10.04.2007

the merits of top chef

or: how i lost interest in top chef, a story
(review of season finale to follow)

in the beginning, bravo created top chef, and it was very good.

it had a delicious cast of characters, not the least being a dreamy creature by the name of harold dieterle. it had an expert chef by the name of tom colicchio, and while colicchio was no tim gunn (but really, who is?), he was still good for a smart comment or an encouraging word.

the drama was so perfectly seasoned -- not too spicy but not too bland --that the fans forgave the fact that they could not judge the contestants dishes themselves, instead agreeing to resort to trusting the sharp-tongued critiques of queen bitch magazine editor and mrs. roboto aka mrs. billy joel.

bravo realized the tasty morsel it had in the drama-filled top chef. so it decided to kick the drama levels up a notch by hiring an even spicer cast of characters for the second season. fortunately for bravo, the powers that be booted mrs. roboto (domo arigato) and hired the especially scrumptious padma lakshmi.

all of a sudden, the drama on the show took center stage and the chef's cooking went totally unnoticed by the fans. 'they're going to kick cliff off for trying to teach the annoying marcel a lesson? disgrace!,' the fans cried.

when time came for season three, bravo realized their show was called top chef and not top drama queen. so, they decided to turn down the heat on the drama and focus a little more on finding the top chef.

'this is the most talented group we've had yet!' colicchio proclaimed. 'this is such a hard decision,' padma cooed.

and the fans did not know what to do. they could not tasted what the judges table could. all they knew is that everyone was kumbaya and hugs and it was incredibly boring to watch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on that note.

i have to say i absolutely loved the fact that they brought in celebrity chefs for the sous chefs rather than the former contestants. i want to meet chef rocco and i want to hug michelle bernstein (and i want her hair.)

and bravo, don't think no one noticed the project runway season three-esque "fourth course" curve ball. and did you make the judges wear the same outfits to the live show that they wore during the final meal?

as you may have guessed from my story, i really could have cared less who won the season three top chef title. i know i said i was supporting casey, but i was doing so half-heartedly (way to crash and burn). when they showed the recap of brian's fall from grace, i kinda wished he was back. when dale got all excited about his menu, i kinda wanted him to win. when hung perfectly executed his duck, i kinda thought he should win.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
so four season four, which is allegedly taking place in chicago, i propose this: a two-week mall tour during which the cheftestants must cook for the adoring fans, who then cast their own judgement in the form of a vote on who should win.

i know it may be expensive and demanding, but damnit bravo, you owe it to your top chef fans who have put up with this crap for three seasons blindly depending on a cast of snooty judges to make the right call. at least with project runway we can see the outfits. how many times have each one of us said "i'd so totally wear that." or "what the hell is that?"

2 comments:

h said...

I agree with most of what you wrote. But I think it IS possible to have a good show with Cheftestants who aren't despicable slimeballs as in Season Two.

The problem this season is that it was WAY too long. Had too many no-chance-to-win Chefs. And the challenges were BORING and STUPID in all but 2 episodes.

spin.lizzy said...

You make a very good point, artful sub. I didn't think about that, but season three WAS way too long, which resulted in so many boring challenges.

I think season one was the right amount of drama. Some of the chefs eliminated early probably weren't as talented as in later seasons, but the talent seemed to be there at the second half of the season.