Alice Waters in Saveur

[badthings]

I can't exactly answer that question, but ever since I heard that they occasionally offer just a piece of fresh fruit for dessert, a plucot was what I recall (the excuse being this is a new type of fruit, enjoy it in its natural state), I've lossed my desire to go there. Jeez, do something with it, even if all you do is cut it up into slices and serve with some whipped cream.

Rachel, I know a lot of people feel that way, but this is precisely (I think) the CP manifesto: if you have a perfect ingredient, don't fuck it up. Maybe this makes me weird, but the last thing I want wrapped around a pluot is a short crust and creme patisserie, no matter how thrillingly executed. (Bacon is another story). I know the logical conclusion of this argument is that cooking is something you do to trick people into eating shitty ingredients, which is not what I want to say.... But, I really believe, maybe because I've been in Berkeley too long, that the best thing you can do with a perfect peach, or strawberry, or whatever, is put it in your mouth.

By the way, the food at CP has been pretty good for the last couple years, I think. It's not my favorite restaurant, but I always take visitors there (or persuade them to take me), and I haven't been disappointed in a while. Always upstairs, though -- downstairs is a bad deal by comparison, and the lack of choice is unacceptable. The concept works much better as a "cafe" than a fancy restaurant, IMHO. And I always thought the wine list was great, with the lowest markup around, but I shop several categories down from the original complainer in the tread you quoted.

[russ parsons]

alice is a very complicated case. she is not a chef and has always been very upfront in saying that. in a way, for someone who is such a radical influence in american cooking, she's very old-fashioned--she's a restaurant impressario. she provides the support and the guidance for what is a pretty remarkable place (and, rare among the people posting on this thread, it seems, i have eaten there several times ... my advice: go for the cafe).

if you want to think of cp cuisine in a non-food context, try the craftsman movement (it's no coincidence that cp is an old bungalow). the idea is celebrating the beauty of unadorned products. this makes some people crazy, especially chefs who have devoted their careers to adornment, and to eaters who have come to equate adornment with good cooking.

alice does come across as a bit strident in her preaching of this message. and preaching it is, since this style of cooking is a reflection of a deeply held world view rather than simple fashion. chez panisse succeeds because it is such a perfect encapsulation of this world view. like all the very best restaurants, there is no compromise.

and even her friends sometimes rue the public position she has attained. it is unfortunate when one person becomes singled out as the representative for what may are doing--and many of them just as well or even better. i don't think anyone really sets out to be a folk hero--not bruce springsteen, not robert parker, not alice. and some handle it better than others. alice comes from a culture where it is viewed as an obligation to speak out as often as possible on issues she believes in. Others prefer to lead by quiet example.

but i've been fortunate enough to have eaten in some really good restaurants over the last 30 years--everything from texas bbq shacks to some pretty fancy places. and i consider eating at chez panisse to be a privilege. a somewhat complicated one, perhaps, but a privilege nonetheless.

[tanabutler]

I wonder how much she is singled out because of her charm? She is charming, there's no way around it. She is graceful, her hand movements are beguiling (reminding me of, at various times, a singer, a sculptor and a dancer I know), and her voice is lovely. So there is that aspect: people want to listen to a compelling voice, especially if it's musical and sweet. Hers is.

But it is unfortunate that one person bears the weight of being a "legend" when so many people are committed to the same thing, and with her same passion and knowledge.

I do look forward to eating at CP some day, in the winter or autumn or spring. I've had my "perfect peach" and I know its magic. I want to see what they can do with other things.

[malcolmjolley]

I really like the CP cookbook series, there's one thing.

(Notwithstanding Jeremiah Tower's assertion that she had very little to do with them.)

[Bux]

Maybe this makes me weird, but the last thing I want wrapped around a pluot is a short crust and creme patisserie, no matter how thrillingly executed.

I don't know that it makes you weird, but it makes you not a fan of pastry. The last thing I want a pastry che,f who's capable of making an excellent short crust and pastry cream, to do, is to make a tarte with anything but the best possible fruit.

[badthings]

The last thing I want a pastry che,f who's capable of making an excellent short crust and pastry cream, to do, is to make a tarte with anything but the best possible fruit.

touché.

My dining companions almost universally mock me when I order a $5 pluot for dessert. That's ok -- it's just a vessel for the dessert wine anyway.

By the way, having read the older thread Rachel cited, the idea the CP is the best restaurant in America is laughable. It can be argued that it's not the best restaurant in Berkeley.

[maggiethecat]

I wonder how much she is singled out because of her charm?

Thanks, tana, for giving me a starting point.

I have never eaten at CP, know Alice only second-hand through Rodgers and Reichl, and have never felt an overwhelming need to own one of her cookbooks. But I have been sensing a patronizing tone here (and elsewhere!) when people start talking about Alice.

Or Rachael. Or Sara. Or Nigella. Or, (duck and cover!) Martha. These women could not be more different, but they have two things in common. They are all successful and good-looking.

I have no particular wish to stir up the Gender Wars here, because I'm not sure that I'm correct. Tell me, I'm not, in fact. It's just a nagging creepy-crawly Feeling.

As tana said:

But it is unfortunate that one person bears the weight of being a "legend" when so many people are committed to the same thing, and with her same passion and knowledge.

Waters sure can't take credit for everything she and others have claimed, but she deserves more respect than I've been reading recently. Heck, she runs a decent restaurant!

I think it's the cute hat.

[tanabutler]

Well, Maggie, "charm" and being a luscious Nigella babe are two different things, to me. Alice's charm is way beyond looks, though she is lovely enough. I've heard a friend of mine who met her say that "Fergie" is a hundred times prettier off camera than on, and that her energy in person is captivating.

It's Alice's personal energy that surprised me.

And I think Russ put it perfectly in describing her position as a "deeply held world view, and not a fashion."

BTW, in a related story, Alice's daughter, Fanny, is featured in this month's Food and Wine magazine. It's about how she copes, as a college student, eating at Yale University. And yes, she's a pretty young woman.

[Dave the Cook]

. . . I have been sensing a patronizing tone here (and elsewhere!) when people start talking about Alice. 

Or Rachael.  Or Sara. Or Nigella. Or, (duck and cover!) Martha. These women could not be more different, but they have two things in common.  They are all successful and good-looking. 

I have no particular wish to stir up the Gender Wars here, because I'm not sure that I'm  correct.  Tell me, I'm not, in fact.  It's just a nagging creepy-crawly Feeling . . .

Lots of "girls" are successful and accepted by men without a hint of sexism (there are more than a few on this site). And plenty of men get nailed here when they overreach -- Emeril Lagasse, Bobby Flay and Jamie Oliver come immediately to mind. Note that it is rarely their cooking that takes the hit. It's their attitudes, their egos and their ambitions that offend. My observation is that that offense is transgender in nature.

I've seen AW a couple of times on the show belonging to that other target, Martha Stewart. She is charming and informative, but like Martha, she seems oblivious to the fact that what she thinks people ought to do (and I use "ought" in the moral sense, as Alice often does) is simply not possible for many, many of them. This creates a great deal of resentment on the part of the preachees -- they feel like they have been given a choice between guilt or heresy. Some choice!

Having read and digested many Martha posts on this site, and having to come to a reappreciation for her because of that, I'm willing to give AW the benefit of the doubt -- maybe I already feel guilty and Alice is simply uncovering it. That's not her fault.

But the article (rgruby's synopsis, anyway) that opened the thread makes her sound like a hypocrite, and moral hypocrites are easy (and, sad to say, often justifiable) targets.

(I'm pretty sure Rachael, Nigella and Sara get smacked down as often by women as by men. So if you want to play the gender card, we'll have to discuss reverse sexism, too.)

[russ parsons]

Maybe this makes me weird, but the last thing I want wrapped around a pluot is a short crust and creme patisserie, no matter how thrillingly executed.

I don't know that it makes you weird, but it makes you not a fan of pastry. The last thing I want a pastry che,f who's capable of making an excellent short crust and pastry cream, to do, is to make a tarte with anything but the best possible fruit.

what interests me about that statement is the assumption that we have to choose. why can't we have both? in fact, one day, i had lunch at cp cafe (medjool dates and tiny tangerines for dessert) and then dinner at fl (don't you love these initials). two completely different dining experiences, both as close to perfection as i've ever come. i'm not sure that i'd do that again, but only because i'd leave some time in between to recover.

[maggiethecat]

Tell me, I'm not, in fact. 

Dave, I think you just told me! Thank you.

But the article (rgruby's synopsis, anyway) that opened the thread makes her sound like a hypocrite, and moral hypocrites are easy (and, sad to say, often  justofiable) targets.

Very true.

I just reread russ's post, and I'm sorry I didn't pay closer attention the first time.

alice does come across as a bit strident in her preaching of this message. and preaching it is, since this style of cooking is a reflection of a deeply held world view rather than simple fashion. chez panisse succeeds because it is such a perfect encapsulation of this world view. like all the very best restaurants, there is no compromise.

[Mottmott]

The last thing I want a pastry che,f who's capable of making an excellent short crust and pastry cream, to do, is to make a tarte with anything but the best possible fruit.

I agree, but when I have dessert at a restaurant, I like to try something more than I can have at home, something that shows the hand of the PC.

Dessert at home is often a piece of fruit. This summer I've been reveling in the wonderfully perfumed white peaches from Jersey. Alas the most recent were not as wonderful. (I suspect they're cleaning the last of the crop off the trees too early.)

[MatthewB]

As there's much focus on desserts at CP . . .

When did CP become a dessert destination?

Critiquing Ms. Waters via one dessert seems, well, a bit unfair & unbalanced.

[Jensen]

Responding to the original post regarding the article...

You're not the only one who was annoyed by it. I lost my patience with all participants in the story and didn't even finish reading it. I think my parting thought was "Gee, maybe you should have showed up a little earlier and done your own bloody shopping."

[ferdlisky]

alice is a very complicated case. she is not a chef and has always been very upfront in saying that. in a way, for someone who is such a radical influence in american cooking, she's very old-fashioned--she's a restaurant impressario. she provides the support and the guidance for what is a pretty remarkable place (and, rare among the people posting on this thread, it seems, i have eaten there several times ... my advice: go for the cafe).

if you want to think of cp cuisine in a non-food context, try the craftsman movement (it's no coincidence that cp is an old bungalow). the idea is celebrating the beauty of unadorned products. this makes some people crazy, especially chefs who have devoted their careers to adornment, and to eaters who have come to equate adornment with good cooking.

alice does come across as a bit strident in her preaching of this message. and preaching it is, since this style of cooking is a reflection of a deeply held world view rather than simple fashion. chez panisse succeeds because it is such a perfect encapsulation of this world view. like all the very best restaurants, there is no compromise.

and even her friends sometimes rue the public position she has attained. it is unfortunate when one person becomes singled out as the representative for what may are doing--and many of them just as well or even better. i don't think anyone really sets out to be a folk hero--not bruce springsteen, not robert parker, not alice. and some handle it better than others. alice comes from a culture where it is viewed as an obligation to speak out as often as possible on issues she believes in. Others prefer to lead by quiet example.

but i've been fortunate enough to have eaten in some really good restaurants over the last 30 years--everything from texas bbq shacks to some pretty fancy places. and i consider eating at chez panisse to be a privilege. a somewhat complicated one, perhaps, but a privilege nonetheless.

This is the best thing I've ever read about AW.

[Katherine]

The whole thing seemed like a vanity thing on her part, and poor planning on the part of the Slow Food people, to even consider a bizarre setup like this one.

It was as though it was more important to be able to say AW had done the meal than to have it up to standards.

[marie-louise]

...if you want to think of cp cuisine in a non-food context, try the craftsman movement (it's no coincidence that cp is an old bungalow). the idea is celebrating the beauty of unadorned products. this makes some people crazy, especially chefs who have devoted their careers to adornment, and to eaters who have come to equate adornment with good cooking.

...i consider eating at chez panisse to be a privilege. a somewhat complicated one, perhaps, but a privilege nonetheless.

I have been fortunate to eat at Chez Panisse more times than I can count over the past twenty or so years. I no longer remember any details of my first meal there, or even when or why I went. I've been upstairs, downstairs, had lunch, dinner, and just dessert. I've gone there from everything from very special occasions like my BIL's 30th birthday (we sat next to Herb Caen, we were so starstruck) to a quick weeknight meal in the cafe with my husband. I tasted my first cassoulet there, on a rare snowy night in the Bay Area a few years ago. Sure, some things have been better than others, but I can't remember a single time when at some point in during the meal I didn't say, "How does she make this taste SO good?" Okay, maybe "she" doesn't do much of anything these days. Maybe she never did. I don't care. I LOVE this restaurant and everything it stands for. I feel incredibly priviliged to be able to eat there, and at all the many restaurants in the Bay Area with chefs who once worked there.

But then, I live in a Craftsman home. It's a perfect analogy. Thanks, Russ.

[foodie52]

Meowwww.....

I've only skimmed this thread, but ( I don't think ) anybody has mentioned the fact that CP has been open over 30 years, and that when it FIRST opened, 30 years ago, it was cutting edge. One of a kind.

Isn't CP all about being at the forefront of the organic food movement THIRTY YEARS AGO?? When I went there to eat, I considered it as a kind of pilgrimage. I guess I didn't care so much about what I was being served, but more about being grateful that I had the opportunity to experience what was, THIRTY YEARS AGO, an immensely moving experience for people in the food world.

I feel the same way about visiting shrines.

So bash away at Alice. Maybe she's not the woman she was when she started, but at least she's hung in there. And she's still doing cool things.

[elizabethnathan]

I just read the Saveur article. The author, BTW, is working on a book on AW. The piece felt very much like an excerpt from a longer body of work. I was in Torino last fall for the conference, and considered going to the dinner, but decided against it. I live in the Bay Area, so it would have felt silly to follow Chez Panisse to Italy.

I also strongly recommend the cafe over the restaurant. Dinner at the restaurant is a more formal affair, but the cafe experience is always special.

I think that eating well and conciously is for many of us a way of life, one that's so ingrained, we've forgotten the alternative. I realize this is not a particularly profound statement; we all read about having Alice to thank for our mesclun. What I'm getting at is that despite all the wonderful changes, there are millions who aren't concious of any of it, can't afford to eat organically, would rather eat junk, value sustenance above all, think the whole thing is totally elitist, etc. I just think that comfort and complacency lead us to devalue things too easily. I was quickly reminded of this when I moved to Holland from San Francisco. Our standards of excellence are so very high! And that's a great thing of course.

I've grown tired of the sycophantic focus on Waters, but that doesn't ever diminish my experience at Chez Panisse. The flavors are always incredibly clean, the space is so elegant, and it's just a treat.

[thelastsupper]

I've never eaten at CP, and never met AW. I want to know, can she cook???? Is it worth going to CP on my next trip to CA?? Or is she just way overrated??

FM

I've heard that the downstairs restaurant has slipped a bit. I ate at the café upstairs awhile ago and was blown away. Folk got soul. Amazing Boudin Blanc. And fresh fruit for dessert . . . definitelynot something you could get from your supermarket. . . and if you don't like it, order something else (at least upstairs).

[bourdain]

Whatever the "thruth" about AW--or what people may say, or who did what, or whether she is in fact the cook she is credited with being, Chez Panisse, a place she created, was indisputably, the "cradle of the revolution". Her importance, her place in history is assured--and well deserved.

The restaurant--while no longer as relevant as it once was--is still very very good, I think. And if it has been surpassed--that is largely due to its own wide-ranging influence.

[tanabutler]

A sub-story in the Sacramento Bee that followed their larger story on the Alice Waters dinner at Frog Hollow Farm that I had photographed:

Alice Waters is secure in her place in history

The very end of the article brings up the snarky Jeremiah Tower book. I love this quote:

Will she use the book to square matters with Tower? "I have no desire to do that. I don't want that tone in it."

Very smart and, apparently, very Alice.

[KarenS]

Rachel, Since you have never eaten at Chez Pannise I thought that you might be interested to learn that pieces of fresh fruit are for sale in the Cafe (upstairs) not in the downstairs dining room. The dining room is the place where you are offered a prix fixe menu. The menus for the dining room come out for each week the previous Thursday. If you are curious about the menus you can go to their web page at chezpannise.com . The menus are updated every week.

[GordonCooks]

If you are curious about the menus you can go to their web page at chezpannise.com . The menus are updated every week.

1 n, and 2 s's

[russ parsons]

The whole thing seemed like a vanity thing on her part, and poor planning on the part of the Slow Food people, to even consider a bizarre setup like this one. It was as though it was more important to be able to say AW had done the meal than to have it up to standards.

i finally read the article this weekend and i have to say i don't really understand the reactions to it. part of being a chef these days is people asking you to cook special meals ... for fundraisers, to promote causes, etc. this was something she had been asked to do by slow food ... the dinner was thrust upon her, not the other way around. and anyone who thinks anyone should be able to scrounge a dinner for 60 at the last minute has obviously never been involved in one of these. it conjures up images of a) napoleon's army ravaging the countryside or b) loaves and fishes (and while some of alice's followers may claim divine powers for her, even they'd stop short of that).

and what's that? slow food and poor planning mentioned in the same sentence? whoda thunk it?