VS Battle: Hell's Kitchen vs. Top Chef

VS

In this week's VS. Battle we have two Reality TV giants: Hell's Kitchen in one corner and Top Chef in the other. Since Top Chef debuted last week on Bravo, it's time to bring this post back and remix it.

Like all Reality TV shows, each of these programs have positive and negative traits that make them variably appealing to different types of viewers. The real question is: which is better?

Hell's Kitchen (FOX) pits aspiring chefs against each other as they try to run a restaurant, all while being chastised and berated by master chef, Gordon Ramsay. Ramsay is nothing short of foul in his method of hurling insults, sometimes referring to chefs as "fat pigs" and "donkeys." He is nothing less than obnoxious, rude, cheauvanistic, pompous, arrogant and downright cruel. He does everything in his power to give Brits a bad name. Unfortunately, Ramsay's petulant tirades are one of the show's more appealing aspects, because Hell's Kitchen certainly doesn't do anything to showcase the food or the skills of the competitors. In the end, the winner is not the best cook of the bunch, but the most capable of taking abuse while prepping kitchen service. If the aspiring chefs on this show are taught anything about food, the viewers rarely see it. Sadly, the sole judging by Chef Ramsay leaves a lot to be desired, opening various opportunities for favoritism or worse, personal prejudism.

Problem:

• Challenges don't really change from week to week. The chefs merely engage in cooking for Hell's Kitchen, angering patrons, getting yelled at by Chef Ramsay, then being punished for their poor performance when they lose, or being inadequately rewarded when they win. This makes for tedious television after week four, when Ramsay's insults start falling on the deaf ears of everyone, including the competitors.
• This show seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator. The sad thing is that Hell's Kitchen could easily be reproduced in any industry. All it takes is someone with a big mouth and 20 people willing to take his crap.
  

Top Chef (Bravo), on the other hand, features chefs of considerable skill and budding talent cooking their own dishes. This season's opener has thrown down the gauntlet. These people know how to cook! The focus here is the food, not the egotistical rantings of a solitary judge on a quest for better book sales. In fact, the presence of multiple judges makes for a more egalitarian selection when it comes to winners and losers. Where Hell's Kitchen is like a vile dictatorship, Top Chef is run like a true republic. When someone wins this show, they truly deserve it on the basis of their cooking talent. Challenges change from week to week, so by the end of the program, the viewer has been treated to seeing a cook's true repertoire. But the lack of a power-mongering troll on Top Chef doesn't take away from the dramatic flair or conflict here; in fact, this show is ten times more anxiety-inducing than Hell's Kitchen because of the spicy interrelationships of the competitors. Perhaps most importantly, this show is educational. Viewers are treated to looking at food in an entirely new way: namely, from the perspective of an educated consumer, or foodie. The sophisticated things being done with food will make you want to sign up at the nearby Cordon Bleu school.

Problem:

• Being on Bravo places this show in an unfortunate cable ghetto. One of the large networks needs to buy this one and put it on Primetime fast; clearly, Top Chef is better than most of the fodder that the networks have there currently.
• Watching Top Chef will make your mouth water. A viewer is repeatedly stricken with remorse as the show features demi-glazed lamb shanks or black truffles. Definitely watch this one after you've eaten your Big Mac and fries. Here's a link to this week's winning recipe! How cool is that?!?!
  

Winner: Top Chef