Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Pan]

Oakapple, I don't think it's uncommon for intelligent people to go to a restaurant after it received a 4-star review in the Times - in other words, primarily because of the 4 stars in the review. My family did that twice and was disappointed both times. The other 4 star I've been to I went to primarily not because of its Times rating but because my brother had previously had a fantastic lunch there. We were disappointed there, too. The disappointments are tangential and could be flukes, but my main point - that a rating of 4 stars in the Times does constitute a primary reason for people to go to a restaurant - is not.

Rich, congratulations on your new position! I assume you aren't giving any star ratings.

[Pan]

Frank Bruni's column on Cru is another one of those Diner's Journal entries that reads like the draft of a full review to follow soon after. I handicap it at three stars.

Agreed. Very positive review. I'm intrigued to walk past some time and look at the menu and the space.

[oakapple]

Oakapple, I don't think it's uncommon for intelligent people to go to a restaurant after it received a 4-star review in the Times - in other words, primarily because of the 4 stars in the review.

Pan, no disagreement there. Indeed, some people have hypothesized that any restaurant review in the New York Times, even if largely unfavorable, results in more business. That's not to say the restaurants don't care about the stars. The more enthusiastic the review, the more the review helps them.

[foodexile]

I know this is off-topic, but I want to hear more about why some of you were so positive about David Burke and Donatella.

I haven't been but heard it's mediocre.

What type of dining experience is it?

What do you like there?

[rich]

Rich, congratulations on your new position! I assume you aren't giving any star ratings.

Thanks. You're correct. There will be no stars, toques, diamonds or anything of that nature. I enjoy the reviews in the New Yorker (they did Stone Farms last week) and will follow their template - much to the chagrin of my editor who wants ratings.

No stars in my future.

[Pan]

Is this review really primarily about a restaurant?

Martha Stewart, take note and comfort. There is hospitality and an enormously satisfying frisée aux lardons on the far side of white-collar incarceration.

LCB Brasserie Rachou may well be satisfied with a mixed 2-star review, but I really have to question Bruni's focus on the age and personal behavior (especially personal behavior outside of the restaurant) of the customers. We're supposed to think that it's revelatory that A. Alfred Taubman frequents the place? Isn't it a little much that the name of a customer is mentioned four times in a review of a restaurant? This isn't supposed to be an article about an ex-con price-fixer, is it?

[oakapple]

LCB Brasserie Rachou may well be satisfied with a mixed 2-star review, but I really have to question Bruni's focus on the age and personal behavior (especially personal behavior outside of the restaurant) of the customers. We're supposed to think that it's revelatory that A. Alfred Taubman frequents the place? Isn't it a little much that the name of a customer is mentioned four times in a review of a restaurant? This isn't supposed to be an article about an ex-con price-fixer, is it?

I've tried to give Frank Bruni the benefit of the doubt. He is new to the job, and he is still finding his voice. This was the review that finally sent me over the edge. This guy just doesn't get it. He is a restaurant critic, not a commentator on the New York social and sartorial scene.

I don't mind him observing that the clientele are elderly. Like it or not, that is part of the ambiance of the restaurant. But Bruni has only limited space alloted. The food needs to be primary. Don't dwell on Al Taubman's legal history, tossing in a gratuitous swipe at Martha Stewart for good measure.

Incidentally, Bruni kept up his record of nearly always quoting the friends he dines with:

When," said one of my friends, "was the last time you saw a three-piece suit in this city?"

...and...

"You see," said one of my friends after she had taken her first bite of it, "this is why people live in France."

I'm glad he has such witty friends, but I am tiring of them.

Edited September 1, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Bux]

Bruni is actually a restaurant reviewer, not a food reviewer. He's also a resetaurant reviewer for a general audience daily newspaper. I don't find it surprising that his focus is all over the map and as often on the social aspects of dining out as it is on the food one eats. I know any number of people who are more likely to choose a restaurant based on who's been reported eating there, than on anything to do with the quality of the food. The NY Times serves a very general public. My guess is that the typical diner who reads the NY times sees dining out as a social experience more than a gastronomic experience. Bruni's reviews may not please or satisfy eGullet members, but it may be what the NY Times wants.

[docsconz]

I like Bruni's style and his reviews. I think he tries to capture the flavor of a restaurant and not just the flavor of the food. To this end, I don't believe his anecdotes are irrelevent. I feel like I got a better sense of the restaurant as a result.

[rich]

I like Bruni's style and his reviews. I think he tries to capture the flavor of a restaurant and not just the flavor of the food. To this end, I don't believe his anecdotes are irrelevent. I feel like I got a better sense of the restaurant as a result.

This is what makes horse racing the greatest sport in the world - differences of opinions. Reasonable people can disagree, yet still respect and understand the other's point of view.

I think Bruni's incessant babble about things that don't matter (such as the patron knocking over a lamp in the Bouley review) get in the way. While I think he is an excellent writer, I don't think he's effective as a restaurant or food critic. He's much more suited to the weekend living or magazine sections.

[VeryApe77]

It's interesting to see the line being drawn between a food critic and a restaurant critic. I think Bruni is a restaurant critic and thus social and aesthetic matters are bound to discussed.

The concept of "food comes first" is a nice idea, but I think we all know that it's not always true, especially in a city like New York. I don't like Bruni's writing all that much, but the idea that he should only discuss the food in a restaurant is a little naive. As Bux says, the interests of the general public are not always going to be 100% aligned to those of people who are posting on a food message board.

[Artichoke]

When is the effin' Times going to run the review? What the eff are they waiting for?

I am still perplexed as to why so many people are so anxiously awaiting Bruni's review. Positve, negative, or in between, It will be the one of the least value added reviews the Times can possibly run. Of course the Times has to review Per Se, but does anyone believe that there is going to be some keen insight revealed that has not already been discused ad nauseum by others. If Bruni's review falls short of what people's opinion of Per Se is, will that also come as a surprise? Bruni's short comings as a reviewer are already well established, so what? I came to peace a long time ago that this City is not recruiting the quality reviewers of the past, like Bryan Miller of the Times, or Gail Green of New York Magazine. The New York Times does not shape my opinion on anything else, least of all where I am going to eat.

My opinion is, give me a review I can use. I well aware of Keller's skill set and there is plenty of text already on his restaurant. How about a review on some restaurant few of us may be aware of or been to for a whle? That would grab my attention, that I would be eager to read. I have lived here all my life but there are always culinary discoveries to be had, how about some insight on those.

Just as there are only so many times pundits can analyze this election before it becomes repetative, there is only so much insight one can have on a damn restaurant, regardless of who is providing it.

[bpearis]

I like Bruni's style and his reviews. I think he tries to capture the flavor of a restaurant and not just the flavor of the food. To this end, I don't believe his anecdotes are irrelevent. I feel like I got a better sense of the restaurant as a result.

I agree. There wasn't much to say about the food, so he commented on what was interesting at the restaurant. I think he's a funny writer. The problem is the review seemed more one star than two. If that had been the case, I don't think you'd see as many people complaining.

[Pan]

The problem is the review seemed more one star than two. If that had been the case, I don't think you'd see as many people complaining.

Perhaps we should have a count of numbers of people complaining. In any case, the star rating of the brasserie has no effect on my reaction to the concentration on a particular customer, rather than the restaurant. Yes, the nature of the customers is part of the experience of restaurant-going, but mentioning one particular regular's name four times is not what I think of as a restaurant review.

[oakapple]

It's interesting to see the line being drawn between a food critic and a restaurant critic. I think Bruni is a restaurant critic and thus social and aesthetic matters are bound to discussed.

Unfortunately, Bux drew a subtle distinction that my words weren't meant to bear. Although I wrote "food critic" in haste, I really did mean "restaurant critic." (I will be editing my original post as soon as I finish typing this.) As a restaurant critic, Frank Bruni should absolutely discuss more than just the food.

But week after week, we find that the actual examples Bruni uses to explicate his points are of dubious relevance, and at times reflect astonishingly poor judgment. In what is clearly a very limited amount of space, things that have nothing to do with the restaurant itself (e.g., Al Taubman's legal problems) don't belong there. Often, these points are not just parenthetical, but actually take up quite a bit of the review.

bpearis:

There wasn't much to say about the food....The problem is the review seemed more one star than two. If that had been the case, I don't think you'd see as many people complaining.

I doubt that there is truly so little of interest to say about the food. Bruni loved the entrées, once he got around to talking about them. Even allowing bpearis's point to be valid, the trouble is that Bruni does this week after week, in many of his columns. I am guessing that because restaurant reviewing is new to him, he writes about what comes naturally, rather than what he's actually being paid for. He does cover the restaurant itself in enough detail that he's not being technically delinquent, but as a reviewer he has not yet hit his stride. The question is if he ever will.

Incidentally, given Bruni's enthusiasm for the entrées, I didn't find two stars unreasonable. Although I haven't yet dined there myself, I thought there was more than enough support for two stars. Indeed, until he got around to the appetizers and desserts, I thought that Bruni might be headed for three stars.

Bux suggested:

My guess is that the typical diner who reads the NY times sees dining out as a social experience more than a gastronomic experience. Bruni's reviews may not please or satisfy eGullet members, but it may be what the NY Times wants.

Perhaps, but I don't remember any past critic who found so many excuses to avoid talking about the restaurant he was reviewing. I'm not ready to assume that this is a conscious policy decision by the Times. What is the policy, I think, is that critics have a pretty wide berth to cover their subject area as they see fit. Like Frank Sinatra, Bruni is doing it his way. Perhaps, coincidentally, a majority of Times food section readers are saying, "Gee...finally a critic who tells us what we really want to know, instead of those boring critics who write about the food." I don't know about that.

Edited September 1, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

I am still perplexed as to why so many people are so anxiously awaiting Bruni's review.

Even when the outcome is a foregone conclusion, people are eager to see it memorialized. Also, Frank Bruni is quickly turning into a train wreck, and there's nothing more mesmerizing than a train wreck. Lastly, let's not over-estimate our own importance. There's a large segment of the high-end dining public that hasn't as much as heard of eGullet, much less read any reviews here. For many, the Times review is the review of record.

My opinion is, give me a review I can use.  I well aware of Keller's skill set and there is plenty of text already on his restaurant.  How about a review on some restaurant few of us may be aware of or been to for a while?

As you noted, the Times has to review Per Se. There are 51 other reviewing slots over the next year when the Times can do as you suggest. This one just has to be done.

Edited September 3, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

His best review yet in a number of ways.

[Jinmyo]

Frank! This was finally about the food!

Dude!

The jicama was sensational, so packed with moisture and so faintly sweet that it could have been a new, undiscovered fruit, and the cilantro and avocado that came with it were like idealized essences of themselves, so flavorful that they seemed to have been cultivated in a more verdant universe. The bite-size marble potatoes in the potato salad popped like grapes in my mouth, and an exquisitely balanced mustard-seed vinaigrette gave them a subtle zing.

Shyeeahh.

[bloviatrix]

Wow!!! Bruni nailed it. Definitely his best review yet.

[Pan]

Frank! This was finally about the food!

←

Exactly. Bruni's review of Per Se made really pleasant reading. I hope Bruni continues to focus on the food in other reviews.

[oakapple]

Bruni's review of Per Se made really pleasant reading. I hope Bruni continues to focus on the food in other reviews.

←

In my view, Bruni's best reviews have been Babbo, Blue Hill Stone Barns, and Per Se. What do they have in common? They were all three stars or higher. Bruni was sufficiently enthralled with the food that he didn't have to fill space with comments having nothing to do with the restaurant. In all three, we were spared having to relive his friends' witty comments.

But this is the best one yet. The Babbo review was marred by the suggestion that the restaurant was docked a star because of Mario Batali's taste in music. I don't actually think Bruni meant that, but it says something about the sloppiness of the writing that some readers believe he did.

[Fat Guy]

I wonder who Frank Bruni thinks his audience is.

[Jinmyo]

I wonder who Frank Bruni thinks his audience is.

←

People outside of NY who read reviews for entertainment. People in NY who think they should read it.

Not for people who would like to see the restaurant compared with Arpege etc.

[Fat Guy]

Exactly right, I think, Jinmyo. And that surely needs to be understood as his operating assumption before anything he says can make much sense to us as mostly non-members of his target audience.

In the New York area, our members -- even the ones who rarely or never dine at the starred-restaurant level -- tend to be far more interested in food and food-related substance than the audience he must imagine he's writing for. Even outside of the immediate area, where eGulleters are not typically candidates for going to any of these restaurants on a regular basis, our members tend to focus on food first.

While all of us of course enjoy being entertained, Frank Bruni seems to believe entertainment is his mission -- too often to the exclusion of food and other substantive discussion. Indeed it seems that unless a restaurant has three or four stars, he shies away from food discussion -- and what food discussion he does present tends to be symbolic and either in the "gee whiz!" or "this is silly!" category rather than a real critique of food. I'm sure he is under the (mis)impression that we're all just a bunch of food-geek losers and that if he wrote for us nobody in the larger Times audience would be interested. This kind of intentional dumbing-down of content begins with the desire to have increased reach and relevance but ends in dilution and the slide towards British-style restaurant reviewing as sport.

A critic needs to lead public opinion, not pander to it. A critic needs to be committed, above all else, to the cause of excellence in what he covers. A critic must believe that what he covers is interesting, and that if people aren't interested enough in the core subject then his job is to make it interesting -- not to avoid it.

It's not too late for Frank Bruni to reverse his descent, but every week he digs a deeper hole.

[Jinmyo]

Exactly right, I think, Jinmyo. And that surely needs to be understood as his operating assumption before anything he says can make much sense to us as mostly non-members of his target audience.

Restaurantainment.