Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[oakapple]

As I re-read the review, I have a few additional comments:

First, some had speculated that Bruni would write a longer article for a four-star review. Not so. As far as I can tell, the Per Se piece is about the same length as all of his full reviews.

Second, eGulletteers are well aware that Per Se has an unadvertised extended tasting menu, of which Bruni partook at least once:

Per Se wants to dazzle and sometimes to challenge you. I recall in particular what I came to think of as a Wizard-of-Oz course of four different dishes of organ meats, including calf's brain (as delectably molten as foie gras) and calf's heart.

Those were part of an extended chef's tasting menu that Per Se presented to three friends and me as a special option, something it does for a few tables during every lunch and dinner. The usual options are a nine-course tasting menu for $150 and a five-course prix fixe for $125.

I believe Bruni is the first critic to mention the existence of this option in his review. But having mentioned it, he should also have mentioned the cost.

Bruni also had this telling comment about the service:

I am handicapped slightly in evaluating the service, because the vigilant staff repeatedly recognized me, and kept a special watch over my table. But I, in turn, kept watch over other tables and listened hard to acquaintances' reports of their experiences. I am convinced that everyone at Per Se is pampered.

This implies that Bruni believes that most restaurants don't recognize him. Who's getting the better of whom is an open question. Fat Guy has said before that he thinks reviewers are recognized more often than they realize.

Along these lines, Steve Cuozzo had an interesting comment in the Post a week or so ago. He had reserved a table as "Mr. X" at the Capitale Grill, and the waitstaff claimed to recognize him from a previous visit to the Washington, D.C., branch of that restaurant. Thing is, Cuozzo had never been there!

[bloviatrix]

As I re-read the review, I have a few additional comments:

First, some had speculated that Bruni would write a longer article for a four-star review. Not so. As far as I can tell, the Per Se piece is about the same length as all of his full reviews.

←

If you look at the hard copy you'll see that the review is actually longer than his usual reviews. This one starts on F1 with about 8 column inches and then takes up the standard space inside the section.

[docsconz]

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

←

Steven,

Exactly how has Bruni dug "a deeper hole" with the Per Se review? I can understand how people have been taken aback by some of his writing such as focusing on specific patrons or not focusing enough on the food, but I certainly don't see any of that in this review. I see the review as concise, well-written, informative and yes, still entertaining. I don't mind being entertained if there is substance to the writing. That is certainly the hallmark of Jeffrey Steingarten's writing and also yours.

[docsconz]

Another fun feature of the electronic edition of the New York Times is the audio slide show. One for Per Se, narrated by Bruni, is available from the Dining and Wine Section. I'm sorry that I'm unable to give a direct link.

[Fat Guy]

Since this is the general thread I'll keep specific comments about the review off here, but in general Doc I'd say this week he held even, with an acceptable though unimpressive review that contributed nothing to the dialog about Per Se, Thomas Keller, fine dining in New York, restaurant criticism in general, or much of anything else. The thing is, if you can't do a great job on a four-star review then you're almost hopeless as a critic. Four-star reviews should be home runs, not bunts. I feel as though we're celebrating a child learning his multiplication tables. That's certainly cause for celebration if it's your child, but the standard for New York Times critics should be a bit higher.

[docsconz]

Since this is the general thread I'll keep specific comments about the review off here, but in general Doc I'd say this week he held even, with an acceptable though unimpressive review that contributed nothing to the dialog about Per Se, Thomas Keller, fine dining in New York, restaurant criticism in general, or much of anything else. The thing is, if you can't do a great job on a four-star review then you're almost hopeless as a critic. Four-star reviews should be home runs, not bunts. I feel as though we're celebrating a child learning his multiplication tables. That's certainly cause for celebration if it's your child, but the standard for New York Times critics should be a bit higher.

←

Steven,

I respect your writing and opinions very much. We obviously have a disconnect here over our perceptions of Bruni's criticism. As such, I am very interested in your specific criticisms of this review, whether it be here or in another topic.

[Pan]

Me too, Steven. Your criticism of the critic is very harsh. I found the review of Per Se good but will consider any comments explaining why it was like a little kid learning his multiplication table.

[oakapple]

Since this is the general thread I'll keep specific comments about the review off here, but in general Doc I'd say this week he held even, with an acceptable though unimpressive review that contributed nothing to the dialog about Per Se, Thomas Keller, fine dining in New York, restaurant criticism in general, or much of anything else. The thing is, if you can't do a great job on a four-star review then you're almost hopeless as a critic. Four-star reviews should be home runs, not bunts. I feel as though we're celebrating a child learning his multiplication tables. That's certainly cause for celebration if it's your child, but the standard for New York Times critics should be a bit higher.

←

I'm not sure what a "home run" four-star review looks like. In part, I suspect that Steven is over-estimating eGullet's importance to the NYC restaurant scene. What I mean is that, to those of us who've read most of the 500+ post Per Se thread, Frank Bruni's review contributed little. It confirmed what we already know.

But eGulletteers comprise only a fraction of NYC's fine dining community. If you're not on eGullet, there's a good chance the only reviews you know about are those that appeared in New York Magazine and the New York Post (and you may not even know that much). Judged in that context, Bruni's review contributed enormously to the dialog about Per Se. By extension, it also contributed enormously to the dialog about Thomas Keller, because you can't separate one from the other.

I'm also not sure that an individual restaurant review is the place for making higher-level comments about the dining scene. The Per Se review should be about Per Se. A "thought piece" about the metaphysics of fine dining would be more suitable for one of his occasional "Critic's Notebook" columns (these appear about four times a year).

Will the review be considered a landmark in the documentary history of cooking? No, it won't. I'm not sure when the New York Times last published a review to which such high accolades would apply. At the moment, this seems to be well beyond Mr. Bruni's capabilities.

If this review wasn't akin to a child learning his multiplication table, it can't be denied that it has taken Bruni quite a while to produce a review that hit all the right notes without sounding any wrong ones, and it remains to be seen whether he can hit this level with any consistency whatsoever.

[boris]

This implies that Bruni believes that most restaurants don't recognize him. Who's getting the better of whom is an open question. Fat Guy has said before that he thinks reviewers are recognized more often than they realize.

...of course, this day and age, one can simply do a google search to see a picture of Mr Bruni

Bruni pics

Edited September 8, 2004 by boris (log)

[Fat Guy]

Nobody wants Frank Bruni to succeed more than I, but so far he has failed so miserably at his job that it's hard to imagine what strategy he's going to use to reverse course. The thing is, "good" isn't good enough when you're the Times critic. Passing grades like "concise, well-written, informative and yes, still entertaining" are hardly impressive when you're the world's most important restaurant reviewer -- and I take issue with each of those characterizations as well. The only standard by which his latest review can be classified as a success is the low standard Frank Bruni has already set for himself. A review of a four-star restaurant should be a four-star review, not an amateurish strung-together series of self-indulgent musings.

What does this review contribute to the dialog about Per Se? Nothing. It is repetition of what has been available for months to anybody with Google. It contains no insight, no commentary, no theory beyond what an excited consumer might say about how good a meal was. Where is the leadership, the gravitas, the expertise? You can spend all the time you want on the phone with Jonathan Benno learning enough about each dish to make you seem as though you know what you're talking about, but if you don't know what sous vide means you're still going to describe it as "in a tightly sealed plastic pouch" so that only a reader who already knows about sous vide cookery will actually know what you're talking about.

Is the writing good? It's competent, I suppose. Heavily reliant on vague adjectives ("The vanilla was a perfect accent, used in perfect proportion"), barely any better than a first-draft journal entry, with more "gee whiz" than serious criticism.

Rather than dwell on his faux-populist ("this preening, peacock-vain newcomer"), anti-corporate ("Per Se is across the street from Central Park, in what is essentially a shopping mall"), anti-French ("The service departs compellingly from the traditional French model by mingling formal attentiveness with breezy, even cheeky banter") agenda, he should have either devoted more space to the culinary comparison to French Laundry -- which in its present form says exactly nothing; a pretty lame showing for a piece of research that required a plane flight and significant expenditures -- or offered a better contextual placement of Per Se in the Time Warner pantheon. But of course he has already demonstrated his proclivity to drop the ball on the significance of Time Warner -- the greatest assemblage of culinary talent in the history of at least North America -- perhaps because he sees it as a mall.

The review is adequate. It should get a passing grade. It would be good by the standards of a second-tier newspaper. As a New York Times review of a tremendously important restaurant, however, it leaves much to be desired, as do far too many of Frank Bruni's reviews.

It's time for the Times to stop appointing reporters as restaurant reviewers. The position should be filled by people who know, love, and appreciate food and fine dining -- people of the stature of Craig Claiborne, Bryan Miller, and Ruth Reichl. The Grimes era was a failure primarily because Grimes was a good writer but a weak critic. You'd think they would have learned. Then again, I guess they couldn't get the first four candidates to take the job, so they went with a company man.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure what a "home run" four-star review looks like. In part, I suspect that Steven is over-estimating eGullet's importance to the NYC restaurant scene. What I mean is that, to those of us who've read most of the 500+ post Per Se thread, Frank Bruni's review contributed little. It confirmed what we already know.

But eGulletteers comprise only a fraction of NYC's fine dining community. If you're not on eGullet, there's a good chance the only reviews you know about are those that appeared in New York Magazine and the New York Post (and you may not even know that much). Judged in that context, Bruni's review contributed enormously to the dialog about Per Se. By extension, it also contributed enormously to the dialog about Thomas Keller, because you can't separate one from the other.

←

I am hardly overestimating the importance of eGullet when I say that a New York Times restaurant review should contain better analysis than the average post on eGullet. And the Times should be judged by the highest standards, not by the standards of second-tier newspapers and magazines.

Home-run four-star reviews:

Ruth Reichl on Jean Georges

"It is tempting to abandon yourself to the sensual pleasure of the place, sink into the comfortable seats and allow the staff to surround you with aroma and seduce you with flavor. But take a deeper look: in his quiet way the chef and co-owner, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, is creating a restaurant revolution. This is an entirely new kind of four-star restaurant."

. . . .

"The last touch is put on each dish at the table . . . . Mr. Vongerichten has hoarded the scents, saving them to be released in the dining room instead of the kitchen. His food is satisfying before you ever put your fork to a plate."

. . . .

"If a walk in the woods were translated to flavor, it would be his porcini tart, a rich pastry spread with a deeply flavored walnut-and-onion paste and topped with sauteed mushrooms."

That, my friends, is great food writing.

Even the typically grouchy and uninspired William Grimes was capable of greatness when inspired by true culinary genius.

William Grimes on Bouley Bakery

"As a chef, Mr. Bouley has it all -- elegance, finesse and flair. His flavors are extraordinarily clear and exquisitely balanced; his use of seasoning is so deft as to be insidious. Even his most complex creations have a classical simplicity to them. Mr. Bouley cooks the way Racine wrote and Descartes thought. At the same time, although French to his fingertips, he has also been traveling, thinking and assimilating foreign influences. In the most considered way, he has become a more daring chef, and a more exciting one."

. . . .

"For professional musicians, the real test is maintaining tonal purity and expressive power at the softest volumes. The analogy holds in cooking. Mr. Bouley thrives on bold flavors. His rack of lamb with glazed salsify and chanterelles is potent, with an intoxicating overlay of sage, but he can communicate in the merest whisper. His cod with broccoli puree seems almost like a bad bet. Can anyone hold an audience with ingredients this simple and sparely presented? The answer is yes, and yes again."

. . . .

"And really, there is no point in saying no to anything at Bouley Bakery. Wiser heads have arranged matters so that the only possible answer to any question is yes."

And so is that.

[bilrus]

he should have either devoted more space to the culinary comparison to French Laundry -- which in its present form says exactly nothing; a pretty lame showing for a piece of research that required a plane flight and significant expenditures

Didn't he get criticized for making too much of the comparison between Wolfgang's Steakhouse and Peter Luger's? At least Luger's is a restaurant that many of his potential readers who, for the most part, are people living in the NY Metro area.

Now for those of us outside New York, or for those who want to hear more about fine dining in general, more comparison would have been interesting. But doesn't the critic and the paper have an more of an obligation to be relevant to the people in of city than the national dining public whther it is the Des Moines Register or the New York Times?

[Fat Guy]

Didn't he get criticized for making too much of the comparison between Wolfgang's Steakhouse and Peter Luger's?

←

Not by me. Not by oakapple. By some others, whom he argued were wrong, yes. I thought Frank Bruni did a poor job comparing the two, but totally support the idea of doing such a comparison.

I can't imagine a sensible argument that says the comparison between French Laundry and Per Se isn't important. Heck, the whole point of naming the place "Per Se" is a reference to Thomas Keller's reactions to all those who asked him if the New York place would be the same as French Laundry. His stock reply, "It's not the French Laundry per se," gave rise to one of the worst restaurant names in the history of the universe, but it nonetheless underscores the importance of the comparison -- as if we needed anything to underscore what is so obviously an important issue.

[Nathan]

Bruni did add something to the discussion merely by reviewing Per Se. The sad fact is, I know a fair amount of people who know something about food, who can be articulate as to their palates, but who frankly are unlikely to know of a restaurant unless it's reviewed by the Times or a friend recommends it. Last week, a partner at my firm who I often discuss restaurants with, casually asked "so when is that Per Se thing going to reopen?' She had the impression from that recent insipid New York article that the fire had been a complete disaster (and that was the only reason she had heard of it).

You are not going to google a restaurant that you are unaware exists.

Fine dining can't exist on Egulleteers or their friends alone. So, yes, the Times review matters by the mere fact that there is one, and that it gives the restaurant its rightful place in the pantheon.

my 3 cents, Nathan

As a sidenote -- I liked Grimes (and remember that Bouley Bakery review as well) -- he was and still is right about Otto -- though you're better off sitting at the bar.

[oakapple]

...of course, this day and age, one can simply do a google search to see a picture of Mr Bruni

Yes, and no doubt the big-ticket chefs and their FOH staffs would know what Bruni looks like in their sleep. But I don't think all the places he reviews are expecting him. Maybe after the 3rd or 4th visit it dawns on them who he is...but by then, he's already had several meals anonymously.

Edited September 8, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Bruni did add something to the discussion merely by reviewing Per Se. 

←

New York Times critics shouldn't be judged by the "Seventy percent of success in life is showing up" standard.

[Todd36]

If memory serves, Bryan Miller was the food critic of the Hartford Courant when the NYT hired him. I think he had an established track record with reviews, unlike the current NYT technqiue which seems to be "try the world in print." How many people have done the MYT's reviews (both regular and $25 and under) in the last 12 months?

[Kim WB]

-- perhaps because he sees it as a mall.

above quote from Fatguy, don't quite understand this quote thing yet.

Steven, I'll politely disagree wtih your review of his review..it was informative, well-written, and comprehensive to include wine, service, food and decor...and while reading all the egullet threads I could have gleamed this..well, here it was all wrapped up in one entertaining review. But in reference to the above quote..at some time, someday, you are going to have to admit that TW is, indeed, a mall. Ok, its not like any OTHER mall, but it is a mall.

I have lunch and dinner reservations for mid September...can't wait to contribute to the Per Se thread after I've experienced it first hand.

Edited September 8, 2004 by Kim WB (log)

[oakapple]

How many people have done the NYT's reviews (both regular and $25 and under) in the last 12 months?

For the main review: William Grimes, Marian Burros (interim), Amanda Hesser (interim), and Frank Bruni. Sam Sifton gets an honorable mention for writing the Diner's Journal column during the Grimes-Bruni interregnum.

The Times is now rotating the $25-and-under column among several reviewers, which I think is a very good thing. It's not as if they're trying people out, to see who'll get the job. Today's $25-and-under was by Frank Prial, and I am quite sure he doesn't want a weekly reviewing gig. Eric Asimov has also done the column several times since relinquishing it as a full-time beat as of June 1st.

[Todd36]

The Times is now rotating the $25-and-under column among several reviewers, which I think is a very good thing. It's not as if they're trying people out, to see who'll get the job. Today's $25-and-under was by Frank Prial, and I am quite sure he doesn't want a weekly reviewing gig. Eric Asimov has also done the column several times since relinquishing it as a full-time beat as of June 1st.

←

[Fat Guy]

I agree, Todd. Continuity of voice lies at the core of what makes a critic valuable. Critics aren't just writing one review; they're creating a body of work over time -- an oeuvre.

Of course, in heavily saturated areas such as film there is a need for multiple critics just to keep up with the volume of new releases that demand review. But each of those critics may write multiple reviews in a given week, so each has an oeuvre larger than that of the restaurant critic who writes one review a week (or two, depending on how you count "Diner's Journal).

Not that restaurant reviewers on the whole seem to accept that they should be like real arts critics. They tend to focus on entertainment and consumer advocacy rather than on the cause of excellence in the arts. But to me dining is worthy of real criticism, and indeed when you have chefs of the caliber of Gray Kunz, Thomas Keller, Alain Ducasse, Charlie Trotter, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, and Masa Takayama all operating on the same block, the art (or craft if you must) of cuisine deserves no less than the seriousness of treatment that art, architecture, literature, dance, and music get, and probably deserves more than Hollywood does at this point.

Let's face it: Zagat does a better job of consumer advocacy, and the New York Post and New York Magazine will always be more entertaining than the Times. What the Times has to offer is depth, quality, and authority. The Times, however, is not providing this in its restaurant reviews.

[getxo]

I agree, Todd. Continuity of voice lies at the core of what makes a critic valuable. Critics aren't just writing one review; they're creating a body of work over time -- an oeuvre.

Of course, in heavily saturated areas such as film there is a need for multiple critics just to keep up with the volume of new releases that demand review. But each of those critics may write multiple reviews in a given week, so each has an oeuvre larger than that of the restaurant critic who writes one review a week (or two, depending on how you count "Diner's Journal).

Not that restaurant reviewers on the whole seem to accept that they should be like real arts critics. They tend to focus on entertainment and consumer advocacy rather than on the cause of excellence in the arts. But to me dining is worthy of real criticism, and indeed when you have chefs of the caliber of Gray Kunz, Thomas Keller, Alain Ducasse, Charlie Trotter, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, and Masa Takayama all operating on the same block, the art (or craft if you must) of cuisine deserves no less than the seriousness of treatment that art, architecture, literature, dance, and music get, and probably deserves more than Hollywood does at this point.

Let's face it: Zagat does a better job of consumer advocacy, and the New York Post and New York Magazine will always be more entertaining than the Times. What the Times has to offer is depth, quality, and authority. The Times, however, is not providing this in its restaurant reviews.

←

Bravo, Mr. Fat Guy! Your impassioned response should be a clarion call for all food aesthetes. But, it seems to me that you and other serious food writers are establishing a de facto standard that makes the judgment of critics like Mr. Bruni a foregone and rather superfluous conclusion.

Edited September 9, 2004 by getxo (log)

[Popes]

Hello egullet,

Surfed this sight for a while but this is my first reply. So, this one is for Fatguy. Generally, I have respected your opinion on critiques and what not. On the Per Se issue you seem to have a strong opinion of Bruni's failure. So I propose that you write a post to egullet as though it were your article for the NYT. Therefore, you could illustrate by comparison how you feel a four star review should have read. I have to say, as well, that I feel Bruni has been dropping the ball at some points in various reviews, but the Per Se review was "acceptable." So, if your game, can't wait to read it.

[Fat Guy]

I'll happily accept that challenge provided somebody wants to subsidize four visits to Per Se for me! Oh, and also one visit to French Laundry. And a salary and benefits so that I can spend an entire week writing one restaurant review.

The Times critic has a virtually unlimited budget, the luxury of undivided attention, and the power of the most prestigious pulpit in the world of journalism. The rest of us aren't in competition with the Times critic, because it's hardly possible to compete. What we can do, however, is point to the disconnect between the inputs and the outputs. I submit that, given the same inputs Frank Bruni has, most any eGulleter could do a better piece of restaurant criticism. Maybe it wouldn't be as well written (Frank Bruni is after all a very strong writer, and smart), but it would be better restaurant criticism per se. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[oakapple]

I don't find the rotation [of $25-and-under critics] helpful.  If there is one reviewer for the column, at least over time I can figure out what their standards are and whether I agree with their views.  Multiple reviewers to me is the same problem as the Grimes/Burros/Clarbourne (misspelled) problem, which people have been discussing at length.

←

I thought this one was a no-brainer but as both Todd and FG have disagreed with me, I'll elaborate.

First off, let me be clear that I advocated the rotational system only for the $25-and-under column. In the main reviewing chair, the lack of stability over the last 12 months has definitely been a disadvantage. But the $25-and-under column differs in several respects.

Most important, $25-and-under is a much more random selection of the available restaurants. In the main column, you can be sure that nearly all of the "important" star-quality restaurants are going to get reviewed. Frank Bruni's decision is when, not whether, to review them. But with 52 slots a year, $25-and-under is merely scratching the surface of what is out there. It's more of an impressionistic dining diary than a systematic thorough coverage of a genre. Because the column doesn't claim to be comprehensive, it is useful to get more than one voice out there, so that we're not limited to one critic's selection bias.

There are other differences. The $25-and-under restaurants aren't starred, so there is no issue of ensuring the stars are assigned consistently (not that the main critics have excelled at that). The $25 restaurants are never re-reviewed, so all you're getting is a one-time snapshot, so maintaining a consistent voice from one review to the next doesn't matter as much.

In most of the other Arts disciplines (theater, music, books), the Times has more than one critic. I agree with Fat Guy that cooking is an art, and it deserves more serious analysis than Frank Bruni has given it. But the argument for limiting it to just one voice doesn't necessarily follow.

Edited September 9, 2004 by oakapple (log)