oakapple

I generally don't buy into the theory that the producers regularly manipulate the outcome. (The fine print on the TV screen indicates that the producers consult on the elimination decisions, so the key word there is "regularly".) But to the extent they exert any influence, I strongly suspect they want Jennifer in the final, because otherwise it would be all guys—assuming, which I think is likely, that there's no f*&^ing way that Robin makes it that far. So I think the final is Jen plus two of Kevin, Mike, or Bryan. I'm surprised that CtznCane is so positive that Mike V will be there, because Bryan has actually had more challenge wins to date than his brother. Of course, there is an element of luck to this show, and sometimes chefs survive longer than they deserve to. Carla wasn't one of the three best chefs last year, but somehow she made it to the final (where she, predictably, flopped).

Of the various "solutions" that are offered from time to time, that is the least likely to occur. In NYC, one paper actually dropped the stars a few years ago and recently brought them back because they were demanded by many readers. In the intervening period, several publications added stars that hadn't previously had them.

I may be in the minority, but I don't find them useless. One does need to know how the system works—which most publications do not properly explain—to derive utility from them. In New York City, for example, the New York Times three-star restaurants generally do live up to the literal meaning ascribed to them: "excellent" for the type and style of cuisine they represent. It so happens that I have been to all of the NYT 3* places myself, so I no longer rely on the paper for that information. But if I hadn't been to these places, I feel I would have a pretty good idea of what the rating meant. Stars are only a filtering mechanism that helps you narrow down what you might be looking for. There is no substitute for reading the review, where any caveats are clearly stated. In NYC, for instance, Momofuku Ssäm Bar doesn't take reservations, and guests sit on backless stools. That is not normally the case for a three-star restaurant, and most people would want to know that. The one- and two-star ratings are more problematic, for a few reasons. (I am referring again to the New York Times system; others may work differently.) One- and two-star restaurants are far less likely to be re-reviewed, so there is a higher likelihood that if the review was written a while ago, it no longer accurately describes the restaurant. The other problem is that the Times uses two stars not just for "very good casual restaurants," but also for "failed luxury restaurants." It is therefore much more likely that two restaurants with the same rating won't be remotely comparable. I agree with Lisa Shock that a finer-grained rating system (20, 50, or 100 points) would not cure whatever defects the system has. On my blog, I use half-stars (so do some newspapers), which provides a bit more granularity. However, it still doesn't change the fact that you've got restaurants with the same rating that are not directly comparable. Though the New York Times does not explicitly say this in their explanation, I think it is safe to say that stars are comparable only when the establishments themselves are similar. I do think it would be helpful to give separate ratings for food, service, and ambiance, as Zagat does, along with an overall rating. This is something the Times could do immediately, without invalidating any of the ratings they've previously given out. The Michelin Guide sort of does this. In addition to the stars, each restaurant is assigned a number of couverts (one to five), which is a measure of the "level of comfort," as they call it. But the couverts receive nowhere near the level of attention that the stars do.

That's a bit like saying that the Times should ignore Broadway and devote most of its theater section to productions in church basements. Not really - unless you can find thousands of theater productions in church basements. It was a metaphor. Non-Broadway shows outnumber Broadway by similar margins as $50 & Under restaurants outnumber high-end places. But productions on Broadway are guaranteed to be reviewed. The farther away from Broadway you get—not just geographically, but in terms of budget and ambition—the less likely you are to get reviewed.

And he should have. I didn't get the sense she was hoping to get sent home. She wears her stress on her sleeve, but I think she's deeply competitive and wants to win. I watched that episode in a bit of a haze, but it wasn't really clear to me what was wrong with her dish.

That's a bit like saying that the Times should ignore Broadway and devote most of its theater section to productions in church basements.

Grub Street has the story that Bread Bar at Tabla is merging with the main dining room. Both spaces will be called Tabla, but the posted menu is actually more like the Bread Bar menu. Until now, Tabla had a $59 prix fixe, whereas the Bread Bar had a carte with optional tasting menus. The latter is the format the new Tabla has adopted. On a recent visit, the formal dining room was nearly empty on a Friday evening, while the Bread Bar was packed. In Times Like These, no doubt the informal à la carte format was proving far more popular. It's an interesting contrast to the adjoining Eleven Madison Park, which has become increasingly more formal over the last couple of years, and they certainly haven't suffered for it.

That's exactly what Bruni did (he has said so on multiple occasions), and so has Mimi Sheraton. This seems to have been the paper's policy for many decades. Sheraton just graded on a tougher curve. NYT critics have always done this. About 50% if the reviews are dictated by circumstance: a newsworthy restaurant opens, and it would be dereliction of journalistic duty not to review it. Another 30% are new restaurants that the critic could choose to skip if it's just not that interesting. This leaves around 20% for re-reviews and places like Imperial Palace that the critic chooses to call attention to. Bruni did that; Grimes did that. What's interesting is that Bruni came right out of the gate with that type of review. He chose Babbo. We didn't realize it till much later, but with Babbo he was laying the groundwork for what his whole tenure would be about (pro-Italian, pro-Batali, anti-formality). We'll have to wait a while to find out if Sifton was "making a statement," or if this was simply one of the 20% discretionary reviews that all critics have open to them. Well, it surprised me too. No one-star Bruni review was that enthusiastic. But what you want from critics, just like baseball umpires, is a consistent strike zone. There's nothing wrong with awarding one star to a place like this, as long as you do it consistently.

I agree. It seemed less mannered and self-conscious than his first two reviews. I didn't mind those either, but I seem to be in the minority. This is an ongoing contradiction in the NYT system as implemented by recent critics. The little blurb at the bottom of each review says that one star means "good". Very few of Frank Bruni's one-star reviews actually sounded good. Most of the time, they sounded mediocre. This wasn't always the case. Mimi Sheraton used to give zero stars about 30% of the time, while Bruni was only around 10% or less. If one star had actually meant "good," at least half of his one-star places should have received a zero. I prefer a system where one star is a compliment—albeit not as great a compliment as two, three, or four. We'll need more evidence before we know if Sifton is actually headed that way. If so, he'll need to give zero stars a lot more often. Today's review does create a clash with some of Bruni's ratings. He gave two stars apiece to Sripraphai, Spicy & Tasty, Oriental Garden, and Szechuan Gourmet. It's hard to believe that Imperial Palace is a whole star worse than those other places. It seems that Sifton is simply re-balancing the grading curve.

There's pretty strong circumstantial evidence about where the finale is being taped and who the guest judge will be. Don't follow the link if you'd prefer to be surprised.

I agree it would be fun (force the guy to eat his own dogfood), but he's listed as a producer, so it would surely be a conflict of interest. I would be surprised if David Chang agreed to do this type of show. There's probably more downside than upside for him.

Insieme.

On the whole, the article didn't seem to have an old-person's sensibility. I took the complaints against deconstruction and molecular gastronomy as non-categorical. The trouble arises when people who don't really have the technical skill start imitating these trends, often with absurd results. There was a terrific Top Chef episode recently when the chefs were forced to make deconstructed dishes. A couple of them didn't get it at all. There are also online yelpers who post positive reviews, and even when it's obvious they have no idea what they're talking about, for some reason chefs never complain about that!! Restaurants aren't in business just to serve experts. Anyone who walks in the door has the right to an opinion, and if people don't like it, they're probably going to tell others. Customers aren't obligated to preface their views with "I am not an expert, but...." We already know they're not experts. If the restaurant is doing a good job, the negative opinion of one ill-informed yelper won't matter very much. There hasn't been a restaurant yet that was put out of business by an opening-night yelper. I also think that as soon as you're charging money for your services, you are entitled to be reviewed. I do realize that there are sometimes opening-night glitches, but those alone won't sink the restaurant, unless they become a pattern.

After five years of Frank Bruni, whom I was not fond of, I am glad to read something in a very different style. At some point, I may grow weary of Sifton, but right now I am enjoying his work. I do agree that if the fish entrees at a purported seafood restaurant are disappointing, the restaurant should not get three stars. He could have written the identical reviews, given 1 star to DBGB and 2 stars to Marea, and I would have been quite happy.

Colicchio has made his whole career out of doing simple things well, which sounds easier than it is. From the other side of the TV screen, we tend to admire the dishes that look pretty or that sound especially interesting, and to denigrate those that rely more on solid technique. If the judges raved about Robin's dish, I assume it was that good. I think the results can be rationally explained without resort to extra-judicial meddling. Laurine provided terrible front-of-house service, and she was also indirectly responsible for the lamb, which Colicchio described as the worst dish of the night. There was nothing positive that came out of her performance. Jen screwed up in a number of ways, but cooked the halibut correctly. It was Jen's good fortune that on a day she did poorly, someone else did worse. I agree that if the producers were going to meddle, this would have been a good time for it, as without Jen there would probably be an all-male finale (hard to see Laurine or Robin getting there). But the result made sense even without that.

I wouldn't assume that Jennifer is so far removed from the line that she can no longer do the job herself. Her results up to this point don't bear that out. She clearly can cook. Before last night, Jennifer had been in the top group for 5 of the previous 8 episodes, and fairly often in the quickfire as well (I don't have exact counts for that). I just think that, for whatever reason, the team (not just Jennifer) misjudged the timing. Until the avalanche hit, there was no indication that any of them realized that they might have a problem. The nature of these challenges is that once you're underwater, there is very little chance of recovering.

To be a great chef, you also need to be a great manager. Jen obviously knows how to cook, but she seems to get frazzled just about every episode, which reflects poorly on her managerial ability. It is also possible that she's not cut out for a competition show where unexpected twists are part of the sport. That may be over-simplifying, because Jen has delivered plenty of times during this season so far. The girl can obviously cook for herself. I do think that she worries herself to death. Robin is certainly one of the weaker remaining chefs, but like anyone on this show, there are some things she does well. There just aren't enough of them to survive the whole season.

That line is still there, but people associated with the show insist that it only comes into play in very close cases. Obviously we have only their word for that, but all of the eliminations this season have seemed correct, or at least reasonable, given what we were shown. If the producers had any say, I can't see where it led to the "wrong result" in any episode.

Dana Cowin made the catfood comment, but she wasn't part of the final judging panel. Colicchio said on his blog that, despite what Cowin said, the dish wasn't that bad. You have to assume that the people who actually tasted the food have an advantage over those of us who only looked at it on TV. If there is any justice, Ash was the one who deserved to go. I realize that the judging isn't cumulative, but he had been in the bottom group for three of the last four weeks, and he had never been among the top. There is an element of luck in this show. Fortunately for Robin, when she has screwed up, someone else has screwed up worse. But I think her luck will run out soon. Most of what you call "the show factor" is not known to the judges when they make their decisions. Mike (I assume you mean Isabella) is simply better than every chef eliminated thus far. I don't see him going all the way, but by the same token, I can't think of any eliminated chef who clearly deserves to be there in place of him.

In his review a year or two ago, Frank Bruni said they had added a ribeye (which he liked).

Every reality show has someone like him. Last year it was Stefan, but with a key difference: Stefan was also one of the best chefs there. Mike is no better than fifth-best (behind Jen, Kevin, and the brothers V), which makes him seem a lot more irritating.

We also had a disappointing meal here, though in our case it was the food, not the service, that disappointed. You can even tell from the photos in my review that the entrees were horribly over-cooked.

Any restaurant on Per Se's level will accommodate those allergies. Given that there are so many of them, it would be a good idea to call in advance.

My own review was one star, but like most of the pro critics, my visit was in the summer. If Boulud has been gradually improving the place, then time alone could account for the fact that Sifton rated it higher than many others did.

Colicchio said on the blog that the rest of the judges didn't think it was that bad. Robin is living proof of the element of luck in this show. She's the only remaining chef that has never made it to the top 3 in any episode. All of the others have done so at least twice. Lucky for her, whenever she screws up, someone else screws up worse. Among that group, she's the one I'd least like to hang out with.