French Restaurant Reviews: Do we read everything

[John Talbott]

Host’s Note:

On another topic titled “Do eGullet members in FR ever have a mediocre meal or are they either great or horrid?” Julot said that

I wrote a long review of l'Astrance in which I considered the restaurant and it style in detail, explaining the kind of experience it offers and the kind of food it makes. In four pages, one sentence was about how this is not a restaurant I want to go back to and that is all everyone remembers.

I found that an interesting point that might generate further discussion, hence this new topic.

By chance, after reading Julot’s post, I was reading a New Yorker movie review of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” in which I found myself going to the punch line “The birth of Bauby’s soul feels like nothing less than the rebirth of the cinema,” and realized – ah ha – I’m guilty of Julot’s plaint. I want to know “Go/No Go.”

When it comes to reading French restaurant critics, I think that broadly speaking they break down into three groups: those that say Go/No go, those that rate and clearly imply Go/No go and those where the text has to be parsed and lines read between to figure it out (and just to confuse things, some critics, eg F. Simon, do one in one format and another in another.)

The only person I know who says “Should one Go?” at the end of each review is Francois Simon in his “Hache Menu” in Figaroscope, although truth be told, the answer is often not so clear – for example “yes, if 500 € is burning a hole in your pocket.” And indeed, I look to the punch-line first.

Those that rate – eg Rubin et al in Figaroscope weekly and biannually, Toinard and Berger in ANP and Couderc in NouvelObs give some indication of Go/No go, but will we American readers really go to a sandwicherie or brunch place even if it gets two hearts? The twice a year Figaroscope supplements that have numbers from 0-10 (really 4.5-8.5) are probably most helpful as one can identify and pick off the top ones easily.

And then there are those who neither rate nor say Go/No go, such as Ribault in Le Monde, Galesne in Les Echos and again Simon, but this time in his “Croque Notes,” where it’s hard to see what is wheat and what chaff easily.

So, what think ye? Do you read every review of a new French place beginning to end or "cheat" and go to the punch-line?

[julot-les-pinceaux]

Actually, I would make a distinction betwen high end and more casual dining. Basically, to pick a good pizza (e.g. Luna Rosso in Romainville), I only need to know it is one. Or once you have characterised the "bistronomique" category, it is enough to say that La Regalade is the model and still one of the best. But anyone who intends to spend 400eur on a meal is entitled to more information than a binary (or even bidecimal) characterisation, methinks. High end dining is not (anymore?) standardised -- today's top restaurants thrive to offer singular experience, not only (not at all?) excellent ones. You wouldn't go to a six hours opera without some preparatory work -- knowing the libretto, listening to some CDs, maybe some additional reading. Why would you head to a more expensive, three hour meal without appropriate preparation?

In that spirit, the difference between reading the whole review or the punch line is often, anyway marginal -- that's the whole concept with the whole Figaroscope team, that a restaurant review should not take you more than five seconds to read, the ultra star Simon being the "exception" with his "temps de lecture" indication in his croque note. You would expect Ribaud to be an antidote to that sad and ridiculous tendency (after all, if you only take two minutes to pick the place where you will spend beaucoup $ and plenty of time, you know who to blame if you don't like it). But when does he ever talk about the actual restaurant rather than some side stories?

[Chocolate & Zucchini]

I don't just jump to the punch line, but I am certainly guilty of scanning -- so many reviews, so little time!

Most reviews I read en diagonale, as the French expression goes, and get a general feeling for the writer's opinion. If I get the impression that the review is witty, well documented, and/or particularly pertinent, then I'll go in and read it more carefully.

Also, when there's a rating, such as in the Figaroscope's C'est nouveau section, I don't even scan the one-hearters or broken hearts, unless it's a restaurant I've been to, or had a mind to try.

I should note that 99% of the reviews I scan/read are scanned/read online, and this certainly accounts for my limited attention span.

Clotilde.

[HOLLY_L]

I generally don’t read reviews in French (except possibly to scan for the so-called punchline), since my French is poor enough that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. But when I read eGullet reviews or other reviews in English, I definitely look for more than the punchline. I think julot-les-pinceaux is correct that detailed reviews are more important for a starred or otherwise destination-type restaurant.

I think it’s useful to read whole reviews because a good reviewer will either explicitly or implicitly reveal his or her preferences (for example, preferring more or less traditional fare; being more or less influenced by the quality of the service and other star trappings; giving more or less weight to the quality/price of the wine list). And the reviewer’s preferences may or may not match my own, and thus, even if I were to agree with them on all the intermediate steps, we could reach very different punchlines. Of course, the more reviews from a particular reviewer one reads, the more one knows whether or how much to discount a particular reviewer’s opinions when it comes to one’s own choices.

If I’ve already decided to visit a restaurant, I will also spend time rereading reviews prior to the visit to be sure I’m up on best ordering practices, e.g., menu v. carte, any signature dishes, etc., which is another way that the punchline doesn’t tell you nearly enough.

Long story short – eGulleters, you’re awesome, keep the long reviews coming!