Buford on Gordon Ramsay

[rlibkind]

Bill Buford's take on Gordon Ramsay and what makes him tick can be read on-line in this week's New Yorker. The updated account of who was responsible for the infamous Aubergine reservation book theft was news to me.

[eatrustic]

A damn fine article (all ten pages of it) that almost makes up for the lack of a New Yorker Food edition in the last year.

The reservation book was a great bit. It's amazing to see how someone as theoretically astute as Ramsey is can underestimate the personal effort required to take New York (filming the American version of his British show on turning ailing restaurants around while his own is underachieving).

[rgruby]

A damn fine article (all ten pages of it) that almost makes up for the lack of a New Yorker Food edition in the last year.

The reservation book was a great bit. It's amazing to see how someone as theoretically astute as Ramsey is can underestimate the personal effort required to take New York (filming the American version of his British show on turning ailing restaurants around while his own is underachieving).

←

I agree. It seems like he's hardly ever there (er, NYC). Not often enough, anyhow. The word overextended comes to mind. It's one thing to let it go when it's working, but if it isn't, you'd better fucking be there. For fuck's sakes people, get a grip! (That's my best Ramsey imitation - sorry.)

Now, I haven't eaten there, and won't likely for some time - maybe ever. I suspect the food is very good. But, obviously not a hit in NYC. At least not out of the park. Yet. So, NYCers, what's (wots) he doing wrong? Anybody eaten there? Obviously the man can cook and run a restaurant. Are there any glaring differences between the London and NYC high end dining scenes that might account for Mr. Ramsey's apparent difficulties opening on this side of the pond?

From my perspective this is not meant to be a hatchet job or cutting someone down to size just because. But clearly (or as clearly as I can tell not having eaten there) something is not quite right with Ramsey's NYC venture. But what exactly? From Buford's article, it seems Mr. Ramsey himself is not quite sure.

Cheers,

Geoff Ruby

[Simon_S]

Great article, that. There's a lot going on here that catches the eye, not least the staffing "issues" and the constant tweaking. All of this reminds me of something FatGuy said a while ago: opening in Europe is generally a gradual process where everything gets ironed out over quite a while. That doesn't seem to work in NY. If you don't get it right early on, you might find that ship has sailed. Even if Ramsay turns things around, will it be too late to recover from the mediocre early reviews?

Si

[johnsmith45678]

Pretty good and interesting article, if a bit long. I guess it's nice to know GR isn't going soft -- reminded me of Boiling Point, and make me both nostalgic and glad I don't work in restaurants anymore. I was surprised GR didn't mentioned anything about his bad blood with MPW. The article made me think of GR as more of a craftsman than an artist -- he's interested in making good food rather than showing off on a plate ala WD-40, et al.

[Fat Guy]

As I mentioned the first time the article came up, I thought that while it contained a lot of details it didn't really do anything to further the discussion except for the bit about the reservations book. I can't recall ever seeing such a weak effort from Buford, who is normally a great writer who can make a zillion-word New Yorker article breeze by. I'm surprised one of the New Yorker's normally excellent editors didn't say look, Bill, this needs a rewrite -- it really drags. Gawker called the story "maddeningly hagiographic" and I have to agree.

[rlibkind]

As I mentioned the first time the article came up, I thought that while it contained a lot of details it didn't really do anything to further the discussion except for the bit about the reservations book. I can't recall ever seeing such a weak effort from Buford, who is normally a great writer who can make a zillion-word New Yorker article breeze by. I'm surprised one of the New Yorker's normally excellent editors didn't say look, Bill, this needs a rewrite -- it really drags. Gawker called the story "maddeningly hagiographic" and I have to agree.

←

I agree that it may not have been up to Buford's past efforts, but that would be expecting a lot. Can't hit a homer every at bat. I disagree about it being "maddeningly hagiographic". Hagiographies generally don't discuss warts. The article may not have lambasted him, but it hardly put him on a pedestal. The bit I enjoyed the most was Ramsay's response to Bruni's review:

“Is he so jaded,” Ramsay asked me, “that a truffle is ordinary?”

[johnsmith45678]

“Is he so jaded,” Ramsay asked me, “that a truffle is ordinary?”

That was a great quote. I guess so many critics/people are so accustomed to their extravagant lifestyle that they become jaded and bored. I'm sure Joe Public would find GR's food amazing. I've always loved how GR dismisses critics.

[Sneakeater]

I actually think that most people who regularly eat in that level of restaurant in New York are so jaded as to find truffles, if not ordinary, then not out of the ordinary.

[russ parsons]

especially since so many of them are so ordinary.

[Sneakeater]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Lesley C]

Hee hee ... good one Russ.

[maggiethecat]

I finished reading the piece and I'm puzzled that anyone could say that Buford was being hagiographic. Although he mentions that outside the kitchen with a couple of beers in him Ramsay could be likeable, I think he drew a fine picture of a monster and borderline criminal.

I have to say that the food sounded wonderful.

[eatrustic]

I too do not get the hagiographic context. I came away with a sense of GR as being borderline incompetent in the way he had the London set up and has allowed waste and poorly managed staff to further undermine his investment. He has happily become a media Ho' and there should be no surprise in the result at the top end. No saintly veneration here.

The story may not be Pulitzer material but it was informative (and gossipy!) and the ten pages could have easily been longer - all the things I look for in a story on a favourite cooking personality. (By the way I have watched exactly one episode of Hell's Kitchen and find it to be pure trash but love his British Shows.)

[johnsmith45678]

I learned a new word today!

[Simon_S]

As I mentioned the first time the article came up, I thought that while it contained a lot of details it didn't really do anything to further the discussion except for the bit about the reservations book.

←

I haven't really been following the Ramsay NY saga that closely, but I learned a few things from the article. I had heard about Ferguson going, but I didn't realise the other bits of reshuffling happening, and nowhere prior to this had I got the impression that Ramsay himself thought there was something wrong. That, coupled with the descriptions of changing the table layout, menu, preparations, etc. gave the impression of a restaurant in flux and desperately trying to get it right. Of course, Ramsay would never be pleased with that review, but it was hard to decide if he thought the restaurant was perfect and the reviewer was at fault, or whether he'd admit it's not at the top level yet.

Aside from that, I'd never heard a lot of the Ramsay back-story before, and I also learned a new word! It may indeed be of a lesser standard than previous articles by this gentleman, but it's the first I've read and I enjoyed it. I must hunt out some of his other articles now.

Si

[TAPrice]

Hagiography? I thought saints had to perform miracles.

The article, if anything, seems to justify the poor reception Ramsay received in New York. He comes across as a terrible manager--generally uninvolved and not helpful when present. I was surprised by the problems he had getting his staff to perform to his standards. Perhaps no one could meet Ramsay's standards, but there did seem to be some real problems in the kitchen. No surprise at a new restaurant, but--if I'm reading the article right--almost everyone was handpicked and imported from his English operation.

Despite all this, I came away from the article with some sympathy for Ramsay. He came across as a talented guy who has extended himself beyond what he or his organization can handle. Before, I honestly thought of him more as a media buffoon (despite all the stars I knew he had).

[racheld]

Hey, Guys! While some of the PTB are online---could you see why the indexes seem stuck WAY back from the real "last post" counter?

[Lesley C]

Despite the lengthy attempts by Buford to describe Ramsay's style, I still have no idea what he has to offer that's not being done right now but thousands of chefs around the planet.

What is the Ramsay style? Haven't got a clue -- and I have four of his cookbooks. That, I think, is his real undoing. The only thing I really know about this chef is that he has a vile temper. His food hasn't really had any kind of an impact, has it? And by what I read in that article, it sounds like he's struggling with his style as well. That's why the tourists --and not the foodies -- flock to his restaurant.

[Fat Guy]

I'm guessing Gawker was employing a more modern usage, as in "Soviet hagiography," where for example histories are written so as to humanize various brutal dictators. Or maybe not. In any event, my main complaint is that the piece was boring and minimally insightful.

[TAPrice]

I'm guessing Gawker was employing a more modern usage, as in "Soviet hagiography," where for example histories are written so as to humanize various brutal dictators. Or maybe not. In any event, my main complaint is that the piece was boring and minimally insightful.

←

Damn me and my pre-modern mindset! Ok, "Soviet hagiography" makes more sense.

While the article may not offer much insight into Ramsay, I thought it was an interesting case study in why a great chef isn't necessarily a great restaurateur.

[fchrisgrimm]

Despite the lengthy attempts by Buford to describe Ramsay's style, I still have no idea what he has to offer that's not being done right now but thousands of chefs around the planet.

What is the Ramsay style? Haven't got a clue -- and I have four of his cookbooks. That, I think, is his real undoing. The only thing I really know about this chef is that he has a vile temper. His food hasn't really had any kind of an impact, has it? And by what I read in that article, it sounds like he's struggling with his style as well. That's why the tourists --and not the foodies -- flock to his restaurant.

←

It is certainly broadly within the 'New French' category, but immaculately prepared and served by a sharp staff, in a classy surrounding. When I ate at the Royal Hospital Road location, I thought the food was remarkable - will always remember Leslie describing her foie dish as looking like a small woodland portrait. I guess you need to eat his food to understand his food. But as I've said elsewhere on the site (to the consternation of others) I ate at Ramsay and French Laundry with months of eachother, and Ramsay was unquestionably the better of the two. I guess the food at FL is more creative if one's standard is complicated pilings. But who gives a rip?

"Thousands of Chefs"? Eat his food before you say that!

Of course the man has had impact - he's taken London food beyond even White. Maybe not Fergus Henderson impact (because of his culinary direction) - but certainly impact, if only for the quality.

The vile temper is (to a degree) played up for television - and the (US) television, he even says in the article, is to help build his name for growing his restaurants. If he was that bad, his people wouldn't keep following him.

Ramsay will be fine - and while I haven't been to Ramsay at the London, my partner (who dined with me at his eponymous London restaurant) has been there a good five times since it opened and says it is splendid.

Grrr.

[PS]

Got to agree - the "vile temper" reputation really stems from his first series in the UK where, to the 'shock' of newspaper columnists who have little to write about beyond last night's TV, he shouted at his staff when they didn't get up to standard. Nowadays I hear much more about his management style where he is able to nurture talent and gain loyalty (just see how many well-reviewed/starred restaurants in his stable are operated by chefs promoted from within his organisation).

Can't fault his performance to date in the UK and by the sounds of the reviews I've read on here, it sounds like the product's good in NY as well.

He's not being punished for daring to set up in NY is he? I'd always thought belittling people for having ideas above their station was a British thing....

[dharold]

(just see how many well-reviewed/starred restaurants in his stable are operated by chefs promoted from within his organisation).

←

Yep, one of surprising things about reading two Ramsay biogs back to back is seeing just how loyal he really is and how many of the people working for him have been in his circle since even before Aubergine (at least one key Ramsay player followed him from a ski lodge where Ramsay was doing a brief stint well before fame set in; and as well as promoting from within wherever possible he's even been known to rescue the better chefs from the Kitchen Nightmare's series).

D.

[RAHiggins1]

I am an avid Gordon Ramsey fan. I admit that Hel's Kitchen was my first experience, but I tivo the hell out of the BBC America to catch all of his programs now. I have to say that the "FWORD" is by far my favorite program. It gives you a better glimpse at who he really is and what he is really about. I respect the hell out of him. It's unfortunate that his opening in NY did not go so well. People seem to expect his restaurants and food to reflect his TV persona. But if they were to watch a little closer they would see that the food is what he really is all about.

Anyone know where to get a copy of the BBC documentaries labeled "Boiling Point" and "Beyond Boiling Point"?