[SobaAddict70]

Admin: An archive of "Bruni and Beyond discussion from 2005 can be found here.

A new year brings a new batch of reviews by Frank Bruni, the main restaurant critic at the New York Times.

Let the games begin!

[oakapple]

Today, once again, we have Bruni's two-star kiss — what has become his default rating for restaurants that are better than average, but not always "very good" (the purported meaning of two stars). Today's beneficiary is Al di Là, where:

Quote

"...rabbit, bedecked with olives, was tender the second time I had it, but stringy the first"; "The chicken, which I sampled once, was dry"; desserts are "of widely varying success"; "Servers can become harried and distracted, and then there's the anxiety-making threat or reality of a long wait"; and, "The restaurant presents its food on plates that are pretty but mismatched and sometimes chipped."

Thus, Al di Là joins other wide-ranging recipients of the two-star kiss, such as: Sripraphai, The Red Cat, Café Gray, The Modern, Alto, and Spigolo.

This post has been edited by oakapple: 11 January 2006 - 12:51 PM

[Sneakeater]

As I said in the Al Di La thread, Al Di La is probably my favorite restaurant, and even I'd give it only one star according to how I understand the star system to work.

[Eatmywords]

Oak, you hit the apple on the head.

With all these negatives, how does he bestow 2 stars? How could Modern and Grey be in the same constellation? What is he basing it on? Is it food, service and decor? If so, what is he smoking and why doesn't he offer to share?

If he cut his lip on a cracked wine glass does that get factored in or shrugged off because everyone might have a cracked glass and the room is packed with romantics who've waited an hr and 15 for fresh raviolis in brown butter? (-I had them btw, decent dish but a bit on the boring side). Def not a two star, one w/be a stretch but not shocking.

[jogoode]

I like that Bruni mentioned how many times he ate certain dishes. I don't remember seeing this in his other reviews; regardless, it deserves praise.

Quote

The ravioli are stuffed with a blend of roasted beets and ricotta, then coated with melted butter and poppy seeds.

Both times I had them, they were impeccably cooked, firm but not hard, pliant but not mushy, with pillowy insides and a rich, vaguely grainy gloss.

Quote

That rabbit, bedecked with olives, was tender the second time I had it, but stringy the first. The chicken, which I sampled once, was dry.

And how about some context when quoting that bit about the mismatched and chipped plates:

Quote

The restaurant presents its food on plates that are pretty but mismatched and sometimes chipped, and that seems just right.

[Leonard Kim]

While it's certainly fair to question the ratings of individual restaurants, I don't know that we can claim that overall Bruni bestows the "two star kiss." He's handed out proportionately fewer two star ratings than any of his three predecessors: Grimes, Reichl, and Miller. If anybody could have been accused of two-star default-ism, it's Reichl. Over half of her reviews were two stars. Miller also gave out more two star reviews than one star reviews.

As of now, Bruni is most comparable to Grimes in his bestowing of stars: mostly 1 and 2 stars, with slightly more 1 stars.

Again, I'm not saying that individual reviews don't have questionable ratings.

From perusing the online NYT archive, it appears there used to be (pre-1984) an explicit statement in "What the Stars Mean" that "comparable establishments" were considered in rating the restaurants. Obviously that's been changed, but I wonder if that couldn't still factor in somehow, or whether the critics are actively discouraged from it.

[oakapple]

Leonard Kim, on Jan 12 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

While it's certainly fair to question the ratings of individual restaurants, I don't know that we can claim that overall Bruni bestows the "two star kiss."

"Two-star kiss" is just a term I coined, because of the motley assortment of restaurants to which he has given that rating. By and large, his strangest reviews are at two stars.

In contrast, I think that the vast majority of his one, three, and four-star ratings have been more clearly defensible, if not entirely free of controversy.

Quote

He's handed out proportionately fewer two star ratings than any of his three predecessors: Grimes, Reichl, and Miller.

Not that I doubt you, but did you do a study of this, or is it just an impression?

Quote

From perusing the online NYT archive, it appears there used to be (pre-1984) an explicit statement in "What the Stars Mean" that "comparable establishments" were considered in rating the restaurants.  Obviously that's been changed, but I wonder if that couldn't still factor in somehow, or whether the critics are actively discouraged from it.

It is apparent that the critics in fact do this. The stars cannot be explained any other way; indeed, once you understand this, most of the ratings over the years make pretty good sense.

[Leonard Kim]

I'm embarrassed to admit that I did study this, though not all the way to its illogical endpoint. I looked at the reviews that were readily available on-line (comprising almost everything from 1981 with the exception of "Times Select" articles which, as I no longer subscribe to the print version, were inaccessible to me.) That got me over 500 Miller ratings, about 180 of Sheraton's, 280 of Reichl's, and 80 of Bruni's.

What's interesting from the standpoint of trying to figure out the logic of the star system is how differently each critic apportioned the stars. As I mentioned in my previous point, Bruni is in fact unusual for being very similar to Grimes in the way he hands them out. Here's a quick rundown:

Sheraton: her "default" rating is one star (nearly half of her reviews.) There are roughly equal numbers on each side of zero star and two star reviews (20-25% each). In fact, in my sample, there were more zero stars than two stars. Three and four stars are, as with everybody, a rarity. IMO, this is the most sensible system.

Miller: gave out roughly equal numbers of one and two star reviews (35-40% each), with slightly more two stars. However he still gave out a number of zero star reviews (10-15%) mostly in the context of double reviews.

Reichl: the peak has clearly shifted to two stars (over half the reviews.) Reichl was also the most generous with three stars (15%). Zero star reviews have become the rarity we are now accustomed to (4-5%).

Grimes and Bruni: the majority of reviews are back to Miller frequencies, though with more one stars than two stars. However, zero stars are still lacking.

In the broad view, Miller and Reichl were both culpable for star inflation. Nowadays, I think part of the confusion in the usage of one vs. two stars is that zero stars is no longer a really viable or usable rating. That is, it would be easier to understand if we had 2-1-0 stars roughly correspond to above average - average - below average. However, as it stands, it really is only a two star system, so the whole question of what's the average rating and what's the dividing line between one and two stars becomes very murky.

[Nathan]

interesting.

as is the usual, perceptions are almost never born out by empirical data (usually the opposite).

[cru]

The New York Times and it's educated readers deserve better than Frank Bruni. Shame on the NY Times for letting this travesty continue. What are this man's standards? What are his credentials? He's giving out stars like their going out of style. La Esquina got a star! Al Di La-2!? Has the New York dining experience become that dull? Or is it the low standards set by the Times that have done nothing to raise the bar or inspire restauranteurs to better themselves. Spice Market got 3 stars, it's a restaurant that needs to be criticized and picked apart. And there's alot to pick apart there. But why should they strive to be better when their bestowed 3 undeserving stars and their packed night after night? I know that review wasnt Bruni, but the point is clear. If the NY Times wishes to continue to be the final and most important restaurant review in this city, then step it up. We should all demand more. We should all speak out. Those of us in the industry (restaurant) all talk endlessly about how meaningless and simple this man's reviews are. Please, NY Times, please give us more. This city deserves it.

[Lesley C]

Yeah, I agree. I never used to miss the Times restaurant review, and I'm not even a New Yorker. But since Bruni took over, I've read two, maybe three reviews. I usually don't get past the first paragraph.
What's lacking here? Substance? Insight? Not sure. But his wacky writing doesn't do it for me either.
I liked Grimes. I loved Reichl. But I'll pass on Bruni.

This post has been edited by Lesley C: 15 January 2006 - 08:03 PM

[Nathan]

"He's giving out stars like their going out of style. "

As Leonard Kim demonstrated above...this is patently false. You may not like Bruni's judgments or his reviews, but he is not guilty of "star inflation"....

I preferred Grimes...but I can recall when he was lambasted for his Otto review...I've noticed a definite "grass is always greener" phenomenon when it comes to critiques of the Times' critics.

(edited for syntax)

This post has been edited by Nathan: 16 January 2006 - 03:28 PM

[oakapple]

Nathan, on Jan 16 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

cru, on Jan 15 2006, 04:57 PM, said:

He's giving out stars like their going out of style.  La Esquina got a star!  Al Di La-2!?

As Leonard Kim demonstrated above...this is patently false. You may not like Bruni's judgments or his reviews, but he is not guilty of "star inflation"....

You can look at star-inflation multiple ways. If you just count the number of stars awarded, Bruni has not been profligate: one star is his most common rating. However, a critic can seem like he's out of control when he hands out stars to restaurants that seem wildly undeserving of them, and Bruni has occasionally done that, especially at two stars.

Amanda Hesser, in her brief tenure, was a tough grader, but she'll be forever remembered for awarding three stars to Spice Market. To his credit, Bruni has at least retained integrity at the three and four-star levels, but his one and two-star awards have a lot of randomness.

Leonard Kim's analysis is fascinating, but it would be great to look at the types of restaurants that were reviewed. Before we get all misty-eyed for the Mimi Sheraton era, it must be remembered that she awarded three stars to Sammy's Roumanian. That's only one data point, but it shows that if you give a critic enough time, inevitably s/he will uncork a few ratings that wildly miss the mark.

It would also be interesting to look at Mimi Sheraton's zero-star reviews. There are something like 15,000 restaurants in New York—clearly enough for the critic to write a zero-star review every week. But there's a reasonable argument that, with only one reviewing slot per week, the Times shouldn't waste very much space on restaurants that aren't at least "good." We don't know if Sheraton's zero-star restaurants would get a star from Bruni, or if he simply isn't wasting the paper's resources on them.

[Nathan]

I think we agree.

[jogoode]

It's clear from the research presented above that each critic interprets the Times star values in a different way. After many months of Bruni's reviews, why can't we finally accept his interpretation, even if we don't agree with his taste?

al di la: Great Italian food, pleasant atmosphere, relatively low price point. Sounds "very good" to me. Again, if we can't recognize that Alto's two stars mean something different than these two stars or Sripraphai's two stars, then we're admitting that words mean nothing and stars mean everything. Of course, if you've been to al di la and don't think it is a very good Italian restaurant, well, that's another thing altogether.

Quote

** Very good
...
Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.

This post has been edited by jogoode: 17 January 2006 - 12:53 PM

[Sneakeater]

jogoode, on Jan 17 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

words mean nothing and stars mean everything.

But that's a (the) problem with stars. They kind of take over. Like when there's a Diner's Journal pre-review, and people here scrutinize it like Kremlinologists for signs of how many stars the restaurant will be given. And in a way, stars are more important than words. Cuz a year later, no one can remember the words in the review. So all you have is the fact that such-and-such is a "two star" restaurant. Then, Alto and Sripraphai and Al Di La begin to look very similar in their ratings.

[Sneakeater]

All that said, I actually AGREE with your reading of how stars could/should operate. That was MY understanding of the stars before I was educated by this site a couple of years ago. The problem is, as Fat Guy has explained, you can't have an ongoing system that works like that. Over time, as the critics become less substantial as individuals (Craig Claiborne --> Mimi Sheraton --> Bryan Miller --> William Grimes --> Frank Bruni = Man --> Ape), the stars have to mean something more than "one critic's taste" in order to be intelligible. The only problem is, as I see it, that the "something more" also renders them unintelligable (at least without a great deal of thought and experience).

As a roughly connected tangent, I have to add that I don't find Mimi Sheraton's award of two stars to Sammy's Roumanian to be all that shocking. When Ms. Sheraton was the Times's restaurant critic, the stars pretty much did mean "one critic's take," and anyone familiar with Ms. Sheraton's preferences and background can understand why she'd be so enamored of Sammy's. (Since I have similar preferences and background, I find Ms. Sheraton to be the single food critic with whom I most frequently agree.) It only seems shocking now, when we've taught ourselves to understand the star system in a different way. From reading her Q&As on this board, I'm sure Ms. Sheraton was nowhere near as "schocked" as the denizens of this board by the award of two stars to Sripraphai.

[oakapple]

Sneakeater, on Jan 17 2006, 01:08 PM, said:

As a roughly connected tangent, I have to add that I don't find Mimi Sheraton's award of two stars to Sammy's Roumanian to be all that shocking.

It was three, not two.

[Sneakeater]

Oh. Maybe that's slightly less not shocking.

Although, really, that's the clear best Roumanian strip steak in the City. And some of the best gribine (sp?). No, maybe THE best. And where else would you go for a beef garlic sausage? And the pickled tomatoes and peppers are better than almost any other restaurant's. Really, on the whole, it's up there in the elite as far as barely adulterated plates of fat go.

This post has been edited by Sneakeater: 17 January 2006 - 02:29 PM

[Sneakeater]

Also, it's unique.

I've been there two times.

The first time, my waiter quit in the middle of my meal

The second time, the guy playing and singing at the electric piano quit in the middle of my meal.

I'm not sure that's happened anywhere else. But at Sammy's, EVERY visit.

[Nathan]

its definitely shocking....otherwise, I expect to see Fat Guy arguing for Katz's as worthy of 3-stars.

the point is, every reviewer has made egregious errors...if we really wanted to have fun...look at posts from 3 or 4 years ago (even 1 or 2) by some here.....

based on what Leonard Kim has done (80 reviews is certainly a significant sample in terms of the Times review universe), it appears that Bruni is not out of wack with other reviewers...data such as that carries more weight with me than specific examples of his errors.

[oakapple]

Sneakeater, on Jan 17 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

But that's a (the) problem with stars. ....a year later, no one can remember the words in the review.  So all you have is the fact that such-and-such is a "two star" restaurant.  Then, Alto and Sripraphai and Al Di La begin to look very similar in their ratings.

However, if stars weren't assigned, the words of the review would be even less memorable. What makes Bruni's Alto review stand out, is the fact that he assigned it two stars when most people expected three, with an outside chance for four.

The Kremlin-watching around "What will the Times do?" adds an extra element of interest. There wouldn't be this great anticipation around the Del Posto review — will it be the first four-star Italian restuarant? — if it were just a write-up of Bruni's impressions, without a rating.

I don't feel much sorrow for the poor souls who, on the basis of the stars, actually think that Alto and Sripraphai are comparable. It shouldn't require a lecture from Fat Guy to figure this out.

This post has been edited by oakapple: 17 January 2006 - 02:33 PM

[rich]

We've all been down this road many times and it seems most of the same people take the same stance. At this point no one is going to convince anyone to change their mind.

Saying that, I've asked a question many times and no one seems to have come up with an answer (and since it's about the NY Times, there probably isn't an answer.) The paper obviously sees the confusion in the current system.

An obvious fix would be to award stars in two or three categories, similar to other major newsapers (I think the SF Chronicle or Examiner does it). The obvious categories would be food, service, ambiance. Pricing and wine list could be others. But at least break it down to food and ambiance.

It seems a simple improvement that would solve most of the issues here, but then we would have nothing to debate.

[oakapple]

rich, on Jan 17 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

Saying that, I've asked a question many times and no one seems to have come up with an answer (and since it's about the NY Times, there probably isn't an answer.) The paper obviously sees the confusion in the current system.

An obvious fix would be to award stars in two or three categories, similar to other major newsapers (I think the SF Chronicle or Examiner does it). The obvious categories would be food, service, ambiance. Pricing and wine list could be others. But at least break it down to food and ambiance.

Actually, I've never known anyone associated with the Times to acknowledge that their system was confusing. So, perhaps they don't see it.

This post has been edited by oakapple: 17 January 2006 - 03:06 PM

[cru]

Nathan, on Jan 16 2006, 05:27 PM, said:

"He's giving out stars like their going out of style. "

As Leonard Kim demonstrated above...this is patently false.  You may not like Bruni's judgments or his reviews, but he is not guilty of "star inflation"....

I preferred Grimes...but I can recall when he was lambasted for his Otto review...I've noticed a definite "grass is always greener" phenomenon when it comes to critiques of the Times' critics.

(edited for syntax)

That formula above is bogus. It doesnt consider WHAT is being reviewed. The previous critics would have left MANY Bruni reviews for the $25 and under column. Restaurants that are great but don't deserve stars?

La Esquina ?
Sripraphai ?

I cant imagine anyone but his mother defending his dullness. He's giving stars to places that are hole in the walls or taco stands. I know he thinks he's changing for a different demographic in a brave new dining era. But the only thing certain is New York aint what it was 10 years ago. And Bruni fails to point that out. He fails to inspire or encourage greatness in our chefs and fails to make us ask more from them, which we should. There should be standards. Let's start here: to recieve one star you must 1. have a serviceable wine program that serves selections not ridiculously marked up and wines that are served at temperature. 2. Must have consistenly good food. 3. Must recieve consistently good service.

That's just a start. Why not have it written in stone that if you want one star you must first accomplish the aforementioned? Do you think restaurants would set their standards higher? Absolutely. and why did he drop service from the mini reviews? How important is service? It's essential. But Bruni dropped it from his listings because he's just about the food. Saying a restaurant is just about food is like saying baseball is just about who wins or loses. But it's not. Baseball is about heroics, bonding w/ your children, fireworks, hot dogs, cracker jacks, er, you get the point. In short: FIRE FRANK FAST!!

[jogoode]

cru, on Jan 17 2006, 10:09 PM, said:

That's just a start.  Why not have it written in stone that if you want one star you must first accomplish the aforementioned?

Because those are your criteria for a star-worthy restaurant. With these criteria, Reichl would've spent all her time at Daniel and much of New York would have missed out on great Korean and Japanese. To get one star you need to have a wine program? Talk about a European bias--or at least a high-end bias. Al di La, a restaurant that does Italian food well deserves to be starred, but Sripraphai, a restaurant that does Thai food well, does not because there's no wine program? No cute hipster servers?

Why doesn't the Times reviewer just rotate his weekly reviews between Le Bernardin, Jean Georges, and whatever Batali's latest venture is. Then we can all read about banquettes and sous vide and opah. He fails to encourage our chefs? Doesn't one fail to encourage chefs by sticking them in $25 & Under unless they have big investors and a pedigreed chef?

Bruni might have dropped service from the mini reviews--does that mean the summary below the main review's text?--but he still writes about service in the main review. So there's your service.

Edited for italics

This post has been edited by jogoode: 18 January 2006 - 08:55 AM

[cru]

the last post misunderstood me, i think. the Times review has always been about "dining" which implies an experience, ie wine, service, silver, ambience, etc. $25 and under is about "eating". An experience altogether different. We agree that a restaurant must serve food to be considered for both $25 and under and the Times restaurant review, right? I merely suggest standards for getting one star. That's the way it's done around the world. to falsely give a chef a star because you want to encourage them is bogus. As for the service, taking it off the mini review minimizes it's importance. And no one EVER suggested only reviewing "top" restaurants. God that would be disguisting. I think there should be a certain standard to recieve at least one star. You may be a fantastic Korean restaurant and get a glowing review, but if you don't have a beverage program your not a complete "dining" experience and you don't deserve a star. It's not snobbery, it's common sense. And what's wrong with being euro-centric anyway? Hey, this is the New York Times, I want a snobby review. I'll read the fluff in Zagat and New York.

This post has been edited by cru: 17 January 2006 - 09:14 PM

[Pan]

cru, on Jan 17 2006, 11:10 PM, said:

[...]You may be a fantastic Korean restaurant and get a glowing review, but if you don't have a beverage program your not a complete "dining" experience and you don't deserve a star.  It's not snobbery, it's common sense.

You might want to reconsider suggesting that your taste and opinion are "common sense," as it seems to imply that different opinions may lack sense. I happen to disagree with your point of view, "common sense" or not. I don't see why wine service is of importance in a Korean or Thai restaurant. I'd go further and say that I'd generally be less likely to enjoy food in a Korean or Thai restaurant that had a long wine list. Thai food is more likely to be served with beer, Korean food with soju, to take some examples (not to mention tea). My feeling is that a restaurant with a long wine list is trying to appeal to non-Asians. I'm a non-Asian but don't want watered-down Korean or Thai food. And I also see nothing wrong with a starred review for Sripraphai; though one star might have been more appropriate than two, I really wasn't much bothered by the star rating.

cru, on Jan 17 2006, 11:10 PM, said:

And what's wrong with being euro-centric anyway?[...]

Nothing, if that's what you want to do on your own time. But I don't think the New York Times has only Eurocentric people for an audience, and Eurocentrism, which is usually associated with some kind of prejudice against things non-European (such as a desire to square the round pegs of Thai or Korean dining into the circle of French formal service), is fortunately out of favor politically, at least in highly diverse cities like New York. And like it or not, it's predictable that New York will become increasingly Asian, Latin American, Caribbean, and African in the coming decades. (Depending on future events, a net emigration of Americans to Europe, rather than vice versa, would not surprise me. But that's a topic for another time and place...)

[Sneakeater]

Rich was right. It's pointless to keep arguing against the star system. Cru's posts have just stated the arguments against the star system better than anything I'd write ever could.

[Sneakeater]

But, because I can't help myself:

Would anyone think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to have a policy of only reviewing mainstream Hollywood films? Or limiting their main film critic to reviewing such films, relegating independent films, foreign films, and art films to some ghetto?

And would anybody think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to officially adopt a set of criteria that favored mainstream Hollywood films over all others? (So that, say, the Charlton Heston El Cid would by definition rate higher than, say, Pretty Poison?) (Sorry for the dated -- and dating -- references.)

Or, how about if the Times had a policy that its chief opera critic could only review operas at the Met and maybe City Opera? And officially adopted a set of criteria that favored what the Met does well, and disvalued the things the Met isn't good at (such as theatricality, immediacy, programming of lesser-known or new works, etc.)?

But that's what the star system (certainly as Cru would have it -- but I think that's the way it's generally understood here) does for restaurants.

This post has been edited by Sneakeater: 18 January 2006 - 09:58 AM