‘Top Chef: New Orleans’ review: Why Nicholas Elmi made the right move
Tonight’s episode of “Top Chef: New Orleans” may be the most controversial of the season, and for good reason. After all, this was something that was very similar to what happened last year with Kristen Kish’s elimination, except a little bit later in the game.
Tonight, the victim was Stephanie Cmar, who really ended up falling on her sword after Nicholas Elmi made a controversial decision when it comes to the battle between Spanish cuisine and classic French food. His move cost her, since he had immunity and could make big moves without thinking that his butt was on the line.
Now, here is the question that we know the interwebs is going to be vigorously debating at the moment: Should he have resigned rather than stuck around in the competition? You can say that if you want to play the morality card, but here is the real problem with that: It’s impossible to really say that anyone should do that when they are trying to fight for their family and their career. Nicholas shouldn’t have resigned since he earned the immunity, and the other chefs could have stood up for themselves for.
With that being said, though, Stephanie did get seriously screwed here, mostly since she just ended up on the wrong team while Nina Compton continued her reign of dominance. While this episode was very entertaining, it did nothing to change our perception that we were going to see Nina win this in the end. She has an enormous advantage right now over the other chefs, and it is really not even close. Grade: B.
What did you think about this “Top Chef” episode, and do you think Nicholas did the wrong thing by choosing to actually stay in the competition? Share below.
mseay1
January 10, 2014 @ 11:05 pm
Nicholas made the right decision and i was mad that the judges even mentioned resigning. After all, what’s immunity for if you’re not protected. The judges chose to still send someone home. They screwed Stephanie over, not Nicholas.
Madeline
January 10, 2014 @ 5:00 pm
Nick won immunity fair and square. Immunity is in place so you can be “saved” in a bad situation. And that’s exactly how it was used. What bothered me most was the consensus on the judges’ part for him to resign. If the judges felt so strongly about the situation, why didn’t they simply take the immunity away and send Nick home? The judges didn’t do that because (A) it’s not in the rules of the game and more importantly (B) they didn’t want to look like the bad guys. Instead, it was much easier for the judges to plant the “resignation seed” in the other chefs’ heads….making Nick look bad. Going forward, the remaining chefs should really be nervous about winning immunity and the possibility of doing poorly in the elimination round….the judges might just ask that chef “to fall on their sword”.
Lisa
January 10, 2014 @ 1:23 pm
I found it very rude to ask Nicholas to resign. I believe that two weeks ago, when Carrie had the immunity, the judges too mentioned that she could have gone home were it not for her immunity win.
As for the preview: again with the Carlos sabotaging Nicholas :S
Mamdani
January 10, 2014 @ 7:26 am
That seemed very unfair to me that they asked him to consider resigning. I have watched every season and I agree, if you give out immunity you cannot start asking the chef’s to “resign”! Good grief. Many a very bad turn has gone down with the immunity holders. Nick seems like a sweaty uptight nervous wreak all the time anyway and then to add that to his plate was just kinda cruel.
Miles
January 10, 2014 @ 1:32 am
I know that I will voting for Stephanie in Last Chance Kitchen, but I don’t think Nicolas should have to resign, even if the two worst dishes of the team were his. I think that if they make a rule where the winner of the Quickfire gets immunity, they should follow through with that rule. I also think that they should have eliminated anybody, but I do get they have a schedule and a finale date. I think that Nicolas’s choice doesn’t test his integrity, and I think it’s unfair to have Stephanie go home, and it’s also unfair to have Nicolas go home too. I do think that Nicolas will have to live with some guilt. It also kind of stinks because Shirley and Stephanie were my favorite ones.
Boobalcious
January 10, 2014 @ 1:16 am
It was really unfair that they tried to make him resign. He earned immunity fair and square. He was a much stronger chef than Stephani anyway. She had a lot of coaching to make those dishes.
mass_mota
January 9, 2014 @ 10:39 pm
I love competition reality TV, especially social aspects of the games. Top Chef needs more episodes like this. Next to All-Stars, I think this season has been the second best–awesome. But looking at Nicholas’ decision from a reality TV critic standpoint, one could not help but predict that karma will eventually bite Nicholas in the ass down the stretch. I know he was caught up in the intensity of the moment at judges table, but does he really thing that a) karma will let him win in the end and b) the judges and produces will really let him win the whole thing? This is what Nicholas should have thought. In my opinion, he should have sent himself to Last Chance Kitchen, and who knows, maybe karma could work with him, instead of working against him like it will from now on. But great episode overall. P.S. you can’t really blame the judges for anything they are just following format.
Paul
January 9, 2014 @ 6:32 pm
There is a reason why he should have resigned, and it’s a simple one that no one seems to grasp: it’s about respect. When you cast yourself repeatedly as a skilled French chef, as Nick has, and then you are being judged by a statesman of the field, who himself suggests you should resign, then clearly you should show respect and resign – and what would have been lost would have been gained a hundredfold in integrity. It’s an issue beyond a competition and beyond immunity. It was a unique situation wholly created by Jacques Pepin, and you can’t extrapolate from it that it sets any kind of precedent or disavows any rulebook (and besides, who wants life determined by inviolable rules anyway). Perhaps this was intrinsically understood by the other chefs at the table, if not by a hapless Nick. Skill and talent are surely diminished if not girded by integrity..
Andrea
January 9, 2014 @ 4:39 pm
I think the judges shouldn’t have sent anybody home. That dish was conceived by the mentor and Nicholas felt pressure to do it (admittedly bolstered by having immunity). It isn’t “Top Chef” if they send home one of the top chefs of the challenge. Barring that, I think Nicholas was a hypocrite for not taking the fall, considering how dishonourable he’s made Carlos out to be. If you talk about the lack of integrity in others, then show some yourself. He screwed his friend.
Paula Duffy
January 9, 2014 @ 4:55 pm
Great point Andrea. Never thought about someone just not going home. They do it in other reality contest shows, when things just aren’t right.Two could have gone home next week.
Kate
January 9, 2014 @ 7:17 pm
Excellent idea, Andrea! They didn’t absolutely have to send anyone home. I don’t agree that Nick has no integrity; I think he earned his immunity and used it how it’s intended. As pointed out, the regular judges didn’t ask for his resignation either. It was Jaques Pepin who made the first suggestion, and it was wrong of him to do so.
Kmootz
January 9, 2014 @ 3:38 pm
This is crap. In earlier Top Chefs, Tom has said it was the judges’ decision & resignations were not allowed. Also, how many times was someone toldn “You’re lucky you have immunity or you’d be going home”? Nicholas deserves to stay, end of story – says the rules of the game.
Mystic1
January 9, 2014 @ 9:47 am
He has shown to the world, including the world’s best chefs, that he lacks integrity.
This will come back to bite him in the ass. If you win a competition, but lose in the game of life, you are a loser.
Alwaysjs
January 9, 2014 @ 4:35 pm
How does he lack integrity? He rightfully earned immunity. What is the point of immunity if not saving a chef when they do their worst?
Onegalsopinion
January 9, 2014 @ 6:35 pm
But his teammates called him out and ask him not to serve the food that ended up putting them in the bottom. I don’t think he should have resigned for cooking bad food, I think he should resign because he disrespected his teammates and through them under the bus when he could have edited his place and respected that it wasn’t his neck on the line. That’s where he showed a total lack of integrity that get him asked to resign where others weren’t before.
Onegalsopinion
January 9, 2014 @ 6:36 pm
*plate
Alwaysjs
January 9, 2014 @ 8:37 pm
No, the thing is, they weren’t very firm about it – they were questioning. They believed in him as the leader, and didn’t believe in themselves. He wasn’t trying to screw them over – he was trying to do his best. If they believed in him, why wouldn’t he believe in himself? (When I say ‘they’ I’m mostly referring to Stephanie. Shirley had little to say – and Stephanie seemed to be following Nicholas’ lead, which is what ultimately sent her home, fairly.)
I see what you’re getting at though and it does make sense, I just don’t see how it makes him a bad person.
Paula Duffy
January 9, 2014 @ 4:54 pm
I disagree. If this were done behind someone’s back it might be an integrity issue. If he didn’t agree he was the worst one on the team and tried to justify it, integrity might be called into question. He relied on immunity. He didn’t sacrifice for the good of the others. At some point, his family trumped Shirley and Stephanie. Tough spot.
charlie
January 9, 2014 @ 7:51 am
At some point personal integrity should trump playing the game. Sure winning the game is a life changer for the Top Chef, but publicly showing that you have no character is also a life changer. He should have resigned. And I can say that’s what I would have done because I have forfeited material & personal gain in pursuit of doing the right thing. I’m not trying to be pious — just saying some people are willing to do the right thing — but clearly not Nicolas.
Brent Wolgamott
January 10, 2014 @ 2:45 pm
So then why even compete in the quickfire then??? All of the chefs should have told Padma and Jacques to STUFF IT, for the quickfire, based on your reasoning. What is the “right thing”? He EARNED immunity in a GAME, that was THERE for the taking by ANYONE. Steph had a chance to get immunity. She blew it.
Jay
January 9, 2014 @ 6:42 am
I agree that that was a really messed up thing for the judges to do. If the elimination challenges were meant to kick off the chefs who made the worst food, then they should never give out immunity in the first place. He won it, and even if he had served a dead rat on a garbage can he should still be allowed to stay without any guilt. It’s a competition in the end and any of the contestants who said that they would leave because they felt it was the right thing to do are completely lying!
Susan
January 9, 2014 @ 6:21 am
I think it was totally wrong to ask Nicholas to leave. He earned immunity. there have been a lot of chefs who earned immunity and then faltered on the main challenge and they weren’t asked to leave. I don’t think the girls would have left if the shoe was on the other foot. This puts a dark cloud over Nicholas and makes him look bad. It should not be anybody’s decision for someone to leave accept Tom or Padma. Very sad for Nicholas.
fubsy
January 9, 2014 @ 5:52 am
I think it was totally wrong for the judges to suggest that Nicholas should “fall on his sword” or “resign”. Whether or not Nicholas blew it on this challenge, the show is built on immunity challenges. He earned immunity fairly. That’s how the game is played. If you start asking people who have earned immunity to give it up, then a fundamental premise of the show is rendered worthless. Easy for Tom to issue his decree “Nicholas should do that right thing and fall on his sword”. It’s pretty rich to start preaching morality and professional honor, on a show that in the past has promoted chefs based on who made the best dish out of vending machine candy or Philadelphia Cream Cheese.
mindle
January 9, 2014 @ 5:46 am
I agreed with Nicholas’ decision. Whether he had the worst dishes or not, he earned immunity fair and square. Fair or not, that’s the way the game is played.