Bruni's first NYT review

[bloviatrix]

The Times has already posted Bruni's review from tomorrow's paper. For his first restaurant he chose to visit Babbo.

Futhermore, I do believe he's been reading egullet.

Among the restaurants that make my stomach do a special jig, Babbo ranks near the top, and that's one reason a fresh review appears today, six years after Babbo opened and received a three-star rating in The New York Times from Ruth Reichl.

But there are other reasons, including this: Babbo provides a clear example of what separates an absolutely terrific restaurant, which it is, from a wholly transcendent dining experience, which it is not. It traces one of the dividing lines between three and four stars, a stratum that makes demands well beyond the perimeter of the plate.

[bloviatrix]

More on Bruni...

In NYC we have a local news station called NY1. Every night they run a show called New York Times Close-Up and on Tuesday nights they do a segment where the restaurant critic discusses the next day's review. I was channel surfing and came across the segment. Anyway, the moderator asked Bruni how he ended up with the job to which Bruni replied that he's always had an appreciation for dining and there people at the Times who knew about it. He then added that in preparation for the job he travelled to a number of foreign countries (some of which he had been to previously) and sampled their native cuisines trying to build up is "taste memory."

[bilrus]

Two weeks ago at Babbo, my wife and I were discussing Bruni's impending debut, the fact that there were only the five 4 star French places, where Babbo would fall if reevaluated in light of Bruni's Italian experience and how it compares to Per Se where we were the night before adn the difference between a four and three star place. (Yeah - we're food geeks and this is what we talk about at dinners, don't tell me you don't too.)

Bruni's evaluation falls right in line with where we came down. Our feeling is that Batali is not trying to be a four star place and tries to throw enough quirks and casual-ness to keep it that way. But you know that he wants it to be the best at what it is trying to be. The epitome of a three-star experience.

One of those quirks is the music, which we thought was loud (but not overly so) on our first visit downsairs, but not so much the second time upstairs. But I do think it is a bit of an overstatement to imply that it is the only reason that Babbo isn't deserving of four stars.

Overall I thought it was a good choice and a good job for a first review. It is a place that many (including us tourists) are familiar with. And it is a good example of a restaurant that helps us establish what in his mind makes up a three or four star restaurant. something that i know many have felt has been missing.

[slkinsey]

Very interesting that, according to my reading of the review, he thought it was the non-culinary elements that make Babbo a three-star instead of a four-star.

[Bux]

Frank Bruni:

Babbo provides a clear example of what separates an absolutely terrific restaurant, which it is, from a wholly transcendent dining experience, which it is not.

It seems to me he's paraphrasing Amanda Hesser there. Didn't she say almost the same thing about the difference between three and four star dining in her last review?

It's a nice review in my opinion and he goes a long way, intentionally and without embarrassment, to answer the questions I'm sure he's heard and read about being capable to criticize restaurants. Whether or not you agree that Babbo serves food that's the equal of any in NYC, Bruni clearly notes his appreciation for fine dining and where Babbo aims not to provide it. Some may question his focus on the music and ambience, but he makes as good a case as anyone has as to why most diners should pay more attention to the text and less to the stars when choosing where to dine. I think the loud music is an much a metaphor for the rest of the service and ambience as anything. Babbo goes for the gut he says and Bruni seems to appreciate that Batali hits his target. Let's hope that Bruni can appreciate other types of food and cooking as well as he can this. From the tone of his review, I rather expect he can. As it's unfair to review a restaurant after one meal, I wouldn't think to predict how well I'll like Bruni's reviews, but he seems off to a good start.

[Jason Perlow]

I agree with Bux, this is a solid first showing.

And I concur with Bloviatrix that Bruni sounds like an eGulleteer. Thats a good sign.

[Fat Guy]

For all I know Frank Bruni has never even heard of eGullet; nonetheless he has the soul of an eGulleter.

What is so extraordinarily promising about this first review -- and I hope the premature naysayers who judged him without giving him a chance will eat a little crow today -- is that Bruni is clearly committed to creating an oeuvre.

The review is about more than Babbo; indeed it isn't really about Babbo at all. Like we needed Bruni or anybody else to tell us Babbo is a three-star restaurant, or that it's good, or what to order? Any yokel could learn all that from a million sources.

What we needed Bruni to tell us was something more general: we needed him to tell us that he is going to slam the door extremely fucking hard on the most disastrous era in the history of New York Times restaurant reviewing. It is no coincidence that he harks back to Ruth Reichl -- this is the association he has chosen, from the last time the Times had credibility in this arena. And now he has made that promise, one of joie-de-vivre wrapped around a core of gravitas that strikes just the right note of self-consciousness without going overboard into self-indulgence.

In future reviews, of course, he should not dwell so extensively on the mechanics of ratings. But at this early stage it is appropriate and desirable for him to give us a look at what he thinks the standards mean. Let's hope this is the beginning of something very good for the Times, for lovers of food, and for the world of restaurants.

[kurl]

What we needed Bruni to tell us was something more general: we needed him to tell us that he is going to slam the door extremely fucking hard on the most disastrous era in the history of New York Times restaurant reviewing. It is no coincidence that he harks back to Ruth Reichl -- this is the association he has chosen, from the last time the Times had credibility in this arena. And now he has made that promise, one of joie-de-vivre wrapped around a core of gravitas that strikes just the right note of self-consciousness without going overboard into self-indulgence..

For those of us who are, say, 20, can you please go into some detail about what particularly you didn't like about the Grimes era? Not being privy to any other restaurant reviewer eras, I ahve no basis for comparison.

[Jason Perlow]

What we needed Bruni to tell us was something more general: we needed him to tell us that he is going to slam the door extremely fucking hard on the most disastrous era in the history of New York Times restaurant reviewing. It is no coincidence that he harks back to Ruth Reichl -- this is the association he has chosen, from the last time the Times had credibility in this arena.

Yes, I think we all needed to hear this. With a few dozen reviews like these under his belt, Bruni will successfully be able to mask away -- although he may never be able to erase -- the pallor and disgrace that has overcast the Food Section of the NYT of recent days.

[Jason Perlow]

What we needed Bruni to tell us was something more general: we needed him to tell us that he is going to slam the door extremely fucking hard on the most disastrous era in the history of New York Times restaurant reviewing. It is no coincidence that he harks back to Ruth Reichl -- this is the association he has chosen, from the last time the Times had credibility in this arena. And now he has made that promise, one of joie-de-vivre wrapped around a core of gravitas that strikes just the right note of self-consciousness without going overboard into self-indulgence..

For those of us who are, say, 20, can you please go into some detail about what particularly you didn't like about the Grimes era? Not being privy to any other restaurant reviewer eras, I ahve no basis for comparison.

At least in the last 2 years of his reign, Grimes became a miserable wretch of a reviewer. You can plainly see he stopped enjoying his job a LONG time ago.

At the end of the day, a food critic must enjoy food and the pursuit and pastime of eating and the fun that goes with it. In the end you could tell that this was gone for Grimes.

[Fat Guy]

What we needed Bruni to tell us was something more general: we needed him to tell us that he is going to slam the door extremely fucking hard on the most disastrous era in the history of New York Times restaurant reviewing. It is no coincidence that he harks back to Ruth Reichl -- this is the association he has chosen, from the last time the Times had credibility in this arena. And now he has made that promise, one of joie-de-vivre wrapped around a core of gravitas that strikes just the right note of self-consciousness without going overboard into self-indulgence..

For those of us who are, say, 20, can you please go into some detail about what particularly you didn't like about the Grimes era? Not being privy to any other restaurant reviewer eras, I ahve no basis for comparison.

I think I'll cast my vote for not letting this thread go off on that tangent. We've had quite a few discussions of Grimes's reviews; maybe I'll catch up with you on one of those threads. Suffice it to say that, love her or hate her, when Ruth Reichl was the Times critic she was a giant in the food community not only because of her podium at the Times but also because of the power of her taste, judgment, ideas, and expressions. Grimes, while a good writer, never filled those shoes: he was a Times reporter doing a decent job as the restaurant reviewer; nothing more. And I'll repeat my request that we keep this thread tightly focused where the attention should be: on Frank Bruni, his first review, and, we hope, good things to come.

[mongo_jones]

"It's a daunting gantlet that diners must penetrate"

from the review. is this a common american spelling of "gauntlet"? or is bruni being fey? or is he talking about train tracks?

[RobinsonCuisine]

So, first I thought it was another "I'm sleeping with the chef so its going to be a rave" and then turned into "Ruth Reichl dissing a big fish and docking them a star" and ended being a wet fish that meant nothing.

I like Babbo, but did that review represent the restaurant the regular Joe experiences?

I expected(hoped) for more.

Frank Bruni was a bureau chief in Rome and starts his career as a food critic reviewing already well received Italian restaurants (as noted in the piece as if to say *I need qualifications from the past to give me clout").

Considering the debacle that was Amanda Hesser(and her lack of journalistic ethics), I would expect the Times to eliminate any taint of favoritism. Either they have no faith in Bruni, or he is sleeping with Buttali (which I doubt (in a physical sense) although the insider knowledge of his footwear is suspect).

It was a bad start.

[Pan]

Wow, a vehemently discordant note from RobinsonCuisine!

I thought it was a great review. He made absolutely clear what he loves so much about the food and how he characterizes it, and what he feels about the ambiance. Anyone reading the review would seem to know what to expect when going to Babbo, which is great. And it's very well-written. I also think it's quite reasonable for him to begin with an Italian restaurant, given that he's just come from Rome. One thing that interested me is that his years in Italy didn't cause him to downgrade the food at an Italian restaurant in New York.

I also think that this may be a theme on the New York restaurant scene for some time, and it was a good thing for Bruni to address in his first review:

At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times. All are French in pedigree or predilection, and that rightly prompts notice as well as debate, at least around the tables where restaurant lovers huddle and feast.

It will be interesting to see his take on non-Italian restaurants in the future, and I look forward to reading future reviews.

[Andy Lynes]

From a British perspective, I'd be delighted to see our restaurant critics taking their cue from Mr. Bruni. If I could open my paper on a Saturday or Sunday and read something like that, I'd be very happy. Informed, opinionated, enlightening, well written and, most importantly, actually about the restaurant, food and service. And all this whilst deftly avoiding formula and cliche. How can that be a bad start?

[bourdain]

I thought it was a very good first review. Explained why he liked Babbo, what he liked about Babbo, gave us a pretty good idea of who was writing and what his point of view and criteria was--and awarded exactly the number of stars Babbo deserves (and probably aspires to). Bruni's appreciation of the lamb's tongues is also an encouraging note. I think he "got" the place-duly noting what's great and (quirky/unique) about both the restaurant and its proprietors.

If I have one complaint it's the image of a "stomach doing the jig". Is that really a good thing?

[Michael Ruhlman]

Agreed with those in favor. An auspicious debut, not only the solid review itself but what he's clearly bringing to the table--an eubullient, life-loving spirit. Very hopeful.

[Lesley C]

So, first I thought it was another "I'm sleeping with the chef so its going to be a rave" and then turned into "Ruth Reichl dissing a big fish and docking them a star" and ended being a wet fish that meant nothing.

I like Babbo, but did that review represent the restaurant the regular Joe experiences?

I expected(hoped) for more.

Frank Bruni was a bureau chief in Rome and starts his career as a food critic reviewing already well received Italian restaurants (as noted in the piece as if to say *I need qualifications from the past to give me clout").

Considering the debacle that was Amanda Hesser(and her lack of journalistic ethics), I would expect the Times to eliminate any taint of favoritism. Either they have no faith in Bruni, or he is sleeping with Buttali (which I doubt (in a physical sense) although the insider knowledge of his footwear is suspect).

It was a bad start.

Not quite as harsh, but I'm along these lines.

I thought it read more like yet another profile of "Batali the Great" than a restaurant review. Do we really need another love letter to Mario Batali? Even he seems bored with all the attention. Time to move on, I think, and this might have been a great opportunity to do just that.

Thumbs down.

[oakapple]

Let me join the chorus of those who thought that this was an excellent start for Mr. Bruni.

Sam Kinsey wrote:

Very interesting that, according to my reading of the review, he thought it was the non-culinary elements that make Babbo a three-star instead of a four-star.

Whether said or unsaid, non-culinary elements have always been a big part of the ratings criteria, and especially so at the high end. The Times's website even tells us, "Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration."

Fat Guy wrote:

In future reviews, of course, he should not dwell so extensively on the mechanics of ratings. But at this early stage it is appropriate and desirable for him to give us a look at what he thinks the standards mean.

Hesser last week and Bruni this week both explained the difference between three and four stars, and they explained it much the same way. It probably doesn't need to be stated again anytime soon. But I wouldn't mind hearing what, in Mr. Bruni's view, is the difference between two and three stars, or between one and two - a standard I don't recall any recent reviewer explaining. It would be a most interesting discussion, and also a quite valuable one. After all, there will be comparatively few restaurants for which the possibility of a four-star rating even crosses his mind, but there will be many more times when the one-two or two-three star boundary is in question.

RobinsonCuisine wrote:

Frank Bruni was a bureau chief in Rome and starts his career as a food critic reviewing already well received Italian restaurants.

You said "Italian restaurants" (plural); he has reviewed one. It was a brilliant choice. As a reviewer, Bruni is a stranger to us. By writing well about a restaurant whose place in the dining hierarchy is already established, Bruni introduces himself as a food critic and establishes a context for reviews of less familiar restaurants to come. The Times has a long history of re-reviewing important restaurants periodically, and while the policy for doing so has never been entirely clear, a second look at Babbo six years later was certainly appropriate.

Edited June 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Pumpkin Lover]

Small question: does Bruni really, really like small paragraphs (like, 2 sentences or less), or does it look that way because I'm reading it online and there are a ton of line breaks? I liked the content of the review, but not the stop-and-start paragraph breaks.

[mongo_jones]

If I have one complaint it's the image of a "stomach doing the jig". Is that really a good thing?

perhaps if you're eating haggis?

[bourdain]

Do we really need another love letter to Mario Batali? Even he seems bored with all the attention.

Who better? Is ubiquitousness an obstacle to good works--or even a factor in wether or not a chef/operator or restaurant is good? I think not. Particularly in Batali's case.

Unlike most other media darling chefs, Batali's got the goods.

Fact is, Mario keeps opening one quality restaurant after another, never content to take the safe route and simply duplicate the success of the previous one. Babbo, Esca, Lupa, Otto (whatever you think of the pizza) , Casa Mono--Spotted Pig, the Wine store--all offer something new and unique to diners. He and Joe Bastianich are easily the most interesting, best-for-New York outift in an otherwise cynical business. Batali gets a lot of lavish, adoring attention from journos because of--but also IN SPITE of the TV stuff. Bottom line? Most who write about the man and his works enjoy eating at his restaurants. They're grateful such places exist. They're grateful he keeps opening them. They're grateful he's the passionate, genuine, larger than life Falstaffian character he is. And they're grateful he's not another soul-less money-driven multi-unit operator like Chodorow, Hansen et al, opening one cynical "theme" joint after another--that he dares always to try new--often untested things.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with praising and paying a lot of attention to Batali Inc. He's New York's best and most praiseworthy 600 pound gorilla. And when you've got a 600 pound gorilla in the room, whatever the gorilla thinks--the situation demands attention.

Bruni got it just right.

[dillweed]

Hi. I'm new to e-gullet and my dismay at Bruni's review of Babbo has propelled me to compose my very first post. Bruni appreciates that the food is worthy of four stars. But why does he only award three?

To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.

Give me a break! What is so great about Babbo and the whole new trend in NYC dining is that there are no more rules. The old school may prefer muffled Mozart to Moby, but old-school formality has gone the way of La Cote Basque and La Caravelle. The Times needs to move with the times. If we can appreciate the beauty of a bare-wood Mission-style table at Craft, or eat $300 sushi in comfort wearing jeans at Masa, why shouldn't we rock out with Lou Reed while we enjoy our lamb's tongue? Batali's iconoclasm works. Babbo positively radiates with energy and quality -- yes, even in the music played at the bar. Bruni may not enjoy rock 'n' roll but -- guess what? -- it's here to stay and a lot of us do.

[slkinsey]

Stepping into my moderator shoes for a moment, I'd like to point out that this thread should be for discussing Bruni, what general things he might be saying in his review, what possibilities his review seems to imply for the future, etc. There is a thread in the NY forum for discussions relating specifically to Babbo, including what this review has to say that specifically relates to the restaurant.

[Andrew&Karen]

<<But I wouldn't mind hearing what, in Mr. Bruni's view, is the difference between two and three stars, or between one and two - a standard I don't recall any recent reviewer explaining. It would be a most interesting discussion, and also a quite valuable one.>>

When Ruth Reichl was the TIMES' critic, we asked her about her definitions, which we wrote about in our book DINING OUT: Secrets of America's Leading Critics, Chefs and Restaurateurs. There are general TIMES guidelines for each starred category (0 to 4), but they are applied through the individual critic's lens. (We'd be happy to post her comments, if there's interest.)

We're with the majority, we think, in being much-relieved -- excited, even -- by Bruni's passion both for food and the restaurant experience in his debut review.

However, we're just as disappointed by what we thought to be a couple of glaring oversights: namely, the space and attention devoted to BABBO's desserts and wine. (To be fair, these areas have also been overlooked by other recent TIMES critics, and not just Bruni.)

First, only ONE 51-word paragraph (of this 31-paragraph article) was devoted to the work of pastry chef Gina DePalma, who for the past two years has been one of five finalists for the James Beard Award for Outstanding Pastry Chef nationally. Six years between TIMES reviews seems to be a long time to wait for the mere acknowledgment that your desserts are "almost always wonderful."

Second, only two paragraphs (a grand total of 54 words) were devoted to BABBO's extraordinary wine program overseen by Joe Bastianich and David Lynch -- 22 of those words being about the "unusually deep dimple" of the wine decanter.

Come on....Just last month BABBO won the 2004 James Beard Award for Outstanding Wine Service. Wouldn't it make sense to mention some of the things that set apart BABBO's wine program, not to mention DePalma's desserts, as so extraordinary?

We hope to see these areas given more attention, when warranted, in future reviews -- just as we hope to see the passion and promise conveyed in this review to continue.

Just as it has been the TIMES' policy to refrain from reviewing a restaurant until making three or more visits to it, we should refrain from passing judgment on a single column. However, even the TIMES came up with its "Diner's Journal" feature as a means of expressing early enthusiasm for promising restaurants. We'd like to chime in with our early enthusiasm for Frank Bruni's promise as the TIMES' new critic.

Welcome to New York, Frank.

Karen & Andrew

http://www.becomingachef.com