Matthew eats… Canada’s Drag Race

In a world of fantasy PhD topics, I have a few different ideas on my shortlist. How the ebb and flow of juror influence has impacted on what type of song wins Eurovision (since the rise of the juries ethno-pop and novelty are largely out, sincere ballads and interesting genre takes are in). Another one the list is how different franchises of Drag Race represent their country. What do they tell us about queer culture in those countries.

For example, both UK and Down Under seasons seem to be quite different from US, but overall similar to each other. Both of them, for example, overall seem to prioritise comedy and character in queens, and are happy to forgo looks and epic syncs. Note, for example, how both UK and Down Under are happy to ditch the Ball Challenge and at times also the makeover challenge but never comedy improvisation or overacting challenges. The girl band challenge is also much more central than the Rusical, which says a lot about how pop culture operates differently to those the other side of the Atlantic.

So want can we glean from Canada in terms of Canada’s Drag Race? Well, I have only watched the first two episodes of the first season so far, so I am limited, but I think I can offer some nuggets.

I would argue that it appears at the moment to fall between the US show and it’s UK/Down Under cousins. There is certainly amongst the queens themselves a keenness to prioritise fun and character over being tidy. At least two of the contenders on the season have a reputation for being messy with their drag and their seems to be a more open approach to being odd that I find the neatly tucked style of US queens lacks.

Yet this is thrown by the judging panel. All I will say is – FAR. TOO. SERIOUS. I itch for the wit of literally any of the judges on the other franchises, not to mention the insight. Alan Carr, Rhys Nicholson, Ross Matthews… any of them could wipe the floor with Jeffrey Bower-Chapman and Stacie Mackenzie. I’m also missing the genuine insight of Michelle Visage. Yes, she is a tough judge, but at least it feels sincere. Both Bower-Chapman and Mackenzie, along with Brooklyn Hytes, seem to go for the jugular and the praise feels very ‘meh’.

To add to this, with no one as head judge and the guest judges somehow acting as compere with no actual say in who goes, it all feels a bit odd. Fair enough, I am still early in the first season and kinks could be ironed out, but if they haven’t been then I just don’t see it working.

Overall, it is the quality of the Queens carrying this through. But no reality survives on this alone. I await to see how it develops.

Matthew eats… Race Across the World

The disruption of Covid now feels a lifetime ago, at least in terms television. Bar a few dicey moments in the summer of 2020 when soaps became rationed and new reality offerings dried up temporarily. the medium got through the crisis unscathed. Within months of the first and harshest lockdown being lifted, things were pretty much normal if you ignore social distancing and perspex appearing everywhere on screen.

However, it has unsurprisingly taken Race Across the World longer to get back on its feet than most. While here in the UK the borders were lifted with swiftness, most of the rest of the planet was more cautious. But after three years way (season two aired just as the virus was being its reign of terror) it is finally back, and I am delighted.

It is a relief to see that despite the hiatus, producers have resisted the urge to fiddle with the formula that much. Five pairs race through checkpoints using any means bar flight, all for the cost of a plane ticket. Whoever reaches the final checkpoint first wins. In fact, the only change is that rather than globetrotting, the race is just across one country this time, namely Canada. Which is understandable; reduce your risk of somewhere suddenly shutting its borders if you only have country in play. And one that effectively managed Covid better than most at that.

It remains a joy to watch. All the couples, bar one, are lovely. Whilst there may be backstories, we never feel a sob story or exploitation is being played out. Whether it is Tricia losing her sight and wanting one last adventure, or Zainab’s quest for a child, they feel real and warm.

Like, I say, all the couples are delightful bar one. I don’t know what Claudia and Kevin, a daughter and father team, did to enrage producers before/during filming, but never has the show had such obvious villains before. Yes, couples irritated in the past, but they are a new level. Both seem permanently chippy with each other and everyone else. Kevin has an obsession with getting taxis, but is baffled as to how they have no budget. Claudia sulks whenever she doesn’t get her way, and is at times plain rude. Still, willing them to fail has given the show an extra dimension.

My only complaint is that, unlike previous seasons, many of the routes offer a lack of choice. Strategy seems to be less important this time around in terms of juggling time and money. Many of the routes require a set ferry or train at a set time, so costs are more fixed. Some opportunities to be strategic have developed as the series has progressed, but it is still less frequent. This also means that many of the legs become foot races, disadvantaging Tricia and Cathie, this season’s self-styled ‘old ladies’.

Despite this, I still love the show and I am delighted it’s back. I hope season four is more adventurous and doesn’t go out hunting for a deliberately annoying couple, because that will spoil the charm. It would be ironic if after surviving a virus, the show is killed by just being another reality show.

Matthew eats… Next in Fashion

There’s the saying ‘You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone’. The job that was actually decent that you left only to find yourself in an absolute bonfire of a place. The house you moved from that it turns out was your home. You get the picture. You tinker with an aspect of your life only to make it worse.

It is nearly as frustrating when a TV show does the same. I wasn’t bowled over with season one of Next in Fashion. I found the hosts annoying and most of the contestants not much better. I couldn’t quite work out why everyone was paired up until part way through. Yet it was also strangely addictive.

So season two has come along. There have been changes. Spoiler alert: I don’t like them. Firstly, rather than looking global, everyone in this show is now American. The idea that fashion should transcend borders has clearly gone out of the window. The worldview is definitely smaller this time.

Also, despite me not liking the working in pairs last time, I hate even more the swapping and changing between solo and group challenges this time. It all feels even more manufactured to expect them to switch into teamwork mode and then back to being an individual.

But the thing I dislike the most, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, is the loss of Alexa Chung in favor of Gigi Hadid. Chung is a veritable TV expert compared to Hadid, who adds nothing. Her purpose seems to be to make Tan France look good (and who knew that was possible?). I don’t see her bonding with the contestants. Her comments add nothing bar volume. I find her both in your face and dull at the same time.

The saving grace is some genuinely likeable contestants. My personal favourite is James. There is something about is vibe that makes you root for him, even if he seems to spend most challenges making one thing, only to scrap it part way through. Of course, he seems to nail it everytime.

If season three is made, I hope Hadid is cut adrift, we have some consistency in challenges and we get a more international cast. Then this show can really bloom.

Matthew eats… Cook at all Costs

It definitely feels like Netflix are going all in on food competitions. There seems to be dozens every week. All have some twist somewhere. Whether it is food imitating other food, food that is more engineering than cooking, or simply making dishes that are art, there is never just a simple brief of ‘cook this’.

A new addition to the roster is Cook at all Costs. The premise is simple. Three home cooks start with $25000 in their account. They then bid for boxes of ingredients; a high-price Spend box of top-quality items, a Save box which is budget and a Surprise box which is in the middle. They then prepare a dish with these ingredients, whilst a guest judge sends upgrades that can be bid on that could enhance the dish. The winner who cooks the best dish keeps their remaining budget.

It is actually refreshing really to watch a show that goes back to the taste of a dish rather than be about creating some razzle-dazzle. Also, kudos for celebrating basic culinary items, like mince and tinned ham. Too often cooking competitions seem to focus on the expensive and bizarre end of the spectrum.

In fact, the show overall is really quite enjoyable. You are genuinely interested in what is produced and actually, all of it looks delicious and for the most part accessible. It is about creativity and an understanding of flavours.

Would I change anything? Well, as with a lot of American shows, the hosting feels a little insincere and over the top. But to be fair the studio is kept basic and the whooping and hollering of an audience doesn’t exist, which is a relief. And I admit I always prefer a dry presenting style, which doesn’t suit everything or everyone.

In a crowded market, I hope this show cuts through. It is one of the simpler but also more enjoyable shows in the genre. Perhaps we do just want to see nice food being cooked? It’s a novel idea.

Matthew eats… Drink Masters

Who would have thought, back all those years ago, that The Great British Bake Off would inspire so many copycat shows. There doesn’t seem to be an industry now that doesn’t have some kind of finding the best of the best competition. Woodwork? You got it. Interior Design? Like, duh. Jewelry? Of course. If there is a trade, then you can make it competitive.

The latest to the stable is Drink Masters. Here it is all about cocktail making. But you can just make a really good mojito or an excellent mai tai. The bar is high here, with concoctions made from scratch with unusual ingredients and rare liquors and spirits. And the presentation can only be described as theatrical.

It is hardly surprising that quite often what you end up with is some bizarre amalgamation of alchemy and homespun wisdom. A mixologist will quite happily whip out a bunsen burner or some other random item of kitchen equipment that never normally sees the light of day, whilst spinning a yarn of spending Sunday with grandma in her fruit orchard nibbling on some homecooked pudding. I’m not quite sure Nana wanted her legacy to be you macerating an apple in the bid to get maximum flavour when you blend it with an aged Scotch, but kudos for allowing us to think for one moment you are not in this to win and nothing else.

To be fair, the cocktails do look stunning. Even the weakest don’t look out of place in a magazine. But of course it is all about the taste. Thankfully we have two judges to tell us what works and what doesn’t. Although here is the first drawback – neither judge plays good cop. Both Julie Reiner and Frankie Solarik are quick to criticise and often brutally. Plus they are a bit too rigid when chatting to the contestants. Where is the Mary Berry twinkle and followed by a damning but exceedingly polite critique?

And then we have host, Tone Bell. It’s hard to work out exactly what his function is. As he samples the cocktails as well, is to be regarded also as a judge? He certainly contributes more to the deliberations than other hosts of shows of this category, who normally just summarise who has done well and who hasn’t. I would also argue he isn’t significantly more personable than the judges when dealing with contestants. But at the same time his comments don’t seem to actually be weighted in the same way, suggesting he isn’t a judge at all, just an overstepping host.

Obviously not every show has to be GBBO. But the biggest ingredient to its success is the warmth, which is why so many of its rivals ditching that is so damn odd. Overall, Drink Masters is a strange blend. Enjoyable enough, but like so many cocktails, lacking in anything bar an initial dazzle.

Matthew eats… Bake Off: The Professionals

I have a deep suspicion of spin offs from successful shows. We never need a celebrity version of The X Factor – if they were meant to be singers that would be their career, not chefs or weather presenters. Some formats just work better with ordinary punters being the stars, not the already sort-of-famous.

Of course, the other category is where you have people who are already highly skilled at their trade taking part rather than amateurs. Bake Off: The Professionals is an example. Rather than 12 ordinary folk competing, 10 pairs of professional patisserie makers, be they chefs in hotels or successful business owners, aim to be top.

There are positives and drawbacks to this format. Positives are that you get to see some truly spectacular bakes. Gravity defying doesn’t even begin to describe some of the designs. Even better, the tension of whether or not the whole thing collapses is thrilling, and you audibly gasp as sugarwork disintegrates before your eyes.

The drawback is that some of the contestants are very po-faced. When one does come along that is capable of cracking a smile whilst baking and even making a joke they immediately become your favourites as you finally have a favourite. How you long for some eccentricities like listening to cakes or deadpan jokes. Instead it’s cold clinicalness.

The judges add to this. They are ruthless in their criticism. Some of it justified – as professionals they really should know how to meet a brief and be precised whilst also having a spark of imagination. But there is little in the way of praise at times. and there is an expectation of flavour knowledge on the audience which we just don’t have. Benoit Blanc and Cherish Findern are bad cop and bad cop, always a risky combination.

In terms of hosts we have Liam Charles (affable but bland compared to his judge persona on Junior Bake Off) and Stacey Solomon, who seems to have been given the instruction of being annoying and thick. Admittedly this is not a stretch, but she takes to new heights at times, flapping around the benches like a hummingbird given too many e numbers.

I have to confess I haven’t got to the end, so no spoilers please. Although I dearly hope someone who actually remembers that baking is meant to be joyful wins. Or is that just for amateurs?

Matthew eats… Hell’s Kitchen USA

My other half, in their infinite wisdom, has decided the next must-see programme for me is Hell’s Kitchen USA. To be fair, it has a lot of the things I like. It has competition, cooking and eccentricities. They work for me in other formats, so surely it should be a hit here as well?

But for some reason it’s not. Let’s begin with the format itself. Professional chefs compete to be come head chef at one of Gordon Ramsey’s restaurant. All so simple. Yet it quickly becomes apparent it’s not about the cooking. The contestants spend most of the first episode watching a Las Vegas act perform before finally cooking a dish based on three random ingredients. This is apparently a divergence from the usual opening challenge of a signature dish. In other words, unnecessary twist.

Ditto in episode three, where as their intro challenge the teams have to make 10 Caesar salads. Oh, except they have to deliver it after riding round on a scooter through a parking lot. Pointless. It’s not even testing the pressure, as that is already amply done by evening service.

Then there’s the contestants themselves. I apologise to American readers but – Jesus why are you all so extra? Everything gets a reaction level of 10. I actually feel for some of the quieter ones who must have actually thought they were entering a cooking competition, not a bid to the loudest person in the room. I can’t say I have warmed to any of them.

And then there’s Ramsey himself. The fact he shouts and swears is a given. But it would be nice for some more wit with it. Bar the odd quote, it’s all just shouting ‘COME HERE! WHO FUCKING COOKED THIS?’. Dull. And surely he doesn’t sign off on the aforementioned bizarre challenges.

I’ve been persuaded to watch it to the end. My partner is already talking about doing another season after that. I think I’d rather be escaping on one of those scooters.

Matthew eats… Dragons Den

Dragons Den has been around donkeys of years, had several changes of line up yet still pulls in the punters. Bar me, who has never watched it. Until recently, when my other half insisted I would love it.

The premise is that would-be business owners pitch their products or services to five business professionals aka ‘the dragons’. They want investment, and in exchange will part with a share of the company. They are not limited to one dragon, as two or three could share the investment. Shares of the business are also up for a negotiation. In fact, the only rule is once a dragon says they are out, they are out for good.

This is one of those shows ideal for casual watching with your other half or family. You can debate is the idea good enough to invest, is the business valued right, do you like the person pitching etc. Watching the cocky and arrogant stumble over figures or taking a bad line in negotiating is almost as good as seeing the genuinely decent ones get a good deal.

You will also quickly get a favourite dragon. I personally back Deborah Meaden, who seems to specialise in ethical businesses but doesn’t let a good cause get in the way of being savvy. I also warm to Steven Bartlett, who for saying he is so young can already spot the ideas with the most potential. Less so Touker Suleyman, who seems old fashioned compared to his other dragons, although there is always a place for those who know the high street.

Overall, it’s a decent enough way to kill an hour. I wouldn’t obsess over it, but it has enough interest for you to go back to it. And it has quite a bit of life in it yet.

Matthew eats… Next In Fashion

Firstly, apologies for the hiatus. Life has been a bit of a deluge recently with my other half moving in, work battles and general stress. My posts going forward will be more sporadic and will mainly be so I can do a bit of non-pressured writing as a hobby.

One of the shows we binged on during this time was Next In Fashion, Netflix’s fashion design competition. It was shown in 2020, but seemingly ignored. Netflix have since cancelled the series, although rumours persist of a second season. Should these be true, I have some thoughts on how they could better the show and hopefully make more of an impact.

The format: essentially this is fine. 18 designers compete to win a cash prize and their collection appearing on Net-a-Porter. They start in pairs, one pair eliminated each week, until we get to the final eight. Then they fly solo until we have our winner. The one sticking point is that it was obvious some couples had a history. For example, Daniel and Carli went to college together, Ashton and Marco worked in the same city with similar aesthetics. Others knew nothing about their partner, re Julian and Hayley.

This puts those who know each other at an advantage. They know the other’s strengths, how they brand, who is better at what kind of style etc. Basically, they can hit the ground running whilst the less familiar pairs have to learn about who they are working with. It’s no coincidence the first three couples to leave all fell in this latter category.

Solution? Simply randomise the pairs. Change each week if necessary. If the background knowledge of the contestants is broad enough one particular category shouldn’t trip them up.

The hosts/judges: this show is unusual in having its main hosts, Tan France and Alexa Chung, also judge, alongside regular judge Elizabeth Stewart and a guest judge that has a connection with the theme. The problem with being presenter and judge is that you have the mess of them being lovely and warm in chats with the designers then having to launch brutal critiques. There’s a reason the roles are separated on Bake Off and other shows. You can’t be villain and cheerleader.

The aim: my biggest frustration is that it was never clear what the designers were being judged on. Even in the same episode someone could be slated for being too commercial or similar to the the high street while another could be lambasted for making something no one would wear. Is this about being the next household name? Or just the next darling of the fashion world with no relation to what people actually buy?

Overall it is a decent enough show. But it needs more charm from the hosts and a clearer purpose. Then the second series will be even more bingeworthy.

Matthew eats… The Great Big Tiny Design Challenge with Sandi Toksvig

One of the interesting things about being in a relationship is learning about each other’s hobbies and passions. I have spent the last few weeks increasingly talking to my other half about Eurovision as it gets ever closer. Meanwhile, they’ve shown me countless Youtube videos on miniatures, extolling the painstaking artistry involved in some of the designs.

So naturally The Great Big Tiny Design Challenge with Sandi Toksvig is perfect for them. This is the latest in the stable of amateur crafters trying to be the best at a particular skill. The format is as follows: each week there is a theme around a doll’s house to decorate. First each contest must complete an individual challenge based around that theme. For example, in Regency ballroom week it was to create a miniature Roman-style bust of themselves. Then the two best become team leaders, with each team creating their on interpretation of the room. One member of the winning team becomes maker of the week, while a member of the losing team goes home.

It is, as you can imagine, on the more genteel end. The judges, although honest in the criticisms are never that scathing, although they do still set a high standard. Also, all the contestants are incredibly polite to one another, for the most part at least. There is still the merciless time pressure and the jeopardy that creates, but it fosters a spirit of camaraderie rather than competitiveness.

Of course, there is flashes of drama. In episode two, two contestants bickered over an art deco bath, albeit in a very mild-mannered way. The fact that said bath eventually failed gave us the ‘I told you so moment’ all shows like this thrive on.

Sandi Toksvig meanwhile, is a perfectly affable host. However, she also is in some respects the weakest point. The constant references to her height do wear thin. Also, the bit where she pretends to walk through the doll’s house reviewing the rooms designed is a bit corny. A voiceover would suffice and would fit the tone much better. This is sweet and good natured but not whimsical.

This is ‘hot cocoa’ television. It is warm and comforting and everything nasty about the world disappears. It’s unclear if there is mileage for future series, but I’m enjoying this one while it lasts.