Does Anybody Else Think That Robert Irvine Is One Of The Coolest Chefs

Who is the better chef, Gordon Ramsey or Robert Irvine?

Cook or chef de cuisine?Ramsay is hands down one of the best cooks on the planet. He has also inspired and passed down skills to people who have trained under him. He might come across as shouty, but that is a standard in a lot of kitchens. I’ve met people who swear as bad as Ramsay, are physically abusive, which he is not, and are nowhere near his level of skill.Irvine is a high end caterer. That was his training and he is very good at it. He can turn out good quality food for a lot of people. His skill is in getting a lot of people coordinated and cooking and doing good food on time. He can set up a field kitchen and feed people with great efficiency.I have admiration for both of them but for different reasons.

What do Brits think of celebrities like Robert Irvine or Simon Cowell? Are they perceived as jerks in Britain like they are in the United States?

Never heard of Robert Irvine, and I doubt many other Brits have.Cowell pretty much plays a character on screen, which is hardly unique. Years ago and was part of an invited audience for a the TV show of someone who had made his name in radio by appearing aggressive, opinionated, and obnoxious. Before the live programme started, and during advert breaks, he was quite friendly and jovial, and quite open about how he would be interacting with us while on air. The impression I got was that whilst he was dick on the air, in real life he seemed like an easy-going and amiable bloke, and I would imagine that Cowell is the same. On screen is just an act, and a lucrative one.I still think Russell Brand is a total knob, though.

Is the Food Network program Mystery Diners staged?

Mystery Diners is like a lot of so called reality shows. They shoot hours of footage of the "real" events as well as a lot of incidental "b-roll" footage and then they heavily edit it to create the version you see on TV including changing the order of things and choosing to highlight specific things. At the very least they add voice-over narration. Some of the footage they shoot at the time may be scripted by the producers in anticipation of expected outcomes.In the case of Mystery Diners they almost certainly re-shoot some of the events after the fact for various reasons like use of profanity, brand names showing in the shot or just a need to jazz up the storyline and some or all of this may be scripted. If you watch the show it's also pretty clear that some of the scenes are "reenactments", some critical events may have happened off camera or been poorly shot. However the most likely reason for reenacting a scene is because the producers have been unable to secure releases from one or more of the people who appear on camera.Any show like this needs to secure permission from the people who appear on camera, there are methods that shows like this use to secure generic media releases and non-disclosure agreements before shooting begins that usually involve cover stories about the business involved making training films or advertisements or something like that. However there are almost certainly cases where this hasn't been possible for various reasons and it becomes necessary to reenact one or more scenes using actors to avoid showing un-released people on camera and exposing the producers to potential liability. It has been reported that in at least one of the episodes the "crooked chef" who appears on camera is an identifiable actor which implies that a significant chunk of the episode is a reenactment.

Do chefs have all those recipes, each and every step, memorized?

The main reason that people go to cooking school is not to become a chef. A lot of new students don't know this upfront—they're caught up in the maelstrom of celebrity, fame, glamor, and exclusivity that accompanies the opening of a posh new restaurant in locales such as New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London or Tokyo. And then you have your Giadas (not a chef) Bobbys (chef) Padmas (not a chef) and Toms (definitely a chef) who have pulled a tall and wide scrim of elegance across the truth of being a chef: day in and day out of truly hard  physical and mental labor.Cooking schools don't make chefs:  they teach the classics, the methodology, the how/when/why of cooking. Therein lies the answer to your question. Trained cooks, who with experience can become chefs, know the methods, steps, quantities, timing and preparation for thousands of dishes; it takes time to learn the appropriateness of ingredients. Given all of the necessary ingredients, I can go into my kitchen today and have a finished demiglace in 48 hours without looking up anything. In contrast, I also know how to prepare char quey teow, an impossibly delicious Malaysian noodle dish, but I might need to carefully reference the exact ingredients so that I can give you my best effort. When people ask me how many recipes I know, I throw out "probably 10,000 or so" as a way of illustrating the possibilities available to an individual who knows methodology of several different cuisines. After all, sautéing is akin to wokking, baking (hot oven) is similar to roasting (open flame, if we're "keeping it real") and braising happens millions of times a day, around the world, with lots of different names. It's often said that in order to bake well you have to understand and employ some vital chemistry, biology, and physics. It's entirely true, and pastry chefs are birds of a different feather. Baking and pastry require a deft hand, an artistic disposition, and boatloads of patience. Pastry chefs do memorize all of their recipes and methods, but when the menu changes, the first thing that happens is research and recipe creation. Your average sous chef, upon being told that the pastry chef is sick and he'll need to cover, will be frozen in his shoes and return an empty stare and gaping maw. Anyone who watches Chopped regularly has heard it many times on the dessert round: "I don't really do much with desserts...."