TV Food Chef's Resume: Impossible?

Say it ain't so, Robert!

Introduced to the show by a Mom obsessed with all things Food Network, I've really come to enjoy the show "Dinner: Impossible" over the past few years.

I'm a sucker for its goofy 007-spy-movie opening, as well as for the show as a fast-paced, fun little diversion at just 30 minutes per episode.

Which is why I'm so sorry to hear about the latest controversies swirling around the show's host and main attraction, TV chef Robert Irvine.

Evidently, Robert has a habit of, er, embellishing his resume and accomplishments, and that habit caught up with him (with a vengeance) in a newspaper story (http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/17/Southpinellas/TV_chef_spiced_up_his.shtml) this February by a St. Petersburg journalist on his activities in planning a restaurant in St. Petersburg, Florida.

On his show, Irvine seems like a pretty good guy. He's a big musclebound type, topped off with an unexpected twinkly overbite, glasses and dimples. The overall effect is a likeable and funny mixture of brains and brawn, kind of English Librarian Meets Incredible Hulk. He's wisecracking, energetic, and seems creative, decisive, driven, and talented. Despite a few frustrated moments here and there, he typically appears to treat his helpers and co-workers with courtesy and respect, all wrapped up in an approachable and a down-to-earth working-man's British accent.

The newspaper story by Ben Montgomery in the St. Petersburg Times, however, painted a decidedly different, and unflattering, portrait of the man. It described an ego on the rampage, a sea of unpaid debts, claims of knighthoods and personal castles, as well as a host of inflated professional achievements (headed by his longstanding assertions of major support on the side panels for Princess Diana's wedding cake).

Suddenly all Irvine's claims were listed together in one place, and not only were many instantly disprovable, but they swiftly took away his television gravitas and made him seem as foolish and fallible as a door-to-door huckster.

A steady flurry of additional stories and debunkings soon followed, culminating in sternly-worded Food Network announcements that Irvine's contract on "Dinner: Impossible" would not be renewed, in addition to serious edits to the beginning of Irvine's program "Dinner: Impossible" as well. Soon another announcement followed this Spring, confirming that Food Network was replacing Irvine on the show with new FN chef do jour Michael Symon (latest addition to the Iron Chef: America cast) and changing the show to a one-hour format, to boot.

I'm sorry to hear about all of this -- sorry Robert felt the need to lie and embellish his accomplishments, sorry FN didn't vet him properly, and sorry he lost the show as a result. I genuinely enjoy his work on the show and think it will be a vastly different show in his absence. Irvine has put his mark on Dinner: Impossible, and I think he earned that, no matter what he lied about in the past.

And I still think -- from what I've seen on TV -- that Irvine is a capable and unique chef, and (perhaps most important) a proven and entertaining TV chef. He's fun and relaxed onscreen, and that's hard to do. In addition, so much of the food he has created honestly looked really scrumptious to me, and all the more unusually so for being in bulk amounts. Robert also comes off as creative, as well as consistently, scrupulously clean in the kitchen, and after being grossed out by the cooking habits of so many many other TV chefs from Top Chef to The Next Food Network Star to Hell's Kitchen, I really like that.

I don't condone lying at all. But after 15 years in the media and PR industries, I've seen so many many people who simply felt they needed to polish up their credentials/coolness a bit, who didn't feel qualified or good enough on their own, who were so hungry to achieve that a little resume-padding seemed like a small sin if it got them to the next step. They just don't see that you don't sell your soul all at once, but little by little, day by day. It's very sad and also, to me, very human.

So I'm not really surprised that this guy (who seems to have training and skills at least), who seems to come from a working-class background, started embellishing here and there, saw how well it worked (especially since we yanks adore British accents), and just couldn't stop himself. I almost find it funny -- it's such a hoary old cliche that Americans tend to assume anyone with a British accent hobnobs with royalty and is one step away from knighthood, and sure enough, Irvine capitalized grandly on those assumptions (and again, they all seemed to start with these little grains of truth, and just kept growing and growing...).

In this case, everybody loses. Irvine lied to get a job, but he did turn out to do the job grandly -- he's a good TV chef. Dinner: Impossible is a bona fide hit, and is going into its fourth season.

So what now? I guess I honestly still wish Irvine the best, and hope he comes out of this with some kind of career to rebuild. While I like Symon and his giggle, I do get tired of FN pimping out their next Chosen One show by show by show (besides, I had a soft spot for Besh). I also am not sold on either Symon as host OR on the concept of Dinner: Impossible now packaged as a one-hour show. I liked it the way it was, Irvine, half-hour, and all. Why fix it?

Meanwhile, I hope this scenario has stopped RI from further lying but I don't wish him ill as a result. Public humiliation and the loss of his show seems to me to be punishment enough. So I'm frankly rooting for him to come back from this someday, and thought this editorial (http://www.allyourtv.com/0708season/indefenseofrobertirvine.html) put things pretty well.

Can Irvine come back from this? I hope so. I don't think it's necessarily... impossible.

What do you think?

Photo/Image credit: Food Network