Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Fat Guy]

The Post's review of Per Se strikes me as reasonable in its analysis of the particulars. If my own meal at Per Se is representative, and even if there have been some improvements (and I'm sure there have), the restaurant can be faulted for many things and I find many of Cuozzo's comments to be more convincing than what we might call the gushing consumer baseline.

Where I have problems with the review is in the meta-dialog about the opening, the star rating, etc. Because, simply put, if Per Se is not a four-star restaurant then there is no such thing as a four-star restaurant. To me, Per Se defines the four-star genre, not vice-versa.

A four-star restaurant needn't be perfect. Perfect restaurants don't exist. It's possible to experience many imperfections and inconsistencies yet still embrace a four-star rating. Anybody who has dined at a given Michelin three-star restaurant (shifting gears for a moment from the prevailing four-star concept in New York to the Michelin three-star system) on, say, five occasions will likely have stories to tell of dishes that just weren't all that great, of the occasional service misstep, etc. At some point, if the sum total of such imperfections is great enough, yes, it means a star must be taken away. But Per Se strikes me as, unequivocally, a four-star restaurant with some kinks to work out, not a three-star restaurant that may someday become a four-star restaurant.

Of course the star system in play at the Post is essentially Mr. Cuozzo's personal creation, so whatever he considers to be a three-star restaurant is by definition a New York Post three-star restaurant. But if that system gives three stars to Per Se, it is an indictment of that system and not of Per Se, which is one of the most remarkable New York restaurants to come along in my dining lifetime. The only two establishments that I'd place in the same category are Gray Kunz's Lespinasse and Alain Ducasse New York. Each of which, incidentally, started out with three-star ratings from the Times and then graduated to four.

There is perhaps a reasonable argument, especially under an institutional system like Michelin's where the top restaurants are re-ranked every year, that a new restaurant can never get the top rating in its first year. That, fundamental to the nature of restaurants, is that it takes at least a year to work out the basic kinks. I think, however, that in a newspaper rating system where restaurants are only revisited as needed, an early review needs to include an anticipatory component. Is there any sane person who questions that a four-star rating for Per Se is, absent the physical destruction of the restaurant or Thomas Keller, inevitable?

There may also be a fundamental problem with the 20-course shotgun approach to dining, which seems to inspire so much forgiveness even if 5 of the dishes are weak. Nonetheless, without forgiving the approach, I would view it as something to discuss within the four-star context, just as I would call Pierre Gagnaire a Michelin three-star restaurant even if I disagreed fundamentally with Gagnaire's approach to cuisine.

One wonders, finally, about the meaning of some of Mr. Cuozzo's comments. Is he really giving three stars for the imperfections? Or is the not-so-secret agenda really driving the withholding of a star? When I see language like "Per Se might be on its way to the four stars it seems to regard as its birthright. But Keller is making himself oddly scarce around the joint," I wonder whether the cited imperfections aren't more along the lines of a pretext, and whether what we're really seeing is a repeat of some of the resentment-driven reactions to Ducasse.

[rich]

Cuozzo doesn't like the décor, and that complaint is essentially uncorrectable. His complaint about the dress code could certainly be corrected, but I'm not exactly sure what he is arguing for, or why it makes a star's worth of difference.

That's an interesting comment coming from you OA. If I remember correctly, you approved of Bruni essentially taking away a fourth star from Babbo because of the ambience problems he had. Why doesn't Cuozzo get the same benefit of the doubt? (Doesn't he say in the review, the ambience matters more at Per Se because it's a several-hour experience? At least he made the effort to explain it.)

Personally, I thought the review was quite straight forward and thankfully didn't have the "fluffy" and cute terminology that has become a trademark of the Bruni reviews. While I don't agree with some of his assertions based on my one meal, Cuozzo was there several times and I will defer to his experience.

Lape, who I think is currently NYC's most insightful reviewer, gave it four and that's closer to what I thought it was. But it simply comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes. It's just another reason why the star system is antiquated and should be totally revamped or eliminated. I must have said this a hundred times on eG, but alas no one ever listens.

Edited August 25, 2004 by rich (log)

[Jason Perlow]

I've read more descriptive, revealing, and interesting reviews here.  Granted there's probably a word limit, but that wasn't a particularly insightful review....

and i was thinking that it was the most straight-forward no-nosense review to date.

I haven't eaten yet at Per Se, but from everything I have read on this site and heard from others elsewhere, I would agree with your statement, Tommy.

[Artichoke]

I cannot wait for Bruni to review Per Se, if only because I am so bloody tired of the whole star speculation. I have not eaten at Per Se yet, but I did eat at French Laundry earlier this year. There is no argument that Keller is one of our nation's most talented chefs. Does the Times give him 4 stars?, the NY Post gave him three, who the hell cares?

I understand that for restaurants the stars mean a great deal. However, in my opinion, the quality of most reviewers in our City is at a point that should render their stars (and some of their reviews) largely meaningless to the dining public.

[rich]

I understand that for restaurants the stars mean a great deal. However, in my opinion, the quality of most reviewers in our City is at a point that should render their stars (and some of their reviews) largely meaningless to the dining public.

Do I have a comrade in arms?

[oakapple]

Cuozzo doesn't like the décor, and that complaint is essentially uncorrectable. His complaint about the dress code could certainly be corrected, but I'm not exactly sure what he is arguing for, or why it makes a star's worth of difference.

That's an interesting comment coming from you OA. If I remember correctly, you approved of Bruni essentially taking away a fourth star from Babbo because of the ambience problems he had. Why doesn't Cuozzo get the same benefit of the doubt?

Bruni didn't do a partiuclarly good job of explaining himself in the Babbo review (does he ever?), but he articulated several problems with the ambiance that are substantive (e.g., the erratic service, tables crammed together, music that "thunders"). These are all issues that prevent Babbo from being recognized as a true luxury experience—which a four-star restaurant invariably must be.

In contrast, Cuozzo tells us he doesn't like "brown on brown" or "a busy, swirly carpet and a wooden 'wave' sculpture" that might "transport you to suburbia." These are defensible complaints from an architecture or interior design critic, but they don't substantively affect the dining experience — the way it does, for example, when the tables are crammed together, the music "thunders," or waiters "recite the specials" with "tongue-twisting velocity" (quotes from the Bruni review of Babbo).

Lape, who I think is currently NYC's most insightful reviewer, gave it four and that's closer to what I thought it was. But it simply comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes. It's just another reason why the star system is antiquated and should be totally revamped or eliminated. I must have said this a hundred times on eG, but alas no one ever listens.

The reason I disagree with you, is that your complaint really seems to be about criticism, rather than stars. If no stars were awarded, you would still be left with a review that "comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes." The number of stars is merely a summary of the underlying critical opinion. If you are unhappy that newspapers employ critics who tell us their subjective opinions, abolishing the star system won't change that. If you are unhappy that newspapers pay anybody to render opinions, that view would have to apply to the music, book, and movie sections, and even the editorial page. A radical view indeed.

[rich]

Lape, who I think is currently NYC's most insightful reviewer, gave it four and that's closer to what I thought it was. But it simply comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes. It's just another reason why the star system is antiquated and should be totally revamped or eliminated. I must have said this a hundred times on eG, but alas no one ever listens.

The reason I disagree with you, is that your complaint really seems to be about criticism, rather than stars. If no stars were awarded, you would still be left with a review that "comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes." The number of stars is merely a summary of the underlying critical opinion. If you are unhappy that newspapers employ critics who tell us their subjective opinions, abolishing the star system won't change that. If you are unhappy that newspapers pay anybody to render opinions, that view would have to apply to the music, book, and movie sections, and even the editorial page. A radical view indeed.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing a restaurant or getting paid for it. My problem is simply "how" the stars are awarded, because many people (we have probably all done it at one time or another) just look at the stars and make a decision accordingly - therein lies the problem.

If the star system didn't exist, then people would be forced to actually read the review and come to their own conclusions. That's why lists of four star, three star, etc. restaurants are so meaningless when they don't include editorial comments. Yet people use those all the time. At the very least, the stars should be separated into different categories.

With respect to the ambience issue - different people are bothered by different things. Some people may dislike sitting in a room of a certain color for three or fours hours, while others may have a problem with a specific type of background music. That's exactly what makes a single star-based system so subjective and therefore too personal to be taken seriously - because those types of ambience factors affect the final rating (either in the positive or negative).

Edited August 25, 2004 by rich (log)

[AES]

If the star system didn't exist, then people would be forced to actually read the review and come to their own conclusions.

This is actually why I didn't like the Post's review -- it was too straightforward for me. I'm biased in favor of long-winded descriptions about the room, food, service, wine list, etc., which is what I've gotten on here for restaurants I've been to and ones that I'm considering.

Star ratings give you a guideline of what to expect, but not much more.

[oakapple]

(Continued from the Per Se thread, as what I'm going to say really isn't about Per se.)

Rich Schulhoff has no problem with the idea that restaurants get reviewed, but he objects to the assignment of stars, because....

....many people (we have probably all done it at one time or another) just look at the stars and make a decision accordingly - therein lies the problem.

If the star system didn't exist, then people would be forced to actually read the review and come to their own conclusions.

I've two reactions to this.

I wonder if this is a non-existent problem, or a barely-existent problem. I mean, how many people select a restaurant solely because of the number of stars it has, without any further investigation? You could probably find an idiot or two who has done that, but is it common? I tend to doubt it.

In reality, the star rating is a shorthand signal of the type of dining experience the restaurant represents. It's a "coarse screen," if you will. It does not present all of the information any sensible person would use to decide whether to dine at the restaurant or not, but it helps narrow the search.

At the very least, the stars should be separated into different categories.

Zagat does this better than anybody. No other guide allows you to search and sort restaurants according to so many fine-grained criteria. However, even the Times's primitive search engine allows you to search for restaurants satisfying a number of criteria, other than just the stars.

[rich]

(Continued from the Per Se thread, as what I'm going to say really isn't about Per se.)

Rich Schulhoff has no problem with the idea that restaurants get reviewed, but he objects to the assignment of stars, because....

....many people (we have probably all done it at one time or another) just look at the stars and make a decision accordingly - therein lies the problem.

If the star system didn't exist, then people would be forced to actually read the review and come to their own conclusions.

I've two reactions to this.

I wonder if this is a non-existent problem, or a barely-existent problem. I mean, how many people select a restaurant solely because of the number of stars it has, without any further investigation? You could probably find an idiot or two who has done that, but is it common? I tend to doubt it.

In reality, the star rating is a shorthand signal of the type of dining experience the restaurant represents. It's a "coarse screen," if you will. It does not present all of the information any sensible person would use to decide whether to dine at the restaurant or not, but it helps narrow the search.

At the very least, the stars should be separated into different categories.

Zagat does this better than anybody. No other guide allows you to search and sort restaurants according to so many fine-grained criteria. However, even the Times's primitive search engine allows you to search for restaurants satisfying a number of criteria, other than just the stars.

I don't really disagree with your concept, but I do disagree with your assessment of the number of people who just refer to stars and nothing else.

We are a food group here and probably a lot more serious about restaurants and food than the average diner. Outside of this group (or any food group), I would say the number of people who just use the stars as a reference is much larger than you think. At least, that's been my experience.

Edited August 25, 2004 by rich (log)

[docsconz]

Maybe those people get what they deserve if they only care about the number of stars. They are the same people who will only drink and enjoy a wine if Robert Parker or the Wine Spectator or someone else told them they should because it had a particular number associated with it.

[oakapple]

With respect to the ambience issue - different people are bothered by different things. Some people may dislike sitting in a room of a certain color for three or fours hours, while others may have a problem with a specific type of background music. That's exactly what makes a single star-based system so subjective and therefore too personal to be taken seriously - because those types of ambience factors affect the final rating (either in the positive or negative).

There is a cognizable difference between substantive ambiance issues and entirely aesthetic ones. Substantive ambiance issues include things like: rude/abrupt service, tables crammed too close together, an unreasonably loud noise level. Aesthetic ambiance issues are things like, "I don't like the color brown." My quarrel with the Cuozzo Per Se review is that his ambiance issues were purely aesthetic. These types of issues shouldn't affect the rating, and here they clearly did.

Substantive ambiance issues, on the other hand, are of sufficient importance to the typical diner — and especially to the diner at the luxury level — that they deserve to be considered. The reviewer's perceptions of these issues are, of course, subjective. But so is his judgment about the food.

[phaelon56]

My quarrel with the Cuozzo Per Se review is that his ambiance issues were purely aesthetic. These types of issues shouldn't affect the rating, and here they clearly did.

Substantive ambiance issues, on the other hand, are of sufficient importance to the typical diner — and especially to the diner at the luxury level — that they deserve to be considered.

I agree that his issues with the ambiance were purely from a personal aesthetic but his comments, regardless of what the star rating is, did directly adress some issues with both food and service

For all the brilliance, chef de cuisine Jonathan Benno's kitchen has kinks to work out. Gremolata sauce that tasted like lemon zest drew "ewwwws." A soft-shell crab was deconstructed into tough legs folded atop an Oreo-size round of crab meat on a stale brioche. Lamb ribeye, luscious on one plate, was bloodless and sinewy on another.

One dinner was a wallow in high mediocrity. Seafood was missing its sheen at a 10 p.m. meal, and we felt rushed by captains who made us choose dessert more than three hours before we would eat it.

I see nothing in that passage about ambiance - it's about food and service and in a very specific way.

[alacarte]

Jennifer Leuzzi predicts a new four-star rating...but for which restaurant?

If I were the gambling type, I'd bet the price of a tasting menu that The New York Times will anoint a new 4-star restaurant before you put away your white shoes.

It's not a slam dunk per se, but I have learned that the gray lady's fact checkers called the restaurant in question and requested a photo of the chef. The photo could be a giveaway. Historically, the 4-star reviews start on the front page of the dining section and feature a picture of the chef (as opposed to the regular reviews, which begin on the inside and usually have only a photo of the restaurant interior).

[oakapple]

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.

Has anyone noticed that Frank Bruni always mentions his dinner companions? For instance, here:

As my grape-mad younger brother leafed through the volumes on a recent night, a look of rapture spread across his face. He was as absorbed and elated as a 10-year-old with the latest Harry Potter.

In the end, he settled on — and sprang for — something somewhat familiar to him: a 1994 Pesquera Janus from the Ribera del Duero area of northern Spain. It cost $270 — much, much more than a person has to spend at Cru, and much, much less than a person can.

He doesn't usually say who it is, but the review always at least mentions his companions, and often quotes at least one of them.

[rich]

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.

Has anyone noticed that Frank Bruni always mentions his dinner companions? For instance, here:

As my grape-mad younger brother leafed through the volumes on a recent night, a look of rapture spread across his face. He was as absorbed and elated as a 10-year-old with the latest Harry Potter.

In the end, he settled on — and sprang for — something somewhat familiar to him: a 1994 Pesquera Janus from the Ribera del Duero area of northern Spain. It cost $270 — much, much more than a person has to spend at Cru, and much, much less than a person can.

He doesn't usually say who it is, but the review always at least mentions his companions, and often quotes at least one of them.

What's really sad is that he never mentioned me or even invited me.

[rich]

Just a question. Does the NY Times pay for Bruni and all his guests or just him?

[oakapple]

Just a question. Does the NY Times pay for Bruni and all his guests or just him?

In general, the Times pays for Bruni and all his guests. This can be justified because Bruni has a taste from everybody's plate. That way, he can get a sense of the whole menu without having to visit 20 times. (If Bruni's guests weren't covered, he'd be eating alone an awful lot, because nobody has enough friends that can afford to dine out on his scale at their own expense.)

That Bruni's brother sprang for the wine — and that Bruni felt obligated to share that fact with us — suggests one of two things. The first is that a $270 bottle of wine perhaps goes beyond what he felt he could legitimately spend on this type of meal. The second is that, because it was his brother, he felt his judgment could be questioned if he picked up such a large tab by himself.

[bloviatrix]

Jennifer Leuzzi predicts a new four-star rating...but for which restaurant?

If I were the gambling type, I'd bet the price of a tasting menu that The New York Times will anoint a new 4-star restaurant before you put away your white shoes.

It's not a slam dunk per se, but I have learned that the gray lady's fact checkers called the restaurant in question and requested a photo of the chef. The photo could be a giveaway. Historically, the 4-star reviews start on the front page of the dining section and feature a picture of the chef (as opposed to the regular reviews, which begin on the inside and usually have only a photo of the restaurant interior).

Do we think the photo will be of Keller only, or with Benno?

[rich]

Just a question. Does the NY Times pay for Bruni and all his guests or just him?

In general, the Times pays for Bruni and all his guests. This can be justified because Bruni has a taste from everybody's plate. That way, he can get a sense of the whole menu without having to visit 20 times. (

Actually, I was asking because I'm reviewing Staten Island restaurants (don't laugh) for a weekly newspaper (Staten Island Register). I had my first review published Wednesday - a french bistro named Bordeaux.

I want to get a feel what other papers do with respect for paying for meals. I know the Register doesn't have the budget of the NY Times, but I think they should pay for me a guest - we're still discussing the second person.

[docsconz]

Sounds like good work if you can get it.

[Kim WB]

There's an issue that has been touched upon here, that I think really affects the fairness of the reviews. I think it should be the policy of the NYT to not review a restaurant until its been open to the general public for 60 days..or 45, or 6 months...as long as its consistant. Adding to the lack of consistancy the NYT has shown through Grimes exit, with interim reviewers and styles, Hesser, Sifton, Burros, and landing on Bruni, is the discrepency of time allowed between opening to review: one restaurant review came out after 26 days. of their opening..and assuming it was multiple visits and it took a week to be edited, that means the reviewer visited the restaurant in its first two weeks of opening...is it fair to give another restaurant 3 months to work out the kinks?

[oakapple]

There's an issue that has been touched upon here, that I think really affects the fairness of the reviews. I think it should be the policy of the NYT to not review a restaurant until its been open to the general public for 60 days..or 45, or 6 months...as long as its consistent. .... one restaurant review came out after 26 days. of their opening.....

Which full review (i.e., a review eligible for stars) came out just 26 days after opening? I don't recall that ever happening. A Diner's Journal column, yes. A full review, I don't think so.

Because the DJ column is unrated, and represents no more than a first impression, I don't mind if it covers important restaurants shortly after they open. But in that case, the critic should wait quite a while before writing a full review—and that hasn't always been the case.

[Kim WB]

David Burke and Donatella. Opened to the public ( had some industry and media parties before this) in Mid jan. Was reviewed in NYT Feb. 4.

[oakapple]

David Burke and Donatella. Opened to the public ( had some industry and media parties before this) in Mid jan. Was reviewed in NYT Feb. 4.

Well, you got me there. (And I think DB&D was arguably underrated at two stars.) Such a quick review was abnormal, though.