Cute Girls Get Treated Better. Also, Earth Still Round.

Published on Friday, August 20, 2010, by James Norton / Edit Post

Some incisive Top Chef commentary from Tim Carman over at Washington City Paper—he makes a strong case that fussy, oddball contestant Alex got a bum deal when he was eliminated instead of sexy-looking Amanda. Quoting his wife, he writes:

"Amanda deserved the heave-ho because she failed on two counts. Her French onion soup was not only nasty (I believe one judge compared it to dishwater) but it was not even cleverly disguised, as the challenge called for. Hell, it wasn’t disguised at all."

Alex, whose reinvented veal Parmesan was overcooked, didn't do a stellar job on the flavor front, but he at least won kudos for the skill with which he disguised his dish as per the show's CIA-themed challenge.

Not satisfied by merely taking the show's judges to task, Carman also indicts Anthony Bourdain, who vouched for the integrity of the program's judging in Medium Raw. Critics have knocked the DC installment of Top Chef as lackluster compared to earlier seasons, but it still apparently has the power to get commentators lathered up.

Image source: Bravotv.com

ALLFood Media
POST A COMMENT |11 Comments

COMMENT

  • I'm pretty sure Bravo would loved to have kept Alex on. Nothing makes for great reality tv like a villain.

  • I think this is somewhat true, actually. Alex was somewhat unfairly the brunt of all criticisms and attacks by the other contestants, much like the Marcel of past seasons.. I'm not saying his dish wasn't flawed, but I would tend to agree that Amanda's seemed worse. Angelo had a bad day, sure, but I certainly don't think Alex nor Amanda are better chefs.

  • A later bravo blog said peagate was solved - that Alex did make a pea puree.

    Also, all the blogs agreed - Alex's dish looked clever - but was inedible. And that, as another poster said, next up for elimination was angelo and THEN Amanda.

    I'm not denying that Bravo was probably thrilled with Amanda's sexy factor. And that she's not the best chef there, clearly. But this past week - she was not...+READ

    A later bravo blog said peagate was solved - that Alex did make a pea puree.

    Also, all the blogs agreed - Alex's dish looked clever - but was inedible. And that, as another poster said, next up for elimination was angelo and THEN Amanda.

    I'm not denying that Bravo was probably thrilled with Amanda's sexy factor. And that she's not the best chef there, clearly. But this past week - she was not the worst.-COLLAPSE

  • I am with MCFAC as to what did happen to the pea puree? I expect they do have camera's on everything. So what happened?

  • MCFAC: apparently they only have two cameras in the kitchen for various logistical reasons. With more than eight chefs (which there were at the time of the "pea puree incident") running around they can't catch everything. According to Tom's blog, production would have liked to have had a "smoking gun" -- they went over every inch of film they had from that episode with a fine-toothed comb and...+READ

    MCFAC: apparently they only have two cameras in the kitchen for various logistical reasons. With more than eight chefs (which there were at the time of the "pea puree incident") running around they can't catch everything. According to Tom's blog, production would have liked to have had a "smoking gun" -- they went over every inch of film they had from that episode with a fine-toothed comb and couldn't find anything more than what they showed us.-COLLAPSE

  • and people hate me for saying the show is rigged. i guess one has to be at least a writer for "Washington City Paper" to make such a claim. but really, i'd prefer eye-candy who can't disguise food for a spook lunch convention to anyone who's mean and nasty to wait staff the way this buffoon was at restaurant wars.

  • I'm still wondering about Alex and the missing pea puree from an earler episode.... do they actually film everything that happens in the kitchen?

  • Wish this had a spoiler alert on it...I came to it off the front page from the Title. Once I saw the picture of Alex, I knew what it was...haven't watched the episode yet.

  • Right, Jacquilynne! According to the blogs, Alex's dish was inedible. Apparently it was Angelo who was the next worst, not even Amanda. Remember two things: we at home can't actually judge the food, since we haven't tasted it -- all we can go on is the few minutes of comments chosen from several hours of judging; more important, those few minutes of comments chosen by the editors are chosen with...+READ

    Right, Jacquilynne! According to the blogs, Alex's dish was inedible. Apparently it was Angelo who was the next worst, not even Amanda. Remember two things: we at home can't actually judge the food, since we haven't tasted it -- all we can go on is the few minutes of comments chosen from several hours of judging; more important, those few minutes of comments chosen by the editors are chosen with an eye to creating some kind of suspense about who is going to be eliminated. They *want* you to feel that it was possible someone other than Alex should -- or at least could -- have been eliminated. If it was too obvious, it wouldn't be entertaining.-COLLAPSE

  • It's TV. Looks matter. Entertainment and ratings matter. I'm a little surprised they didn't keep Alex a little longer for the controversy.

    Last season they kicked a guy off because he had a big mouth and would rave on and on about this lady named Robin who couldn't cook any better than I could but people liked her. It was obvious that this guy wasn't going to last too long and neither was...+READ

    It's TV. Looks matter. Entertainment and ratings matter. I'm a little surprised they didn't keep Alex a little longer for the controversy.

    Last season they kicked a guy off because he had a big mouth and would rave on and on about this lady named Robin who couldn't cook any better than I could but people liked her. It was obvious that this guy wasn't going to last too long and neither was Robin. They chose to get rid of the guy first. It was purely for entertainment purposes. Justice demanded this guy go before Robin. Even though he was a far superior cook.

    After that, I knew that the whole thing was not about a competition, it was about entertainment and ratings.-COLLAPSE

  • The double-failure argument really only works if failure is a binary state, and thus Alex gets 0 for taste and 1 for disguise, while Amanda gets 0 for both. But that's not really how it works -- a dish can not quite work, it can fail, it can fail spectacularly -- and everything in between.

    It's possible that Alex's dish was truly awful and unpleasant, while Amanda's was merely kind of bland....+READ

    The double-failure argument really only works if failure is a binary state, and thus Alex gets 0 for taste and 1 for disguise, while Amanda gets 0 for both. But that's not really how it works -- a dish can not quite work, it can fail, it can fail spectacularly -- and everything in between.

    It's possible that Alex's dish was truly awful and unpleasant, while Amanda's was merely kind of bland. In that case, the fact that it was also poorly disguised might not outweigh the fact that Alex's was just so much worse.-COLLAPSE