Paul Bocuse - anyone been recently?

[tony h]

I'm off to Lyon soon & was wondering if Bocuse was any good or past it?

[marcus]

It's definitely not what it used to be, kind of running on autopilot. Bocuse comes in the early evening to greet arriving patrons, and then leaves. I don't believe that anyone has observed him in the kitchen in many years.

However, the food is still very good, not excellent, and the signature dishes are still worth sampling, especially if you've never tried them: soupe de truffe, loup en croute, and especially poulet de bresse en vessie. Relatively well priced for a 3 star, and the wine list, especially, has some bargains.

[Steve Martin]

Not that recently, but as far as I can know you from your posts, you won't enjoy it.

http://www.eurosnaps.com/paul.htm

[Carlsbad]

It saddens me to read that review. We had a fabulous dinner at Bocuse in 1989. I can still remember the soupe de truffes, rouget with potato crust, and bresse chicken en vessie, which was carved with precision at the table. The cheeses were memorable (and at proper temperature), especially a Roquefort which I still recall as the best I have ever had. Most of the dishes were becoming dated even then, from another era really, but all were perfectly executed. The service was superb as well. We considered a return on subsequent trips to France, but my wife would always say another visit might ruin the memory of our meal there. Apparently, she was right all along.

[tony h]

Not that recently, but as far as I can know you from your posts, you won't enjoy it.

that's why I'm asking - my faith in michelin has been shaken recently

(PS I like oil rigs - but no link to egullet? tut tut )

[marcus]

Paul Bocuse is an institution, one of the most important chef's and restaurants of its time, and Michelin is reluctant to remove its stars. Whatever Michelin's failings may be, it doesn't relate to the issue of whether this restaurant deserves its stars or not. The question is simply whether a restaurant this important deserves to keep its stars as a legacy or not. No one questions the fact that it no longer deserves 3 stars based on what is placed on the table today, it doesn't.

However, I found the review referenced above to be particularly unconvincing and I wouldn't personally use that in a decision process. Although the writer has been to some places, I don't get the feeling that his experience goes beyond the ones named. His comment about the lack of vegetables with loup en croute is particularly irrelevent.

Edited April 18, 2004 by marcus (log)

[mdibiaso]

First let me say that I have never been to Bocuse. But what I do not understand is why a restaurant should not have 3 stars just because it is cooking the food the same way it did 15-20 years ago. It seems that too often we feel that food has to be new in order to be excellent and worth 3 stars and forget that some old style cooking and techniques were so great because they tasted so great and they still taste great (man I still love a perfectly made butter or cream sauce that is so rich you feel your arteries hardening as you eat!). What happened to the days of having ones favorite dish and wanting to go back to the same place time and time again to eat it because they make it to perfection? I am not saying that old is always = good or new is always = to bad. I am just saying that the idea that a place has to be doing something original and new in order to be worth 3 stars is not an idea I share. In fact, I love going back to a place and eating my favorite dish over and over again. For me it is Lagoustine in vermicelli at Lucas Carton, which I also hear many people say is no longer worth 3 stars since many dishes have been on the menu for over 10 years. I say it is worth 3 stars partly because they have these dishes that are perfection on the menu still.

[Bux]

mdibiaso, I couldn't agree more with you in terms of protecting our gastronomic heritage. For a restaurant to toss it's menus solely because the offerings are deemed out of date is perhaps even worse than refusing to try new dishes. A problem I am having with Michelin is that it seems to have come late to the new cuisine party and is now over reacting. It seems as if all the new one star places are the ones taking chances.

We've been spending more time in Spain, not just because there's such excitement in the creative category, but because there's such depth in the traditional food and restaurants devoted to serving it. It's a wonderful opportunity for the new and the old to counterpoint each other. If only I had more time to fully explore each.

I'm not sure Bocuse is the place to make this argument and it's rare that restaurants which settle into being an institution keep up the level of excellence they once had for many reasons. They're still worthy of a visit and discussion, albeit less easy to justify when making a relatively short visit to France.

[Steve Martin]

However, I found the review referenced above to be particularly unconvincing and I wouldn't personally use that in a decision process. Although the writer has been to some places, I don't get the feeling that his experience goes beyond the ones named. His comment about the lack of vegetables with loup en croute is particularly irrelevent.

No veg in the entire meal, marcus.

I wasn't expecting a little crescent plate with the veg of the day, but it shouldn't be beyond the ability of any chef to balance a meal with some.

Any suggestions to broaden my experience? The list names my favourite lunches. Dinners are another matter.

[Bux]

The list names my favourite lunches.  Dinners are another matter.

To what extent are dinners another matter? it's been my experience that at the three star level, if not all all formal dining in France, dinners are much the same as lunches. There are a significant number of fine restaurants that feature a simpler menu at lunch and at a gentler price, especially in Paris. Most all of these restaurants also offer the regular carte offering pretty much the same dishes as at dinner at the same price. In the provinces, it's even more true that lunch in a great restaurant is the major meal of one's day. I remember reading about the differences between a formal lunch and dinner and I think it was Raymond Oliver who noted, among other things, that a cold appetizer was proper at lunch, but never at dinner. I think such distinction was dying when I began eating at better restaurants in France and I think it's rare to find adherents today. Certainly there were always exceptions such as caviar and oysters and unadorned caviar and raw oysters seems an unlikely choice in a chef driven restaurant where it's the kitchen's talents most gastronomes want.

[menton1]

You should also bear in mind that if you are staying in the center of Lyon sans voiture, that Bocuse is a ways out of town and a chore to get to; you might opt instead for the also-acclaimed Léon de Lyon, Pierre Orsi, both of which are in the center of the city, or the dozens of lesser-known great restaurants in Lyon, including the Bouchons. After all, Lyon is touted as the best city for food in France.....

[Bux]

It's hardly a chore to get to Bocuse, but it can be expensive without a car. It's an easy taxi ride. You will however, pay the driver, each way, enough for him to have a good dinner, though not quite at Bocuse's price level.

[tony h]

You should also bear in mind that if you are staying in the center of Lyon sans voiture, that Bocuse is a ways out of town and a chore to get to; you might opt instead for the also-acclaimed Léon de Lyon, Pierre Orsi, both of which are in the center of the city, or the dozens of lesser-known great restaurants in Lyon, including the Bouchons. After all, Lyon is touted as the best city for food in France.....

thanks for the replies (all)

I suppose I should been more specific - what I as getting at is this: should I spend and evening a Bocuse or go somewhere more intersting & I think the answer is a big YES. I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to go to a 3 star but I suspected Bocuse is a spent force and after recent & awful visitis to Grand Vefour, Tallivant (sp), Martin Breg-thingy (San Seb) my faith in 3 stars is somewhat shaken.

First let me say that I have never been to Bocuse. But what I do not understand is why a restaurant should not have 3 stars just because it is cooking the food the same way it did 15-20 years ago.

I partly agree - if the food is still exceptional then keep the 3 stars - however - the 3 stars means just that - exceptional. Is rehearsing what you've done in the past good enough - I don't know? Michel Gerard seemed to do that when I was there last autumn - even proud of preseting a (lobster) dish which the menu said was "perfected in 1979" (or there abouts). It was very good - but I was bored by the end of the meal.

Anyway - Bocuse is now off the list - thanks for your help

[Steve Martin]

The list names my favourite lunches.  Dinners are another matter.

To what extent are dinners another matter?

Sorry Bux, I meant that my list of favourite dinners is another matter.

Unlike my list of lunches, it might show sufficient 'experience' to be able to venture an opinion on Bocuse.

So I agree with what you have written.

[bleudauvergne]

I went to Gourmet de Seze just last week. It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but I certainly enjoyed it.

When will you be in Lyon?

[Lesley C]

I dined at Bocuse in 1989 and it was amazing. I had the truffle soup en croute (packed full of truffles) terrine de foie gras, canard en deux services, wonderful cheese, and a dessert lineup I will not soon forget (they used to assemble tables all around you and cover them with desserts, which were only whisked away when you had your fill). Coffee came with beautiful Bernachon chocolates. I loved every minute of it, but what I loved best was the friendly "acceuil."

Verry sorry to hear it has gone downhill . But to each his own. I ate at Michel Trama two years ago and thought it was second-rate. He got three stars this year -- so go figure.

[Fat Guy]

In any evolving area of human endeavor, at each watershed moment, people are going to ask "what happened to the days of . . ." What happened to those days is that they ended. It is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever open a new three-star-type restaurant based on the "great works" model. The restaurants that already succeed in that niche may continue on indefinitely, and if they perform exceptionally well they deserve their three-star ratings, but they're well understood to be from another time. Newer restaurants may develop a few signatures and keep them around long-term, but the major focus is now on creativity.

Traditional cuisine will always have its place -- indeed in terms of raw number of meals served, it will always be dominant. But at the top levels of the culinary arts today, there is an overwhelming sense that forward motion is inevitable and required.

In terms of Marcus's framing of the issue "The question is simply whether a restaurant this important deserves to keep its stars as a legacy or not." I think the answer is emphatically no, it doesn't deserve to keep its stars as a legacy. It deserves, on account of the legacy, a very high degree of deference and caution when reevaluating the star rating, but if it doesn't deserve three stars for what it's doing today then it doesn't deserve three stars. Michelin guide ratings are supposed to be current as of the year of publication of the guide. The guide you buy today says it's for 2004, not for 1904-2004. It's a disservice to everyone to overrate Bocuse -- even to Bocuse.

[marcus]

I ate at Michel Trama two years ago and thought it was second-rate. He got three stars this year -- so go figure.

Lesley, I'm with you on this one. People either love Trama, or are mystified by the fuss. I find his food too intellectual and too understated to really enjoy.

[Lesley C]

Trama's food to me seemed quite dated. I had the exact same dessert there two years ago that I used to make at Thuries in 1990 (a larme au chocolat) and my starter, a baby-food-like mixture of pureed avocado topped with caviar, arrived in a chipped Martini glass. I found the whole experience to be seriously underwhelming. Mystified by the fuss. Yeah, that's about right

Now at Bocuse, it was wow, wow, wow. Classic food yes, but superb ingredients, great service, and luxury. At Trama, the menus were paper and they charged me 100 ff for a copy. I left Puymirol pissed off. I left Bocuse elated.

But the decline of Bocuse's restaurant is odd. He has what?, 2 MOF on his staff? I would love to dine there again to compare. Not that I don't trust reports, I'm just surprised that a man as proud as Bocuse would let his restaurant slip.

[Carlsbad]

My experience exactly, Lesley C.

I would think Bocuse is the legitimate heir to Fernand Point, and Point's restaurant had three stars long after his death. Point may have been second only to Escoffier in the annals of French cuisine. After his widow died, La Pyramide was totally redone, but it still rates two stars. Maybe it is that good, or maybe it's the legend.

I'm not sure I will ever go back, but I still recall dinner at Bocuse 15 years ago very fondly.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Carlsbad (log)

[degusto]

He has what?, 2 MOF on his staff?

I think they are 7 MOF's including himself. One in the dining room, himself and five in the kitchens.

Without getting into the argument how it should be rated, I think he should retire.