Analysis of Cooking Shows

For the genre analysis, I decided to analyze cooking shows. I’m a lover of anything to do with food and cooking,, and I have my favorite shows on both Food Network and the Cooking Channel: Jamie Oliver, Barefoot Contessa, Giada DeLaurentis, Nigella Lawson, and David Rocco, to name a few. When I first started watching these shows, I had just gotten married (and getting cable came with it). I had always enjoyed eating, but as for cooking, I was a complete novice. Watching shows on the Food Network made me a quick learner, plus having someone else to cook for was a motivating factor. I soon learned all about ingredients and techniques, and I could figure out where I’d been going wrong before. Watching these shows is valuable to me because they involve a lot more than just following recipes. The hosts explain the techniques step-by-step, and viewers can follow the progress visually. Hosts explain which ingredient combinations work together and how to avoid common problems. Some hosts encourage experimentation or variations on their recipes. Overall, they need to have some entertainment value beyond just the recipe. Anyone can find a recipe, but cooking shows walk people through the process, which is especially helpful for beginning cooks. Even so, cooking shows need to be more than just instructions. No one would watch a dry show where the host simply went through the motions. Each “celebrity chef” has his/her own persona that attracts viewers just as much as the food does.

By watching a lot of cooking shows (and also reading cookbooks as if they were novels), I learned not just how to make some dishes but, more importantly, to trust my instincts as a cook. The cooking shows’ mixt of entertainment, information, and instruction got me hooked. Now if only I could figure out a way to meet the Barefoot Contessa...

The Typical “Storyline” of a Cooking Show (specifically Rachael Ray’s 30-Minute Meals)
-Before the show’s intro song, Rachael begins with a hint to the show’s recipe(s) using a catchy “hook.” (For example: “Want to impress the crowd at this year’s Superbowl party? Today I’ll show you some fun dishes that will wow your friends, and they’ll be ready in under 30 minutes!”). Depending on the show, there’s always some kind of theme that ties the menu together: she’s done date-night dinners, budget dinners, finger foods, breakfast-for-dinner, kid-friendly dinners, etc. No matter what the theme, the same message is clear: it’s rewarding to cook for yourself and others, and you should make time for it because it’s really not that difficult.

-Rachel gets all the ingredients out of the fridge and pantry (usually making a joke about how many things she can carry at once) and explains in more detail what she will make during the episode.

-She starts preparing the recipe and explains it step-by-step, giving hints and tips along the way. While chopping, sauteing, and stirring, she talks directly to the audience in an encouraging manner, as if the viewers are welcome friends. She often sidetracks to a story about how she first learned about the dish or a bit of trivia about an ingredient. This type of banter gives the show its character and makes it more than just instructions.

-Given that the show is called 30-Minute Meals, the food is always done right at the end of the show. Rachael finishes by showing off the completed dish, oohing and aahing over it, pointing out all the yummy last-minute features (melted cheese, sprinkle of herbs) and taking a bite, loudly exclaiming its deliciousness. It always turns out perfectly.

Assumptions/Limitations of Cooking Shows
I feel I’ve learned a lot from cooking shows shows, but I do think the cultural phenomenon of cooking shows and TV networks is pretty odd. As Michael Pollen points out in a piece for the New York Times, more and more people are watching cooking shows but not taking the opportunity to cook for themselves. Instead, people are eating restaurant food or processed, ready-to-eat meals. Few people cook from scratch on a regular basis; with busy lives, few are willing to devote much time to cooking, no matter how appealing the end result might be.

Cooking shows operate under the assumption that you have both the time and money to apply to cooking (but it doesn’t really matter if you don’t--they make money just by having viewers and fans). I think the money issue is significant. Rachael Ray will say that pasta makes a cheap dinner, but then again, the fresh basil on top can cost a lot and/or be difficult to find for people lacking access to fresh ingredients. The hosts of these shows are working in clean, well-equipped kitchens with sharp knives and fully-stocked pantries and fridges; given these situations, of course it’s easy to cook something great. The fact is that it’s challenging for lower-income people to find and afford quality ingredients, and even middle-class people would need to stretch their budgets to cook a Rachael Ray recipe every day. On cooking shows, the ingredients and supplies are just magically there.

I think the point of cooking shows may be to encourage people to cook, but really, the shows are profitable whether people cook or not. TV chefs are celebrities, and “food entertainment” is a big industry. As Mario Batali has pointed out (he’s quoted in Pollen’s article), each of these celebrity chefs has his/her own persona. Rachael Ray is the cheerful, family-friendly cook. Nigella Lawson is the sexy one who turns each episode into food porn. Jamie Oliver is the quirky, homebody, nature-loving type. Ina Garten is the elegant yet casual one who loves to cook for her husband. It seems everyone has a favorite they latch onto and identify with. These personalities are crucial to the success of their shows. These people need to be able to connect with an audience and explain things in an easily understandable way.

Cooking shows can also mask some of the gender inequities that persist in the cooking world. The Food Network seems to have a good mix of male and female hosts, but in real-life kitchens, few women hold top positions. I’ve noticed that on the competitive shows that recruit real-life chefs (such as Chopped), almost all are men. I think it’s so ironic that while cooking has long been viewed as “women’s work,” men still dominate the high posts in most restaurants.

Cooking shows also glorify the food industry while ignoring the difficult reality of a typical chef or cook’s daily work. TV hosts never have to sweat over the burners or work the line in a bustling kitchen; some don’t even chop their own onions. It’s important to remember that cooking shows really are for entertainment. If the show was boring, no one would watch it, no matter how great the food is.