BY NICK YRIBAR - DAILY ARTS WRITER
Published March 14, 2010
Not everyone has the time or the inclination to religiously follow food shows. This is understandable. By and large, the majority of food-based programming (as seen on Travel Channel or Food Network, for example) is pretty difficult to swallow. There’s bad production value, predictable man-on-the-street commentary (“X is my favorite place to eat, hands down!”) and a strict formula that's rarely strayed from. And from those grim hours in TV land of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., there is no shortage of back-to-back, food-based schlock being sprayed across the tube.
"Food Wars"
Tuesdays at 10 p.m.
Travel Channel
More like this
But for some of us, those shows are nothing less than "where it’s at." Exotic locales, the pressure of the kitchen, beautiful, unattainable dishes from the world over — it may not be for everyone, but for a select few of us, food shows, no matter how trashy or poorly made, are the raison d’être behind the invention of television.
Which is why, for the initiated, Travel Channel’s new show “Food Wars” was more than just another piece of culinary pornography to be chewed up and spit out by the masses. The premise of “Food Wars” actually flies in the face of one of the most fundamental, predictable tropes found in food based television: Never settle restaurant rivalries.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. “Food Wars,” hosted by newcomer Camille Ford, sets out to cities and communities across the country in order to heal rifts, to bring together neighbors who have been torn asunder by food. Ford visits two restaurants in any given episode that both specialize in the same signature dish and are, as a result, in contention. She talks to the chefs and line cooks responsible for crafting the dish, gives a brief historical overview of the rivalry and samples both versions — par for the course for any food show on the planet. Where “Food Wars” differs is in the third act, in which, using blind taste testers that include “superfans” from both restaurants as well as industry professionals and local celebrities, a winner is crowned. The superior sandwich/snack food/whatever is determined.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is unheard of. It may not sound like much, but restaurant rivalries are the bread and butter of trashy, food-centered television. When you have a show that is basically 22 minutes of meat being slow-cooked and still shots of a bowl of noodles, these rivalries are what brings the drama to the whole affair. Two sweaty, loudmouthed restaurateurs, each claiming dominance, their customers forced to take sides, pitting father against son, husband against wife and always, always we are left with the same conclusion: The rivalry will go on, unfettered, only to gain in intensity and vitriol, forever and ever. It’s a sobering, human moment that relies on and is caused by the one thing that unites us all: food.
So how does “Food Wars” handle this responsibility, this break with tradition? Pretty well, for the most part. “Food Wars” follows openly in the footsteps of another, popular Travel Channel series, “Man vs. Food” and its host, Adam Richman. It may not be fair to call Ford a female Richman, but the similarities are hard to ignore. Sure, one is a lot cuter, but both hosts are loud, constantly surrounded by junk food and inject an abnormal amount of theatricality into eating a Chicago Italian beef sandwich. And both shows culminate in a challenge: Richman with his troublingly consistent eating contests, and Ford with her blind taste tests.
But for all the similarities, and in spite of the “risky” premise, “Food Wars” is still fun to watch. The program hits all the marks necessary to qualify as a guilty-pleasure food show and its twist on the tradition of food rivalries gives it that something extra. For the food show junkies out there: Rest easy, this is a fine way to get your fix. For the rest of the viewing public, give “Food Wars” a watch. You may not find it mouth-watering, but there’s more than a little to savor here.
