Masterchef competition

Tuesday March 5th 2008

Longworth

Like many people, I have grown rather hooked on the current series of "Masterchef" which finished last week. It is a curious competition in respect of some of the ways the show is set up. For instance, there are only a few really good chefs in the show and yet they occasionally come up against each other in the early rounds and so one is lost - one of the very best was lost in this way in the first round I thought. On other days the contestents can be relatively poor. The initially elimination round is quite a good test, but the professional kitchen test rarely seems to matter much in the final assessment. And so on. . . . . .

Last week was the final with the three finalist going through various challenges, some of which seem to bear little relationship to what might be required of a materchef. And these do reveal that part of the problem of the show is that it is unclear what it is really seeking. It could address a variety of different questions and these are hinted at by the presenters at different times.

For instance, they might be looking for "someone who can make it as a professional chef" in which case the only real relevant test is the professional kitchen test as most work by professional chefs is the consistent preparation of identical dishes and does not require any sort of creativity. That was definitely the case when I worked in a kitchen years ago. No creativity, just consistent quality produced at the right time.

Alternatively, the question could be "who is the most creative and interesting amateur cook?" where the aim might be to see who could really wow a series panel of judges. Or maybe the question is "who could be a Michelin-starred chef in the future?" or "who has the greatest potential for greatness?"

And as the standard of the show has got better each year, the precise question being asked becomes more and more relevant. This year's final showed exactly this. James was clearly a very good cook and could turn out food of an exceptionally high average standard. But he was already in his 30s and most of the very best chefs have already been practising their craft for years by then. And he didn't produce anything that was completely amazing.

By contrast, Emily, the 18 year old, probably had a lower average quality but the range between her highs and lows was much wider. Hence she produced probably every one of, say, the best six meals. At 18, this suggests an extraordinary potential for absolute greatness and, to my mind, is more what would be looked for in such a competition.

I can see why the judges did go for James in the end but it seemed an overly safe choice to me and results in the rather odd circumstance, in my view, that the producer of all of the most amazing food didn't win. This seems a mistake to me.

Still I did learn a lot from the show - especially about presentation. Well Being Breaks doesn't aim at fine dining, it provides full-flavoured peasant food, so much of the cooking content is not directly relevant. So no subtle sauces for us, no complex ingredients, no strange flavour combinations, no small portions, and so on.

I had a dream the other night in which I was cooking for Gordon Ramsey and I prepared a complex dish of warm tomato sauce, oven cooked haricots, served on a grilled slice of bread with a butter dressing. It was on the plate with the swirls of sauce that often grace fine-dining plates but was, despite the presentation, just baked beans on toast.