Bruni's first NYT review

[jhlurie]

To me it sounded like he's positioning himself as "anti" enough to "the system" to WANT to give Babbo four stars, but is admitting that he can't quite go through with it. It's sort of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge thing. "This would REALLY be four stars if the world of food wasn't so franco-centric. Wink-wink. You know... they play ROCK MUSIC. It's TOO bustling. Mario has no restaint. Someone else less Batalish may do it. Nudge-nudge."

Does that make Bruni a poseur, or is it really just an expression of frustration at the way things are? Is this a declaration of sorts that he might just help to break that French four star monopoly, or is it just blather?

[Pan]

Is this a declaration of sorts that he might just help to break that French four star monopoly, or is it just blather?

The former, I think, but we'll have to wait and see. As long as he continues to write excellent reviews and make the criteria for his judgments clear, I'll be happy.

[oakapple]

Does that make Bruni a poseur, or is it really just an expression of frustration at the way things are?

You write as if these are the only two options. I did not sense the slightest note of frustration. Does that mean "poseur" is my only other choice? I think not.

Is this a declaration of sorts that he might just help to break that French four star monopoly, or is it just blather?

Bruni's musings seemed strongly to suggest that it may be time to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be, but that Babbo didn't offer the right vehicle with which to do it.

I did not sense that he had any regrets about being constrained by the system to award Babbo three stars. He seemed comfortable that this was the correct rating, based on the settled notion that a four-star restaurant must excel in all dimensions, not just the food.

I suspect we will continue to see this issue explored, as Bruni gets around to visiting other restaurants that flirt with four stars.

[markk]

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.

Well, in many ways that's true. I mean, I believe in my heart of hearts that it's all about the food and should be that way, but it's also discussed in the restaurant world that the million dollars in trappings and table setting that surround you at a four-star place are what separate them from the three stars, the implication being that at three stars the food is truly spectacular anyway (or should be), so all you need are the luxury trimmings. Of course, it would be nice if what got places their fourth star was extra-extra special food, but that's not often the case.

[Fat Guy]

I think fundamentally we do not have to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be. The current system, implemented by a reviewer with an open mind, can easily accommodate non-French four-star restaurants. There is no need to create multiple overlapping sets of standards to accommodate other styles. In their native places, those cuisines have had no trouble, in their restaurant manifestations, achieving the level of experience necessary to get the highest accolades such as three Michelin stars or the local equivalent. If nobody is building these restaurants in New York, so be it. Redefining the star system to make Babbo or Masa into a four-star restaurant would not be productive. A four-star rating is a judgment, to be sure, but there is no shame in a three-star rating. In some genres, that is simply the highest available rating, and that's fine. When it comes to setting the standards for restaurants, there's no shame in being a little Francocentric as long as you don't trip over into xenophobia or confuse the Francocentric notion of restaurant excellence with anything having to do with the actual cuisine. The French invented the restaurant, the French have maintained leadership in that area, and therefore they get the biggest vote in defining the genre. For the most part, all over the world, that's the model everybody aspires to, regardless of the specific cuisine being served. What New York has added to the Francocentric model is a layer of celebration -- restaurants like Daniel don't exist in France, they are very much a part of New York, so in New York it is appropriate to bend the French model in order to accommodate what is right for us. But even under that modified system, Babbo isn't ever going to be a four-star restaurant.

[markk]

Also, when I was reading the review, his remark that the music was emblematic of what makes it a 3-star rather than a 4-star did raise my eyebrows, but that wasn't all he said about the ambiance, and the crowding also played a role. Had he given the music as the only reason to award 3 stars rather than 4, I would ridicule his review - but that wasn't what he said.

Precisely.

He established that, by his standards anyway, that Babbo's style "undercuts the kind of coddling that restaurants can also provide. They can muster a style of theater and degree of pampering that make more universally appealing sense than the sounds and scrum of Babbo."

A previous NY Times critic (sorry, I don't remember who it was) once wrote in a review of Montrachet that what distinguished a three star restaurant from a four, in her mind, was how often you could eat there - if it didn't overwhelm your senses so much that you felt you couldn't eat there all the time, it couldn't be a four-star place in her mind.

[slkinsey]

I think fundamentally we do not have to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be. The current system, implemented by a reviewer with an open mind, can easily accommodate non-French four-star restaurants.

I wonder the extent to which this is true. This is to say, I wonder whether it is possible for a restaurant to be awarded four stars without buying significantly into the international neo-French restaurant model. One could argue that slow, meticulous, complex, super-duper-luxe cuisine is something particular to the international neo-French restaurant model (I say "neo-French" because I don't think this style refects the cooking of France the way Italian style reflects the cooking of Italy or Chinese style reflects the cooking of China, etc.). Indeed, it has been remarked by many that the Michelin-starred restaurants in Italy aren't serving particularly Italian food.

The French invented the restaurant, the French have maintained leadership in that area, and therefore they get the biggest vote in defining the genre. For the most part, all over the world, that's the model everybody aspires to, regardless of the specific cuisine being served.

I was right with you on the first sentence. Couldn't disagree more with the second. There are significant features of the high neo-French model that are specifically not the model to which people in other countries aspire. I keep returning to Italy because that's what I know best, but I know enough to know that it's no less true in other cultures. In Italy, for example, the aesthetic by and large leans away from meticulous complexity towards natural simplicity.

[oakapple]

I think fundamentally we do not have to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be. .... Redefining the star system to make Babbo or Masa into a four-star restaurant would not be productive.

I think you've conflated separate issues.

Frank Bruni has already spoken about Babbo: it is not four stars. Bruni may be exploring more flexible notions of four-star dining, but he's satisfied that Babbo belongs at three due to the issues he mentioned: over-loud music; cramped tables; frenetic service.

But I will come out and say it: New York has several high-end, ultra-luxe, Japanese (or Japanese-inspired) restaurants that charge four-star prices. I no longer consider it plausible that not one of these is "extraordinary," which is the criterion for four stars.

As I have not been to most of these places, I am not sure which one will be the first to tip the scales at four stars, but I am quite confident that one of them should.

Edited June 11, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Pan]

Oakapple, since we'd both agree that prices don't justify a rating, I see no reason to presume that, simply because there are a number of Japanese restaurants in New York that charge very high prices, that means that at least one of them deserves a 4-star rating. But if you go to one that you believe does merit that rating, I would be very interested to know about it. You have already established your own track record as a highly informative and interesting reviewer, as far as I'm concerned.

[oakapple]

Oakapple, since we'd both agree that prices don't justify a rating, I see no reason to presume that, simply because there are a number of Japanese restaurants in New York that charge very high prices, that means that at least one of them deserves a 4-star rating. But if you go to one that you believe does merit that rating, I would be very interested to know about it. You have already established your own track record as a highly informative and interesting reviewer, as far as I'm concerned.

Pan, first off, many thanks for the compliment.

I was not suggesting that price equals rating. I would posit, however, that when people pay a certain price, they are in general expecting a certain kind of experience. A restaurant charging four-star prices and delivering a one-star experience would probably not be in business for very long. There might be some exceptions (places living off their reputations), but this is not the norm.

So my hypothesis, as yet unproven, is that with so many established ultra-luxe Japanese restaurants attracting serious diners at four-star prices, there is probably at least one delivering an experience worthy of that rating.

[Chad]

Dang, this is getting confusing. There are two threads running concurrently that discuss the same thing. While we try to sort out which posts (if any) need to be moved into the Bruni, Babbo & NYT Reviewing System thread, I'm going to lock this one to further comment. That way we only have one thread to keep up with.

Thanks for understanding.

Chad