Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Todd36]

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.

←

I think what you are trying to say is: no matter how screwed up an expensive place like V is, it's always going to be at least one star because it's so expensive and they start with good ingredents and their staff is at least decent. I don't know if that is true. The Times I think has given no stars to some expensive places in the past--- I don't remember which places, but I am sure someone can find one. The Russian Tea Room perhaps? I think it is possible for a place like V to be no stars. I've had some iffy food at some rather expensive places. I also think that it's possible for almost any food to be at a four star place. Jean-Georges served ptotato salad as part of my lunch last month.... you think that means it was at most a two star experience? It's true no one makes super high end pizza that is good in NYC, perhaps because the market will not pay for it. But if Jean Georges made a high qualtity crust with a time intensive sauce, good cheese and house-made peperonni, are you saying it couldn't be higher than two stars no matter what? Sushi's usually got 5 or so ingredents: fish, rice, vinger, seaweed (cooked with the rice, its a source of MSG :)) and wasabi. It's simple stuff. Can't be more than 2 stars in your opinion?

[Stone]

I think what you are trying to say is: no matter how screwed up an expensive place like V is, it's always going to be at least one star because it's so expensive and they start with good ingredents and their staff is at least decent. 

←

Yes, and no. I chose V because it came to mind quickly, it received one star, and most people I know who've been there said it was a great place that did some weird stuff. I could see some "high end" places getting no stars -- Tavern on the Green comes to mind. Or perhaps a restaurant like V just deteriorates to the point that it's serving crap. Or, if the NYT limited its reviews to the the top 25% of retaurants. Within that smaller, more select category, I think it would be meaningful to rate a restaurant such as V one-star. But I for one find it hard to believe that V is not categorically a better restaurant than some of the places that received two-stars from Bruni. And I haven't eaten at V or any of the two stars.

If Jean Georges turned their Trump Palace/Tower/whatever restaurant into a pizza place, I'd be surprised if it maintained 3-stars. Unless they served killer wings.

[Todd36]

If Jean Georges turned their Trump Palace/Tower/whatever restaurant into a pizza place, I'd be surprised if it maintained 3-stars.  Unless they served killer wings.

←

This puts us back I think in the "it's gotta be French" to get 4 stars from the NYT. A variation on this theme. I grew up in Connecticut and some time ago, the reviewers for the Hartford Courant were Jane and Michael Stern (sometime later, the Courant had Williams Grimes, and they have not had a real reviewer since the NYT hired him away). The Stern's last review for the Courant was of Shady Glen. Shady Glen is a two outlet ice cream parlor that serves good (but not great ice cream) and famous cheeseburgers and hot dogs. Actually, they serve famous cheese. They have some secret technique that involves cooking the cheese on a sandwich press to make it both gooey and crisp. You can order a side of the cheese, on an english muffin (it's not on the menu). Now that cheese is good. The rest of the burger is fine, but nothing special. Shady Glen is very popular, and slightly overpriced for what it is (we're talking half counter service and it's really a short order diner/dairy bar). It was founded by a local farmer who made ice cream as a sales method for milk. It's been open for 50+ years and is stuck in a time warp. It has looked exactly the same for the last 30 years. The Sterns gave it 4 stars...... they speak highly of it in their books.... they say something like "we know 4 stars sounds nuts, but we like the place and it's a perfect example of its type."

Now, Shady Glen happens to be located in my hometown. I've probably eaten there at least a hundred times. It's pretty good, but 4 stars?????????????????? The Sterns clearly believed in comparing restaurants to their peers, and not across types.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Todd36 (log)

[Stone]

This puts us back I think in the "it's gotta be French" to get 4 stars from the NYT.

←

I'm not saying anything of the sort. But, yes, I think it's gotta be more than good dough, a tasty sauce and some well-purchased cheese.

You make an interesting point: Should all "star" ratings be read with an implicit qualification that they apply only to other restaurants of the same class as the restaurant being reviewed. There is a lot of of utility in this position. Most importantly, it eliminates what I see as the fatal flaw in using a 5 point system to review the thousand restaurants in NY -- there is so much diversity within each grade that it becomes meaningless. This suggestion removes that problem because it automatically creates as many 5 point systems as there are "classes" of restaurant. Give a pizzaria 4 stars? Why not? It's the best a pizzaria could do. Give Popeyes fried chicken 4 stars? Sure, it's better than all the other fast food places (and most fried chicken places).

But this system has it's own flaw -- what are the categories? We could easily understand if Bruni said that V is one star "within its category." Sure, there would be some finagling around the edges, but most of us could agree on the type of restaurant V is competing with. But what about Blue Smoke? The bbq doesn't compete with almost any bbq I've had, but it's a much better dining experience. This introduces too many additional layers of subjectivity into a process that tries mightly to be objective.

I think that is why the NYT has and should strictly maintain a $25 and under collumn. Let its main reviewer(s) review the "NYT" restaurants -- those befitting mention in the country's newspaper of merit. For the rest, there are ample substitutes that will do the job every bit as good as NYT. From the Voice to dozens of websites. You don't need much talent to say whether a restaurant serving standard pasta dishes uses too much salt, or overcooks its ravioli. (That's going a bit too far, but you know what I mean.) Maybe that's why Bruni's prose is so ridiculous. He's trying wax eloquently about mediocrity. Good food, but mediocre on the grand scale.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Stone (log)

[Todd36]

But this system has it's own flaw -- what are the categories?  We could easily understand if Bruni said that V is one star "within its category."  Sure, there would be some finagling around the edges, but most of us could agree on the type of restaurant V is competing with.  But what about Blue Smoke?  The bbq doesn't compete with almost any bbq I've had, but it's a much better dining experience.  This introduces too many additional layers of subjectivity into a process that tries mightly to be objective. 

←

One way of dealing with this (and not sure if Blue Smoke would work), if the place is expensive enough, then no matter what kind of cusine it serves, it falls into the high end catagory. I have no problem comparing Jean Georges to say Kurma Sushi or Mr K's. They're all quite expensive and all claim to be top. Perhaps in general prices is fairer. Compare noodle shops to good pizza for example.

[Pan]

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.

←

You know I fully agree with you there. "$25-and-under" should really be $25-and-under. And I would object if the Times eliminated the "$25-and-under" column and abdicated coverage of inexpensive restaurants to the Voice, Newsday and such. I also agree with Bux that it would be great if the Times reviewed more restaurants, but that's a business decision that they so far haven't been willing to make.

[mjr_inthegardens]

Bruni's insistence on alluding to his dining companions — "my friend," "my companions," etc., etc. is starting to get on my nerves a little. I don't think it adds value to his reviews except as a stylistic pivot that is now overused.

-mjr

edited for grammar

Edited October 8, 2004 by mjr_inthegardens (log)

[Pan]

It doesn't bother me. He seems to me to be emphasizing conviviality as part of the experience of dining out. And it is for almost all of his readership.

[oakapple]

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.

←

The Times critics practically never discuss the rating directly. Hence, Bruni didn't tell us how close V came to two stars, or precisely which of his complaints was the most important in the decision to award just one.

However, the standard blurb that defines the stars says that price is taken into account. As I interpreted it — and I stress that this is only interpretation — V was punished for a number of failures that he considered inexcusable for the price.

Stone also wrote:

Should all "star" ratings be read with an implicit qualification that they apply only to other restaurants of the same class as the restaurant being reviewed.

I thought that this was also a factor in Bruni's review of V. (Again, I am reading tea leaves.) There is not much that's innovative in V's entrées. It's a steak place, and Manhattan has great steakhouses in abundance. Where V attempted to innovate, Bruni considered the results unimpressive. Now, whether they actually are unimpressive is a matter of critical judgment; some have agreed with this, others have not. But I agree with Bruni's apparent rationale that if a steakhouse is serving merely acceptable steak, coupled with funky apps and desserts that miss as often as they score, one star is the correct rating.

[foodexile]

Bruni just gave his first (that I recall) no-stars review - to Indochine.

I'm weird and won't read the actual review until Wednesday, but I'll be interested to see what he said.

[Pan]

Indochine was a really hip place - about 15 years ago, I guess. Does anyone else wonder why it was worth reviewing now that many people have long since forgotten it's still in business?

Edited October 13, 2004 by Pan (log)

[SobaAddict70]

You get exactly two mentions of two dishes in the review per se: won ton shrimp and creme brulee. Oh, and the cocktails but those don't count.

Funny how it mentions what dishes are recommended even though 95% of the review had to do with decor, service, the patrons and style.

Which was satisfactory, the review or the restaurant? I can't quite determine.

Soba

[oakapple]

Indochine was a really hip place - about 15 years ago, I guess. Does anyone else wonder why it was worth reviewing now that many people have long since forgotten it's still in business?

←

This was probably the most pointless review Bruni has published. It confirmed that writing about food doesn't come naturally to him. Given the opportunity to write about a "scene" — with food merely a footnote — that's what he did.

Zero-star reviews in the Times are rare. It's not because the city has very few zero-star restaurants; it's because such restaurants are generally not worth writing about. I mean, when you have only 52 reviews per year, why spend the paper's money on 4-5 visits to a 20-year-old restaurant that most people have forgotten about, only to publish a review that says, "Don't bother"?

[bergerka]

This was probably the most pointless review Bruni has published. It confirmed that writing about food doesn't come naturally to him. Given the opportunity to write about a "scene" — with food merely a footnote — that's what he did.

Zero-star reviews in the Times are rare. It's not because the city has very few zero-star restaurants; it's because such restaurants are generally not worth writing about. I mean, when you have only 52 reviews per year, why spend the paper's money on 4-5 visits to a 20-year-old restaurant that most people have forgotten about, only to publish a review that says, "Don't bother"?

←

To be fair, was Indochine ever all that much about the food anyway???

All I really know about it, never having been there, is that it is one of the "hot" restaurants that the guys go to in "American Psycho" (the book. I don't remember if they go there in the movie or not). All the restaurants in that book were about scene, and the food was uniformly weird and generally lousy. Was that the case with Indochine?

(oh, and come on, TELL ME you didn't love the description of the shrimp won ton in today's review. We cackled over that one for quite some time chez moi).

K

Edited October 13, 2004 by bergerka (log)

[Todd36]

The key quote I think is:

"During my recent visits to Indochine, the sauces tended to be too sweet. The meat and fish tended to be mistreated. I had overcooked duck, overdressed beef, rock-hard shrimp."

After that, he doesn't need to say much about the food.

My current NYT question is why do they have currently have an obsession with moderate Japanese places? How many have they reviewed in the last 3 months?

[Pan]

To be fair, was Indochine ever all that much about the food anyway???

←

Food + ambiance, for me. Sure, drinks, too, but I wasn't having any. I used to go there with my brother (then an East Villager) and his then-girlfriend, or sometimes with my brother and mother (I figure my father may have come along at some point).

Another East Village scene restaurant from the 80s with good food (or so I thought at the time, until it went way downhill) was Sugar Reef.

But keep in mind that those were times when sort of upscale Vietnamese and Jamaican restaurants were a novel idea.

[mikeycook]

To be fair, was Indochine ever all that much about the food anyway???

All I really know about it, never having been there, is that it is one of the "hot" restaurants that the guys go to in "American Psycho" (the book. I don't remember if they go there in the movie or not).  All the restaurants in that book were about scene, and the food was uniformly weird and generally lousy.  Was that the case with Indochine?

(oh, and come on, TELL ME you didn't love the description of the shrimp won ton in today's review.  We cackled over that one for quite some time chez moi).

K

←

I live just over a block from Indochine and I had long forgotten that they were still there. Ate there once, about 5 years. Ok. Nothing special.

Edited October 14, 2004 by mikeycook (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Question to eGulleteers (ok, two questions ):

1. Do you see Cru as reaching for two stars or reaching for three stars?

2. Do you agree with Mr. Bruni's review?

Personally, I thought this review -- seemed -- more along the lines of what started off promisingly with his piece on Babbo. Nary a mention (not that I saw anyway) of his coterie of "friends". Let's hope the trend continues...

Soba

[oakapple]

1.  Do you see Cru as reaching for two stars or reaching for three stars?

2.  Do you agree with Mr. Bruni's review?

Personally, I thought this review -- seemed -- more along the lines of what started off promisingly with his piece on Babbo.  Nary a mention (not that I saw anyway) of his coterie of "friends".  Let's hope the trend continues...

←

I haven't been to Cru yet, but based on other reviews and Bruni's earlier DJ column, I expected three stars.

I agree that this is one of Bruni's better reviews. It is mainly about the food, and his friends aren't mentioned. It seems Bruni's best reviews have come where the food was unquestionably terrific. Where the food is less compelling (to him), Bruni gets distracted and starts tossing in irrelevant things.

[Todd36]

I agree that this is one of Bruni's better reviews. It is mainly about the food, and his friends aren't mentioned. It seems Bruni's best reviews have come where the food was unquestionably terrific. Where the food is less compelling (to him), Bruni gets distracted and starts tossing in irrelevant things.

←

Maybe he's been reading this thread

[Nathan]

I have to say, imho, from any somewhat objective vantage point...this was not a review to be quibbled with....it was excellent...here's hoping for more of the same.

[bpearis]

Was there a Diner's Journal in the Times today? If so, it's not online.

[Bux]

Was there a Diner's Journal in the Times today? If so, it's not online.

←

Asimov on Cafe Gray. I didn't look for it online, but I'm surprised it's not there. Were you searching for Bruni?

[Pan]

In the Babbo thread, Robyn made the following remark:

I figure 3 NYT stars equates to about 1-2 Michelin stars

I'm not sure I agree with that. Do you think all the 3-stars in New York would get even one Michelin star? (Leave out Spice Market in considering your answer, if you like.)

[baw]

Admittedly I've only been to a handful (6?) of Michelin starred restaurants, but I would say that a Michelin 'zero', 1 or 2 star could be an NYT 4 star. The Michelin 'starred' restaurants have a more refined service and atmosphere than NYT 3 stars and are judged on a scale expecting such. I see the dining scene in France as just so much different .. but again, I dont have expensive experience.

Edited October 26, 2004 by baw (log)