Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

Todd36 · September 9, 2004

In other areas such as movies or the book review, the Times has a clearly defined lead reviewer. In movies in particuar, important movies tend to be reviewed by the lead reviewer. One of the reasons I like the Wall Street Journal movie review is that almost all of them are done by one person, Joe Morganstern. I know his views well. More importantly, the Times has more than one book and movie review per week, which means each full-time reviewer has ample time to build up a body of work. With $25 and under appearing no more than 52 times a year, if you split it multiple ways, no one reviewer will ever develop a body of work for us to understand. If you want the food review to follow the movie/book/art model, than the NYT should have at least 5 full reviews a week. Given the size of New York City, I think doing so would be a good idea.

MidniteToquer · September 9, 2004

Bruni's reviews, in my opinion, don't embarrass the Times. He is not too insidery and beholden to the particular currents of the New York restaurant world, as the interim critic appeared to be. He is not ponderous, as the former critic was, using endless tropes and blow-by-blow description of each dish devoid of context. Bruni can turn a phrase that makes you smile, and he keeps your attention through the end of the review. He has appetite, a quality too many reviewers lack. He does the reporting. He gives due credit to the chef de cuisine.

But it was the Per Se review that made me give up as a reader. I don't want a review of this restaurant to be the one where the reviewer works "dizzingly rich" and "perfect accent" out of his system. I don't want to hear another restaurant reviewer make a lame joke about having to share food.

The context in which Bruni frames an observation can seem inexperienced. Any decent jicama will be "packed with moisture." As a diner, I know there can be nothing decadent about summer truffles regardless of the tableside show. Would it not have been more accurate to describe the sous vide foie gras as "vacuum sealed" so as not to make it sound like a bologna sandwich in Saran Wrap?

And there's -- so far, at least -- not much poetry in his writing. I liked it when he said that the marble potatoes popped like grapes. But did an "exquisitely balanced" vinaigrette have to give them a "subtle zing?"

Bruni has potential. But he needs a season in the minors first.

Edited September 9, 2004 by MidniteToquer (log)

oakapple · September 9, 2004

If you want the food review to follow the movie/book/art model, than the NYT should have at least 5 full reviews a week. Given the size of New York City, I think doing so would be a good idea.
←

I suspect all of us would be delighted to see 5 full reviews a week. Trouble is, it would blow the budget. I suspect there's no other reviewing gig that costs the paper anything like the amount spent on restaurant reviewing.

Bruni's reviews, in my opinion, don't embarrass the Times. He is not too insidery and beholden to the particular currents of the New York restaurant world, as the interim critic appeared to be.

That's a minimum bar to clear. Amanda Hesser's problem was that she was pressed into critiquing chefs with whom she'd become cozy in her long history as a food feature writer.

And there's -- so far, at least -- not much poetry in his writing. I liked it when he said that the marble potatoes popped like grapes. But did an "exquisitely balanced" vinaigrette have to give them a "subtle zing?"
Bruni has potential. But he needs a season in the minors first.

Food writing is tough, because it is all metaphorical. At some point, unless you are extremely resourceful, you run out of metaphors. You then fall back on "subtle zing," "perfect accent," and "exquisitely balanced." I feel embarrassed when I write such phrases on eGullet (as I sometimes do). However, I am not getting paid for it.

I suspect it takes years of experience to find the perfect metaphor to describe every taste sensation, without resorting to cliché. By the time Bruni reaches that point, assuming he ever does, he'll have about reached his sell-by date. The restaurant critic's gig seems to have a high burn-out factor, judging by the turnover.

Todd36 · September 9, 2004

I suspect all of us would be delighted to see 5 full reviews a week. Trouble is, it would blow the budget. I suspect there's no other reviewing gig that costs the paper anything like the amount spent on restaurant reviewing.
I bet the travel section costs far more to produce. How many vacations a week does the NTY send someone on? 3 to 4? That must be $10,000 a week in expenses. Unless they split vacations with someone else. And I bet sports is very, very expensive. The NYT still sends people to away games I think.
I don't think food reviews are expensive at all. The fact that the NYT has several additional ones for the regional editions (for example, Connecticut) suggests to me that they are not so expensive to produce. Lets take the $25 and under review. Lets say the real budget is $50 per person. 4 people per dinner, $200 per night, 5 dinners for a review, that makes $1000 per week. About $50,000 a year. Given the total production costs of the NYT, that is not a large sum. Even the full review probably costs the NTY on the order of $150,000 a year for food. That would give a budget of $150 per person, and 5 diners per review.
And if the NYT is so concerned about money, drop the wine reviews. That is an area that can be, and is, well covered by national press. How much does the NYT spend on wine for reviews? I bet enough to cover a second $25 and under. Note, I don't really mean to drop to wine review, just to point out that cost of dining out alone isn't what drives this.
The travel expenses for a single sports reporter could exceed the entire yearly food and drink budget of the NYT.

Fat Guy · September 9, 2004

There's no point in increasing the number of reviews if they can't get a handle on the reviews they're already publishing. I certainly agree that, even if the Times is spending a quarter of a million dollars a year on the dining budget for food-section writers, increasing that sum should be no big deal by the standards of a company whose revenues are three billion dollars a year (NYSE: NYT). But it seems unnecessary. More money isn't the answer; doing better within the current budget would be far more beneficial.

oakapple · September 29, 2004

Frank Bruni has developed a severe case of grade inflation. Petrosino seems to be the kind of place that typically would be covered in the $25-and-under column: Exceedingly informal; no tablecloths; nothing over $20 on the menu. Today, it received two stars. Note that the companion $25-and-under entry, Freeman's, actually seems to be more expensive, with its $22 top-price entrée.

Nathan · September 29, 2004

I didn't mind today's review per se...if you've never been there, Petrosino is startlingly good...and it's fair to say that his reviews tend to reflect price.

with that said, he certainly is an easier grader than Grimes...but the Babbo review indicated he will keep the 4-star category sacrosant.

anyone else think he shows a surer hand with Italian-based cooking?

Pan · September 30, 2004

Frank Bruni has developed a severe case of grade inflation. Petrosino seems to be the kind of place that typically would be covered in the $25-and-under column: Exceedingly informal; no tablecloths; nothing over $20 on the menu. Today, it received two stars. Note that the companion $25-and-under entry, Freeman's, actually seems to be more expensive, with its $22 top-price entrée.
←

Petrosino also tops out at $22 for entrees: Grilled Niman Ranch Organic Pork Loin W/ Cactus Pear Chutney & Leeks as a secondo piatto from its dinner menu on menupages.com. And the room looks pretty fancy to me, tablecloths or not. I don't eat tablecloths and don't think they're necessary for 2 stars, though I know my opinion on this is unpopular on eGullet.

oakapple · September 30, 2004

Petrosino also tops out at $22 for entrees: Grilled Niman Ranch Organic Pork Loin W/ Cactus Pear Chutney & Leeks as a secondo piatto from its dinner menu on menupages.com. And the room looks pretty fancy to me, tablecloths or not. I don't eat tablecloths and don't think they're necessary for 2 stars, though I know my opinion on this is unpopular on eGullet.
←

It's either an old menu on Menupages or an error by the Times, which lists $20 as the top price entrée. (I love Menupages, but I do wish they'd date their menus. You have no idea if what you're looking at was uploaded last week or last year.)

I am not suggesting that starred restaurants must have tablecloths — there are others that do not. I am suggesting that, overall, this restaurant is a tenuous candidate to have been rated at all, much less to be awarded two stars.

Pan · October 1, 2004

I am not suggesting that starred restaurants must have tablecloths — there are others that do not. I am suggesting that, overall, this restaurant is a tenuous candidate to have been rated at all, much less to be awarded two stars.
←

Are you basing that in significant part on your personal appraisal of their food and wine service?

Pan · October 1, 2004

Here is Bruni's latest "Diner's Journal" entry, which SobaAddict also linked here (thanks for the link, Stan).

Any guesses as to the star rating represented by the mini-review? One or no stars would be my question.

oakapple · October 2, 2004

Here is Bruni's latest "Diner's Journal" entry, which SobaAddict also linked here (thanks for the link, Stan).
Any guesses as to the star rating represented by the mini-review? One or no stars would be my question.
←

Bruni sometimes uses the DJ column to talk about places that he doesn't intend to cover in a full review. This read like that type of column.

Pan · October 2, 2004

Bruni sometimes uses the DJ column to talk about places that he doesn't intend to cover in a full review. This read like that type of column.
←

I hope your prediction proves accurate, especially as it doesn't seem he has much more to say about the place.

Mister_Cutlets · October 2, 2004

I agree with Steven, about the level that is put out by the best restaurants. It's not just the stooges jumping out of the woodwork to replace your napkin; it's that there is a whole elaborate social construction set up that isn't present with casual contemporary service, despite the casual earnestness and even occasional flirtatiousness of the staff. And I think that what makes this worth wanting for a lot of people is not the "luxury" of it in any passive sense. Rather, it's that it requires much more of you, and brings out faculties unexercised in lesser places. It takes a lot of energy to eat dinner at a place like Daniel. Part of it, as with psychotherapy, is owing to the cost; but also you have to look right, order intelligently, not come off as boorish or whatever (my own vice is to bully and pontificate, when not fretting at the cost.) The point is that you not a passive vessel at a meal like that. Like most things worth doing, it calls forth some of your better qualities.

As for Babbo, I just don't like the food that much. Lupa is a better restaurant all around. The food is ongepatchke: overly fussy, overly seasoned (all those chiles) and over conceptualized. I'd much rather eat the stuff Mario cooks on his TV show. Italian food is not meant to be three-star dining; the elevated dining experience, haute cuisine, is a french art. It's like trying to have a japanese tea ceremony with greek diner coffee service. Nothing could be better than a great pasta, just as nothing could be better than a hot roll with butter or a perfect plum.

"A cow is a very good animal in the field, but we turn her out of a garden."

-- Johnson

Mr. Cutlets

Fat Guy · October 2, 2004

Mr. Cutlets for mayor.

Pan · October 2, 2004

Italian food is not meant to be three-star dining; the elevated dining experience, haute cuisine, is a french art.
←

Have you spent time in Italy? I wonder if you've ever been to a place like the fabulous seafood restaurant I went to near Tarquinia Scalo. Sorry, Fat Guy, but I disagree with this viewpoint. Fantastic ingredients, delicious food, wonderful service, beautiful view, classy rustic terrace, white tablecloths. What's not "three-star" about that? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. It was one of the best meals I've ever had.

Fat Guy · October 2, 2004

Pan for mayor.

Pan · October 2, 2004

bloviatrix · October 4, 2004

Frank Bruni has developed a severe case of grade inflation. Petrosino seems to be the kind of place that typically would be covered in the $25-and-under column: Exceedingly informal; no tablecloths; nothing over $20 on the menu. Today, it received two stars. Note that the companion $25-and-under entry, Freeman's, actually seems to be more expensive, with its $22 top-price entrée.
←

I had an opportunity to see the review Bruni did on NY1 last tuesday night. The moderator actually asked him why he chose to review Petrosino. Bruni's response was that he feels it's important to include smaller, less-hyped restaurants that are good. He's already shown that he's willing to review restaurants outside the borough of Manahattan. To me this show's an attempt to further democratize the process.

oakapple · October 6, 2004

In the Convivium Osteria thread, Jinmyo asked:

One star. What's the point?
←

I'm replying here, as the question seems to belong in the meta-reviewing thread.

There are some restaurants the Times must review. We could argue what the "must-review" population consists of, but it most likely includes every new restaurant in Manhattan that aspires to two stars or higher. Not all of those restaurants will actually receive two stars, because in some cases the critic will deem them to have failed. But any restaurant shooting for that level certainly merits a review.

However, I think the Times reviewing system would be fatally flawed if the one-star rating were reserved for restaurants that had aimed for higher ratings, and failed. The category would be full of under-achieving two-star wannabees. There needs to be room for the "true" one-star restaurant, and not just failed two- or three-star places.

Frank Bruni has 52 reviewing slots per year, which is more than he needs to cover the "must-review" restaurants. With the balance, he can go wherever he pleases. Although it is not possible to review every "true" one-star restaurant, this does not mean he should never review any of them. I suspect he chose Convivium Osteria because its unusual mix of Portugese-Italian cuisine — executed, in his view, successfully and innovatively — elevates the restaurant above purely neighborhood interest. (Whether that's actually true would require a visit, but this is what I interpreted him to be saying with his choice.)

Also, Bruni has said publicly that he wants to use some of his reviewing clout to give more prominence to worthy outer-borough destinations.

By the way, the critic's discretion to choose worthy out-of-the-way subjects isn't limited to the restaurant beat. In the Theater department, the Times reviews every Broadway production, but only a subset of Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway.

Edited October 6, 2004 by oakapple (log)

Pan · October 7, 2004

Oakapple, do you think that the neighborhood trattorie Bruni presumably experienced during his stint in Italy may be influencing his choice of reviewing neighborhood restaurants he considers worthy (a choice I appreciate, by the way)? It seems to me that in Italy, the neighborhood trattoria is really part of the community, and that Bruni would like to encourage New Yorkers to think about our neighborhood restaurants that way, too. The other thing I'd say is that he is making a real effort to bridge the gap between the $25-and-under category and the luxe category. I think we've all agreed that in the past, coverage of mid-priced restaurants has suffered from concentration on high-end and sort of moderately low-end restaurants in the Times.

oakapple · October 7, 2004

Oakapple, do you think that the neighborhood trattorie Bruni presumably experienced during his stint in Italy may be influencing his choice of reviewing neighborhood restaurants he considers worthy (a choice I appreciate, by the way)?
←

It's starting to look that way, but we'll need a few more data points before we can say for sure.

The other thing I'd say is that he is making a real effort to bridge the gap between the $25-and-under category and the luxe category. I think we've all agreed that in the past, coverage of mid-priced restaurants has suffered from concentration on high-end and sort of moderately low-end restaurants in the Times

As a result, there's a lot more overlap between the two columns, and it becomes almost a random event whether the restaurant is eligible to be rated or not. In her recent eGullet Q&A, Mimi Sheraton argued that the $25-and-under column has drifted too high. She thinks that a "$25 meal" should include three courses. Measured that way, an awful lot of the restaurants in that column don't belong there.

Edited October 7, 2004 by oakapple (log)

Bux · October 7, 2004

It's rather unfair for most of the major players to get reviewed and for all of the smaller neighborhood mom and pop shops to be ignored, but is it any better to review a random selection of neighborhood places that are not worth at least a detour. A problem I see is that the NY Times doesn't review enough restaurants for it to scatter it's blessings.

Stone · October 7, 2004

From my casual observation, I wonder if Bruni missing the difference between a one-star meal and a one-star restaurant.

As for "democratization of the reviewing system," or whatever better phrase was used above, It seems to destroy the system. When dealing with only 5 ratings (0-4 stars) it is almost impossible to meaningfully review $25 and under local places within the same scale as V, Jean Georges & Per Se. I've never been to V, but unless the waiter sneezed on me, a cockroach crawled of the salad, the steak had no pink or the oysters gave me the runs, I fail to see how it can be ranked at one star when then are so many restaurants who, on a perfect night, will not provide a dining experience equal to V on a sub-par evening. A flawed concept at V (perhaps its onion soup -- but I'm just choosing this as an example), is still better then most every restaurant in NY.

Just as the best pizza place shouldn't rate above 2 stars (if that). Let's assume that DiFara's is the best frickin' pizza that God himself could conjure up. Is anyone going to rate a slice of pepperoni at 4-star with Per Se? Of course not. Then how could a bad meal at V be rated 1-star with Murray's Knosh Bar?

I agree with whoever above suggested that Bruni and the star system should be reserved for the top restaurants. Or something like that.