Shame on Gordon Ramsey [MasterChef 7/9]
For making a blind woman cry. Absolutely pointless. We knew she wasn't going home. She knew she hadn't made her best dish. Why make her twist in front of the whole world? I know, it's all about ratings. sigh.
jb
-
Legally blind means poor vision centrally, or a very limited visual field. You can be legally blind and still be fairly functional. Someone could have glaucoma and see 20/20, but only through a very small area. You could have macular degeneration and see everything but the center. Without knowing details, we're just guessing as to Christine's actual disability.
If someone can't see the big E on the chart (20/400), the next level down is counting fingers at 1 or 3 feet, then Hand motions, Light perception, then No light perception.
Anything below count fingers is not of much functional use.›5 Replies-
re: saeyedoc
From the article, http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/06/21/mas...
“From a medical standpoint, doctors call my vision ‘counting fingers.’ If you hold your hand 10 to 12 inches from my face, I could count your fingers as long as the lighting isn’t too dark or glaring. The way I often describe it is that it’s like if you take a really hot shower and then you look into the foggy bathroom mirror, where you only see vague shapes and shadows.”
-
re: dave_c
Even knowing she has CF (count fingers) vision, it doesnt' tell you everything. She could have a very small blind spot in the center causing the decrease, but still be very functional with good peripheral vision. Without good central vision, she would still have trouble seeing something she was cooking. Based on what I've seen and the fact that she uses a cane, I'd guess her peripheral vision is not good.
-
-
-
Can you imagine how successful Ramsey's TV programs would be if the character he plays was always calm, always patient, constantly reassuring, encouraging, nurturing and devoid of expletives?
Next question: Do TV shows' ratings ever go to zero?›7 Replies-
-
-
re: scubadoo97
I can see that. It's a form of cringeworthy comedy. I have found myself laughing at the Joe B sneer. It is such an act. Does he even know how to cook? He's run a reastaurant, but that doesn't mean he ever spent time salting, stewing and working in a kitchen. If you had to choose one of them to have a throwdown with I'd pick Joe.
-
-
-
-
-
re: piccola
So obviously they tailor the show for local audiences, or at least what they think the local audiences in each country will like. They may even be right. Masterchef (and HK) are continuing to dominate the nightly ratings here (of course they are running against reruns on the other nets) so the Fox execs are likely feeling pretty good about themselves. Would both shows do as well if all the phony drama and confrontation and weeping were toned down in favor of just honest competition and focusing on the food? Who knows?
But it is worth noting, I think, that Chef Hunter on FN was pulled after just a few short weeks and revamped into the much-phonier Chef Wanted, and they wouldn't have done that if the original, "real-er" version had been doing well.
-
re: acgold7
I know, I just wonder whether audiences actually want as much drama as the producers seem to think. Because I remember much griping -- and not just from me -- over the craziness added to the last season of Top Chef. I mean, at some point, the fact that they're competing in a naturally stressful environment with high stakes should provide enough excitement.
-
-
-
-
I didn't read the rest of this either, but I assume I'm not alone in this. Wouldn't treating her differently be discrimination?
›18 Replies-
re: jhopp217
Is this the episode where Christine sets fire to the unhusked corn? Then her team rushs in and 'saves the day'? Where was her 'cough' helper? Having a smoke behind a hay bail? Did Christine then remove the burned corn and then cut the cobs up into only one three inch piece per plate? Any other contestant would be down the road. THAT is what offends me. GR and the producers are clearly dragging Christine's time out on the show simply for the ratings. If I were Christine I would be VERY insulted by that obvious 'cashing in' on her blindness. IMO there's a fine line between making sure there is as much a level playing field for the disabled as reasonably possible and using them to gain ratings. IMO GR and Co. have crossed that line in this case.
-
re: Puffin3
This was actually the week before. I think you're off on your assessment of Ramsey and co dragging it out for ratings. She's probably the second most talented cook on the show and her ability to produce what she does without the sight is inspiring. I think all of them, especially the surly Joe B have done nothing but praised her. I feel that more than anything they are showing her strengths and not her weaknesses. You have to admit, her ability to do in the same time limit, what the others are doing is amazing.
-
re: Puffin3
You know they have editors right? Sometimes these editors edit stuff. So we don't see every single thing, like say cutting a cob of corn. If you think a blind person cannot cut a cob of corn you must think very little of blind people. Had you actually seen the episode from this week, you would see that that was actually not that big a deal (the corn cob fire). Why you seem to think the fix is in for her, with no real evidence, is beyond me.
-
re: dbrodbeck
Then why haven't we seen her actually cut a piece of corn for instance? They show everyone else using their 'knife skills' or lack thereof. I've gone back and watched what the producers/editors have actually shown her doing and it's really not that much. When she made those perfectly done deep fried whatever they were to the perfect color/crispness we actually never saw her actually do anything. I'm not claiming she isn't 100% blind as she claims. I'm simply pointing out that she is obviously using the help of she 'helper' to do a lot of the actual work. BTW what production company in their right mind would allow a totally blind person within ten feet of a pot of smoking hot deep frying oil? Then in another episode her 'helper' stands back and lets the corn husks catch fire. Somethings wrong with that picture. I'm also not saying 'the fix is in' just that the editors and GR are playing a bit of a game with the viewer for ratings IMO.
-
re: Puffin3
We have seen her cut a lot of things. We have also seen her aide describe things to her. Blind people cook every day you know, they also have jobs, take the bus by themselves etc. I imagine she signed a release (as did all of them) about injury. You have no evidence that her aide is doing the work for her. You do however seem to have some sort of problem with her, why I do not know.(see http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/854844).
You might note that a contestant from this year commented on that thread that she " was given no extra time or was not given any special privilges. She was thrown into the fire exactly the same as everyone else".
-
re: Puffin3
1. She's not totally blind.
2. Her helper is there to help her walk to various locations, to carry items for her from the pantry and to direct her as to where things are on the work space, NOT to do her cooking for her.
3. A contestant has already stated on his thread about MC (while he was a contestant) that Christine got NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, other than someone to help her walk/to from the pantry (or to an outside location) and tell her where things were at her work space.
3. You seem to have a bias against her. We get that.
-
-
-
-
re: chowser
My grandfather was blinded in the war age 17. He lived into his seventies. My mother was once an executive with the National Institute For The Blind. BTW it was an unpaid job. We had dozens of people stay with us after they had cornea transplants while they recuperated. I don't need any lessons or opinions about my attitude towards blind people thank you. Many posts ago some one claimed she was "totally blind". Now some one says she's "not totally blind". Which is it? My "bias" is totally around the fact that some one isn't being completely up front. Christine herself says she sees things through a blurred/cloudy haze. Is that being "blind".
-
re: Puffin3
As has been pointed out to you in the other thread, below 20 / 200 acuity is legally blind in Canada (and I am pretty sure) the US. If things are a blurry haze (and she carries a white cane) she is clearly below that level of acuity. It has also been pointed out by a contestant on the darned show that she received no special treatment.
-
re: Puffin3
Bottom line is that her competitors view her as strong competition because her flavor profiles are judge to be amazingly good.
If anyone's continued presence deserved outrage on MC, it was Tali, whose handicap was turning out lousy food again and again. And he could SEE what he was doing.
-
-
-
re: LindaWhit
I agree... she is legally blind. It may not be pitch black, but she can't see either.
In one of the articles about Christine, she described her blindness as looking into a fogged bathroom mirror.
I imagine it's like having my glasses steam up when I'm pulling something out of the oven or draining pasta. I can see colors and vague shapes, but what's on the stovetop (if I remembered to clear a path for the roaster or I'm going to drop the roaster on a sauce pan) is not really visible.
-
-
re: LindaWhit
I think of it more like being in the dusk, turning on the light and then turning it back off. You can almost make out the shapes but it's difficult. Either way, whether she's completely blind or not, the point is that she was never able to be up for elimination so the assertion that they're somehow milking this is far fetched.
-
-
-
-
re: Puffin3
Not suggesting that you have a bias against ALL people who are blind, just against Christine's. She's legally blind--it's irrelevant to how well she cooks how blind she is. She has earned the respect of the other contestants and the judges. As to your point that they're milking her blindness by keeping her in for ratings,that was off base since she wasn't even eligible for elimination.
-
-
-
-
-
JB, do you have any idea how edited these things are? she could have been crying two hours before. Also, everyone cries on reality tv
›2 Replies -
Yeah, I love christine, but should he be nicer to her than he is to everyone else because she is blind?
huh?
That doesnt make sense.Even if you had said "Shame on GR for making a person cry"
it would be silly, because these people willingly put themselves on the show, and they know what they are in for..›30 Replies-
-
re: piccola
eh - at some point ALL of the contestants cry.
I watched the episode closely (after I read this thread) and from what we saw, he wasn't mean to her!
I mean compared to how GR and JB usually are - he was quite nice about it.
Her food did look terrible.
I think she was crying because she knew she performed badly, not because GR was mean to her. -
re: piccola
I don't mind criticisms, etc. and even those mean spirited ones can be a learning experience. What I hate is when they play with people who are safe and make them seem like they're not. It's pointless. I think Christine was crying both because she knew she made a terrible dish and that she thought she was going home for a dish that wasn't up to her standard. I have the feeling she wouldn't have been as upset if she had done her best and everyone did better. Her being blind is irrelevant to the whole thing. Her being nice/modest/talented, OTOH, matters to me because it makes me pull for her.
-
re: chowser
+1 to it having nothing to do with her being blind and all about her being nice/modest/talented. I screwed this post up royally from not alerting spoilers, to using phrasing that focused on her blindness, when for me it was never about that. Just annoyed with the berating the contestants get in general. Even though they signed up for it, it makes it less enjoyable.
-
-
-
re: LindaWhit
LW
You're right about his British programmes. His TV persona was set early on by the foul language but more recent stuff is considerably toned down. Of course, he still uses foul language - but it is more just in the way that some working class younger Britons do speak, rather than for effect.
By the by, he doesnt do Masterchef, either here or Australia.
-
-
-
-
re: chicgail
WHY do people keep saying that?
It can be said about ANY station that airs reality shows. CBS does it with Big Brother or The Amazing Race or Survivor, The Food Network does it with TNFNS, Lifetime does it with Project Runway, Bravo does it with Top Chef, The Real Housewives, MTV does it with Jersey Shore, ABC does it with Extreme Home Makeover, NBC has it with The Apprentice, etc.
Fox doesn't have the exclusive lock on "added drama," you know.
-
re: LindaWhit
People keep saying that because, as bad as most "reality" TV is, and as fake and phony and over-the-top as it is, that little odious dwarf Mike Darnell, who runs reality at FOX, is the guy who pioneered the stop-at-nothing-to-show-the-humiliation-of-participants programming. IIRC, he actually got booted out of Fox at one point because he went too low even for them, for doing something like a dwarf-tossing contest, but their ratings plummeted, so they brought him back and promoted him. He is now President of Reality and ranked the third most powerful guy in Reality TV. It is thanks to him that Fox has, and always will have, the reputation of being willing to sink lower and willing to stop at nothing for ratings. And it has been very profitable for them.
-
-
re: LindaWhit
No, you're right, they all do it, but you asked why people always assume Fox is the worst offender, and that's why. They made their reputation as the net that pushes the boundaries of good taste and outrageousness more than any other (Married With Children, When Animals Attack) and they tenaciously cling to that reputation, that's all. It's not wrong of people to remember that.
I don't see anybody pointing fingers or acting like a third-grader here. You asked a question and I gave you the answer.
-
re: acgold7
MTV was pushing boundaries with The Real World before Fox got into reality programming. The pointing fingers is ONLY at Fox. Not at any other station for playing lemming and following along.
Look - I know it's all about the almighty dollar with all of these networks. But regardless of WHO started it, they ALL do it. Pointing fingers at just one station as the source of all that is bad on TV is rather silly at this point.
-
re: LindaWhit
Fox had already raised the ire of the Parents Television Council with Married With Children in 1987 or so, when it premiered, while The Real World on MTV didn't premiere until 1992. So their reputation for outrageousness predates their entry into reality, sort of, although COPS clearly was treading new ground and pushing the boundaries at that time as well.
No one is saying Fox is the only Network (not station) that amps up the phony drama in "reality" programming... at least that's not what I'm getting from these and other posts. But I think the perception is that it's a matter of degree and Fox is willing to go further than anyone else (in the broadcast world -- cable is another story), and I think that perception is justified based on what Fox has gleefully (pun intended) done in the past with both its narrative and its reality programming.
But again, I agree with you -- I think we all do -- that everyone does this to some extent, and there is nothing real about reality programming. But there is a spectrum -- Survivor is, for example, quite different from, say, The Bachelor (sad when Survivor is the "class act" of the genre).
I was really only trying to address the question of why people think the standards are "lower" for Fox, and again it is because Fox relishes and cultivates this perception. I did not at all perceive the post that started this all to be an assertion that only Fox does this.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
re: piccola
Nobody MAKES anyone else cry. Even Gordon Ramsay. People do or say what they do and someone else does or doesn't cry.
Think about it. GR said some really not-nice stuff to Tali, but Tali didn't cry. He just popped right up again like a blow-up clown spouting the same silly stuff he'd been saying. It just ain't up to GR whether someone cries or not.
Nobody can make someone else happy or sad or angry. It's an illusion. If it were true then we'd all be victims of everyone else and with no control over how we are at any given moment.
-
re: chicgail
Being affected by the opinion of someone you respect doesn't make a person a victim. It means we value that person's opinions and not just our own. That's why Tali is so unaffected by comments. He thinks so highly of himself that he doesn't value anyone else's opinion, even the professionals. He's the perfect example of why I'd hate to be completely unaffected by others.
-
-
-
The first of the final three to be called out is always made to twist. The whole point is that she shouldn't get special treatment because she is blind.
And can we please make sure to indicate the real subject matter and "spoilers" in the headline, just in case someone who hasn't yet seen the episode happens to click on a vague and non-specific title and read too much, too soon?
›13 Replies-
re: acgold7
Sorry ac, you're right I should have indicated. I'm new at starting spoiler threads. It's not that she's blind, more that she's nice, humble person. I wish he'd made Talli cry. That would have been entertaining. Sort of. I just don't care for the gratutitous, mean spirited side of these shows. Spitting out food and throwing stuff in the garbage can.
-
-
re: LindaWhit
Yes, very sorry about that. I'lll do better next time. I see that the All Star game pre-empted MC. Is the normal Tues episode going to run on another night or will they just run a Mon/Tue pair next week, bascially reversing the order of the shows. Group challenge then Mystery box?
-
-
-
-
-
re: acgold7
I was a bit embarassed by all the fawning as well, but on MC, they don't usually have "guest" judges, or celebrities, so I guess it was a bit of a surprise for them.
I am not very familar with PD, and her voice was so annoying to me, I am surprised people enjoy watching her so much...
(she may be a lovely woman but that voice!) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-










