Chef Eric Adjepong's hotly anticipated West African restaurant opening in D.C.
From sous chef to Top Chef, cookbook author to Food Network host, Eric Adjepong champions West African cuisine — and now, with the opening of his first restaurant on 14th Street, he has a new platform to share his passion.
Why it matters: As West African cuisine is gaining momentum nationally, Adjepong is one of the leading chefs exploring the ingredients and techniques through a modern lens — and Elmina promises to be like nothing else in D.C.
Catch up quick: The Ghanaian chef, born in the Bronx, has strong ties to D.C. He cooked at Kwame Onwuachi 's Afro-Caribbean Wharf restaurant, Kith and Kin, and ran a private chef/catering company here between TV stints.
Even as his reach expanded — including a line of West African foods in Whole Foods and African-inspired dishware at Crate & Barrel — he's looked to open a restaurant here.
What he's saying:"I've been thinking about a restaurant space as long as I could remember," Adjepong tells Axios. A year ago, he inked a deal for the former Seven Reasons building. The new spot opens Feb. 18.
"Africa being the second biggest continent in the world but the food being relatively unknown is a travesty. There's so much technique and history and stories — I feel privileged to help bring that to the forefront."
Zoom in: The richly textured, multitiered space — inspired by the meaning of Elmina, "treasure" — offers a variety of experiences under one roof, from prix-fixe to street food.
On the highest end, guests can opt for five-course tasting menus ($105 per person, plus $55 optional pairing) with multiple choices within each category to encourage sharing.
A series of small plates culminate in "big chops" — platters for two or more like whole grilled lobster with fisherman's stew, or crispy jollof duck rice.
Many options explore the connection between West Africa and the diaspora, such as hamachi crudo with passionfruit and peri-peri (a native chili) oil.
The intrigue: You don't need to spend big to get flavor. An a la carte, walk-in "chop bar" menu, available in first and second-floor bars, draws from Ghanaian street food.
Look for a variety of meat or seafood kebabs, plus some fun mashups like a yassa smash burger or crispy okra fries. Most dishes fall in the low-to-mid $20s or below.
Having worked in D.C., Adjepong knows "brunch is massive."
Elmina will open Saturday afternoons with lots of Ghanaian riffs on American favorites like cardamom-lime cinnamon rolls, oxtail hash or eggs bennie with peri-peri hollandaise.
If you go: Elmina, 2208 14th St Northwest. Tasting menu and brunch reservations via Seven Rooms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Materialists' Is Nothing Like Your Average Rom-Com
Midway through screening 'Materialists,' the follow-up to Celine Song's Oscar-nominated 'Past Lives,' I realize I have the A24 romantic comedy all wrong — partly because the movie is a bit too serious to fit, say, the Nora Ephron standard of rom-coms. Another reason is that the film's vague synopsis hardly does justice to the poignant commentary you discover at the heart of it. In 'Materialists,' a young, ambitious New York City matchmaker finds herself caught between Mr. Right and an imperfect ex. That premise plays out clearly in the film's glittering trailer, which stars Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans in a simmering love triangle that looks like it would swell to the typical dramatic stakes most would expect from a romantic drama. At least that's what I thought. But after watching 'Materialists,' I found that a far more compelling narrative side-stepped that familiar trope — one that thoughtfully explores the perils of love and relationships, as well as the shift in today's dating culture. That was a smart move on Song's part, saving the film's strongest elements for the full viewing experience (something I wish more contemporary movie trailers would do). The initial draw of 'Materialists' obviously lies in its charming lead cast and the allure of a new American romance that's been grossly missing from theaters. However, the deeper story that unfolds within it is just as engrossing, and more importantly, subversive to the romance genre, offering profound self-reflection in addition to the anticipated happily-ever-after. 'Materialists' follows lowly paid matchmaker Lucy (Johnson) on her quest to help her elite New York City clientele of moneyed professionals find their perfect love matches (a storyline hatched from Song's own stint as a matchmaker). Lucy's process is something like negotiating a corporate deal, which requires noting every pesky detail her clients are looking for in a prospective partner — the ideal physique, shared interests and hobbies, a college degree, a six-figure salary and 6-foot height to match for some — among other superficial traits almost too ridiculous to list. One client, a middle-aged Black woman, demands a partner who is a through-and-through conservative Republican. Another, a white man close to his 50s, refuses to budge on his maximum age requirement, because a woman in her 30s and 40s is way too old for his taste, he says (even 29 is pushing it). A 27-year-old is more his speed. Lucy tolerates her clients' shameless requests with a nod and a smile, because that's the nature of her gig: fulfill the fantasy, supply the demand and find the best possible person to get the deal done. Because matchmaking, by her high-end agency's standards, is the business of finding value in a person's best qualities, mostly those physical and financial. In a sense, Lucy knows it's a demoralizing approach to finding love, but she herself has a contradictory relationship with the concept. At an office party thrown by her co-workers to celebrate her nine-marriage success rate, Lucy credits her skills to the golden matchmaker's rule: 'If a girl asks for a tall drink of water with a salary over $500,000, you deliver.' Funny enough, Lucy is just as materialistic in her own love life. She refuses to settle down until she meets the man of her dreams — someone who's painfully, 'achingly' rich. However, she brushes off the first 'unicorn,' as she calls such handsome and wealthy rarities, she meets at a client's wedding. The unicorn in question is Harry (Pascal), a handsome, charming, tall drink of water who's very, very rich — and only has eyes for Lucy. The problem is, she doesn't think she deserves the private equity broker's money or affections (or $12 million apartment) because, in her mind, she's worthless and has nothing better to offer but her winning matchmaking services. A failed actress in debt and only raking in $80,000 a year, Lucy is convinced that Harry can do better. He thinks otherwise. Lucy offers to introduce the eligible Manhattan bachelor to other women he'd be perfect for, but, in classic rom-dram fashion, Harry is determined to court only her. But there's a fork in his plan when Lucy's complicated waiter ex, John (Evans), crashes the party. In a flashback, we learn just how much history runs deep between the matchmaker and the struggling actor: They were together for five years to be exact, according to an anniversary date that went from bad to worse. It's while running late to dinner reservations (which come with a costly no-show fee) in John's old hoopty that Lucy realizes she's tired of being a broke woman dating a broke man in New York City (with roommates). So, they break up — but now this wedding is their chance at a reunion. It's unspoken when John and Lucy embrace, having gone years without seeing each other, but there's still unfinished business between the two. And just as Lucy is making a decent living helping others find love, John swoops in to remind her who introduced her to it in the first place. That's when you think 'Materialists' is going to veer off to follow a tangled affair between Lucy and her two suitors, faced with having to choose between a promising new love and an old flame. A tale as old as time. For the most part, this plotline continues throughout the remainder of the movie. I'll skip ahead to avoid major spoilers — just know Lucy makes a choice and gets her happy ending, even if it's not the conventional one she always imagined. That's not even the most interesting half of 'Materialists.' In fact, it pales in comparison to what Song really tries to get at in her sophomore feature film: how true soul connections rebuke the shallowness of the modern dating world, where singles are more concerned with finding an aspirational kind of love that looks good on paper. 'The things that are in the movie came from the truth I learned,' Song said in the film's production notes, referencing her time as a dating consultant. 'That there is a very funny, very dark objectification of each other's humanity, and therefore a very real commodification of each other, as we go through this thing that we call dating. But it's supposed to be in pursuit of love.' That's a message the writer-director drives home in the opening scene of 'Materialists,' which shows a prehistoric cave couple exploring what could be the first human marriage, as they wordlessly exchange a flower ring symbolic of today's diamond ring proposal. But there are no expensive gems to gawk at or flashy jewelry to show off to friends, family and, in today's time, social media — just two people in love. The disconnect between that and today's superficial box-checking culture, as well as the way love is nowadays in constant conversation with money, is something Song is particularly interested in probing in 'Materialists' — even if it takes a while to round out her point. Speaking on her film's intention, Song told the Los Angeles Times: 'We're not just showing up here to be in love and beautiful and get to be in a rom-com. We're also going to take this opportunity to talk about something. Because that's the power of the genre. Our favorite rom-coms are the ones where we get to start a conversation about something.' That dialogue finally takes shape in 'Materialists' after the indulgence of a tangled love triangle, when an unthinkable client crisis bursts Lucy's bubble about her line of work. At the start of the film, we meet the matchmaker's toughest client, Sophie (Zoë Winters). Not tough because she's difficult to please, or unattractive, or not a great catch — she just desperately wants to meet a nice guy who likes her for who she is. But that breed is seemingly hard to find in NYC, as Lucy struggles to find Sophie the perfect guy. Still, her client subjects herself to the indignities of futile dates in hopes of striking gold. However, the reality of that smacks Lucy in the face when she learns that one match she sent Sophie on a date with sexually assaulted her. Lucy's boss (Marin Ireland) breaks the news, instructing her not to reach out to Sophie or get too hung up on the assault. According to Lucy's boss, if you stay in the matchmaking business long enough, sexual violence becomes pretty common. Bleak, yet true to the ugliness of the real world. Song does something bold here by venturing into darker territory. However, I struggled to understand her point of using sexual trauma as a narrative device to awaken Lucy from her own callousness and expose the exploits of an industry. It's not enough to call attention to a social issue as sensitive as this without a proper resolution. While that sobering plot helps explain why Lucy is at a crossroads in her love liaison gig, it doesn't bring much clarity to her love life. That mystery lingers at the end of the film, when Lucy finally confronts her superficial ideologies of love. Maybe it's a soul-bearing declaration from John that pushes her to that point. Or perhaps an awkward encounter with Harry about an unbelievable cosmetic surgery — seriously, you have to hear the ridiculous explanation that lives up to the movie's title. Either way, 'Materialists' leaves us with a lot to ponder after the credits roll. The film puts itself in conversation with many of its references, from 'Sense and Sensibility' to 'Pride & Prejudice,' yet still manages to contribute to the romance canon with a unique modern lens. It doesn't hinge on the gamble of love as much as it does on the observation of what many perceive love to be. Whether it's finding financial security, the ideal person to grow old with, or a soulmate you can't live without, 'Materialists' offers no easy answers there. Only a disquieting truth that the concept will always be deeply misunderstood. 'Past Lives' Will Quietly Surprise You At Every Turn 'Picture This' Doesn't Work As A Comedy Or Romance 'The Idea Of You' Is A Pretty Underwhelming Book-To-Movie Adaptation
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
100 years ago, the battle for television raged
Television's broadcast debut in 1936 unfolded like a plot made for the medium itself—complete with bitter competition, intrigue, celebration, and devastating setbacks. The story reached its climax when a fire at London's Crystal Palace destroyed parts of television inventor John Logie Baird's research laboratory on November 30, 1936. The timing could not have been worse. Baird was locked in a high-stakes showdown with his deep-pocketed rival, Electric and Musical Industries (EMI), who had partnered with wireless pioneer Guglielmo Marconi and the American radio giant RCA-Victor. Long before that fateful November day, the television landscape was crowded with inventors competing for the title to the as-yet unproven but promising medium. Despite his eventual defeat, Baird deserves credit for achieving the first wireless transmission of a moving image, as Popular Science writer Newton Burke reported in June 1925. The discrepancy between Baird's early success and later failure came down to a classic confrontation between old and new tech: Where Baird succeeded with mechanical television systems, he struggled to master the new and more efficient electronic technology. Despite its mechanical design, Baird's primitive television system was revolutionary for its time. Though it consisted of unwieldy components too impractical for commercial success, Burke noted that it successfully 'transmitted the motions of a human face, winking and smiling, from one room of a laboratory to another, without the aid of photography or wires.' The transmitted image was so crude that Baird's photographic evidence resembled the white hockey mask favored by serial killer Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th films. Yet Burke recognized its significance, writing, 'The fact remains that the outline of the face is plain, so are the shadows of the eye sockets and the shape of the open mouth.' Baird's achievement, while novel, built upon decades of previous work. His system incorporated ideas from Maurice LeBlanc, an engineer from France who published the first principles of television transmission systems in 1880's 'Etude sur la transmission électrique des impressions lumineuses,' or 'Study on the electrical transmission of light impressions.' LeBlanc's design was part of a six-volume engineering compilation devoted to the advent of electric lights, La Lumière Electrique, as reported by Popular Science in June 1882. Baird also drew from the work of German inventor Paul Nipkow, who had developed an 'electric telescope'—a pair of spinning discs capable of scanning still images and transmitting them through electric wires, which he patented in 1885. Meanwhile, Charles Jenkins, a Washington, D.C.-based contemporary, achieved the first synchronized video and audio transmission on June 13th, 1925, though his system only handled still pictures rather than motion. Understanding Baird's mechanical system helps explain both its breakthrough nature and ultimate limitations. His apparatus used a rapidly revolving disk equipped with lenses that focused light from the subject onto a selenium cell. This cell converted the light impulses into electrical signals suitable for radio transmission—crucial because radio waves were the only practical distribution medium available at the time. A synchronized receiving disk with a ground-glass screen then reconstructed the image. As Burke explained, 'The images received on his ground-glass screen are described as being made up of exceedingly fine lines of varying darkness.' However, the width of these lines and their flicker rate were constrained by the physical limitations of the mechanical apparatus—problems that would require electronic solutions to overcome. While Baird perfected his mechanical approach, gradually improving display resolution from 30 to 240 lines by 1936—today's displays are measured in pixels, 8K being the latest generation—other inventors pursued electronic television systems using cathode rays to scan and project images. This technological shift created one of the most bitter patent battles in broadcasting history. Philo Farnsworth, a farm boy from Utah, and Vladimir Zworykin, a Russian émigré who fled during the Russian Revolution, each claimed first rights. While Farnsworth was officially awarded the first electronic television system patent in 1930, Zworykin had filed the first U.S. patent in 1923. Their rivalry sparked a long and rancorous legal showdown between Farnsworth and RCA, who had hired Zworykin to build America's first broadcast television system, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), which debuted at the 1939 New York World's Fair. In the years before NBC's American debut, the center of television development was London, where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) sought to upgrade beyond Baird's crude broadcasts that had been running for nearly a decade. Recognizing an opportunity to accelerate progress, the BBC commissioned a head-to-head competition in 1936 between rival systems. Baird's team collaborated with Farnsworth to create a hybrid mechanical-electronic system, while EMI partnered with Marconi for transmission technology and RCA to leverage Zworykin's electronic innovations. (By then the patent dispute had been settled, with RCA paying royalties to Farnsworth.) Both teams would broadcast identical programming from London's Alexandra Palace, allowing direct comparison of their capabilities. Even before the Crystal Palace fire, Baird faced an uphill battle. His system couldn't match EMI's superior 405-line resolution or transmission range. The devastating fire that destroyed his laboratory equipment proved to be the final setback. Shortly afterward, Baird abandoned his television work altogether. John Logie Baird, the first person to wirelessly broadcast moving pictures, died in 1946 without any financial stake in what would become one of the 20th century's most profitable industries. His mechanical breakthrough had paved the way for the electronic systems that would dominate broadcasting, but the rapid pace of technological change left him behind.
CNET
3 hours ago
- CNET
Too Many People Hate This Masterpiece Sci-Fi Show. They're All Dead Wrong
You may be thinking, "Really, Macy? You're going to the mat over a show that came out over 20 years ago?" Well, yes. Because it simply isn't given the respect it deserves. Like many Americans, my family and I loved our nights huddled around the TV to watch our favorite TV shows live. For us, that meant American Idol, Dexter and, of course, ABC's network hit Lost. There's a good chance you watched Lost in the early 2000s, too. And there's an even better chance you think it got bad. Or you have some sort of perspective that it started strong but went off the rails after the first three seasons. Somewhere along the way -- maybe when the flash-sideways began, or when a smoke monster turned into a man, or when you realized there wasn't going to be a clear-cut answer to every mystery -- you bailed. Maybe you saw the finale and thought it ruined the whole show. (More on that later.) I watched Lost when I was a kid, but hadn't revisited it for close to a decade. Until it came to streaming services, first Hulu and now Netflix and Disney Plus. One day, I decided to replay the pilot episode and, well, it transformed me into the person writing this 1,500-word defense. I binged the show and then immediately turned around and binged it again. I'm truly mad at myself for wasting so much time thinking this show was a disappointment. In truth, it's a glorious, ambitious near-masterpiece. It's my favorite show. That's why I'm writing this. I'm here to ask you to do something radical: Rewatch Lost in 2025. Yes, all of it. And this time, go in with fresh eyes -- see it not as a weekly network drama, but as a serialized, character-driven odyssey that, along with The Sopranos and Mad Men, paved the way for the prestige genre TV we obsess over now. Because the truth is, Lost wasn't a failure. It was just ahead of its time. Here's why. It's time to go back to the island for a 2025 rewatch. ABC's Lost Looking for more streaming recommendations? You should also watch my favorite movie, a historical drama packed with modern themes, for free now. No, the ending is not what you think The last thing I want to do is spoil the ending of a show I'm trying to get you to rewatch. But I feel like I need to address this early since one of the main reasons audiences ultimately turned on the show was a misconception about the ending. I'll tell you right now, spoilers be damned. They. Were. Not. All. Dead. The. Whole. Time. The idea that the characters were really all dead the whole series and that the island was just a purgatory-like state is completely untrue. It's been debunked by the creators of the show, the actors who starred in the show and the dialogue in the series finale itself. A twist ending like that -- revealing they had all died in the plane crash right at the start -- would be a horrible one. It would retroactively reduce the entire plot of the show to meaningless, empty nothingness. So, thankfully, that's not how it actually ended. Now, you can just enjoy the show knowing that it all matters. The cinematography of Lost is some of the best ever put to television. ABC's Lost TV in 2004 didn't look like Lost When Lost premiered in 2004, there was nothing like it on network television. A lush, cinematic sci-fi mystery shot on 35mm film, with a massive ensemble cast of mostly unknown actors and an evolving mythology? On ABC, of all places? In the era of CSI, Desperate Housewives, and the dozens of other cop shows and formulaic TV, Lost was a risk. Lost is a sci-fi show (I think a lot of people forget that) with horror and supernatural elements. It's serialized, meaning you must see each episode to understand the next one, unlike so many shows that were airing on network TV at the time. The show follows a group of drastically different people who have just survived a plane crash on a remote, tropical island that seems to harbor deep, dark mysteries. But each survivor has secrets of their own. And they must live together in order to survive. (I can vividly remember hearing protagonist Jack Shepard say, "If we don't learn to live together… we're gonna die alone.") These characters come together with their differences, their pasts (beautifully depicted in flashback scenes), their traumas, their hopes and their desires, to collectively navigate this horrible situation. What unfolds is six seasons of intense, heart-wrenching plot points that subvert expectations and are rich with themes of faith, spirituality, dualism, philosophy and the mystical. It's pretty normal for TV shows now to be cinematic. Shows like The Last of Us, Succession, Stranger Things and Severance all make use of big budgets, high-quality production, engrossing performances and teams of insanely talented writers. But Lost was doing that in 2004 on ABC, which means the showrunners were dealing with the many obstacles and restrictions of network television. For instance, the show's creators -- J.J. Abrams, Jeffrey Lieber and Damon Lindelof -- wanted Lost to only be three seasons, but ABC said no, and pushed them to do 10 seasons when they saw what a hit the show had become. They eventually negotiated down to the six seasons we have today. But that's twice the amount of runtime the original creators intended. Despite this, the writers crafted compelling story lines and introduced some of the most intriguing characters (Ben, Juliet, Jacob, Penny, Miles) into the later seasons. It's easy to forget that Lost was doing time jumps, shifting perspectives and emotional bottle episodes long before The Leftovers, Dark or Severance existed. It experimented with structure constantly: a flashback here, a flash-forward there, a time loop in season 5. Entire episodes would focus on side characters you hadn't seen in weeks. It was complicated, sure, but thrillingly so. The show trusted its audience to keep up, even when it was confusing. And yes, that led to frustration at the time, but trust me, it works much better now that Lost is on streaming services. It's a show that really should be binged, so that you can truly appreciate the nuance and hidden details of the writing. The things that made Lost so good at the time are why it hasn't been fully appreciated. It was simply ahead of its time. Small plot seeds would be introduced and then left unvisited for several episodes, making Lost a show that's perfect for binge-watching. ABC's Lost Lost indeed was a risk, but one that paid off in six seasons of wild, genre-bending storytelling and a gut-punch, emotional ending that will land as long as you give it another chance with an open mind. Read also: The 21 Best Sci-Fi TV Shows to Stream on Netflix It holds up in 2025 Part of what makes Lost such a rewarding rewatch in 2025 is that it doesn't feel dated. The series still looks and sounds incredible. Because it was filmed on 35mm, which can be upscaled and remastered. Plus, shot on-location in Hawaii, the series still looks gorgeous. Lost was shot on 35mm film, which means it can be upscaled and still look brand new 20 years later. ABC's Lost The performances of the 14 regularly recurring leads of the cast are absolutely brilliant, too. Even though this was a cast of mostly unknown actors at the time, they all, guest actors included, reached a caliber of performance that is still so rare to witness in a TV series. And the music is absolutely remarkable. Michael Giacchino (The Incredibles, Up, Coco, Inside Out) created what I think is the best TV score of all time for Lost. I mean, he used debris from the crashed plane from the pilot episode to create the unique, bizarre sounds you hear each episode. The score is a perfect fit for a unique storyline. More than anything else, Lost is a show that will make you feel. Lost is a show that is full of emotionally poignant moments. ABC's Lost Is every plotline perfect? No. Do the final seasons get a bit complex? Absolutely. But on balance, Lost is one of the most ambitious, strange, beautiful things ever put on television, and it is emotionally satisfying from start to finish. Lost opened the door for serialized sci-fi and genre storytelling on TV, especially character-first narratives with weird, metaphysical themes. What I'm saying is that without Lost, it's hard to imagine Severance, Stranger Things or other TV sci-fi faves. So if you haven't watched it since 2010 -- or if you've never watched it at all -- now's the time. The entire series is available to stream on Hulu, Netflix, Disney Plus and Prime Video for rent. Skip the Reddit threads. Forget the hot takes. Just hit play. And maybe, just maybe, you'll find that Lost didn't lose its way. We just didn't know how to watch it yet. For more, you can explore the 13 best sci-fi shows on Apple TV Plus and the 18 best sci-fi shows on Prime Video.
