oakapple

Sure we would, because no French restaurant in town charges that kind of money. If one did, it would be unprecedented, and would be just as newsworthy (if not more so) than Masa's prices.

Via Grub Street, rumors of Ducasse's permanent exit were exaggerated. Per Ducasse's London PR firm, "Alain Ducasse Group adds two new members": The other restaurant mentioned in the press release will open in September in London's Dorchester Hotel.The press release is dated February 21st, which suggests that plans for a March opening in New York must be rather far along.

You can still have that experience. Just not at lunch.

Grub Street reports that Café Gray will discontinue its lunch service after March 5th.

That was my observation too, and it was on a Friday night. That preceded the week in which three reviews appeared (NY Mag, NY Sun, NY Observer). Unless Frank Bruni's review really moves the needle, I think this place could have trouble surviving.

Is there a difference between "annoying" and "bad"? The restaurant you described sounded like it was just plain "bad."I would suggest that an annoying restaurant is a one that would be wonderful, but for a chronic singular irritant that always gets in the way. For instance, The Spotted Pig has great food, but they don't take reservations, and you often wait forever for a table. That would be an example of "annoying." But I wouldn't use "annoying" to describe a restaurant that's simply awful. I also wouldn't use it for an isolated or atypical bad experience, at what is generally a very good restaurant.

Molyvos La Vineria BLT Steak Quality Meats

I think it's fairly well known that this idea was bouncing around in David Bouley's head for quite a while before he finally implemented it. Given all of his experience in the restaurant business, I would be very surprised if he just landed on the idea by dumb luck.Momofuku Ssam Bar...now there's a happy accident.

I'm not sure that any of us should respect that.But Marc, that is EXACTLY the kind of pseudo-populist know-nothingism that we all criticize Bruni for (and frankly beneath you). ← I was not suggesting that it is noble to be ill-informed.But if indeed the distinction was created "pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers," then it isn't very helpful in a discussion about what we should expect from a newspaper critic. I was also trying to drop the hint — which FG has now expressed better than I ever could — that the academics probably haven't thought much about cuisine as a subject of criticism.

That's the job of the Zagat survey. Real critics need to be able to say, for example, that a very popular restaurant (or film, or performance, or work of art, or book) is actually terrible. ← Bruni's job does require an element of "consumer reports." He needs to convey basic information like location, comfort, ambiance, price, service, etc. He reports on these items from the perspective of what he believes the typical diner would perceive. This part of the job, he has nailed. But it's only half the job.

I'm not sure that any of us should respect that.My questions are: A) Is there such a thing as restaurant criticism? If you're saying that it doesn't exist at all, then whether Bruni is charged with writing it is utterly beside the point. B) If such a thing exists, where else could it, would it, should it, does it, come from, if not from Bruni (or a more qualified occupant of the post he occupies)?

If there is such a difference in theory, it is not rigorously observed by any Times critic, in any field where it employs them.It's not up to the WRITER to follow the distinction. It's up to the reader, to know what they're getting. ← And what you do indeed get is a mixture of both. The distinction depends on the circumstances, as well as the knowledge and insight the writer brings to bear on the subject.

If there is such a difference in theory, it is not rigorously observed by any Times critic, in any field where it employs them. The trouble is, if we accept your argument that such criticism does not belong in the NYT weekly restaurant reviews, then where does it belong? I can't imagine a marketable book written on this premise. If such criticism is going to exist at all, the weekly restaurant reviews are the only place it could plausibly come from.In that sense, food criticism is different from literature criticism. Once written, a book exists indefinitely. Most cuisine worth writing criticism about exists only for the few short minutes that it sits unconsumed on your plate. Anyone professing to write thoughtfully about it would have to do what Frank Bruni does: visit the restaurant, order food, eat food, figure out what to say. Whether the format in which he writes is a weekly review, or some other medium, is utterly beside the point.

In the first place, can someone provide a coherent explanation of the difference? Nathan proposed Edward Rothstein. He has written for the Times for years. Was there a magical moment when his writings crossed the line from reviews to criticism? How would the rest of us mortals recognize when that mythic Rubicon had been crossed?Perhaps what Nathan is trying to say is that food has a utilitarian aspect that literature and fine art do not. Its utilitarian aspect is amply covered by reviews that say, "The Niman Ranch pork chop tasted great, but at $32 was over-priced." But there is more to cuisine than just providing good-tasting nourishment at a fair price. Otherwise, who needs Jean Georges, when we can just get a bucket of chicken at KFC?

Frank Bruni has the "public advocacy" part of the job nailed. But I think a restaurant critic is more than just a consumer reporter. You're confusing two different things.The quality or the nature of criticism doesn't change because it happens to be delivered in bite-sized chunks via periodic newspaper articles. The book, music, dance, art, and architecture critics do the same thing. Fundamentally, it is still criticism. Does food as an "art" belong on the same plane as literature? Probably not, but I don't see the need to settle the issue. Cooking is partly an art. If you're going to write intelligently about it, it helps to have seriously thought and written about the topic for a long time, rather than just parachuting in after a stint as Rome bureau chief.

Yes, but not entirely. Clearly it's appropriate for the critic to put himself in the shoes of those for whom the restaurant exists in the first place. But it's also the critic's role to educate, to provoke thought, and to lead public opinion rather than merely ratifying it.It may be that there are very few critics who actually live up to all of that. Then again, there are very few four-star restaurants, too.

I'm not sure about Reichl's overall background, but by the time she joined the Times, she was a very experienced restaurant critic.Hesser is a peculiar case, as she seems to have a strong resume, but she turned out a remarkable number of very controversial reviews in a very short tenure — not just Spice Market, but also Asiate, Compass, Montrachet, and Masa, to name a few. Perhaps the lesson is that ignorant critics are bad, but knowledgeable ones aren't necessarily good.

I don't think restauranteurs make particularly good restaurant critics, any more than actors make the best movie critics. But I do think that the best critics are those who have spent many years thinking and writing about their field, as Ruth Reichl and Mimi Sheraton have done, but Frank Bruni has not.

If you can find a three or four-star NYC restaurant that does 18 pours for $125, I would be very surprised.

If you're saying that zero stars is defensible, I agree. One star would also have been defensible, but there have been enough negative comments about this place to amply justify zero. I think Bruni has gotten quite a few ratings wrong. His downward pressure on the luxury sector, coupled with his grade inflation of the casual sector, has led to a jumble of incoherent ratings, particularly at the two-star level, and occasionally at other levels.

If you don't have the newspaper, Chodorow's ad is available here (PDF).Part of it is indeed sour grapes. Kobe Club has received its share of both positive and negative reviews. What a surprise! Chodorow thinks the positive reviewers got it right, and that the negative reviewers got it wrong. He does have some legitimate complaints. One is that the review wastes space talking about unrelated failures, like Mix, Rocco's, and Caviar & Banana. None of those restaurants has anything meaningful to do with Kobe Club. Another is that Bruni thought that the restaurant's signature dish, Kobe/Wagyu beef, is very solidly prepared. Chodorow thinks that if the establishment's raison d'etre is done right, it warrants at least a star. Perhaps he has a point. Would anyone give Peter Luger zero stars because of the salmon? Lastly, Chodorow complains about a food critic who has no background in food. But I think the Times editors got exactly what they wanted in Frank Bruni.

That markup was typical for a tasting-menu wine pairing at just about any restaurant in JoRo's class.

And has it ever mattered?

This is manifestly untrue. I had dinner there last night. I saw at least three tables with young couples under 35 (i.e., not accompanied by their parents). We saw several other tables with what appeared to be business diners. The restaurant's "center of gravity" is clearly the 55-and-over set, but not to nearly the degree that the comment suggested.

← Chang has done a beautiful job of setting expectations. He says he expects one star, so he can't be terribly disappointed if that's the outcome. But he fully realizes that Bruni rates primarily on food, and if that's good enough, two stars aren't beyond reach.Momofuku Ssäm Bar was reviewed in $25 and Under less than four months ago, making this probably the shortest jump in history from $25&U to the main reviewer. My sense is that Bruni won't do that just to award a measly star.