MasterChef and other cooking shows

When I'm working on something that doesn't require 100% focus, I like to have a bit of distraction in the background. Without it, I find that my mind tends to wander and then I switch over to another task and end up wasting time. My favourite background distraction is watching cooking shows like MasterChef, Great British Bake Off and Top Chef.

Great British Bake Off is probably my favourite series. It's been going for 4 years, and the 5th season will start airing the UK next month. It starts with a dozen or so home bakers, with usually one being eliminated each week. Each week has a theme, such as cakes, pies, bread, tarts, etc, and they bake in three rounds. For the first and last round (signature bake and showstopper), they know in advance what they have to make and have time to research and practice. For the second bake (the technical challenge), they don't find out what it is until it begins, although they usually have at least a partial recipe. That round is judged blind, making for a fairer competition.

One thing I really like about it is the focus is on the baking, with either the contestants themselves or voiceovers providing useful information and tips about the recipes. The whole atmosphere is nice and supportive - there's no contestant catfights or excessive drama, and we only see tiny amounts of backstory (although a little more for the finalists). The judges are helpful, and the presenters (Mel & Sue) are funny and entertaining. The judging seems consistent and relevant, with the judges always giving specific reasons relating to the dish (under-baked, under seasoned, soggy pastry, clashing flavours, too much baking soda etc) to explain the results.

Top Chef is a US based programme, and is an entirely different thing. The contestants are all professional chefs in the early stages of their careers (often in their 20s or 30s), and some already have their own restaurants, or are executive chefs. There are typically two challenges each episode: a quickfire (with some reward) and an elimination, where the weakest chef is sent home. There are some team challenges (the most notable being Restaurant Wars, where two teams design and execute a complete menu for a restaurant full of diners, with about a 24 hour lead time), but the majority are individual. While there is sometimes friction between contestants, particularly in team challenges, the focus is very much on the food, and the judges comments are also specific and relevant to the current dish.

MasterChef is an entirely different kettle of fish, largely because there are so many different country-specific versions and spin-offs. I've watched the NZ version, Australian version, the UK amateur and professional versions, and little bit of the Indian and Spanish versions.

I find the New Zealand judges to be extremely annoying. I hope it is because their judging is excessively scripted, but their feedback is just stupid. Instead of a relevant comment about the food, they'll say something like:

"Do you think this is good?", he says with a steely glare. The contestant squirms and quietly says, "well, I think so".

"This isn't good", he says flatly. Long dramatic pause while the contestant looks crestfallen.

"It's great!", he enthuses, suddenly all smiles.

The Australian show is pretty similar. Last year it was even worse, with over the top theatrics combined with useless cooks. Apparently the producers thought people would better relate to average cooks, and so deliberately didn't cast people with any cooking talent. They tried to make up for it by amping up the drama with stupid team challenges (girls vs boys) and with cry-offs: "tell me how much this means to you", which made for the worst season ever. George was the most annoying of all. He almost never had any useful advice or feedback about the food. He would just say wanky things like "Just cook from the heart", and "you haven't put your heart on the plate". At least Matt and Gary were better. Gary particularly was comforting when needed and had practical advice that related to the challenge.

I've lost a lot of respect for the judges this season though, since they seemed to be very blatantly playing favourites. There were numerous instances where they gave extra help to two particular female contestants, even in the final challenge. And the judging was inconsistent. One week someone would slightly undercook their beef and be sent home, told that was unforgivable. But if the favourite did it, it would go overlooked, and someone else would be sent home for what seemed like a much smaller transgression.

The UK shows are miles better. The focus is just on the cooking and the judging is specific and relevant. There's no endless backstory, no attempt to wring emotion out of the contestants. When a contestant is eliminated, they just walk out the door - no sobbing, no heartfelt speeches or huggy goodbyes. They don't even bother to show you their backstory until you get down to the final three. Even in the final, there are few theatrics - no fireworks, no massive drawn out scoring systems, no family and former contestants present. They just simply announce the winner with little fanfare. The others leave, and the winner gets a handshake. Very British.

The professional version is equally good, and I love one of the judges, Monica Galetti. Tongan-born, New Zealand raised, she has an amazing set of facial expressions as she watches the chefs work, listens to their plans or tastes their food. The judging is very specific and focused on the food. My biggest issue with it is that it is pretty much aimed squarely at French cooking. Anyone without classical French training doesn't really stand a chance, since both judges are from a French restaurant, all the challenges are classical French dishes and the plating is judged against modern French cuisine.

It is also interesting that the Chefs are of much lower standard that the US Top Chef. UK MasterChef Professionals seems to attract relatively younger chefs from average establishments, with just a few years in junior positions, while Top Chef seems to be mostly executive chefs and sous chefs from very high end restaurants. The focus on MasterChef is much more on mentoring and potential, while Top Chef is much more about just finding the best chef who can consistently make the fewest errors under pressure.

One thing I have decided though is I definitely do not like this whole idea of molecular gastronomy and manufacturing food to look like something it isn't. I don't want a dessert that looks like a flowerpot, a forest floor, a birds nest or a plate of bacon and eggs. I don't want a plate that is carefully assembled with tweezers and an eye dropper to give precisely measured amounts of 40 different flavours. I like Heston Blumenthal's experimental method to getting better flavours, but I sure wouldn't pay $450 to eat at the Fat Duck. I'd rather pay $10 for a plate of peasant food that that has had the flavour experimentally improved over decades.