Gorgeous Chili

There are beans in it

Hello and welcome to A Newsletter! If you’ve found your way over by some miracle but are not yet subscribed, here, let me help you with that:

Toppings I wish I had but didn’t: tortilla chips, scallions

In advance of next week’s episode of Home Movies, I’m sharing the recipe for A Gorgeous Chili today for all paid subscribers. I call it that because, well, it’s really stunning, yes, but “Chili” as a title is boring and, because of the wide variety of styles, doesn’t tell you much. But when you see the word, you know to expect at least some sort of braised meat in a spiced, usually spicy sauce. To answer the question on everyone's mind: yes, this one has both beef and beans (sorry to anyone from Texas) because being from California and living in New York, I believe that’s what chili should have (sorry again, to anyone from Texas).

Here, there are two gorgeous versions for you to choose from: The Long Version and The Short Version. The Long Version is made with hunks of beef– chuck roast, sirloin, brisket, boneless short ribs if you’re feeling meat-affluent and dried beans. Both get cooked together until tender, nearly falling apart, in the same spiced tomato-y pot. This could, I guess, be made in an Instant Pot (I don’t have one, have never used one, don’t know much about them but people seem to enjoy). This one, as advertised, takes a while to cook. Three to three-and-a-half hours in fact. Is it worth it? I really think it is. The way the liquid thickens from the long braise of the beef and starches released from the beans, not to mention how much better the beans taste when cooked from dried. Great if you have the time, patience or a real fondness for things you can “make ahead.”

For the people who need the chili “now,” there is, of course, The Short Version. As I’m sure you can imagine, this one doesn’t take very long. It uses ground beef (or turkey or pork) and canned beans and cooks in less than half the time as The Long Version. For some, even an hour is too long to wait for chili, in which case you can find a different recipe (not by me), but I think chili, almost by definition, deserves a bit of time in the pot (even if it is The Short Version). The general flavor, meat:bean ratio, and spiciness is the same in both, the great differences lie in the texture, complexity and time. I think of The Short Version as something you might spoon over a bowl of rice or a hot dog, maybe a split bag of Frito’s. The Long Version I think of as something for a dinner party, to set out with tiny bowls of toppings. Both are great for eating out of a mug as a midday snack.

me, enjoying a small little 3pm cup of chili (no toppings)

I am pretty confident that this recipe is wonderful but also know that chili, as with anything established or iconic, is a dish people feel STRONGLY about (especially in relation to where you grew up or what kind of chili you grew up with). You may find you want more heat (in which case up the crushed red pepper flakes or make sure to use hot paprika), more beef (use more!), no beans (get rid of the beans and add a pound of meat), larger pieces of tomato, thicker, thinner, whatever. That’s all great by me– using this recipe as a starting point to cater to your own preferences is what a recipe like “Gorgeous Chili” is sort of made for. 

See you next week for the video and more information than is necessary on why you do need three types of onion on your chili.