Food Discourse Of Celebrity Chefs Of Food Network 3030314294, 9783030314293, 9783030314309

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements......Page 6
Contents......Page 7
List of Figures......Page 8
List of Tables......Page 9
1 Introduction: Food Discourse and Celebrity Chefs......Page 10
1.1 Food, Language, and Media......Page 11
1.2 Celebrity, Star, and Personality......Page 13
1.3 Authenticity, Performance, and Language......Page 14
1.4 Celebrity Chef and Ordinariness......Page 16
1.5 Defining Food Discourse......Page 18
1.6 Cooking Show Genres......Page 19
1.7 Summary......Page 20
1.8 Methodology......Page 22
1.9 Scope and Structure......Page 23
References......Page 26
2 Multimodal Recipe Telling on Cooking Shows......Page 31
2.1 Narrative Multimodal Recipe Telling......Page 32
2.2.1 Intertextuality......Page 40
2.2.2 Talking to food: Personification......Page 45
2.2.3 Talking to You: Hosts Address Viewers......Page 47
2.2.4 Humor and Recipe Telling......Page 48
2.2.5 Self-Deprecatory Humor......Page 49
2.2.6 Recipe Telling and Canned Jokes......Page 50
2.3 Summary......Page 52
References......Page 53
3 Storytelling on Cooking Shows......Page 56
3.1 Narrative and Cooking Shows......Page 57
3.2 Multidisciplinary Narrative Approaches to Storytelling......Page 59
3.2.1 Sociolinguistic Narrative Approach to Cooking Shows......Page 60
3.2.1.1 Application of Labov’s Narrative Framework......Page 62
3.2.2 Cooking Shows as Universal Stories: Fairytales......Page 66
3.2.3 Celebrity Chefs on a Hero’s Journey (Joseph Campbell)......Page 68
3.2.4 Media Studies: Watching from Home......Page 72
3.2.5 Narrative of Travel Cooking Shows: Culinary Tourism......Page 79
3.3 Food Discourse as a Story......Page 81
References......Page 82
4 Evaluations on Cooking Shows......Page 86
4.2 Evaluations, Expertise, and Performance on Food Discourse......Page 87
4.3.1 Expert Authority: Let’s give it a taste......Page 89
4.3.2 Evaluation in Authorization: St. Francis Hotel......Page 92
4.3.3 Evaluations: Humble Meatloaf......Page 93
4.4 Evaluations on Travel Cooking Shows......Page 96
4.4.1 Travel Cooking Show Host and Evaluations During Recipe Telling......Page 99
4.5 Evaluations on Competition Cooking Shows: “You’ve Been Chopped”......Page 105
4.5.1 Competition Challenges and Verbal Challenges......Page 107
4.5.2 Reconciliation with Evaluation......Page 109
4.5.3 Judges’ Final Evaluation......Page 114
4.6 Conclusion......Page 118
References......Page 122
5 Humor on Cooking Shows......Page 126
5.1 Cooking Shows Are Fun......Page 127
5.2 Fun and Play in Cooking Shows......Page 128
5.3 Humor and Pseudo-Play on Cooking Shows......Page 129
5.4 Characteristics of Play on Cooking Shows......Page 130
5.5 Characteristics of Humor on Cooking Shows......Page 132
5.6 Play on Talk Cooking Shows: The Kitchen......Page 133
5.6.1 Metaphor......Page 140
5.6.2 Word Play......Page 142
5.6.3 Repetition......Page 145
5.6.5 Rule-Bound......Page 147
5.7 Play on Travel Cooking Shows: Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives......Page 149
5.8 Creative and Funny Quips......Page 153
5.9 Conclusion......Page 157
References......Page 160
6 Performing Celebrity Chef......Page 163
6.1 Performance and Goffman......Page 164
6.2 Authenticity: The Performance of “Being Yourself”......Page 166
6.3 Performance and Skill......Page 168
6.4 Performance on Food Network Star: Learning to Be a Celebrity Chef......Page 171
6.4.1 Be Natural: If You’re Not—Click......Page 172
6.4.2 Focused......Page 175
6.4.3 Adaptable......Page 177
6.4.4 Expert......Page 179
6.5 “No Taste, No Pilot”—Food discourse and ‘good taste’......Page 181
6.6 Transform: A Hero’s Journey......Page 183
6.7 Discussion: Performing the Celebrity Chef Expert......Page 185
References......Page 188
7 Conclusion: Living Food Discourse......Page 192
References......Page 196
Index......Page 197

Citation preview

Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network Kelsi Matwick · Keri Matwick

Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network

Kelsi Matwick · Keri Matwick

Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network

Kelsi Matwick College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA

Keri Matwick School of Humanities Nanyang Technological University Singapore

ISBN 978-3-030-31429-3 ISBN 978-3-030-31430-9  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: GMVozd/Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Ann and John, our parents and heroes

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this book to our parents, two of the best people we know. Ann and John Matwick bring light and strength to life that allows them to experience its every richness in every moment. They are fun; they are intelligent; they are courageous. They are our heroes. We thank our teachers whose encouragement and wise counsel were instrumental in our path of studies and in launching our career in academia: Cecilia Lee (University of West Georgia), Dayle SeidenspinnerNúñez, Virginie Askildson, Janet Fischer-McPeak (University of Notre Dame), Ann Wehmeyer, Jane Townsend, Paula Golombek, Barbara Pace, and Diana Boxer (University of Florida). We thank our editorial team at Palgrave Macmillan, especially Camille Davis for her support and guidance.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction: Food Discourse and Celebrity Chefs 1 2 Multimodal Recipe Telling on Cooking Shows 23 3 Storytelling on Cooking Shows 49 4 Evaluations on Cooking Shows 79 5 Humor on Cooking Shows 119 6 Performing Celebrity Chef 157 7 Conclusion: Living Food Discourse 187 Index 193

ix

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4

Written and verbal recipes Recipe cards add intertextuality Cookbooks as lifestyle guides Visual hook Dialogue hook Lifestyle scene Plating the dish

33 34 35 66 69 70 71

xi

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Cooking show genres 12 Table 2.1 Multimodal recipe telling components 25 Table 3.1 Home Cooks as Fairy-Tale Heroes 60 Table 3.2 Celebrity Chefs on Campbell’s Hero Journey on Cooking Shows 63 Table 5.1 Humor and language on cooking shows 127 Table 5.2 Examples of word play on cooking shows 136 Table 5.3 Signature quotes and expressions from Guy Fieri, host of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives 147 Table 6.1 Performing Celebrity Chefs: “Star in the Making” 166

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Food Discourse and Celebrity Chefs

Grilled chicken, lasagna, spinach quiche, Mexican pie, peanut butter pancakes. These were the home-cooked meals we grew up with around the kitchen table. Good food with good talk became an important part of our lives, forming the essential ingredients of our doctoral studies and research. Our learning about food and language developed into a richly textured, full-flavored cake with layers of popular media discourse from TV cooking shows, cookbooks, and food magazines blending harmoniously with layers of college courses, journal articles, and academic texts about food. For this book, we combine cooking shows with discourse analysis, media studies, narrative, play, and performance, giving it a distinct and appetizing flavor. Combining recipe telling with vivid storytelling, smart evaluations, and plenty of humor ensures a rich, moist crumb and engaging text. A bit of creativity and play makes for a simple glaze to offset the cake’s seriousness. TV cooking shows combine two of our greatest interests: food and language. From Julia Child (the first ‘celebrity chef’ in America) in the 1960s to today’s Guy Fieri and Rachael Ray, TV cooking shows are synonymous with those who present it, and the ‘reality’ of food is as they present it. Food Network, the first American television channel solely devoted to food and entertaining, has grown from predominantly how-to cooking shows to pioneering new genres, such as travel cooking shows, competition, and talk cooking shows. The result is a mature and ample ‘food discourse’—verbal and nonverbal language about food—that is used by celebrity chefs to

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_1

1

2

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

teach and engage viewers. Celebrity chefs construct themselves as authorities in cooking but at the same time as authentic and real to viewers. How celebrity chef food discourse shapes what is understood about food in the public and what this means is a leading question. Cooking has a story, is a story, and inspires new stories, creating a food discourse that intertwines food and language in complex ways. Watching cooking shows is an entry into other people’s stories and becomes part of your own story, whether as the next meal or not.

1.1

Food, Language, and Media

Language about food and the media are such intertwined phenomena that it is hard to unpeel one without referring to the other. From community cookbooks and family recipe cards, through Internet baking blogs and YouTube how-to cook videos, to Instagram sharing of drool-worthy dishes and Facebook cookbook groups, the media thrives in linguistic and visual manifestations of food. Whether or not it offers practical solutions to dinner dilemmas, entertainment after dinner, or a marketing strategy, food discourse in the media is a fascinating subject to study as both a discoursal device and a sociolinguistic phenomenon. Language of food in the media also deserves attention to the forms and linguistic structure it uses, be it with regard to recipe instruction or the narrative structure of which it uses. While the language of food is a particularly ripe topic to be ground, boiled, and brewed together for research (Karrebaek, Riley, & Cavanaugh, 2018), we will focus on cooking shows, a primary form of food discourse, and those of celebrity chefs, influential taste makers, on Food Network, an American all-food all-hours television channel and powerful promotional engine for the food industry (Hyman, 2008; Ketchum, 2005, 2007). Cooking shows on Food Network offer fruitful data for this book’s discussion of the language of food of celebrity chefs. Four types of food discourse are analyzed: recipe telling, storytelling, evaluations, and humor, that convey the celebrity chef as authentic and an expert.

Launched in 1993, Food Network is one of the most widely viewed television channels devoted to instructing viewers about how to buy, prepare, cook, and consume food, reaching nearly a million viewers in the U.S. (Nielsen, 2018) and being one of the top ten leading cable U.S. networks by number

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

3

of day viewers (Adweek, 2018). Food Network continues to be a key site that articulates discourses about contemporary American cultural norms and values (Collins, 2009; Naccarato & LeBesco, 2012; Veri & Liberti, 2013). Besides watching food on television, the majority of Americans across socioeconomic levels report being interested in cooking (Statista Survey, 2018), whether they actually cook or not. At first, though, Food Network struggled. Like local stations and PBS, precursors to Food Network in the 1970s and 1980s, Food Network relied primarily on the how-to cook format in the early 1990s (Oren, 2016). In 1996, newly hired programming director Erica Gruen transformed the network, calling for a shift from instruction to entertainment: “Out with the talking-head-behind-a-stove. Stop lecturing viewers and entertain them!” (cited in Ketchum, 2007, p. 165). Programming should be fun, and for Gruen, this meant framing food as part of lifestyle. This meant improving production quality to include beautiful settings and aesthetically pleasing food. Food Network’s programming expanded in format and variety, increasing the range of audience. The friendly, instructional, home kitchen cooking show was relegated to “daytime,” appealing to stay-at-home women while cooking competition, culinary travel, and food talk shows aired during “prime time,” drawing younger, male, and broader socioeconomic viewers (Swenson, 2009). In 2016, Food Network added a new target audience— kids—in its new programming lineup to include kids cooking shows, more youthful versions of already successful programs, including Chopped Junior, Kids Baking Champion, and Food Network Star Kids. These younger viewers are the children of the adults who grew up with Food Network. This new generation watch these family-oriented shows together, as the “first quarter in 2016 marked the highest co-viewing between viewers ages 217 and 25-54 (likely a parent) in five years” (Berg, 2016). Watching Food Network as a family, this new generation is instilling in their children an interest in food and cooking, one that will continue to demand cooking shows and food media. In other words, Food Network (or some equivalent) and celebrity chefs will continue into the next generation. As Food Network has become more innovative, it has become a model of food television programming applied worldwide (Botterill, 2018). From instruction cooking and food travel, through reality talk and game shows, to competition and kids’ competition, Food Network offers a variety of cooking shows that appeals to a broad audience, making the genre “a microcosm of television and entertainment itself” (Collins, 2009, p. 5). That mixing of

4

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

genres also has its effect on cooking show hosts with the mingling of professional chefs, conventional celebrities (actors and actresses), and amateur home cooks. Once educators and informers, television cooking show hosts are considered to be now primarily entertainers (Caraher, Lange, & Dixon, 2000; Rousseau, 2012), as personality has become increasingly important over the possession of culinary skill (Scholes, 2011; Turner, 2010). Moreover, media plays an increasingly central role in shaping and making cultural identities, such as cooking show hosts (Johnston, Rodney, & Chong, 2014; Lewis, 2011), giving them iconic status (Lewis & Huber, 2015) comparable to celebrities (Adema, 2000) and rock stars (Abend, 2010).

1.2

Celebrity, Star, and Personality

The personas of television chefs are often perceived as celebrities, who removed from everyday life and unattainable, are simultaneously marketed in the media as relatable, real people. Such constructed nature of the celebrity recognizes the central role played by the media, a concept understood by scholarship (see Dyer, 1979; Ouellette & Hay, 2008; Palmer, 2004; Turner, 2010) and within the community at large. As Richard Dyer (1979) argued in his fundamental texts Stars (1979) and Heavenly Bodies (1986), film stars can be read as signs that represent ideologies within a society. While his work focused on film stars and notions of identity and personhood, his approach enabled media discourse and celebrity studies to raise questions about the performance of self and public presentation and the public and private selves. Influential works of John Langer (1981) and John Ellis (1982) distinguish such film stars from television ‘personalities,’ who by their relative proximity to ordinariness and frequent appearances on television, are relatable and familiar. The debate continues on the similarities and differences between stars and celebrities (Bennett & Holmes, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Turner, 2013). Alongside “star” and “personality,” “celebrity” is also a term used in media studies. Stars are traditionally limited to film, music, and sports, while celebrity is generally understood to have fame through the media (see Giles, 2000). Celebrities are usually famous. They exhibit prestige, signs of respect granted by society for performances of exceptional or charismatic qualities. That definition of prestige becomes contradictory though as celebrity becomes a term connected to the emergence of public visibility on the one hand, and changes in notions of achievement by the media on the other (Lam, Raphael, & Weber, 2017). Some scholars suggest that it

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

5

is not important what celebrities do, but who they are (Cashmore, 2014). Celebrities are products of our “imagination” (Cashmore, 2014), existing because people have the capacity to fantasize (Houston, 2010, p. 94). Extending the metaphor of celebrity culture to drama, Andrew Houston (2010) believes that viewers write their own scripts, staging celebrities as their dramatis personae. For cooking shows, the screen delineates the stage. Production cues, like a theatre curtain, visually cues the transition into another world and time. The show’s sound track provides cues into the beginning of the show and end of the commercials; scene highlights are given in the beginning, providing previews of the cooking show story and recipes ahead. Our own work has examined in detail the multimodal narrative elements of cooking shows and how the production elements and mediated context present the hosts as confident and “empowered agents” in the home kitchen (Matwick & Matwick, 2017). Celebrity fantasy is not just at the individual level of the viewer, but also a fantasy at the collective level. “Celebrities are cultural fabrications,” states Chris Rojek (2001, p. 10). Celebrities do not rise on their own either, as Rojek continues: “no celebrity now acquires public recognition without the assistance of cultural intermediaries…the collective term for agents, publicists, marketing personnel, promoters, photographers, fitness trainers, wardrobe staff, cosmetic experts and personal assistants” (pp. 10–11). This team mediates the image of the individual, with the goal of creating a public image that will be enduring and influential.

1.3

Authenticity, Performance, and Language

This interest in performance brings up the issue of the ‘authenticity’ as a criterion for tv cooking shows. Richard Dyer’s (1991) discussion of “rhetoric of authenticity” involves making judgements about star performances. The criteria of judging qualities of acting includes modern notions of “truthfulness,” “that is, true to the true personality of the performer” (Dyer, 1991, p. 133). To interpret how media performances, displayed in rhetoric or media talk, might be considered sincere, Dyer says, “[a]uthenticity is established or constructed in media texts by the use of markers that indicate lack of control, lack of premeditation and privacy” (p. 137). According to Joshua Gamson (1994), such markers of authenticity of celebrities give a celebrity fantasy and power. Showing what the celebrity is ‘really’ like and production awareness confirm and perpetuate the “dance of appearances”

6

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

(Gamson, 1994, p. 171). Questions of identity are answerable in the awareness of production technique and even essential to the sustainment of the celebrity system, as Gamson (1994) argues, “celebrity as a prestige system, as a hierarchy, depends on continual exposure of its inverse: the system that transforms ordinary people by blatant artifice” (p. 171). The rhetoric of authenticity and the transparency of production techniques are open to the public, paradoxically sustaining the glamor and fantasy of ‘celebrity.’ Glimpses of authenticity might be revealed unguarded moments. Catch of the voice, a sudden teary eye, a blush of embarrassment, a mistake or a unique gesture are moments when celebrities appear to be not performing, or “backstage” (Goffman, 1959). The viewer watches the TV performance or “frontstage” behavior carefully in search of the “backstage” moments that reveal the character of the celebrity as a real person. In examining markers of authenticity on TV cooking shows, we will look at how certain types of linguistic features, such as storytelling and humor, encourage authentic performance. These issues of the question of the ‘real’ or ‘true’ have been reflected in the academic literature on celebrity talk in ‘chat’ shows. Andrew Tolson’s (1991) and Martin Montgomery’s (1999) studies on a subgenre of chat show suggest that a main criterion is not so much disclosure, or an authentic statement, but banter, or the play of wit between guests and hosts, as a requirement of authenticity. Noting the transgression of roles of the participants, Tolson (1991) maintains that broadcast talk does not follow norms and conventions, but rather, there is “a certain ambivalence between forms of talk which are designed both to inform and entertain; to appear serious and sincere, but also sometimes playful and even flippant” (p. 178). Informing and entertaining, celebrity chefs use directives, tell stories, and joke in a friendly and confident manner to convey an authentic performance on the cooking shows. Cooking show’s combination of non-fictional discourse and the performance of self makes this area particularly interesting for analyzing forms of ‘doing being’ (Sacks, 1984) or producing ‘fresh talk,’ (Goffman, 1981). The informality of food discourse is most pronounced on talk cooking shows when the hosts appear to be off-script. For example, Food Network’s The Kitchen is a mixture of entertainment and instruction with food news, recipe demonstrations, games, and meal tips. Each of the five co-hosts brings a distinct point of view on food, which creates a lively banter and rapport among the hosts. While the participants seem very aware of their interaction as a public performance, such as their direct eye gaze, smiles,

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

7

and winks to viewers, the discourse of authenticity offers a credibility, not in terms of ‘real,’ but as the representative embodiment of the Food Network program.

1.4

Celebrity Chef and Ordinariness

Cooking shows are relatable and accessible to viewers for their topic on food and lifestyle. Cooking shows are part of the rise of “ordinary television,” what Frances Bonner (2003) describes as characterized by the “direct address of the audience, the incorporation of ordinary people in the programme and the mundanity of its concerns” (p. 3). Cooking shows provide food experiences—of foods familiar and safe, of people ordinary and unskilled, and of hosts experts and skilled. Food is central to the discourse, and it is an engaging entryway into other realms of experience, allowing viewers to learn about celebrities and their lives in the ordinary world, a fascination that marks a shift in the persona of the TV host. For some scholars, an individual becomes a celebrity when the media interest shifts from the public activities to the details of their private, everyday lives (Turner, 2013). Revising the public-private division, Driessens, Raeymaeckers, Verstraeten, and Vandenbussche (2010) suggest that the revealing of private information is not a requirement, identifying another type of media persona, the “popular self,” which “denotes the (re)presenting of an ordinary easy-going and pleasing persona without necessarily disclosing private details (p. 319). However, in contrast to politicians, lawyers and CEOs (Driessens et al., 2010), we find that celebrity chefs inherently disclose private information in that cooking and food are personal and self-disclose about eating habits and vices. Cooking shows naturally orient around the home kitchen, which provides the set for howto cooking shows and for post-competition footage of competition show contestants around their own home kitchen tables. Part of this fascination is fed by the revealing of the celebrity’s ordinariness. The way viewers are addressed may help to bring celebrity’s closer into viewer’s lives. Synthetic personalization was a concept introduced by Norman Fairclough (1989) to refer to “the simulation of private face-to-face discourse in public mass-audience discourse” (p. 98). Television show hosts display an appearance of direct concern for the individual en masse, using a conversational discourse marked with an increased informality and spontaneity (Livingston & Lunt, 1994). Conversational phrases such as “don’t go anywhere” and “we’ll be right back” address viewers as virtual participants in the flow of talk. Further, storytelling is used by celebrity chefs

8

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

to construct themselves as experts at the same time as equals with their viewers (Matwick & Matwick, 2014). Celebrity-viewer relationships built via tv cooking shows can be explained by the concept of “parasocial relationships,” which refers to intimate relationships between celebrities and audiences (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215). The audience seems to experience face-to-face interaction with performers on television and relate to the media personalities as if they actually know them (Haarman, 2001; O’Keeffe, 2006). This intimacy at a distance suggests viewers consider television hosts, such as cooking show hosts, amongst their friends and family. Indeed, Rachael, Ina, Bobby, Guy—these Food Network celebrity chefs and others are known on a firstname basis in many American households. The informal, interactive style of cooking show hosts encourages a conversational style of speech and a direct gaze, giving the audience an imagined role in the ‘interaction,’ similar to a real-life social relationship. The para-social relationship develops based on “shared” experiences, the regular cooking show; the favorite apple pie recipe of the host is valued by the viewer, and as if to a friend, the host shares gossip and divulges personal stories. The success of celebrities relates to their ability to engage the audience. For example, television programming integrates celebrity chefs’ ordinary lives into the cooking show by filming at their homes. Entering her eighth year of filming The Pioneer Woman, Ree Drummond, cattle ranch housewife, blogger, author, and mother, has become one of Food Network’s stars, resonating with viewers through her authenticity. “Audiences are tough to win over and even tougher to keep winning over,” says Kathleen Finch, Food Network’s chief programming, content, and brand officer. “She [Ree] has curated her own voice and built a genuine connection with her fans by inviting them into her world” (quoted in Spence, 2017). Ree shares her everyday adventures and cooks up family comfort foods, relating to viewers on a personal level. The integration of ranch and country life with cooking scenes suggests the network’s dissolving of the traditional boundaries between public and private life of TV personalities; e.g., for a church gathering, Ree makes Potluck Meatballs and Layered Salad (“Make Ahead Potluck,” Season 6, Episode 13, 2014); after her family has a long day of hauling hay in sweltering heat, Ree makes Sticky Spicy Slow-Cooked Ribs and Ice Cream Layer Cake (“Hay Day,” Season 12, Episode 7, 2016). Scenes intercut between activities of the community and family with Ree’s cooking, with a final scene of the gathering around the meal. The woven

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

9

scenes place the cooking in context, authenticating the discourse and the host. Indeed, expertise is expected; personality presumed; authenticity essential. But, how do celebrity chefs portray themselves as more than television series characters, and rather as genuine and real? We would suggest food discourse constructs the celebrity chef as expert and authentic, trusted and relatable, unique and ordinary.

1.5

Defining Food Discourse

We use the term ‘food discourse’ to mean food-related communication, verbal and non-verbal, functional and ideological. Verbal and nonverbal language includes spoken and written words, gestures, sounds, images, etc. Functional and ideological discourses refer to James Gee’s (1990) distinction between little ‘d’ discourse and big ‘D’ discourse: little ‘d’ refers to the activity of talking and writing, such as conversations, stories, recipes, and jokes, and is part of big ‘D’ Discourse—“Discourses are ways of being in the world, or forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions and clothes” (Gee, 1990, p. 142). The language on cooking shows is analyzed at the little ‘d’ level, meaning that we look at the specific utterances— recipe tellings, cooking show segments—as well as at the big ‘D’ level to contextualize the discourse and identify its social and cultural meaning. Further, Discourse entails an “identity kit” with instructions on how to talk, act, and write in a specific role (Gee, 1990, p. 142). Celebrity chefs display an identity that is an integration of certain attitudes and beliefs that model a certain lifestyle and ways of interacting with others. They are part of the Food Network “membership” in that they are “trained” as celebrity chefs (Gee, 1990, p. 143); they learn to speak, think, and act like a celebrity chef. It is a type of discourse they have mastered in the kitchen and reproduce in their cookbooks and cooking shows, skillfully using “props” that are part of the celebrity chef social institution, including food ingredients and kitchen equipment to hidden microphone cameras. Thus, we define ‘food discourse’ as Written, spoken, and visual text about food on topics such as food preparation, presentation, and consumption, which expresses individual and collective sociocultural values about food.

10

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Bringing these concepts together in the concept of ‘food discourse’ is a means of making salient the complex relationship between food and language to processes of socialization and power in ‘media discourse’ (e.g., Fairclough, 1995; Garrett & Bell, 1998). That is, from a critically oriented discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2010), we consider how celebrity chef food discourse creates, sustains, and legitimizes their power and privileged public position to make changes in the way viewers eat, cook, and ultimately live. Our primary focus of food discourse is on the language itself, and second, the agents of food discourse, in this case, celebrity chefs. Further, our language-driven analysis differs from Josée Johnston and Shyon Baumann (2015) whose analysis of “foodie discourse” is of the gourmet foodscape and how it constructs “democracy and distinction” by both bringing people together and dividing them (p. 37). This work departs from previous research by concentrating not only on what is communicated about food and celebrities, but how it is communicated. This analysis is guided in part by Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2001, 2006) social semiotic framework, which offers tools to undertake a multimodal analysis of cooking shows. The medium of video accompanied by sound and gestures necessitates a different analysis than written language with its utterance-image-gesture combinations versus word-image combinations. With a primary focus on celebrity chefs, the study argues two points. First, celebrity chefs are media products, constructed through semiotic modes (i.e., visual, auditory, gestural, spatial, linguistic), that are, second, representative of a particular ideology. An analysis of these shows will result in a better understanding of the ways in which celebrity and authenticity are constructed multimodally. Food Discourse examines food discourse on cooking shows. How celebrity chefs construct themselves as authentic, what discursive strategies are called upon, and what stories are told guide this study. To answer, we examine the language used to talk about food: recipe telling, storytelling, evaluations, and humor.

1.6

Cooking Show Genres

With its start in the late 1940s, food television programs have offered instruction to Americans in how to buy, prepare, cook, style, and consume food (Collins, 2009). Niki Strange (1998) offers one of the first frameworks for studying the different cooking show genres: “TourEducative,” “Raw-Educative,” “Cookery-Educative,” and “Personality.”

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

11

Tour-Educative describes travel-oriented cooking shows, Raw-Educative refers to how a food is transformed from its raw state to a finished dish, Cookery-Educative consists of a host who instructs through cookery demonstration, and Personality refers to the presenter who is in the cooking show format and has elements of entertainment. In questioning the “transparency” of cooking programs, Strange (1998) notes that the genres cannot be contained; rather, they overlap and share features among the various program types. Understanding the “internal mechanics” of the cooking show genre leads to a greater understanding of its “making of meaning” (p. 311). The priority for translating an exotic location to viewers may come at the expense of its authenticity for instance. As the cooking show genre has since expanded, we add on to Strange’s typology: “Cooking Live,” “Cooking Competitions,” “Food Talk Shows,” and “Food Reality Competitions” (Table 1.1). The table gives the main characteristics of each genre and exemplars from Food Network, as a way to understand how food is being talk about, by whom, and in what ways. Food Discourse draws on all of these cooking show genres with the exception of cooking live and examines how celebrity chefs talk about food. The variety allows for different forms of language to surface, such as evaluations on competition shows and humor on food talk shows. Food and cooking provide the main story and how each genre tells it differs. Whether the show’s goal is to feature a destination restaurant, host a competition, or demonstrate a recipe, cooking show hosts teach viewers about food in an entertaining way.

1.7

Summary

This brief overview of studies on media discourse analysis highlights different ways to analyze celebrities and their role in the media. Celebrity chefs, notably Guy Fieri and Rachael Ray of the U.S., and Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson of the U.K., are influential and prominent figures in the food media and have been the focus of the majority of studies examining its content. Some of these studies (Brownlie & Hewer, 2007; Hollows, 2003; Nathanson, 2009; Swenson, 2009) originated from a media and cultural studies perspective and were centered on celebrity culinary brands, gender, and domesticity. Other studies (Chiaro, 2013; Davies, 2003; Smith, 2010; Tominc, 2014) focused on language and politeness strategies of lifestyle celebrities and shows.

12

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Table 1.1

Cooking show genres

Cooking show genre

Description

Food Network exemplars

How-to

Domestic setting; one host; purpose is to instruct viewers how to cook

Cooking live

Filmed before a live audience; host interacts with audience; emphasis is on entertainment Host travels and eats at unique eateries; interacts with restaurant-owners, chefs, and local diners Chefs compete on a reality-based cooking show competition; suspenseful with elimination rounds; challenges include limited time and unusual ingredients; judged by a panel of renowned food authorities Talk-show format about food with recipes, games, tips, and food news; multiple co-hosts Contestants compete in an elimination-round season; mentored by celebrity chefs; dramatic and emotional with monologues and judging

Ina Garten’s Barefoot Contessa, Giada de Laurentiis’ Giada at Home, Bobby Flay’s Brunch @ Bobby’s , Ree Drummond’s The Pioneer Woman, Rachael Ray’s 30 MinuteMeals Emeril Lagasse’s Emeril Live, Paula Deen’s Paula’s Party

Food travel

Cooking competitions

Food talk shows

Food reality competitions

Guy Fieri’s Diners, Drive-ins & Dives

Chopped, Iron Chef America, Guy’s Grocery Games, Beat Bobby, Cutthroat Kitchen, Spring Baking Championship

The Kitchen

Food Network Star, Food Truck Race, Worst Cooks in America

Our study builds on these insightful works by offering a multidisciplinary approach. We draw upon linguistics, specifically discourse analysis (Goffman 1959, 1981) and narrative (Labov, 1972), enriched by media studies (Dyer, 1979, 2004; Giles, 2000; Langer, 1981), cultural studies (Bourdieu, 1979/1989), folklore (Propp, 1968), mythic narrative (Campbell, 1949), culinary tourism (Long, 2004), and play (Huizinga, 1949). Food Discourse offers one of the first book-length investigations specifically focused on American food television talk over a range of cooking

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

13

show genres. It examines the relationship between the celebrity chef and the viewer of the discourse of food television. Using data from formats ranging from instructional, reality, travel, talk, and competition cooking shows, Food Discourse explores how television shapes and is shaped by the interactional exchanges. It studies, for example, the interaction between the confrontation given in competition shows (constructive feedback in the judge-elimination structures) and the ways in which these confrontations are relayed to keep viewers in suspense.

1.8

Methodology

This book presents a variety of cooking shows and celebrity chefs on the American television cooking channel Food Network. These selections are a sample of a much larger corpus that we have watched over the past ten years for teaching and research purposes. Selections thus are of cooking shows from celebrity chefs principally from 2005–present. Extracts from the cooking shows are selected in order to illustrate a point, such as a specific pragmatic function or recurring linguistic feature, rather than to provide evidence for preconceived assumptions. Images and transcriptions are given throughout the book to facilitate understanding and are not intended to replace primary data. As Elinor Ochs (1979) notes early on, “transcription is a selective process reflecting theoretical goals and definitions” (p. 44). By their nature, transcriptions are naturally an artefact of the analyst’s own selection process. Nonetheless, as Jennifer Coates and Joanna Thornborrow (1999) suggest, selective transcribing is more of a necessity rather than a problem. No substitute for spoken and visual data is possible, but we have tried to present the data as accurately as possible in the printed form. Transcripts tend to be broad for readability, but where necessary uses the following transcription conventions. - interrupted utterance (.) pause [X] extralinguistic or multimodal information, for example, [smiling] or [stirring the pot]

This study draws on sociolinguistics influenced by Goffman (1959, 1981) and social semiotics (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001, 2006). A form of media

14

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

discourse (O’Keeffe, 2006; Thornborrow, 2015), cooking shows are public, produced, and oriented to a non-present viewer. Discourse relies on the premise that talk and identity are a performance and oriented towards a specific audience (Goffman, 1959). Social semiotics, the reading and interpreting of signs, offers a way to analyze food media and its multimodal forms. Meaning is relayed through complex combinations of language, gesture, space, visual, and sound. A social semiotic perspective considers these resources as systems of “meaning potential” (Halliday, 1978, p. 39), with meaning interpreted through a particular context and set of norms, values, and beliefs. As Theo Van Leeuwen (2005) notes, “food, dress and everyday objects… carry cultural value and significance” (p. i). In television discourse, spoken discourse has “double articulation,” what Paddy Scannell (1991) puts as talk that is a communicative interaction between participants on the show as well as designed to be heard by a nonparticipating audience. Further, television discourse is designed to be heard and seen, so the set, background music, intonation, screen graphics, and hosts’ attire are all treated as meaning-making semiotic resources and are relevant to the analysis of cooking shows.

1.9

Scope and Structure

Food Discourse focuses on four linguistic features: recipe telling, storytelling, evaluations, and humor. While there is some overlap, these features are each given a chapter (Chapters 2–5) to allow for more in-depth analysis. The four linguistic strategies are featured in Chapter 6: Performing Celebrity Chef and illustrate the construction of an ordinary person into a celebrity chef. The concluding chapter extends food discourse from onscreen into everyday life. We begin with Chapter 2: Recipe Telling by examining the most distinctive language feature in cooking shows, “recipe telling,” or the language used to describe the cooking procedure (Norrick, 2011). Recipes are historically shared both orally and in writing. Recipe telling on television draws upon these two forms and offers a new form which we call “multimodal recipe telling” with a combination of linguistic, gestural, and audiovisual effects such as steps given without words and voiceover. Intertextuality also comes up with the host referencing where recipes are found in its other form, such as on the channel’s website. Distinct verbal styles are also discussed such as personification, addressing viewers, and the use of humor.

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

15

In Chapter 3: Storytelling, we illustrate how cooking shows are narratives with an overall story of a dish being prepared and cooked for a specific context. Through four different narrative frameworks—structural linguistics (Labov, 1972), folklore fairy tale (Propp, 1968), hero mythology (Campbell, 1949), media studies (Thompson, 1999; Williams, 1974), and culinary tourism (Long, 2004), we identify the formula of cooking show narratives that provides a stable analysis on the one hand while allowing for the identification of variation and creativity. In these moments of differences we see the various relationships constructed between the host and viewer. Stories are not just spoken words but also are told through the jazz music played in the background, the close-up shots of cheese melting, the bright white and sunny kitchen, the smile and wink of the host—in order words, multimodality. Sound, visual, setting, and gestures add to the complex and simultaneous ways that meaning is made. A social semiotics approach (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001, 2006) makes sense of these multiple forms by considering how meaning is made, with what resources, and within what sociocultural context. Cooking shows also have stories within the episodes. On how-to cooking shows, celebrity chefs give side narratives around the recipe telling. Stories about kitchen failures or personal anecdotes add entertainment but also serve to make the celebrity more relatable. Stories also position the host as the hero who has undergone a journey, learned new skills, and returned with knowledge to share with others, such as home cooks. Cooking shows take the audience on a journey from their ordinary world into the celebrity chef’s special world, gaining insights and skills from the show. Viewers are invited to cross the threshold into the cooking show world; they are not forced. Depending on the viewer, cooking shows may remain as a source of entertainment rather than of functional value. In Chapter 4: Evaluations, a central component of storytelling is evaluations, which make the recipe worth doing, the food worth eating, and the show itself worth watching. Drawing on legitimation theory (Van Leeuwen, 2008), media discourse analysis (Thornborrow, 2016), and performance (Goffman, 1959), we show how evaluations are the reactions leading up to and following tastings when hosts highlight why the dish is good (or not) through creative compliments, critiques, and gustatory expressions. On competition cooking shows, the tastings take on higher stakes as judges determine which dish is eliminated through backstage and

16

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

frontstage negotiations. Performance strategies come into play as the contestants’ ‘face’ is at risk, making the show dramatic and suspenseful. On travel cooking shows, filming typically shows the restaurant chef and the host cooking the restaurant’s signature dish together, leading to the climax when the host takes a bite and offers an evaluation. How the host describes the food is critical for validating the restaurant and chef and for highlighting what makes the eatery unique. Chapter 5: Humor illustrates the play ful and amusing elements of cooking shows, specifically on the talk cooking show The Kitchen and the travel cooking show Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. On the talk cooking show, five cohosts participate in “interactional humor” (Norrick & Chiaro, 2010) in which they create humor with each other through playful discourse, such as jokes, wordplay, metaphors, and exaggerations. On the travel cooking show, host Guy Fieri uses creative and funny quips, heightening the entertainment value. Interacting with restaurant chefs and locals, the host’s food discourse appears spontaneous and adds to the host’s authenticity. Chapter 6: Performing Celebrity Chef illustrates the construction of a celebrity chef through an analysis of Food Network Star, an annual realitycompetition show in which contestants are groomed into a Food Network Star. Applying concepts of performance (Goffman, 1959), we describe a “celebrity chef performance” that consists of specific discourses needed for contestants to perform at their optimal level. As “stars in the making,” contestants learn to be natural, focused, adaptable, and experts on camera and in the kitchen. Successful contestants transform from their ordinary selves to their new celebrity chef selves. The final chapter, Chapter 7: Conclusion: Living Food Discourse, reflects on how cooking shows help viewers to ‘live’ food discourse. Watching and listening to celebrity chefs as they perform recipe telling, storytelling, evaluations, and humor, we suggest that we learn to live food discourse, meaning that we are fully engaged and in tune with our surroundings and senses, starting in the kitchen. Food Network References Drummond, Ree. The Pioneer Woman. “Make Ahead Potluck,” Season 6, Episode 13, February 1, 2014 “Hay Day,” Season 12, Episode 7, January 9, 2016

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

17

References Abend, L. (2010, June 21). The cult of the celebrity chef goes global. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,1995844,00.html. Adema, P. (2000). Vicarious consumption: Food, television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 23(3), 113–123. Adweek (TVNewser). (2018). Leading cable networks in the United States as of December 2018, by number of total day viewers (in thousands). In Statista— The Statistics Portal. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://www.statista. com/statistics/347040/cable-networks-viewers-usa/. Bennett, J., & Holmes, S. (2010). The ‘place’ of television in celebrity studies. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 65–80. Berg, M. (2016, March 29). Food Network, HGTV and Travel Channel turn to kids and celebrities to boost ratings. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www. forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2016/03/29/food-network-hgtv-and-travelchannel-turn-to-kids-and-celebrities-to-boost-ratings/. Bonner, F. (2003). Ordinary television: Analyzing popular TV. London: Sage. Botterill, J. (2018). Innovation and derivation in Canadian food television programming. Journal of Canadian Studies, 52(2), 404–426. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979). Brownlie, D., & Hewer, P. (2007). Prime beef cuts: Culinary images for thinking ‘men’. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 10(3), 229–250. Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Caraher, M., Lange, T., & Dixon, P. (2000). The influence of TV and celebrity chefs on public attitudes and behavior among the English public. Journal for the Study of Food and Society, 4(1), 27–46. Cashmore, E. (2014). Celebrity culture (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Chiaro, D. (2013). Passionate about food: Jamie and Nigella and the performance of food-talk. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, & S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary Linguistics (pp. 83–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coates, J., & Thornborrow, J. (1999). Myths, lies and audiotapes: Some thoughts on transcripts. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 594–597. Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York: Continuum. Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385.

18

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Driessens, O., Raeymaeckers, K., Verstraeten, H., & Vandenbussche, S. (2010). Personalization according to politicians: A practice theoretical analysis of mediatization. Communications: European Journal of Communication Research, 35(3), 309–326. Dyer, R. (1979). Stars. London: British Film Institute. Dyer, R. (1991). A star is born and the construction of authenticity. In C. Gledhill (Ed.), Stardom: Industry of desire (pp. 132–140). London: Routledge. Dyer, R. (2004). Heavenly bodies: Film stars and society (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Ellis, J. (1982). Visible fictions: Cinema, television, video. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2001/1989). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman. Gamson, J. (1994). Claims to fame: Celebrity in contemporary America. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Garrett, P., & Bell, A. (Eds.). (1998). Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Routledge. Giles, D. C. (2000). Illusions of immortality: A psychology of fame and celebrity. Bastingstoke: Macmillan. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Haarman, L. (2001). Performing talk. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle (pp. 31–64). Milton Park: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Henderson, J. C. (2011). Celebrity chefs: Expanding empires. British Food Journal, 113(5), 613–624. Hollows, J. (2003). Feeling like a domestic goddess: Postfeminism and cooking. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 179–202. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. Houston, A. (2010). Views and reviews: Celebrity as fantasy screen. Canadian Theatre Review. 141, 94–96. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge. Hyman, G. (2008). The taste of fame: Chefs, diners, celebrity, class. Gastronomia: The Journal of Food and Culture, 8(3), 43–52.

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

19

Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2015). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Johnston, J., Rodney, A., & Chong, P. (2014). Making change in the kitchen? A study of celebrity cookbooks, culinary personas, and inequality. Poetics, 47, 1–22. Karrebaek, M. S., Riley, K. C., & Cavanaugh, J. R. (2018). Food and language: Production, consumption and circulation of meaning and value. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, 17–32. Ketchum, C. (2005). The essence of cooking shows: How the Food Network constructs consumer fantasies. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29, 217– 234. Ketchum, C. (2007). Tunnel vision and food: A political-economic analysis of Food Network. In S. Banet-Weiser, C. Chris, & A. Freitas (Eds.), Cable visions: Television beyond broadcasting (pp. 158–176). New York: New York University Press. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Chapter 9. In Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lam, C., Raphael, J., & Weber, M. (2017). Assembling celebrity analysis. In J. Raphael, C. Lam, & M. Weber (Eds.), Disassembling the celebrity figure: Credibility and the incredible (pp. 1–9). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. Langer, J. (1981). Television’s ‘personality system’. Media, Culture and Society, 3(4), 351–366. Lewis, T. (2011). ‘You’ve put yourselves on a plate’: The labours of selfhood on MasterChef Australia. In H. Wood & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Reality television and class (pp. 104–116). London: British Film Institute. Lewis, T., & Huber, A. (2015). A revolution in an eggcup? Supermarket wars, celebrity chefs, and ethical consumption. Food, Culture and Society, 18(2), 289– 308. Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge. Long, L. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization on television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 151–159. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2017). Self-deprecatory humor on TV cooking shows. Language & Communication, 56, 33–41. Montgomery, M. (1999). Talk as entertainment: The case of The Mrs. Merton Show. In L. Haarman (Ed.), Talk about shows. Bologna: CLUEB. Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2012). Culinary capital. London: Berg.

20

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Nathanson, E. (2009). As easy as pie: Cooking shows, domestic efficiency, and postfeminist temporality. Television & New Media, 10, 311–330. Nielsen. (2018). Leading ad supported broadcast and cable networks in the United States in 2017, by average number of viewers. In Statista—The Statistics Portal. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/ 530119/tv-networks-viewers-usa/. Norrick, N. (2011). Conversational recipe telling. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2740–2761. Norrick, N., & Chiaro, D. (2010). Humor in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press. O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge. Oren, T. (2016). The blood sport of cooking: On Asian American chefs and television. In S. Dave, L. Nishime, & T. Oren (Eds.), Global Asian American popular cultures (pp. 244–260). New York: NYU Press. Ouellette, L., & Hay, J. (2008). Better living through reality TV: Television and post-welfare citizenship. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Palmer, G. (2004). The new you: Class and transformation in lifestyle television. In S. Holmes & D. Jermyn (Eds.), Understanding reality television (pp. 173–190). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folk tale. Austin: University of Texas Press (First published in Russian, 1928). Rojek, C. (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion. Rousseau, S. (2012). Food media: Celebrity chefs and the politics of everyday interference. London: Berg. Sacks, H. (1984). On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scannell, P. (1991). Introduction: The relevance of talk. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage. Scholes, L. (2011). A slave to the stove? The TV celebrity chef abandons the kitchen: Lifestyle TV, domesticity and gender. Critical Quarterly, 53(3), 44–58. Smith, A. (2010). Lifestyle television programmes and the construction of the expert host. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 191–205. Spence, S. (2017, October 9). From ranch housewife to culinary superstar. People. pp. 49–54. Statista Survey. (2018). Share of Americans who were interested in cooking in 2018, by income. In Statista—The Statistics Portal. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/243319/affluent-americanswho-said-they-were-passionate-about-cooking/.

1

INTRODUCTION: FOOD DISCOURSE AND CELEBRITY CHEFS

21

Strange, N. (1998). Perform, educate, entertain: Ingredients of the cookery programme genre. In C. Geraghty & D. Lusted (Eds.), The television studies book (pp. 301–312). London: Arnold. Swenson, R. (2009). Domestic divo? Televised treatments of masculinity, femininity and food. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(1), 36–53. Thompson, K. (1999). Storytelling in the new Hollywood: Understanding classical narrative technique. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thornborrow, J. (2015). The discourse of public participation media: From talk show to Twitter. Abingdon: Routledge. Thornborrow, J. (2016). Evaluation and expertise: The discourse of reality television competition scores. Discourse, Context & Media, 13, 61–71. Tolson, A. (1991). Televised chat and the synthetic personality. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 178–200). London: Sage. Tominc, A. (2014). Legitimising amateur celebrity chefs’ advice and the discursive transformation of the Slovene national culinary identity. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17 (3), 316–337. Turner, G. (2010). Ordinary people and the media: The demotic turn. London: Sage. Turner, G. (2013). Understanding celebrity (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Psychology Press. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Veri, M. J., & Liberti, R. (2013). Tailgate Warriors: Exploring constructions of masculinity, food, and football. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37 (3), 227– 244. Williams, R. (1974/1992). Television: Technology and cultural form. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

CHAPTER 2

Multimodal Recipe Telling on Cooking Shows

I wanted to make a way for people to get excited about salad night the way they get excited about pizza night or takeout night. I bring to you Buffalo Chicken Statement Salad with blue cheese ranch. Lot of butter, lot of hot sauce, smells like heaven. Oh, my god. I’m drooling, literally. Buffalo chicken on chips. This is insane, but it’s completely legal in all 50 states. (Rachael Ray, 30 MinuteMeals , 2019)

So starts the recipe telling of a cooking show. The host enthusiastically sets the scene, inviting the viewer directly into her kitchen to learn how to make salad.1 During the narration, the screen is split into multiple screens representing the various stages of the dish: a bowl of shredded lettuce, barbecue chicken simmering on a sauce pan, and the final piling of the salad on a long wooden board. The scene cuts to a warmly lit kitchen where host Rachael Ray stands, smiling. Wearing a dark blue sweater with sleeves rolled up, Rachael gets to work, cooking and moving efficiently and energetically around the kitchen. Recipe telling is punctuated by laughter, infusing the cooking show as enjoyable. The viewer is hooked, knowing much more will come than just learning a recipe. Different than written and spoken recipes, cooking shows display a unique form of recipe telling that we call “multimodal recipe telling,” that is, televised recipe telling that integrates spoken,

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_2

23

24

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

written, and visual modes enhanced by media production techniques, such as voice overs, scene cuts, and temporal manipulation. The preparation and cooking of a dish consist of both verbal explanations and visual demonstrations, alternating between mid-range shots of the presenter in the kitchen and close-ups of the cooking. This chapter examines recipe telling on how-to cooking shows, not only on what is communicated about food, but how it is communicated. Informed by Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2001, 2006) social semiotic framework, a narrative approach gives the ‘recipe’ for recipe telling on how-to cooking shows. Principles of “performance” (Goffman, 1959) are contextualized within television’s “personality system” (Langer, 1981) in which “personalities are distinguished for the representativeness, their typicality, their ‘will to ordinariness,’ to be accepted, normalized, experienced as familiar” (p. 355). Within the recipe genre structure, there is variation. We illustrate the overall characteristics of recipe telling followed by an analysis of how celebrity chefs distinguish themselves from others through four distinct performances of recipe telling: (1) intertextuality, (2) personification, (3) humor, and (4) direct address to viewers.

2.1

Narrative Multimodal Recipe Telling

Media has changed the ways in which text is presented, offering a multimodal presentation that is enhanced with images, layered sounds, and artistic editing. The intensification of cultural forms, such as cooking shows, is part of an “elaborate intertextual matrix” (Marshall, 2002). Cooking shows cross-reference other forms of food media, such as websites, social media, magazines, cookbooks, and recipes. While contributing to contemporary food discourse, cooking shows also draw upon its predecessors both textual and spoken. The first cookbook published in America was Amelia Simmon’s American Cookery in 1796 (Waxman, 2004). Radio cooking programs appeared in the early twentieth century, shifting format to television in the 1940s with the first black-and-white television. The rise of television celebrity chefs started with Dione Lucas in the 1940s (Collins, 2012), changed forever with Julia Child in the 1960s with her pedagogy plus performative persona (Polan, 2011), and developed by the Food Network in the 1990s to present day with innovative cooking show formats (Collins, 2009). Within a specific sociocultural context, a social semiotics approach considers the interrelationship among all modes, including linguistic (oral and

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

25

written), visual (still and moving), auditory (music and sound effects), gestural (facial and body language), and spatial (layout organization of objects and space). Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) argue that language is not the only means through which meaning is produced, but rather one mode or semiotic channel in the collection of modes involved in the production of texts: “A spoken text is never just verbal, but also visual, combining with modes such as facial expression, gesture, posture and other forms of self-presentation” (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 41). Cooking shows are part of the “semiotic landscape” in which we live that has undergone a transformation and is now dominated by multimodality (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). Building on its written and spoken genres, recipe telling on television is a mediated multimodal communicative event. The text on the screen supports the host’s recipe telling and cooking demonstration. Thus, multimodal recipe telling is comprised of three elements: (1) linguistic, (2) non-linguistic, and (3) media production techniques (see Table 2.1). Identifying and analyzing each feature helps to understand the recipe telling as a whole. Table 2.1

Multimodal recipe telling components

Multimodal Feature

Examples

Functions

Linguistic

Spoken: procedural discourse

Provides instructions to cooking food; Progresses cooking show narrative Supports oral recipe telling; visually cues the start of a dish; adds details, such as measurements and quantities Reinforces recipe telling; demonstration may be used instead of spoken instructions Corresponds to the mood of the host’s cooking style; adds extra sensory detail to recipe telling, such as what the cooking should sound like Heightens the instructional and entertaining dimensions of recipe telling; emphasizes key moments in cooking demonstration; provides visual variety

Written: text on screen (e.g., recipe title, list of ingredients, definition of culinary terms) Non-linguistic

Paralinguistic: gestures, facial expressions, hand movements, body language Auditory: music, cooking sounds

Media production

Overhead shots, intercuts, simultaneous shots, pre-recording, voice over

26

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Multimodal recipe telling on cooking shows follows a structure that can be identified with several formal and functional properties of narrative (Matwick & Matwick, 2017a). While cooking, the host builds the “story” of the recipe, which can be identified by sixparts: abstract, orientation, complicating actions, resolution, coda, and evaluations (Labov, 1972). Colleen Cotter (1997) first identified these narrative features of written recipes in cookbooks, noting that recipes are incomplete without the interpretation of the audience (p. 70). Further, the inferred shared background knowledge delineates a specific group of readers, a community of users. Similarly, spoken recipe telling or “conversational recipe telling” is oriented to the listener (Norrick, 2011). While recipe discourse involves specialized knowledge about culinary technique and ingredients, celebrity chefs on cooking shows also make presuppositions about their viewers’ culinary preferences and familiarity with food preparation. Whether recipes are written, spoken in conversation, or demonstrated on cooking shows, the overall sequential order of the instructions is critical in the successful outcome of the recipe. The recipe opens with an abstract, a brief summary of the upcoming story. This serves to make the recipe “tellable” (Sacks, 1974) or “reportable” (Labov, 1972). In order to keep their audience, celebrity chefs work to make the story (recipe) relevant, interesting, and useful (such as, “today’s all about grilling!”). Second, orientation sets the scene, such as the time, place, persons, and their activity (such as, “when I was growing up”). Common syntax is past progressive verbs (e.g., “I was hosting for the first time”) that set the scene before the first event of the narrative or throughout the full episode. Recipe telling orientation may consist of a brief background narrative about the origin of the dish (Norrick, 2011). Third, complicating actions describe the key events of the story, and on cooking shows, constitute the procedural discourse and cooking demonstration, in which most of the representational work of the story occurs (such as, “add minced garlic, a spoonful of Dijon, and fresh thyme to the ground beef”). The recipe telling comes to a finish in the resolution, in which the ‘problem’ is solved. Discrete ingredients are brought together, made cohesive through the culinary decisions made by the cook; through chopping, cooking, or seasoning, ingredients can take on a new shape, appearance, flavor, and texture. A coda ends the recipe narrative with the host giving a final comment on the significance of the recipe, such as its delicious taste (e.g., “the burger is so flavorful, especially with that fresh thyme”).

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

27

Throughout the recipe telling narrative, hosts give tips on how to follow the recipe, giving evaluations on what makes for a juicy chicken, tender biscuit, and fluffy pancake. As stories (and recipes) are open to interpretation, evaluations give the assessment, or preferred hearing, of the story (the intended final taste). Positive evaluations (“it was so fun”) or references to the quality of the food (“organic”) are embedded within the discourse and provide a logical ending to a narrative about a recipe. As an example, Ina Garten of Barefoot Contessa invites guests for brunch and begins preparing the night before. This multimodal recipe telling of blueberry coffee cake muffins illustrates the passing of time, from the time of Ina’s preparing the batter to baking them the next day. Labov’s narrative components: orientation, abstract, complicating action, resolution, are underlined. Evaluations are indicated by italics. Excerpt 2.1 Recipe Telling of Blueberry Coffee Cake Muffins: Labovian Narrative Orientation: Last thing I want to do is get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to make blueberry coffee cake muffins. [grabs milk and sour cream from the refrigerator, walks to the kitchen counter] Abstract: So I’m going to make the batter tonight, and then tomorrow, just scoop them out and bake them. [puts ingredients down on the counter] Complicating action: I need one and a half sticks of butter. [picks up butter and puts into a mixing bowl attached to a mixer stand] This makes a lot of muffins. Makes about 16. One and a half cups of sugar. [measures and pours sugar into bowl] And just beat that until it’s light and fluffy. [turns on stand mixer; machine whirs] I need three extra-large eggs. [grabs a bowl with three beaten eggs] Ok, I’m going to add the eggs one at a time. [machine continues beating] Ok, now some great flavors. [grabs vanilla extra bottle] One and a half teaspoons of good vanilla extract. I love the way that smells [measuring and adding the vanilla into the bowl] Eight ounces of sour cream. [opening up container] This is what makes the muffins really moist. [adding sour cream to the bowl] And a quarter cup of milk [measures milk in a glass measuring cup; close up shot] [turns off mixer] Ok, that’s the wet ingredients. Now for the dry ones.

28

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

I need two and a half cups of flour. [fluffing and scooping out flour, first with a one-cup measuring cup] I use unbleached flour, but any all-purpose flour’s just fine. [tips one cup of flour over a sifter set over a second bowl] Two… and a half. [measures another one-cup of flour followed by a half-cup, adding both to the sifter bowl] Ok, perfect. I need two teaspoons of baking powder. [measures out baking powder; adds to sifter] One-half teaspoon of baking soda. [measures out baking soda; adds to sifter] This mixture has the acidity of the sour cream, so it’s good to have baking powder and baking soda. And a half teaspoon of salt. Just sift it together [picks up sifter and shakes over bowl] **Try and get it in the bowl, not on the counter, like I did. [smiles]** And then on very low speed, mix the dry ingredients into the wet ones. [turns on mixer, slowly adds flour mixture] Particularly with muffins, you don’t want to overbeat it [glancing up at viewers] Otherwise they end up being very dense. So, I’m going to mix it in just until it’s combined. Ok, just going to give it one turn with a spatula. I think with the mixer you always want to be sure that the bottom is really well mixed. So, just turn the bottom. [uses spatula to scrape batter from edges of bowl, stirring slowly] Make sure it’s really well combined, but not overmixed. [close up shots of bowl and batter] And I’m going to add lots of blueberries. Two pints of blueberries. [adds berries] Just fold them in. [gently mixing with spatula] Resolution: I’m going to refrigerate the batter overnight. Coda: In the morning, all I have to do is scoop the muffins into the pans and bake them off. (“Good Home Cooking,” Barefoot Contessa, Season 7, Episode 6, 2008)

In the orientation, Ina tells the inspiration for her recipe—not wanting to get up before dawn to bake muffins. The abstract summarizes the recipe, preparing viewers for the more detailed recipe telling. The main recipe

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

29

telling instruction occurs in the complicating action with the series of baking steps. Transitions (“so,” “ok,” “just”) and connectors (“and”) are used to mark the beginning of the next step. Evaluations are given throughout (“a lot of muffins,” “until it’s light and fluffy,” “now some great flavors,” “I love the way that smells,” “perfect”), to explain the core instructions. Viewers learn the role of each ingredient and what to look for in the cooking. The visual format of cooking shows also allows viewers to see what the spoken evaluations look like, especially in close-up shots. A fuller understanding of the recipe allows for a more successful cooking outcome. The coda returns to the opening theme of the recipe telling with Ina repeating the significance of this particular recipe (that the batter can be made ahead). Culinary jargon and cooking demonstration position the host as knowledgeable. Specific measurements are given, along with precise measurements on-screen: “one and a half sticks of butter,” “one and a half cups of sugar,” “a half teaspoon of good vanilla extract,” etc. Emphasis is given on particular steps: “make sure it’s really well combined but not over mixed,” which implies that Ina has tested the recipe repeatedly and anticipates the pitfalls most home cooks encounter. The production assists the recipe telling with close-ups of the evenly measured cups of flour and of the uniformly smooth batter. Ina’s methodical recipe telling and demonstration convey her as a trustworthy and credible food authority. Recipe telling varies in how complete the directions are, especially in terms of quantity amounts. While Ina’s recipe for baking muffins is precise, other forms of cooking and ingredients are approximate, e.g., “some mustard,” “a spoonful of jam,” “sprinkle on cheese.” As Rachael Ray of 30 Minute Meals says: “it’s an eyeball thing,” to estimate amounts of oil added to the sauce pan, because, as she states in her website, “measuring, to me, takes away from the creative process of cooking” (Ray, 2016). Especially in these cases, the viewer must rely on the visual demonstration in order to understand the freehand equivalents. A host’s fluency in cooking is evident in the multiple and creative ways of describing a technique. In making Chicken Francese, Rachael says, “Let’s just start with how to get the chicken flat—chicken paillard, or pounding out chicken,” accompanied with hand motions pounding (“Chicken Change-Up,” Season 28, Episode 15, 2019). The concept of a flat chicken is given verbally three times: “get the chicken flat,” “chicken paillard,” “pounding out chicken,” and visually two ways: pounding motioned by hand and then with a meat mallet. Changing up the instruction in new but

30

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

recognizable forms keeps the recipe telling interesting. The variations of the instructions also appeal to viewers with different experiences, abilities, and learning styles. In this example, Rachael demonstrates how to pound out chicken and provides variations of the culinary technique, which equips the audience with different knowledge levels to cook the dish successfully. Another way to vary instruction is to provide history about culinary terms, but with a twist in cooking and creativity of linguistic terms. To cook Chicken Francese, one of the “most downloaded” recipes on the internet, Rachael turns up the heat and “devils it.” The term and definition appear on the screen: “Deviled: Cook with Hot Spices” (“Chicken ChangeUp,” Season 28, Episode 15, 2019). While the meaning of the term could be inferred—the ‘devil’ is equated with Hell with its perpetual fire and heat— the on-screen text provides the definition to ensure that the audience understands the pun and the culinary meaning; i.e., the chicken’s spice promises a fiery heat. Further, the text’s term-definition sentence structure follows the syntax and format of an entry in a reference book, cuing viewers that the meaning is different. Indeed, the culinary term “deviled” dates back to the 1700s and means a spicy dish, while today, deviled is mostly associated with just two foods: deviled eggs and deviled ham, cold salads typically made with mayonnaise (Rolland & Sherman, 2006). The recipe telling narrative also corresponds with the production narrative of the episode, as scenes segue into commercials during cooking time. For example, Rachael forms burger patties and places them on the grill, saying, “Ok, I’m going to baby sit the burgers. We’re going to take a break. When we come back, we’re gonna make the special sauce.” When the cooking show resumes, Rachael updates viewers on the cooking, saying, “I’m just babysitting these guys [burgers]…he’s looking good [flipping a burger]” (“Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 16, 2019). The burgers cook, presumably during the break, and are ready to be flipped. Other production elements also give rise to unique overlapping between spoken, written, and visual forms of recipe telling. For instance, hosts often direct viewers who may have missed part of the show or want the recipe to go to the Food Network website. For example, Ree Drummond says towards to the end of her show, “for recipes or more, go to Food Network dot com slash pioneer woman,” a line turned into bloopers by her children when appearing as guests (Bryce on “Other Cuts of Beef,” Season 15, Episode 3, 2017; Paige on “Afternoon Tea,” Season 14, Episode 1, 2016). After recipe telling a dish with a lot of ingredients, Bobby Flay on Brunch @ Bobby’s says, “if you didn’t get this recipe, go to Food Network dot com

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

31

slash brunch” (“Pulling the Curtain on Crepes,” Season 7, Episode 6, 2016). The website reference may cue the end of the episode, as it does for the talk cooking show The Kitchen, when one of the hosts encourages viewers to try out the recipes from the episode where they can “find them all at foodnetwork dot com slash the kitchen.” This extends the value of the cooking show and positions the Food Network website as a resource for cooking long beyond the duration of the show itself. This intertextual reference also encourages the interactive participation of the audience. Besides recipe telling one dish at a time, multimodal recipe telling is able to capture multiple recipe narratives that occur at the same time. For example, on The Bobby and Damaris Show, cohosts Bobby Flay and Damaris Phillips begin three recipes at once: seasoned tortilla chips bake in the oven, chopped fruit macerate with bourbon, and lemon hummus is blended by the time the chips are crisp and the fruit salsa flavors have melded (“Gaming and Grubbin,” Season 1, Episode 5, 2017). Each recipe reaches completion at the same time at the end of the show. The intercuts between recipe telling and parallel scenes show the progression of the recipes as they move forward in tandem. The multiple on-going dishes demonstrate Bobby’s and Damaris’ culinary skills and solve the production problem of dead air time. The shows are about watching the celebrity chef and picking up techniques rather than a specific recipe. Even more, recipe telling can be a demonstration of bonding rather than asymmetric displays of knowledge or lecturing (Norrick, 2011). While typically solo, the host’s recipe telling on screen also offers interactive opportunities to foster rapport. For instance, hosts may encourage home cooks to vary the recipe with their own taste preferences or availability of ingredients (e.g., “any all-purpose flour is fine,” “use your favorite hot sauce,” “omit the chili seeds if you want less heat”). At the same time, celebrity chefs guide viewers on what makes for a discerning palate. As French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues in his seminal work Distinction (1984), food practices relate to cultural capital, that is, the appreciation of cultural artifacts (e.g., dance, music, art, food). Building on Bourdieu’s concept, Peter Naccarato and Kathleen LeBesco (2012) use the term “culinary capital” in order to “understand how and why certain foods and food-related practices connote, and by extension, confer status and power on those who know about and enjoy them” (p. 3). Celebrity chefs teach viewers how to obtain culinary capital. They are part of a new form of popular expertise as lifestyle experts who function as “arbiters of

32

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

good taste and distinction” (Lewis, 2008, p. 28). On Food Network, for instance, as the Blueberry Muffin excerpt illustrates, one who uses “good vanilla” knows the difference between good (pure) vanilla and presumably bad (artificial) vanilla; i.e., one with culinary capital. This knowledge leads to an investment in the self and rewards one with status and power (Naccarato & LeBesco, 2012, p. 3).

2.2

Recipe Telling on Screen: Performance Strategies

Cooking shows give instructions for food preparation, but also deliver them in a way that is entertaining. Delia Chiaro (2013) observes that UKcelebrity chefs, Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson, have distinctive verbal styles through the use of lexical idiosyncrasies, fillers that simulate a dialogue with viewers, and expressive emotions. Whether evaluating a finished dish or tasting a cooked creation, Jamie, in his Essex drawl with dropped aitches and all-inclusive ‘we,’ accompanies his talk with gesticulations whereas Nigella tends to gush with sensual descriptions and speak in Received Pronunciation and expresses her satisfaction with non-verbal vocal sounds such as groaning (Chiaro, 2013). While they have highly distinctive verbal and performative styles, both celebrity chefs demonstrate that cooking shows are as much about entertaining as to instruct audiences of food preparation (Chiaro, 2013). Celebrity chefs of the Food Network similarly exemplify hosts with strong audience appeal in terms of their discourse. Four performance strategies of recipe telling are examined: intertextuality, personification, direct address, and humor. 2.2.1

Intertextuality

The first performance of multimodal recipe telling technique is intertextuality. This linguistic feature refers to the relationship between texts and how texts are formed from or recall other texts. For Mikhail Bakhtin (1986), “each utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication.” Adding on, Norman Fairclough (1992) describes how “texts” (not just utterances) relate to one another through a reinterpretation of previous texts. Intertextuality can be “manifest” or explicit, such as the use of quotation marks, or “constitutive,” also described as “interdiscursivity,” which may

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

33

not overtly reference another text, such as paraphrasing. Further, interdiscursivity incorporates heterogeneous elements of text: genre, discourses, styles, and register to compose text. Written recipes and recipe telling provide diverse registers of multimodality on cooking shows. Recipes, for instance, have been assimilated and refashioned on cooking shows through manifest and constitutive intertextuality. As an example, Bobby Flay on Brunch @ Bobby’s utilizes written recipes that require specific measurements, such as pancakes or biscuits. He makes a list of things to do in order to get brunch on the table, so he can ‘mark it off’ as he goes. The performance of putting the recipe and list, as sheets of paper, on the kitchen counter or the refrigerator door, instead of reading a teleprompt, authenticates the cooking as natural and within the home cooking context (Fig. 2.1). “I like to jot down my recipes, especially my batters, and put it right on my cupboard,” says Bobby Flay, host of Brunch @ Bobby’s (“Tasty Trattoria Brunch,” Season 3, Episode 1, 2013). Accompanying the written recipe prop, the celebrity chef shares his recipe note taking. While disclosing that he needs recipes, Bobby notes the specific context, “especially my batters,” illustrating that he is more of a cook, than a baker. This alignment reaffirms his masculinity and his brand for bold-flavored foods. The domestic scene is recreated onscreen with Bobby’s collection of mortar and pestles and

Fig. 2.1 Written and verbal recipes

34

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

spice jars, suggesting that we have insight of his private life. We see his reactions and emotions, as he speaks to us in an informal mode. Bobby’s casual ordinariness, both in terms of his knit sweater and rolled up sleeves and in his discourse, exemplify what television scholar John Langar (1981) describes as “playing” oneself (p. 335), which renders him both acceptable and, at the same time, relatable to the audience. The intertextuality of recipes and recipe telling works to construct intimacy and immediacy. Like the handwritten paper recipe, handmade recipe cards—in terms of practical use and homely appeal—break the barrier between the celebrity and the public. In celebrity chef Giada de Laurentiis’ cooking show, Giada Entertains, recipe cards cue the multimodal recipe telling, adding a creative dimension to the show via the stereotype of the homemaker. In Fig. 2.2, the design of the recipe card for Herb Melon Salad suggests homemade and authentic, constructing the image of the celebrity chef who enjoys domestic, ordinary crafts. The list of ingredients is in a handwritten font and styled on a lined 3-by-5-inch index card, which signifies a treasured recipe. The hand-drawn images serve both functional and decorative purposes: the melon slices, mint, basil, and vinegar bottle represent the main ingredients of the recipe, which aid the cook during cooking. The

Fig. 2.2 Recipe cards add intertextuality to the multimodal recipe telling. (“Easter Brunch,” Giada Entertains, Season 4, Episode 13, 2019)

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

35

pastel colors and designs including flowers, star bullets, and circling of the recipe title add to the femininity and personal touch to the recipe. In Fig. 2.3, the Herb Melon Salad recipe card provides viewers a quick glance of the ingredients. The ingredient quantities and cooking directions are absent, suggesting that the cards are more for their symbolic effect rather than function. During the 1930s and the mid-1990s, women’s magazines like Ladies’ Home Journal or McCall’s printed recipes on heavy cards and mailed them to readers (Arnold-Ratliff, 2011). Women went on to write their own recipe cards as a way to record the recipe along with the memories and experiences of cooking, sharing, and eating it. Recipe swaps among friends, sisters, and daughters were common and a form of female bonding. On the cooking show, this female domestic practice of recipe swaps is textually reinterpreted on screen. The digital format modernizes the recipe swapping tradition while functioning to ground the show as home cooking. The image recipe also serves a narrative purpose in introducing the cooking sequence. Following the scene of the recipe card, the scene cuts to Giada at the kitchen ready to make the Herb Melon Salad with ingredients ready on the counter. In contrast to the written recipe, Giada’s oral telling is complete and includes the specific measurements; for example, “we did a

Fig. 2.3 Cookbooks such as Giada’s Holiday Handbook serve as lifestyle guides with recipes and party tips. (Giada’s Holiday Handbook, 2018)

36

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

quarter cup of sugar and quarter cup of champagne vinegar,” says Giada, while making simple syrup in the cooking show (“Easter Brunch,” Season 4, Episode 13, 2019). The narrative completes the recipe cards, making them clear, doable, and replicable. The cooking on the cooking show then materializes the recipe in the minds of viewers as they imagine making the dish. Indeed, viewers tend to watch cooking shows to learn ideas for dishes or flavor combinations to use in their cooking, rather than trying to memorize specific dishes from the television show (De Solier, 2013, pp. 119–123). The opening scenes of the show seem to suggest that the recipe cards are also inspirations for Giada who is shown posting cards and recipes like Herb Melon Salad on a corkboard in her kitchen. The intertextual play on print recipes and cooking demonstration continues in another example of intertextuality in another of Giada’s cooking shows, Giada’s Holiday Handbook. The seasonal tv cooking show is based on Giada’s “one-of-a-kind holiday handbook,” that is, as the opening narration of the show states, “filled with pages and pages of cherished recipes and menus, unique party themes, cocktails for every occasion, and some really fun decorating ideas” (De Laurentiis, 2015–2019). Like the recipe cards on Giada Entertains, the handbook is presented as a source of authority and evidence of experience. “The idea of the recipe card was that you were building a treasury of your knowledge,” says Amy Bentley, food studies scholar (ctd in Arnold-Ratliff, 2011). Both the recipe card and the handbook are reminders of what one (Giada in this case) already knows. Giada’s Holiday Handbook glows, sparkling with lifestyle tips and magical recipes that will ensure a successful party and delicious recipes. Based on a “handbook,” not a cookbook, the TV cooking show positions Giada as part of the broadening role of celebrity chefs as experts beyond food (Lewis, 2008; Rousseau, 2012). Celebrity chefs participate in the “new politics of food,” what Michelle Phillipov (2017) observes in the food activism of British celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. The broadening role of the celebrity chef in the media involves the celebrity chef’s participation in politics, for Jamie, sustainability and for Hugh, animal welfare (Phillipov, 2017). In Giada’s case, the symbolic work involved in the constructing of the celebrity chef brand links her Hollywood family film legacy to her cooking show brand, which simultaneously draws upon the celebrity chef’s cultural identities. The textual conventions play upon the glamourous celebrity at the same time the perfect domestic American hostess. In this sense, Giada exemplifies Richard Dyer’s definition of star: “Star images are always extensive, multimedia, intertextual” (1986/2004,

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

37

p. 3). For Giada, her cooking shows, restaurants, cookbooks, and home entertainer image extend her own image intertextually. 2.2.2

Talking to food: Personification

Personification is another performance strategy of multimodal recipe telling. In giving human-like qualities to the ingredients, celebrity chefs display their own personalities and emotions in how they personify their dishes. Cooking provides an outlet for the host’s creativity and a form for expressing his or her view of the world (Matwick & Matwick, 2015). As narrators, cooking show hosts are socially positioned to tell stories at a given moment (Polanyi, 1985), with their interpretation linking elements of the past, present, and future. Cooking show hosts identify with their viewers to capture their attention. Within the recipe telling, hosts may use distinct language to make their discourse funny, less-didactic, and more efficient. Humor and personification, both of which we all respond to (Nilsen & Nilsen, 2018), are used frequently in the recipe telling of celebrity chef Rachael Ray. On her cooking show, food and ingredients are animated, assuming human characteristics. Here are a few examples from 30 MinuteMeals (Season 28, 2019) with Rachael: • “little guy” for cherry tomato • “come here buddy,” when catching a cherry tomato rolling off the counter • “old crazy lady hands” for fresh ginger • “screaming-hot pan” for a pan that is very hot • onion roots that “look like the hair on the dude”; “it actually looks like a really bad toupée” • “make it feel a little love” when heating up a pita over a grill • “you’re so cute” to meatballs simmering in tomato basil sauce • “put him back here,” when moving a pot to a back burner • “I think it’s [flat-leaf parsley] grassier, and somehow better than the curly, which must make curly feel very sad” • “see you later boys” when sliding a sheet pan of tater tots into the oven • “you’re looking good babies. Keep on doing a good job for mama” addressing burger patties sizzling on the sauce pan

38

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

References to the food and kitchen equipment with gendered pronouns (“him”) and second person pronouns (“you”) make them come alive, adding sociability to the cooking show. Such personification continues in the way Rachael emphasizes the physical attributes of her dishes through descriptions such as, “old crazy lady hands,” and “you’re so cute.” Sight is important too, as the chef comments of burger patties, “looking good.” Sight also becomes a source of humor, as Rachael jokes, onion roots that “look like the hair on the dude actually looks like a really bad toupée.” Rachael also breathes life into her food through instances of tender endearments. She creates a family unit, addressing burgers as “babies” who are cooking for “mama.” In the little world of the cooking event, food that cooks or ‘behaves’ receives praise (“doing a good job”). The chef’s use of personification continues with nicknames, suggesting familiarity. • “shrooms” for mushrooms • “idge” doubly shortened form of ‘refrigerator’ from ‘fridge’ to ‘idge’ • “chick” for chicken These shortened terms exhibit the chef’s ease with ingredients, which gives credibility to her cooking. The chef is equally efficient both in her cooking and in her language to the point that she created her own terms (Ray, 2016), as illustrated below. • “e-v-o-o” for extra virgin olive oil • “l-b-s” for light-brown sugar • “yum-o!” for something so good or “yum” that it needs an emphasis with “O” as in “Oh! That is so good!” • “Delish!” for extra yum-o! The celebrity chef is keen on speed and efficiency in cooking. As a result, vagueness may be a necessity in terms of ingredient references and her casual attitude to measurements in her recipes. Rachael avoids preciseness but rather gives instructions through uses of personification. Ingredients take on personalities with tendencies, such as onions: “Onions are a little bit of a Goldilocks. They like to be treated a certain way. So, hot but not too hot” (“Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 12, 2019). The host brings up the schema of the Goldilocks principle to explain that the cooking must fall within certain margins, as opposed to reaching extremes.

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

39

The principle derives from the children’s story in which a little girl named Goldilocks prefers her porridge not too hot, not too cold, “just right.” And, as how the baby bear in the story likes it too, so references Ina when making frozen hot chocolate: “what I’m looking for is like the consistency of a milkshake; if it’s a little too thin, you can add more ice; if it’s a little too thick, you can add more milk. But, as the baby bear said, I think that looks perfect” (“Cook Like a Pro: Chocolate,” Season 13, Episode 6, 2017). Recipe telling with metaphors have layered meanings, tapping into the viewer’s shared knowledge of the classic tale. Taking on a real person, ingredients can also talk to the cook: “when the pan speaks to you, when it’s literally talking to you, that’s when you add stuff to it or it’s gonna burn,” says Rachael, as she adds sliced onions to a pan with foaming butter (“Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 12, 2019). Celebrity chef Damaris Phillips on The Bobby and Damaris Show uses similar personifications as Rachael. When glazing pork wings with a buffalo sauce, Damaris calls them: “little bad boys,” “little guys,” and “pork wing angels;” later, she refers to a piece of chicken as a “little nugget” (“Gaming and Grubbin,” Season 1, Episode 5, 2017). These cultural and humorous references are discursive devices of instruction, effectively increasing memorability of the recipe. Even more, personification on how-to-cooking shows provides a resource for hosts to construct themselves as experts in food and at the same time, as authentic. 2.2.3

Talking to You: Hosts Address Viewers

For the third performance strategy of recipe telling, hosts address viewers directly, using the second person pronoun, “you.” In this way, celebrity chefs share their thought process about the recipe. Musings and rhetorical questions offer additional suggestions while addressing viewers as if they were in the kitchen. For example, when preparing a brunch, Bobby offers various ways to plate biscuits, scrambled eggs, and ham: and I’m thinking, like, maybe I can make the sandwiches for all my guests. I can just make the sandwiches. Or what I can do is just bake the biscuits, cook the ham, and then cook the eggs, and let people make their own sandwich. I think we’ll give them both options. What do you think? (“Off the Races,” Season 1, Episode 7, Brunch @ Bobby’s , 2010)

40

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Bobby shares his initial idea that he will make the sandwiches, using the epistemic “I’m thinking” and uncertainty marker “maybe” and repetition of the idea with the adverb “just” (meaning “only” or “simply” in this case). These discursive features nonetheless suggest his openness to different ideas. The conjunction “or” cues the second option that people make their own sandwich. He offers an initial suggestion: “I think we’ll give them both options,” then asks viewers, “What do you think?”, as a way to avoid imposing advice. Creating a pseudo-dialogue, the host assumes non-present participants and forms a sense of commonality with viewers single-handedly. The linguistic features, such as collective person pronouns (“we”), second person pronouns (“you”), and questions, as well as multimodal features (such as direct eye contact, close-up narrations, smiling, and intimate scenes) are ways that celebrity chefs establish intimacy with the invisible audience (Matwick & Matwick, 2014, 2017a). This construction of the celebrity as accessible and relatable contributes to Fairclough’s (2001/1989) “synthetic personalization,” or “simulation of private faceto-face discourse in public mass-audience discourse” (p. 98). TV hosts display concern for the individual en masse, using pronouns and informal language. Making cooking a collective team effort, Bobby utilizes the pronouns “we” and “you.” Through this friendly, casual, inclusive style of talk, the host invites viewers into his kitchen and into their own and adapt the recipe to their preference. 2.2.4

Humor and Recipe Telling

The fourth performance strategy of multimodal recipe telling is humor. Recipe telling can include humor in the procedural discourse. Typically, this is found in the side-narrative, or the evaluations. For example, Ina makes Tres Leches Cake and explains its name: “it’s a cake that’s been soaked with a mixture of three milks—that’s the ‘tres leches’ part” followed by “and then later I’m gonna serve a square of it with whipped cream. Does that make it cuatro leches?” Ina plays with the recipe title and suggests “cuatro leches,” a cake with four milks, to include the whipped cream (“Tex-Mex Entertaining,” Season 16, Episode 3, 2019). In another example, humor is used during the preparation of Fiesta Corn and Avocado salad. When dicing an orange pepper, Ina mentions variations: “You can use orange pepper, red pepper, yellow pepper, or all three if you want a real fiesta” (“Tex-Mex Entertaining,” Season 16, Episode 3, 2019). The play is in the double meaning of ‘fiesta,’ the first in reference to more ingredients

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

41

making for a party, and second, the salad’s name. In both examples, the humor makes salient the recipe titles and specific ingredients, functioning to make the recipes memorable and distinct. 2.2.5

Self-Deprecatory Humor

During recipe telling, celebrity chefs may use also humor about themselves. Self-deprecation is a negative characterization of the self, but can be done in a humorous way so as to elicit support from listeners (Hay, 2001; Matwick & Matwick, 2017b). In the mediated context of cooking shows, self-deprecations may be used to mitigate judgement, such as when the hosts appear to be boasting, confesses to overeating, and makes mistakes— all considered socially inappropriate, especially for women. For example, Ree Drummond on The Pioneer Woman, frequently uses self-deprecations that are funny and also suggest how addictively delicious her cooking is. In making cheese fondue, Ree cannot resist and scoops a chip into the dip, confessing: “I was going to wait until Hyacinth [her friend] arrives before I sunk my teeth into this. There’s no way that’s going to happen [crunch] hmm, so good” (“Tequila,” Season 13, Episode 5, 2016). Chomping with guilt yet delight, Ree breaches social graces by eating before her guest arrives. As Carole Counihan (1992) points out, “Eating is a behavior which constructs the self. It must be done in a proper and controlled manner lest we project an undesirable, immoral, or gender inappropriate self” (p. 59). Viewers who do not recognize or understand the self-deprecation as humorous may critique Ree for her unrestrained eating. Self-deprecation can also be used to minimize mistakes. From the Blueberry Muffin excerpt, Ina accidently sifts flour over the counter not in the bowl. “Try and get it in the bowl, not on the counter, like I did,” Ina says, smiling. The smile signals the intended meaning of her self-critique as humorous, letting the viewer also freely enjoy the humor. Ina employs humor and nonverbal communication (smiling, eye contact) to enhance the recipe telling, but also to maintain control of viewer’s interpretation of herself. As Anat Zajdman (1995) observes, the use of self-directed humor is a way to protect oneself: “When another person laughs at you, you are helpless. When you laugh at yourself, you are in control of the situation and it is up to you to tighten, to loosen, or to let go at any given moment” (p. 338). Ina’s use of self-deprecation serves “to loosen” up the recipe telling by adding humor. Keeping mistakes on the cooking show, such as

42

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

spills, makes the performance appear natural, and by explicitly pointing it out (and turning it into a teaching moment), the host regains control. Through self-deprecation, the host guides the viewer’s interpretation, and also contextualizes the episode in ways which impute a degree of novelty to the cooking event. 2.2.6

Recipe Telling and Canned Jokes

Recipe telling can also include canned jokes, simple jokes that are rehearsed before the telling. One of the most formulaic forms of jokes, canned jokes are “a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set up and the punch line” (Sherzer, 1985, p. 216). While canned jokes can be told separately, they can be used to contribute to interaction in situ. On cooking shows, canned jokes may be used to retell the recipe or make more salient a certain ingredient or technique. In the next example, Bobby Flay on Brunch @ Bobby’s is making iced espresso drinks with guest Food Network celebrity chef Sunny Anderson. During the drink preparation, Bobby adds simple syrup to two glasses and verbally relays the recipe for the ingredient: “a little simple syrup, equal parts sugar and water. Just let it dissolve.” Immediately following the simple syrup recipe telling, Sunny launches into a canned joke. Excerpt 2.2 Recipe Telling + Canned Joke: Simple Syrup Recipe telling for iced espresso drinks Bobby: I’m gonna make a little coffee. Sunny: Let’s do this! (raises her hands up) Bobby: Little iced espresso. Sunny: okay! Bobby: I love this. A little summer-time situation. Sunny: Iced espresso? I mean, I’ve done iced coffee. Bobby: noSunny: But espresso is kind of, uh… Bobby: A little iced espresso. [continues with recipe telling; pouring espresso into two glasses with ice] Sunny: That’s a long day Bobby. Bobby: A double shot in each one. You want a little sugar? Sunny: You know it. [emphatic nod] Bobby: Okay.

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

43

Sunny: But I’ll do this. [in reference to the use of espresso versus coffee] [Bobby picks up a measuring cup with simple syrup] Bobby: A little simple syrup, equal parts sugar and water. Just let it dissolve. [pouring syrup into each glass] Okay. [Stops pouring] Canned Joke Sunny: Do you know how to make simple syrup? [rising tone] Bobby: [looks at her] How? Sunny: You get a very complex syrup, and talk down to it. Bobby: ha!! [laughs] Sunny: [laughs, rolling eyes] Recipe telling resumes Bobby:

and some sparkling water. [opens up sparkling water bottle] (“Wake Up Your Sweet Tooth,” Brunch @ Bobby’s, Season 7, Episode 9, 2016)

The canned joke’s set-up gets Bobby (and viewers) thinking in one direction, that Sunny will tell the recipe again, then the punch line comes and jars us into realizing there is a completely different way to interpret the situation. The joke is in the homonym of “simple” with two words that sound the same, or homophones, and/or have the same spelling, or homographs (both in this case), but have unrelated meanings. The first meaning is as a compound and culinarily related, as explained in the recipe telling, but the second meaning of simple as an adjective, “easy, not difficult,” also “ordinary, traditional or natural rather than modern and complicated” (Cambridge Dictionary). By resolving the incongruity, we are suddenly surprised. Bobby laughs, a social signal of acceptance and amusement. Seeing her joke is successful, Sunny also laughs, rolling her eyes at triteness of the joke. Her reaction is like a groan, which Joel Sherzer (1985) notes is the “conventional way of showing, for both puns and jokes, that a recipient-listener has understood the point or source of humor and that at the same time is intellectually or socially superior to it” (p. 219). Canned jokes typically are context-free and do not interfere with the development of the conversation (Dynel, 2009), yet here Sunny’s joke adds to the interaction and supports Bobby’s recipe telling.

44

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

2.3

Summary

Multimodal recipe telling on television is the act of narrating and demonstrating a cooking event on television. Media production designs, crafts, and produces recipe telling on screen through the integration of language, sound, and visuals. Hosts verbally relay the recipe and use procedural discourse while cooking, with the camera zooming in for close-ups of the ingredients, zooming out to frame the host on-level with the viewer, and zooming out to create an overall story frame for the recipe telling. The scenes shift according to the host’s recipe telling. Central to the show is the verbal style of the celebrity chefs. Instances of intertextuality, personification, humor, and direct address to viewers result in a discourse that is personal and conversational. This increased informality of recipe telling discourse on cooking shows is evidence of a larger shift in media language towards “conversationalization,” or the use of informal talk and conversational language in public discourse, first introduced by Norman Fairclough (1994). Cheri Ketchum (2007) observed a similar shift toward informality in the programming of Food Network and its shift from cuisine-driven to personality-driven programs. Language has also shifted from impersonal directives to more conversational language and storytelling. The combined linguistic and production move away from didacticism has resulted in more entertaining cooking shows. The host’s personality must be distinct, even in recipe telling, the most traditional and formulaic language of food discourse. Food Network Television Cooking Shows De Laurentiis, Giada. Giada Entertains. “Easter Brunch.” Season 4, Episode 13, April 14, 2019

De Laurentiis, Giada. Giada’s Holiday Handbook. 2015–2019. Drummond, Ree. The Pioneer Woman. “Tequila,” Season 13, Episode 5, April 20, 2016 “Other Cuts of Beef,” Season 15, Episode 3, January 21, 2017 “Afternoon Tea,” Season 14, Episode 1, July 16, 2016

Flay, Bobby, and Philips, Damaris. The Bobby and Damaris Show. “Gaming and Grubbin.’” Season 1, Episode 5. October 1, 2017

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

45

Flay, Bobby. Brunch @ Bobby’s. “Tasty Trattoria Brunch,” Season 3, Episode 1, January 4, 2013 “Off to the Races,” Season 1, Episode 7, December 5, 2010 “Pulling the Curtain on Crepes,” Season 7, Episode 6, October 3, 2016 “Wake Up Your Sweet Tooth,” Season 7, Episode 9, October 31, 2016

Garten, Ina. Barefoot: Back to Basics. “Good Home Cooking,” Season 7, Episode 6, May 28, 2008 “Cook Like a Pro: Chocolate,” Season 13, Episode 6, July 9, 2017 “Tex-Mex Entertaining,” Season 16, Episode 3, May 5, 2019

Ray, Rachael. 30 Minute Meals with Rachael Ray. “Chicken Change-Up,” Season 28, Episode 15, April 16, 2019 “Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 16, April 17, 2019

Note 1. According to Rachael Ray, “A statement salad by definition is built on a giant board. Just the presentation of itself says, ‘come to the table!’” On the cooking show, a huge salad is topped with Buffalo chicken and blue cheese ranch and built like a sub sandwich on a long wooden board (30 Minute Meals, Season 28, Episode 25, 2019).

References Arnold-Ratliff, K. (2011, December 12). The rise and fall of the recipe card. Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/12/recipe-cards-abrief-history.html. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (Vern W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979). Chiaro, D. (2013). Passionate about food: Jamie and Nigella and the performance of food-talk. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, & S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary linguistics (pp. 83–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York: Continuum.

46

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Collins, K. (2012). A kitchen of one’s own: The paradox of Dione Lucas. Camera Obscura: Feminism Culture Media Studies, 27 (2), 1–23. Cotter, C. (1997). Claiming a piece of the pie: How the language of recipes defines community. In A. L. Bower (Ed.), Recipes for reading: Community cookbooks, stories, histories (pp. 51–71). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Counihan, C. (1992). Food rules in the United States. Anthropological Quarterly, 65(2), 55–66. De Solier, I. (2013). Food and the self: Consumption, production and material culture. London: Bloomsbury. Dyer, R. (2004). Heavenly bodies: Film stars and society (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284–1299. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whiteley, & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2001/1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor, 14(1), 55–82. Ketchum, C. (2007). Tunnel vision and food: A political-economic analysis of Food Network. In S. Banet-Weiser, C. Chris, & A. Freitas (Eds.), Cable visions: Television beyond broadcasting (pp. 158–176). New York: New York University Press. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Chapter 9. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Langer, J. (1981). Television’s ‘personality system’. Media, Culture and Society, 3(4), 351–366. Lewis, T. (2008). Smart living: Lifestyle media and popular expertise. New York: Peter Lang. Marshall, D. (2002). The new intertextual commodity. In D. Harries (Ed.), The new media book (pp. 69–81). London: British Film Institute. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization on television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 151–159. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2015). Inquiry in television cooking shows. Discourse & Communication, 9(3), 313–330. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2017a). Cooking at home: A multimodal narrative analysis of the Food Network. Discourse, Context, & Media, 17, 20–29.

2

MULTIMODAL RECIPE TELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

47

Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2017b). Self-deprecatory humor on TV cooking shows. Language & Communication, 56, 33–41. Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2012). Culinary capital. London: Berg. Nilsen, D., & Nilsen, A. (2018). The language of humor: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norrick, N. (2011). Conversational recipe telling. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2740– 2761. Phillipov, M. (2017). Media and food industries: The new politics of food. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-64101-0 (eBook). Polan, D. (2011). Julia Child’s ‘The French Chef’. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Polanyi, L. (1985). Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ray, R. (2016, November 28). “A Glossary of Rachael-isms.” Rachael Ray Every Day. Retrieved from https://www.rachaelraymag.com/real-life/glossary. Rolland, J., & Sherman, C. (2006). The Food Encyclopedia: Over 8,000 ingredients, tools, techniques and people. Toronto: Robert Rose. Rousseau, S. (2012). Food media: Celebrity chefs and the politics of everyday interference. London: Berg. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. Chapter 15. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sherzer, J. (1985). Puns and jokes. Chapter 15. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 213–221). London: Academic Press. Waxman, N. (2004). Recipes. In A. F. Smith (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of food and drink in America (pp. 347–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 325–339.

CHAPTER 3

Storytelling on Cooking Shows

When I was in culinary school, many, many moons ago, I remember the instructor talking about making sure that the yolks and the whites were evenly distributed, so it was really just one color. You didn’t have streaks of white running through the yolks. That’s good classic technique (Bobby Flay, Brunch @ Bobby’s )

Television cooking shows provide a space for discourse about food, with storytelling emerging as a way to share and interpret experiences. Entertaining and educating simultaneously, cooking show hosts tell recipes and weave in stories, a form of narrative marked by distinctive linguistic and structural components. The excerpt recipe tells of an open-faced omelet with dill cream cheese, smoked salmon, and grilled asparagus, taking on extra meaning when instruction for beaten eggs emerges from cooking show host Bobby Flay’s story from culinary school (“Brunch in Bloom,” Season 5, Episode 10, 2015). Cooking shows offer a kind of ‘super-story’ in that the show itself is a story with a consistent teller from week to week, each episode consists of a plot and a beginning and end, and within each episode are individual stories embedded within the recipe telling. Stories give context to the cooking, giving the act more meaning than just making

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_3

49

50

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

food. The domestic scenario often revolves around narrative of entertainment culminating in dinner parties, for example, while travel shows accompany chefs on tour as they progress from location to location, presenting viewers with ethnographic experiences of food cultures. Five different frameworks can be applied to analyzing cooking shows as a story: narrative, folklore, myth, media studies, and culinary tourism, each of which offers insight to the construction of celebrity chef expertise and authenticity. While any cooking show can be looked at through the lens of narrative, folklore, myth, or through a media analysis, only some shows can be understood as culinary tourism. The most evident genre of culinary tourism is travel cooking shows in which the host travels and shows viewers new eateries. Culinary tourism can also occur in the domestic set of howto cooking shows, but the exotic or new food is adapted for home cooks, while travel cooking shows illustrate the place and food in-situ. The expanding genre of cooking shows necessitates a broadened scope in theory to examine the shifting relations between participants. Flexible in interpretation, cooking shows offer various cues—evaluations, varying technical culinary difficulties, home versus restaurant kitchen setting, solo or with others—of the role of the host. In effect, a viewing contract that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the host must be worked out. Perhaps part of the appeal of these programs is the undetermined nature of the genre, and hence, the serendipitous viewing experience. Viewers may identify with the host as a heroic figure or as a source of knowledge who solves their problem of what to cook for dinner. In the cooking show genre, the subject position constructed is inherently unstable, playing the real expert and storied voice of the audience.

3.1

Narrative and Cooking Shows

Storytelling is an essential human activity, and according to Jerome Bruner (1990), “an organizing principle by which people organize their experience in, knowledge about, and transactions with the social world” (p. 35). Stories have recognizable patterns, and in these patterns, we find meaning. Storytelling is an important discursive practice because it is effective at teaching in a way that is memorable and at helping people relate to one another. Narrative therefore is a discursive resource that we draw upon in many communicative contexts, including the media. Many television programs are organized around narrative activity (Livingstone & Lunt, 1994; Lorenzo-Dus, 2006; Thornborrow, 2015), and this is particularly so in

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

51

the case of TV cooking shows, where the telling of personal stories is a primary discursive activity conducted by TV cooking show hosts (Matwick & Matwick, 2014). Stories are generally understood to follow a chronological pattern with a beginning, middle, and end. Narrative consists of two main “strands of meaning:” the “referential,” or the recount of the actions, such as who was involved and what happened, and the “affective” strand of meaning, which makes these events purposeful (Cheshire & Ziebland, 2005, p. 21). In the affective strand of meaning, narrators interpret the event, justifying the telling. For cooking shows, the referential is what is being cooked and the affective is what the hosts say about the dish—its source of inspiration, how it tastes, tips on serving and eating, etc. Further, the affective strand of meaning shows the kind of person the celebrity chef claims to be. As Charlotte Linde (1993) notes, “narrative is a presentation of the self, and the evaluative component in particular establishes the kind of self that is presented” (p. 81). Narrative is not told in isolation but is oriented towards an audience. In cooking show narratives, various aspects for telling a story are contextually specific, for example, as storyteller, collaborator, or recipient. As Joanna Thornborrow (2015) notes, the ‘telling’ of a story in broadcast media is a situated narrative event that is shaped by its mediated setting. The telling can be “monologic” (Blum-Kulka, 2001), which occurs on how-to coking shows such as Bobby Flay’s Brunch @ Bobby’s when the solo host tells stories for an audience listening to and watching the show. The telling can also be “dialogic,” created through the accumulation of contributions among participants (Blum-Kulka, 2001). Talk cooking shows and travel cooking shows are examples where multiple participants co-narrate in the telling. As examples, co-hosts on The Kitchen alternate between storyteller, collaborator, and recipient when sharing stories that inspired their recipes; on the travel cooking show Diners, Drive-ins and Dives (2019), Guy Fieri tells the origin of the featured restaurant (storyteller), elicits stories from local diners (recipient), and often interjects in the recipe and story tellings (collaborator). In the varying roles of the host, stories are given on behalf of at home viewers to provide context to the show and to increase their understanding of the story, and hence, pleasure in watching. Narrative continues to be a platform for research in linguistics and across the range of disciplines, such as media studies and folklore. Of growing interest to linguists is of storytelling in new media environments, which has not received enough academic study (De Fina & Georgakopoulou,

52

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

2015). Mediated contexts like cooking shows illustrate the emergence of new narratives but also its blending with the old. Classic narrative features are present while supporting the inclusion of spatially and temporally displaced tellers into the main telling. For example, at-home viewers post photos of their home-cooked meals on social media that were inspired by recipes from The Kitchen. A selection of photos is then reshown on the talk cooking show, adding to the telling from the participant perspective. Yet, as mediated narratives, cooking shows are limited in the types of stories that can be told, how they can be told, and by whom.

3.2

Multidisciplinary Narrative Approaches to Storytelling

We illustrate how cooking shows can be analyzed through narrative, drawing from five different fields of research: language and oral narrative (Labov, 1972), fairytale and folklore (Propp, 1968), hero and myth archetypes (Campbell, 1949), media studies (Altman, 1986; Williams, 1974), and culinary tourism (Long, 2004). While cooking programs have common characteristics (talking about, preparing, cooking, serving, and eating food), their configuration alters when reviewed in a different framework. It is at these moments that we see the various relationships between the host and viewer emerge. The first three approaches offer narrative structural approaches that provide a universal narrative scheme: sociolinguist William Labov and his sixpart structure for oral narrative (1967 with Waletzky; 1972), Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp and his formal organization or “morphology” of folklore based on one hundred fairytales (1968), and comparative mythology scholar Joseph Campbell and his template for a Hero’s journey (1949). Labov, Propp, and Campbell identify how narratives share a fundamental structure: Labov emphasizes the linguistic properties of narrative, Propp the characters and “morphemes” or narrative units of stories, and Campbell the archetypal hero and monomyth. The narrative components of cooking shows illustrate the progression of the plot and the various roles of the characters. Identifying the positioning of the hosts and viewers as hero, helper, or victim helps to understand the appeal of cooking shows. A fourth approach—media studies—examines the televisual and production elements. These include commercial breaks in between cooking segments, props such as custom-designed stand-mixers, and editing techniques such as cross-cutting. The camera may cut away from the celebrity

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

53

chef preparing a rack of lamb to a florist arranging a vase of wisteria and orange tulips. The adjacency of the scenes contextualizes these two scenes as occurring simultaneously and gives background information for future scenes. The very same vase decorates the celebrity chef’s dining table in the next scene. Editing techniques include medium shot camera angles, soft jazz music, and steady movement, which constructs cooking as pleasant and entertaining. The fifth approach to understand the narrative of cooking shows is culinary tourism. On travel cooking shows, the host visits unique and memorable eateries and places. By combining travel with these edible experiences, the celebrity chef participates in culinary tourism offering both locals and at-home viewers alike an authentic taste of place. Folklorist and food scholar Lucy Long (2004) defines “culinary tourism” as “the intentional, exploratory participation in the foodways of an other” (p. 21). This concept is a way of exploring the meanings and cultures surrounding food. As a culinary tourist, the celebrity chef presents himself or herself as a learner of other cultures at the same time as expert of taste. The narrative structure of the cooking show promotes deeper understandings of food as a cultural, social, and personal activity and as a media production for celebrity chef. A Stories are at once identifiable with distinct parts but are fluid and dynamic, responding to and reflecting the community and social context in which it occurs. Each theoretical approach adds a perspective, a different emphasis, in exploring concepts of identity, performance, and language. The range of methodologies is useful in studying food discourse of celebrity chefs, as food and language cannot be understood in their totality by any one discipline. Like stories, food crosses boundaries and borders, not only of the rituals, practices, and events surrounding narrative, but also academia. 3.2.1

Sociolinguistic Narrative Approach to Cooking Shows

William Labov’s narrative analysis is a foundational text to narrative structure and language. Expanding on early work with Joshua Waletzky (1967), Labov’s essay (1972) identifies formal linguistic properties of narrative and relates them to their functions. The six-part narrative components include: 1. Abstract—summarizes the story 2. Orientation—sets the scene (time, place, situation); the who, what, when, where, why; can be placed anywhere

54

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

3. Complicating action —provides the main action of the narrative; gives the ‘then what happened’ 4. Evaluation—gives the significance or ‘so what?’ of the story; validates the telling 5. Resolution—resolves the problem 6. Coda—ends narrative; bridges the time of the narrative to present. It is not necessary that all six be present in every narrative (Labov, 1972); for example, some narratives omit the abstract, while others do not have a coda, ending instead with the resolution. The focus of this chapter is the evaluations, the most important part of the narrative. Evaluations can be in separate clauses, but also may occur in the other narrative components through the use of ‘intensifiers’: pronunciation, repetition, and non-verbal gestures; ‘comparators,’ which compare events that occurred with those that did not and ‘correlatives’ that combine events into single accounts and ‘explicatives,’ which explain complications in the narrative for the listener (Labov, 1972; Labov & Waletzsky, 1967). Labov (1972) defines narrative “as one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred” (p. 218). A minimal narrative consists of two temporally ordered clauses; if there is a change in the temporal sequence, then the original semantic interpretation is changed. While stories can also be told in flashbacks and flashforwards, as well as by multiple tellers (Blum-Kulka, 2001), narrative connects events into a coherent and recognizable unit. A flashback provides background information on events that have already occurred, such as the host narrating the mixing of a cake batter. A flash forward is a scene that temporarily takes the narrative forward in time, such as the cake baked. Tellers on cooking shows consist of the host who may be joined by ordinary participants such as family, friends, restaurant diners, and chefs. The host’s occasional voiceover may also act as another teller, providing another perspective of the host from a recording taken at a different time. The host may comment on the show itself, “that was really fun” or “it turned out better than I thought.” The multiple tellings, whether by others or the host, enhance the main story. Originally applied to oral conversation, Labov’s narrative concepts have been applied to other formats and social settings, such as newspaper stories (Bell, 1994), cookbook recipes (Cotter, 1997), documentaries and

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

55

talk shows (Lorenzo-Dus, 2009), and our own work on cooking shows (Matwick & Matwick, 2014, 2017). While using Labov’s framework as a spring board, we acknowledge its limitations: its inability to account for interactional negotiations, its overlook of the specific context in which narrative emerges; and its structural rigidity. At the same time, we use its strengths in providing a clear way to approach narrative and orient it to current sociolinguistic approaches to narrative, as articulated by Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (2015): Our approach, however, takes, a further step beyond the local level of tellings and looks for links and articulations between different levels of context and different scales in order to explain how the telling of stories shapes and is shaped by ideologies, social relations, and social agendas in different communities, times, and spaces. (p. 3)

Food Discourse is grounded in studies of narrative as a form and in sociolinguistics research on narrative; but we combine other levels of analysis in an attempt to understand how the construction of celebrity chef can be identified at levels of form, performance (or interaction), journey, and media production. Using different levels of analysis offers different interpretations of narrative told in different contexts of cooking shows, a multidisciplinary approach which can deepen our understanding of narrative as a general phenomenon. 3.2.1.1 Application of Labov’s Narrative Framework In Chapter 2, we applied Labov’s narrative framework to recipe telling and identified components of recipe, including abstract (summarizes the recipe), complicating action (consists of cooking directions), and evaluations (comprised of descriptions of taste or appearance, for example). In this chapter, we apply Labov’s framework to the storytelling and discourse interwoven with the recipe telling. The surrounding discourse that contextualizes the recipe telling follows the Labovian narrative. Expanding on Labov’s framework to recipe telling and storytelling on cooking shows, we identify linguistic properties of narrative and relate them to their functions in the cooking shows. In Excerpt 3.1, host of 30 Minute Meals on Food Network, celebrity chef Rachael Ray sets off the fire alarm when cooking burgers and begins to tell about her cooking demonstrations

56

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

‘back in the day.’ Her narrative follows Labov’s six-part narrative components: abstract, orientation, complication action, evaluations, resolution, and coda. Excerpt 3.1 Fire Alarm and ‘Back in the Day’ Abstract: [beep, beep, beep] Oh! I set off the fire alarm! That is so awesome! That’s really good luck for me. [laughs] [putting away jarred pickles into the refrigerator)] [fire alarm continues beeping] [goes over to the skillet where four burger patties are cooking] Orientation: Yeah even when I was teaching ‘30 Minute Meals’ back in the day when I very first started, when I taught them, like down at the Knights of Columbus, [flipping patties] Complicating action: I would set off the fire alarm. Evaluation 1: No kidding. [looks at camera, smiling, matter-of fact expression] [turns to open up refrigerator; grabs cheese] Evaluation 2: It’s a funny way to get the firefighters to show up, but I love a man in uniform. Resolution: [laughs] Interim sequence: Recipe telling: Once we flip our patties, we can cheese them up. I’m gonna add cheddar and pepper jack. [putting cheese slices on patties] Or yellow American, which is really orange, but I don’t know why they call it yellow, but whatever. Yellow American or mild cheddar and pepper jack both. [cheese melting on burger patties; sizzling] Evaluation 3: Well when the firefighters come, they’re gonna be really happy I made them burgers. [laughs] Coda resumes recipe telling: Okay, so back to our sauce. In [a glass mixing bowl] goes our chopped pickled peppers, our ketchup. [also adds sour cream] Stir that together. A little shot of Worcestershire. Okay. Go. Run if you [viewers] have to take a break. (Rachael Ray, 30 Minute Meals, “Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 16, 2019)

In Excerpt 3.1, the fire alarm cues Rachael’s memories of when she first started teaching cooking. In identifying the narrative components, it becomes evident how cooking show stories segue into and out of cooking instructions or “recipe tellings” (Norrick, 2011). Storytelling and recipe telling can be told at separate settings, such as a story in the beginning of the show, but more typical of cooking shows, stories are contingent to the actual cooking demonstration.

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

57

The telling of a story usually involves recounting events that require more than one turn to tell. To cue the transition into the storyworld, Rachael sets up and prefaces multi-unit turns to keep the audience’s attention for an extended period (Sacks, 1987; Schegloff, 1987). In the preface, she prepares the audience for the upcoming story; when the fire alarm goes off, she says, “That is so awesome! That’s really good luck for me.” She launches into storytelling, deploying narrative resources for the audience to understand it. The story is marked by distinct spatial and temporal reference points from the real world, which are indicated through verb shifts (present vs. past), distal deixis (this vs. that) and adverbial temporal markers (now vs. then). Connectives (so, and, but, or, because) mark the entry and exit of stories and provide coherence and structure to speech (Schegloff, 1984). In the Fire Alarm excerpt, the transition “even when” and verbal shift into the past progressive (“I was teaching”) characterize the orientation of the story (Toolan, 1988, p. 155). The story maintains a historical present tense until the resolution is marked by the coda, “Okay, so back to our sauce,” says Rachael. The connectives (“Okay”; “so”), adverb (“back”), and present tense verb (“goes”) mark the return to the present. Order is restored both in the story world and in the real world, made even more explicit in Rachael’s invitation to her viewers to take a break: “Go. Run if you have to take a break.” The intermission cue is needed for commercial break but also acknowledges that viewers too may need a break. Storytellers provide the audience with a variety of indications of what is important in the telling and how they should react to the telling. Rachael sets the orientation, saying “back in the day when I very first started [teaching]...at the Knights of Columbus,” a service organization. She continues, “I would set off the fire alarm.” This understanding is consequential for positioning the second part of the story. When the firefighters hypothetically arrive on set, a third point of view results, which legitimizes her cooking skills: “when the firefighters come, they’re gonna be really happy I made them burgers,” says Rachael. The show continues to revolve around one primary character (Rachael) but obliges the audience to see her as a generous host. Just like her cooking experience in the past, she anticipates sharing the food with the firefighters. Rachael may enact a particular orientation toward the storytelling, in this case one that is light sarcasm (“that’s really good luck for me”; “no kidding”). Although the fire alarm suggests burning food, the Knights of Columbus community members and the firefighters approve of her burgers, validating the celebrity chef’s expertise from an ordinary person’s perspective.

58

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

In her storytelling, Rachael positions herself as ordinary and relatable, fostering intimacy and familiarity. Her banal musings on the misnaming of orange Yellow American cheese and giggling about being attracted to men in uniform (“I love a man in a uniform”) are ordinary and conversational. At the same time, her stories of failure and setting the fire alarm off paradoxically position the celebrity chef as experienced in the kitchen. She reveals her years of teaching cooking and being a television host of 30 Minute Meals, building viewers’ trust and confidence in her cooking and recipes. Narrative is a device that celebrity chefs use to position themselves as accessible and expert. Together with speech, nonverbal communication through body language equip the celebrity chef to send messages and enhance the storytelling. Through facial expressions, posture, and eye contact, the host tells stories, sending additional messages with pitch, volume, and pace. The criteria for a narration to be a story require “remarkableness” (Labov, 1972), usually indicated in the evaluation (“that is so awesome!”, “it’s a funny way”; “they’re [firefighters] gonna be really happy”). The extraordinariness of the story can also be about routine or familiar activities (Robinson, 1981). Within the familiar activity of cooking, Rachael’s telling of the fire alarm is extraordinary and may excite greater interest of listeners with a performance: “In such circumstances, a storyteller may exploit expressive and stylistic devices to heighten audience interest, or he may contextualize the episode in ways which impute a degree of remarkableness or novelty to the narrated events” (Robinson, 1981, p. 62). Rachael uses stylistic devices such as pauses, squeals, high pitch, and fast-paced speech to maintain the audience interest. Such variation of tempo, emotion, and sonority breaks up the flow and the amount of information given, so as to avoid overwhelming the audience, and makes the presentation dynamic and memorable. The host’s ability to use nonverbal communication, both body language and paralinguistic cues, provides a resource to help her connect with viewers, teach cooking tips, and ultimately build a closer relationship with viewers. The narrative components further illustrate the cooking show’s realtime aesthetics. A “Cook Time” is given at the beginning of each segment (post-commercial), presumably clocking the real progression of the cooking demonstration. Analyzing Rachael Ray’s 30 Minute Meals, Elizabeth Nathanson (2009) observes that this regulation of cooking by the clock invokes a sense of urgency, turning time into a “spectacle that can be objectified, packaged, and sold as an item of television entertainment”

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

59

(p. 324). Further, Nathanson contextualizes Rachael’s show within postfeminist media, arguing that the show gives contradictory messages of domestic efficiency and time management alongside nostalgia for an imagined past of “eternal women’s time” (p. 328). Contemporary women, pressed by work, family, and societal obligations, fantasize with the past in which women had a leisurely unlimited time in the domestic sphere (Nathanson, 2009). In this case, the clock authenticates the show’s live filming and Rachael’s performance as unedited and real. 3.2.2

Cooking Shows as Universal Stories: Fairytales

Cooking show narratives can be compared to fairytales, stories made up of characters who live in imaginary worlds. In Morphology of the Folktale (1928/1968), Vladimir Propp (1895–1970) examined one hundred Russian folktales in search of a universal story. Like Labov, Propp worked on a textual and structural level and identified thirty-two narratems, or “fixed elements of narrative functions,” which were categorized under six stages: preparation, complication, transference, struggle, return and recognition. Propp also identified eight basic “character roles” such as victim, villain, hero, and helper. This set of functions, together with events and actors, combines in various ways to produce narrative. While Propp’s approach has been critiqued for overgeneralizing narrative (Alleyne, 2015), it is helpful in identifying the repetition in cooking shows and other lifestyle genres. Property shows, for instance, resemble a fairy tale narrative. Ordinary people seek help from expert hosts to buy or sell a difficult property and undergo a ‘discovery journey,’ learning new skills and gaining access to resources (Lorenzo-Dus, 2006, p. 742). Viewers identify with these ‘fairytale heroes’ because they share similar interests and profiles (Lorenzo-Dus, 2006, p. 742). One of Food Network’s early shows, Food 911 followed a similar premise. Aired from 2000–2006, host Tyler Florence traveled around the America and helped individuals overcome various cooking dilemmas in their homes (e.g., “Risotto Rescue,” “Healthy Picnic for Two”; “Beat the Clock Dinner Party”. Although he assists each time, the participants are given credit for solving their problems. Propp’s fairy-tale narrative can be extrapolated to the viewers at home watching as well. Cooking in their kitchen, viewers undertake the fairy-tale hero journey themselves. In the Preparation stage, home cooks are Victims or Seekers, ordinary people helpless in the kitchen and lacking cooking knowledge and skill. Initiating change, home cooks enter the Complication

60

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

stage and seek inspiration and instruction for cooking. They begin watching cooking shows, learning from celebrity chefs, or Helpers who transfer knowledge and provide instruction on cooking. In this Transference stage, cooking shows offer resources of culinary knowledge. Practicing what they watch, home cooks “struggle” at cooking, sometimes landing a lofty cake and other times, burning muffins. They continue to practice and turn to their expert Helpers for solutions, “returning” to the kitchen to develop their skills. When cooking a meal for others, home cooks are (hopefully) given due “recognition” and viewed as Heroes. Table 3.1 identifies the narrative elements in cooking shows and its functions from the perspective of viewers as fairy-tale heroes and celebrity chefs as helpers. As Table 3.1 outlines, the home cook embarks on a heroic journey to solve her or his cooking problems. Cooking shows offer an entertaining and helpful way to resolve this issue. Acquiring knowledge, viewers practice at home, repeating the cycle until confidence is gained and success at the kitchen table is reached. Viewers of studio debates similarly take on a hero role, as Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lunt (1994) propose in a ‘romance genre’ analysis of the British daytime chat show. To identify roles of the host and audience, Livingstone and Lunt refer to psychologist Bettelheim’s (1976) distinction of hero between myths and fairytales: “mythic heroes” have superhuman qualities, while fairy tale heroes may be ordinary persons (p. 60). The host, celebrity chefs in this case, is more akin to mythic hero and viewers as the fairy tale heroes. However, TV programs have shifted from mythic hero tales towards the ordinariness and increasing identification with viewers (Livingstone & Lunt, 1994, pp. 58–62). In Ordinary Television (2003), Table 3.1

Home Cooks as Fairy-Tale Heroes

Narrative element

Function

Preparation

Home cooks (“Victims” or “Seekers”) need help making meals but are unable/uninspired to do so by themselves Home cooks seek help and watch cooking shows Celebrity chefs (“Helpers”) share their skills and help viewers. Cooking shows are a resource of culinary knowledge Home cooks practice what they learned with mixed results Home cooks return to the kitchen and cook a meal Home cooks receive recognition as “Heroes”

Complication Transference Struggle Return Recognition

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

61

Frances Bonner notes the rise of lifestyle and reality programs and the greater presence of ordinary participants. Cooking shows are part of this lifestyle programming paradigm with hosts giving guidance on food and entertaining. Viewers can envision themselves cooking, especially when the cooking show set is a domestic kitchen and the host appears like them. Cooking show hosts claim their ordinariness—Rachael Ray as the “girl-next-door,” Ree Drummond the “mother, blogger,” and Bobby Flay as “boy meets grill.” Celebrity chefs provide personal stories and confessions of failures to connect with their viewers. While home viewers may not get to tell their stories on the cooking show itself, they are able to pass on their heroic journeys and offer advice to other home cooks on other food media platforms, such as Food Network recipe reviews and social media platforms. Propp’s fairytale framework illustrates how home cooks can take on heroic journeys with cooking shows part of their transformation personally and technically. 3.2.3

Celebrity Chefs on a Hero’s Journey (Joseph Campbell)

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man. (Campbell, 1949, p. 23)

Joseph Campbell’s (1949) template for a “hero’s journey” can be compared to celebrity chefs on cooking shows. The grand narrative template consists of three main stages: “Departure,” “Initiation,” and “Return.” The celebrity chef’s hero journey begins off-stage in the Departure stage as an unskilled and ordinary individual. Interest in food is aroused, fostered by domestic or vocational necessity. The hero begins to gain a sense of self and culinary point of view but is called to adventure, compelled to go beyond what he or she knows. The hero embarks on a journey for the answer, entering the Initiation stage, a stage that marks their presence on cooking shows. Viewers watch as the hero ventures into the unfamiliar and the unknown (untested recipes; unusual ingredients; new cooking techniques); leaves the daily routine (changes up daily routine; travels); encounters a crisis (burnt food; scarcity of ingredients; lack of time, budget constraints); and overcomes the problem (learns from others; does recipe testing; practices). In the Return stage, the hero returns to his or her homeland. Transformed

62

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

with a defined culinary point of view and expert cooking skills, the hero celebrity chefs share what they learned on the television cooking show, bestowing knowledge onto their people, or home viewers and fans. The television immortalizes these “boons,” transforming ordinary recipes into a second class of signification in Roland Barthes’ (1972) sense of myth. What Barthes terms as “myth” is in fact the manner in which a culture signifies and grants meaning to the world around it. According to Barthes, anything can be a myth, and this meaning is conditioned by ideology. Here, television conditions the first level of signification—that of people cooking—into a second level of signification, that of myth and connotation; cooking shows become a signifier and the host portrays home cooking as desirable. Media programming has mythic functions, such as fulfilling purposes to inspire awe, facilitate self-actualization, provide meaning, and instruct (Silverblatt, 2007). As part of media, cooking shows fulfil these mythologizing functions, including the reenacting of rituals, whether it is the average weeknight dinner or the holiday meal, such as Thanksgiving. Looking at cooking shows as rituals can help explain their popularity and why we watch—either as reruns or simply as variations of the same formula—again and again. As Robert Rowland (1990) observes, “myths dominate society; they define custom and answer basic problems” (p. 113); cooking shows answer the basic problems of what to eat and how at the practical level, while helping us transcend ordinary life. Watching a formulaic program may have value as ritual, reaffirming values that are critical to our belief system, such as eating with others providing social (and familial) connection and cultural (and national) continuity. The hero’s journey applies to celebrity chefs across cooking show genres. Here we outline the ‘hero journey’ in instructional cooking shows, competition cooking shows, and travel cooking shows. For howto and competition, the ‘journey’ is metaphoric and relayed through storytelling, side cuts, and images of the host’s life pre-show in the Departure stage, while the Initiation and Return constitute the cooking show narrative. For travel cooking shows, the host is shown on the journey or Initiation stage. Taking a role similar to a tourist, the host’s journey moves from the “profane/workaday/stay-at-home” to the “sacred/nonordinary/touristic” (Graburn, 1989, p. 22). This travel or “culinary tourism” is presented as a way to embellish and enrichen one’s life. Table 3.2 indicates the key activities of the celebrity chef as a hero in three cooking show genres.

Departure Ordinary World (Pre-celebrity) chef hero faces challenges in what to cook; experiences everyday life; forms outlook and point of view on food and life Call to Adventure Begins quest to be skilled in the kitchen and/or a celebrity chef

Ordinary World Participant works in the food industry, as a chef for a restaurant or caterer Call to Adventure Sees a call for participants to compete on cooking show; submits application

How-to (domestic scenario)

Competition (chefs compete in a kitchen studio or stadium)

Transformed Shares knowledge on cooking show; uses storytelling and recipe telling to relay experience Everyday world Rewards viewers with good recipes; entertains with stories learned

Adventure Tests recipes; acquires cooking skills Crisis Encounters improper cooking of food (under and/or over cooks food); insufficient or incorrect ingredients; insufficient cooking techniques; inadequate equipment Overcomes Adapts recipe; practices cooking technique; acquires cooking skill and knowledge Adventure Learns of acceptance to compete; prepares for and enters competition; studies the game rules; watches past episodes Crisis Competes against other skilled chefs; faces challenges in the kitchen (limited cooking time; accidental cuts; forgets required ingredients) Overcomes Finishes cooking in time to present dish to judges; faces the judging panel

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

(continued)

Transformed Learns lessons in the kitchen and about the self; grows in confidence from experience Everyday world Receives public recognition; boost in career; cooking skills validated

Return

Initiation

Celebrity Chefs on Campbell’s Hero Journey on Cooking Shows

Cooking show genre

Table 3.2

3

63

Departure Ordinary World Chef-host bored with food that is known Call to Adventure Collects information through reviews, recommendations; makes travel itinerary

Cooking show genre

Travel (new places, people, and cuisine)

Table 3.2 (continued)

Adventure Travels around the country; meets new people, restaurants; learns about new foods and cooking techniques Crisis Faces trials with tasting unusual or extreme foods, such as extra spicy dishes or taboo foods Overcomes Tries the food; willing to learn new ways of cooking and doing things

Initiation

Transformed Saves small town diners Everyday world Serves for nation-building; emphasizes local businesses

Return

64 K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

65

Table 3.2 illustrates how celebrity chefs on Campbell’s Hero Journey on cooking shows begin as ordinary people and transform into celebrities through intentional training, whether professionally or for leisure. Through storytelling on-screen, celebrity chef heroes share their pre-celebrity stage lives that occur in the Departure stage. Stories range from learning to cook biscuits and deviled eggs from her grandma (Katie Lee, cohost of The Kitchen), wanting a career change from politics (Ina Garten of Barefoot Contessa), to early years cooking in restaurants and developing a culinary style, such as Southwestern ingredients (Bobby Flay of Brunch @ Bobby’s ). These personal stories reduce their distance as a ‘star,’ rather increasing identification. In identifying the celebrity chef hero stages, we can understand more fully their appeal. 3.2.4

Media Studies: Watching from Home

As a television mode, cooking shows are programmed to include commercials. In the old television model, these breaks were considered part of the viewers’ experience. Television channels worked to keep viewers’ attention with a cohesive “flow” of television material between the show and commercials (Williams, 1974). Although new programming strategies and online streaming allow viewers to control their own flow, cooking shows are still designed with advertised breaks. Rather than seeing these breaks as interruptions, viewers may welcome them as intermissions, allowing them to find the recipe just cooked on the Food Network website, prepare a snack, or change the laundry. Indeed, Rick Altman (1986) proposes that watching television is integral to the household experience. The notion of flow depends on a specific cultural practice of television, that it cannot be understood without reference to the parallel notion of household flow, and that the sound track is specifically charged with mediating the relationship between these two flows. (Altman, 1986, p. 40)

The underlying assumption to Altman’s argument is that television is primarily viewed in the home and that its target viewers consist of housewives. This assumption was directly inspired by Tania Modleski’s (1983) argument that the structure of television programming is based on the rhythms of domestic labor. The premise was that stay-at-home women could ‘tune-out’ and focus on household chores, relying on televisual cues for the resumption of the show. Television watching is no longer limited

66

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

to the home but is exhibited across a range of locations, such as lobbies, malls, restaurants, airports, and grocery stores, and across devices, such as smartphones and tablets. Despite the broadened context and new modes of viewing television, the viewing experience continues to consist of the interweaving of programs and advertisements. Various linguistic and audiovisual indications mark the cooking show narrative separate from the commercials. Hosts preface the end of segments: “ok, when we come back…”; “don’t go anywhere”; and its start: “welcome back!”; “if you’ve just joined us,” creating a continuum of images and feelings of the show for the viewer. In a cooking show about brunch, host Bobby recaps, “if you’ve just joined us, it’s waffles gone wild”, and later, “it’s all about bread today,” to remind viewers or inform new ones about the show’s content (“Bread Lovers’ Brunch,” Season 5, Episode 11, 2015). Screen shots of the trademark orientation and fade-outs and fadeins mark the entry and exit of commercials (see Figs. 3.1–3.4 Brunch @ Bobby’s ). Sound provides recognizable continuity in programs, an essential function to keep people from turning the television off (Altman, 1986, p. 43). Soundtracks unique to each program are a conventional cue that distinguish the program from other ‘noise,’ i.e., commercials. Cooking shows achieve this by playing verses of its soundtrack before and after commercials, signaling to viewers of the resumption of the narrative.

Fig. 3.1 Visual hook—strawberry waffles with lemon curd cream and strawberries

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

67

When ‘flow’ is used in its most basic sense, as Raymond Williams (1974) intended, television network programming may schedule commercials strategically around the main show. The intended result is to keep viewers tuned in, and not ‘drift’ from one program to another. As part of the overall scheduling, commercials on Food Network TV are not isolated units, but a planned flow of food and kitchen-related images and feelings, appealing to the viewer who is presumably interested in cooking. These breaks, as Williams suggests, have a commercial goal: advertisement. Food Network primarily broadcasts commercials related to food and cooking, such as Kohl’s, a nation-wide department store that sells Food Network brand kitchenware. Another practice of Food Network scheduling, commercials promote other Food Network shows and lifestyle and travel shows owned by Discovery, Inc., such as HGTV (Home & Garden Television). In creating television episodes for commercial breaks, screenwriters can take into account action that could ‘continue’ on during the break, most pertinently in this case, the cooking (or freezing) of food. Specifically, the breaks come at logical stopping places with the cooking show segmenting dishes around these breaks. One dish is usually prepared during each segment (averaging 6 minutes) with three breaks per episode for a total of three to four dishes. It also allows for an apparent temporal lapse where the action has progressed off-screen, such as the changing of the set or the cooking of dishes, i.e., after a three-minute commercial break, the casserole that takes 45 minutes to cook is done. At the same time, screenwriters can choose to use commercials to temporarily suspend the cooking action, a production device comparable to the Hollywood storytelling technique described by film and media scholars as the “dangling cause.” In Storytelling in the New Hollywood, Kristin Thompson (1999) describes the core of classical storytelling in this way: Hollywood favors unified narratives, which means most fundamentally that a cause should lead to an effect and that effect in turn should become a cause, for another effect, in an unbroken chain across the film. That is not to say that each effect follows immediately from its cause. On the contrary, one of the main sources of clarity and forward impetus in a plot is the ‘dangling cause,’ information or action which leads to no effect or resolution until later in the film. (Thompson, 1999, p. 12)

68

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

This idea of dangling causes is important in differentiating the role of commercials in television storytelling; they can either continue or suspend the plot, depending on the script. Key narrative lines are suspended when regarded as important to the cooking instruction, such as essential moments in the cooking (adding of ingredients, transformation of food being cooked, etc.) or continued when not, such as slow changes to the food over a period of time (hardening of dough in the oven or ice cream in the freezer). This subtle storytelling technique contributes to our ability to follow the cooking sequence across interruptions. The progression of the cooking show is clear, because dangling causes are revived with the same dish being furthered along in the cooking process in between the making of other dishes. Bobby Flay’s Brunch @ Bobby’s has many dishes or sub-plots occurring at the same time. In making the Cinnamon Pull Apart Bread, Bobby first cuts bread into cubes and bakes them; starts another dish; then pulls out the bread, spreads it with cinnamon butter, and puts it back into the oven; prepares another dish in the meantime; pulls out the baked bread, leaves it to cool, then glazes it with an icing; and finally, takes a bite (“Bread Lovers’ Brunch,” Season 5, Episode 11, 2015). These individual narrative components are part of a bigger story, helping viewers grasp the change of time and facilitating the chronological order of the show. Hosts use narrative techniques to facilitate transitions between the show and commercial breaks. “Dialogue hooks” or lines spoken at the end of one scene prepares viewers for what happens next (Thompson, 2003). For instance, in Brunch @ Bobby’s, Bobby Flay prepares viewers for the narrative break by describing what is being cooked in the meantime (waffles), what will be made ahead (lemon curd, omelet, smoked salmon) with screen shots, and a final call to viewers to come back (“so don’t go anywhere”) (“Brunch in Bloom,” Season 5, Episode 10, 2015). Like the precommercial dialogue hooks, visual hooks or images of dishes ahead keep viewers in suspense for what comes after the break. In the return from the break, the food has transformed with more cooking, so again visual and dialogue hooks help explain the changes. Here is a typical narrative sequence with commercial breaks on cooking shows (Bobby Flay, Brunch @ Bobby’s, “Brunch in Bloom,” Season 5, Episode 10, 2015). In Fig. 3.1, an image of strawberry waffles with lemon curd cream and sliced strawberries is a visual hook, grabbing viewers’ attention to the screen. As a dialogue hook, Bobby says, “Alright, don’t touch the

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

69

waffle iron. Let it cook away. When we come back, we’re gonna make a really nice lemon curd cream to go with the strawberries. And an open face omelet, some cream cheese flavored with some fresh dill, and some smoked salmon.” In Fig. 3.2, as a dialogue hook, Bobby promises viewers that there is more to come after the commercial break. “Don’t go anywhere, you’re watchin’ brunch… right here… at Bobby’s,” says Bobby. The host’s smile and direct address to viewers increase the host’s and the cooking show’s appeal, turning the dialogue hook from a directive to an invitation. As a visual hook, the medium shot focuses on Bobby while showing the cooking ensemble. The waffle iron is closed, cooking the waffles, and extra batter rests in the mixing bowl. Strawberry butter, a mixture of blended strawberries, butter, honey, salt, and black pepper, has been made and is ready to be spread on the waffles once cooked. The scene cuts to an image of the show title, accompanied by ska music, then cuts to commercials. In Fig. 3.3, lifestyle shots function as a visual hook, showing the living area of Bobby’s cooking show set. Setting the ambiance of a casual, relaxed brunch, the image features reading glasses perched on a stack of reading material beside a coffee mug and eye glass case. Viewers can imagine Bobby sitting on the couch and pillows in the background, or perhaps, can imagine

Fig. 3.2 Dialogue hook—host’s promise

70

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Fig. 3.3 Lifestyle scene—welcome back

themselves lounging while watching Bobby. The informal scene makes the host relatable and likeable. Bobby narrates a voiceover during the lifestyle scene to segue back into the show following commercials. He announces, “You’re watching Brunch. It’s all about fresh ingredients. Fresh fruits, fresh vegetables. Wherever you find the freshest vegetables, get ‘em and make a delicious brunch.” The voiceover introduces the show again and highlights its theme, a linguistic strategy that informs newly joined viewers and reminds current ones. The value of the show also lies in its promise that viewers too can make a ‘delicious brunch’ with fresh ingredients. In Fig. 3.4, Bobby begins to plate waffles and says, “we’re making some strawberry waffles today. My waffles are about to come out of my waffle iron.” The scene has changed with mixing bowls cleaned and put away. The strawberry butter bowl is joined by a powdered sugar shaker and fresh mint leaves that are used to garnish the waffles. The dialogue hook and visual hook of the precommercial break plated strawberry waffles are now realized and performed, giving a sense of closure to the multimodal narrative sequence. Paddy Scannell (1991) notes that part of the communicative context of the media is the intentional design of talk in radio and in television to bridge the gap between the performer and the audience. This is evident in commercial breaks where the host’s preludes and postludes manage the

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

71

Fig. 3.4 Plating the dish—serving strawberry waffles

show’s narrative while also creating the illusion of an interpersonal relationship. Bobby’s direct gaze and interchanging use of second person (“you”) and third-person collective (“we”) pronouns add a sense of familiarity or “pseudo-intimacy” (O’Keeffe, 2006). Further, the building of co-presence consists of references to immediate context (“now,” “we’re making some strawberry waffles today”) and physical surroundings (here; when we come back; don’t go anywhere), drawing viewers closer into the host’s narrative and into the kitchen. Food discourse as storytelling emphasizes the creative nature of performance in everyday act of cooking in public display. Although performance sometimes occurs in routine activities, it is different from routine behavior in that it calls for an evaluation of the competence, skill, and creativity with which it is delivered. Richard Bauman (1977) indicates that performance is “marked as subject to evaluation for the way it is done, for the relative skill and effectiveness of performers display of competence” (p. 293). For example, a host cooking waffles might turn an otherwise common activity into a performance by adding strawberries and a flurry of powdered sugar, or by presenting it on special dishware. All of these marks the activity as one in which the host’s abilities as chef, expert, and authentic are displayed. Also, performances are usually framed in such a way that audiences know the activity is a performance. Back to Bobby’s waffles, the waffle maker is ready and hot, and ingredients are on the counter. When making the

72

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

batter, Bobby remarks: “I love the idea of a nice, crispy, steaming-hot waffle with lots of whipped cream and fresh strawberries. I just love that flavor. Sometimes the simplest things are just the best” (“Brunch in Bloom,” Season 5, Episode 10, 2015). Framing can occur in more subtle ways, such as screen shots of spring flowers and a farmer’s market. These activities signal that a performance is about to occur, a food cooking show is about to begin. Similarly, the television screen that allows the audience to view celebrity chefs at work acts as a literal frame for the viewing of cooking as a performance. 3.2.5

Narrative of Travel Cooking Shows: Culinary Tourism

Travel cooking shows are similar to how-to cooking shows and the domestic scenario by including stories about the cooking itself, the preparation of recipes, the consumption, etc. But, travel shows take viewers on another narrative as a form of “culinary tourism” (Long, 2004). Hosts use food as a medium to explore new cultures and ways of being. The host experiences food that is out of ordinary as well as out of the ordinary. Stepping outside of the normal routine, the host acts as a tourist and points out remarkable places, people, and food to viewers, who join along the trip vicariously. The longest running Food Network travel show, and one of its most prolific with over 400 episodes, is Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, also referred to as “Triple D,” on which host Guy Fieri travels across the country in search of local, small-town eateries. The American context of Guy’s travel cooking show is particularly diverse and dynamic for culinary tourism. As Lucy Long (2004) describes, “the United States is rich with constructed contexts for tourism, since immigration into the country as well as migration between regions results in a constant flux of new conditions and new traditions” (p. 207). Viewers are presented with ethnographic experiences of culture, shedding a new perspective on fellow Americans and the diversity of food available. In one show alone, Guy features Italian sausage in Delaware, Middle-Eastern shawarma in San Diego, and pizza and scaloppini in Vancouver (“Sausage, Shawarma, Scaloppini,” Season 32, Episode 2, 2019). As Emily Contois (2018) notes, Guy’s show is inclusive of cuisines and respects their distinctive practices: “Emphasizing the unique and the universal, the funky and the familiar, Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives endorses an America and an American food culture that is distinctively diverse rather than assimilated and melted down” (p. 152). Guy depicts a multicultural

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

73

America as representing an “authentic” American food culture (ibid.), providing insider and outsider perspectives as a tourist of his own country. Further, culinary tourism is actively constructed by the destination sites. As Long notes, “[culinary tourism] is about groups using food to ‘sell’ their histories and to construct marketable and publicly attractive identities” (2004, p. 437). Restaurants display memorabilia of their own history, such as vintage rock-n-roll posters from an expatriate British restaurant owner’s first career as a record producer (“British, Hawaiian and Mexican,” Season 32, Episode 4, 2019). The owner’s nostalgia for pub food inspired the opening of his restaurant, a story that provides context to the cooking and makes the restaurant ambience unique. Once filmed on Guy’s food road show, restaurants frequently add to their décor markers of Guy’s visit, such as Guy’s autograph on a menu or a mural of his face on the restaurant wall (“Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, 2019). The host and his journey are memorialized, constructing the restaurants as pilgrimages for fans of Guy and his show. In the most recent series of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives,, Guy returns to old “Flavortown Favorites,” such as OB Noodle House in San Diego. A lone restaurant when Guy first visited in 2013, the Asian restaurant has since grown successfully with the addition of a bar. As a local says, “Once they [the restaurant] were on Triple D, it blew up even more,” and according to one of the owners, “Triple D, it’s just a phenomenon. The wait got up to be about three, four hours, and like, what do we do, let’s open up seven blocks away, so here it is, Bar 1502” (“Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, 2019). When Guy features restaurants on his travel cooking show, restaurants often experience exponential growth, or ‘blowing up even more.’ The effects of the cooking show on restaurants are remarkable, ‘just a phenomenon,’ which further associates the cooking show host with celebrity qualities of fame. Telling the story of the restaurant captures the Americana of the travel cooking show and embodies the entrepreneur spirit in the United States. Featured on Guy’s Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives, OB Noodle House owner, Steven Yeng tells his family’s story: “My grandparents and my parents immigrated down [from China] to Cambodia to escape the Communist war until they got caught up in the Khmer Rouge Genocide.” Through TV editing, the narration continues with Guy Fieri’s voiceover co-telling: “which sent them to Thailand where their dad used his signature sauce and recipe to move the family to Cali’” (“Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, 2019). Helping to co-tell, Guy completes the speaker’s story, conveying a

74

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

common understanding and enthusiasm for the Yengs. Although the discourse is constructed, its effect is a collaborative narration that leads to feelings of solidarity among participants, a strategy used in conversational talk (Norrick, 2010). The backstory also explains the restaurant’s Asian fusion menu (e.g., Vietnamese Pho, Korean wings, Chinese Pork Belly Tacos) and represents the nation’s multiculturalism. A culinary tourism approach captures how the travel cooking show presents the restaurants—and their owners and stories—as not just good food but also as distinctly American stories. Hardwork and authenticity define the restaurants and embody American values. Communicating his celebration of ‘good food’ and the people, Guy emphasizes the act of narration. In the opening lines of an episode, Guy frames his travel cooking show “Triple D” in terms of identity and food. Guy states, You know on Triple D, I don’t know what’s more amazing. Is it the food, or is it the stories of the restaurants? And I gotta believe that the stories of the restaurants really influence the way the food tastes. (“British, Hawaiian and Mexican,” Season 32, Episode 4, 2019)

A travel cooking show intertwines two narratives: the restaurant’s food narrative, including how it is made and how it tastes, and the people narrative, who makes the food and serves it to whom. The restaurant owners embody hard work in their dedication to their customers. The show’s relatability lies in the presence of the ordinary people as well as its familiar American story.

3.3

Food Discourse as a Story

This chapter sees food discourse as a form of narrative, as a story in the language about food and the society that tells this story. As cultural scholar Arjun Appadurai (1981) notes, “in its tangible and material forms, food presupposes and reifies technological arrangements, relations of production and exchange, conditions of field and market, and realities of plenty and want. It is therefore a highly condensed social fact” (p. 494). Food discourse articulates the underlying worldviews and cultural processes around food, reflecting the universality of human experience, but, like any aspect of culture, its meanings are invested by and specific to the people using it. Food discourse practices—storytelling, cooking, tasting—reveal cultural beliefs and express individual and group identities.

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

75

The cheese burger or the strawberry waffle may be material and reproducible, but the meaning attached to the burger or the waffle lingers long after the last bite. It is constructed by a whole set of life experiences and social contexts, America in this case. It is a product of cooking and testing, sentimentality, and structures of narrative. A waffle is never just a waffle; a recipe is never just a recipe. Rather, the recipe, story, or whatever is produced reflects those individuals, embodying their identities, concerns, and values. America’s love for burgers and brunch reflects values of informality and encourage social eating. Variations in narrative, then, demonstrate that food discourse is a shared practice among us that not only results from storytelling but is a form of Story. Food Network Television Cooking Shows Fieri, Guy. Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. “Sausage, Shawarma, Scaloppini,” Season 32, Episode 2, June 1, 2019 “British, Hawaiian and Mexican,” Season 32, Episode 4, June 15, 2019 “Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, July 20, 2019

Flay, Bobby. Brunch @ Bobby’s. “Brunch in Bloom,” Season 5, Episode 10, March 22, 2015 “Bread Lovers’ Brunch,” Season 5, Episode 11, September 20, 2015

Florence, Tyler. Food 911. April 2000–March 2006 “Healthy Picnic for Two,” Season 6, Episode 15, June 6, 2005 “Risotto Rescue,” Season 5, Episode 7, May 11, 2004 “Beat the Clock Dinner Party,” Season 2, Episode 14, March 26, 2001

Ray, Rachael. 30 Minute Meals. “Chicken Change-Up” Season 28, Episode 15, April 16, 2019 “Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 16, April 17, 2019

References Alleyne, B. (2015). Narrative networks: Stories approaches in a digital age. London: Sage.

76

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Altman, R. (1986). Television/sound. In T. Modleski (Ed.), Studies in entertainment: Critical approaches to mass culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Appadurai, A. (1981). Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist, 8(3), 494–511. Barthes, R. (1972). Ornamental cooker. In Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang. Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance. Prospect Heights: Waveland. Bell, A. (1994). Telling stories. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media texts: Authors and readers (pp. 100–118). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Blum-Kulka, S. (2001). The many faces of with Meni: The history and stories of one Israeli talk show. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle (pp. 89–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bonner, F. (2003). Ordinary television. London: Sage. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cheshire, J., & Ziebland, S. (2005). Narrative as a resource in accounts of the experiences of illness. In J. Thornborrow & J. Coates (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of narrative (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Contois, E. (2018). Welcome to Flavortown: Guy Fieri’s populist American food culture. American Studies, 57 (3), 143–160. Cotter, C. (1997). Claiming a piece of the pie: How the language of recipes defines community. In A. Bower (Ed.), Recipes for reading: Community cookbooks, stories, histories (pp. 51–72). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2015). The handbook of narrative analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Graburn, N. (1989). Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (pp. 21–37). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W., & Waletzsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 214–226). London: Routledge. Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press. Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge. Long, L. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

3

STORYTELLING ON COOKING SHOWS

77

Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2006). Buying and selling: Mediating persuasion in British property shows. Media, Culture and Society, 28(5), 739–761. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). Television discourse: Analysing language in the media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization on television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 151–159. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2015). Inquiry in television cooking shows. Discourse & Communication, 9(3), 313–330. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2017). Cooking at home: A multimodal narrative analysis of the Food Network. Discourse, Context & Media, 17, 20–29. Modleski, T. (1983). The rhythms of reception: Daytime television and women’s work. In E. Ann Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television: Critical approaches—An anthology (pp. 67–75). Frederick: University Publications of America. Nathanson, E. (2009). As easy as pie: Cooking shows, domestic efficiency, and postfeminist temporality. Television & New Media, 10, 311–330. Norrick, N. (2010). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norrick, N. (2011). Conversational recipe telling. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2740– 2761. O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folk tale. Austin: University of Texas Press. (First published in Russian, 1928). Robinson, J. (1981). Personal narratives reconsidered. Journal of American Folklore, 94, 58–85. Rowland, R. (1990). On mythic criticism. Communication Studies, 41(2), 101– 116. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Scannell, P. (1991). Introduction: The relevance of talk. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage. Schegloff, E. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114. Silverblatt, A. (2007). Genre studies in mass media: A handbook. London: Routledge. Thompson, K. (1999). Storytelling in the new Hollywood: Understanding classical narrative technique. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thompson, K. (2003). Storytelling in film and television. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

78

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Thornborrow, J. (2015). The discourse of public participation media: From talk show to Twitter. Abingdon: Routledge. Toolan, M. (1988). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. New York: Routledge. Williams, R. (1974/1992). Television: Technology and cultural form. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

CHAPTER 4

Evaluations on Cooking Shows

“Let’s give it a taste.” Bobby Flay, Brunch @ Bobby’s “Isn’t that amazing?” Ina Garten, Barefoot Contessa “It doesn’t get any better than this.” Ree Drummond, The Pioneer Woman “Outta’ bounds!” Guy Fieri, Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives “You’ve been chopped.” Ted Allen, Chopped

Drawing on legitimation theory (Van Leeuwen, 2008), media discourse analysis (Thornborrow, 2016), and performance (Goffman, 1959), this chapter examines evaluations used on three cooking show genres on Food Network: how-to with a solo host (Brunch @ Bobby’s ; Barefoot Contessa; The Pioneer Woman), travel with a solo host and ordinary participants (Diners, Drive-ins and Dives ), and competition with multiple participants—host, judges, and contestants (Chopped). In each context, dishes are tasted and described by celebrity chefs, whose evaluation of their own dish or the dish of others, provides reason for watching the show. This “celebrity expertise” is legitimized on the show with reference to tradition, expertise, and morals, and is supported by the presence of non-celebrities, or ordinary people who provide “ordinary expertise.” Thus, cooking shows present a unique context in which participants construct beliefs about food that are conveyed in the media discourse and interaction.

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_4

79

80

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

4.1

Celebrity Expertise on Cooking Shows

Celebrity expertise is evident in all three genres in which the celebrity chef is positioned as the main taster and expert. In how-to cooking shows, the host cooks and then tastes the dish, giving positive evaluations of her or his own dishes. The evaluations are given verbally (so good!), paralinguistically (hmmm) and nonverbally (eye roll, nodding of head). Guests, such as family members or friends, may be invited on the show to taste the food as well. These guests’ (positive) evaluations provide the perspective from an ‘ordinary expert’ and work to confirm the celebrity chef’s expertise and authority of good food. In travel cooking shows, evaluations are principally from the celebrity chef host who also talks with ordinary diners, whose ‘ordinary expertise’ supports the ‘celebrity expertise.’ In competition shows, ‘celebrity expertise’ is predominant in which a panel of judges evaluate the cooking and performance of the contestants. Evaluations used in cooking shows project an image of celebrity chefs as positive and encouraging of cooking. Humorous evaluations present the cooking show hosts as friendly and authentic, either solo on screen or in their interaction with ‘ordinary’ people, such as owners, chefs, and customers, functioning as a discursive strategy that gains trust from the owners and entertains viewers. In competition shows, celebrity chefs form the panel of judges, an institutional role of authority. While in a position of power, the judges are strategic in their evaluations; they must attend to the face-threatening position of the contestants while delivering public judgement on their cooking and performance. Discursive strategies such as hedges, minimizations, and elicited self-critiques from the contestants frame the judges as supportive and fair. Evaluations construct celebrity chefs as authorities of food, acting as “lifestyle gurus” who represent a new form of “popular expertise” (Lewis, 2008). While food television provides instruction on cooking, it also teaches values of consumption, taste, and lifestyle (Bell & Hollows, 2005). Authenticity emerges as a salient discourse in the participants’ performances as well as the food represented.

4.2

Evaluations, Expertise, and Performance on Food Discourse

Evaluations are a key component in cooking show genres and their narrative structure. Evaluations provide a purpose or ‘so what’ of the story (Labov, 1972)—the dish, recipe, cookbook, restaurant, competition, or

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

81

show overall. On cooking shows, the most pronounced evaluations are moments when hosts taste and judge the dishes, their own or the dishes of others. Production cues such as dramatic music, close-up shots, and repeats of the scene further add to the climactic sequences in these tasting evaluations. Cooking shows are stages or “frames” (Goffman, 1974) with distinct contexts and participant roles that give rise to different values and judgements. Hosts on lifestyle television genres, from gardening to home renovation to travel, provide “mediated forms of ordinary expertise” (Eriksson & Thornborrow, 2016, p. 1), such as of grocery shopping, cooking, and eating on cooking shows. The hosts themselves can be considered “ordinary” in the sense that their expertise is in the ordinary, or “skills and knowledges associated with the domestic and everyday” (Lewis, 2008, p. 3). “Ordinary” can also mean the presence of lay participants, such as those who receive fashion makeovers (Moseley, 2000) or “foodie makeovers” (De Solier, 2008). Further, ordinary does not mean unimportant nor inferior nor simple. Rather, the paradox of ‘ordinary’ is that it is so present in our daily lives that it is easy to overlook its complexity and significance. Here, we use the term “celebrity expertise” to refer to evaluations given by the celebrity, namely the host of the show. We use the term “ordinary expertise” to refer to evaluations given by a non-celebrity on the show, that is, a relatively unknown person, such as a local of the town or guest on the show. Ordinary expertise can also refer to the viewers themselves who “play at being experts,” a role that viewers practice after watching food competitions in conversations on websites and blogs (Oren, 2013, p. 32). Similarly, viewers of how-to cooking shows can ‘play expert’ by rating recipes from the show on the website, or voting on their favorite contestant on a competition show, or in a more mundane context, provide a vetted recommendation to their family for the next dinner reservation. Further, viewers can use the food discourse learned from watching shows at their next meal with family and friends. This chapter focuses on evaluations of food discourse on Food Network, paying specific attention to the evaluations used by cooking show hosts in three different cooking show genres (how-to, travel, and competition). Hosts address viewers and participants in a relatable way, breaking the celebrity expert wall. This chapter both evinces the similarities of evaluations used in cooking shows and highlights their differences that result from the specific cooking show genre. It also points out the role of the participant generated by the various pragmatic functions of evaluations in

82

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Food Network, as well as the values promoted, namely: tradition, creativity, and authenticity.

4.3

Evaluations on How-to Cooking Shows

Drawing on Food Network, this chapter applies Theo Van Leeuwen’s (2007, 2008) legitimation strategies to gain understanding of how discourse is used to legitimize expertise of cooking show hosts and of three forms of cooking shows: how-to, travel, and competition. Extending research on legitimation strategies on how-to cooking shows (Matwick, 2016), this chapter includes participant-focused television cooking shows, specifically travel and competition, to give insight into the ways in which expertise is constructed discursively. Legitimation consists of four categories of authority: Authorization, Moral Evaluation, Rationalization, and Mythopoesis (Van Leeuwen, 2008, Ch. 6). Authorization is legitimation by reference to people, tradition, or institutions of authority. Moral evaluation is the values and norms of society, such as value for tradition and innovation. Rationalization legitimizes practices by references to goals, uses, and effects, such as hosts giving explanations for their use of certain ingredients or cooking technique. Mythopoesis is legitimation through narrative, myths or storytelling, conveying acceptable behavior and appropriate norms in the actions of the protagonists. Celebrity chefs may draw upon several kinds of legitimation strategies to convey authority. 4.3.1

Expert Authority: Let’s give it a taste

On how-to cooking shows, the host displays specialized culinary knowledge, such as expert knife skills and creating new recipes. This is a case of “expert authority,” a type of Authorization discourse in which “legitimacy is provided by expertise rather than status” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 107). Chefs perform their expert authority by cooking as well as in their discourse, such as through references to culinary training and professional experience. For example, stories are relayed about restaurants owned: “I had a Spanish restaurant for 15 years so I feel very close to Spanish ingredients” (Bobby Flay, “Siesta Fiesta,” Season 1, Episode 5, 2010); experience: “I’ve been cooking and baking for decades, and I’m going to show you the tips and tricks I’ve learned along the way so you too can ‘cook like a pro,’” and “I used to own a specialty food store” (Ina Garten, “Cook like a

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

83

Pro: Perfect Pastry,” Season 16, Episode 5, 2019), and ‘authentic’ sources, such as family recipes: Timballo Genovese from Italian ancestors (Giada de Laurentiis, “Giada and Raffy’s Favorite,” Season 4, Episode 2, 2019). Side references to their restaurants and cooking experiences and the name of the very recipe itself lend authority to the celebrity chefs. Expert authority is also relayed verbally in the evaluations when the celebrity chef tastes the dish. While evaluations are given throughout the show, they are typically at the end of each dish and accomplish various functions: • • • • • • • • •

describe the dish in an appetizing way model an expert food discourse for viewers justify and explain certain ingredients or cooking methods highlight unusual aspects of the dish (e.g., flavor, ingredient, cooking method) display the host’s culinary knowledge persuade viewers to make the recipe facilitate vicarious consumption create a distinct personality with unique expressions provide the narrative climax of both the cooking process and overall show

As an example, Bobby Flay on Brunch @ Bobby’s takes a bite of his just cooked egg sandwich and gives several evaluations about its ingredients, taste, and flavor. Excerpt 4.1 Let’s give it a taste Let’s give it a taste. [bites into the sandwich] Mmm, [with mouth full] Those crushed red peppers are great. [close up shot of sandwich] I always like a little spiciness in my eggs and my bacon, especially my sandwiches. If that’s not your speed, you don’t need it. [waves hand to the side] The egg itself has goat cheese running through it. [holding up sandwich] Fresh herbs, onions, garlic-- so it’s really savory – that crispy pancetta. Or you can just use bacon if you really wanted to. The only difference is the bacon would have more of a smoky flavor than the pancetta would. And the watercress gives it a really nice freshness. It makes the sandwich come alive. (Brunch @ Bobby’s, Season 7, Episode 7, 2016)

84

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Taking a bite, Bobby evaluates the taste by describing the ingredients: crushed red peppers, eggs, bacon, goat cheese, herbs, onions, garlic, pancetta, watercress, and what they contribute to the dish: “spiciness,” “savory,” “really nice freshness,” and “makes the sandwich come alive.” On a narrative level, the repeat of ingredients from the preceding cooking scene serves to remind viewers of the dish, or inform newly joined ones. On a symbolic level, this food discourse teaches viewers an “educated taste” in the sense of being able to discern flavors and describe essential properties of the ingredients. As Jeremy Strong (2011) observes, “taste may also mean discrimination pertaining to foods, and their tastes, on a wider social and cultural plane; that is, a taste for certain tastes signifying the possession, or not of, of good taste” (x). While offering alterations to the recipe (e.g., omitting red peppers, using bacon instead of pancetta), the celebrity chef’s evaluations give a preferred taste, one that “makes the sandwich come alive.” Bobby’s descriptive discourse and enthusiasm give expression to the meal, educating viewers who aspire to cultivate their “cultural capital,” what Pierre Bourdieu (1984) describes as social and cultural assets, such as food knowledge and style of speech in this case. Often combined with authority legitimation is moral evaluation, which may be implied through the use of adjectives (Van Leeuwen, 2007, p. 97). On another show, Bobby sautés sausage for a frittata and describes its texture: “the thing I like about this [sautéed sausage] is, you can see, like the sausage got a little crispy. It’s going to add nice texture running through the frittata. Everything crispy is good. Why is that?” (“Tasty Trattoria Brunch,” Brunch @ Bobby’s , Season 3, Episode 1, 2013). In his use of legitimation, the celebrity chef articulates definitions of “good food” and American food through values of “crispy” and “nice texture” being “good.”1 What one eats and how one eats defines one’s identity within society. These textural preferences are cultural too, as Americans love crispy food.2 In highlighting the ingredients and flavors, cooking show hosts provide a food discourse for the audience to emulate that indicates gastronomical knowledge. Viewers learn vocabulary for ingredients (e.g., “crispy pancetta”) and technique (e.g., aerate, balloon, deglaze), but also develop critical acumen of flavor and art (e.g., plating, acidic level, texture). In talking about how food tastes and smells, hosts translate the experience for viewers to compensate for the limitations of the television. At times, the hosts can only express their desire for viewers to share their pleasure of the smell. Plating a warm, creamy bowl of spaghetti with bacon, pecorino, and Swiss chard, celebrity chef Rachael Ray exclaims, “Ahh, I wish you could

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

85

smell that. They have HD but they just don’t have the Smell-O-Vision down yet” (30 Minute Meals , “Spaghetti with Bacon and Chard,” Season 28, Episode 28, 2019). Rachael’s enthusiasm for the smell legitimizes her cooking and encourages viewers to cook the dish too. This contrast between the food in the episode and food in the viewers’ food reality reveals the appeal of shows like Food Network, as an escape from the mundane and into the realm of fantasy (McBride, 2010). Food, when removed from the kitchen, enters a realm where prose and appearance are all-important. Close-up shots and visually appealing food are performative and comparable to “food porn,” a concept discussed by Roland Barthes (1972/1957), as cooking so sensational that it offers fantasy for the eye alone. Food shots on how-to cooking shows can offer practical value by showing home cooks what the dish looks like, so that they might recreate the dish at home. 4.3.2

Evaluation in Authorization: St. Francis Hotel

Evaluations that refer to people, tradition, or institutions offer what Van Leeuwen (2008) describes as legitimation by “Authorization.” Discourses construct legitimation for specific social practices (Van Leeuwen, 2008), and this next example of two excerpts from Ina Garten of Barefoot Contessa. Equally well-known for her cooking shows as her cookbooks, Ina uses Authorization to align her recipes as modern and classic. In making Shrimp Cocktail Louis, the celebrity chef connects her recipe with a respected place (St. Francis Hotel), tradition (a century-old recipe), and French cuisine (Monsieur Louis). This first excerpt is from Ina Garten’s cooking show, Barefoot Contessa. While making the Shrimp Cocktail Louis sauce, Ina narrates the origins of the recipe: Excerpt 4.2 Shrimp Cocktail Louis: Cooking Show This dish was actually invented in the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco in 1915. Isn’t that amazing? And why do I think that the inventor’s name was Louis? [pronounces in French] [chuckles] Or, maybe it was Monsieur Louis. Ok, a few more things to add…. (“Cocktail Party Rules,” Season 15, Episode 7, 2018)

86

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

The expert discourse starts as serious, but changes to surprise with the adverb “actually” and the rhetorical question (“isn’t that amazing?”). Eliciting shared respect for tradition, Ina continues the dialogue with viewers by posing another question: “And why do I think that the inventor’s name was Louis?”. Chuckles follow, inviting viewers to laugh and imagine with her a French chef at the hotel coming up with the recipe: “maybe it was Monsieur Louis.” The reference to the St. Francis Hotel, a grand and historical upscale hotel in the United States, provides a historical and geographical context for the recipe, and the reference to French cuisine further frames the recipe as elegant and refined. The companion cookbook similarly tells the origin of the recipe in the headnote for Shrimp Cocktail Louis: Excerpt 4.3 Shrimp Cocktail Louis: Cookbook This dish was invented in 1915 at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. It’s shrimp cocktail but instead of tomato horseradish sauce, the hotel’s sauce was more like a spicy Russian dressing. This is my jazzed-up version of that dish. Roasting rather than boiling the shrimp makes them so tender and flavorful. (Garten, 2018, Cook Like a Pro, p. 32)

Ina’s legitimation by Authorization positions her recipe alongside the renowned hotel. Further, she exercises “personal authority legitimation” vested in her role as a celebrity chef (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 106) when she describes how her own recipe is different: “jazzed-up” by roasting the shrimp which makes them “so tender and flavorful” and by adding Sriracha sauce, modernizing (and globalizing) her cooking style and brand.3 4.3.3

Evaluations: Humble Meatloaf

Another way evaluations offer legitimation in discourse is through Moral Evaluation (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Moral evaluation taps into the values and norms of society, labeling certain foods as good/bad, healthy/unhealthy, and natural/processed, as well as indicate class. The discourse can also promote acceptance of working-class foods, such as discourse about meatloaf by Ree Drummond of The Pioneer Woman. She interweaves a defense of meatloaf’s humble associations within the recipe telling.

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

87

Excerpt 4.4 Moral Evaluations: Humble Meatloaf I’ll whip up the sauce that goes on top of the meatloaf. I don’t know how anybody eats meatloaf without ketchup. [laughing] I think it makes for the best meatloaf sauce, [squeezing a ketchup bottle over a bowl of ground beef] and I’m going to give this ketchup sauce a cheeseburger spin by adding some yellow mustard. [squeezes yellow mustard bottle] You can use Dijon if you want to elevate it a bit [laughing]. I don’t like to elevate meatloaf too much. It is what it is. I’m also going to add a quarter cup of grated onion and salt and pepper, and then I’ll stir this until it’s totally mixed. [stirs] I have said this for years, but I think meatloaf is pretty much the perfect food. It really gets a bad rap. I think it’s one of those foods that if it’s wrong, it’s really wrong. But on the flip side of that, when the meatloaf is right, it is such a beautiful thing. (“Osage Cowboy’s Lunch,” Season 21, Episode 5, 2019)

Keeping her meatloaf recipe authentic to its original concept as a thrifty and rustic meal (“it is what it is”), Ree tries not to make the meatloaf formal or fussy. She humorously critiques meatloaves that are done “wrong” (i.e., made fancy with expensive, unusual, or ‘exotic’ ingredients, such as Dijon mustard with its French association).4 Combining moral evaluation with the strategy of “authority of tradition” (Van Leeuwen, 2008), Ree draws on her expert frame as a traditional domestic homemaker. Cheeseburger Meatloaf represents her brand of country cooking and hearty dishes, contextualized as part of “Osage Cowboy’s Lunch,” a nod to Ree’s Oklahoma home town and cattle ranch, which are the backdrop of the show. As culinary historian Jessamyn Neuhaus (2001) observes: “in fact, perhaps no other American dish so evokes images of work-a-day, Midwestern, hearty home meals as meatloaf” (p. 87). Ree’s evaluative discourse of the meatloaf’s authenticity and simplicity embodies her own authenticity as a Pioneer Woman, wife of cowboy and cattle rancher. Ree validates her recipe as meatloaf done “right” and “such a beautiful thing.” Evaluations provide a resource for Ree to construct herself as an expert in cooking but at the same time as equal to the viewers. To continue, evaluations convey how food is about status. In another example about meatloaf, also about the secret ingredient—ketchup—by a different celebrity chef, the food talk plays up to the sauce so common and loved by America.5 While typically cooking with expensive and homemade

88

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

ingredients, Ina Garten of Barefoot Contessa uses the pantry condiment as a glaze for mini meatloaves. Ina narrates: Excerpt 4.5 Ketchup: A ‘Very Sophisticated Sauce’ And the last thing for the meatloaves is I have this very sophisticated sauce that I put on top. I think you’ll really appreciate it. It’s called ketchup. [laughing, grabs ketchup bottle] Doesn’t ketchup go with meatloaf? And this is the way I do it to make it a little fancier is this zig zag pattern on it. [squeezing ketchup over the mini meatloaves] I just love the way it looks. It’s very noisy too. [bottle releases air] Oh! [laughs] Very attractive sounds. Just a zig zag pattern like that. [continues to squirt ketchup over the remaining meatloaves] The kids’ll have fun doing it. And then when they’re all baked, they’re all crusty and the ketchup kinda gets a little bit of a glaze on it. [laughs] This is the noisiest ketchup [smiling] Ok, into the oven, 350 degrees for 45 minutes to an hour. [interlude as Ina describes other ways she uses ground beef] [side shot of Ina opening oven door and checking on the temperature of the meatloaves with a temperature probe] Perfect. [removes the tray from the oven] I love to take a classic, homey recipe like meatloaf and dress it up for a party. I think everybody’s going to love these. [sliding meatloaves onto a plate and garnishing with parsley] (“Cook Like a Pro: Beefed Up,” Season 15, Episode 6, 2018)

In jest, Ina refers to the ketchup as a “very sophisticated sauce” and continues with light irony, “I think you’ll really appreciate it,” leading to the punchline, “it’s called ketchup.” The humor continues in that Ina uses the ketchup, a low-brow condiment yet all-American favorite, to make meatloaf a “little fancier” with “zig zag” pattern on top. As she squeezes the ketchup bottle, it farts, causing Ina to laugh and joke about its “very attractive sounds,” to save face. Ina retains her expertise by indicating the simplicity of the cooking step (“the kids’ll have fun doing it”) and by explaining the role of the sauce: it adds texture and visual appeal (“crusty” and a “glaze”). Ina returns to the joke on the “noisiest ketchup.” Direct reference and laughter are ways to clarify that the embarrassing ‘noise’ is not from her. The recipe telling resumes, marked by “ok” and recipe language: “into the oven, 350 degrees for 45 minutes to an hour.” The recipe telling ends

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

89

with the evaluation of the meatloaves: a type of “classic, homey” recipe that Ina likes to take and “dress it up for a party.”6 A final evaluation, “everybody’s going to love these,” provides an “effect orientation” (Van Leeuwen, 2007, p. 103) by emphasizing the outcome of her recipe. The chef’s dishes, accessible yet impressive, please everyone, which reinforces her authority.

4.4

Evaluations on Travel Cooking Shows

In the mid-2000s, Food Network added new food series to maintain its pioneering status, as other channels and social media elbowed into the kitchen. Competition and travel shows were added, filling the evening slots while how-to traditional cooking shows maintained the daytime programming. In 2010, the network was the ninth-highest-rated cable network in prime time across all age groups, up from 20th in 2005 (Hale, 2010). The leading Food Network shows with the largest advertising revenue are travel (Diners, Drive-Ins and Drives ) and competition (Chopped) (Broadcasting & Cable, 2018). In these genres, both competition and travel, “ordinary” people are regularly part of the show, evidence of the rise of “ordinary television” (Bonner, 2003). Ordinary people are intentionally cast on the show, as in the case of competition shows, or are one-offs, such as on travel cooking shows. In Diners, Drive-ins and Dives (DDD or “Triple D”), celebrity chef Guy Fieri travels across America in search of roadside diners, vintage drive-ins, and unique dives, or small, independent eateries that are a part of the community and recommended by locals. The show has aspects of food tourism, informing viewers of the location, the culture, and the food. As a form of “Tour-Educative” (Strange, 1998) or “culinary tourism” (Long, 2004), the travel cooking show features the host celebrity chef Guy Fieri’s education in local food and filming of location. In his exploratory eating, Guy participates in the foodways of an “Other,” whose “participation including the consumption--or the preparation and presentation for consumption— of a food item, cuisine, meal system, or eating style considered as belonging to a culinary system not one’s own” (Long, 1998, p. 181). Cooking with local restaurant chefs, eating local food and interacting with customers, Guy experiences the food of the Other in a deeper, more integrated level. Full engagement with the local food and culture through the senses legitimizes the celebrity chef’s evaluations of food as expert and authentic. Guy’s food

90

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

discourse, including evaluations on the cooking and food, is not simply as an observer, but as a participant as well. But more than participating, celebrity chefs have the power to change public opinions about certain foods and products. When restaurants are featured on Guy Fieri’s travel cooking show, they benefit from the “Fieri effect” with sales leading to 500% after his visit (Diamond, 2016). The phrase describes the overnight success of a previously unknown (to the nation) eatery as a result of the high-profile recommendation. The power of the celebrity endorsement works for food products and kitchenware as well, as evident in Britain; when British celebrity cook Delia Smith praises a certain food or product, such as cranberries, salted capers, or omelet pan, on her tv cooking show, a shortage results, dubbed the “Delia effect” (Bonner, 2016; Smithers, 2009). Supermarkets also boost its public image and sales by linking their brand to celebrity chefs (Lewis & Huber, 2015). Guy’s travel cooking show Diners, Drive-ins and Dives is unique in that Guy’s visits promote the business of others, not of his own.7 Further, Guy’s travel cooking show is so enduringly popular that viewers often ask how the restaurants featured on the show are doing. As a result, Guy returns to several in a season called “Triple D Nation” and highlights their success. Customers are filmed eating and talking with Guy, and many say they are at the eatery because of his travel show. At a Hawaiian fish café, a customer says, “We saw it on ‘Triple D,’ and that’s why we’re here” (“Coastal Cuisine,” Season 33, Episode 5, 2019). Customers at Oh Mai Vietnamese sandwich shop in Salt Lake City order food not by its original title, the garlic ribeye bánh mì, but by Guy’s order: “I want what Guy wanted,” reports the restaurant owner. The báhn mì special is now called Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives’ Delight, the “Quadruple D” (“International Affair,” Season 29, Episode 18, 2019). The acronym branding of Guy’s travel show Triple D generates customers and inspires name changes of dishes, such as Quadruple D. The new title for the Vietnamese bánh mi sandwich is more pronounceable and memorable to the American viewer as well. The travel cooking show presents the restaurants—and their related chefs, customers, and stories—as not just good food but also as validation of the host as a celebrity. Successful local “mom-and-pop” restaurants are associated with fame and public attention accorded by Guy’s travel cooking show and for their connection to Guy. In addition to invoking authenticity of the restaurant, the inclusion of ordinary diners supports the host’s own expertise. Locals are shown eating,

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

91

and mid-meal, provide positive evaluations of the food, offering an ‘ordinary expertise’ that legitimizes the host’s ‘celebrity expertise.’ For example, at a sandwich shop in Oregon, diners at three different tables are shown relishing the food and raving about the Pastrami Zombie. The camera zooms in and films their impressions of the food: (1) “The food here is amazing. Everything is natural and unique. You can’t get a sandwich like this anywhere else;” (2) “Melissa knows what’s right when it comes to a sandwich;” and (3) “I love Melissa. She’s just full of heart and it all shows up in her food” (“Triple D Nation: Stuffed Stuff,” Season 29, Episode 12, 2018). Showing ordinary people and using closeup shots create an intimate, familiarity of the restaurant itself, inviting viewers in, figuratively and literally. The locals’ reference to the sandwich-shop owner by name (Melissa) also increases emotional investment in the show as well as legitimizes their own evaluation of the food as regulars, not tourists. The diners’ enthusiasm for the food and testimony of the uniqueness of the place further validate Guy’s expertise and the travel show of finding veritable diners serving elevated, casual food. The locals’ evaluations are taken seriously, which contrasts with other television show productions. On UK competition shows, evaluations by non-experts are made questionable by a “highly stylized, non-serious, mocking key of the voiceover commentary,” a production effect that serves to entertain viewers (Thornborrow, 2016, p. 70). As the travel food show is not a competition, non-expert evaluations are valid sources of authority on good food. Shown as real customers at the diner, their ordinary expertise is “situated” (Thornborrow, 2015), in that the television format grants them unusual expertise and authority. The use of personal anecdotes further validates the non-expert evaluations. Of a Chinese noodle restaurant in San Diego, a local says: “The food quality hasn’t changed a bit. The only thing that changes is maybe they add something new to the menu” (“Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, 2019). And, of a barbecue restaurant in Iowa, a regular says: “I am a barbecue guy. I’ve known Darren [the chef] a long time. He makes you forget your mother’s cooking” (ibid.). The local’s ordinary expertise, based on the standards set by his mother’s cooking, in turn supports the celebrity chef’s recommendation of the restaurant and evaluations of the dishes. Paradoxically, traditional home-cooking legitimizes professional cooking at restaurants.

92

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Production strategies position the host’s evaluations as the most important component. The show begins with highlights of Guy’s tastings, features ordinary diners relishing the food, and films the cooking demonstration between Guy and the chef, all building up to the climax when the host takes a bite of the food. 4.4.1

Travel Cooking Show Host and Evaluations During Recipe Telling

The host’s own evaluations begin prior to the tasting. Back in the kitchen with the restaurant chef, Guy’s mediating role could be comparable to a “semi-expert” who is positioned between the “true expert” and the “lay audience” (Chovanec, 2016), the restaurant chef and viewers respectively in this case. Simultaneous to asking the chef questions, Guy makes informed comments on ingredients, procedures, or techniques during the cooking demonstration for the benefit of the audience. In this respect, Guy assumes the role of “true expert” in demonstrating his own culinary knowledge through shifts of alignment or “footing” (Goffman, 1974, 1981). Goffman’s concept of footing describes the alignment that speakers and hearers take toward each other and toward the content of their talk. The particular local framework of the conversation between Guy and the participants constantly shifts depending on the moment, from asking questions to interpreting the cooking to evaluating the food. In this example, Guy learns how toasted ravioli is made at a family-run Italian restaurant in Arkansas. The two sons are the chef-owners of the restaurant that their father opened in the 1950s. They continue to cook the same recipes in the same way, such as pasta dough for ravioli. Excerpt 4.6 Making Ravioli: ‘All That Chew’ Guy: So, run me through making the pasta. Chef: It is oil, eggs, and the milk, salt, flour. [adding ingredients to a large mixing bowl] Guy: All-purpose flour? Chef: Actually, I use hard winter wheat, high-gluten. Guy: So, we’re gonna get all that chew and all that texture of that, okay. Chef: Quite right. (“Big Burgers to Little Italy,” Season 29, Episode 4, 2018)

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

93

Guy asks the chef how to make the pasta. When the chef lists the ingredients, Guy asks, “all-purpose flour?”, a question that presents a dual footing. At first, the question appears to position Guy as learner, (especially since it is not all-purpose flour), but it is a knowing question; the flour is an important part of pasta-making, and his question highlights the most interesting part of the recipe: “hard winter wheat, high-gluten [flour].” Guy explains what this type of flour means for viewers in terms of the pasta-eating experience: “all that chew and all that texture,” followed by an approving “okay.”8 Guy’s shift in footing from host to learner to expert occurs in his request for the recipe, clarifications of the ingredients, and reinterpretations of the ingredients and cooking stages. This question-and-evaluation pattern is prevalent in all of his shows, acting in-tandem to construct Guy’s role as expert. Guy’s questions make salient to viewers what is different about the restaurant. In this way, the host’s discourse is established as “double articulation” (Scannell, 1991), as he talks to the restaurant chef and to viewers at the same time. Guy’s explanation about the ingredients embeds a culinary lesson within the show, adding educational value. At the same time, the double articulation may work the other way. When addressing viewers, Guy’s talk may be also intended to be overheard by the restaurant chef, such as with indirect compliments. For example, he says, “this guy’s crazy!” while looking at viewers and pointing to the chef. Shaking his head with disbelief and grinning broadly, Guy shows he means it as a compliment to the chef’s creativity and cooking. This next sequence illustrates how evaluations are used with humor, specifically through this double play of meaning. The humor results in the “divergence between an expected and an actual state of affairs” (Deckers & Kizer, 1975, p. 215). To get Guy’s jokes and humor, viewers and participants on the show must understand the two different meanings to perceive the incongruity. Guy frequently plays with meanings to create humor and to change the predictability of the situation. In Excerpt 4.7, the humorous evaluations occur in the irony, repetition, exaggeration, and play. As the chef slowly scrapes the ricotta filling onto the dough sheet, Guy pretends to fall asleep, closing his eyes and tilting his head to the side to rest on his hands like a pillow. His performance not only provides entertainment, but it also frames the following sequences as jokes. Giving the chef paradoxical nicknames of “Speed Demon” and “Speedy,” Guy points out the problem—the unhurried nature of the cooking, atypical of a restaurant chef who has to churn out dozens of orders.

94

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Excerpt 4.7 Humorous Critique: Speedy [The ‘speedy’ chef slowly spoons ricotta filling onto a dough sheet for ravioli. Guy looks at the camera in disbelief. Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star lullaby plays as background music.] Guy: [pretends to doze off, closing his eyes and snoring. He tilts his head to rest on his hands like a pillow.] Chef: [glances at Guy] Wow. You’re killin’ me. Guy: [wakes up] I’m sorry. Are we back? Chef: It puts you to sleep, man. I apologize. Guy: Your nickname’s Speed Demon, isn’t it? Chef: More than you would ever know. [continuing to dollop ricotta over the dough] Guy: I’m gonna go do a brake job on my Camaro. Chef: [laughing] Guy: I’ll be back. You keep nailin’ em Speedy. See ya on Thursday. [heading out the kitchen] Chef: Gonna make me cry. [wiping tears of laughter from his eyes] (“Big Burgers to Little Italy,” Season 29, Episode 6, 2018)

Picking up on the jokes, the chef acknowledges that his method is slow. He apologizes, “it puts you to sleep, man. I apologize.” The chef begins to laugh though when Guy pretends to leave the kitchen to work on his car. “I’m gonna go do a brake job on my Camaro,” says Guy, continuing the play on speed, or the lack thereof (“brake job”) with the metaphor of his fast car. Guy jokes that he will return in a few days, not a few minutes (“See ya on Thursday”), making the chef laugh so hard that he wipes away tears (“gonna make me cry”). Even though the chef’s own expertise is the source of the humor, his enjoyment and laughter of Guy’s jokes permit viewers to laugh also. While humorous, Guy’s evaluations also serve as instruction. He tries to repair the ‘brakes’ of the chef’s cooking and increase the efficiency. As a restaurant owner himself, Guy is business savvy and knows the value of streamlining. Guy’s Camaro becomes a discursive resource for legitimizing his evaluations. His knowledge of restaurants is implied in the reference to his experience as host on the show. An important part of DDD as a travel cooking show is the transportation. Guy’s car is a central prop on the show and acts as a narrative device in marking its beginning and end. Cruising around the country, he rolls up in a 1967 red Chevrolet Camaro convertible, stopping

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

95

at some of the best local joints in the U.S. The car is symbolic of freedom and exploration evoked by the open road, and as Emily Contois (2018) observes, is part of the show’s “definition of a free, expressive, and individualistic America and as part of Fieri’s populist appeal” (p. 148). Jonatan Leer and Katrine Kjaer (2015) also observe the significance of journey as a trope in two travel cooking shows by two well-known UK celebrity chefs: Jamie’s Italian Escape and Gordon’s Great Escape. For Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay, the hosts of the respective shows, their journeys are also symbolic of freedom, but are motivated for personal reasons: for Jamie, travel is an escape from the demands of his growing empire, and for Gordon, an escape from financial difficulties of his restaurants (Leer & Kjaer, 2015). For Guy, the open road symbolically positions him as a well-traveled food critic, one who has seen many restaurants. Guy’s playful evaluations and constructive feedback continue in the next excerpt (Excerpt 4.8). The chef finishes cooking and plates the ravioli with a small side dish of sauce that Guy eyes in disbelief. The evaluation begins before the bite with a critique of the dish’s imbalance of proportions. Excerpt 4.8. Pre-bite Evaluation Guy: Now, who are you trying to tease with that thimble of sauce? [pointing at the small dish] You know all that sauce is sayin’ to me is, ‘order some more please.’ [in lower voice] Chef: Exactly. [half-listening, distracted, continues to plate more ravioli] (“Big Burgers to Little Italy,” Season 29, Episode 6, 2018)

Guy feels “teased” with the “thimble” portion of sauce, which he explains in a voiced personification of the sauce. Lowering his voice in role play, Guy says, “‘order some more [sauce] please.’” Nodding in agreement, the chef says, “Exactly,” but continues to plate the ravioli, not picking up the implicit request for more sauce. The teasing in the evaluation offsets the critique of the small serving but also compliments the chef’s cooking. Whether the pre-evaluation talk serves as a playful distraction or voices the unspeakable, the novelties of expression, “thimble of sauce,” stand out with the structure it deploys in its wordplay and form. With the final plating of the ravioli comes the final ‘bite and describe’ evaluation. Rock guitar music is cued, adding energy and volume, as if

96

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

providing the accompaniment to Guy, the lead singer. In Excerpt 4.9, Guy has taken a bite of the ravioli, which he dipped into the side order of tomato sauce, and begins to highlight the ingredients, starting with Romano cheese. Excerpt 4.9. The Big Bite Guy: The Romano is just an awesome choice. The saltiness of it, that’s spot-on. I can’t say any time that I’ve had toasted ravioli like this. It’s nice and it’s light. It’s simple, but flavorful. You’re specific about the cheese. It all goes together in balance. [takes another bite] This is dangerous. And what a great meat sauce. The only thing I want you to change is that. [tapping a bigger cup] Dynamite. You’ve done it man. Excellent job. (“Big Burgers to Little Italy,” Season 29, Episode 6, 2018)

In Excerpt 4.9, Guy’s evaluations of the ravioli and sauce are positive yet tactful at the same time. He compliments the choice of cheese, Romano, which is an “awesome choice” for its “saltiness.” He remarks on the dish’s uniqueness, “I can’t say any time that I’ve had toasted ravioli like this.” While the ravioli is “simple,” Guy reframes it as a positive attribute: “It’s simple, but flavorful.” A flavorful ravioli that is simple uses selective ingredients, such as the type of cheese: “you’re specific about the cheese,” says Guy. Adding on, he says, “it all goes together in balance.” Dipping the ravioli into the meat sauce, Guy comments, “this is dangerous,” meaning that the combination is addictive, because of the delicious sauce: “what a great meat sauce.” His critique, “the only thing I want you to change is that,” is made a second time in reference to the sauce’s small serving. The critique is framed as a compliment because it is “dynamite” and that it should be offered in a larger amount. The last evaluations commend the restaurant chef personally, “you’ve done it, man” and “excellent job,” giving a final approval of the chef’s food and of the chef’s accomplishment in running a restaurant. This final scene, laden with evaluations, reinforces Guy’s role as a celebrity expert. Viewers tune in just as much to see small-town restaurants as to watch and listen to Guy. Rather than the typical ‘delicious’ after tasting food, his evaluations are unique and often playful: “out of bounds,” “gangsta,” “that’s money,” “killer,” “righteous,” “dynamite,” and “ba-na-nas” to

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

97

“that just kung fu’d my palate” and “funkalicious.” Other catchphrases and rhyme schemes can be restaurant-specific such as “a taco spot in San Antonio’s that got me all tongue-tied” in reference to tacos prepared with tongue meat (“International Affair,” Season 29, Episode 18, 2019). Another example, at a Vietnamese sandwich shop, Guy plays on the sound : “I’m a pho-junkie. I can pho it up. So, don’t of the street food “pho” pho-get it” (“International Affair,” Season 29, Episode 18, 2019). Other evaluations can be made informal by shortening the description. For pasta rolling out of a hand-pressed maker, Guy whistles: “Look at those little beauts” (“Coming Together in Cali,” Season 31, Episode 3, 2019). Interjections and side comments make the cooking demonstration entertaining. At the same time, the evaluations distinguish Guy as having his own food discourse vocabulary. This perhaps makes him more than a celebrity chef; more aptly, a Hollywood star.9 Guy promotes places that are the “real deal” in terms of tradition and family-run, which carries over into his own image as genuine without artifice. In one of his cookbooks, Guy says he always wanted to be a rock musician (Fieri & Volkwein, 2009, p. 3). His passion for music comes through in his evaluative discourse. Tasting a Korean Pork Salad, Guy says, “that’s like lights-out good,” “the dressing is rockin,’” and “I did a little food dance there, huh?” (“Coming Together in Cali,” Season 31, Episode 3, 2019). The rock music metaphors: lights-out, rockin, food dance reflect the former professions of the diner owners. Featuring rocker Todd Rundgren and his wife Michele’s Tiki Iniki in Kauai, Guy says, “to drum up a funky menu, they pulled friend and chef Mike Moore up on stage” (“International Infusion,” Season 32, Episode 8, 2019). To create or “drum up” the menu, the restaurant owners recruit their friend as chef to perform “up on stage,” or to run the kitchen and showcase his cooking skills. Tasting the chef’s Spam burger, Guy continues the rock-n-roll metaphor: “when you’re going to make that [burger] one of the lead songs of the concert, you better pull it off. And you did.” Guy applauds the chef who “pulls it off” on the featured “song” or dish. Besides adding context, Guy references rock ‘n’ roll as an American cultural synonym for authenticity (Contois, 2018, pp. 147–148). Guy constructs his celebrity chef brand as distinctly American in part through cultural tropes of rock music and diner food. His ability to reach American viewers makes the celebrity chef accessible at the same time expert of what is American. Catchphrases and humorous evaluations unfold in Guy Fieri’s interaction with the restaurant chefs and in the tasting of the food. Play on

98

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

word meanings and sound provides entertainment and creates memorable effects. The positive and lighthearted mood of Guy’s travel cooking shows contrasts with the next cooking shows lined up in the Food Network evening program: competition cooking shows.

4.5

Evaluations on Competition Cooking Shows: “You’ve Been Chopped”

Premiering in 2009, Chopped is a long-running competition cooking show that produces new shows weekly, currently in Season 43 with over 550 episodes. Filmed at Food Network headquarters in New York City, the Chopped set features a judges’ table, culinary work stations with four ovens and stovetops, a deep refrigerator, and numerous pantry shelves stocked with nearly 300 ingredients. A digital clock hangs above the judges, both feared elements by the competitors. Four chefs compete to prepare a threecourse meal: an appetizer, main, and dessert. The four ingredients in a “mystery basket” must be used no matter how unusual of a combination they might be. At the end of each course, a panel of three judges “chops” one chef who does not meet the expected level of taste, presentation, and creativity.10 The last chef standing is crowned Chopped champion and takes home $10,000. The host Ted Allen mediates the competition with explanations about the rules and time call-outs. He also announces the judges’ decision, lifting the cloche of the dish that has been ‘chopped.’ Evaluations on competition shows involve a certain amount of selfpresentation, or conveying an image of oneself to others. When performing for others in a “front region” (front stage), one displays an “idealized” version of himself that is socially approved of (p. 35); in the “back region” (back stage), one can drop his “front” and “step out of character” (Goffman, 1959, p. 114). Yet, even backstage is not considered a place of authenticity (Goffman in Branaman, 1997), as performances continue to maintain impression of self. “Rather, the sense of self arises as a result of publicly validated performances” (Goffman in Branaman, 1997, p. xlvi). The setting can shift from front stage to back stage, but the participants and their discourse are always ‘on stage.’ In these performances, the self is validated yet also judged. Analyzing the scoring discourse of reality tv competition formats, Joanna Thornborrow (2016) argues that the shows are “another manifestation of a growing number of social contexts in contemporary Western culture where everyday activities are increasingly, explicitly, numerically evaluated as ‘performances’” (p. 70). While evaluations on

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

99

cooking show competitions are more oriented to skill and artistry, they also provide judgement on social behavior and values. Hard work, creativity, and competitiveness are framed as desirable characteristics, as we will see in the upcoming excerpts. Competition cooking shows present interactions that are among the most conflicting and combative of the cooking show genre. As Tasha Oren (2016) notes of food competitions, specifically of Asian American chefs, the competing chefs’ identities are “on the line” in the double sense: “on the line refers to the actual workman-like structure of the restaurant...and also speaks of risks and dangers—the stakes of putting oneself forward and on display” (p. 256). In competing, competitors risk their reputation or “face” (Goffman, 1967), whose sense of social value is subject to rejection and humiliation. Their performance on television is being judged as well as their culinary skills, and by extension, their careers after the show. However, not all cooking competition shows are stressful. Monika Bednarek (2013) shows how MasterChef Australia celebrates positive rather than negative emotionality. A multimodal analysis of the shots revealed that most shots construct a relationship with viewers that is intimate, involved and equal. And these shots emphasize positive emotionality with smiles, laughter, applause, and an uplifting soundtrack. The Great British Bake-Off similarly is not so much combative but rather “charming” where “the most profound worry in life is whether a tray of mini-mousses will hold firm on an unseasonably hot day” (Lewis, 2016). Friendship and collaboration among the amateur contestants are encouraged. One contestant states, “at a time when the world seems a little crazy, a warm and friendly show where contestants help each other may be just the tonic that everyone needs” (Maynard, 2018). Food Network competition cooking shows like Worst Cooks in America and Holiday Baking Championship are similar to their western counterparts that have a lighter, humorous tone, while others like Cutthroat Kitchen (host Alton Brown) and the focus of this section—Chopped—are fiercely competitive. Drawing upon judging scenes of Chopped, the following analysis identifies discursive strategies of evaluation as a primary strategy employed by the celebrity chef judges to justify their expertise and decision on the cooking performed on the show. The use of both positive evaluations and negative evaluations creates a fair, yet suspenseful show in the performance of tasting. Evaluations on competition cooking shows contribute to the production of food discourse and position the celebrity chef’s ‘celebrity expertise’ as knowledgeable and authoritative.

100

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

4.5.1

Competition Challenges and Verbal Challenges

The following excerpt illustrates a typical taste-and-evaluate sequence. Host Ted Allen formally addresses the contestants by their chef title and name. The chefs proceed to describe their dish, as the judges taste the food and begin the evaluation. In Excerpt 4.10, celebrity chef judges Alex Guarnaschelli, Marcus Samuelsson, and Chris Santos (all restaurant chefs and owners), evaluate the contestant’s performance and his dish, Granola Crepe. This is the third round (dessert) with a mystery basket of fino sherry, granola, dried persimmon, and vanilla ice cream (“The Big Scoop,” Season 10, Episode 110, 2011). Excerpt 4.10 Doughy Granola Crepe Host Ted: Chef Walter Chef Walter: My dessert is a sherry vanilla crepe with granola and persimmon filling. Judge Alex: I think this is a beautifully composed dessert. I like that you hit all the little elements from the basket in the crepe. But the crepe is really thick. [looks at Chef Walter questioningly, eyebrows raised] Chef Walter: It is because of the granola. I was a little afraid that when you make a very thin crepe, that if it breaks—these granolas, they are sharp, you know. Judge Alex: I understand that, but when you say that you are going to make a crepe, you’re making a promise that it’s gonna be a crepe. Judge Marcus: I think it gets a little bit doughy. But, I think the filling is great. You get crunch. You have the persimmon both inside and also outside [close-ups of the crepe], so you highlight that, but when the stakes are $10,000, we really want the competitors to really go down to the wire, and you had the time. Judge Chris: To just put raspberries on the plate [gestures to raspberries on a corner of the plate], maybe you could have made a mint syrup or maybe you could have made a raspberry sauce, because right now this has nothing to do with this dessert. Nothing. Host Ted: All right. Chef Walter, thank you. Chef Walter: Thank you very much. (“The Big Scoop,” Season 10, Episode 110, 2011)

Celebrity chef judges are keen on the presentation, the technicality, and the texture, taking into account the overall performance of the cooking.

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

101

In Excerpt 4.10, Alex opens the round of evaluations with two positive comments: the dessert is “beautifully composed,” and the crepe uses “all the little elements from the basket.” Sight is as important as following the rules of the competition. Equally essential is taste. “But the crepe is really thick” critiques Alex and looks questioningly at the contestant. The transition ‘but’ signals the shift to the negative evaluation of the dish and its critique on the crepe’s disagreeable texture. The contestant Walter explains he made a thick crepe because of the granola, whose irregular pieces would have torn a thin crepe. Appealing to the judges, Walter pleads, “these granolas, they are sharp, you know.” However, just as Alex holds the contestant accountable for his cooking technique, she does the same with his description of food. “When you say that you are going to make a crepe, you’re making a promise that it’s gonna be a crepe” says Alex, firmly. Imprecise use or lack of food discourse knowledge results in elimination. Continuing the evaluation, judge Marcus also addresses the importance of texture and performance technicality. He agrees with Alex that “it [the crepe] gets a little bit doughy,” using minimizers “little” and “bit” to soften the negative evaluation. Marcus also balances critique with praise, keeping the evaluation a gentle judgement. Marking the shift with the same but, this time from negative to positive, Marcus declares “I think the filling is great.” He continues, emphasizing the texture, this time a positive aspect of the dish: “You get crunch.” Marcus also makes reference to successful use of ingredients of the basket through the double use of persimmons, “both inside and also outside” of the crepe. Like the technicality of cooking, the competition performance is important to our judges. “When the stakes are $10,000, we want the competitors to really go down to the wire,” says Marcus. The judge emphasizes the competition winnings and expectations of a competitive performance. Using all of the allotted time shows good showmanship and competitiveness. The evaluations build on one another, addressing cooking technique, verbal skill, and performance as part of the show’s competition. Finally, providing a third series of evaluations, judge Chris also brings up the importance of plating and showmanship. He critiques the poor presentation and use of ingredients. “To just put raspberries on the plate” do not add cohesion to the dish. It is implied that if the contestant had worked the entire duration of the round, the dish would have been composed better. The negative evaluation continues, softened with hedges, “maybe you could have.” The suggestions to add a sauce, “mint syrup” or “raspberry

102

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

sauce,” position the judge as expert chef but also as mentor who gives constructive feedback. The closing line’s repetition of “nothing”: “this has nothing to do with this dessert, nothing,” adds weight to the evaluation and emphasizes the flaw in performance. Although the competition cooking show is concerned with the preparation of food, it also is concerned with the performance of food discourse and showmanship. This judging segment illustrates that negative and positive evaluations are delivered strategically. Minimizers reduce face threat, critique is based on the competition rules and show format, coaching tips are given, and the contestant is allowed to respond to the assessment. The host mediates the exchange, adding a formality and civility by thanking the contestant. He starts the next taste-and-evaluation sequence by calling the next chef forward. 4.5.2

Reconciliation with Evaluation

These next excerpts are from an all-desserts episode (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!” Season 40, Episode 11, 2019). A different chocolate is the main focus for each round: dark chocolate for appetizer, milk chocolate for entrée, and white chocolate for dessert. The judges are Alex Guarnaschelli, who was a judge in the previous example, Geoffrey Zakarian, co-host of Food Network’s The Kitchen, and Martha Stewart, a food entrepreneur and known for her perfect baking. This next excerpt is the first round of mystery ingredients: dark chocolate ketchup, lychee, corn chips, and a dark chocolate blackout cake.11 The contestant, Chef Michelle, presents to the judges her dessert, Chocolate Truffle Cake with Chili and Corn Anglaise. Excerpt 4.10 Evaluations: Let’s begin the healing Chef Michelle: Today I’ve made a Chocolate Truffle Cake with Chili and Corn Anglaise, topped with the blackout cake whipped cream and a little fresh lychee to complement everything. Judge Geoffrey: I love this. It’s a beautiful little dessert. Thank you. The flavors of the cake are delicious. Judge Martha: I agree, you certainly have mastered the taste, and the crème anglaise with the lychees is surprising and nice, but your cake really resembles batter here. Chef Michelle: I am wondering if the ketchup did actually throw off a little bit of the cooking aspect.

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

103

Judge Alex: Your cake is not cooked. You know it. I know it. Let’s begin the healing. [Contestant half-smiles and nods] The chocolate flavors that you developed, that is a really great bite, and I love the slivers of lychee. That’s a wonderful juicy interruption. (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!”, Season 40, Episode 13, 2019)

Similar to the doughy crepe judging sequence (Excerpt 4.9), the celebrity chef judges in this tasting give responses mixed with confrontations and compliments. Beginning the critique, Geoffrey offers positive remarks of delight (“I love this”) based on the dessert’s visual aesthetics (“it’s a beautiful little dessert”) and flavor (“the flavors of the cake are delicious”). Saying “thank you,” Geoffrey personally acknowledges the chef and shows appreciation for the food, giving an encouraging discourse. The next two judges offer criticism about the cake, specifically that it is underbaked. Martha initially agrees with Geoffrey on the cake’s taste and the creative use of lychees, but points out that the cake is not baked properly: “but your cake really resembles batter.” Martha’s matter-of-fact tone and the intensifier really do not invite disagreement. The contestant chef Michelle concedes, “I am wondering if the ketchup did actually throw off a little bit of the cooking aspect.” The hedged phrase (“I am wondering if...”) and adverb “actually” are attempts to show surprise and minimize the culinary technical error. Further, like Chef Walter who attributes the crepe’s heavy texture to the granola, Chef Michelle blames the ketchup, one of the mystery basket ingredients, for altering “a little bit of the cooking aspect.” The mild negation (“a little bit”) and the vague reference to the problem (“the cooking aspect”) are additional ways to offset the cooking failure. Continuing the negative critique begun by Martha, the third judge Alex points out the obvious problem of the dish: “Your cake is not cooked.” Calling Chef’s Michelle’s bluff, Alex says, “You know it. I know it.” The tense moment of critical evaluation is eased with an offer of reconciliation (“Let’s begin the healing”). Alex initiates the “healing,” restoring the contestant’s socially wounded face. Flushing, Chef Michelle nods and accepts the cake’s (and her) failure. Seeing her receptiveness, Alex gives praise, “the chocolate flavors that you developed, that is a really great bite, and I love the slivers of lychee. That’s a wonderful juicy interruption.” The

104

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

confrontation-reconciliation adds drama to the show and increases the performative role of evaluations in food discourse. The scene cuts in suspense, as the decision remains unclear which dish is to be chopped. The judges’ ‘tough love’ consists of both negative and positive critiques. Negative evaluations typically consist of an identification of a problem of the dish itself, such as clumsy technique (e.g., uneven chopping), poor plating (e.g., miscellaneous ingredients added; unbalanced; dull aesthetics), missing mystery basket ingredients (e.g., Aleppo pepper; chocolate pots de crème), over or undercooked (e.g., burnt corn chips; raw cookie; weeping meringue), technical flaws (e.g., unevenly browned crème brulee), and lack of flavor (e.g., untoasted almonds; unsalted). Positive evaluations consist of a positive comment on some aspect of the dish, such as its balanced flavor, aesthetics, varying texture, and creative combinations. The chef’s performance in the kitchen and competition is also evaluated, such as the (un)successful use of the basket ingredients (e.g., ability to combine strange ingredients), and sportsmanship (e.g., sharing equipment or ingredients with the other contestants). In the next two excerpts, Excerpts 4.11 and 4.12, the participants’ backstories are brought to the foreground. Ted’s knowing questions illustrate his prior knowledge about each participant, suggesting that his talk has a “double articulation” and is intended for the participants on the set as well as on behalf of the overhearing audience (Scannell, 1991). The questions are designed for the contestants to illustrate their professional expertise and desirable personality traits, such as perseverance and hard work. Excerpt 4.11 Could you tell us about your restaurant? Host Ted: Could you tell us about your restaurant? Chef Michelle : My husband and I started in a very tiny office that was never a restaurant. People told us it would never work, and it was just us, nobody’s money, nothing. But, we’ve grown it into something we are very proud of. Host Ted: Really impressive to-Chef Michelle: Thank you Host Ted: --to build a business like that, that’s really exciting. (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!” Season 40, Episode 11, 2019)

The contestant tells about the hardships of starting a restaurant, illustrating her determination and grit. She works to stay on the show, a win

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

105

that would further prove initial skeptics wrong. Host Ted commends her restaurant endeavor as “really impressive,” giving credence to her and her husband’s restaurant success. These exchanges between the host and the contestant give emphasis on the individual, underlying the show’s values of creativity, uniqueness, and hard work. In Excerpt 4.12, Ted similarly asks another contestant, Chef Melodie, for her backstory. He asks what is her motivation for competing, reflecting an emphasis on competitiveness and on winning, values highly regarded in American culture. Excerpt 4.12 What is your motivation? Host Ted: What is motivating you to compete here? Chef Melodie: The past couple years I went through really rough health issues, and I had to close my bakery in Paris. So, I want to prove that I can still be in the game and just pick up where I left off. Host Ted: Thank you. (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!” Season 40, Episode 11, 2019)

Like Chef Michelle’s story, Chef Melodie describes her hardships. In a confessional tone, the Melodie reveals personal and professional problems with ‘rough’ health issues and having to close her bakery. She aspires to “still be in the game,” literally the competition and figuratively in life. This appeal to the emotions of judges and viewers is part of contemporary culture, encouraging observers to “invest emotionally” in the characters to care about them, much like in reality television (DeVolld, 2011, p. 10). At the same time, the individual contestants’ emotions are commodified (Bednarek, 2013). The emotions become part of the performance. While neither Chef Michelle nor Chef Melodie explicitly mention the monetary prize, both contestants explain how the competition gives professional and personal vindication. Following the evaluations and elicited questions, the contestants leave the stage and exchange a backstage discourse. In subdued lighting, the chefs are shown seated around a stainless-steel table in the middle of a sterile kitchen. The grey tones add a formality and seriousness. In Excerpt 4.13, all four contestants (Dan, Julian, Michelle, Melodie) are backstage, having just completed the first round. The discourse is characterized by the sharing of feelings ranging from frustration to satisfaction to laughing over mistakes.

106

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Excerpt 4.13 Backstage rapport—‘You went out on a limb’ Chef Julian: What’d you guys think? Chef Michelle: It was tough. [all nod] Chef Julian: You went out on a limb. You baked a cake from scratch. [Michelle nods; pleased] I made such a dumb mistake with my souffle. [Melodie begins laughing; Dan smiles] I didn’t put any sugar in my “meringues” [air quotes], so it was really just egg whites. Chef Melodie: I definitely have to take it up a notch if I make it to the next round. (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!”, Season 40, Episode 11, 2019)

Contestants share feelings of uncertainty and self-doubt (“what’d you guys think?” and “it was tough”), illustrating how competition can work as a “source to build solidarity, comradeship and mutual affection” (Meuser, 2007, p. 38). Julian supports Michelle, saying “You went out on a limb. You baked a cake from scratch.” Commended for taking a risk, Michelle nods and gives a pleased expression. Julian continues, highlighting his own error in making a ‘meringue’ from scratch. Gesturing air quotes around the title of the dessert indicates the chef’s knowledge and ability to make it, as well as recalls the evaluation to deliver what is promised; a meringue this time, not a crepe. Melodie indirectly applauds the skill of her competitors by indicating her need to improve her performance by needing “to take it up a notch.” These backstage dialogues provide a frame for contestants to display their sportsmanship but also their expertise. In explaining their cooking decisions to each other, the contestants use a chef discourse that gives the audience insight of the skills and knowledge needed to be a chef. At the same time, backstage dialogue is not spontaneous but a design of post-production editing. This intentional display of aspects of the contestant’s personality and performance is most evident when the contestants give monologues. These are confessional shots of the contestants given close up with frontal and eye-level angle, a combination that “maximizes the potential for emotionality: the frontal and eye-level angles mean that enough of the face is visible, whereas the close shot means that the audience is close enough to read the participant’s facial expression” (Bednarek 2013, p. 100). Contestants often reflect on their performance and express their emotions. For example, the disappointment of chef Julian is displayed a second time in a side monologue: “I am a perfectionist. I really want to do everything correctly, and it drives me nuts that I forgot to add sugar

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

107

to what would have been a meringue.” The contestant describes himself as a “perfectionist” and reveals disappointment in his cooking, suggesting that the poor performance was unusual. In these backstage dialogues, the contestants’ personalities are more pronounced. They appear to be more authentic and thus increase the audience’s level of empathy for the difficulty and the stress of the competition. Particularly in these backstage moments, we see that the discourse is intended for the audience to overhear. Although typically private in nature, the backstage conversations reveal the ‘true’ emotions of the participants and are “encouraged” and “intended” for the overhearing audience (Goffman, 1979). Refining Goffman’s participant framework, Marta Dynel (2011) suggests that viewers take on a role more than an overhearer, but as a “recipient” and claims: “this is because film discourse is designed for viewers, and their listening and watching are by no means surreptitious or accidental. On the contrary, recipients’ listening to scripted dialogues is fully legitimate, being presupposed and carefully facilitated” (p. 1642). In talking to the audience, the participants are able to justify their performance, either as chefs cooking in the heat of the competition or as judges having to decide which dish (and chef) deserves the grand prize. Further, backstage dialogue is fundamental to the cooking competition show format. In an analysis of MasterChef, another popular cooking competition show, Louann Haarman (2016) observes that voiceovers and indirect asides are production techniques that advance the program narrative. On Chopped, segments may highlight reasons for why a contestant is eliminated, such as making a technical error by not adding sugar. The segments increase suspense by alerting the audience that a particular contestant is at risk, effectively foreshadowing the outcome. 4.5.3

Judges’ Final Evaluation

In the final round, the judges review the overall performance of the finalists, recapping the three rounds. The overview functions to remind viewers or inform just tuned-in ones about the competition. The contestants have already left the stage, and these discursive evaluations take place front stage, as a negotiated process for the viewing audience to observe. The judges discuss among themselves about the dishes and the competitors and their performance. In this next excerpt, the judges discuss the final round performance of the two remaining contestants, Dan and Melodie. Although the contestants are

108

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

offstage, the judges offer positive and negative critiques of the dishes. This emphasis on being fair and impartial adds civility to the show. In Excerpt 4.14, the talk begins with the last round—white chocolate, in which both contestants struggled. Then the judges retrace the show, assessing the highs and lows of the contestants’ dishes in the dark chocolate round and milk chocolate round. Excerpt 4.14 Discussion among the judges Judge Geoffrey : Wow. Both these chefs really got bogged down by execution in the white chocolate round. Judge Martha: Dan’s white chocolate dessert, even with the omission of the Aleppo pepper, tasted much better than Melodie’s. Judge Geoffrey: I think round one was really exciting. Judge Martha: Yeah, Dan’s dark chocolate dessert was really creative. Judge Geoffrey: Yeah, I thought the lychee and the pineapple worked. Just scrumptious bites, but it needed a center. Judge Alex: For me, Melodie’s first course was the best sort of celebration of the bitterness of dark chocolate via the cocoa nibs and a great textural ride. But, some of my corn chips were really burned. Judge Geoffrey: Melodie really showed up on the second course. Judge Alex: Yeah, I loved Melodie’s lace cookies mixed in with the milk chocolate. I liked the savory note of that little liver and cherry compote on top. Judge Geoffrey: You know, Dan’s milk chocolate mousse was actually very good. Judge Martha: It was excellent. Judge Geoffrey: And the best bite of the day was the cherries in Madeira, and unfortunately Dan forgot an ingredient in the milk chocolate round also. Judge Alex: Yeah, Dan took a lot of risks. Melodie, on the other hand, maybe was a little less risky, but she had all the ingredients on the plate. Judge Geoffrey: What is one to do? (“Three Cheers for Chocolate!”, Season 40, Episode 11, 2019)

In the discussion, the judges review and compare the dishes, highlighting the flaws and successes of each dish. They also assess the overall performance of the finalists: “Melodie really showed up on the second course”; “Dan took a lot of risks. Melodie, on the other hand, maybe was a little less risky,

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

109

but she had all the ingredients on the plate.” Risk is valued, yet so are the rules of the competition. The evaluative discussion ends with “what is one to do?” as Geoffrey asks, posing the question to the fellow judges, and significantly, to the audience. The suspense increases the emotion of the climax and ultimate decision. The open-ended question also invites viewers to participate and judge who will be chopped. Besides adding suspense, this ambiguity positions the judges as conflicted in their decisions. Instead of disliking the judges, viewers are more inclined to have empathy for them in having to make an apparently difficult decision. This alignment of viewers with the judges makes Chopped different from other reality television shows that have been critiqued for exploiting and humiliating contestants (Culpeper, 2005; Lorenzo-Dus, 2009). Instead, Chopped projects a positive image of the judges similar to MasterChef Australia and its “caring judges” (Bednarek, 2013, pp. 102–106), whose “expertise [is] acknowledged and respected but never threatening” (Haarman, 2016, p. 171). The negotiating style of the conversation and serious tone, combined with the visual cues of distraught faces, present the judges as sincere and sensitive. The program relieves the judges of a visibly emotionally difficult experience by having the host mediate the delivery of the decision. At the end of each round, including the third and final round of the show, host Ted Allen announces the judges’ decision two ways, verbally and visually by lifting the cloche of the dish that has been ‘chopped’ (Excerpt 4.15). Excerpt 4.15 Final Evaluations Host Ted: Whose dish is on the chopping block? [lifts cloche; the defeated contestant’s face dips] Host Ted: Chef Dan, you’ve been chopped. Judges? Judge Alex: Dan, what a long and winding road to Chocolateville it’s been. Your first course was really beautiful and tracked you as a front runner. But in the second course, you omitted the chocolate pot de crème entirely. And for your last course, you omitted the Aleppo pepper, and so we had to chop you. Chef Dan: Understood. [leaves the set] Host Ted: That means Chef Melodie Asseraf, you are the Chopped champion. Ten thousand dollars is the sweet prize for your chocolate triumph here.

110

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Chef Melodie: I am so thrilled and so excited. This means a lot. [big smiles] [judges smile and nod] Something I always say is, ‘life is short and it’s up to us to make it sweet,’ and this made it a whole lot sweeter! Thank you so much. Judges: Congratulations.

Announcing the final evaluations, host Ted reveals the chopped dish and addresses the eliminated contestant. He says, “Chef Dan, you’ve been chopped.” The formal reference to the contestant’s professional title, “Chef,” shows respect and minimizes face damage; Chef Dan is not stripped of his title nor his expertise as a chef. At the same time, a direct address: “you’ve been chopped,” could be taken as a personal rejection, which would “explicitly” associate the contestant with a negative aspect through the use of pronouns “’I’ and ‘you’” (Culpeper, 1996, p. 358). While the phrase ‘your dish has been chopped’ could be used instead, the direct address may be to add drama and reinforce the individuality of the contestant. Further, the institutional authority granted to the host as mediator and deliverer legitimizes the verdict or “speech act” (Austin, 1962) as appropriate. Further, Ted’s serious tone and physical detachment (Ted always stands off to the side) further instill a sense of authority and respect into his narration. Following the announcement, host Ted turns the floor to the judges with a request to explain their decision (“Judges?”). Although more evaluations were given by the judges in their panel discussion (Excerpt 4.14), judge Alex only explains to the contestant that he lost because of his twicecommitted mistake of not using the required ingredients (chocolate pot de crème, Aleppo pepper). Focusing on the rules of the competition makes the decision seem objective and onto the fault of the contestant. The emphasis of the evaluations on the exchange of information suggests that competition cooking shows can be considered more of mediated debate rather than of personal conflict (Thornborrow, 2015). The competition cooking show format of Chopped highlights both evaluations and sportsmanship as fundamental televisual values. The intense cooking show is challenge-based, riding on evaluations to structure the show. The three rounds are mini-narratives whose plots are complicated by the evaluations given by the panel throughout the cooking and during the taste-and-judge scenes. The judges’ evaluations inform viewers of what is happening as contestants cook, but also provide entertainment and

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

111

suspense, as the judges’ perspective shapes the outcome of the show. In this regard, the final ‘chopped’ verdict, the climax in its narrative sense, only makes sense because of the previous evaluation scenes. The structural sequence of evaluations on Chopped—plate presentation, panel critique, and announcement—create a successful narrative and distinct food discourse on competition cooking shows.

4.6

Conclusion

This chapter focused on expert and ordinary evaluations in three cooking show contexts: how-to, travel, and competition. Across the different formats, expert evaluations occur during tastings and are the most dramatic and anticipated element of the narrative. The evaluations frame the celebrity chefs as expert chefs on their own how-to cooking show, knowledgeable tasters with discernable palates on travel food shows, and fair judges on competition cooking shows. Evaluations further serve to distinguish the celebrity chef from other hosts as evaluations illustrate the celebrity chef’s particular cooking identity and can become associated with the host’s brand. On how-to cooking shows, evaluations principally come from the host celebrity chef. While cooking, the host describes what is significant about the recipe, such as its historical origins or superb flavor. Ordinary expertise is also present when non-celebrity people make an appearance, such as family members at the dinner table or friends over for drinks. Further, the home kitchen set and the domestic activity of cooking are ordinary, yet have become one of celebration and celebrity status by food television. On travel cooking shows, the celebrity chef host acts as an intermediary for viewers at featured restaurants. Alternating between asking the restaurant chef questions and explaining the cooking, the celebrity chef provides both ordinary and celebrity expertise. Ordinary expertise is also given by locals who regularly dine at the food venue and share their enthusiasm for the food. This ethnographic glimpse of both the food and people adds interest to the show and authenticity. The celebrity chef’s tasting of the food—the expert evaluation—is the main feature of the show, as the celebrity chef’s evaluations are important for the show’s narrative, but also has become a signature feature of the celebrity chef’s food discourse. On competition cooking shows, evaluations are the core of the narrative. Competitions are inherently judgmental, and the contestants, in agreeing to participate, risk face and their reputation. The deliberation among the

112

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

judges and the sharing of rapport among contestants add to the suspense and drama of the show. The mediation of the host adds formality and seriousness to the show, fostering mutual respect between the judges and the contestants. Various strategies are used by the hosts, such as positivenegative-positive sequences, to offset this tension and preserve the integrity of the show. The cooking performance also provides entertainment, keeping in line with the purpose of cooking shows to be more than drama or informational. Food Network Television Cooking Shows Chopped. “Three Cheers for Chocolate!”, Season 40, Episode 13, February 5, 2019 “The Big Scoop,” Season 10, Episode 110, December 20, 2011

De Laurentiis, Giada. Giada in Italy. “Giada and Raffy’s Favorite,” Season 4, Episode 2, June 23, 2019

Drummond, Ree. The Pioneer Woman. “Quick and Easy: Game Food,” Season 23, Episode 8, October 5, 2019 “Osage Cowboy’s Lunch,” Season 21, Episode 5, January 26, 2019

Fieri, Guy. Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. “Coastal Cuisine,” Season 33, Episode 5, September 21, 2019 “Full of Surprises,” Season 33, Episode 3, September 7, 2019 “International Infusion,” Season 32, Episode 8, July 13, 2019 “Flavortown Favorites,” Season 32, Episode 9, July 20, 2019 “Coming Together in Cali,” Season 31, Episode 3, April 20, 2019 “Beef, Barbecue and Bar Food,” Season 31, Episode 1, April 6, 2019 “Steak, Sausage and Salami,” Season 29, Episode 20, February 1, 2019 “International Affair,” Season 29, Episode 18, January 18, 2019 “Cultural Twist,” Season 29, Episode 16, January 4, 2019 “Triple D Nation: Stuffed Stuff,” Season 29, Episode 12, December 8, 2018 “From Big Burgers to Little Italy,” Season 29, Episode 4, October 27, 2018

Flay, Bobby. Brunch @ Bobby’s. “Sophie’s Sunday Funday,” Season 7, Episode 7, October 10, 2016

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

113

“Siesta Fiesta,” Season 1, Episode 5, November 14, 2010

Garten, Ina. Barefoot Contessa: Cook Like a Pro. “Cook like a Pro: Perfect Pastry,” Season 16, Episode 5, May 19, 2019 “Cocktail Party Rules,” Season 15, Episode 7, November 26, 2018 “Cook Like a Pro: Beefed Up,” Season 15, Episode 6, November 19, 2018

Ray, Rachael. 30 Minute Meals with Rachael Ray. “Spaghetti with Bacon and Chard,” Season 28, Episode 28, April 29, 2019

Notes 1. See linguist Dan Jurafsky’s (2014) study of the language of food to gain understanding of the network of language, history, and food beneath the surface of adjectives such as “crispy” and “crunchy.” 2. Chinese food scholar Fuchsia Dunlop (2013) discusses how Westerners fail to appreciate Chinese food because of the differences in “pleasures of texture.” According to Dunlop (2013), Chinese love textures that are considered “revolting” by others: “the slimy, slithery, bouncy and rubbery.” Dunlop (2016) expounds on these differences, noting that “texture and mouthfeel are just as important in any Chinese discussion of food as visual beauty and flavor” (p. 30). The Chinese language is a signifier and signifies these cultural values, as specific words mean distinct textures. For example, the Chinese savor chicken wings and legs over breast meat because they are strong and chewy (jiao jing ) (Dunlop, 2016). Cross-linguistic studies reveal differences on the lexis and semantics of different foods, cuisines, and food-related verbs, such as John Newman’s (2009) study of The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking. Celebrity chefs are among the culinary experts that relay appreciation of texture, and specifically what types of texture. 3. Sriracha, once a relatively obscure Asian chili sauce in American cooking, has become a mainstay at the American table, alongside regular American table sauces, such as ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise (Technavio, 2019). 4. According to the Oxford Companion to Food, meatloaf is first mentioned in print in the U.S. in 1899, but that it is likely to be more popular than it appears in cookery books (Davidson & Jaine, 2014, p. 509). Meatloaf recipes vary widely, but commonly agreed criteria is ground meat (beef and/or pork), some filler (such as breadcrumbs, oats, crackers, rice), and an egg or dairy of some kind for binding and moisture.

114

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

5. Ketchup, the “hero of American condiments,” is found at the table of 97% of American households (Wiggins, 2014). 6. Ina’s recipe consists of three ground meats: chuck, veal, and pork; sautéed onions with thyme, Worcestershire sauce, chicken stock, and tomato paste; dried bread crumbs; and two eggs. She makes them into mini meatloaves so there is a “lot of outside surface so it gets nice and browned on the outside” and everyone gets their own, like “kids at a birthday party; they all like to have their own cupcake.” A final drizzle of ketchup is added and then the meatloaves are baked. (Garten, “Cook Like a Pro: Beefed Up,” Barefoot Contessa, Season 15, Episode 6, 2018). 7. Although Guy Fieri’s travel cooking show promotes the restaurants of others, Fieri makes a few “shameless plugs” for his restaurants when they are located close to a featured restaurant on Diners, Drive-ins and Dives , such as his taco restaurant in Kansas City (“Full of Surprises,” Season 33, Episode 3, 2019). 8. Three kinds of flour typically found in pasta recipes are: semolina, allpurpose, and “00,” or doppio zero, the Italian finely milled flour used for pasta making. The low gluten “00” flour yields silky, delicate pasta with a gentle bite, but not as much chew as the high-gluten wheat and all-purpose flours. 9. Guy Fieri was awarded the 2664th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, becoming the third celebrity chef, after Wolfgang Puck and Bobby Flay, to receive a star (City News Service, 2019). The stars are awarded to achievement in the entertainment industry. The Hollywood Walk of Fame consists of more than 2600 five-pointed terrazzo and brass stars embedded in the sidewalks along 15 blocks of Hollywood Boulevard. The sidewalk attraction draws nearly 26 million visitors a year (Martin, 2010). 10. There are nine regular celebrity chef judges: Aaron Sanchez, Amanda Freitag, Alex Guarnaschelli, Marcus Samuelsson, Maneet Chauhan, Chris Santos, Marc Murphy, Geoffrey Zakarian, and Scott Conant. There are also numerous guest judges, such as Martha Stewart. Host Ted Allen is a former senior editor and restaurant critic. 11. Ingredients given in the mystery baskets on “Three Cheers for Chocolate!” (Season 40, Episode 11, 2019): Appetizer: Entrée: Dessert:

dark chocolate ketchup, lychee, corn chips, dark chocolate blackout cake milk chocolate pot de crème, rainier cherries, duck livers, giant milk chocolate treat white chocolate truffle tower, apricots, Aleppo pepper, white hot chocolate.

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

115

References Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisa (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barthes, R. (1972/1957). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill & Wang. Bednarek, M. (2013). ‘There’s no harm, is there, in letting your emotions out’: A multimodal perspective on language, emotion and identity in MasterChef Australia. In N. Lorenz-Dus & P. Garces-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 88–114). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bell, D., & Hollows, J. (Eds.). (2005). Ordinary lifestyles: Popular media, consumption and taste. New York: Open University Press. Bonner, F. (2003). Ordinary television: Analyzing popular TV. London: Sage. Bonner, F. (2016). Personality presenters: Television’s intermediaries with viewers. London: Routledge. Branaman, A. (1997). Goffman’s social theory. In C. Lemert & A. Branaman (Eds.), The Goffman reader (pp. xlv–lxxxii). Oxford: Blackwell. Broadcasting & Cable. (2018). Leading Food Network shows in the United States between October 2015 and March 2016, by marketer spending share. In Statista—The Statistics Portal. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https:// www.statista.com/statistics/564489/food-network-shows-marketer-spend/. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979). Chovanec, J. (2016). ‘It’s quite simple, really’: Shifting forms of expertise in TV documentaries. Discourse, Context and Media, 13, 11–19. City News Service. (2019, May 22). Guy Fieri receives Walk of Fame Star. NBC Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/GuyFieri-to-Receive-Walk-of-Fame-Star-510274241.html. Contois, E. (2018). Welcome to Flavortown: Guy Fieri’s populist American food culture. American Studies, 57 (3), 143–160. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35. Davidson, A., & Jaine, T. (2014). The Oxford companion to food (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1975). Humor and the incongruity hypothesis. Journal of Psychology, 90, 215–218. De Solier, I. (2008). Foodie makeovers: Public service television and lifestyle guidance. In G. Palmer (Ed.), Exposing lifestyle television: The big reveal (pp. 65–82). London: Routledge.

116

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

DeVolld, T. (2011). Reality TV: An insider’s guide to TV’s hottest market. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions. Diamond, J. (2016, September 7). The unrecognizable genius of Guy Fieri. Esquire. Retrieved from https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/food/ a48351/the-genius-of-guy-fieri/. Dunlop, F. (2013, June 24). The pleasures of texture [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.fuchsiadunlop.com/the-pleasures-of-texture/. Dunlop, F. (2016). Land of fish and rice. New York: W. W. Norton. Dynel, M. (2011). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener in film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1628–1644. Eriksson, G., & Thornborrow, T. (2016). Editorial: Mediated forms of ordinary expertise. Discourse, Context and Media, 13, 1–3. Fieri, G., & Volkwein, A. (2009). More Diners, Drive-ins and Dives: A Drop-top culinary cruise through America’s finest and funkiest joints. New York: William Morrow Cookbooks. Garten, I. (2018). Cook like a pro: Recipes and tips for home cooks. New York: Clarkson Potter. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Haarman, L. (2016). MasterChef: Cooking competition across cultures. In R. Piazza, L. Haarman, & A. Caborn (Eds.), Values and choices in television discourse: A view from both sides of the screen (Ch. 7, pp. 158–184). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hale, T. (2010). Food the Social Network of the Ages. Nielsen Insights. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2010/food-thesocial-network-of-the-ages/. Jurafsky, D. (2014). The language of food. New York: W. W. Norton. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Leer, J., & Kjaer, K. M. (2015). Strange culinary encounters: Stranger fetishism in Jamie’s Italian Escape and Gordon’s Great Escape. Food, Culture & Society, 18(2), 309–327. Lewis, T. (2008). Smart living: Lifestyle media and popular expertise. New York: Peter Lang.

4

EVALUATIONS ON COOKING SHOWS

117

Lewis, T. (2016, July 17). The secretes of The Great British Bake Off’s success. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/ 2016/jul/17/great-british-bake-off-secrets-success-paul-hollywood-maryberry. Lewis, T., & Huber, A. (2015). A revolution in an eggcup? Supermarket wars, celebrity chefs, and ethical consumption. Food, Culture and Society, 18(2), 289– 308. Long, L. (1998). Culinary tourism: A folklorist perspective on eating and otherness. Southern Folklore, 55(3), 181–204. Long, L. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). ‘You’re barking mad – I’m out’: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 159–187. Martin, H. (2010, February 6). Golden milestone for the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm2010-feb-06-la-fi-walk-of-fame6-2010feb06-story.html. Matwick, K. (2016). Multimodal legitimation strategies on TV cooking shows. Multimodal Communication, 5(2), 111–126. Maynard, M. (2018, April 19). ‘The Great British Bake Off’ is returning to PBS—And one baker is delighted by its American Fame. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2018/04/19/thegreat-british-bake-off-is-returning-to-pbs-and-one-baker-is-delighted-by-heramerican-fame/#1c9be4fa790c. McBride, A. (2010). Food porn. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 10(1), 38–46. Meuser, M. (2007). Serious games: Competition and the homosocial construction of masculinity. Norma, 2(1), 39–51. Moseley, R. (2000). Makeover television on British television. Screen, 41(3), 299– 314. Neuhaus, J. (2001). Is meatloaf for men? Gender and meatloaf recipes. In S. Inness (Ed.), Cooking lessons: The politics of gender and food (pp. 87–110). New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Newman, J. (Ed.). (2009). The linguistics of eating and drinking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Oren, T. (2013). On the line: Format, cooking and competition as television values. Critical Studies in Television, 8(2), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.7227/CST.8. 2.3. Oren, T. (2016). The blood sport of cooking: On Asian American chefs and television. In S. Dave, L. Nishime, & T. Oren (Eds.), Global Asian American popular cultures (pp. 244–260). New York: New York University Press. Scannell, P. (1991). Introduction: The relevance of talk. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage.

118

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Smithers, R. (2009, December 3). Delia effect brings Christmas cheer to supermarkets. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/ 03/delia-effect-classic-christmas-ingredients. Strange, N. (1998). Perform, educate, entertain: Ingredients of the cookery programme genre. In C. Geraghty & D. Lusted (Eds.), The television studies book (pp. 301–312). London: Arnold. Strong, J. (Ed.). (2011). Educated tastes: Food, drink, and connoisseur culture. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Technavio. (2019). Sauces, dressings, and condiments market in the US 2017–2021. Technavio.com. Retrieved from https://www.technavio.com/report/saucesdressings-and-condiments-market-in-the-us?utm_source=t4&utm_medium= bw&utm_campaign=businesswire. Thornborrow, J. (2015). The discourse of public participation media: From talk show to Twitter. Abingdon: Routledge. Thornborrow, J. (2016). Evaluation and expertise: The discourse of reality television competition scores. Discourse, Context & Media, 13, 61–71. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Wiggins, J. (2014, April 21). How was ketchup invented? National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/ the-plate/2014/04/21/how-was-ketchup-invented/.

CHAPTER 5

Humor on Cooking Shows

How fun is that?—Ina Garten, Barefoot Contessa

When we mention to friends and family that we are writing about cooking shows, they often respond, “how fun that must be!”. This perception that food programs are ‘fun,’ or enjoyable, indicates the commonly understood concept of the contemporary celebrity chef, who once instructor, is also entertainer. Not only skill but personality are essential ingredients of the celebrity chef. Through their energetic personality and play in talk, celebrity chefs bring about laughter on cooking shows. Besides explicit reminders that cooking is fun, “how fun is that?” says cooking show host Ina Garten, their food discourse is infused with a lively, play ful humor, consisting of jokes, metaphors, exaggerations, and word play. This chapter describes characteristics of play and humor on cooking shows, illustrating how celebrity chefs use language to present cooking as fun. Analyzing the dynamics of “interactional humor” (Tsakona & Chovanec, 2018), this chapter examines humor of two cooking show genres on Food Network that feature talk in interaction: talk cooking shows and travel cooking shows. On the talk cooking show, The Kitchen, five co-hosts chat about food-related news, give cooking and hosting tips, cook, and eat on a set styled like a home with a kitchen, sitting area, and dining table. Their linguistic collaboration is a dynamic communicative event that gives

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_5

119

120

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

rise to creative and diverse interpretations and meanings linguistically and culinarily. On the travel cooking show, Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives, host Guy Fieri uses innovative expressions and playful quips to relate to ‘ordinary’ people, including restaurant chefs, owners, and local customers at the featured eatery. Humor is constructed in the cooking show discourse by verbal and nonverbal elements, individually and jointly, and through production effects. The dramatic visuality of the tv cooking show, with its kitchen environment and informal space for interaction, induces productive and creative language use. Further, humor creates play frames, allowing celebrity chefs to act outside of ‘normal’ script and activity, promoting openness to ideas and fresh insight into ways of doing or being.

5.1

Cooking Shows Are Fun

One of the first contemporary celebrity chefs, Julia Child captured the public’s attention with her sense of humor and accessibility on her show The French Chef, which premiered in 1963 on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), a non-profit American public broadcaster with educational television programming. While not the first chef on television, Julia has been credited for giving more respect to cooking as well as making it fun (Collins, 2009). Media historian Dana Polan (2011) stresses that Julia was innovative in her emphasis of cooking as fun and enjoyable. Fun, indeed, may be the most recurrent word on The French Chef. Given what so much instructional television had been like before she [Julia] came on the scene, a commitment to fun like the one she demonstrated could also make all the difference for the medium’s promise as popular pedagogy. (p. 44)

Julia incorporates fun literally and fundamentally into her cooking show by instructing viewers to “have fun” while in the kitchen. For example, on an omelet show, Julia gives two methods for forming the eggs together, one by shaking the pan and the other by using a fork or spoon. The first is preferred because it is simply more “fun,” as Julia justifies (Polan, 2011, p. 44). Performance contributes to the entertainment of the program because of the apparent energy and fun with which cooking is demonstrated. Today’s food television provides a range of entertainment with its expansion of cooking show genres. Food Network produces how-to, competition,

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

121

talk, and travel cooking shows, with how-to cooking shows providing education in the literal sense of teaching viewers how to cook.1 Education may also be understood in the cultural sense, as Isabel De Solier (2005) notes: TV cooking shows are a site for the transmission of social and cultural knowledge, the most obvious of which is practical culinary knowledge. However, through the communication of such culinary knowledge, cookery programmes transmit other encoded forms of knowledge about gender, class, ethnicity and national identity, which perform particular kinds of ideological work. (p. 468) Food Network transmits ideological values in its culinary instruction but also in its playful discourse. On talk cooking shows and travel cooking shows, the hosts collaborate and make jokes, which are entertaining but also carry meanings. In this connection between humor and the unfamiliar, cooking shows design experiences that introduce viewers to another reality by providing a medium or context for play.

5.2

Fun and Play in Cooking Shows

The significance of play in culture is theorized by Johan Huizinga (1944) in his Homo Ludens (“Man, the Player”). Huizinga asserts that play is central to the development of culture and society, describing play as a free and meaningful activity. Separated from real life, play has its own rules: “play is not ‘ordinary’ or ‘real life.’ It is rather a stepping out of ‘real’ life into a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all of its own” (Huizinga, 1944, p. 8). Similarly, social scientist and linguist Gregory Bateson (2000/1972) describes play as a distinct experience: “play is not the name of an act or action; it is the name of a frame for action. We may expect, then, that play is not subject to the regular rules of reinforcement” (p. 139). Play activities do not simply relate to a context, such as play in board games or sports, but rather, they create a context—a “frame”—to guide the interpretation of single actions. Cooking shows are play and provide a frame to explore and practice cooking. In talk cooking shows and travel cooking shows, play is with others and is a form of communication with layered meanings and double messages. Play necessitates a signal because of its paradoxical nature. What we say and how we act in play are understood in a different way in non-play, allowing for a truth and falsity of our actions and communication. This “paradox of play” lies in the simultaneous nature of play as both serious and non-serious (Bateson, 2000/1972, p. 182). In play behavior, the implicit

122

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

message, “this is play,” can be rephrased as, “These actions in which we now engage do not denote what those actions for which they stand would denote” (Bateson, 2000/1972, p. 17). The metacommunication, or the language and behavior that is a level above or deeper than the surface level, is play. What is literally said is different than its meaning. We will consider how play behavior of cooking show hosts creates a context of play itself. Cooking shows as games offer models of social interaction in social life and provide ‘real-world’ contrasts such as ‘real vs. fake,’ ‘authentic vs. artificial,’ and ‘play vs. serious.’ Playful tendency applies to the participants on cooking shows who are aware of their interaction as a public performance. At the same time, spontaneity and casualness related to humor and laughter add a sense of liveness and authenticity to the show. Erving Goffman’s (1974) adoption of framing is helpful in understanding this social interaction in that frames are understood as messages organized and structured in a way that influences viewers’ perceptions. In this sense, the shifting of play and serious frames illustrates how play frames add comic relief while serious frames provide more instructional content of cooking shows. Play is the way we do something or say something, whatever something may be. In the layering of meaning in the collaborative, playful discourse of the talk cooking show, metacommunication is often carried on paralanguage: tone of voice, timing, posture, inflection, facial expression, smiling voice (Holmes & Hay, 1997) and many other cues that index the intimacy of the group. Production elements (e.g., kitchenware, serving plates) also carry messages. Close collaboration between speakers is essential for playful talk (Coates, 2007). Thus, playful talk strengthens relationships by creating and maintaining group solidarity, an essential component for instance of co-hosts of a talk cooking show.

5.3

Humor and Pseudo-Play on Cooking Shows

Humor, especially play, builds solidarity among hosts and creates a ‘pseudoplay’ with the viewers by inviting a laughter response and including them in jokes. Play usually occurs during side-narratives and encourages natural, spontaneous behavior, rendering the hosts as authentic. Play allows for the unusual, temporarily suspending social norms. Behavior is given free rein in the play context. Some restrictions though are that (1) the behavior must be limited to the play context, the dedicated space of play of the tv cooking show, and (2) it must be expressed according to the game rules,

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

123

the tv cooking show rules in language and actions. Serious frames occur during the recipe-telling and instruction, adding weight and credibility to the show while positioning the hosts as authorities on food. Further, the interactional dynamics between host and viewers may be described as “pseudo-play.” Concepts such as “pseudo-intimacy” (O’Keeffe, 2006; Rubino, 2016), “illusion of acquaintance” (Liddicoat et al., 1992), and “synthetic personalization” (Fairclough, 1995) in storytelling on cooking shows (Matwick & Matwick, 2014) have been employed in media discourse studies to analyze how the enactment of solidarity is discursively constructed between the host and the audience. The pseudo-play frames the food discourse in cooking shows as a context where hosts and listeners are able to participate in play, a peculiar context which emphasizes ‘just be yourself’ through the expression of fun and individuality. Playing their authentic selves, hosts perform not only the “front stage” work self but also their back stage, out of work self, which increases their appeal to viewers as ordinary and ‘just like them.’

5.4

Characteristics of Play on Cooking Shows

Cooking shows display social interaction that is ongoing, unfolding into individual and contextually-bound situations. These frames constantly shift back and forth between play and serious frames among participants who know each other well (as is the case on the talk cooking show and how-to) as well as with new acquaintances (as in the case of the travel cooking show). Play has improvisational potential—anyone can initiate a shift of frames— making the celebrity chef discourse fun and a creative performance. The play in talk also demonstrates that the celebrity talk is an aspect of friendly, everyday talk. Play has been difficult for scholars to define due to its ambiguous concept and complexity. However, basic elements of play have been identified (cf., Bateson, 2000/1972; Carter, 2016; Eberle, 2014; Huizinga, 1944), that we see on cooking shows: • • • • • •

Free Active or passive In-between spaces Finite Flexible Special, set-apart

124

• • • • •

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Orderly Creative Everyday language Fantasy Symmetrical.

Play can be free and ungoverned by anything with serious intent. Play justifies making time-intensive hand-rolled pasta or puff pastry for enjoyment over functionality for instance. Play can be active or passive. Hosts engage in active play; a host tosses chocolate chip morsels up in the air and catches them with his mouth; another jiggles her shoulders and does the “happy dance.” Viewers play along by laughing at the hosts’ antics and may even imitate them by playing a food-tossing game and jiggling. Play can occur in-between spaces, a temporary interlude where normal rules of social interaction are suspended. Hosts talk to at-home viewers as if they are friends without ever meeting face-to-face. Play is finite. Play has a well-defined time limitation with a beginning and an end; an ordering; and players already know when play is going to begin and when it is going to stop, either because of the predefined time limitation for playing (e.g., production time limit of a cooking show), or because the end-state of the activity is known (e.g., in a plated dish). Play is also flexible, not stringent; the settings shift, the play interval varies, and the normal sequence of activity in play is not followed, but as Goffman (1974) notes, play is “subject to starting and stopping, to redoing, […and] mixing with sequences from other routines” (pp. 42–43). Cooking show hosts stop and start the recipe telling, mixing in storytelling and pausing for commercial breaks. Play is special and set apart. There are spatial limitations of the play area with dedicated spaces, such as playgrounds, fields, courts, tv cooking show studios, and so on. As Huizinga (1944) notes, play occurs “within a playground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, deliberately or as a matter of course” (p. 10). The television screen and kitchen set are like playgrounds, “forbidden spots, isolated, hedged round, hallowed, within which special rules obtain. All are temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart” (Huizinga, 1944, p. 10). The kitchen studio, equipped with stovetop, oven, and refrigerator and so on, and workspace, such as a cutting board table, kitchen table,

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

125

and chairs, delineate the space for cooking and become a set for play on cooking shows. Play has rules that create order and organize games. The tv cooking show program follows a specific order and is circumscribed by production rules. The time limit and built-in commercial breaks, for example, propel the cooking show and talk. Players play the game; tv hosts accelerate talk to get a tasting of the dish before commercial break or stall with a story while waiting for the grilled cheese sandwich to crisp and melt. Play is creative. Play is made through linguistic creativity, such as inventing new words, making unusual sounds, and experimenting with language. Play is also made through culinary creativity with unusual flavor combinations or new techniques, such as strawberry black pepper butter or pickled grapes. Play consists of everyday language, including relaxed, informal banter associated with everyday communication styles, language play and creativity emerge in the spontaneous discourse with limited opportunities for recasting or revising. At the same time, cooking shows also include culinary talk, often followed by an explanation such as chopping zucchini into mezzalunas, or half-moon shapes. Play is fantasy, not-real. Play creates a stage separate from reality. The showing of meta-production, such as cue cards, videographers, and backstage, reinforces the play frame by breaking the illusion of reality. Play has a symmetrical relationship. Participants play different roles throughout the show, cooking as the expert in one moment to asking questions about the dish and method the next. The kitchen space encourages an unrestrained, expressive, and creative environment.

5.5

Characteristics of Humor on Cooking Shows

Language contributes to creating play frames on cooking shows. Language that is collaborative, repetitive, exaggerated, overlapping, and metaphoric is identified in conversational humor (Coates, 2007). Laughter, including smiles and happy facial expressions (raised cheeks, upraised lips, wrinkled lower eyelids), and gestures (winks, thumbs-up) are often present. Nonverbal sounds such as gustatory expressions and onomatopoeia sounds add to the narrative with reactions to taste and imitations of cooking sounds. Production elements, such as lighting, flashbacks, flashforwards, text on screen, and camera framing, also contribute to the play frame.

126

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Characteristics of humor on cooking shows include: collaboration, repetition, exaggeration, overlap, metaphor, laughter, teasing, word play, sound effects, paralinguistic cues, and production techniques. Table 5.1 provides an overview of these features on cooking shows, drawing upon examples from the talk cooking show The Kitchen and the travel cooking show Diners, Drive-ins and Dives on Food Network. We discuss and elaborate on these discursive features more in depth in the next section.

5.6

Play on Talk Cooking Shows: The Kitchen

In this section, we analyze a selection of episodes from The Kitchen, a cooking-themed talk show produced and aired on Food Network. Premiering in 2014, The Kitchen continues to be produced and is in its 19th season with over 250 episodes. The show features five hosts (Geoffrey Zakarian aka “GZ,” Sunny Anderson, Jeff Mauro, Katie Lee, and Marcela Valladolid) who bring fun conversation and delicious recipes into ‘the kitchen,’ an informal domestic space that encourages a lighter tone and playful interaction.2 The Kitchen is an instance of a community of practice with mutual engagement and shared resources accumulated over time. There is more humor in multiparty exchanges (Di Ferrante, 2013) and the frequent and repeated interaction among the hosts establishes a “community of practice” style of humor. The talk is lively and about family cooking, portraying the hosts as an example of a close-knit family cooking together and sharing a “family” style of humor (Everts, 2003). The laughter of the hosts marks the construction of comedic meaning between the viewers and the tv discourse: it is a way to link the at-home viewers, watching individually or in small groups, with a wider community of viewers worldwide to which the show is broadcast. Laughter thus functions both as a reaction to humor and a marker of humor, communicating the intended humor. In Palmer’s (1994) words, humor is “laughter-inviting laughter” (pp. 160–167). The dynamic process involved in the construction of the group identity compares to the construction of a trifle or fool (a wink at fool’s other meanings as merry, comical). For instance, cohosts of The Kitchen play “pass the carrot cake trifle,” with each adding a layer (“The Spring Feast,” Season 13, Episode 1, 2017). The trifle is ceremoniously passed around by Jeff to each member as they add a layer: carrot cake (Sunny), cream cheese vanilla pudding (Katie), and whipped cream (Marcela), making for an “epic cake” that is as much about the collaboration as it is beautiful. The engaging

Description

Created in interaction, either with another host on set or with at-home viewers

Similar jokes, one-liners or words, or phrases repeated on shows and across episodes

Amplified in some way

Simultaneous speech, when hosts talk at the same time, often occurring when one host begins talking before another host finishes or multiple hosts respond at the same time

Collaboration

Repetition

Exaggeration

Overlap

Humor and language on cooking shows

Discursive feature

Table 5.1

Illustrates high-involvement among participants; Creates a lively interaction

Produces some element of surprise and/or humor

Adds cohesion; Increases recallability; Makes salient the most important ingredient or idea

Avoids awkward silences; Displays rapport

Function

(continued)

Direct eye gaze Wink Joint recipe telling Cooking together Q&A “zesty” “poof” “circle, circle, circle” (while stirring eggs in a pan) “toasty toast” (emphasize toasting of bread) Oversized props (three-foot inflatable hot dog for a grilling show) Extreme descriptions or impossible scale (“thimble”; “in like 5 minutes”; “one of my favorite pizzerias on the planet”; “recorded for eternity”; “40 pounds of chicken”) Reacting at the same time to a tasting; Asking questions at the same time

Example

5 HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

127

Description

Figure of speech; compared to something else

Verbal expression of enjoyment and/or amusement; often following jokes

Make fun of someone or to provoke, typically in jest and lighthearted

Discursive feature

Metaphor

Laughter

Teasing

Table 5.1 (continued)

Displays intimate knowledge of the target; Elicits laughter

Shows understanding; Covers awkward silences; Shows appreciation; Displays friendship

Makes a new concept relatable; Gives new association to ingredient or dish

Function

Herbs are rolled up “like a cigar”; Grilled watermelon slices look “like a tuna steak”; Instagram cheese burger pulls that loop back and forth are like “boomerangs” In response to jokes or other humorous expressions, laughter forms part of an “adjacency pair” (Norrick, 1993) A co-host volunteers to be a human bowling ball, eliciting teasing and laughter from co-hosts: “where’s my camera when I need it?” [laughter] Host teased for idiosyncrasies, such as being a meticulous dresser (host looking “dapper as always”) Guest on show describes dough as a “blob,” and host teases, “that’s a culinary term, blob?”

Example

128 K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Description

Rhyming (assonant, consonant), puns, neologisms

Non-articulate sounds or sounds that imitate non-human sounds

Body and facial expressions that support or replace speech

Camera techniques to construct a shot

Discursive feature

Word play

Sound effects

Paralinguistic cues

Production techniques

Frames viewing; helps viewers to focus on particular action; Determines the pace of the sequence

Supports or replaces verbal communication

Displays pleasure in taste; Functions as a rhetorical effect

Displays a sense of humor; Illustrates creativity

Function “one-pan-plan” “kimchi-fy’ “mystifyingly delicious” “shrimptastic” “bluebs” for blueberries “Holy-moly stromboli” “I’m going to continue to casseROLL with the punches” “that’s a locha-kolache” (a lot of kolache pastries) Gustatory mmm; Onomatopoeia (glop, slurp, munch, chew, crunch) smile, wink, eyebrow lifting, dance moves, high-five, arm-pumping, hug, bicep flex shot, mid shot, close-up, angle, fade-in, fade-out, cut, focus, pan, tilt

Example

5 HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

129

130

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

talk that is constructed with the interweaving of play and instruction, games and information, of the celebrity chefs makes for a successful cooking show that is as spontaneous and engaging as it provides continuation. The flavors of the trifle develop in time, just as the improvisational turn-taking of the hosts flows in familiarity. While the set is similar to other how-to cooking shows, The Kitchen as a talk cooking show features a presentational and conversational language more typical of talk shows. Formal cooking language, informational food news, and interview protocols are juxtaposed with jokes, anecdotes, and gossip, resulting in talk that both informs and entertains at the same time. This hybridization of talk is an example of “conversationalization,” or the shift of public discourse towards more informal, everyday language (Fairclough, 1994, p. 253). Like a talk show, chat occurs before and after the cooking segments, delaying the primary business of the show (Tolson, 1991, p. 179), but unique to cooking shows, chat also occurs during the cooking as well. Hosts usually chat about family traditions or personal favorites, which pull their viewers into the show before, during, and after making the dishes. While GZ cooks spiced lamb pastitsio, a Greek lasagna with ground lamb, Katie shares her love for another baked pasta dish: manicotti, “that was my choice when I was a kid. When my mom was making my birthday dinner, I wanted manicotti” (“Warm-Up to Fall,” Season 22, Episode 9, 2019). Katie’s story gives viewers the image of a warm, homecooked meal, besides aligning the unusual dish of pastitsio alongside a familiar American classic of manicotti. Chat cooking show hosts share personal stories and often improvise in their storytelling. This improvisation is a defining feature of chat as a speech genre. Comparing television chat to a “jazz performance,” Andrew Tolson (1991) describes how chat involves a play of thematic repetition and variation in front of a live audience (p. 183). Comparing television chat to a “jazz performance,” Tolson (1991) describes how chat involves a play of thematic repetition and variation in front of a live audience (p. 183). Early on, linguists have compared the collaborative activity of the talk to music with its ‘choral’ nature (Sully 1902, cited in Norrick, 1993, p. 141), and jazz with the improvisation on a theme (Davies, 2003; Sawyer, 2001). Jennifer Coates (1996) also draws on jazz as a metaphor and described the collaborative talk of women friends as a “jam session” (pp. 117–118). Similar parallels between collaborative talk and other artistic forms such as poetry have been made (Tannen, 1990). In the case of talk-as-play, the most salient seems to be the collaborative, teamwork nature of the talk.

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

131

An important aspect to establish play frame in the discourse of cooking shows is the collaboration between involved participants. As Janet Holmes and Jennifer Hay (1997) observe, “Successful humor is a joint construction involving a complex interaction between the person intending a humorous remark and those with the potential of responding” (p. 131). Collaboration is an essential aspect of play ful talk, since involved participants have to recognize that a play frame has been initiated and agree to maintain it; if unrecognized, ignored, or rejected, the play frame is unsuccessful. Collaboration is particularly important for talk cooking shows to avoid awkward silences and perceptions of disaffiliation (aggression). Rather, talk cooking show requires cohosts to show affiliation (ingroup, solidarity) and support the team. Playing together is a manifestation of intimacy and authenticity. Conversational humor is considered a joint activity. Many researchers consider its chief function as building rapport and mutual bonding (Chovanec, 2017; Norrick, 1993). The creation of solidarity is a consequence of the joint construction of a play frame, since the language use, “when it can be said to be creative, is necessarily less considered, or prepared or revised or shaped but occurs in the ebb and flow of interpersonal relationships, is normally co-constructed as part of a dialogue or multi-party exchanges” (Carter, 2016). This comradery must be strong on television when the pressure to perform and be the star must be balanced by hosts’ willingness to work together. In this collaborative and fluid space of tv talk cooking shows, a socially symmetrical situation occurs and encourages creativity. As Robert Carter (2016) observes of everyday conversations: We are more likely to be verbally inventive and creative in more socially symmetrical situations where we are more among equals, with people and in contexts where we can feel less threatened and, commonly, where we are interacting and joking with others. (para. 17)

The talk cooking show has more conversational talk and collaborative humor than other cooking show genres, particularly competition shows. In confrontative and hostile interactions, humor can be used as a tool of power to “laugh at” instead of “laugh with” other competitors to create feelings of superiority. It can be presented as jokes, puns, sarcasms, and other forms of “biting” humor (Boxer & Cortés-Conde, 1997). Hosts on the talk cooking show may tease one another, but it is done in rapport with good-intentions. As Marta Dynel (2009) notes, “producing a tease,

132

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

the speaker does not mean to be genuinely offensive towards the hearer, challenging the latter jocularly” (p. 1293). Within a humor frame, the tease can be enjoyed by both the speaker and the hearer. In the tv talk cooking show The Kitchen, celebrity chef hosts collaborate as a team; the creativity and play in food discourse are co-constructed in interaction and dialogue, as operating as a group as well as individuals. Hosts switch participant roles through each episode, from expert, novice, chef, sous-chef, to taster, and always, performer. In the upcoming excerpt, cohosts Sunny and Jeff take on various roles during the recipe telling of Chicken Chorizo Hash (Excerpt 5.1). Sunny is the expert and principal recipe teller. Acting as the sous-chef, Jeff chops vegetables for Sunny and asks questions on behalf of viewers, that also are a display of his own expertise on flavors (showing culinary capital). Breaking out into song and jokes, Jeff’s personal identities also emerge as a baritone (exhibiting his musical talents) and comedian improvising on a theme (formerly a stand-up comedian). This switching of roles and the playful language of the hosts provide a means to perform multiple identities, personal and performance roles. Excerpt 5.1 “One-Pan Chicken-Chorizo Hash” Sunny begins the show with a cooking demonstration of how to cook a complete meal in a single pan with Chicken and Chorizo Hash. She stands at the stove with Jeff acting as her sous-chef while the other three hosts (Marcela, Katie, GZ) watch from a side table and interject throughout with questions and comments. In the cooking demonstration, Sunny and Jeff make “OJ gravy” using orange juice. When discussing what each ingredient adds to the gravy, they use musical metaphors, and Jeff enacts the vocal range to describe the flavors. Jeff: Wh-why the Worcestershire sauce? Sunny: Well, it has a little bit of everything, you know. [turns to Jeff] It’s got a really nice funky base of anchovies. It gives some body, some flavor to it. [stirring pot] I am putting in orange juice, which is kind of a high note. So I’ve got to throw the baritone in there. Jeff: Baritone note. Baaaa [deep voice] to the Aaaaa. [high voice] You’re supposed to harmonize with me. [camera shot of other hosts smiling] Sunny: I can’t harmonize, ok? I can’t. [pouring orange juice into pan] But listen, so you see how this is thickening up. [turning to the pan] Jeff: Nice, already beautiful.

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

133

Sunny: Yeah, a little thick. Ok. Give me a couple spoonfuls of that sour cream. Jeff: And this is gonna, you know, fortify the sauce with some richness. [adds spoonfuls of sour cream to the pan while Sunny stirs] It gives some richness, yes? Sunny: Yeah. Jeff: Some tang. Sunny: Yeah, it gives it a little bit more depth. Jeff: What note would this be? Sunny: It brings it up. This is the High C. Jeff: The high note. I’m not even going to try. [Jeff and Sunny both look directly at the camera; Jeff shakes his head sheepishly, and Sunny smirks.] Sunny: [laughs] That’s good enough. [telling Jeff to stop spooning in the sour cream] GZ: [The dish] is finishing almost like a stroganoff with cream. [nodding] Really, really fun. (The Kitchen, “Old Tools, New Ideas,” Season 1, Episode 7, 2014)

5.6.1

Metaphor

The play frame begins with Sunny’s musical metaphor, a useful comparison in describing food. She compares the orange juice to a “high note,” and the Worcestershire sauce to a “baritone.” Jeff picks up Sunny’s play and repeats her: “Baritone note,” and proceeds to enact the vocal metaphor, flexing his vocal range from the lowest pitch to the highest. The extremes add comedic effect while emphasizing Sunny’s point about the ingredients offering opposite flavors. As William Fry (1963) notes, a play “frame can be indicated by a voice quality, a body moment or posture, a lifted eyebrow— any of the various things people do to indicate fantasy to one another” (p. 138). Here, voice play signals the playfulness, reinforcing the nonserious spirit of the utterance. As a former comedian, Jeff would be familiar to using the voice as a prop in standup comedy (Rutter, 1997). Here, intensity, volume, and pitch create play. Yet, the response of Sunny and the other hosts is weak. There is an absence of laughter and they give half-smiles, which does not correspond with the intensity of Jeff’s attempt at humor. Disappointed, Jeff entreats Sunny’s participation, “You’re supposed to harmonize with me.” His use

134

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

of the implicature “supposed to” implies blame, complaining to Sunny for starting the joke but leaving him in a vulnerable position. From Jeff’s perspective, Sunny neglects her role as a team player that he expects when cooking and performing together. Sunny apologizes, “I can’t harmonize, ok? I can’t.” She confesses to not being a good singer and refuses to put herself in an embarrassing situation. She ends the play and continues with the recipe telling with the turn “but.” Jeff stops laughing and participates back in the recipe telling, complimenting her on cooking: “nice, already beautiful.” Sunny adds another ingredient, sour cream, commenting that it gives a little more “depth,” again bringing up her musical metaphor, prompting Jeff to ask, “What note would this be?” This time Sunny accepts the invitation to play: “it [the sour cream] brings it up. This is the High C,” in reference to the soprano, two octaves above Middle C, to describe how the ingredient adds acidity and sharpness. It keeps the cooking going as well as the two levels of discourse: the recipe telling and the play telling.3 Jeff repeats, “the high note,” displaying his reading of her description. Recognizing it as a playful challenge, this time Jeff refuses to play, “I’m not even going to try,” and shakes his head, looking at the viewer as if apologizing for failing the challenge. Sunny, humored that Jeff refuses the challenge, laughs and smirks, also looks at the viewer at the same time, but victorious. The recipe telling resumes when Sunny tells Jeff that he has added enough sour cream to the pot, “that’s good enough.” GZ picks up the instructional frame and gives an evaluation of the dish, also through a metaphor, but one that compares it to another dish: “[the dish] is finishing like a stroganoff with cream.” On cooking shows, hosts use metaphors in substitution or comparison of taste, a highly subjective experience, to a concrete object or related idea to facilitate understanding. Musical metaphors provide a point of comparison for taste, while other dishes (stroganoff) offer a comparison for the way the dish is prepared and plated. Besides musical references being used as a metaphor for taste, music itself is a part of the cooking show narrative and discourse. Cooking activity creates a percussion-like discourse, such as the whistling kettle, gurgling broth, beeping microwave, and shutting of the oven door that add rhythm to the flow of talk. The celebrity chef hosts may intentionally create music as well,

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

135

such as drumming pots. On another episode of The Kitchen, cohost Geoffrey Zakarian (also known as “GZ”), raps three large pots with a wooden spoon, a maestro directing the ‘symphony’ of ingredients cooking in progressive stages in each pot. The raps draw the attention to the pots, which also have visual appeal as Jeff points out their bright yellow color: “I’m getting tan off Geoffrey’s pots over here. Look at all that yellow! This is sunshine shower you got going on” (“Weeknight Wins,” Season 20, Episode 2, 2019). In the comparison of the pots to the sun, the scene is portrayed as cheerful and beaming with warmth. Through a play frame, celebrity chefs use a verbal and non-verbal (musical; visual) language that reiterates the connection between cooking, food, and language. These non-verbal sounds and visual references add to the play on cooking shows, creating a sense of immediacy, authenticity, and spontaneity. The main dialogue is supported by listening co-hosts who also contribute (playfully) through channels of non-verbal feedback (e.g., smiles, lifting of eye brows, nodding of head, tapping of utensil, etc.). These non-verbal aspects are instances of paralanguage, which accompanies spoken interaction. They are simultaneously social interaction and a rhythmic, incantatory stream of sound, associated with repeated actions. 5.6.2

Word Play

Food discourse can be play ful with made-up words, a result of new food creations or for humorous effect. The new words often indicate the sources of inspirations, whether an ingredient, dish, or name of the person. The words formed may be a type of portmanteau, a word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two other words, or an acronym, or a word formed as an abbreviation from the first letters of a phrase. A word may also take on new meaning through derivations, such as adding suffixes that change the grammatical category. Table 5.2 provides some examples of word play from The Kitchen. The next excerpt (Excerpt 5.2 Sunny’s Pan-Sagna) illustrates how new dishes and words come about. Sunny opens the scene, booming with energy, “Are you ready for a one-pan plan?”, looking directly at viewers and then to Jeff who is acting as her sous-chef in this segment as well. Sunny’s upbeat tone and her creative dish set the interaction as fun and playful, a frame that Jeff picks up and acts cheekily throughout.

136

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Table 5.2

Examples of word play on cooking shows

Examples

Meaning

S’Mauros

A double contraction: s’mores or “some more” for the American campfire sandwich dessert made with two graham crackers encasing toasted marshmallow chocolate; and Jeff Mauro, whose recipe is s’mores made in a skillet Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner: a dish that can be eaten anytime Smell + Television: a dream television that emits smell Light Brown Sugar Golden, Brown, and Delicious Pancake + tacos: tacos made with pancake batter Snacks + stadium: a party tray filled with snacks and modeled as a football stadium Swirl + drizzle: a swirled drizzle Funky + delicious: tastes good in an unusual way Pan + lasagna: a lasagna made in a pan Naan + panzanella: an Indian naan flat bread used in panzanella, an Italian bread salad Jeff’s rendition of McDonald’s ‘Sausage-and-egg-McMuffins’a To make fancy; to improve its appearance “awesome way to really zhuzh up the box cake” Shrimp + fantastic: shrimp that tastes very good Crazy + − ness: a state of crazy; very crazy Kimchi + fy: to make something more like kimchi A plan that consists of one pan

BLD Smellovision LBS GBD Pacos Snackadium Swizzle Funkalicious Pansagna Naanzella Sausage-and-Egg Jeffmuffins Zhuzh up Shrimptastic Crazyness Kimchify One-pan-plan

a Jeff Mauro’s recipe for Sausage-and-Egg Jeffmuffins is: bake eggs in a baking pan and cut into squares;

then, smash breakfast sausage patties until charred on a skillet; and then place baked egg squares and sausage patties on toasted English muffins (“Fresh New Food Ideas,” Season 2, Episode 2, The Kitchen, 2014)

Excerpt 5.2 Sunny’s Pan-Sagna Sunny: Are you ready for a one-pan plan? [at the camera] This is my one pan-plan. I love to keep it all in one pan. Less dishes, very easy to do on a week night. This is going to be my pan-sagna. Jeff: [laughs brashly] Ha, ha! Sunny: ‘Cause you know what we’re making? Jeff: [cheekily] Lasagna in a pan? Sunny You’re so smart! [smiling, smirking] GZ: [aside] Unbelievable Jeffrey.

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

137

[Cohosts laugh] Sunny: I’m not even going to ask him [Jeffrey] how to spell it. (“The Spring Show,” Season 2, Episode 1, 2014)

Sunny explains her new signature dish and coined phrase—“one-pan plan”—to mean an all-complete meal made in one vessel. The phrase consists of a play on words with alliterations and assonance with the repetition of the [p] and the internal rhyming of the short vowel [˘a]. The phrase’s play on sounds and efficiency of the monosyllables reinforce the idea or the plan itself, which is to save time and stress in the kitchen. Sunny uses the phrase frequently, creating a sound of play throughout the cooking show, such as in this interaction. The play on “one-pan-plan” morphes into another linguistic and culinary play: pan-sagna, a portmanteau for One-Pan Plan Lasagna, a recipe for making lasagna in a single pan. The word blend, or portmanteau, “pansagna,” is formed by fusing the full word, “pan,” plus a portion of the word, “lasagna.” This new word is easier and faster to say, embodying the shortened form of the cooking process itself. Further, the portmanteau packs two meanings into one word, making the cooking concept easier to recall. Such portmanteau words also showcase the celebrity chef’s talk and cooking as creative, fun, and personally engaging with the audience. As a new word, the word blending also reflects a cultural phenomenon becoming popular in American cooking: cooking an entire dish in a single cooking and serving vessel, suggesting how cooking shows can act as a sociocultural barometer of food trends. One Pan, Sheet Pan, and Tray Bake recipes are popular in American cooking for the minimal time and effort required. Most involve roasting vegetables and protein in one baking pan, such as Sheet Pan Shrimp Scampi and Asparagus or One Pan Chicken Fajitas. Other forms of neologisms that signal play are when the food itself may be exaggerated in size, such as a “Snackadium,” a party tray modeled after an American football stadium and overflowing with tv football-watching snacks such as crudité, cured meats, cheese, and dips (“The Big Game,” Season 1, Episode 4, 2014). Props may also be part of the play, such as three-foot mustard and ketchup bottles and hot-dog-shaped inflatables large enough to ride down a water slide (“Pump Up Your Summer Party,” Season 10, Episode 4, 2016). Food-shaped toys signal play and make food the center of a ‘summer party’ across forms, whether plastic or real.

138

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

5.6.3

Repetition

Play is often signaled through repetition in language. While repetition can be identical to the original word, linguistic variations of the word, such as changes in sound, grammar, or meaning, are also possible. Various forms of repetition make the idea, such as the recipe, ingredient, or food description, clearer and more recallable, which help viewers understand the cooking and in turn cook the dish in their own kitchen. At the same time, the use of repetition raises the repeated element to a different level, bringing it to the present, at the same time as drawing our attention to the act of presenting (Kozic, 2012, p. 115). Through repetition, parallels are created across turns and scenes, providing opportunity for echoing and variation (e.g., same line, spoken with a different tone of voice). Through repetition, the word is marked as important in the interaction. In the following excerpt, the hosts repeat and reiterate “zest,” which captures the theme of the episode about citrus bringing bright flavors and encouraging sunny moods: Excerpt 5.3 Semantic and Syntactic Variations of ‘Zesty’ Sunny opens the show with an introduction about the theme of the episode. She and Katie are sitting at the counter while Jeff and GZ are standing at the stove. Blue pots, oranges, spices, and uncooked bone-in chicken thighs are mise en place. Sunny: Winter is finally coming to a close. And, today, we’re squeezing every last drop of flavor out of the seasons star produce which is… Jeff: [audible gasp] Sunny: Citrus! Yeah, did you guys know that? It’s like the big thing right now. From sweet oranges to tart lemons, we’re going to be cooking up a bright, citrusy spread to add some zest to your life, you know. Get you zestfully happy in your kitchen. GZ, you’re gonna zest us up? How’re you gonna zest us up? [addresses GZ who is standing at the stove] GZ: Yeah, I’m getting zesty. [co-hosts laugh] Katie: He sounded zesty. (“Fresh Squeeze of Flavor,” Season 20, Episode 6, 2019)

Repetition is a way to produce deeper levels of emphasis, clarity, amplification, and emotional effect. The word “zest” is repeated throughout the

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

139

exchange with lexical, grammatical, and semantic variations. The first iteration of “zest” is a noun and refers to two meanings: zest, as in great energy and enthusiasm, and zest, as in the peel of citrus. Zest turns into “zestfully,” an adverb formed with the suffix -fully, meaning to be in a greater state of zest or happiness. Zest is used next as a verb, meaning to produce zest, or a high state of energy; and finally, “zesty” is an adjective formed with the morpheme –y to characterize how the host is feeling, that is fun and lively, an impression confirmed in the second iteration (“he sounded zesty”). Repetition creates rhythm, stimulating enjoyment and fostering unity. Guy Cook (2000), arguing for the comparability of musical and linguistic structures, suggests an intrinsic appeal and advantage of rhythm to human societies: “Rhythm is a way of effecting coordinated action and augmenting a sense of fellowship, whether between individuals, among small groups, or in large congregations…” (p. 22). The repetition of the zest (or pan, as mentioned earlier) both thematically and linguistically makes the cooking and talk textually cohesive. Repetition also aids in memory by allowing for greater mental processing time. The parallelisms in the cooking show discourse provide an opportunity for re-exposure (both within the recipe and story-telling and as the recipe and story are repeated), which is neither forced nor uninteresting. Lexical substitutions in grammatically parallel structures draw attention to the new content, such as new recipe ideas given in Excerpt 5.4. Excerpt 5.4 Lexical Substitutions: ‘You Could Put…’ Marcela: You could do twenty different things with that [chicken chorizo hash]. You could put it in an empanada, you could put it in a sandwich, you could put it in a flauta, you could—it’s a really versatile dish. Katie: You could put poached eggs on it. (“Old Tools, New Ideas,” Season 1, Episode 7, 2014)

Marcela and Katie describe the versatility of Sunny’s chicken-chorizo hash (from Excerpt 5.1). The anaphora ‘you could’ is repeated at the beginning of each sentence, followed by their ideas which are lexically marked as different. Marcela’s “twenty different things” are expounded in “empanada;” “sandwich;” and “flauta.” Katie picks up the cadence and suggests topping

140

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

it with “poached eggs.” This “conversational duetting” and rhyming produce a richer, multi-layered texture and flavor to talk, where they demonstrate their shared perspective on the subject being talked about (Coates, 2007, p. 41), in this case the versatility of the chicken chorizo hash for leftovers, and display “how finely tuned they are to each other” (Davies, 2003, p. 1362). Advice that indicates the limitless variations of the finished chicken dish attracts interest and tempts the viewer to stay through the show. 5.6.4

Play as Fantasy

Humor involves play and incongruity between real-unreal. Play as “a fantasy or metaphor for reality” (Fry, 1963, p. 147) suggests a constant playing between what is said and what is meant. This paradoxical or congruous playing with explicit-implicit separates serious from humorous discourse. In play, participants can be transported into another world. In Excerpt 5.5, celebrity chef Jeff plays make-believe, portraying the identity of a child growing up in Morocco. Excerpt 5.5 Make-Believe GZ: The whole house smells incredible. Jeff: Smells like- [pause] brings me back to my summers as a child in Morocco [looks at viewers; then at co-hosts], in the bazaar [looks at viewers again] Sunny: [smiling, shaking her head at viewers] (“Fresh Squeeze of Flavor,” Season 20, Episode 6, 2019)

Nonverbal language, such as Jeff’s overly earnest direct eye gaze and cheeky tone, coupled with Sunny’s head shake and smirk, cues viewers that the story is false. Such co-occurrences emphasize and draw attention to the paradoxes in the statement. The humor in the play with reality is not exclusive to the audience’s knowledge about Jeff’s unremarkable background. 5.6.5

Rule-Bound

Rules apply to the cooking show production as well as to the cooking itself. Both are mediated, the former bound by filming and production constraints

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

141

and the latter by the time it takes for food to be transformed in the cooking process. Production cues such as images of timers and faster-than-normal speed filming illustrate the passing of the time. Finished dishes on set are presented by hosts with prefaces such as: “I have one already done for you,” “let me show you how I made it,” “let’s turn back the clock,” or “this is what it should look like” in Excerpt 5.6. Excerpt 5.6 This Is What It Should Look Like GZ is cooking pork at the stove while Jeff, Sunny, and Katie watch from the counter. GZ: You want to sear this pork for 5 min on each side, thereabouts. [using tongs to place raw pork loin into a hot Dutch oven pot] This is what it should look like. [picking up a tray with already seared pork and also sausages] Look how gorgeous. Sunny: Searing it all over. GZ: So you have your little sausage family here, and your seared meat. [pointing to the meat] Jeff: Got a seared-meat party, right there. [nodding] GZ: So you hear that? [meat sizzling] And just, again—I say this all the time, but it’s really important—leave it alone. Jeff: Yep. [Jeff, Sunny, and Katie nodding] GZ: Go do something else. Go make a drink, [Jeff chuckles] watch the game, like something, answer your emails. Katie: If you have to set a timer on your phone, do it. (“Weeknight Wins,” Season 20, Episode 2, 2019)

While cooking the meat, GZ also shows its finished state, showing how hosts handle reality yet also take advantage of the cooking show as a mediated event. It is so natural that the discourse instead emphasizes the culinary lesson (let meat cook untouched on the pan for a hard sear) rather than how constructed the cooking show script. The side narratives, e.g., making a drink, watching a tv sporting event, checking email, setting a timer, bring the recipe to reality, effectively placing the dish within the constraints of ordinary time as experienced by the viewer and home cook.

142

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

5.7

Play on Travel Cooking Shows: Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives

This next section of play leaves ‘home’ and travels, that is it consists of interactions drawn from Diners, Drive-ins & Dives (DDD), a travel cooking show on hosted by Guy Fieri. Premiering in 2007 on Food Network, “Triple D” continues to be produced and is in Season 32 with over 400 episodes. Continuing the analysis of humor and play, here we go “out of bounds,” one of Guy Fieri’s famous catch phrases, to explore play outside the boundaries of the domestic kitchen. In segments of all-American road trips of Diners, Drive-ins & Dives, Guy visits small, locally owned restaurants where chefs prepare their specialty dishes for the camera. At each location, Guy observes the cooking process, asks questions, highlights unusual facts, makes jokes, and at the end, takes several bites of the dish and compliments the chef. Throughout the program, Guy’s humor contributes to the performance of authenticity and being himself. This ordinariness, being able to be ‘just-as-he-is’ with ordinary members of the public, emphasizes the sense of spontaneity and revelation of the self in tv performance (Bennett, 2011, p. 129), while the presence of the celebrity amongst the audience ‘reassures’ viewers that they are present in person (Lury, 2005, p. 179). In his play with language, both verbally and non-verbally, Guy establishes rapport with the chefs and customers and entertains Food Network viewers. The humor also increases Guy’s familiarity with the chefs, who are comfortable with him and often participate in the language play as well. For example, chef-owners of Hruska’s Kolaches in Salt Lake City participate in the humor. As a way to explain the origin of their fusion kolaches, sweet and savory filled pastries, the chef-owners are siblings and introduce themselves: “Hey, you know, we’re Czech, we’re Texan,” and Guy quips, like a verbal ball toss, “You’re Czexan.” Catching the ball, the chef-owners repeat three times: “We’re Czexan, we’re Czexan, we’re Czexan” (“Handy Helpings,” Season 29, Episode 19, 2019), providing a chorus. The portmanteau, which joins the hybrid identity of the chef-owners as Czech and Texan, matches the mixing of their kolaches. The exchange creates solidarity between Guy and the siblings in displaying understanding of their unique identity. In creating cooking shows as play, Guy uses nicknames and affectionate terms frequently for chefs and participants on the show, such as “Captain,” “Boss,” “Bro,” “Brother,” etc. This framing of familiarity and informality presents the celebrity as one of “the people,” as real, ordinary,

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

143

and likable, representing the “populist” (Contois, 2018). In this excerpt, the linguistic and cultural blending of the nickname Czexan suggests play and creativity of celebrity chef Guy. The excerpt also illustrates how Guy’s show transmits social and cultural knowledge of America’s immigrant heritage. The humor continues in the kitchen with one of the siblings who makes sound effects as she rolls and fills kolaches, starting with snort. The sound is released uncontrollably, breaching society’s rules of appropriate conduct. The kolaches chef groans in embarrassment: “oh, gosh it’s gonna be on TV.” The inclusion of the bloopers, or embarrassing moments that are usually not included in the final cut, add humor to the show and authenticity of the performance. Linguistically, the backstage discourse displays an immediacy of humor and suggests an instinctive reaction to the context. While usually ignored, the sounds become a source of humor and are emphasized in the play frame. The collaborative play and sound effects continue (Excerpt 5.7). Excerpt 5.7 Sound Effects and Collaborative Play Chef: whoo Guy: Was that a little sing? Chef: It was. [in a sing-song tone] Guy: Was that a little sing in there? Chef: I just make sound effects. Guy: Evidently. I’m putting together a soundtrack. Chef: Aah. Whoosh. Chirp. Plop. Mmm. Ooh. Ppsst. [screen cuts connect her sounds] Guy: ppsst [failed effect] I can’t even do that. [laughs] Guy: This is more fun. I don’t know if we’re even making food. [laughing] But seriously, this place is getting after it, putting out plenty of fillings to choose from. [Chef begins making kolaches with a raspberry cream cheese filling] These [kolaches] are great, but the comedy show is hysterical. ( “Handy Helpings,” Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, Season 29, Episode 19, 2019)

144

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

In the play frame, the communicative purpose of sound effects (whoo, aah, whoosh, chirp, plop, mmm, ooh, ppsst) is not straightforward or conventional. The context of the kolaches chef singing on the tv cooking show with close proximity to the host is crucial, as Guy’s presence signals a performance. The content of the message matters less than its communicability, in that the recipe telling, or narration of the cooking, is performed rather than ‘read.’ The deviation from familiar existing patterns of sound, lexis, and grammatical structure are creative uses of language. The cooking demonstration also contributes to the act of performing and play. When the chef is about to prepare the kolaches, Guy asks her, “Do you want me to time you?”, turning the demonstration into a game. “Sure,” she responds. “3-2-Go,” says Guy, and she starts ‘stomping,’ or pressing dimples into the dough, and piping in raspberry and cream cheese fillings. Like a game show host, Guy shows the timer on his phone to at-home viewers, who are engaged and cheer her on vicariously through the host. “34 seconds!” Guy exclaims in admiration. All participants—chef, host, and at-home viewers—contribute to the play and fun. Thus, the language, actions, and participants involved in the travel cooking show comprise a distinct form of food discourse. Creativity is also reflected in the kolaches, with the dough as a canvas for play. The chef’s use of imagination creates kolaches with “plenty of fillings to choose from,” says Guy. The flavors range from savory, such as ham, egg, cheese, and jalapeño, to sweet, such as cinnamon, maple pecan, cream cheese, and blueberry. The originality in the cooking corresponds with the chef’s creativity in language and play with Guy. In describing the kitchen as “fun” and a “comedy show,” Guy also validates the food. He bites into a raspberry cream cheese kolache and says to the chef, “It’s delicious. I mean, you’re making high-end quality pastry, freshly made with a lot of creativity and a lot of variety.” Guy highlights the originality of the pastries in its creativity, suggesting the value of play in cooking. Like the play of language of the celebrity chefs, television itself is a form of play itself; it is an illusion of reality, freeing viewers to play in make-believe and fantasize about the reality of the cooking show. Metaproduction effects, or the showing of the filming process, such as cameras, videographers, and cue cards, break down the illusion of reality. In discussing the ambiguity of play, comparative psychologist Brian Sutton-Smith (2001) likens watching tv to play:

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

145

Watching television can be watching and identifying with other people at play, whether in fiction or in real life—and, after all, one can turn it off or on, which makes it like play and not like real life. Viewers can control their involvement just as if the ‘play’ belongs to them, as in ‘playing’ with the channels. (p. 3)

While appearing to be spontaneous and live, the travel cooking show is planned and rehearsed. In an interview with local press, the kolaches chef in Excerpt 5.7 describes the filming process on Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, “[it is] way cool, but a lot of work,” and “it’s not just a cooking show, it is a real production with rules and scripts and all that,” and continuing, says, “You aren’t acting at all, but it was fun to be a part of a real-life Hollywood production” (Hruska, cited in Harris, 2019). Although the production has ‘rules and scripts,’ paradoxically the performances are spontaneous and ‘you aren’t acting at all.’ The inclusion of footage that is typically behind-thescenes suggests moments when the celebrity chef and ordinary participants (e.g., restaurant chef) are off-script, giving a glimpse of who the performers, especially the celebrity, really are like. In another example, nonverbal sounds continue to be a source of play on the travel cooking shows. At the Folded Pizza Pie in Washington, the restaurant chef explains to host Guy and his son Hunter how to make a dessert version of the dough: Excerpt 5.8 “Poof!” Nonverbal Play with Ordinary People Chef: We make dessert dough. It’s just your basic dough recipe with no cheese, no seasoning. We didn’t let it proof. We just threw it right in the oven so it poofs. [form air cloud with his hands] Guy: How’s it do it? Chef: Poofs. [forms air cloud with hand motions] Guy: How do you spell “poof”? Chef: P-o-o-f-f-f dot dot dot. [points three dots in the air with right index finger] Hunter: Nice. [nodding] Chef: Poof! Hunter: Poof! [deeper voice] (“Mega Meat and Sweet Treats,” Season 30, Episode 8, 2019)

146

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

In describing his unique method, the pizza chef describes that his dough does not ‘proof’ but rather ‘poofs.’ Picking up on the charades, Guy asks him to elaborate on how the dough “poofs” in the oven. The chef repeats both verbally (“poofs”) and gesturally, forming a poof or air cloud with his hands. The play on the term continues, as Guy asks the chef to spell “poof.” The chef plays along three ways: adds extra letters (“f-f-f” to poof), verbalizes ellipsis (“dot dot dot”), and air points three times. The deliberation and lengthening of the word emphasize the size of the poof, or rise of the dough. Joining in the play, Guy’s son assumes a character, saying “poof” in a deeper voice, which adds to the theatrical discourse. In the collaboration of playful talk, the three participants recognize that a play frame has been invoked and choose to maintain it. The use of repetition also emphasizes a particularly interesting and humorous part of the story. As in the earlier example with the kolaches chef, this collaborative narration draws on the language and play of the restaurant chef as the source of humor. In sharing perceptions (i.e., enthusiasm for the food and restaurant), Guy establishes rapport with ordinary participants, and by extension with viewers who can relate to the people on the show.

5.8

Creative and Funny Quips

Guy Fieri is known for his ‘big’ personality, with unique quips and inventive descriptions of food. The catch phrases and superlatives serve to trademark his “Big Bite” brand and show how intense and gregarious of a host he is. Guy’s unique protoglanguage is also exemplary of play with unexpected combinations and neologisms. Table 5.3 lists some of the expressions Guy uses to describe dishes at featured eateries on Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. In Table 5.3, Guy’s signature language on his travel cooking show elevates the everyday diner foods into culinary phenomenon. His unique expressions and colloquialism differentiate Diners, Drive-ins and Dives from other food and travel cooking shows. Also, the use of humor connects the celebrity chef to viewers as relatable and personal. In addition to his language, Guy’s visual presence is part of his “front” as a celebrity chef (Goffman, 1959). An important part of how his role is carried out is “manner,” including “costumes” that make up “appearance” (Goffman, 1959). Guy’s dress and look construct his ‘big’ personality with bleached blond spiky hair, mirrored sunglasses perched on the back of his head, and ‘bling’ jewelry with signet rings. For comparison, Geoffrey Zakarian of The Kitchen also has a signature appearance. His crisp sports

embodies Guy’s concept of a delicious eatery; full of flavors and good food; also the name of the fictitious grocery market on Guy’s game show Guy’s Grocery Games on Food Network open the mouth wide enough to take a bite

“Flavortown”

subversive

a finished dish with multiple components

“gangsta”

“and that’s all she wrote”

“release the jaw” “unhinge the jaw”

Meaning

(continued)

“That’s a passport to Flavortown!” (of a Lebanese restaurant in San Diego) (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) “We’re riding the bus to Flavortown!” “I’m gonna release the jaw” to bite into a fried beach mushroom layered sandwich (Season 32, Episode 7, 2019) “That’s gangsta” in describing the Jersey-style pizza slices served at a pizza joint in California (Season 32, Episode 6, 2019) After the assembly of a Thai Chicken sausage with carrot slaw, toasted bun, Asian sriracha mayo, Guys says, “and that’s all she wrote” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019)

Example

Signature quotes and expressions from Guy Fieri, host of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives

Expressions

Table 5.3

5 HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

147

Meaning tasty but also has monetary value to the chef and restaurant, draws in customers authentic, homemade, traditional

beyond the limits, one of a kind

odd; different; not mainstream

represents authentic food flavors meet expectations, what they should be

Expressions

“money!”

“real deal”

“out-a-bounds”; “off the hook”

“funky”

“legit”

“on point”

Table 5.3 (continued)

Seasoned batter on Cajun creole soft shell crab (Season 4, Episode 10, 2008) “This is real deal Italian ravioli, made by hand. You don’t find this often anymore” (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) Expressing his enthusiasm for rockers’ restaurants: “Remember Sammy Hagar and I went to Mick Fleetwood’s place over in Maui? Off the hook” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) “Familiar faces, new places, and more off-the-hook flavors” (Season 32, Episode 6, 2019) “Love coming to the Hawaiian islands for Triple D; funky joints, great people” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) (e.g., a 1950s Trader-Vic tiki bar filled with vintage rocker décor) “Legit Lebanese in San Diego” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) “The green beans are on point” at a diner serving homestyle food (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) “The Dijonnaise is right on point” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) for a Cuban sandwich

Example

148 K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Meaning building or place

traditional; original recipe

one of a kind; unique

very good; a good mouthfeel

exceptional flavor

Expressions

“joint”

“old school”

“you’re an animal”

“bananas”

“dynamite”

“I’m here in Wilmington, Delaware…to check out a joint that—well, it’s five generations— has been making handmade raviolis since the 1940s” (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) “I’m here to check out a joint” (Season 32, Episode 8, 2019) “That is as old school as you get” (ravioli at a mom-and-pop Italian restaurant) (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) “You’re an animal” (to a chef making a Spam burger with provolone, onion compote, pickled carrots) (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) “I mean, that short ribs, along with those caramelized onions. Bananas. [wiping off mouth] and, bananas is good” (Season 32, Episode 10, 2019) “This is dynamite” of a Mexican pozole (Season 32, Episode 6, 2019)

Example

5 HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

149

150

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

jackets, trim knit sweaters, and manicured nails contribute to an image of refinement and meticulousness, a “dapper” as referred to by his teasing co-hosts. While costumes of actors may not be ordinarily worn in ordinary life, here the apparel matches what the celebrity chefs typically wear. The continuity in verbal and non-verbal performance on- and off-screen reinforces the framing of the host as authentic. Cooking shows are part of culture, but also are a subculture, or “little worlds of belief and custom” (Henricks, 2009, p. 17). The cooking show activity is characterized by an established format and by a distinctive material culture—food, equipment, costumes, décor—which takes on special meaning during the play event. Similarly, restaurants have their own subcultures, as highlighted on the travel cooking show. When choosing to participate on tv or in the kitchen, one does so with certain expectations about what skills are needed and what performance is required. Humor and play help understand these expectations and how the activity should unfold. In the kitchen, mise en place, French for “everything in its place,” refers to ingredients and equipment ready before cooking. In the broader context, mise en scene, the “visual theme,” tells the story in the props, costumes, setting, camera angles, music, and so on. The celebrity chef has a clear understanding of each ingredient, its flavor, its texture, its role in the cooking. In the play frame, the player has a command of the script, gestures, dynamics, each element’s place in the performance. Once the ‘heat’ is on, the rehearsal is finite, the cooking begins. Celebrity chefs work from feel, taste, experience. Play arises in the potential problems of cooking, such as with certain ingredients selected. Timing is off sync, the script loosened, and play in language use emerges, resulting in a successful cooking show.

5.9

Conclusion

This chapter examined how play frames are signaled within tv cooking show discourse through the use of language, specifically: collaboration, repetition, exaggeration, metaphors, laughter, teasing, and wordplay, as well as non-verbal language and tv production effects. Analysis of the linguistic features shows how celebrity chefs achieve particular humorous effects through creative combinations of words and syntax, adding reinforcements such as expressive voice to support the construction of cooking show as entertaining. The creativity of the linguistic features lies in the hosts’ use

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

151

of them. The language is often playful, but the whole performance, including the meta-production effects, has a practical purpose: to construct an authentic and likeable performance. Constructed in collaboration, the interactional humor operates on the talk cooking show The Kitchen and travel cooking show Diners, DriveIns and Dives to establish solidarity and maintain an atmosphere of intimacy and light-heartedness. The linguistic play interaction among the participants and their props (i.e. ingredients, pots, and pans, and apparel) combines freedom with concentration. The playful discourse suggests how cooking and food are sources of humor and pleasure, both in the domestic and restaurant kitchen, and with others, whether with other celebrity chefs or ordinary participants. Central to food discourse, humor is used by celebrity chefs to present particular impressions of themselves to viewers. As Goffman (1959) notes, Performers tend to give the impression, or tend not to contradict the impression, that the role they are playing at the time is their most important role and that the attributes claimed by or imputed to them are their most essential and characteristic attributes. When individuals witness a show that was not meant for them, they may, then, become disillusioned about this show as well as about the show that was meant for them. (p. 83)

Celebrity chefs are serious about their play, intentional in the impression that they create each show. A flawless performance of a celebrity chef is when the performances on and off television are in sync, presenting an authenticity believed by viewers. Food Network Cooking Shows Fieri, Guy. Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. “Beef Bonanza,” Season 32, Episode 10, July 27, 2019 “International Infusion,” Season 32, Episode 8, July 13, 2019 “Crazy Chicken, Twisted Burgers,” Season 32, Episode 7, July 6, 2019 “Guy’s Going Home,” Season 32, Episode 6, June 29, 2019 “Mega Meats and Sweet Treats,” Season 30, Episode 8, March 30, 2019 “Handy Helpings,” Season 29, Episode 19, January 25, 2019 “Cookin’ it Old School,” Season 4, Episode 10, October 7, 2008

Garten, Ina. Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics. The Kitchen

152

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

“Warm-up to Fall,” Season 22, Episode 9, October 5, 2019 “Fresh Squeeze of Flavor,” Season 20, Episode 6, March 16, 2019. “Weeknight Wins,” Season 20, Episode 2, February 17, 2019 “Spring Feast,” Season 13, Episode 1, April 17, 2017 “Pump Up Your Summer Party,” Season 10, Episode 4, July 12, 2016 “Fresh New Food Ideas,” Season 2, Episode 2, April 26, 2014 “The Spring Show,” (includes “Sunny’s Pan-Sagna”) Season 2, Episode 1, April 19, 2014 “Old Tools, New Ideas,” (includes “One-Pan Chicken-Chorizo Hash”) Season 1, Episode 7, February 8, 2014 “The Big Game,” Season 1, Episode 4, January 25, 2014

Notes 1. Cooking shows are fun and also funny, which is a different type of fun. As an adjective, funny means “amusing” or “causing laughter” and can also mean “strange,” “surprising, “unexpected” or “difficult to explain or understand” (Cambridge Dictionary). This second meaning of funny has been applied to foreign import cooking shows, specifically the Japanese competition cooking show, Iron Chef, the first competition shows on Food Network (US debut in 1999). Noting its popularity with American viewers, film scholar Mark Gallagher (2004) asks: “what’s so funny about Iron Chef ?”. The answer is in the show’s comic parody, incongruous dubbing, and American viewers’ unfamiliarity with the Japanese culture. Moreover, cooking show competitions, or “battles” as in Iron Chef require a certain agility and competitive spirit not unlike sports, also a form of organized play. In Iron Chef, the set is a “Kitchen Stadium” that features spectacular food battles between two chefs, swooping and diving, as they push their technical and aesthetic skills to the limit under 60 minutes. The editing is similar to the visual style and editing of televised sports with slow-motion replays, multiple perspectives, and closeups (Gallagher, 2004). Overseeing the food battles is a charismatic master of ceremonies, a fictional character whose voice is the only one not dubbed into English, but in subtitles, preserving its Japanese cultural specificity and foreignness. The dubbed comments by the panel of judges, often celebrities or food experts, and by the chefs, evoke American stereotypes of Japanese as the dubbing seems to be modeled on “exclamatory rhythms of kung fu movie translations” (Salamon, 2000). With deliberate exaggeration for comic effect, Iron Chef is a play on the Japanese culture and cuisine, offering humor and performance in the kitchen. 2. Although Marcela Valladolid is no longer cohost on The Kitchen since 2017, Food Network celebrity chefs Sunny Anderson, Jeff Mauro, Katie Lee, and

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

153

Geoffrey Zakarian continue to present the American cooking-themed talk show. 3. In the moment of the recipe telling, hosts may incorrectly use language, such as Sunny’s description of the orange juice adding “depth” although it is a “high note” (Anderson, The Kitchen, 2019). Her intent is understood though and only close listeners would have picked up the imprecise description.

References Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York: Dutton. Bateson, G. (2000/1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bennett, J. (2011). Television personalities: Stardom and the small screen. Oxon: Routledge. Boxer, D., & Cortes-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–294. Carter, R. (2016). Creativity and language. Interalia Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/ronald-carter/#respond. Chovanec, J. (2017). Interactional humour and spontaneity in TV documentaries. Lingua, 197, 34–49. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Cambridge, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Coates, J. (2007). The talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29–49. Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York: Continuum. Contois, E. (2018). Welcome to Flavortown: Guy Fieri’s Populist American food culture. American Studies, 57 (3), 143–160. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385. De Solier, I. (2005). TV dinners: Culinary television, education and distinction. Continuum, 19(4), 465–481. Di Ferrante, L. (2013). Small talk at work: A corpus-based discourse analysis of AAC and non-AAC device users (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University. Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284–1299. Eberle, S. G. (2014). The elements of play: Toward a philosophy and a definition of play. Journal of Play, 6(2), 214–233.

154

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Everts, E. (2003). Identifying a particular family humor style: A sociolinguistic discourse analysis. Humor, 16(4), 369–412. Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whiteley, & N. Abercrombie (Eds.,), The authority of the consumer. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. J. (2009). Just be yourself: Towards neo-normative control in organisations. Employee Relations, 31(6), 569–583. Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. J. (2010). ‘Being yourself’ in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64(2), 177–200. Fry, W. (1963). Sweet madness: A study of humor. Palo Alto: Pacific Books. Gallagher, M. (2004). What’s so funny about Iron Chef ? Journal of Popular Film and Television, 31(4), 176–184. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harris, S. (2019, January 23). Holy Kolaches! Guy Fieri visits Hruska’s Kolaches on ‘Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives.’ Daily Herald. https://www.heraldextra. com/entertainment/television/guy-fieri-visits-hruska-s-kolaches-on-dinersdrive-ins/article_f140cdb1-d44a-5ba4-b92a-781a2a126b24.html. Henricks, T. (2009). Orderly and disorderly play: A comparison. American Journal of Play, 2(1, Summer), 12–40. Hernandez, J. (2018, October 11). Ina Garten wants you to cook like a pro, but have fun doing it. Chicago Tribute. Retrieved from https://www. chicagotribune.com/dining/ct-food-ina-garten-cook-like-a-pro-cookbook20181004-story.html. Holmes, J., & Hay, J. (1997). Humour as an ethnic boundary marker in New Zealand interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18, 127–151. Huizinga, J. (1944). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge. Kozic, M. (2012). Framing communication as play in the sitcom: Patterning the verbal and the nonverbal humour. In J. Chovanec & I. Ermida (Eds.), Language and humour in the media (pp. 107–139). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. D. (2009). Workplace fun: The moderating effects of generational differences. Employee Relations, 31, 613–631. Liddicoat, A., Brown, A., Dopke, S., & Love, K. (1992). The effect of the institution: Openings in talk back radio. Text, 12(4), 541–562. Lury, K. (2005). Interpreting television. London: Hodder Arnold. Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization on television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 151–159.

5

HUMOR ON COOKING SHOWS

155

Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking: humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge. Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge. Paterek, J. D. (1959). Costuming for the theater. New York: Crown Publishers. Polan, D. (2011). Julia child’s ‘The French Chef’. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Rubino, A. (2016). Constructing pseudo-intimacy in an Italo-Australian phone-in radio program. Journal of Pragmatics, 103, 33–48. Rutter, J. (1997). Stand-up as interaction: Performance and audience in comedy venues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Salford. Sacks, H. (1966). Lectures on conversation, Volume 1 (reprinted in 1995). In G. Jefferson & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), Lectures on conversation, Volumes I and II. Wiley-Blackwell. Salamon, J. (2000, June 19). Critic’s notebook: Chefs battle like samurai in a cult hit. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2000/ 06/19/arts/critic-s-notebook-chefs-battle-like-samurai-in-a-cult-hit.html. Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating conversations: Improvisation in everyday discourse. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Sully, J. (1902). An essay on laughter. New York: Longmans, Green. Sutton-Smith, B. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books. Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Bartlett, A. (2012). The fundamental role of workplace fun in applicant attraction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 105–114. Tolson, A. (1991). Televised chat and the synthetic personality. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 178–200). London: Sage. Tsakona, V., & Chovanec, J. (Eds.). (2018). The dynamics of interactional humor: Creating and negotiating humor in everyday encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

CHAPTER 6

Performing Celebrity Chef

They’re stars in the making. And, when they’re good, they sizzle. But, sometimes, they could use a little more seasoning. An all-star lineup of guests help Bobby and Giada find the next Food Network Star. (Introduction to Food Network Star, Season 14, 2018)

As the opening lines of the competition cooking show suggest, the positioning of participants as ‘stars in the making’ suggests the hard work and skilled performance that goes towards the construction of celebrity chefs. What makes a celebrity chef, one that “sizzles”? What does it mean to need “a little more seasoning”? To study performance in television cooking shows, this chapter notes how discourse is shaped by the cooking show competition itself and the interaction between the contestants and the celebrity chefs. The discourse is not ‘ordinary’ in comparison to other speech events in cooking shows that are polished, mediated, and with celebrity chef hosts; yet the discourse is made ‘natural’ with private, non-mediated discourse, making the discourse distinct from other food talk forms in food media. The contestants move around the kitchen, preparing and cooking food, while relaying instructions and talking to viewers. Linguistic strategies, or the intentional use of language, are used that distinguish an ordinary person as a star. On cooking shows these include recipe telling, storytelling, humor, and evaluations.

© The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_6

157

158

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Food Network Star teaches contestants to act in a certain way. This form of apprenticeship is comparable to a “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) with shared norms (Bucholtz, 1999). Contestants learn the appropriate discourse and behaviors of the community of Food Network, and more broadly, what the expectations are of being a celebrity on (American) television. These ‘norms’ are imposed ideologies that reflect whatever the dominant culture, gender, and class prefer (Bucholtz, 1999). Learning how to be members of Food Network, contestants negotiate aspects of their identities through their practice. Contestants receive mentoring on their cooking skills and celebrity potential by seasoned Food Network celebrity chefs, keeping the brand’s self-construction in-house. The winning contestant whose persona shines the brightest stars in her or his own cooking program and becomes a member of the Food Network ‘family.’ This chapter brings together the concepts of celebrity chef and language in an analysis of how cooking shows are a form of performance, and celebrity chefs, the actors. Through Erving Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical metaphor, an analysis of impression management and performance is conducted of Food Network Star, a reality competition cooking show that provides instruction to contestants on how to become a celebrity chef on Food Network program. Authenticity, expertise, and self-control are part of the discursive strategies that help contestants perform as celebrity chefs. Building on media concepts of ‘being yourself’ and ‘authenticity’ (Bell & Hollows, 2005; Bennett, 2011; Thornborrow & Van Leeuwen, 2001), the analysis reveals television’s pedagogy and practice of stardom and authenticity.

6.1

Performance and Goffman

We take the concept of performance and celebrity, drawing on linguistics and media studies, and apply it to the idea of cooking shows and celebrity personality. In his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) uses the metaphor of the theatre and stage as a way to explain human interaction. Within society, individuals act and perform a certain way. Noting that context or “setting” shapes the performance, Goffman (1959) distinguishes between “front stage” and “back stage.” When acting in public or “front stage,” individuals behave differently, intentionally or not. When “back stage,” people are free of the expectations and norms governing front stage. When back stage, people may rehearse certain behaviors and scripts for front stage. Food Network Star presents front stage and

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

159

back stage simultaneously; contestants engage in back stage behavior that is shown front stage. Comprised of several episodes shown over several weeks, Food Network Star creates a stage for the contestants’ performance. According to Goffman, front stage can be differentiated between “social front” and “personal front.” Social front refers to the setting, such as the layout of the television studio or kitchen, and includes stage props such as cooking equipment. While the setting changes from episode to episode, the space is recognizable as a cooking competition with the judges table, multiple kitchen stations, and Food Network Star logo. Titles of cooking shows are a front as well.1 Food Network Star suggests that the show is about people who are (or want to be) stars. Besides establishing the show through its production and setting, front refers to personal front, or one’s appearance, such as clothes, or attributes closely associated with the person, such as race, age, mannerisms, and physical size. Contributing to personal front is “expressive equipment,” such as speech patterns, facial expressions, and bodily gestures. While some components of front are fixed, especially personal front, other components shift and can be manipulated, such as the setting, whether indoors or outdoors, on television or not. On Food Network Star, contestants are visibly forming and modifying their personal front to match the performance required of them by the social front. Each episode presents a new setting, resulting in a new challenge for the contestants, necessitating an adjustment of personal front. Each performance is evaluated by the judges who are looking for a performance that would be well-received front stage, that is, by tv viewers. Goffman argues that any social interaction is in a state of negotiation, and our performance and definition of the situation depend on the other’s point of view. Participants, observers, or as in the case of Food Network Star, television viewers decide to accept or reject the performance. This evaluation is not arbitrary but is interpreted according to socially agreed-upon “rituals” or socially acceptable interactions. Only when a contestant’s presentation of self matches the audience’s expectations, both those of the judges and the viewers, does a celebrity chef emerge.

160

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

6.2

Authenticity: The Performance of “Being Yourself”

A central component of television is the performance of the presenters and their ability to be authentic or be themselves. Television has been associated with creating “personalities” in contrast to film’s “stars” (Dyer, 1979), in which stars take on distinct characters on screen, acting differently than they are off-screen. Instead, tv “personalities” are expected to present themselves the same on-screen and off-screen (Langer, 1981). Another term for media figures is “celebrity,” which David Giles (2000) argues is a result of media exposure: “the ultimate modern celebrity is the member of the public who becomes famous solely through media involvement” (p. 25). With this increased “media involvement,” there is more interest in the everyday lives of the celebrities. According to Graeme Turner (2004), “We can map the precise moment a public figure becomes a celebrity. It occurs at the point at which media interest in their activities is transferred from reporting on their public role…to investigating the details of their private lives” (p. 8). Celebrity culture is linked to the ordinary and everyday not only of topic but also of the public figure as an ordinary person. As Celia Lam, Jackie Raphael, and Millicent Weber (2018) explain: “with a rise to fame grounded in the normal and achievable, contemporary celebrities are closer than ever to the everyday, conceptually akin to the original and genuine” (italics original, p. 5). Under the careful watch of an audience, individuals learn how to be celebrities. The credibility and authority of these celebrity figures are closely tied to self-presentation and public performance as relatable and by real people. In this chapter, we use the term ‘star’ as a metaphor, as our analysis revolves around the performance events in the competition cooking show Food Network Star. We analyze how Food Network Star is a process of making a celebrity, or “celebrification” by which an individual becomes famous (Turner, 2006, p. 155). The term ‘star’ associates the winner with Hollywood and film by the production format and promise of media exposure. The finale is filmed in Los Angeles or New York City (Kings Theatre in Season 14) with the “big reveal” of the winner by a large screen on set. The visual and verbal announcement circumscribes the winner with his or her new identity as a television celebrity. The audience sees the newest Food Network “star” in a new frame, literally through double frames; they watch the on-set screen from their home screen. The winner is initiated into the family. “Welcome to the squad,” says judge mentor Bobby Flay, giving a

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

161

man hug to the newest star of Season 14 (2018). A voice over details the prize, which includes additional media exposure (a feature article in Food Network magazine, an appearance at the Food Network South Beach Wine and Food Festival). The old identity as an ‘ordinary’ participant transforms into the new identity as extraordinary and distanced. Food Network Star narrative is about the rituals of ‘doing star.’ The cooking show’s metaphorical use of “stardom” operates on a similar ideology of earlier concepts of tv “personality” and “being yourself.” According to Andrew Tolson (2001), part of the “professional ideology” of contemporary celebrities and their success is being “authentic.” At the same time, this authenticity is always mediated as a performance of a “celebrity-being-ordinary” (p. 457). However, on cooking shows, it is a performance of ordinary-being-celebrity. Critiquing media studies’ conflation of the term “television personality,” James Bennett (2008) distinguishes between television star and television personality: the former as akin to film stars who have an “aura” and “emanate as idealizations” (Langer, 1981, p. 355), and significantly here, the latter as based on the ‘ordinary’ person that has vocational or televisual skills that help them be perceived as ‘extraordinarily ordinary’ (Bennett, 2008, p. 37). Lifestyle programs, including cooking shows, present the television personality as acting normal as himself or herself and as ordinary like the audience. Cooking show hosts whose character on television is tied to their cooking skills and ordinariness are placed within the genre of television personality. At the same time, television personalities perform shifts of identity in their discourse. For Goffman (1981), a speaker can have various identities: animator (one who talks), author (one who composes the words), and principal (one whose beliefs and viewpoint are represented by the words). Contestants do not simply speak for themselves; rather, the mediated television context influences the words spoken and for whom they represent, here Food Network. They are animators and authors of their own selves representing the principal Food Network; at the same time, it must not appear this way. Authenticity lies in the collapsing of these frames such that animator, author and principal appear to originate from the contestant. Food Network Star’s narrative is based on this negotiation of production positions, making a spectacle of the contestants’ internal struggles to harmonize animator, author, and principal. It must appear that the performers play themselves, making little distinction between performing onscreen and offscreen. Backstage scenes are intercut to capture the contestants’ feelings or reactions. Filming contestants backstage provides a different setting,

162

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

one that is less stressful and intimidating as the motions expressed there are more released and authentic. Reality tv also captures these backstage feelings, what Bonsu, Darmody and Parmentier (2010) describe as “arrested emotions,” or the corporate use of emotions to engage the audience (p. 91). Food Network Star feeds on the personality of the contestants to create intrigue and suspense. The show’s plot revolves around this notion of the celebrity ‘self’, including emotions, as a mediated construct (Bennett, 2011), even in its heightened form.

6.3

Performance and Skill

Further, celebrity chef performance depends on two types of skills: camera presence and culinary technique. Celebrity chefs need to perform on screen with ease but also be skilled in cooking. Describing these skills as “televisual” and “vocational,” Bennett (2011) identifies two trends: “first, that there is increasingly an emphasis on televisual skill, and second that this emphasis can lead to a detachment between a personality’s original vocational skill, which predicated their appearance on television, and their televisual fame” (pp. 23–23). Amateur celebrity chefs must come with a certain level of vocational skill, at least initially, but to maintain their continued presence on Food Network, they must also learn to act with ‘authenticity,’ that is when then appear to be acting ‘just-as-they-are’ while on camera (Bennett, 2008, pp. 37–38). Overcoming stage fright and camera shyness are essential to managing performance anxiety, which puts a tremendous toll on contestants’ self-confidence and self-esteem. Much of the Food Network Star narrative and drama hinges on the televisual skill development of the performers, while other Food Network reality competition shows, such as Worst Cooks in America (2010–present) focus on the technical culinary growth of contestants. Much screen time and discourse on Food Network Star are on developing contestants’ camera presence, such as storytelling and relating to the audience. In contrast, ‘pure’ competition cooking shows are more about cooking and eliminate contestants based on technical skill. Food Network Star is part of a larger industrial television trend to groom their own celebrities. As Graeme Turner (2010) argues, “casting ordinary people into game shows, docusoaps and reality tv enables television producers to ‘grow their own’ celebrities and to control how they are marketed before, during and after production” (p. 15). Implementing a vertical integration, Food Network Star recruits and trains ordinary people who end

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

163

up as stars on the network’s cooking program, effectively feeding its own celebrity system. This situation blurs the boundaries between consumer and producer, leading to the emergence of a “prosumer”—a new type of consumer who produces by consuming (Caldwell et al., 2007; Toffler, 1980). Such use of audience features prominently in reality tv (Nightingale & Dwyer, 2006; Ouellete & Murray, 2004), where television shows are developed by the audience themselves. In this sense, Food Network television audience is placed in what scholars have identified as the “social factory” (Lazzarato, 1996), where the management of social relations represents inputs for production, such as watching TV and participating in TV. Contestants on Food Network Star start on a vertical projection, and upon selection, participate in a horizontal shift. Celebrities play in other cooking shows (besides their own how-to cooking show) and across various formats, such as culinary tour guides on food-travel programs (Guy Fieri’s Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives; Rachael Ray’s $40 a Day; Giada de Laurentiis’ Giada in Italy). They are also guests on other how-to shows (Sunny Anderson on Brunch @ Bobby’s ; Tyler Florence on Ina Garten’s Barefoot Contessa) and participants on competition cooking shows (Bobby Flay on Iron Chef America and Beat Bobby Flay). Moreover, they are judges or hosts of competition cooking shows (Alton Brown on Iron Chef; Geoffrey Zakarian on Chopped), and judge-mentors on Food Network Star (Bobby Flay and Giada de Laurentiis). Celebrity chefs take on much broader roles than just cooking with much of the discourse on performing and entertaining. The investment is high on these contestants in that they may yield greater return to the Food Network. As former Food Network senior Vice President of programming and production, Bob Tuschman describes what differentiates the Food Network Star from other shows: In other shows, whether it’s a dish or a dress, only the final product can send finalists home...In our show, the person is not going to be disposable at the end of the series. It’s really important how they got to where they are. If they have lied, cheated, or stolen, their character isn’t one that people are going to embrace a year or two on. (Tuschman, cited in Jackman, 2011, p. 198)

Food Network Star searches for amateurs who are not “disposable” by testing their skills and character through numerous challenges. The contestant’s integrity is of importance to the network as she or he represents the network’s own reputation. Instead, Food Network Star aims to produce

164

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

“durable participants,” what Hugh Curnutt (2011) observes is becoming the preferred programming strategy for niche cable channels. Food Network Star casts for contestants who possess a range of performative skills, making television cooking shows a rich site for studying television’s role in and production of celebrities. Discursive strategies are used and taught on the show on how to perform as a celebrity chef. The ability to make intelligible eating and cooking is part of the process of what cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1977) describes as “encoding”—selecting codes to help viewers comprehend the message (p. 340). In their role as “encoders,” celebrity chefs may use either verbal (words, images, signs) or non-verbal (body language, facial expressions) symbols to help the audience “decode,” or better comprehend the message that is given. The audience do not passively receive the message (Hall, 1977), but may be convinced to cook a particular dish. An example from an instructional cooking show, Valerie’s Home Cooking on Food Network, featuring self-taught cook Valerie Bertinelli, illustrates how an ordinary weeknight meal is made special.2 Valerie turns a typical American weeknight tradition of Taco Tuesday into a taco-themed spread in “SoCal-Style,” short for Southern California, with plenty of toppings and side dishes, such as Chicken Tinga Tacos and Spicy Black Beans, special enough for guests, a comedian and a musician (Season 9, Episode 9, 2019). Valerie continues the theme with Neapolitan Dessert Tacos, chocolate pizzelles ‘tacos’ with vanilla ice cream and fresh strawberries. Through recipes and themed dishes, the host sends practical and symbolic messages to viewers, such as the significance of a weeknight dinner and how to make it special. A key part of the creation and enhancement of the celebrity chef status is the Hollywood movie industry. Hollywood stars are increasingly taking roles as celebrity chefs in films. Julie & Julia (2009), No Reservations (2007), and Ratatouille (2007) are movies about chefs and cooking that have enhanced the celebrity chef status (Giousmpasoglou, Brown, & Cooper, 2019). Further, Hollywood stars are taking on their own ‘ordinary’ roles on cooking shows. Food Network stars several American actors and actresses, such as Valerie Bertinelli in the previous example. Other celebrities—actresses Tiffany Thiessen and Tia Mowry and country singer Trisha Yearwood—also are regulars on Food Network.3 The alignment of Food Network and Hollywood associates cooking show hosts with Hollywood stars, which legitimizes the expertise and star image of celebrity chefs. Through “celebrification,” individuals are transformed into celebrity figures through acting like and associating with other celebrity

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

165

figures (Rojek, 2001), further underlining the blurred distinction between chef and celebrity. On Food Network Star, the contestants who are successful in the competition learn to perform ‘celebrity’ and transcend their ordinariness.

6.4

Performance on Food Network Star: Learning to Be a Celebrity Chef

We turn to apply concepts of Goffman’s presentation of self and analyze performance of celebrity chef on Food Network Star. Debuting in 2005, Food Network Star is an annual seasonal show that features twelve chefs who compete for a chance to host their own cooking show on the television food channel. This section focuses on the most recent season, Season 14, that consists of nine episodes on television, seven online with an accompanying Star Salvation four-part web series and Comeback Kitchen three-part web series. The season ran 9 weeks from June 10 to August 6, 2018. Throughout the season, the contestants learn the script of a celebrity chef through mentorship by Food Network celebrity chefs Giada de Laurentiis and Bobby Flay and other Food Network celebrity chefs. As a reality competition cooking show, Food Network Star combines instructional and competition cooking show genres. The narrative is based on cooking demonstrations but contextualized in the drama and suspense of competition. Each round has a series of challenges that are judged, with one contestant eliminated each week until the final two remain and one is announced the winner.4 Food Network Star depends on its individual episodes to contribute to the ongoing story, presenting a unique narrative that contrasts to other cooking show genres, such as how-to cooking shows that stand alone as individual episodes. Food Network Star is constant high energy, high anxiety, and high emotions, whether of triumph or humiliation, tears of joy or disappointment. Unique to the show and part of its drama is this very uncertainty and precariousness. Contestants may cook and perform well one week, but not the next week, keeping viewers hooked on the series. Selections analyzed are best representative of key discourses of performing celebrity chef. Table 6.1 illustrates key characteristics of what we call Celebrity Chef Performance. As the Food Network Star voice over describes in the opening lines of the series, the contestants are “stars in the making.” Prevailing discourses on what the star state entails include: be natural, focus,

166

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Table 6.1

Performing Celebrity Chefs: “Star in the Making”

Star State

Definition

Natural

Know your identity. Cultivate a culinary point of voice. Craft unique lines. Tell stories. Have fun Concentrate. Have a clarity of mind. Focus thoughts and speech on the task. Be free from distractions Learn and implement feedback. Study and remember new information quickly (cooking techniques, ingredients, names of people and places, etc.). Take risks. Be flexible Display expertise in cooking technique and knowledge. Use skills to meet demands. Be creative

Focused Adaptable

Expert

adapt, and be an expert. The order is not ranked in a hierarchy of importance; rather, each skill contributes to the celebrity chef script and may overlap. For example, contestants may use culinary skills and improve by adapting to the new challenge, and as a result, transform their perceptions of their capabilities, which also comes with a fuller realization of the self. This chapter outlines the discourse strategies given by Food Network celebrity chefs to contestants of the Food Network Star competition cooking show. Contestants learn and develop the discourse to perform as celebrity chef. Being natural, focused, and adaptive, for example, help contestants act in ‘star state,’ or the state of being a star. When televisual skills and cooking skills are in synch, contestants are comfortable on camera, realize their ultimate expression of their unique culinary style, and are able to connect with viewers. Performing celebrity chef, the winning contestant becomes a cooking show host on Food Network. 6.4.1

Be Natural: If You’re Not—Click

The judges frequently comment on the contestants’ performances in regards to their authenticity. Two related terms often come up: “organic” and “natural.” Evaluating an on-camera presentation, Giada states, “I really enjoyed that. I thought it was really organic and spontaneous” (Episode 16). The judges regulate authentic, ‘organic’ performance, not unlike the government’s regulation of labeling food products. In this context, ‘organic’ describes that the performance was wholesome and pure.5 Similarly, ‘natural’ is also used on food labels and means minimally processed, or real, an important ingredient in the performance of a celebrity chef. Being

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

167

organic and natural makes one not seem artificial but original—what viewers want. Celebrity chef judges encourage contestants to develop an organic and natural performative practice rather than a set of characteristics or external labels. Food Network celebrity chef-mentor Robert Irvine coaches contestant Jess Tom that the celebrity chef performance is not processed or confined to a list, but instead must possess a unique skill set demanded by the audience. Evaluating the contestant’s discourse in a cooking demonstration, Robert says, “I don’t want bullet points. Be natural. If you’re not—click” (mimics the motion and sound of the television remote control) (Episode 16). Contestants who are not ‘natural’ in their language but are impersonal and formulaic fail to develop a unique brand and to gain trust from viewers. Consequently, they face ultimate rejection by viewers who “click,” turning the channel or clicking the tv off. Thus, the performance of the celebrity chef no longer just revolves around cooking and a confined script but rather consists of being accessible, natural, and engaging. Part of the creation and perpetuation of Food Network Star is the show’s artistic credibility that is enhanced with the judges’ insistence on ‘being natural.’ Through the series of backstage monologues, contestants develop into recognizable and familiar brands centered on star personae intended to form the foundations of a relationship with the network. Continuing this example, the contestant Jess learns the lesson to be authentic and articulates the moral in a monologue: “Be yourself. Trust in yourself. Don’t try to force yourself to be something you’re not” (Season 14, Episode 16, 2018). Directly addressing at-home viewers, the contestant once learner now expert gives lessons that the viewers can apply in their own lives. Connecting the public and private spheres, the discourse of performing celebrity gives a double layer of instruction: a moral and culinary instruction. Producing celebrity identities provides a means to transmit the Food Network ideology: be original on and off screen and in the kitchen. Celebrity chefs work to create a consistency in their persona both linguistically and culinarily. This involves taking a stance through evaluation and self-positioning (Jaffe, 2009) and developing an individual style. Scott Kiesling (2009) notes that “a personal style is created through habitual stancetaking” (p. 191). Contestants must be consistent in their stance in order to build a familiar platform, both linguistically and culinarily. Throughout the cooking show competition, contestants learn to form and articulate

168

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

their identity through food, what Food Network producers call their culinary Point of View (POV). Contestants articulate their POV based on their cooking style, such as using distinct ingredients (butter, bourbon) and cooking within a culinary tradition (Southern), that differentiates them from other contestants and the current Food Network roster. A contestant’s POV, or culinary style, may be enhanced by the filming’s point of view. Media language uses the term point-of-view to mean how a scene is viewed. A subject may change depending on its angle, height, proximity, depth, etc., to viewers. Further, point of view in visual analysis considers how linguistic and visual designs point to particular interpretations of meaning and experience (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006/1996). In filming a shot, a decision is made about the angle at which the camera is to be directed at a subject, influencing the viewer’s impression of a particular character. For instance, a celebrity chef filmed at eye-level creates a social distance of equality, and an up-close shot is intimate and personal. Both POV and pov are production devices on Food Network Star to produce a celebrity, explicitly in POV and visually in pov. Confirming the importance of the audience, studies suggest that performers have a high awareness of their audience and adapt their style and linguistic choices accordingly (Bennett, 2011; Livingstone & Lunt, 1994). Such controlled performances are exemplified in Food Network Star with extreme high and low performances. For example, a Hispanic contestant, Chris Valdés gives an energetic performance that is heavily-accented and rhythmic. However, it comes off as a ridicule of his Hispanic ethnicity. Celebrity chef judge Bobby warns him, “be careful not to make a caricature of yourself” (Episode 4). In response to the feedback, the contestant performs in the extreme opposite. He uses a monotone voice to describe his dish to participants attending a food festival in the next challenge. He fails to engage with viewers in a friendly, warm manner both in real interaction and pseudo-interaction. For Food Network Star, ‘being authentic’ entails being a type of performer; yet, the performer must adhere to Food Network’s version of being Hispanic in order to be perceived as credible, not a ‘caricature’ or stereotype. Once in command of their linguistic and culinary POV, celebrity chefs are able to adapt their language and food to other culinary styles. In contrast to Chris, Asian-American contestant Jess is able to translate her Asian roots to mainstream American audience. Tasting her gochujang chicken with miso eggplant, celebrity chef Bobby Flay states, “this is a really smart way to utilize the ingredients that are important to you but also introduce

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

169

them to the American palate” (Episode 16). For the contestant, cooking with ingredients of Asian cuisine is part of the construction of her image as Asian-American. While honoring her unique culinary background, the contestant makes food appealing and relatable to American taste, which enables her to connect with a broader audience. Thus, the performance of a celebrity star image is simultaneously to ‘be natural’ and be unusual and different. The project of the cooking show competition—the developing of an original culinary point of view—is essentially a project of image management. 6.4.2

Focused

The ability to focus on the task shows the ability to perform under stress. The televised discourse highlights the range of behavioral responses to stress of contestants who are misfocused, overly focused, and unfocused. The contestants’ speech is unnatural: incoherent, stilted, and halting to incomprehensibly fast. In performing celebrity, chefs talk naturally, neither too fast nor too slow. Yet, contestants often become too excited with the rush of eating and the act of filming and speak too quickly and with high-agitation. In this case, contestant Manny Washington speaks “a mile a minute” in the challenge of the cooking show episode to taste and describe burgers and French fries at a restaurant. Reviewing Manny’s performance, guest celebrity chef Duff Goldman coaches him to control his energy: You’re [Manny] like a big ball of energy. You get really excited about food, and you’re eating burgers. You’re like, ‘oh man, this is good,’ and eating fries, and ‘this is good,’ and then you like, get super freaked out, because you’re talking a mile a minute. I’m the same way. But, you know, you’ve got to learn to just, like, think about whatever you want to get across. And then get it out in one smooth finish. (Duff Goldman, Episode 16)

Duff role-plays the contestant’s performance to show what viewers are seeing, suggesting the importance of image management. Although energetic and excited about food, the contestant gets “super freaked out,” and his discourse suffers with mid-halt sentences (“this is good, and this is good”) and incoherent grunts of pleasure. Duff coaches him to focus instead on the task, “whatever you want to get across.” The purpose of the performance

170

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

is to inform viewers about the food, the menu, and ambience of the restaurant. But Manny only talks about the food, giving gustatory expressions, which does not inspire the audience. Recognizing the difficulty of the challenge, Duff softens his instructions or “report talk.” He relates to the contestant: “I’m the same way,” using a form of “rapport talk” to express commonality and camaraderie (Tannen, 1990).6 Ironically, Duff’s own discourse is not smooth with fillers (“like”; “you know”), suggesting that a fan base can be built on personality more than fluent and well-constructed English. The celebrity chef who is able to describe the food in ‘one smooth finish’ both informs and inspires viewers, which constructs his image as expert. At the same time, too much focus is problematic, as this may result in a performance that is too serious. For example, contestant Amy Pottinger does not appear to be having fun, causing celebrity chef Giada to ask, “Did you have fun doing this?” (Episode 16). The presupposed negative evaluation—it is not evident that the contestant is having fun—demands an explanation from the contestant. Amy hedges, stating, “Yeah, I mean, I’m always in my head, but yeah.” The vague response suggests that the contestant may not be having fun, or is, but does not show it. Giada clarifies the problem: “But, I can see that you’re always in your head.” The presentation of having fun, whether it is or not, is necessary for entertainment and must be obvious to viewers. The engagement in the task, such as cooking, which is an important part of the cooking show, must not inhibit the performance of the celebrity chef. Indeed, what sets the celebrity chef apart from ordinary viewers is simultaneously to educate and to entertain. Opposite of overly focused is unfocused. Losing focus may lead to complete detachment of the moment. For example, contestant Samone Lett daydreams during a plating demonstration about her husband and family, forgetting what she had cooked and why (Episode 15). Daydreaming can be helpful in overcoming stressful situations. According to psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2000/1975) and his studies of engagement in everyday life, “daydreaming not only helps create emotional order by compensating in imagination for unpleasant reality...but it also allows children (and adults) to rehearse imaginary situations so that the best strategy for confronting them may be adopted, alternative options considered...” (p. 120). Daydreaming equips the contestant with tools to handle the stress of performance. But, as Csikszentmihalyi (2000/1975) continues, daydreaming must be “used with skill” (p. 120). While daydreaming helps the

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

171

contestant cope with the “unpleasant realities” of the competition, she is not mentally present and fails to gain credibility of viewers. Focus must be balanced emotionally and intellectually. One returning contestant Jess states, “I was sent home because I was definitely trying to overintellectualize everything. In Star Salvation, I realized this isn’t like the SATs. You can’t think your way through the competition” (Episode 15). Celebrity chef stars must all have feelings, which arouse viewer emotions as well (Bonsu et al., 2010). Exhibiting and arousing emotions are a central characteristic of reality TV, what media scholar Rachel Dubrofsky (2006) refers to as “shows that are unscripted, though most have a very specific structure (with set tasks and events for each episode)” (p. 41). She continues, “the term purposely implies that the shows are based on reality without suggesting that they are reality, emphasizing the constructedness not only of reality-based programming but also of TV representations more generally” (Dubrofsky, 2006, p. 41). Like a “reality” TV show, Food Network Star is based on dramatizing the emotions, language, and behavior of its contestants. Viewers are intrigued and captivated by personal details and confessions shared by the contestants. As the contestant describes metaphorically, the competition is not like the standardized tests (SATs) that have a set answer; rather, each contestant has his or her own Test. Like a hero, the contestant is called to adventure and faces obstacles along the way to meet her or his destiny (Campbell, 1949), engaging audiences to follow along.7 6.4.3

Adaptable

In each round, contestants face challenges. Their ability to improve—to learn from their mistakes and develop their skills—is critical for the development as celebrity chefs. Contestants receive outside help from others—critiques from the judges, mentoring from guest celebrity chefs, and encouragement from other contestants. Successful ones learn and grow past their weaknesses, an important element in tv production. Celebrity chef Sunny Anderson coaches the contestant Christian Petroni on his pilot, a standalone mini-episode created to sell his future show to the network. Reflecting on his performance, Sunny says, “What I really think he did great today was take direction and grow” (emphasis in intonation; Episode 16). During the cooking demonstration, Christian finally takes a bite, an act that he had

172

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

repeatedly failed to perform yet is crucial to gain credibility in food. Contestants must be receptive to the celebrity chef mentor’s vision and respond to the directions as actors. Part of the growth is taking risks, which are rewarded. Complex or difficult dishes are recognized and may pardon errors in the cooking. Undercooked food is a common problem within the time constraints of the show. In the evaluation of Manny’s dish and performance, celebrity chef Bobby also says: “I think you took a crazy risk. So, I’m gonna give you credit for that. You’re not gonna become a star on the Food Network by playing the middle” (Episode 16). In opting to use the pressure cooker, the contestant (Manny) uses a nontraditional form of braising short ribs in an attempt to speed up the cooking process. Although unsuccessful (the ribs were not tender), his innovative method saves him. In a side monologue, the contestant states, “big risks, big rewards” and passes to the next round. While cooking challenges can be tangibly managed, emotional ones are harder to overcome within the short duration of the tv producing. For example, one contestant Amy Pottinger does not have confidence in herself. Signs of nervousness (i.e., pauses, short breaths, stuttering, and furtive eye glances) weaken the contestant’s performance throughout the season. In judging one of Amy’s performances, celebrity chef Jason Smith explains why a nervous performance is undesirable: “you can’t let us see you take that breath because then we’re like, ‘has she forgot [sic] where she’s going with this?’” (Episode 16). Viewers want to feel confident watching celebrity chefs and not worry about their performance. “I wish she wasn’t so nervous,” observes another celebrity chef Ree Drummond, foreshadowing the contestant’s elimination, which is announced later by Giada, “Amy, I’m sorry, honey. You’ve come so far. You have what it takes to get there. But you’ve got to do a little inner work” (Episode 16). The judges’ comments point to the contestant’s need to “do a little inner work.” Due to the lack of self-knowledge, the contestant does not have a strong televisual presentation. Unable to adapt to and grow from the challenges, she is eliminated from the competition. Being able to control emotions is part of understanding the self and performing the celebrity. The contestant struggles to control her emotions and perform as authentic and confident. Nervousness is considered a negative emotion on the show, one that fizzles in the star’s performance. According to Deborah Lupton (1998), a growing concern in contemporary culture in western societies is a display of negative emotions, such as jealousy, anger, and hate (p. 171). Mastering one’s nerves or emotions requires

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

173

“emotional management” (Hochschild, 2003/1983), and this dilemma of managed and unmanaged feelings is a central component in creating drama on the competition cooking show, similar to the plot of reality television (Aslama & Pantti, 2006). In this case, the contestant’s unmanaged feelings of nervousness become a repeated part of the show’s competition narrative, resulting in the commodification of emotions. More drama seems to promise higher ratings, but the level of drama has a limit. When the audience starts to feel uncomfortable or sad for the performers, they no longer want to watch the show. 6.4.4

Expert

Celebrity chef performance displays technical and verbal skills, presenting an image of expertise. Supplementing Food Network Star, Star Salvation is “a crash course in Food Network stardom” and four-part web series. Contestants that are eliminated early in the competition but show potential are given one more chance to compete. Only the winner of the Star Salvation series is allowed to rejoin the competition. Contestants’ expertise is tested by their ability to render appetite appeal by artfully composing the ingredients and describing them. In this example, celebrity chef Alex Guarnaschelli is host of a Star Salvation challenge that requires contestants to make dinner with four breakfast ingredients: bacon, cheese, eggs, and bread. She first demonstrates with her “perfectly poached egg bacon sandwich.” During her cooking, she narrates the recipe: “To poach my eggs, I add a tiny touch of vinegar, which helps the eggs firm up. The yoke is Beyoncé, and the whites are Destiny’s Child. We want it all together” (Alex, Star Salvation 4, Episode 15). Using metaphors, Alex compares the poached egg to pop music singers—Beyoncé, the lead vocalist of the trio Destiny’s Child—increasing effectiveness of the cooking demonstration by creating a visual (and aural) image of cohesion. Moreover, the metaphor is entertaining and serves a form of language play, creating an illusion of an intimate conversation with viewers (Cook, 2000). Development of language play is connected with the contestants’ ability to reach a range of viewers. After performing her cooking demonstration, Alex presents the challenge to the contestants in two parts: the first is a cooking challenge, and the second is a linguistic performance. The celebrity chef says, “Bacon, cheese, eggs, and bread. These are four of the most versatile ingredients in the kitchen, and today, I want you to prove how versatile you are by preparing

174

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

a dinner dish that incorporates these four ingredients” (emphasis added, Alex, Star Salvation 4, Episode 15). In the cooking challenge, contestants are to display their versatility in the kitchen by making dinner with the given ingredients: bacon, cheese, eggs, and bread. Besides being versatile ingredients, they are typical of most American kitchens. Contestants show home viewers how to turn ordinary ingredients into extraordinary dishes: an egg skirt steak sandwich, duck and eggs bacon mac and cheese, seared chicken sandwich with fried egg, bacon egg and cheese on homemade bagel, and savory bread pudding. To add to the drama, Alex reduces the time during the cooking from 45 minutes to 35 minutes. Other production techniques to increase the difficulty and suspense of the challenge on other episodes include required cooking techniques (grilling, baking, steaming), cooking in large quantities, budget constraints, and working as a team. The second part of the Star Salvation challenge is using expert language. It consists of a four-minute demo, in which contestants perform a recipe telling similar to what Alex had demonstrated. An added challenge is the ban on “crutch” words, such as “delicious,” “amazing,” “tasty,” “delish,” “yummy,” and “beautiful,” common and overly used adjectives. Each time a contestant uses one of these cliched words, Alex sounds a “subtle” air horn. Its extremely loud noise adds to the chaos, and for the viewer, a thrill, as if watching a sporting event. Viewers see how difficult it is to be a celebrity chef and the training involved. Being able to use different ingredients, cook in unfamiliar kitchens, think quickly and creatively, and describe food under pressure are part of being a celebrity chef. Another coaching example illustrates that celebrity chef discourse must be interesting and creative. Coaching a contestant, celebrity chef Sunny stops him during his tasting and repeats his evaluations: “The bacon, it was ‘bacony.’ The cheese, it was ‘cheesy.’ The spice, it was ‘spicy’” (Episode 16). The descriptions are derived from the noun itself and do not add new information to how it tastes. Using parallel structure further emphasizes the contestant’s overuse of non-informative words, which undermines his presentation as an expert. Sunny explains, “Well of course they [ingredients] were. What is happening in your mouth?” Food hosts must pay attention to the textures and flavors of the food in their mouth. But this does not mean using esoteric vocabulary, she cautions. Instead, the advice is: “you don’t have to say fancy words. You literally just have to be yourself.” The celebrity chef discourse must be instructional and entertaining, ordinary and extraordinary.

6

6.5

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

175

“No Taste, No Pilot”---Food discourse and ‘good taste’

Evaluations are a central component in displaying food authority and experience, and occurs during each time the celebrity chef takes a bite (see Chapter 4 for more in-depth discussion of Evaluations). As Bobby Flay proclaims: “You’re not gonna become a star on the Food Network if you don’t taste and describe the food,” and reiterated by contestant Christian: “no taste, no pilot” (Episode 16). The preceding winner of Food Network Star Season 13 advises contestants: “Remember to smile, remember to be yourself, and always remember to take that bite right at the end, because if I’m not hungry for it, then you’ve not done your job” (Justin, Episode 16). When the contestant fails to take a bite, celebrity chef Giada states, “as an audience member, I wanted to know what the payoff was” (Episode 16). A celebrity chef must convince viewers and home cooks that the taste of the food is worth the cooking and effort involved. The embodiment of the food gives credibility to the cooking skills of the celebrity chef and to the cooking show itself. Performing tasting aligns with the Food Network’s mission to inform viewers on food and lifestyle. In positioning itself as the “viewers’ best friend in food,” the Food Network promises a constellation of stars of the culinary world in the kitchen, entertainment, and lifestyle (“About,” 2019). Consequently, the program “is committed to leading by teaching, inspiring, empowering and entertaining throughs its talent and expertise” (“About,” 2019). The first principle of the network is ‘teaching,’ and central to this lies in the discourse of the celebrity chef performance of teaching viewers how to cook but also how to taste. In tasting, contestants position themselves as a food authority, and if this condition is never reached, they are not seen as an expert. The difficulty of the taste is articulated by the contestant Christian in a backstage monologue: “The most important thing I had to do when I woke up today was make sure that I tasted my food...I know how to eat food. Believe it or not, it’s one of my specialties. The fact that I haven’t been able to pull this off on camera boggles my mind” (Episode 13). Christian voices his agony and frustration, yet offsets his anxiety with humorous self-deprecations. He states, “I know how to eat food. Believe it or not, it’s one of my specialties.” The self-deprecatory humor lies in his large, heavy-set frame, illustrating his affection to food. The humor also increases his likeability, as viewers may relate to his gluttony.

176

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Taste (not eat) is the key, as the bite must be small. The contestant must be able to talk. Otherwise, the bite becomes a faux pas and fringes on impoliteness. The struggling contestant Christian does finally eat his meatballs, but it is much too large a bite. He chews and chews, making the audience watch in silence and wait for his evaluation. The contestant is embarrassed, and viewers are uncomfortable. The show’s reality TV format increases viewers’ tolerance for mishaps, and in this case, the discomfort draws attention to how the cooking shows are a learned performance. The action appears to have stalled. Being on camera makes one act differently, as Christian shares in his monologue and challenges himself to take control of his actions (and eat) on camera. The bite serves as a narrative closure to the recipe telling and cooking demonstration, offering a sense of completion. Following the bite, the accompanying evaluative discourse illustrates knowledge of taste. Celebrity chefs describe the ingredients, preparation, and flavors, ultimately offering a definition of what tastes good. The aesthetics of what makes for good food has a symbolic meaning as well. In Educated Tastes (2011), Jeremy Strong explains that “the possession of ‘good taste,’ is to know and be able to negotiate this web of names, places, products, and dishes” (xixii). Being able to taste and describe food corresponds with the relationship between knowledge and taste, and eating in knowledge. Cooking, eating, and sharing a meal, even in the virtual mediated space of food television, are experiences of a pleasure deepened by knowledge. Celebrity chefs, as possessors of food skills, knowledge, and expertise, translate cooking and a preferred taste for viewers. In addition to describing taste, knowing cooking terminology and etymology and the ability to articulate its meaning are cases of expert authority. This occurs when legitimation is provided by expertise rather than status (Van Leeuwen, 2007, p. 94). Within the discursive framework of the competition cooking show, verbal skills are especially important for amateur chefs who rely on their discourse and rhetoric more so than culinary degree or professional credentials. One challenge is for participants to describe what the judges Bobby and Giada are cooking. One contestant describes: “Bobby is making a meuniere sauce, which is a French white wine butter sauce” (Christian, Episode 7). Another contestant explains that “bruschetta comes from the word ‘grilled’” (Amy, Episode 7). To know that ‘meuniere’ is a French wine sauce or that ‘bruschetta’ is ‘grilled’ in Italian is to possess knowledge or “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1989/1979), an embodied nature not just of knowledge of a certain text, media, and institution, but “more like a style or a set of skills or habits” (Swidler, 1986,

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

177

p. 275). Contestants bring a set of skills with them but develop them within the context of Food Network Star as contestants acquire the celebrity chef discourse. Such skills and habits have been shown from the competition cooking show series to determine contestants’ success and levels of star attainment. Food Network gives status to their stars who in turn foster the network’s intellectual and social capital.

6.6

Transform: A Hero’s Journey

Spanning over nine weeks, Food Network Star documents how contestants change, akin to a “hero’s journey” (Campbell, 1949). Leaving the “ordinary world,” contestants are called to adventure, entering the “special world” on television. Through tests and trials, some return back home early, disappointed and empty handed. The character arc is verbalized by the contestants who frequently describe their transformation from their “old” selves to their “new” selves. Emotions are described and thoughts shared in confessional monologues. I have grown a lot since Star Salvation, I just can’t afford to revert back to old Jess. Can I do this? I don’t know. (Jess, Episode 16) It’s a little embarrassing to be called out for performance when I’m the guy who claims to be a professional. (Adam, Episode 5) I felt the most comfortable for the first time. I’ve had up this barrier, this wall. I think I- broke through the wall! [punching the air] Finally! [big smile]. (Katie, Episode 5)

Participants connect the worlds behind and in front of the screen, bridging off-and-on script discourse. In these monologues, the contestants offer viewers a “private audience” of their emotions (Cialdini, 2006), ranging from uncertainty to humiliation to exuberance. Similar to the reality tv genre, the competition show becomes a “stage for emotional expression and self-disclosure” (Aslama & Pantti, 2006, p. 172). In this regard, the centrality of the host on cooking shows continues what John Langer (1981) noted early on about television and its “personality system,” which “works directly to construct and foreground intimacy and immediacy” (p. 354). Through close-up shots, cooking shows make personalities appear more real, giving them an aura of familiarity (Matwick & Matwick, 2017).

178

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

The participants’ divulging of emotions or “secrets” places them in a form of “existential nakedness” (Grainger, 1998, p. 23), a state of vulnerability, which may seem like an invitation to the audience for empathy and understanding. “Confession time. I’ve never had a matzo ball,” says one contestant from Texas (Sarah, Comeback Kitchen, Episode 3), facing a challenge to create the Jewish dumpling soup. It could also be an invitation to friendship (Rose & Wood, 2005). As one contestant states, “we all stumble, trust me, but you gotta keep going” (Christian, Episode 5). The contestant as an ordinary person who makes failures may be more readily identifiable and whose achievements the audience may delight in. Contestants confess their self-doubts and failures alongside sharing their hard-won advice. Besides giving social guidelines on dining and hosting, television cooking shows give life lessons, most explicitly relayed on Food Network Star. Aspiring celebrities meet many challenges on the show with lessons that are conflated to life lessons. For example, a Food Network Star contestant whose lentil cakes are not deep-frying pivots midway and panfrys the cakes instead, stating to viewers at home, “In life, you have to roll with the punches” (Katie, Season 14, Episode 15, 2018). Adapting to the time constraint and cooking challenge, the contestant shows how one can “always get over that hump” (ibid). The coded information is decoded and translated into an entertaining and digestible form. In this case, survival comes from adapting to adverse situations and being tenacious. Offering life instructions, from moral lessons to practical cooking advice, celebrity chefs penetrate people’s everyday lives and thus, are significant influences on the contemporary society. Finally, the (winning) contestant articulates the core of the celebrity chef discourse. “If I can be the best version of myself, then I can win the whole thing” (Jess, Episode 16). The contestant reconciles performing and being herself, being loose yet being prepared. Authenticity of self, then, is performing appropriately at the right time under the set conditions. The solution is to present the “best version” of one’s self, or “personal front” in Goffman’s (1959) term, an essential aspect in the creation of a star in performance.

6

6.7

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

179

Discussion: Performing the Celebrity Chef Expert

The production of Food Network Star makes visible the artifice in constructing celebrity chefs. It is the development of highly skilled yet ordinary people. By building their “hardware” skills, such as cooking technique and on-camera presentation, as well as their “software,” the ideas and confidence in being themselves, Food Network is a significant producer of celebrity construction. Besides investing in the contestants’ training to meet television competition, Food Network generates a ‘super league’ team with an all-star cast. As one of the executive producers acting as a member on the selection committee explains: We’re looking at character under pressure. It doesn’t just make for good TV; character is essential if you are going to be a Food Network star. If you don’t have the qualities of humor and kindness and grace under pressure, it’s going to trip you up in the long run. You’re not going to have a fan base. (Tuschman, cited in Jackman, 2011, p. 198)

Food Network Star’s visibility of the construction of celebrity chefs makes the celebrity system appear to be based on meritocracy and charismatic qualities. That is, Food Network Star, in showing the growth of the contestants and their elimination or progression to the next round, displays how the celebrity status is gained by merit and hard work; the system seems to be fair and democratic, appealing to the American Dream. However, as Turner (2006) reminds us, these processes of selection are “sanitized” (p. 158) and constructed according to principles of cultural identity set within contemporary reality programming (p. 162). Olivier Driessens (2012) similarly observes societal and cultural embedding of celebrity, calling for a refinement of terminology between ‘celebrification’ and ‘celebritization.’ He offers the following: “Celebrification captures the transformation of ordinary people and public figures into celebrities, whereas ‘celebritization’ is conceptualized as a meta-process that grasps changing nature, as well as the societal and cultural embedding of celebrity, which can be observed through its democratization, diversification and migration” (p. 641). According to Driessens’ model, Food Network Star manifests both “celebrification” and “celebritization.” The competition show is evident of the growing prominence of ordinary people as celebrities in society and culture; it is also part of a larger social level of creating celebrities.

180

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Food Network Star illustrates that performance skills are necessary to be a food television star. While celebrating contestants’ ability to give spontaneous feelings, a sign of authenticity, Food Network also is wary of unmanaged emotions, like nervousness. In revealing its artifice with production techniques, such as manufactured spontaneity, backstage rehearsals, and marketing, the television show becomes more ‘real,’ a characteristic of authenticity (Beverland, 2006). In addition to considering the external conditions, or the production of the show, it is important to take into account the internal conditions that make ‘natural’ performance possible. Food Network Star is an exemplar of contemporary media performance. The competition cooking show articulates the discourse necessary to be an instructional and entertaining host, which are qualities important to lifestyle programming (Bell & Hollows, 2005). Contestants grow personally and professionally throughout the competition cooking show, developing confidence in themselves and honing presentation skills, such as giving a smooth delivery, tasting the food, and smiling. The audience enjoys surveying the ‘cooking’ process in a double sense, of both contestants and of their food, week after week. The story culminates in the final round, and the audience gains a sense of completion with the reveal of the latest winners. Seeing the finished dishes and following the journey of the contestants, viewers learn about developing one’s character alongside culinary knowledge. As the language and rules of Food Network and food stars, the celebrity chef performance provides viewers with culinary knowledge, not because it might enable them to become future celebrity chefs, nor because such knowledge is useful in daily life, but simply because food knowledge is a contribution to cultural literacy and development of individual capital. The celebrity chef discourse enables viewers to learn the talk and join in the kitchen, ultimately bringing celebrities closer and familiar, into our own private lives and homes. Food Network Cooking Show References Food Network Star, Season 14, Episodes 1–17, 2018 Garten, Ina. Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics. “Rehearsal Dinner,” Season 6, Episode 4, February 11, 2012 “The Newest Star,” Episode 17, June 8, 2018 “Who Gets a Pilot?” Episode 16, July 30, 2018 “Star Salvation 4,” Episode 15, July 30, 2018.

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

181

“Can You Host an Icon?” Episode 13, July 23, 2018 “Panic on the Panel,” Episode 7, July 2, 2018 “Destination Videos,” Episode 5, June 18, 2018 “Are You a Main Attraction?” Episode 4, June 11, 2018 “Comeback Kitchen 3: One More Shot,” Episode 3, June 11, 2018 **two web series (Comeback Kitchen and Star Salvation) accompany the main Food Network Star television show and often premiere the same day as one of the television episodes Contestants (Food Network Star Season 14) Winners Christian Petroni—Port Chester, NY Jess Tom—Princeton, NJ Runner-up Manny Washington—Orlando, FL Eliminated (in order of elimination) Jason Goldstein—New York, NY Chris Valdes—Miami, FL Samone Lett—Sanford, FL Rebekah Lingenfelser—Savannah, GA Adam Gertler—Los Angeles, CA Harrison Bader—Los Angeles, CA Jess Tom—Princeton, NJ (returned to the competition after winning Star Salvation) Katie Dixon—Hattiesburg, MS Palak Patel—New York, NY Amy Pottinger—Honolulu, HI Celebrity Chef Judges and Mentors Anderson, Sunny De Laurentiis, Giada Drummond, Ree Flay, Bobby Goldman, Duff Guarnaschelli, Alex Irvine, Robert

Notes 1. Titles of cooking shows may symbolize the celebrity chef and convey a specific message. For instance, Sunny Anderson on Cooking for Real offers “real food for real life” as explained on her website (Anderson, 2019). Other telling titles

182

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

are Ree Drummond’s The Pioneer Woman and Jeff Mauro’s Sandwich King. Food Network Star suggests that the show is about people who are (or want to be) stars. Valerie Bertinelli is an American actress and television personality. She is known for her roles as Barbara Cooper Royer on the sitcom One Day at a Time (1975–1984), Gloria on the religious drama series Touched by an Angel (2001–2003), and Melanie Moretti on the sitcom Hot in Cleveland (2010– 2015). She is host of Valerie’s Home Cooking on Food Network and often cooks dishes for special guests, including Hollywood actors, entertainers, and rock stars. Tiffani Thiessen hosted a how-to cooking show Dinner at Tiffani’s (2015– 2017); Trisha Yearwood’s Trisha’s Southern Kitchen (2012–present) continues to produce new episodes; Tia Mowry is a judge on Food Network Star Kids. Season 14 of Food Network Star competition cooking show was an exception and had two winners: Jess Tom and Christian Petroni. “Organic” is regulated by the FDA and USDA, but “natural” is not. Nevertheless, both organic and natural are assumed to be foods that are minimally processed and without added artificial colors or flavors. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1990) uses the terms “report talk” and “rapport talk” to describe the differences in gender communication. In general, men see conversation as a means of establishing status and power, using “report talk” as a way to achieve higher status in conversation. Women, on the other hand, use conversation to express feelings and build relationships, using “rapport talk.” While this is generally true, the example with celebrity chef and mentor Duff Goldman and cooking show contestant Manny Washington illustrates that context matters as well, as Duff uses a combination of report and rapport talk. See Chapter 3 on celebrity chefs as mythic heroes. Season 14 contestants maintain a presence in the food media. Palak Patel has been featured on Today’s Show, Chicago Tribute, Los Angeles Times, and is a regular food and travel contributor to Table Magazine. Amy Pottinger runs a successful food blog, Caviar and Crayons. Adam Gertler is the “Würstmacher,” developer of sausages and dogs for the critically acclaimed Dog Haus restaurant concept.

References About. Food Network. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from https://www.foodnetwork. com/site/about-foodnetwork-com. Anderson, S. (2019). Sunny Anderson. Retrieved from https://sunnyanderson. com/.

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

183

Aslama, M., & Pantti, M. (2006). Talking alone: Reality TV, emotions and authenticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(2), 167–184. Bednarek, M. (2013). ‘There’s no harm, is there, in letting your emotions out’: A multimodal perspective on language, emotion and identity in MasterChef Australia. In N. Lorenz-Dus & P. Garces-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 88–114). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bell, D., & Hollows, J. (2005). Ordinary lifestyles: Popular media, consumption, and taste. New York: Open University Press. Bennett, J. (2008). The television personality system: Televisual stardom revisited after film theory. Screen, 49, 32–50. Bennett, J. (2011). Television personalities: Stardom and the small screen. Oxon: Routledge. Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. Journal of Business Research, 59, 251–258. Bonsu, S. K., Darmody, A., & Parmentier, M.-A. (2010). Arrested emotions in reality television. Consumption Markets & Culture, 13(1), 91–107. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979). Bourdieu, P. (2001). Television. European Review, 9(3), 245–256. Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’ Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28, 203–223. Caldwell, M., Ingeborg, A. K., & Henry, P. (2007). Prosuming multiple gender role identities: A multi-country written and audio-visual exploration of contemporary young mainstream female achievers. Consumption, Markets, and Culture, 10(2), 95–115. Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chiaro, D. (2013). Passionate about food: Jamie and Nigella and the performance of food-talk. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, & S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary linguistics (pp. 83–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: William Morrow. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000/1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play (25th Anniversary ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Curnutt, H. (2011). Durable participants: A generational approach to reality TV’s ‘ordinary’ labor pool. Media, Culture and Society, 33, 1061–1076.

184

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

Driessens, O. (2012). The celebritization of society and culture: Understanding the structural dynamics of celebrity culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6), 641–657. Dubrofsky, R. E. (2006). The bachelor: Whiteness in the harem. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(1), 39–56. Dyer, R. (1979). Stars. London: British Film Institute. Giles, D. C. (2000). Illusions of immortality: A psychology of fame and celebrity. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Grainger, R. (1998). The social symbolism of grief and mourning. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hall, S. (1977). Culture, media and the ideological effect. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 315–348). London: Arnold. Hochschild, A. (2003/1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jackman, I. (2011). Food Network Star: The official insider’s guide to America’s hottest food show. New York: William Morrow. Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 171–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006/1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.) London: Routledge. Lam, C., Raphael, J., & Weber, M. (2018). Assembling celebrity analysis. In J. Raphael, C. Lam, & M. Weber (Eds.), Disassembling the celebrity figure: Credibility and the incredible (pp. 1–9). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. Langer, J. (1981). Television’s ‘personality system’. Media, Culture and Society, 3(4), 351–366. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labour. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 133–147). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Livingston, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge. Lupton, D. (1998). The emotional self: A sociocultural exploration. London: Sage.

6

PERFORMING CELEBRITY CHEF

185

Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2017). Cooking at home: A multimodal narrative analysis of the Food Network. Discourse, Context, & Media, 17, 20–29. Nightingale, V., & Dwyer, T. (2006). The audience politics of ‘enhanced’ television formats. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 2(1), 25–42. Ouellete, L., & Murray, S. (2004). Reality TV: Remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press. Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284–296. Rojek, C. (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books. Strong, J. (Ed.). (2011). Educated tastes: Food, drink, and connoisseur culture. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine. Thompson, K. (2003). Storytelling in film and television. Boston: Harvard University Press. Thornborrow, J., & Van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.). (2001). Authenticity in media discourse [Special issue]. Discourse Studies, 3(4). Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow. Tolson, A. (2001). Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Turner, G. (2004). Understanding celebrity. London: Sage. Turner, G. (2006). The mass production of celebrity: ‘Celetoids’, reality TV and the ‘demotic turn’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(2), 153–165. Turner, G. (2010). Ordinary people and the media: The demotic turn. London: Sage. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion: Living Food Discourse

Food is my love language—Ree Drummond of The Pioneer Woman

Cooking shows take us to the heart of food discourse, the way we talk about food and relate to one another through food. Language structures viewers’ experience and perception of food and of the host, from the viewers’ home kitchen, table, and TV screen to the celebrity chef cooking and plating a dish. While giving instructions on how to cook food, cooking show hosts narrate a food discourse, that is, how food and language can help us live fully engaged in our lives. In ‘living food discourse,’ we talk about food in the bigger sense—talking, watching, listening, cooking, and eating food— to create identities and construct societies. This book examined the language of celebrity chefs on TV cooking shows, specifically four linguistic features: recipe telling, storytelling, evaluations, and humor that serve to construct the host as a trusted expert and friend. Viewers learn the language and watch the performance of celebrity chefs on America’s food television channel Food Network. The many sensual aspects—tastes, smells, sounds, sights, and touch—of food and language are multimodal and circulate between individuals and communities, as it does virtually between celebrity chefs and viewers. As we spend increasing time immersed in our screens, the fact that food cannot be virtually consumed gives it a significant resonance. The slicing of tomatoes, the sound of onions sizzling on the stove, the sight of cheese © The Author(s) 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_7

187

188

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

bubbling under the broiler, the alternating layers of recipe telling and storytelling—all contribute to our understanding of food. And the shocking burning of a slice of pizza. Even the most avid food media consumer must occasionally escape from virtual space, and what more fulfilling place than the kitchen to cook, smell, and taste, with all its tantalizing aromas. This passion for food leads to questions: How does food bring us together? How do we talk about food? How do we think about and ‘live’ food? Food discourse is an expression of our human culture. Recipe telling provides the main script, illustrating the host’s expertise while inviting viewers to learn about and participate in the food community. An interactional frame between host and viewer is simulated; hosts tell a more or less complete recipe, filling in the unspoken words with showing how it is done, and create bonds of familiarity with at-home viewers, inviting ‘you’ into their kitchen (‘you can hear that sizzle,’ ‘promise me you’ll make these short-ribs soon’). The domestic kitchen setting and the informal conversation further make the host relatable and the cooking accessible. Beckoning us into her home in the Hamptons, New England, celebrity chef Ina Garten of Barefoot Contessa takes us into her inner sanctum of her library and shows us entertaining tips. Entering the garden, she invites us to help pick rosemary and oregano as garnishes for the lemon grilled chicken (Episode 9, Season 9, 2013). The intimate spaces: the home kitchen, personal library, and private garden legitimize the authenticity of the celebrity chef. At the same time that Ina is our personal friend, she is our teacher and authority on cooking, entertaining, and gardening. Recipe telling is relayed verbally but also through the multiple modes in cooking shows: sight, sound, camera work, and the food itself. Food television is reward precisely because of this sensory-laden image. Through the multimodal performance of cooking and talking, celebrity chefs on TV cooking shows have made food fun. It can be frivolous yet filling all the same. Sautéing fresh corn on a cast iron skillet, celebrity chef Ree Drummond of The Pioneer Woman demonstrates how to make Fiesta Mac and Cheese. A corn interjects, going “pop!” Ree laughs, pausing in her recipe telling: “Oh! Popcorn! We had a little escapee!” She includes the viewer into the scene with the collective ‘we.’ The personification of the ingredient and its diminutive (“little escapee”) make the food relatable, endearing, and delightful. Ree continues, “that’s when you know that you’ve got the skillet hot enough when the corn starts to pop” (Season 22, Episode 3, 2019). The popcorn incident illustrates how food discourse works on multiple levels simultaneously: pedagogically (we learn how to

7

CONCLUSION: LIVING FOOD DISCOURSE

189

cook), relationally (we laugh along with her), and visually (we believe she is authentic). To connect with viewers, celebrity chefs use stories, jokes, backstage talk, personifications, and word play, among other linguistic features. This use of informal and personal language style results in “synthetic personalization,” or the construction of an apparent personal relationship between the celebrity chef and viewers (Fairclough, 1995, p. 138). Conversational language, ‘live’ filming, and behind-the-scenes footage suggest moments when the celebrity chef is off-script, giving a glimpse of who the celebrity is ‘really like.’ The frequent use of humor adds a sense of immediacy and personality, working to break “the aesthetic distance” (Adema, 2000) between the celebrity chef, television screen, and viewers. In addition to the relationship between celebrity chefs and viewers, the interaction between celebrity chefs and others on screen is an important focus of this book. We explored the interactions that bring people together, what we do together, and the presentation that we attempt to control and give off and also obtain about each other. How celebrity chefs play out their role in the performance, in their talk about food, manner, and appearance is examined in three different interactional frames, or what is going on in the interaction (Goffman, 1959, 1974). One is the celebrity chef solo on the how-to cooking show format. Direct eye gaze, personal stories, humor, and midlevel shots of the host create the illusory effect of intimate interaction with at-home viewers. The domestic kitchen studio is familiar and accessible, connecting viewers on an emotional level. The second interactional frame is with multiple participants on the cooking show. Celebrity chefs interact with others on travel cooking shows, but with ‘ordinary’ people, such as the restaurant chef and locals eating on the scene. The third frame of interaction consists of celebrity chefs who are judges on a competition cooking show and mentors to the participants. Celebrity chefs taste the food and give evaluations of the food and performance, whether of the restaurant chefs or contestants. These varying frames position the celebrity chef as friend and celebrity, authentic and expert. Narrative offered various frameworks for positioning identities on cooking shows, such as celebrity chefs as ‘mythic heroes’ and ordinary participants and viewers as ‘fairy-tale heroes’ (Propp, 1968). Celebrity chefs are cast as heroes, who already have overcome challenges prior to the show and have returned to share their knowledge with viewers. Stories of working in a professional restaurant, owning a catering business, or solving the problem of ‘what’s for dinner’ are relayed on how-to cooking shows. Celebrity chefs

190

K. MATWICK AND K. MATWICK

make their (heroic) stories relatable to viewers by presenting themselves as ordinary and using an informal and intimate tone. Telling of stories ‘backin-the-day,’ celebrity chef Rachael Ray shares stories of failure, inviting viewers to laugh with her. She recalls cooking experiences, such as setting off the fire alarm to using every dish in the kitchen to make one meal, so that viewers can relate to her on a personal level. The narrative of the cooking show itself may present a ‘discovery journey’ (Bettleheim, 1976). On competition cooking shows, ‘ordinary’ participants compete for public and personal gain. Whether they win or not, contestants return home to their kitchens, passing on their new knowledge. The narrative of culinary tourism (Long, 2004) similarly is a journey of culinary and cultural knowledge of food, but situated in place. Hosts of travel cooking shows such as Guy Fieri of Diners, Drive-ins and Dives provide a vicarious culinary tourism for viewers. Guy’s show captures American culinary mainstream through sharing stories, eating the food, and forming relationships with the locals. Because we make meaning through (re)telling, hearing, and viewing stories, narrative analysis provides the means for comprehending how cooking shows construct categories of heroes for celebrity chefs, participants, and viewers. As the main narrator on cooking shows, celebrity chefs use evaluations that shape our perceptions of the show and the food itself. Whether it be about an ingredient, a cooking technique, a specific flavor, evaluations tell us what is important—that lemon juice should be fresh, that chicken should be moist, that almonds and cherries enhance each other’s flavor. From this position of legitimacy, celebrity chefs create a connection with viewers as well as motivate, influence, and persuade them to cook and follow the celebrity’s ideas, recipes, and ultimately brand. Across the varied cooking show formats, celebrity chefs give instructions and evaluations on cooking, encouraging viewers’ investment in their own expertise as critics, foodies, diners, and even aspiring chef stars. Celebrity chefs, in feeding viewers gastro-critique and culinary capital (Bourdieu, 1984; Naccarato & LeBesco, 2012), in turn maintain their mastery of cooking and expression of authenticity and capital. Priscilla Ferguson (2014) discusses food talk as a social phenomenon that both crafts identities and constructs social worlds, and that “learning to cook and learning to dine is learning to live” (p. 203). Good cooking, good food, and good talk, cooking show hosts teach viewers the ingredients of a good life. We return to the opening quote of this chapter, “Food is my love language,” says celebrity chef Ree Drummond (Season 21, Episode 7, 2019).

7

CONCLUSION: LIVING FOOD DISCOURSE

191

We encounter reality with food, water, and shelter as basic necessities. As essential as they are, only food perishes. Of the ingredients listed on the recipe, of the talk at the kitchen, what is the food that endures? The answer is simple: the food that endures is the love that takes the time to share stories, to listen, to be with people. Love is the bread that fills us, the food that endures for eternal life. It is not because of the bread that the people in our book were filled, but because of the love with which it was shared with us. What unperishable food can we give to fill one another today? Food Network Television Cooking Shows Drummond, Ree. The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. “Freezer Food: Tex-Mex,” Season 22, Episode 3, May 4, 2019 “Chocolate Appreciation Day,” Season 21, Episode 7, February 8, 2019 Fieri, Guy. Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. 2007–2019 Garten, Ina. Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics “Cooking with Michael Symon,” Season 9, Episode 9, September 14, 2013 Ray, Rachael. 30 Minute Meals. “Mexi-Mac Burgers,” Season 28, Episode 16, April 17, 2019.

References Adema, P. (2000). Vicarious consumption: Food, television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 23(3), 113–123. Bettleheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Hardmondsworth: Penguin. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. (R. Nice, Trans). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979). Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Ferguson, P. P. (2014). Word of mouth: What we talk about when we talk about food. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Long, L. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2012). Culinary capital. London: Berg. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folk tale. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (First published in Russian, 1928).

Index

A Allen, Ted, 100 Anderson, Sunny, 42, 126, 163 Appadurai, Arjun, 74 Authenticity, 5–8, 10, 50, 80, 82, 87, 111, 131, 135, 142, 143, 151, 158, 166, 178, 180, 190 Authorization, 82, 85, 86

B Back stage, 123 Bite, 68, 83, 84, 142, 147, 175, 176 Bourdieu, Pierre, 12, 84, 176, 190 Brand, 8, 11, 86, 87, 111, 146, 190

C Campbell, Joseph, 12, 15, 52, 61, 171, 177 Capital, culinary, 132, 190 Celebrity, 1–15, 24, 26, 31, 39–42, 44, 50, 51, 55, 61, 63, 72, 79–87, 89, 111, 119, 120, 130, 132, 134, 137, 142–146, 150, 151, 157,

158, 160, 163, 164, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178–180, 182, 187, 189, 190 Competition, 1, 3, 7, 12, 13, 15, 62, 63, 79–82, 89, 111, 131, 157, 158, 160, 163, 171, 173, 179, 180 Construction, 16, 40, 50, 55, 126, 131, 150, 157, 179, 189 Conversationalization, 44, 130 Creativity, 1, 71, 82, 125, 129, 131, 132, 150

D de Laurentiis, Giada, 12, 83, 163 Drama, 5, 112, 173 Drummond, Ree, 8, 12, 30, 41, 86, 172, 187

E Evaluations, 1, 2, 10, 14–16, 26, 27, 29, 40, 50, 54, 55, 71, 79–81,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 K. Matwick and K. Matwick, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9

193

194

INDEX

83–87, 89, 92, 111, 134, 170, 175, 176, 187, 190 Exaggeration, 16, 119, 127, 150 Expert, 9, 39, 50, 71, 80–83, 86, 87, 111, 125, 132, 175, 187

F Face, 16, 63, 69, 73, 88, 111, 148, 171 Fairclough, Norman, 10, 32, 40, 44, 123, 130, 189 Fairytale, 52, 59 Fieri, Guy, 1, 11, 12, 16, 51, 72, 73, 89, 120, 142, 146, 163 Flay, Bobby, 12, 30, 31, 33, 42, 68, 82, 83, 160, 163, 175 Folklore, 12, 15, 50, 52 Food Network, 1–3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 24, 30, 31, 42, 44, 65, 67, 72, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89, 98, 119, 126, 142, 147, 158, 161–168, 175, 177, 179, 180, 187 Food Network Star, 12, 16, 157–168, 171, 173, 175, 177–180, 182 Frames, 44, 72, 74, 80, 81, 87, 111, 120, 123, 125, 129, 131–135, 143, 144, 146, 150, 160, 188, 189 Framing, 3, 72, 125, 143, 150 Front stage, 123 Fun, 3, 27, 88, 119, 120, 123, 126, 128, 135, 137, 139, 145, 166, 170 Funny, 16, 41, 56

G Garten, Ina, 12, 27, 82, 85, 86, 88, 119, 163 Goffman, Erving, 12–14, 16, 24, 79, 81, 124, 146, 151, 158, 178

H Hero, 15, 52, 59, 61–63, 171, 177, 182 How-to, 1–3, 7, 12, 15, 24, 39, 62, 63, 72, 79–82, 89, 111, 130, 163, 189 Humor, 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 16, 24, 37, 40, 41, 44, 88, 119, 120, 122, 125–127, 129, 131–133, 140, 142, 143, 146, 150, 151, 179, 187, 189

I Identity, 4, 6, 9, 14, 74, 84, 111, 126, 142, 160, 161, 166, 179 Instructional, 3, 13, 25, 62, 120, 134, 180

K Kitchen, 3, 15, 31, 51, 63, 67, 71, 89, 111, 119, 120, 124–126, 130, 132, 135–137, 142, 143, 146, 150, 151, 157, 180, 187, 188 Kress, Gunther, 10, 13, 15, 24, 25, 168

L Labov, William, 12, 15, 26, 27, 52–55, 59, 80 Lee, Katie, 126 Legitimation, 79, 82, 84–86

M Mauro, Jeff, 126, 136 Media discourse, 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 79, 123 Metaphors, 5, 16, 39, 119, 128, 130, 133, 134, 140, 150, 158, 160 30 Minute Meals , 12, 23, 37, 85

INDEX

Moral evaluation, 82, 84, 86, 87 Multimodal, 5, 10, 13, 14, 23–27, 31, 32, 40, 44, 187 Music, 4, 14, 15, 25, 81, 130, 134, 150 Mythology, 15, 52 Mythopoesis, 82 N Narrative, 1, 2, 5, 12, 15, 24–27, 30, 31, 40, 49–55, 59–62, 66–68, 71, 72, 74, 80, 82–84, 111, 122, 125, 134, 141, 161, 173, 189 Nonverbal play, 135, 142, 145 O Ordinary, 6–9, 43, 62, 72, 79–81, 89 P Paralinguistic cues, 129 Performance, 1, 4–6, 14, 16, 24, 33, 42, 55, 71, 72, 79, 80, 112, 124, 130, 132, 142, 143, 150, 151, 157, 158, 160, 165, 166, 168, 170–173, 175, 177, 178, 180, 187, 189 The Pioneer Woman, 8, 12, 41, 79, 86, 87, 187 Play, 1, 6, 12, 16, 40, 81, 87, 119, 120, 122–126, 129–135, 137, 138, 140, 142–146, 150, 151, 163 Politeness, 11 Propp, Vladimir, 12, 15, 52, 59 Pseudo-play, 122, 123 R Rationalization, 82 Ray, Rachael, 1, 11, 12, 23, 29, 37, 45, 84, 163

195

Real, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 50, 137, 143, 145, 148, 160, 180 Reality tv, 162, 163, 171 Recipe telling, 1, 2, 9, 10, 14–16, 23–32, 37, 39, 41–44, 49, 55, 56, 63, 86, 88, 124, 127, 132, 134, 187, 188 Restaurant, 51, 63, 64, 66, 73, 74, 80, 82, 92, 111, 120, 142, 145–151, 182 S Sociolinguistics, 2, 13, 55 Sound effects, 25, 129, 143, 144 Storytelling, 1, 2, 6, 10, 14–16, 49, 50, 55, 62, 63, 67, 68, 71, 74, 82, 123, 124, 177, 187 Synthetic personalization, 40, 123, 189 T Talk show, 3, 55, 126, 130 Taste, 2, 31, 51, 55, 74, 80, 81, 83, 84, 125, 129, 134, 136, 150, 175, 176, 187 Travel, 1, 3, 12, 13, 16, 50, 51, 62, 64, 67, 72, 74, 79–82, 89, 111, 119, 120, 142, 145, 150, 151, 182 V Van Leeuwen, T., 10, 13, 15, 24, 25, 79, 82, 84–87, 89, 158, 168 Verbal play, 135, 142, 146, 150 W Word play, 119, 189 Z Zakarian, Geoffrey, GZ, 102, 126, 135, 146, 163