CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

What’s this show called … Hell’s Kitchen?

Each week I review a show that's new to me. Good idea, or punishment (mine or yours)? You be the judge. But either way, if I had to watch it, the least you can do is read what I have to say....

When I set out on my long journey to cover Hell’s Kitchen for this week’s installment of my column (Read: when I set my DVR last week), little did I know that Tara would be writing an episode summary on the show’s season seven premiere. Which, aside from being highly entertaining and worth a read even if you don’t watch the show, also comes in handy for what I like to call “What’s this show called … 101.”

This column is meant to be one thing, and one thing only: my experience with a new show that I have no frame-of-reference for, haven’t done extensive homework on, and am not prepared for. That may sound fruitless to some of you, but consider this — I am experiencing a show the same way any newcomer would. Which, I should mention, is something that happens on a regular basis with every single show on television. No series has failed to gain viewers post-series premiere, and it would be completely short-sighted to imagine otherwise.

A single episode should have the ability to attract a viewer enough to make them come back. Should it provide a full back story week after week? No. But if you need six weeks to decide whether or not a series is actually entertaining, it’s doing something really wrong.

Episode Summary – With the above in mind, I caught Hell’s Kitchen‘s season premiere, a point at which I imagine a fair amount of people might decide to join a show.

After the contestants were announced at a press conference (what?) they got right down to their first task: cooking their signature dishes for Gordon Ramsay, or as they call him, “Chef” (Which at first I found funny. Only later did it become really stupid). His undercover wife bit was a tad nauseating, even after we learned that she was his wife, and his reactions to the contestants’ dishes turned me off immediately.

I began to wonder if this could really be what the show is all about: un-famous chefs cook for an older, annoying chef who criticizes them. And, by the way, Ramsay being a chef himself does not necessarily make him an expert in the taste-side of food, just the preparation (I’m assuming that he is, although I know nothing about him; people tend to land on TV more for their personalities than their skills).

The majority of the episode really bored me. The all-night tutorials, the punishment, the attempts to complete a complete first dinner service. How in the world can these “chefs” not manage to thoroughly cook the food they’re preparing? Everything was either cold or raw … are they not allowed to turn on the ovens and stoves until later in the competition?

It was mildly amusing when the phrase “chopping block” was used, because on this show that could actually be literal. I had already been wondering if Ramsay slaughtered and cooked the losers each week, so that kind of went with the theme … but the manner in which a contestant is chosen to leave was totally anti-climactic.

Conclusions – Where was the excitement of this series that I’ve heard so much about? I found the entire experience to be rather bland. Ramsay is unappealingly brash, but so what? I’ve never seen a reality competition before where the show is less about the competitors and more about the judge. Donald Trump may be a major turn-off, but that show is all about the contestants, both before it went “celebrity” and since. This was just nonsense about some guy who had 50% of what he said bleeped out.

And unless you’re super-into cooking, I can’t imagine what’s interesting about the series. At least American Idol has the potential to provide viewers with some listening pleasure (it’s been a few years since it’s managed to do so successfully, but potential is potential). Can you even pick up a recipe from these episodes?

I don’t know. I found myself very confused as to what I was seeing. I kept thinking, “This is the show?” Maybe the premiere episode is unlike the rest of the season itself, but I just didn’t get it. Hell’s Kitchen is not something I’ll ever be making reservations for again.

Photo Credit: FOX

17 Responses to “What’s this show called … Hell’s Kitchen?”

June 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I’ve never understood the appeal of this guy, but then again I’m not a reality or cooking show fan. The only I can see Gordon Ramsey being entertaining is when he verbally abuses a contestant while they have a sheepish look on their face. And that’s why I watch The Soup.

June 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM

And he has multiple shows? Really?

June 7, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Yes, he does have multiple shows. But I meant The Soup as in the Joel McHale. I can see how that would be confusing when talking about a chef

June 7, 2010 at 8:43 PM

I know … I’ve never watched The Soup but certainly know what it is. I was agreeing with you that I don’t find him entertaining, and then expressing my shock that he has multiple shows. I just neglected to articulate the first part. ;)

June 7, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Thanks for the shout out! I’d comment more, but I say it all in my reviews. Don’t want to repeat myself. One thing everyone agrees on, I find, is you either love Gordon or hate him. No in-betweens.

June 7, 2010 at 6:11 PM

I felt badly stepping on your toes, but I was too lazy to tape something else, so I figured the least I could do was direct some of my millions of readers your way. ;)

June 8, 2010 at 4:50 AM

I don’t think I hate Gordon. I just don’t care about people like him or Simon Cowell. You know, self centered bastards ;-)

June 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM

I see Simon Cowell a bit differently though, because while he’s an attraction, he’s just a part of the whole. I didn’t see how Hell’s Kitchen was anything beyond Gordon Ramsay….

June 7, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Aryeh, the premiere is probably one of the least interesting episodes of the season. Hell’s Kitchen only gets good once the contestants have been narrowed a bit and you begin to like and dislike (i.e., hate with a deep, passionate hatred) particular contestants. This show really has nothing to do with food – it’s all about the people. That’s actually what I found most disappointing about it. I want to see more about the food … but I guess that’s why Alton Brown exists. Anyhoo, I would always get addicted to Hell’s Kitchen because I would start hating certain people and hoping they would get eliminated. Like I said, the show only gets “interesting” later on, once the contestants’ personalities have been established. There’s always someone pegged as the dumb one, the lazy one, the reliable one, the annoying loud-mouth, the quiet one, the sick/injured one, the arrogant one, etc. It’s always about the clash of personalities and the teams conspiring to get rid of the people that annoy them the most. And of course, a lot of people just love Gordon. I personally enjoy him more on Kitchen Nightmares because he’s a bit nicer on that show.

June 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I see that I can’t win … does the show really ever become about the contestants, though, or just about Ramsay?

June 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Ramsay is always the same. You know he’s going to throw fits and tantrums and reduce people to tears or provoke them into yelling at him. The contestants are the variables. I think a lot of the show is about them, because through selective editing, the contestants become “characters” that you either root for or hate. Mostly hate. You want to see how Ramsay reacts to different contestants, and you want to see him tear into the ones that you hate. That’s his role. I don’t know if I answered your question or just rambled, but I tried.

June 8, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Definitely not selling it for repeat viewing, but that does clarify the fundamentals. :)

June 8, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Aryeh… Calling the guy in charge of the kitchen “Chef” is a show of respect that happens in every restaurant/hotel I’ve ever been in.

Funny that you didn’t like it, this is the only reality show that I really like.

June 8, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Fair enough; I didn’t know that. It just sounded very, “I’m snooty and demand to be called ‘Chef'” to me every time they said it, but I wasn’t aware of it being standard. Thanks!

June 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Yeah, it’s kind of funny. I generally have to go into my Contacts, and add the nickname “Chef” to whomever is “the man” at our property so that I can just type that into emails without having to think of their first name :)

June 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM

But the snooty factor is still in effect (Not in my case at this point). But that whole concept of what you thought it was is probably the basis for it. But, from my view, like I said. I was taught it was a sign of respect. Same way I’d never call a sous chef “Chef” in earshot of the actual Chef.

June 8, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I guess I could see it … it just makes me wonder who else we should start calling by their job title. Like maestro on Seinfeld. :)

Powered By OneLink