It appears I'm the one who inspired this new Forum Topic. So let's see what I can make of it. I have been to the Moulin maybe 20 times since 1993. This is, in average, not very much, since it results in 2 times per year. Yet, I believe it covers a decently long period of time in which one can make comparisons and thoughts as to the place's development and tendencies. What I do not want to discuss, at least not in the first instance, is all the topics about Vergé's other restaurants and undertakings, Vergé's (former) globetrotting, his relations with the local community, the highway extension through the Moulin, etc.. In spite of what one can think I don't feel they are directly related to the immediate quality and features of the Moulin as such. Let me immediately say one thing: the very first time I went, my heart did indeed not warm up for one reason: every element not related to food, from service to timing, very much gave the impression of a luxury chainwork: cold and soulless calculation and perfection. In short, too professional and too littel human. It made You somehow feel like an object of the scene and the mechanism. (But already the very first amuse bouche sent me to heaven: a delicate terrine made by differently worked layers of salmon and hergs, with a Champagne sauce, which alone showed the effort of a regular dish - memory from 1993!). A second thing which may confirm this: Despite the (by the way positive and rare) fact that the staff (at least the core) are always the same people since ten years, and I always reserve with the same name and via telefax, I never got recognized by anyone, I was always just one of the many, "one serving". And this even if I went there twice in few days. The second thing is still bothering me (not because I want to be someone, but simply because I love direct human relations; however, I won't go there wth a plate "It's me!" on my waist ), it is certainly due to the high turnover of non repeating clientele which very busy people have to face. While, the first thing, in the end, is just the natural result of the high school and the extremely trained professionalism: simply, by never loosing a point or a gesture, they loose human warmth. This is a pity, but caused by a routined skillfulness which in the end is appreciable, and by the way to be found only in France. On the other hand, there are also positive remarks on this side: I once went there for my birthday. They found out and offered birthday cake and Champagne for the whole table. One of the times Vergé himself was in (often, lately, despite age and career) and came to our table, we showed the usual appreciation, especially for the signature courgette flower we were having in that moment. Well, after he left our table, and we had finished our plates, before the next course suddendly each of us was faced with another plate of that signature dish, offered by the Chef and with a peculiarity: it was more than double the dimension of the one within the menu, and the Maitre declared that Mr Vergé had especially chosen the flowers and the truffles for us. But let's come to the heart of the discussion, the reason why I wanted to start it. It is certainly true that the place dropped from three stars it used to have, down to one all of a sudden, and many felt that even that star was too much and kept more for "political reasons". Well, even should this be true, why does nobody question certain clearly undeserved three stars kept for identical political reasons. This is to say that, once acquainted that Michelin stars may be related to politics and not just to cookery, they become a less trustworthy judging standard, be they none, one or three. But set apart this, I rather feel that all this talking about the place coming down etc. seems by now to be a common phrase, a kind of "fashion": people say so because everyone says so, therefore it will be right; and so it goes from mouth to mouth, becoming a dogma: but often there is no effective and concrete background to this affirmation. I won't of course ever question anyone competent who is saying that his latest dinner or his last five dinners there have been a disaster, with valid reasons for this. This can, and did, certainly happen from time to time (although it never did to me, but maybe I am not competent enough ). But more and more, I get the impression that saying "The Moulin went down" is just a must, part of the game and necessary to be in it, but without any real personal experience, background or explanation. This feeling becomes particularly strong when the phrase is used in comparison to other places, especially when I realize that the comparison is done (a) with completely different and not comparable places (e.g. I wouldn't compare it to L'Oasis), or (b) with the new "cutting edge" creative tendency (anything from Bras to Veyrat), or simpler, © with places where the chef is a former pupil to Vergé (e.g. Ducasse). But what I would like to reply to everyone, is the following three very simple things: 1) We should consider that Roger Vergé has been the master and teacher for an enormous number of chefs in France and in the world, many of whom are now star cooks. In fact, almost all famous and recently celebrated chefs in the Provence Cote d'Azur area come out of his kitchen. This means he eventually contributed and still contributes to the creation of knowledge and to culinary culture. If most of the three stars (not to talk of many others) learned cooking from him, and therefore many kitchens still owe him skills and success, why should we turn down the teacher? He certainly did not forget about his skills. 2) I realize the above may (and hopefully will) give raise to discussions. Therefore, a more simple argument: I have been visiting all kinds of upscale places (confining to these makes it easier), of course being conscious of the many possible styles and differences, and appreciating everyone and everything, from Adrià or Veyrat to Bocuse or Vrinat, for its peculiarities. BUT my simple way of judging a restaurant, forgetting about all technicalities and know-how, is: DO I REMEMBER WHAT I HAD IN MY PLATE(S)? It may be because of originality or because of perfect execution or because of a particular soul in the plate: a place is "good" if I had "unforgettable" food, and be it only one dish: something I can identify the place for. Of course, "unforgettable" has different levels, it can last from a week (which would identify rather "remarkable") to a lifetime. But I must confess that, in ten years and twenty meals, with few exceptions I do remember every single dish I had at the Moulin, its flavours, its texture, its presentation. This is true of course for its signature dishes such as the well known courgette flower with mushrooms and truffles. But also (and especially) for simple things such as a simple roasted Carré d'Agneau with potato purée and red peppers and its own truffled sauce, rose, juicy, intense, almost homecooking: a plate with CHARACTER and HEART. Also, the signature homard au vin de Sauternes may not fit everyone's taste due to its very traditional creamy preparation, but no one can deny that technique and execution are perfect and the result is usually remembered for years. Among the desserts, everyone of which sparkled for its beautiful presentation, I can mention examples from Verveine Créme Brulée with red fruits and rose soup, to many excellent variations of Chocolate mousses, green lemon soufflé with peach cream, mango carpaccio with passion fruit sauce... I could add concrete examples for the opposite: Confining to France, I remember I had excellent meals at nearby L'Oasis, but do not ask me about the single dishes which I do not remember if not for too many spices, after years. The same applies e.g. to Le Jardin des Sens in Montpellier and also (as a whole, and set a part some simpler dishes) to Louis XV by Alain Ducasse (or rather Franck Cerutti) in Monaco, which seems to bother inspectors too, since it is loosing and gaining its star with amazing velocity... In very few words: I feel the Moulin is an outstanding restaurant because it provided me many unforgettable and technically skilled dishes for years, from the most simple to the most original one, all with character and with soul, and eventually deserving a three star rating at least for quality and constance. While in many other high rated places, including the ones I really love and I count among my favourites, I more than often would have problems in telling what I had ten days ago, even if at the moment I extremely liked it. GOOD CUISINE IS (ALSO) MEMORY!!! By the way, here is another nice argument for a general food forum topic: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A "SIGNATURE DISH" NOWADAYS? Do they still exixt and are they still so "memorable"? And, if yes, what would their average life expectation be? (I come to this question if I compare a first level with things like Vergé's courgette flower, Loiseau's frog legs with garlic and parsley sauce, Bocuse's truffle soup, with a second level made by Ducasse's asparagus and morilles, Passard's candy tomato with 12 spices, Savoy's artichoke and truffle soup with a third level in today's evolution: is it still about the same thing?) 3) My third argument is techinque and execution. In the Moulin, they know how to cook, and they do it with character. And, here, there may exactly lay one reason for the turndown by critics and society: Vergé invented a cooking style, performed and spread it, teached it to others, and today still sticks to it firmly without concessions to modernity. Of course, it is a style with signs of the time it was invented: it features traditional elements, the use of cream and butter besides the oh-so-fashionable olive oil, classical ingredients, a limited (although not absent) creativity... but it has an identity, and it means culture, to which it contributed. It should be recognized, appreciated and honoured for this. Now, here lays a point: in my opinion, The Moulin was turned down first by Michelin and then by public opinion (or was it the other way around, who knows...), not because technique or quality of the food went worse, but simply because over time he did not evolve nor innovate. Simply, someone started to think that it was no longer "new" and eating always the same food made in the same style was getting boring. In culinary society where over the years the mission appeared to be first "innovate", then "impress", and finally "astonish", this was and is of course an immense tort! But, once again, good cuisine is memory, NOT surprise! Aso if I appreciate a dish by Adrià (Let's talk i.e. of jelly-tagliatelle Carbonara...), this is not because I was (only) surprised by it, but because I (also) REMEMBER it over time. I would rather draw attention to the following: as mentioned before, the core staff of the place is the same since decades, this makes a "team" and a place to be identified and entrusted. It also enhances professionality, the true one. Second, it is certainly curious that all those who are now greatly celebrated (starting with Ducasse) learnt their job from Vergé, while their teacher is discredited: it can't be true he is no longer able to cook...!!! Third, in the same regard, all those who Vergé teached to cook did of course well in evolving, since what they learned was not their identity, which they had to search and develop, and has then be indeed appreciated if it deserved so. But, Vergé himself, who invented the style, who made it a legend: why should he evolve, thereby loosing his identity and soul? He was right in sticking (not even to the fullest extent, by the way) to his tradition and preserving the soul of his cuisine and his restaurant. The Moulin does not want, nor does it need, to impress. It is not cutting edge. It is solid. Furthermore: It is certainly true that, after loosing the stars, a period of decadence occured. This was unavoidable, since the loss of stars usually implies a dramatic income and turnover fall, which had to be coped with in some way. This may also have brought about some excesses in marketing and merchandise. But then, the place became self-consistent and stable, until to recent days. And then one more thing happened: Vergé, a 70 years old self made man who at this point could certainly and quietly enjoy the left star and rest on his success, earning his life without any effort through an still prestigeous and always full restaurant and group meals, DID NOT rest on royalties and tourist-coaches: At his age and at the "end" of a lifetime career, he is now making efforts to requalify: he sold the inflationated Amandier and concentrated on the Moulin; he took over again in the kitchen from his second Serge Chollet and is now almost always present; he modernized the menu, lightening it but preserving its identity (thereby rising prices very slightly, and for the first time in ten years!!! - the menu has been 750 FF form 1993 to the euro, and last time it was 119 e - You all know certain other outrageous standards...), he refurbished the whole place... and, finally, despite the tourist coaches knocking at his doors (should he send them away, or are upscale places expected to hang out a plate forbidding access to them?) he won a second star back! In my personal opinion, there are all elements for aiming even at a third star again, but this is probably too much expected... What I can say is that I realized the effort for requalification during all the past years, so I know it has been carefully built up, and is not the casual result of a single and sudden inspiration by an inspector. All in all and as a conclusion: if there is a place which contributed to culinary history and culture, if this was the school and benchmark for most of today's Chefs, if it preserves its tradition, if it makes efforts for a deserved requalification in spite of ending its days in an obvious way, is it enough to remember the by-gone days and to talk about incoming coaches, to turn that place down? And is this useful for our culinary culture? I guess I wrote enough for today, and I bless whoever made it until to the end...! PS: I am not paid nor otherwise linked to the Moulin (wish i was, i'd eat for free!!! )
