Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I am sad that Mario has left, but I think that food network tries to provide something for everyone. I am a mother of three and I like to cook, but i don't always have a lot of time. I like semi-homemade because of that. Most of the other shows have things that are too involved. Alton Brown gives you the why and how to do things. And most of the time, my kids will eat the recipes I get from Good Eats.
I thought they were neck and neck until the show in Paris. I don't really know anything about "fine" cuisine, but those cock's combs were just GROSS!!

^^^Wow, a tad judgmental aren't we? Please come back and add a comment when you climb down from your high horse.

Great interview, love Alton.

Can't go along with your logic or your analogy. The Beatles didn't invent rock'n'roll. They were interpreting something that was already established in America--the real birthplace of blues and rock. To make your analogy work with regard to Michael Symon and Mediterranean food, you'd have to posit a Beatles group that had never heard Elvis or any American blues at all, and expect them to still be as good.

1)
I maintain that where Symon hails from is a crucial matter. Because we're talking about authenticity here. The real power these chefs have, is because they present themselves as figures of integrity and authority in a certain branch of regional food. They've trained and explored at length, in a rich local food heritage, which finds its way into their cooking. Food is culture. The way that local Spanish chefs make a meat sauce in Barcelona or the way that sushi chefs in make miso in Kyoto was the heart of the original Iron Chef show.

Else, why did the original Iron Chef Japan have each chef represent a major world cuisine? Iron Chef French, Iron Chef Italian, Iron Chef Chinese. This makes eminent sense and was a fundamental part of the program's success. This methodology provides a way to learn about food in a systematic way, rather than piecemeal.

And although it was not stated as such, this is clearly what Iron Chef America was mimicking with it's lineup. But now, they've unraveled this simple and effective arrangement--because Symon comes from the sucking void that is Cleveland, where he does his own thing--whatever that is. He hasn't traveled, but poses as an expert in Greek food. Okay, so where is the authenticity? Where is the depth? What can he transmit to us directly from the Greek food culture? You tell me. Is he capable of doing authentic dishes or just Cleveland, Ohio's version?

I mean, what is more important here? That we have a dumbed-down 'American Chef' program so that suburbanites can feel comfortable in the kitchen, or can we keep the integrity high and come to grips with the fact that the greatest cuisine in the world springs from sources outside our own country? French, Italian, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Latin--let's stop pretending these are American creations and turn to the sources. Or, if we stick to American regions, then go with Southwest, Italian, Southern, or Californian. But pray tell what can any of us learn from Cleveland?

2)
And my other point is that he is also redundant in a show with two other Mediterranean chefs. What sense does this make? Or doesn't redundancy bother anyone else but me?

3)
But I guess my beef is with the way the producers handled this whole affair. I mean, there are so many places along the way, or in the concept itself, where you can see strings being pulled and events being rigged. Someone else mentioned, for instance, that it was obvious an ethnic chef with a thick foreign accent (Chef Marou) or another female chef weren't going to be chosen, right from the start. Food for thought.

Or, how convenient was it that one chef got slammed for 'failing to salt his dish properly' when, (behind the scenes) it was an ice bath which accidentally spoiled his dish at the last minute? And then this whole thing about Ruhlman and Symon going back nine years, and Ruhlman having some kind of personal preference for the midwest? And then Ruhlman jumps on Besh because his consomme wasn't clear enough? Come on. What I'm saying is that this is hardly a realistic competition to begin with.

The competition stages are interesting (and make good television) but they shouldn't be the total criteria on which a new chef for this show was chosen. Remember that when 'The Next Food Network Host' was chosen, two finalists reach the endgame and then FoodNetwork viewers voted.
Obviously the benefit of such a scheme is that it eliminates all the chefs who actually made drastic mistakes. But to eliminate John Besh from a silly final round battle in Kitchen Stadium against Symon?

Also, I hardly think Chef Symon blew anything 'out of the water'. His dishes were sloppy and insipid where Besh's were complex and composed. There was an imbalance in the silly choice of stage-winners each time. 'For example, Symon won the 'Resource test' how? By preparing a 'family style' plate and giving each judge a glass of juice?

In my opinion, losing the 'Artistry test' so badly that it nearly eliminates you from competition is a key reason not to add a chef to a cooking *television show*. Such a show is all about artistry. A contrived reality-show 'contest' (using the word 'contest' very loosely here) shouldn't be taken so seriously that we (or FoodNetwork) forget that this is television. If they're going to carefully import Michael Symon into the program, fine. But I'm calling it a hideously bad decision, and the excuse that "well this WAS a contest" is more of a smokescreen than anything else.

FYI, Alton Brown was interviewed last week in a New York newspaper and vigorously denied that Batali is leaving 'Iron Chef'. Make of that what you may.

I myself am hugely disappointed with the choice of Michael Symon. I'm ceasing my viewership of this show, it is abominable that they chose this guy.

Why? For one, he is from CLEVELAND. None of the world's great cuisines come from Ohio, last time I checked. French-trained John Besh would have been a valuable conduit to American audiences (via Iron Chef) for French cooking. How they overlook this is beyond me.

Seriously--to have an Iron Chef program with three Mediterranean-style cooks and two specifically Greek-style chefs is ludicrous. Michael Symon is redundant because the show already has Cat Cora.

John Besh is simply more depthful, more intriguing. He diverges from the whole 'garlic, oil, lemon' style of cooking which characterizes so many other chefs.

And side by side, Besh is simply the better pick for this TV show. He excels in the 'artistry' side of food where Symon is sloppy (almost getting eliminated for his lack of artistry early in the competition).

Remember, this program is purely a visual show--we cannot taste what the judges taste. What a chef's dishes look like, therefore, is crucial for viewers. If we see a fabulous creation that captures our imagination, we will remember it long after the episode closes. It's what made the original Iron Chef show so powerful: mesmerizing visuals. Yet, the network lets Besh-the-artist go home and keeps Symon-the-slob. It's absurd.

Further point: Besh is smooth, polished, erudite and worldly, suave--the camera loves him-- whereas Symon is a bit of a midwestern boor. He' s a slouch, crass; he's loud and awkward. In the series tests, he was underconfident and lost his cool occasionally. Just not a guy to emulate.

So, I think letting this unfold the way it did was one of the worst decisions FN could have made and I agree this network is headed down the wrong path. They may have thought they were doing the right thing but it is clearly not the best thing for the show.

signed,
Cortez

p.s. And I am flabbergasted at the intelligence that Ruhlman and Symon go back 9 years. That is totally a conflict of interest.

@blondee47: I'm not quite sure if I understand why you're upset with Amy Pataki.

If I'm reading your comments here correctly, you had not read her October 6 article until yesterday (Nov. 12). At which point you took issue with her Toronto Star piece spoiling the ending.

However, you had chosen to click through to the "continued" part of this post, which clearly stated there would be spoilers.

So I'm confused as to why you're retroactively upset with Ms. Pataki when this very post should have served as a spoiler, negating anything that may have been in that October 6 newspaper story.

I'm appalled that a seemingly intelligent and artitculate man like Alton Brown would need to resort to the "F bomb" in expressing himself. And I'm amazed that anyone would find this vocabulary praiseworthy. If you like that kind of language, watch HBO.