Gordon Ramsay’s position within the collective conscience is bizarre. He makes appearance after appearance on TV being applauded for doing what could damage others’ careers beyond repair. It is very ironic that Gordon’s career would turn out this way, as it was because he couldn’t “control his temper” that food critic A. A. Gill believed being a celebrity chef was “the worst position for Gordon to be in”. Gordon has become the most publicised chef in the world, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of shows he has appeared in. However, there is some nuance to pinpointing why. It would be easy to say that it is his aforementioned anger, but his anger is really only permitted because it is directed at those who fail at cooking or running their restaurant. Therefore it may be his proficiency at cooking and restaurateur-ship that lets him weed out inadequacies displayed around him, and while there is some truth to that, Gordon is by no means the best chef in the world. One must only look to clips of Gordon’s cooking failing to meet people’s expectations on shows like the F Word or Gordon’s Great escape. If anger and talent were all that were needed, any number of chefs could be stars. It would be easy to run down a list of different character traits Gordon displays and argue whether they are the lynchpin of his brand, but that is ultimately futile. It is obvious what the conversation would tend towards; that Gordon occupies the position he does due to the combination of his disparate character traits.
What I am interested in, however, is how each of his shows uses these different characteristics to form their narratives. It is no secret that reality television is invariably fictitious. While this point is at times exaggerated, it is not an exaggeration to apply it to Gordon’s shows. They will often fall back on established literary tropes and models to construct their narrative; be them episodic like Kitchen Nightmares, or Serialised like Hell’s Kitchen. In slotting Gordon into various literary positions that use his traits differently, these series are able to give us, the collective audience, a deeper understanding of Gordon Ramsay — one that could not be achieved by simply highlighting his character across hours and hours of content. This essay will investigate just this, looking at a myriad of Gordon’s shows to pinpoint the traditional literary terms that facilitate the formulae of these series - and our understanding of Gordon Ramsay. As one might imagine, there exist shows in Gordon’s catalogue that can not be defined under traditional literary terms. The F word functions as a cooking themed late night talk show. Other programmes are wholly documentaries, with Gordon as the host and narrator. Some of the most publicised examples here are Shark Bait and Gordon Ramsay on Cocaine. Granted, these do place him in a lead starring role, but these shows lack a narrative that allows us to solidly place Gordon into a role within that narrative. A show more that does would be Kitchen Nightmares.
Kitchen Nightmares stands as one of two big shows for Gordon, with a compilation of clips from the show maintaining the most viewed position on his YouTube channel with 67 million views. It began as Channel 4’s Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares before the release of Fox’s Kitchen Nightmares roughly 3 years later. Each show tackled restaurants in the UK and the US respectively, and are the same at their core. A formula is easily synthesised from the format of each episode. We are given a basic outline of the restaurant and its key figures, before Gordon investigates the problems; both by sampling the food and observing a dinner service. He then digs deeper, analysing the root of these problems, and any circumstances that may be compounding them. He then goes to correct these shortcomings with the aim to transform the restaurant. This essential progression from failing to successful restaurant is satisfying to watch. Furthermore, many restaurateurs begin these episodes despondent, on edge, or generally miserable; of course stemming from commercial failure and financial ruin. By the end of these episodes, we typically see a reinvigoration in these people. As such, the stated progression is two fold and more satisfying overall.
What is notable about this progression is that Gordon is not really affected by it. He remains a static protagonist throughout. Granted, he does generally progress from hostile to amiable, but a divide between being angry in the kitchen but otherwise friendly goes back to even his mentor Marco Pierre White, and almost certainly earlier still. Of course this makes sense: Gordon is not a character, he is a real person who can only change so much in a week. However the show has the ability to present a change if it so willed it, as illustrated by about every owner on the show. In particular, Fox has been criticised for its US edition of the show “playing up the family dramas at the restaurants Ramsay visits" (Ryan). It is to some extent then a deliberate choice to make Gordon static. This partially reflects Kitchen Nightmares’ capitalist edge: happiness is bestowed upon the owners once their entrepreneurial ventures succeed, brought about by one of the world’s most successful chefs. In line with this; Gordon is already wealthy, and so any happiness is second hand and ethereal. From a literary perspective, however, this is because the goals are not Gordon’s. He is like Sherlock Holmes: solving other peoples’ problems rather than his own, and Kitchen Nightmares is generally structured episodically akin to Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who. To facilitate this Gordon must remain static. First of all, because to change is to challenge the audience’s expectations, and thus to turn away viewers; but it is also to undermine Gordon’s authority.
Kitchen Nightmares is predicated on the premise that Gordon is correct all of the time. Gordon’s job is ostensibly to find the cracks in these restaurants. Excessive failure to do so (it is worth noting he does fail this from time to time) would draw the audience out of the narrative that the show aims to present. Thanks to his commercial success and presence on shows like Hell’s Kitchen, Gordon claims this position of knowing what good food is without us having to have necessarily seen the show. Were Gordon to meaningfully change alongside the restaurant, we would question his position as an objective marker of quality. His first judgement on the food or management must then be correct, no matter what that judgement is. To reconsider and alter his position would make us wonder what other opinions he would flip on. This extends to his methods. His “tough love” must always work, due in part because it is the draw of Gordon Ramsay being in your show, but also because it would call into question previous episodes. Would he have not failed those restaurants by helping in that flawed maner? In remaining unchanged by any individual restaurant, any episode becomes timeless: free to be shown time and time again. Thus, the episodic structure must be upheld.
By establishing Gordon as a central figure with whom we are familiar and whose opinions we trust, the business owners necessarily become unfamiliar. This is where the UK show and the US show diverge. Accompanying Gordon in the Channel 4 programme is his own narration. The narration is rather soothing and fairly matter of fact, and captures part of the appeal of Sherlock Holmes; the peak behind the mask. For Holmes this is accomplished by Watson, and it either case seeks to illuminate the thought processes of either Holmes or Gordon. By using an inner-monologue, however, Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares places us into Gordon's shoes, and in the process alienates the restaurant from the audience. As for the US show, the editing becomes it’s Watson. Oftentimes Gordon will make scathing comments about a given restaurant's decoration or its food, only for the editing to make a myriad of cuts and zoom-ins paired with comically exaggerated sound effects to show just how right Gordon is, and conversely, how wrong the owners are. This sensationalist style often borders on utter mockery, and goes a long way to undermining the owners’ sensibilities in a way Gordon’s inner-monologue never did. Either way, both approaches serve to exemplify the unfamiliarity of the restaurants.
These dialectics effectively makes Kitchen Nightmares a portal-quest fantasy, like the Wizard of Oz. Our hero is an extension of our everyday expectations, such as what decent food looks like. We watch as he is thrown into whacky otherworlds, where incompetent people violate health and safety regulations. Our hero’s quest is to correct these fantasy worlds and return to normality. Gordon however, never learns from these adventures, as he is static and must remain so. The extent to which any given restaurant can deviate from normality is what separates Kitchen Nightmares, especially the US version, from a typical Sherlock Holmes story. Sherlock Holmes is rooted never in the ‘what’ but in the ‘how’; the fun is seeing what deductions he makes using the information provided. Sherlock Holmes is thus synthetic in a way Kitchen Nightmares is not. The show is predicated on establishing a given restaurant’s identity before withering it away. As such, it is more concerned with the ‘what’; the restaurant in its polar states of failing and success.
Ultimately, Kitchen Nightmares is an episodic fantasy show. Each episode, a unique fantasy is depicted. In the role of Holmes, Gordon Ramsay shouts and folds his arms until the world makes sense again. To facilitate all of this, Gordon must never be greatly affected by the events of an episode. For Gordon to truly change is to challenge the formula and appeal of the show. However this grants us a first look at the application of his character. His anger is cathartic, but his knowledge, standards and commercial success in the culinary field land him a starring role. Only someone like Gordon could be the main character of Kitchen Nightmares. Kitchen Nightmares would go on to serve as the template for a decent amount of other shows; namely Hotel Hell and 24 Hours to Hell and Back. Its basic formula has been seen elsewhere, such as with Supernanny. These shows all take an episodic approach, but that is not the only avenue by which you can make Gordon Ramsay a protagonist.
Far more than either Kitchen Nightmares, Boiling Point places its focus on Gordon himself as the protagonist. The show’s goals are Gordon’s. The general plot could be described as Gordon trying to win a third Michelin Star while dealing with the encumbered costs and obstacles involved. He is of the belief that one “doesn't become a three star chef in a large corporate set-up” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David), and so leaves the A-Z restaurant company to open his own restaurant and pursue his “individual style” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David). This threatens to bankrupt him, and so he must perform well in the kitchen and take odd jobs, such as a £5000 cooking demonstration with Bramley Apples. The miniseries ends on his service with a Michelin inspector in attendance, before revealing whether or not he won his third star.
The show does seem to have a coherent theme: anti-climaxes. Most things in the show end somewhat limply. Take the first dinner service, which is hectic and filled with verbal abuse. However, this night and episode end on a recording of Britain's Most Unbearable Bosses, which showed Gordon also shouting at his staff. However, this abuse is toned down compared to the chaos seen in the service; provoking Gordon to respond “that's a bit anticlimactic after the night we've just had” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David). This pattern reoccurs with his FIFA World Cup banquet in Versailles, which ends on a deeply disappointing fireworks display, or his ultimate failure to win his final star. The consequences of one’s actions is another theme. As one would expect, the most obvious example is found in the various cock-ups chefs make in the kitchen, which is followed by a “bollocking” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David) from Gordon. However, this theme expresses itself through Gordon far more often. We hear of the legal battle with A-Z after Gordon's walk out in the first episode, and see a protest by employees of Bramley Apples after the apple switch-up stunt he pulls earlier in the series. We also see prior feuds resurfacing, namely between him and A. A. Gill, and how the media responds.
These all converge on Gordon’s core character appeal in this series: his ability to shout at people. Make no mistake; Boiling point is predicated on Gordon shouting at people. The evidence is twofold. Firstly, the show was made in response to Britain’s Most Unbearable Bosses. This was an ITV documentary exposing, and in the process popularising, Gordon shouting at people as a form of entertainment. Secondly, one must only look to Boiling Point’s narration to see how they lean into his anger. Take for instance the phrase “get Ramsayed” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David) featured in the first episode, or during the Michelin service the line “Gordon’s attempts to calm the staff aren’t helping” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David). This takes a turn nearing the series’s end however. Gordon spends much of the last episode on edge; hoping he had won his third star. It is, according to his apprentice Marcus Wareing: “all he has on his mind” (Graham, Tim and Nath, David), and it eventually revealed that he has failed to achieve it. This is the greatest let down in the series, and yet he does not melt down over it. He does not shout at his staff, but simply gives a final interview to the camera explaining about the road ahead. This serves as seeming and legitimate character development for Gordon, adding catharsis to a moment that should by all rights be a complete let down. As such, and in particular taking in conjunction with more jovial scenes, Boiling Point is able to portray a more nuanced look into Gordon’s anger than any show since, nor before with Britain's Most Unbearable Bosses.
After the success of Boiling Point, it naturally received a sequel series: 2001’s Beyond Boiling Point. Airing 2 years after the original, this series shows Gordon in the months after having failed to achieve his third Michelin Star. Immediately, a goal can no longer be derived from Gordon’s involvement in the kitchen as the series cannot conclude with Michelin. Restaurant wise, this puts Gordon into a position of keeping his head down and maintaining standards. As Marco puts it in the series itself: “20 years I’ve been a chef in the kitchen, and winning three stars was very exciting [...] retaining them, I found rather boring” (Graham et al.). Beyond Boiling Point instead places its emphasis on Gordon as a celebrity chef, rather than as just a chef. The series is driven by whatever drama Gordon can cause or be involved in, with only occasional cuts back to the kitchen to show someone getting ‘Ramsayed’. From focussing on steamy Gordon fanfiction to his appearances at court hearings and weddings, Beyond Boiling Point is effectively a glorified, personalised Gordon Ramsay tabloid.
Unsurprisingly, the series lacks the thematic depth that Boiling Point was able to carve out. The focus on pop culture forces the series into something more episodic, as each controversy can only last so long and at the very least is destined to be superseded. To quote his wife Tana: “the kind of Public life Gordon has - these things are going to happen every month, every six months” (Graham et al.) As such, the narrative can never be as tight or as focused as Boiling Point. This is not helped by the attention now being given to Marcus Wareing’s Pétrus. However, there is one point of thematic overlap: the consequences of Gordon’s actions. In line with the few celebrity conflicts of the original Boiling Point, Beyond Boiling Point weaponised Gordon’s unique edge to drive episodes. Uniquely, this contradicts the cultural position Gordon occupies; as a man who can berate and belittle and receive praise for doing so. Beyond Boiling Point speaks to an earlier time in Gordon’s career. While it has the least room for literary inspection, doing so still enlightens us to the truth of Gordon’s character as every prior show mentioned has done.
Finally, there are shows where Gordon functions as an antagonist. This typically occurs when he is a judge on competitions. The main two examples of this are Hell's Kitchen and Master Chef. It's the contestants we follow as protagonists, who's goals (winning the competition) we root for them to achieve. The main obstacle to achieving this are the standards imposed by Gordon and any other judges present. They are akin to Whiplash’s Terrance Fletcher or Ratatouille’s Anton Ego in this regard. This is not to say that their standards are villainous; particularly in Hell's Kitchen where a lack of standards could result in dangerous food being given to customers. Instead, the supposed objectivity of these standards validates them as a hurdle to overcome. As discussed earlier these standards landed him in the protagonist role in Kitchen Nightmares. As an antagonist his standards function not to ground the audience in reality, but to draw Gordon into conflict with the cooks or contestants.
This brings us into the expression of this antagonistic position. Evidently, these shows invert Gordon’s positive traits to fulfill his antagonism. Take his anger, which has remained a draw for Gordon’s shows since Boiling Point. While still certainly a draw of Hell’s Kitchen, focus is placed on Gordon’s ability to provoke the contestants with his anger. There are those who, in response to being ‘Ramsayed’ are enraged themselves or discouraged. In return, there are those who will be motivated to do better. This has always been the conceit of Gordon’s though love, and can be seen as far back as Boiling Point and Beyond Boiling Point in interviews with Gordon’s staff. Hell’s Kitchen leverages this for effective character drama, and as such is able to give insight into how this tactic works. Generally, the show frames those who are able to take Gordon’s berating as the better cooks. Gordon tends to be more reserved on other shows, as the food tends to be better when taken out of the fast, high pressure environment of a kitchen. Still, when poor food is presented the creativity of his insults fulfils his antagonism.
Ultimately, these shows highlight the versatility of his character traits. His standards and anger can be moulded by the position Gordon occupies to make for compelling television. These aspects of Gordon become neither wholly good nor wholly bad. This understanding, as an audience, could not be achieved had only one of these types of shows been made; their curated presentation would cloud our perception too much. In spite of the seeming overlap, the various literary archetypes he occupies combine to give us insight into the totality of Gordon's character. We see effects of his methods on a show like Hell’s Kitchen, as well as the stress and ambition fueling them in Boiling Point. We see how Gordon handles as a true celebrity, and how he handles as a standin for the average viewer. It is for this reason, I feel, that Gordon is able to be such a mysterious figure in the collective consciousness. People are not understood as a linear series of events or things said, and the variety on display in Gordon’s shows, both discussed in this essay and disregarded, capture the fluidity of interpersonal connection in a way few celebrities can make use of.
Works Cited
Credits
Comments
Post a Comment