[Brooklyn]

mugsy, on Mar 23 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

i will take krug and salon against any grower champagne, any day of the week. 


robyn, sometimes when you get lost and don't know your way home you leave a trail of breadcrumbs.... sorry i guess wrong crowd for that type of humor.

So much truth in these two statements...

[Lesley C]

It's amazing to me that here in Montreal, waiters and sommeliers use that kind of terminology -- in French -- all the time, and we never consider it pretentious. Yet it’s funny how all that sort of stuff really does sound so much more precious in English. Just listening to Eric Asimov’s pronunciation of French wines makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

[Sneakeater]

This falls into the "beyond" category.

http://gawker.com/ne...shed-247368.php

[rich]

Sneakeater, on Mar 27 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

This falls into the "beyond" category.

http://gawker.com/ne...shed-247368.php

That has to be an April Fool's story a few days early.

[BryanZ]

Bruni's two-star review of the Four Seasons strikes me as a bit odd. Not only does it read in a somewhat disjointed fashion, but the two star rating seems rather high given the prose that accompanies it. There is more bad than good, or so it seems, and this is hardly the trend in two star reviews.

[oakapple]

BryanZ, on Apr 3 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

Bruni's two-star review of the Four Seasons strikes me as a bit odd.  Not only does it read in a somewhat disjointed fashion, but the two star rating seems rather high given the prose that accompanies it.  There is more bad than good, or so it seems, and this is hardly the trend in two star reviews.

Demotion reviews tend to sound unduly harsh, because the critic is explaining why the higher rating is no longer justified. A comparable example is Bouley, which didn't really read like a three-star review. It made sense only if you knew that he was taking it down from four.

[Nathan]

agreed.

well...as with the RTR review, this proves that Bruni isn't always recognized (unlike the RTR the 4 Seasons probably wasn't expecting a review though)....it's clear that at some point they caught on...but not right away.

[oakapple]

This review was notable in another way. Usually, when reviewing classic luxury restaurants, Bruni makes some kind of sideswipe at the genre — suggesting that today's diners don't really want white tablecloths, elegant service, "fussy" presentation, and so forth.

There was none of that in today's review. He seemed perfectly willing to accept The Four Seasons on its own terms—something he ought to do more often. He simply found the food and service too uneven for a three-star restaurant with $50 entrees, which is fair enough.

[Sneakeater]

Well, if he dissed that here he'd be dissing his father.

[rich]

Even though the review itself was fine, I thought his writing seemed a bit off - as though he was bored. And that's the impression I got about the review - he was more bored with the food and and service than anything else.

There was no life in the piece.

[oakapple]

rich, on Apr 4 2007, 07:08 AM, said:

Even though the review itself was fine, I thought his writing seemed a bit off - as though he was bored. And that's the impression I got about the review - he was more bored with the food and and service than anything else.

There was no life in the piece.

That's a very fair assessment. Of course, as I've said about 100 times, I think Frank is bored with traditional fine dining. That part of his beat should be taken away, and given to someone who actually enjoys it. Bruni's beat should be the steakhouses, burger joints, Asian restaurants, and Italian restaurants. Those are the things he likes.

Having said that, I have no evidence suggesting that Bruni got the review wrong. You just don't find many examples of people dining at The Four Seasons, and coming back wowed. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have its own eGullet thread. That's pretty remarkable for a restaurant that's been at the high end of the NY dining scene since 1959.

[Fat Guy]

There's a Four Seasons topic that's a couple of pages long. I think the issue is that there's just not much to say about the Four Seasons. That should be apparent from Bruni's review, which said just about nothing. That's the challenge when you review one of the dinosaurs. The Four Seasons has its audience. That audience seems either not to care that the food is bad, or has identified the few reliable dishes, or is accorded the level of VIP treatment necessary for a meal there not to suck. I go there at least twice a year for business meetings and am always underwhelmed, but how many times can I post that? I can't imagine what I'd say in 1,300 words. Well, a long time ago I did manage to write something on the Four Seasons, but it was probably just as lame as Bruni's review.

[BryanZ]

I guess I still wonder if the restaurant is in fact still worthy of two stars.

[Fat Guy]

BryanZ, on Apr 4 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

I guess I still wonder if the restaurant is in fact still worthy of two stars.

We know that:

- The Four Seasons is a beautiful, elegant restaurant -- one of the world's great dining rooms

- The food is mostly fancy-hotel-banquet level, with flashes of real-restaurant excellence mostly reserved for VIPs, folks who crack the code, and the occasional person with dumb luck

- The restaurant has historic significance, and has been and is loved by many people around the world

Deriving a star rating from the above could be a simple question of applying a rule or rules to a set of facts. But we have no idea what the rules are. The stars are now a totally impressionistic venture. We can speculate all we want, and try to create rules after the fact to explain the various decisions, but the reality is that Bruni just gives however many stars he feels like giving.

[oakapple]

Fat Guy, on Apr 4 2007, 07:45 AM, said:

I go there at least twice a year for business meetings and am always underwhelmed, but how many times can I post that? I can't imagine what I'd say in 1,300 words. Well, a long time ago I did manage to write something on the Four Seasons, but it was probably just as lame as Bruni's review.

Probably not worth posting here, because anyone can find your earlier comments on the thread, and there's nothing new to say. But Frank Bruni ought to write as if he's introducing the Four Seasons to readers who are not familiar with it.

BryanZ, on Apr 4 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

I guess I still wonder if the restaurant is in fact still worthy of two stars.

The closest recent comparable precedent is Le Cirque, which also received two stars, so Bruni is at least consistent. At both restaurants, how you're treated depends on who you are, but if you happen to know what to order, you can have an outstanding meal.

The only other possibly relevant comparison is Russian Tea Room, which got one star. It's not quite the same thing, because the new RTR opened with a totally different team than the old one, while Four Seasons and Le Cirque had (at the time Bruni reviewed them) long-standing continuity both in FOH and in the kitchen.

To the extent the stars mean anything, they tend to be most useful when comparing similar establishments. You could argue that there's nothing really comparable to The Four Seasons, so its two-star rating conveys no information except that it's not as good as the three or four-star version of itself. I doubt that Bruni would tell you that The Four Seasons' two stars mean very much when compared to Rosanjin's two stars a week ago.

This post has been edited by oakapple: 04 April 2007 - 09:14 AM

[Leonard Kim]

Quote

its two-star rating conveys no information except that it's not as good as the three or four-star version of itself.

Was the Four Seasons ever a four-star restaurant? It's an honest question since I can't say for sure (progress is slow and incomplete.) I did a quick online search, and I very well may have missed a rating.

The earliest I saw was Sokolov's review of 1971 which gave three stars (but four triangles for "atmosphere, service, and decor. BTW, the other restaurant reviewed, Peking Restaurant, also received three stars as "probably producing the best Chinese restaurant food in New York", but only two triangles.)

Sokolov wrote, ". . . the most perfect modern restaurant setting yet built in this century. The food does not quite match the setting, but it is often superb and the menu is as original and ambitious as any in the United States."

Since then, the Four Seasons has received a rating every 2-7 years until this most recent 12-year hiatus. The Bar Room received a separate review from Jean Hewitt and got **. (I gather this is the Grill Room? -- Sheraton's 1979 review, for example, refers to the pool room and the bar room with a "grill menu") The Grill Room only, "this recent addition," got *** from Frank Prial in 1977.

In 1979, the Four Seasons was demoted to ** by Mimi Sheraton in its 20th anniversary year. She attributes the demotion to a shaky start after the sale of the restaurant 5 1/2 year prior and notes that it "may be on its way to three."

Two reviews by Bryan Miller and one by Ruth Reichl are both ***. They are dated 1985, 1990, 1995, I'd guess to mark 5-year anniversaries. Miller rather amusingly writes,

"I have received complaints from customers who have been unhappy with the food or service; however, disappointments seem rare based on my six visits over the last four months. Although I am known to the owners, Tom Margittai and Paul Kovi, this does not obviate a valid report. A careful observer should be able to rise above his situation and watch how others are treated."

Reichl writes at length about a visit-in-disguise to the Four Seasons in her memoir. Her recollection is glowing, but she does write:

"It might have had something to do with the recently published Le Cirque review. I may have reminded him of his mother. Perhaps the management of the Four Seasons occasionally amuses itself by lavishing attention on perfect strangers. Or maybe he saw through the disguise."

Quote

I doubt that Bruni would tell you that The Four Seasons' two stars mean very much when compared to Rosanjin's two stars a week ago.

John Canaday in 5/2/75: "This business of rating restaurants by stars can get confusing when you try, as we do, to average in half a dozen factors. Istanbul Cuisine is obviously a four-star restaurant in some respects. . . When a simple place like Istanbul Cuisine and a high-toned one like the Chateau Richelieu both wind up with two stars, what's it all about?"

And just for the heck of it, some other choice Canaday-isms. I'd pay to see Bruni write stuff like this:

"I'd describe the food at Meson Botin as authentically Spanish except that I'm getting leery of that word, which always draws letters telling me I don't know what I'm talking about."

"Several letters of reprimand, one abusive, the others patient, but all pointing out that I was not an authority on Thai gastronomy. . . Among other things, I didn't know that lemon grass is an herb used in flavoring. . . I gave a favorable comment on the basis of 'I don't know much about Thai cuisine but I know what I like'"

[oakapple]

Leonard Kim, on Apr 4 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

its two-star rating conveys no information except that it's not as good as the three or four-star version of itself.

Was the Four Seasons ever a four-star restaurant? It's an honest question since I can't say for sure (progress is slow and incomplete.) I did a quick online search, and I very well may have missed a rating.

My quick search the other day found fewer reviews than Leonard did. I found none at four stars. I know that Craig Claiborne loved the place. If anyone awarded four, he did. But I can't find it.

[Megan Blocker]

Seems a new Bruni identification poster has sprung up in kitchens around the city...have a look at it here.

Apparently, some of Frank's pseudonyms/accomplices include:

- Arthur Kirk
- Robert Fox
- Anthony Vallek

Or so it seems, based on the fuzzy camera phone photo.

The poster also includes a current photo of the man himself.

[Nathan]

obviously the thing to do is to start making reservations under those names.

[rich]

Nathan, on Apr 6 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

obviously the thing to do is to start making reservations under those names.

I use Arthur Kirk all the time - it's the name of a horse I once owned. No wonder I never have trouble getting a spot.

[Fat Guy]

You know, it might be interesting to do an improved version of Eater's Bruni Betting feature. Rather than guess how many start Bruni will give to a restaurant, we could do more of a blind tasting. In other words, strip the review of its star rating, send it to a few people, and have them try to intuit how many stars the restaurant actually got.

[docsconz]

Fat Guy, on Apr 10 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

You know, it might be interesting to do an improved version of Eater's Bruni Betting feature. Rather than guess how many start Bruni will give to a restaurant, we could do more of a blind tasting. In other words, strip the review of its star rating, send it to a few people, and have them try to intuit how many stars the restaurant actually got.

That's a great idea, but how would one assure that the parties haven't already read the review?

[Fat Guy]

Possible methods of enforcement range from honor system to death penalty.

[Megan Blocker]

Fat Guy, on Apr 10 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

Possible methods of enforcement range from honor system to death penalty.

Ooooh, I volunteer!

[rich]

Fat Guy, on Apr 10 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

You know, it might be interesting to do an improved version of Eater's Bruni Betting feature. Rather than guess how many start Bruni will give to a restaurant, we could do more of a blind tasting. In other words, strip the review of its star rating, send it to a few people, and have them try to intuit how many stars the restaurant actually got.

Could we have pari-mutuel (spelled correctly) wagering?

[oakapple]

rich, on Apr 11 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

Fat Guy, on Apr 10 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

You know, it might be interesting to do an improved version of Eater's Bruni Betting feature. Rather than guess how many start Bruni will give to a restaurant, we could do more of a blind tasting. In other words, strip the review of its star rating, send it to a few people, and have them try to intuit how many stars the restaurant actually got.

Could we have pari-mutuel (spelled correctly) wagering?

On my blog, I have a recurring weekly feature where I place an imaginary $1 bet according to Eater's odds, and keep track of who's right.

In the eight weeks that I've been doing it publicly, I've gone 7-1, amassing a war chest of $24.67. Eater has gone 6-2, amassing $17.00.

The lone blemish on my record was Robert's Steakhouse (I took the 2-star odds; Bruni awarded one). The two blemishes on Eater's record were Sfoglia and The Four Seasons (he bet on one and three stars respectively; Bruni awarded two in each case).

[Eatmywords]

I thought the EU review was very good and accurate. The hook, the restaurant's operating woes, was appropriate and not dragged out allowing for a more informative menu discussion and overall experience. Nice going

[oakapple]

Eatmywords, on Apr 11 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

I thought the EU review was very good and accurate.  The hook, the restaurant's operating woes, was appropriate and not dragged out allowing for a more informative menu discussion and overall experience.  Nice going

The "hook" was slightly overdone, especially the bit at the end about the three grim-looking police officers walking in. But overall, not a bad performance by Mr. Bruni.

[JohnL]

I disagree.
Detailing the restaurant's woes is of no consequence to where it is now. I would guess that most restaurants in New York have a "history" of difficulties in opening.
That's why reviewers usually give a place a chance to get settled in before writing a review.
What exactly is the point here? To add some color? Why?
I understand the need for some perspective in reviewing places like Le Cirque or The Four seasons but what does all this information bring to the review of a "neighborhood" place?

[Sneakeater]

This particular place has actually gained fairly significant reknown for its various problems. To ignore them would seem ignorant.