Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[rich]

Sri is a $25 and under place - to put it into the main category is a disservice to the restaurant and the public.

I fail to see how it's a disservice to the restaurant. They are no doubt delighted.

←

OA - In my opinion it's a disservice to the restaurant because a significant number of people will have the the wrong idea of the restaurant before they go. Sri can never live up to the common opinion (by NY Times readers) of a two-star restaurant.

While those people won't be disappointed in the food, they will certainly be disappointed in the other aspects of what is normally found in a two-star restaurant. Thus, those individuals may come away with a negative feeling about Sri because they were expecting something else and because of that, the restaurant suffers from unwarranted criticism.

But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service? My vote would be four based on this argument: If Bruni deducted one star from Babbo because of ambiance problems, then he must have deducted two from Sri. I think it's logical to conclude that Babbo's ambiance is at least one-star better than Sri's.

[robyn]

I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

←

Sorry to be blunt, but this could have only been written by someone who does not know NY as well as they think they do....or at least they don't know any NY'ers under 50.

I both shop at Barneys and make the trek to Sri....which is most certainly a "destination" restaurant....always on a weekend.....I get home from the office at 9 or 10....I'm not traveling that far for a "neighborhood" place....I'm actually more likely to eat at Lupa on a whim (and who would be complaining if that got a 2-star review?).

←

All the people I know under 50 in New York are family members. They shop at Barneys (I'm too old for Barneys) - but would never think of trekking to Queens for dinner. OTOH - they're not foodies. So perhaps this "Sri thing" is simply an "in" NY foodie thing? Who knows? All I know is - from my particular point of view - I'll pass. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

"But I buy at Alexander's . . ."

Sorry. But seriously, I shop at Barney's and even live near Barney's. I also shop at the next level up from Barney's, because Barney's is still somewhat mass market compared to my tailor or some of the Madison Avenue boutiques like Seigo where I get my limited edition Japanese silk neckties. And I go to Sripraphai all the time. In fact I have been to Sripraphai and Ducasse on the same day, because I love good food, and I'll keep doing all of the above until they drag me off to debtor's prison. But I'll still have my fish pants.

And I don't think Sripraphai should have been reviewed. So there.

Like Busboy, I think I'm done for awhile, not because I don't love you all but because this has become repetitive. See you next time Frank Bruni screws up.

[Pan]

In my opinion it's a disservice to the restaurant because a significant number of people will have the the wrong idea of the restaurant before they go.

←

Only if they don't read the review, in which case, it's their own damn fault.

But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service?

←

Maybe 3. Don't assume that the difference between 3 and 4 stars isn't greater than the difference between 2 and 3. Then again, we don't really know, do we? So, whatever.

[SobaAddict70]

Babbo's influence can be felt at Tempo both generally and specifically, from its emphatic eagerness to please and heartiness of fare to the serving of wines by the quarter liter rather than by the glass.

One of Mr. Bruni's better reviews thus far, imo. Thoughts?

Soba

[oakapple]

But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service? My vote would be four based on this argument: If Bruni deducted one star from Babbo because of ambiance problems, then he must have deducted two from Sri. I think it's logical to conclude that Babbo's ambiance is at least one-star better than Sri's.

←

I think Sri might have been at best three stars, not four, if its service and ambiance (it's both—not just ambiance) were "top-shelf." However, even this is far from assured. I have several reasons for this:

1) Practically nobody on this board, except for Rich, thinks Sri is serving four-star food.

2) Although Bruni was certainly enthusiastic about the food, he did point out some negatives that would appear to disqualify it from four-star status (disappointing seafood, "cloying" desserts sold in prepackaged containers). Some of Bruni's praise comes with implied limitations ("Sripraphai dutifully performs the requisite paces for a Thai restaurant in New York"). It would be unprecedented to find such comments in a four-star review.

3) Sri doesn't serve alcohol, and I'm sure there has never been a four-star restaurant that was BYOB. Obviously Bruni could redefine the star system to eliminate this as a requirement, but there's no evidence he has done so yet.

4) I suspect that the most a restaurant has ever been docked for service/ambiance is one star. Although the Times doesn't give separate ratings for food, service, and ambiance, the reviews are generally more about the food. If a restaurant were ever docked two stars for service and ambiance, these factors would have to be mind-bogglingly awful, and no such complaints were found in the Bruni review.

5) Lastly, and this is a subtle point (which I owe to Fat Guy), we don't really know that Babbo would be four stars if it corrected the service/ambiance issues Bruni referred to. Bruni never quite said that. He implied it, but that's a lot different than actually writing the four-star review.

I should also point out that reviews are often written against a backdrop of expectations. V Steakhouse was expected to be a high-end dining experience, and it was priced that way. Bruni had to write a rather negative review to justify awarding "only" one star. Never mind whether you actually believe V deserved that rating. Any critic will "go negative" when he's explaining a rating that's lower than what was generally expected. You'll find other one-star ratings from Bruni that are fairly enthusiastic, simply because the restaurant is performing comfortably and is priced appropriately at that level.

For Sripraphai, expectations were the opposite—based on its prices, you'd expect it to be reviewed in the $25-and-under column. Rather than inferring that it's a four-star restaurant that has been docked two stars for service and ambiance, I'd infer that it's at best a one-star restaurant that has been awarded a bonus star for food that Bruni considered mind-blowingly good for the price.

Edited November 11, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Just a few comments. You're correct in noting that I'm the only one saying that Sri deserves four stars for food. Yet, most other comments (and I'm taking the liberty of paraphrasing here) say it's the best Thai they have ever had or it's the best Thai in the country or it's the best Thai in NYC. I think those type of comments at the very least imply four-star quality within the genre of Thai cuisine.

Regarding the description of how Bruni may award stars based on expectation, I tend to agree, but that simply throws the system, as quasi-defined by the NY Times, completely "out of whack."

As an example. with the exception of some entrees, Bruni absolutely gushes about Tempo this week and yet awards it one star. If someone were to read that review without a star rating attached, I think one would believe it was higher than a one. So was Bruni expecting more from the place or less? While I thought this was one of his better reviews, I was confused about the one-star.

Edited November 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[Stone]

I think those type of comments at the very least imply four-star quality within the genre of Thai cuisine.

←

Once you say "within the genre of Thai cuisine," you no longer have "a" four-star sytem. You have dozens or hundreds.

Sri still would not be four-star within the "genre of Thai cuisine." It does not have the decor, service or range of a four-star restaurant. It is not serving particularly innovative dishes, although there are many that are not well-known to Americans. They're serving basic Thai food, with a menu that looks like many if not most that I recall seeing in Thailand. They're doing it better than most American-Thai places, but that doesn't make it four-star food.

Again, the best hot dog or burger-joint in the country is not "four-star food," unless you're completely redefining the phrase.

[rich]

I think those type of comments at the very least imply four-star quality within the genre of Thai cuisine.

←

Once you say "within the genre of Thai cuisine," you no longer have "a" four-star sytem. You have dozens or hundreds.

Based on Bruni's reviews, I think we already have hundreds.

[Bux]

But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service? My vote would be four based on this argument: If Bruni deducted one star from Babbo because of ambiance problems, then he must have deducted two from Sri. I think it's logical to conclude that Babbo's ambiance is at least one-star better than Sri's.

←

There's an assumption here that reviews start at four stars and lose them for faults. I rather doubt Bruni made any deductions and as Oakapple has so well pointed out, he left no doubt that the food, let alone any other part of the restaurant, did not approach four stars in his opinion. My sense from reading Bruni's review is also quite similar to Oakapple's in that Bruni seems to be saying that Sri gets bonus points for being the best of it's type. Rich continues to offer a peculiarly personal view of what four stars means and decides to ignore the definitions offered by those who speak the language and understand the system. For that reason the discussion is tiresome. It's much like witnessing a discussion between an American who insists that "rouge" means green and carries on a discussion about traffic lights in French with Frenchmen.

I don't know that an honest discussion can begin from a point in which someone gets to vote on what Bruni would have awarded a restaurant under some hypothetical conditions, but if there was, we still have no basis for assuming Bruni "deducted" one star from Babbo for anything. Quite simply, we can assume nothing other than that Babbo didn't live up to four stars in Bruni's mind. Every other assumption has to be made on individual faith and not on the words of Bruni's review. Rich hang's on a literal interpretation of a few words whose meaning changes with the context of the sentence and paragraph around them. This is where context is everything and relativity is important.

[Pan]

I don't know that an honest discussion can begin from a point in which someone gets to vote on what Bruni would have awarded a restaurant under some hypothetical conditions, but if there was, we still have no basis for assuming Bruni "deducted" one star from Babbo for anything. Quite simply, we can assume nothing other than that Babbo didn't live up to four stars in Bruni's mind. Every other assumption has to be made on individual faith and not on the words of Bruni's review.

←

No, not individual "faith"; interpretation, based on evidence provided in the words of the review. That it is not definitely provable that Bruni considered the food in Babbo 4-star and gave the restaurant 3 stars because of factors other than the food is not at all the same as saying that there is no basis whatsoever for reasonably interpreting his review as having essentially said or at least broadly implied that. So I guess the key word in your post is "assume" and the key word in mine is "interpret."

[rich]

But I have question. What rating do you think Bruni would have given Sri if the place had "top-shelf" ambiance/decor and service? My vote would be four based on this argument: If Bruni deducted one star from Babbo because of ambiance problems, then he must have deducted two from Sri. I think it's logical to conclude that Babbo's ambiance is at least one-star better than Sri's.

←

There's an assumption here that reviews start at four stars and lose them for faults. I rather doubt Bruni made any deductions and as Oakapple has so well pointed out, he left no doubt that the food, let alone any other part of the restaurant, did not approach four stars in his opinion. My sense from reading Bruni's review is also quite similar to Oakapple's in that Bruni seems to be saying that Sri gets bonus points for being the best of it's type. Rich continues to offer a peculiarly personal view of what four stars means and decides to ignore the definitions offered by those who speak the language and understand the system. For that reason the discussion is tiresome. It's much like witnessing a discussion between an American who insists that "rouge" means green and carries on a discussion about traffic lights in French with Frenchmen.

I don't know that an honest discussion can begin from a point in which someone gets to vote on what Bruni would have awarded a restaurant under some hypothetical conditions, but if there was, we still have no basis for assuming Bruni "deducted" one star from Babbo for anything. Quite simply, we can assume nothing other than that Babbo didn't live up to four stars in Bruni's mind. Every other assumption has to be made on individual faith and not on the words of Bruni's review. Rich hang's on a literal interpretation of a few words whose meaning changes with the context of the sentence and paragraph around them. This is where context is everything and relativity is important.

←

Actually, I think the problem lies more in the way Bruni chooses to write his reviews and award stars. My position has been quite clear from the beginning. I am against the star system as it currently exists in the NY Times (even before Bruni, though I think he's made my argument more compelling.) I believe restaurants can serve four-star food, yet not be a four star restaurant (by common standards) - that's why separate categories are so important.

I've also stated that fast-food type restaurants cannot achieve four stars; that the cuisine must be "serious" (for lack of a better word), of which Thai is certainly one. That's simple and straightforward. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend, unless reading and accurately reporting is a problem.

And to equate my position with rouge and traffic lights is not only disengenous but sophomoric. I believe Sri serves four-star type food (because I have never tasted better Thai) but is not a four-star retaurant, nor did I think it should have been reviewed in the primary category. I really don't undertand what's so hard to understand. As I wrote earlier and hopefully won't need to do it again, if the categoies of food/service/ambiance were separate, I would rate Sri 4-0-0.

Edited November 12, 2004 by rich (log)

[Jason Perlow]

And to equate my position with rouge and traffic lights is not only disengenous but sophomoric. I believe Sri serves four-star type food (because I have never tasted better Thai) but is not a four-star retaurant, nor did I think it should have been reviewed in the primary category. I really don't undertand what's so hard to understand. As I wrote earlier and hopefully won't need to do it again, if the categoies of food/service/ambiance were separate, I would rate Sri 4-0-0.

Yeah, but this is not the Rich star system. This is the New York Times star system. Under the classic NYT star system, to achieve 4 stars, you have to serve for the most part luxury ingredients. We're talking the highest grade meats and vegetables, prepared using classic haute cuisine technique, in a highly labor intensive fashion. And on top of that, the dishes have to offer some aspect of creativity or unique contribution to the cuisine. Also as others have said, the restaurant must serve wine and other alcohol, and have a respectable list of offerings. While Sri may be the best Thai restaurant in the NY metro area, it doesn't fit any of those parameters.

[rich]

And to equate my position with rouge and traffic lights is not only disengenous but sophomoric. I believe Sri serves four-star type food (because I have never tasted better Thai) but is not a four-star retaurant, nor did I think it should have been reviewed in the primary category. I really don't undertand what's so hard to understand. As I wrote earlier and hopefully won't need to do it again, if the categoies of food/service/ambiance were separate, I would rate Sri 4-0-0.

Yeah, but this is not the Rich star system. This is the New York Times star system. Under the classic NYT star system, to achieve 4 stars, you have to serve for the most part luxury ingredients. We're talking the highest grade meats and vegetables, prepared using classic haute cuisine technique, in a highly labor intensive fashion. And on top of that, the dishes have to offer some aspect of creativity or unique contribution to the cuisine. Also as others have said, the restaurant must serve wine and other alcohol, and have a respectable list of offerings. While Sri may be the best Thai restaurant in the NY metro area, it doesn't fit any of those parameters.

←

For the most part I agree. And for some of those same reasons, is why it shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary review section. For the record (once again), I never, ever sugested that Sri is a four-star restaurant.

I find it so hard to believe that people have forgotten how to read and understand. It must be a negative by-product of modern technology in this "supposed age of information". Too much scanning = too little understanding.

[SobaAddict70]

Wonder whether Mr. Bruni is critical of "tall food" or other forms of plating?

Soba

[rich]

Wonder whether Mr. Bruni is critical of "tall food" or other forms of plating?

Soba

←

My guess is if you describe soup as a "song of joy," you either like the restaurant or you're on some sought of chemical additive.

[Pan]

Here is Bruni's latest review, of En Brasserie. My reaction is:

(1) He virtually trashed the place and then gave it a star.

(2) He is probably unqualified to write a review of this place.

Bruni tells us that this restaurant features artisanal tofu, and goes on to say that:

Yuba arguably has more character than plain tofu, which is like saying that Britney Spears lip-synchs less transparently than Ashlee Simpson.

In other words, this is a tofu-hater. How would it do to have a cheese-hater review Artisanal? And there's nothing odd to me about a restaurant featuring artisanal tofu. I enjoy Cho Dang Gol very much.

[Jason Perlow]

Here is Bruni's latest review, of En Brasserie. My reaction is:

(1) He virtually trashed the place and then gave it a star.

(2) He is probably unqualified to write a review of this place.

Bruni tells us that this restaurant features artisanal tofu, and goes on to say that:

Yuba arguably has more character than plain tofu, which is like saying that Britney Spears lip-synchs less transparently than Ashlee Simpson.

In other words, this is a tofu-hater. How would it do to have a cheese-hater review Artisanal? And there's nothing odd to me about a restaurant featuring artisanal tofu. I enjoy Cho Dang Gol very much.

←

He's clearly demonstrated he is an absolute ignoramus when it comes to understanding the intracacies of Asian cuisine.

[Todd36]

Here is Bruni's latest review, of En Brasserie. My reaction is:

(1) He virtually trashed the place and then gave it a star.

(2) He is probably unqualified to write a review of this place.

Bruni tells us that this restaurant features artisanal tofu, and goes on to say that:

Yuba arguably has more character than plain tofu, which is like saying that Britney Spears lip-synchs less transparently than Ashlee Simpson.

In other words, this is a tofu-hater. How would it do to have a cheese-hater review Artisanal? And there's nothing odd to me about a restaurant featuring artisanal tofu. I enjoy Cho Dang Gol very much.

←

He's clearly demonstrated he is an absolute ignoramus when it comes to understanding the intracacies of Asian cuisine.

←

I ate at EN about a month ago. It's not very good, plain and simple. I'm not sure it even deserves one star. His review is accurate in that sense. Plain tofu is a very acquired taste, and like Bruni, I really can't think much of a restaurant built around a product sold for a $1 on the street in Chinatown (EN's version is good, but we're still talking plain tofu, and I think if you get it fresh, the street cart version is probably as good as EN's). EN is all about form over substance: millions spent on the room, not so much money spent by the kitchen on the food. It is also wildly uneven, which is a point Bruni made. We can argue about his diatribe on tofu, but he's right, EN just plain isn't very good.

[Pan]

Todd, I've never been to EN and don't really plan to, given your appraisal, but I really don't think that the tofu with syrup (and, in Flushing, hot sauce) that you can get on the street - albeit soothing - is comparable to the varieties of artisanal tofu in a place like Cho Dang Gol. Have you been to Cho Dang Gol (forgive me if you already answered that question)?

Edited November 24, 2004 by Pan (log)

[Todd36]

Todd, I've never been to EN and don't really plan to, given your appraisal, but I really don't think that the tofu with syrup (and, in Flushing, hot sauce) that you can get on the street  - albeit soothing - is comparable to the varieties of artisanal tofu in a place like Cho Dang Gol. Have you been to Cho Dang Gol (forgive me if you already answered that question)?

←

I've been there, and I've had fresh tofu at a number of other places (one of my friends swears by Seoul Garden). In my experience, the stuff varies from batch to batch no matter where you get it from and I've had stuff from carts that is just as good as anything from a sit-down place. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the tofu served on the street and the tofu served at Cho Dang Gol have a common source: I bet Cho Dang Gol doesn't make its own soy milk from scratch and they buy from a local specialist, the same one who supplies tofu for the street. Soaking and grinding soy beans is a big pain.

Some tofu can be better than others, but in the scheme of things, its not a product with a wide variation of taste choices. Note that fresh tofu is not part of the menu at Sugiyama, and given that they make everything else from scratch, that should be food for thought. Tofu is not something you build a fine dining establishment on, and I think that is Bruni's point. Or if you prefer, as an example of what I think he is trying to say, what if the cornerstone of ADNY were say plain Wonder style bread? Would you wax poetically about boiled wonder bread? Like fresh tofu, it's got a taste that serves as a foil for other flavors, it's not easy to make well etc......From Bruni's point of view, it's like if ADNY were built on wonder bread.

Perhaps more to the point, EN serves its tofu plain, its not part of other dishes, which might make it more interesting. The one time I ate at EN, the tofu was good, in fact, I think I said in a post it was the best I've had in NYC. But it's still tofu. I actually like tofu. The version at EN has a strong flavor of soybeans BTW.

[Pan]

Yeah, Cho Dang Gol makes its tofu parts of dishes, so that it lends a great texture in context. I haven't tried Seoul Garden yet but very much look forward to it. But I really think artisanal tofu is a lot better than Wonder bread.

[SobaAddict70]

In today's review, Mr. Bruni manages to review a restaurant while divulging precious little information about its main thrust at the same time. It is a performance worthy of a master illusionist.

As for the offal, which can be ordered à la carte, the sweetbreads and the brain made the best impressions, while the tart, gelatinous headcheese made the worst. But the individual merits of these dishes said less to me than their existence, which suggests Mr. Psilakis's daring and conviction.

What were his impressions?

How were the dishes constructed?

Why did he find the headcheese offputting? Isn't it the point of headcheese to be gelatinous?

Soba

[oakapple]

In today's review, Frank Bruni awards one star to Casa La Femme North.

The Times tells us that "Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration." We are never told precisely how these elements are blended, but empirical evidence suggests that the food is usually the primary determinant—as it should be.

This is one of the few reviews where it seems clear the restaurant was docked a star for service and ambiance that the critic disliked. It's not till the review's ninth paragraph that Bruni says anything substantive about the food. The first eight paragraphs complain about the belly dancer and the "screechy soundtrack" that accompanies her; "something incrementally ridiculous about a server constantly having to pop through a gossamer cocoon to check on the level of your wineglass"; and "such obvious props as palm fronds and shisha (a k a hookah) pipes and such over-the-top indulgences as the private tents that ring the dining room."

Seven paragraphs about the food follow this, and while he doesn't find perfection, he is generally impressed. His comments on the food itself most definitely read like a two-star review. The review's last four paragraphs are, again, mostly about the service and ambiance: "hyperattentive service" and "supervisors paced the room endlessly, peering into the tents discreetly."

Some posters on this forum believe that service and ambiance issues shouldn't count in the rating, because they are too subjective. I disagree. The critic's comments about the food are subjective, too. Most diners care about the service and ambiance to at least some degree, and the critic should tell us his opinion, providing enough evidence so that we can reach our own conclusion. Bruni has done that.

But I still think the review should be primarily about the food, and in this review the complaints about service and ambiance are given too much prominence. We get the gist of it well before the ninth paragraph, when Bruni finally gets around to telling us what the food is about.

[jbonne]

But I still think the review should be primarily about the food, and in this review the complaints about service and ambiance are given too much prominence.

ah, but what if the decor and service are intrusive enough to impact your ability to enjoy the food? someone might be willing to serve me lobster with truffles while i sit next to a jackhammer (someone page the Dadaists!), but i probably won't appreciate it.

if the decor and service enhance the food, that would arguably boost impressions. if they intrude -- and it isn't dinner theater -- someone isn't doing their job.