unbearable in some of the commentary (e.g. “stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about other people” – who the eff says that in a *competition*?!?!), but I just cannot assume that his persona is portrayed accurately when it’s soooo easy to manipulate with editing.
Is anyone else PRAYING they fixed the finale format and don’t do the Iron Chef-style nonsense we had last year?
@Daphne: Pretty sure Tom said “never again” after last season’s finale. And that’s fine by me. Shirley vs Louis or Shirley vs Nina would be great, just not in that tennis-style match play format.
If you could only eat at one of these chef’s restaurants (a fictional restaurant, not their actual places of employment), whose would you choose? For me:
1) Shirley
2) Carlos
3) Louis
4) Nina
* huge gap *
5) Nick
Still the Tom show. it’s just not a week to week competition…he kicks the worst chef, not the chef who cooks the worst. Blind tasting, please, and disclose how the judges voted.
“I may have underestimated her because she couldn’t express her culinary vision as well in English as other chefs – but that’s my problem, not hers…”
While I appreciate your desire to avoid being the “ugly American” here, I’m not sure I agree with you. I seem to recall Shirley explaining several times that she’s been in the United States for 20 years. That means she has certainly had time to master the language/pronunciation much more fully than she already has. And surely she is aware that people will reach conclusions about her–or, at least, fail to understand her–if she does not invest the (admittedly substantial) time and effort required for mastery or near-mastery. As such, it seems to me that she’s made a choice, and she bears responsibility for the consequences of that choice (e.g., she will be at a disadvantage when trying to communicate in English).
I certainly sympathize with her–I’m currently trying to learn a language far outside my comfort zone (Persian; calling it ‘Farsi’ is grammatically incorrect). I’m terrible at it so far, and my Persian in-laws can barely understand me, though they appreciate the effort. If I was equally terrible 20 years from now, I think they would have a far less favorable impression.
Seriously Chris, no. Just no. My father’s been in the US more than half his life (he’s 65), and he still has a very detectable accent and certain grammatical and language quirks that will never go away, because brains process language differently when learned as an adult, FFS. Learn the science. Shirley is fluent in English. She communicates everything effectively. No one on the show is remotely confused by anything she says. What more can you ask for? Language *acquired* in childhood will always trump language *learned* in adulthood.
@Daphne: Thanks so much for your patronizing message.
I never, in any way, suggested that she should try to, or would be able to, speak English better than her native language. Nor did I suggest that her accent could, or should, be eliminated. I also noted, SEVERAL TIMES, that I recognize that mastering a language/accent–or even achieving basic proficiency–is very difficult.
Nonetheless, the fact is that Shirley’s accent is so strong that she sometimes has to be captioned. It’s so strong that people–Keith, for example, by his own admission–may consciously or subconsciously take her less seriously. Undoubtedly, she is aware of this fact. Unless you believe that it is absolutely impossible for her to do better than she already has, then I think she is implicitly accepting the consequences of her choice not to develop/improve upon her pronunciation.
I agree with both of you … To a point.
You can certainly reduce an accent with work and time. But as someone who’s dabbled in Mandarin and Japanese, with little success in either, I think going to English from an East Asian language has to be incredibly difficult. We don’t even have the same phonemes, let alone all the structural differences in our grammar. So I’ll cut Shirley a lot more slack than I would cut someone from France or Germany.
@chris
Lots of behaviors carry consequences that they ought not to. We should shame the people who impose those consequences, not the people engaged in legitimate behavior.
@keith: I agree with you entirely, that someone whose native language is non-Western (and tonal) gets extra leeway. But I also think it’s not inherently bigoted/prejudiced if someone listens to Shirley speak for the first time and it detracts from their overall impression of her.
@Kazzy: Please. First of all, I never, ever suggested that Shirley should be shamed. Don’t put words into my mouth. I was simply arguing that it is not automatically “Keith’s problem” if he–someone who uses words as the main tool in his job–takes a person’s language/communication skills into consideration when evaluating people (either in person, or on television).
Further, there is a fairly large difference between something a person has no control over, and something they do have (at least some) control over. If you are gay, African American, a stutterer, handicapped, left-handed, etc. and a bigot chooses to look down upon you for it, then that is indeed the bigot’s problem. But being able to communicate well is commonly, and I think reasonably, associated with intelligence, professionalism, potential, etc. And communication is a skill that most people have the potential to improve upon. If they choose not to do so, then I think they accept–to some extent–the consequences.
Let me ask you this: I teach many history courses at a state university. A fair percentage of my students have subpar English skills, either because they weren’t taught composition, or English is not their native language, or they are recent immigrants. Would you argue that I should completely overlook grammar issues, misspellings, etc. when I grade their papers, because they are engaged in “legitimate behavior”?
Keith, curious about your thoughts on using the chefs as part of the judging on LCK? If they are only looking out for themselves (i.e. doing what would help them win) shouldn’t they pick the worst of the two dishes? Shirley, for example, admitted last episode that she thought she could beat Carlos in the finals. Shouldn’t she try to figure out which dish was Carlos’ and choose that one in hopes that he makes the finals?
@Chris
Considering your position, I’m sure you won’t mind me holding you responsible for misusing the word “sympathize” (should be “empathize”).
@ Jonathan: Uh, thanks so much for the grammar lesson. Except that ‘sympathize’ is entirely correct within that context.
To quote the OED’s definition of sympathize: “To feel sympathy; to have a fellow-feeling; to share the feelings of another or others; to be affected by the condition or experience of another with a feeling similar or corresponding to that of the other; spec. to be affected with pity for the suffering or sorrow of another, to feel compassion.”
Since I was observing that I too have been working to learn a language that is unfamiliar to me and very different from my native tongue, I have had a “similar or corresponding feeling,” and I can “feel compassion” for her. That is to say, I can sympathize with her.
At the same time, I would argue that empathize is NOT correct in this context. Since I am not trying to learn Persian while living/working in Iran, since I am not appearing on a Persian-language television show, I cannot fully appreciate the depths of Shirley’s experience. I cannot be on “the same boat” and so I cannot really empathize entirely.
In any event, to all of you who feel the need to attack me, and to essentially imply I am a bigot/racist/whatever, I’d rather that you actually address one or more of the points I’ve made, rather than just be condescending.
@chris
“Let me ask you this: I teach many history courses at a state university. A fair percentage of my students have subpar English skills, either because they weren’t taught composition, or English is not their native language, or they are recent immigrants. Would you argue that I should completely overlook grammar issues, misspellings, etc. when I grade their papers, because they are engaged in “legitimate behavior”?”
Well, it depends… what is the purpose of their assignment? To demonstrate English language skills? To demonstrate their knowledge of the content? To effectively construct a historical argument? I teach also and tend to think that our assessment should be aligned with our goals. If you are attempting to ascertain whether the students have a firm grip on the political causes of the Civil War, than grammatical errors would seem material only insofar as they interfere with the communication of their understanding. If their meaning is clear, they should not be dinged because of them. You might be well-served to correct them so that they can improve their skills, but whether or not you grade them on it depends entirely on the purpose of the assignment.
@chris
Who implied you were a bigot or racist?
@Kazzy: Here is precisely the instruction I deliver to students every quarter:
“This is a history course, and not a composition course, and so the most important elements of your grade are the quality of your argument and your evidence. However, it is also a course that you are taking in an effort to earn a university degree, and a university degree implies an ability to speak and write clearly and effectively. As such, the quality of your writing does matter some. In fact, I will tell you right now that it counts for about 10% of your grade. If your essay is full of good ideas/evidence, but is badly organized, has repeated grammar/spelling errors, and so forth, then it will get an 18/20.”
I must admit that I am skeptical that any teacher, at least at the high school or college level, is wholly unconcerned with the quality of the their students’ writing, regardless of the subject they teach.
@chris
“I must admit that I am skeptical that any teacher, at least at the high school or college level, is wholly unconcerned with the quality of the their students’ writing, regardless of the subject they teach.”
Did anyone say they would be wholly unconcerned with the quality of a students’ writing or, more broadly, their communication?
@Kazzy: First of all, you were certainly among those who implied that I was a bigot of whatever sort, when you said, “Lots of behaviors carry consequences that they ought not to. We should shame the people who impose those consequences…”
Second, your post at 12:03 p.m. argued that grammar, style, etc. should not be considered in a history essay, unless it interferes with understanding. Which means that, presumably, you would be ok with this sentence:
“Aberehem Linkin didnt oppose slavery the smae way the abolishenists did, u have to understand he’s more about being aganst it as part of free soil.”
I understand exactly what this is saying, so should I give this student full credit?
@Kazzy, Daphne, Jonathan, et. al.: I really don’t get what it is, among the things I said, that you object to. My starting argument, before people started to take aim at me, was this:
“Keith, you are not inherently wrong/biased/whatever if you subconsciously (or even consciously) take Shirley’s communication skills into account when forming a first impression of her.”
I expanded on this point by making the following assertions:
1. We are judged on their ability to communicate clearly and effectively.
2. I believe Shirley’s communication skills are weak enough to detract from people’s ability to understand her, and/or to detract from their overall impression of her.
3. I believe Shirley must be aware of this.
4. I believe Shirley’s communication skills could be better, if she chose to invest the time and effort. That does not mean that she can or should aspire to perfect, unaccented English, which would be enormously difficult. However, there is a fair bit of room between where she is now and “perfect,” and I know plenty of native Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese speakers who are far stronger than she.
5. If she chooses NOT to improve her communication skills, she bears SOME of the responsibility when #2 (above) takes place.
Which of these propositions is disagreeable?
@chris
If you somehow read, “Lots of behaviors carry consequences that they ought not to. We should shame the people who impose those consequences…” as “You are a racist/bigot” then maybe you should work on your own communication skills. Until then…
Isn’t this about Top Chef, not Chris?