- Joined Apr 19, 2008
Fabulous - just what i was looking for - Thanks so much!
When people want fast they mean fast. They mean they get home from work and want to eat in a short time. I doubt they (because "they" is also me) want to have already thought about having made cracklings from chicken fat the night before. How long does that take, anyway? The night before, they were cooking something else, after a long day at work!Five-ingredient I get, stupid though I think it is (and yes, I know it's not your fault). "Fast and easy" I do not get. What's "fast"? Are we talking about "I get home at 6, I can have this on the table by 6:30 with no pre-prep" or are we talking about "so long as I don't have to spend more than 30 minutes total in the kitchen, I don't really care if I have to start the night before," or somewhere in between?
Here's why I'm asking. Suppose you've got good technique and don't mind working ahead a bit. Take one chicken, spatchcock it for broiling, and set aside in the fridge. Strip the fat from the back and render it in strips for cracklings, and save some of the rendered fat. Cook the two fat pads, minced, until well rendered, then add the liver in lobes, and cook until just barely done, then puree the mixture, pack in a little crock, and refrigerate overnight. On the next day, broil the chicken. While it's cooking, make a simple vinaigrette with mustard, red wine vinegar, and the warm rendered fat (and S&P), then toss with frisee and top the salad with crumbled cracklings. When the chicken is just done, spread the surface lightly with mustard, sprinkle with a mix of fresh bread crumbs from a crusty loaf, salt, pepper, and a little more rendered fat, then broil until deep brown. Serve with the rest of the loaf.
Ingredients: 1 chicken, mustard, red wine vinegar, frisee, crusty bread (and S&P)
Now that's an elegant meal, it's not difficult or time-consuming to make, and it's five ingredients. Terrific. But somehow I suspect that this is not quite what this class is intended to be about, right? If I'm wrong, this sort of thing is fabulous. But if I'm right, then it turns out there are some constraints that are implicit, and it's those that need to be identified. Does that make sense to you?
This is funny, in France we call this "Poulet à l'americaine" (for "American style chicken"), but it does not have mustard or bread crumbs. It is seved with "Sauce Diable", which is veal stock with a bit of tomato paste, shallots, black pepper, white wine and vinegar, montée au beurre.Cut out the backbone, crack the breastbone, and flatten the chicken. It cooks quite quickly at high heat. Poulet grille au diable means "chicken grilled Devil-style," so it's probably exceedingly similar to Pollo alla diavolo, though I don't actually know. The "au diable" just means the mustard and crumb crust, really.
"Braise" is a noun here, and means "embers" -- sur le braise = over the embers. "Cuit" is just the past participle of cuire, "to cook." So the phrase really means nothing more than "cooked over the embers." I did find another recipe in the same book: "Spat Cooked Squabs with Pommes Dauphine in a 'Sauce a la diable'" -- Pigeonneau cuit sur la braise en crapaudine, pommes dauphine, sauce--condiment a la diable. So it turns out they're rendering en crapaudine as "spatchcocked," "spat-cooked," etc. (en crapaudine, "in toad form"). I thought it was odd!Chris, does "braise" in that phrase mean the same as it does in English? And what is "cuit?"
Besides which, I'd almost bet that the translater saw something lewd or otherwise off-putting in "spatchcock" and so changed is to something similar sounding.