Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[SobaAddict70]

Mr. Bruni reviews Pace today in the Times, and gives it a single * out of four.

Not a bad review considering all that has gone before, but I could have gone without the seemingly obligatory reference to a member of Mr. Bruni's extraordinarily wide circle of "friends". Their inclusion makes each such review read like a treatise on Foodies Anonymous.

It might have been nice to hear more about the desserts rather than the adjective "good".

Maybe it's just me.

Soba

[Pan]

Robyn asks some interesting questions about star ratings in reference to her recent meal at Babbo. She questions whether a restaurant that she and some other people say is not great at secondi would merit a 3-star rating as a "great" Italian restaurant. Without prejudice to Babbo itself, I think that argument is highly meritorious. What do you all think?

[Pan]

I found the Pace review good and helpful. Someone who trusts Bruni's taste can use the review as a roadmap to what s/he thinks will be a good meal there. Note the caveats, but take them for what they are; he's trying to help diners who may follow him to Pace.

[Bux]

I found the Pace review good and helpful. Someone who trusts Bruni's taste can use the review as a roadmap to what s/he thinks will be a good meal there. Note the caveats, but take them for what they are; he's trying to help diners who may follow him to Pace.

←

I think Pan is correct in pointing out that a review is much more than a consumer's guide rating to be used solely in deciding where to eat. The text of a review should be more important than the stars awarded even in that regard. The heart of any review however, is in the communication of an understanding of the restaurant and its food and a good review should help you make the most of a meal in the restaurant.

[Bux]

Robyn asks some interesting questions about star ratings in reference to her recent meal at Babbo. She questions whether a restaurant that she and some other people say is not great at secondi would merit a 3-star rating as a "great" Italian restaurant. Without prejudice to Babbo itself, I think that argument is highly meritorious. What do you all think?

←

We're getting back to the old discussion about whether the music should have an effect on the rating. A four star rating indicates a high degree of perfection in operating a certain type of restaurant. The food itself is the primary, but not sole consideration. The restaurant has to offer a complete experience. It can't just excel in a single product or a single course. You're not operating a four star restaurant if the the desserts are not up to the savory courses and there's no such thing as four star burger place or pasta place, unless you're setting up a separate classification smaler than "restaurant." Where one draws the line between the other star classifications is something else and a matter for the reviewer to balance in his mind. If the appetizers are worth two stars, the main courses three stars and the deserts four stars, the reviewer has to decide if there's an average impression that guides him, or if it's a matter of the weakest link determining the grade. That's part of the reason it's important to read the review. If you're a pasta freak and you know the pasta is pulling the grade up, you're more likely to have have a great meal than the Atkins dieter looking for fish or meat. In a three star restaurant, some diners may have a four star meal while others may experience a two star meal.

[SobaAddict70]

My point is that there are ways to write a report or a review without routinely involving other people in the mix. I get the feeling that whenever Bruni includes his coterie of friends in a review, that it's a restaurant review by committee. We know that Mr. Bruni can write a friendless review....hell, we've seen it, but not as much as we've liked.

Useful information (for me) consists of the reviewer's reaction to his experiences at a restaurant. YMMV.

Soba

[Bux]

Let me follow up to my last post. A term many of us use to describe some restaurants is "destination restaurant." It's akin to the way Michelin describes two and three star restaurants. A two star restaurant is one that's worth a detour and a three star restaurant is one that's worth a special trip. In France, as many others have noted in other threads, there has traditionally been a single model for a restaurant, so "destination restaurant" is seen as synomymous to the top level of stars. Here in the states, and in other countries as well, we have a wider range of choices and ideals when we dine out. In fact, we don't need to dine. If you accept that dining requires a certain grace and involves a certain service, we have places where we just eat, rather than dine, but the quality of the food is sufficient to make that place in which we eat, a destination place. Katz's is a destination place. A good barbeque place would be a destination, as would a great pizza parlor. That attitude make the star concept confusing to many who don't accept the old school French standard for stars.

[Bux]

My point is that there are ways to write a report or a review without routinely involving other people in the mix.  I get the feeling that whenever Bruni includes his coterie of friends in a review, that it's a restaurant review by committee.  We know that Mr. Bruni can write a friendless review....hell, we've seen it, but not as much as we've liked.

Useful information (for me) consists of the reviewer's reaction to his experiences at a restaurant.  YMMV.

←

Of course there are many ways to write a review and many of them are legitimate. A reviewer needs to find one he’s comfortable with and one that communicates with a great number of readers. Just as we all don’t have the same taste in food or restaurants, we won’t all prefer the same reviewer. I see no problem in including comments made at the table by others. If I were writing reviews I might even include remarks overheard at other tables if I weren’t afraid of appearing to be ill mannered. Paying attention to one’s companions at the table however, is good manners. Anyway, Bruni included one person’s comments on one dish in the Pace review and it appeared he agreed with the comments which meant that the use of the comments was not to round out the review and make it a review by committee. I read it as a convention to liven up the text. As you say, YMMV. Tastes in eating and reading are very subjective, but the differences are very interesting to discuss.

[bloviatrix]

Mr. Bruni reviews Pace today in the Times, and gives it a single * out of four. 

(snip)

It might have been nice to hear more about the desserts rather than the adjective "good".

Maybe it's just me.

Soba

←

This irked me as well. Although in this carb-fearing time desserts might be shunned, to me it's a integral part of the meal.

There have been several threads on the Pastry board about the lack of respect PCs get, and this plays into it.

[SobaAddict70]

My point is that there are ways to write a report or a review without routinely involving other people in the mix.  I get the feeling that whenever Bruni includes his coterie of friends in a review, that it's a restaurant review by committee.  We know that Mr. Bruni can write a friendless review....hell, we've seen it, but not as much as we've liked.

Useful information (for me) consists of the reviewer's reaction to his experiences at a restaurant.  YMMV.

←

Of course there are many ways to write a review and many of them are legitimate. A reviewer needs to find one he’s comfortable with and one that communicates with a great number of readers. Just as we all don’t have the same taste in food or restaurants, we won’t all prefer the same reviewer. I see no problem in including comments made at the table by others. If I were writing reviews I might even include remarks overheard at other tables if I weren’t afraid of appearing to be ill mannered. Paying attention to one’s companions at the table however, is good manners. Anyway, Bruni included one person’s comments on one dish in the Pace review and it appeared he agreed with the comments which meant that the use of the comments was not to round out the review and make it a review by committee. I read it as a convention to liven up the text. As you say, YMMV. Tastes in eating and reading are very subjective, but the differences are very interesting to discuss.

←

Most of the reviews thus far include either direct quotes from his friends or commentary that includes his friends. I could be wrong but I thought it's the job of a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant based mostly on his or her experiences. I wonder what his friends thought of Per Se? Didn't see any commentary there....maybe I should consider going?

to illustrate:

the piece on Indochine --

"Is this the 80's," said one friend, "or Rue McClanahan's bedroom on `The Golden Girls'?"

and

But many of the gooey or deep-fried objects that came our way on this night and others had either no character or too much of it, their flavors muddled, their seasoning scattershot...."It's a pu pu platter that's lost its way," said my pithy friend.

the piece on LCB Brasserie Rachou --

That roasted chicken, with its luxuriant sauce, triggered a happy head rush.

''You see,'' said one of my friends after she had taken her first bite of it, ''this is why people live in France.''

71 Clinton Fresh Food --

Vegetables here are so dependably crisp and colorful that they qualify as uplifting. When one of my friends waded into a salad of dandelion and pea greens, arugula, heirloom tomatoes and purple and yellow flowers, he happily sighed, ''This is like an antidepressant.''

Convivium Osteria --

A friend and I ordered it at dusk one evening, as we waited for a tardy companion, and it perfectly accomplished such a platter's occasional mission of occupying people who are simultaneously trying to tame their hunger and pass an indeterminate period of time.

Soba

[tommy]

"based mostly" i would imagine.

I could be wrong but I thought it's the job of a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant based mostly on his or her experiences.  I wonder what his friends thought of Per Se?  Didn't see any commentary there....maybe I should consider going? 

[Michael Ruhlman]

I was actually, and I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here, at one of those dinners, Bruni's first visit there in early september (the only time I've met him). It was clearly not a three star experience. Two star? Maybe if it continued to improve, but on the edge. I can only imagine that on subsequent visits the experience remained the same, in which case I don't disagree with Bruni. His decision to begin the review with a cerebral setting-of-the-restaurant-in-its-context, and what it might be attempting, was smart. I ordered the sweetbreads he mentioned toward the end of the review and we all discussed at the dinner that it seemed odd to wrap a sweetbread in anything, given that one of its chief pleasures is a crispy exterior. I don't remember that they were overly tough, though they could well have been. He was not soft or generous in his evaluation of the dishes, but rather I thought, a little hard (but that's me, it's not my job to review food); he listened to everyone's comments about this or that dish as we discussed the meal, as everyone does when they eat out--you talk about the food. Desserts were simple and wouldn't have added, for better or worse, anything new to the review.

So, all in all, having been a part of one meal that critic tasted, my trust in his judgements, gernerally, is fortified.

On a personal note, if it matters, he seemed like an exceptionally nice guy, and I sense, uncommonly intelligent (meaning intimidatingly so without calling attention to it, a gentleman).

My only regret is that he didn't mention the extraordinary grappa he ordered for the table after the meal. I want to remember it.

[Busboy]

My point is that there are ways to write a report or a review without routinely involving other people in the mix.  I get the feeling that whenever Bruni includes his coterie of friends in a review, that it's a restaurant review by committee.  We know that Mr. Bruni can write a friendless review....hell, we've seen it, but not as much as we've liked.

Useful information (for me) consists of the reviewer's reaction to his experiences at a restaurant.  YMMV.

←

Of course there are many ways to write a review and many of them are legitimate. A reviewer needs to find one he’s comfortable with and one that communicates with a great number of readers. Just as we all don’t have the same taste in food or restaurants, we won’t all prefer the same reviewer. I see no problem in including comments made at the table by others. If I were writing reviews I might even include remarks overheard at other tables if I weren’t afraid of appearing to be ill mannered. Paying attention to one’s companions at the table however, is good manners. Anyway, Bruni included one person’s comments on one dish in the Pace review and it appeared he agreed with the comments which meant that the use of the comments was not to round out the review and make it a review by committee. I read it as a convention to liven up the text. As you say, YMMV. Tastes in eating and reading are very subjective, but the differences are very interesting to discuss.

←

Most of the reviews thus far include either direct quotes from his friends or commentary that includes his friends. I could be wrong but I thought it's the job of a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant based mostly on his or her experiences. I wonder what his friends thought of Per Se? Didn't see any commentary there....maybe I should consider going?

to illustrate:

the piece on Indochine --

"Is this the 80's," said one friend, "or Rue McClanahan's bedroom on `The Golden Girls'?"

and

But many of the gooey or deep-fried objects that came our way on this night and others had either no character or too much of it, their flavors muddled, their seasoning scattershot...."It's a pu pu platter that's lost its way," said my pithy friend.

the piece on LCB Brasserie Rachou --

That roasted chicken, with its luxuriant sauce, triggered a happy head rush.

''You see,'' said one of my friends after she had taken her first bite of it, ''this is why people live in France.''

71 Clinton Fresh Food --

Vegetables here are so dependably crisp and colorful that they qualify as uplifting. When one of my friends waded into a salad of dandelion and pea greens, arugula, heirloom tomatoes and purple and yellow flowers, he happily sighed, ''This is like an antidepressant.''

Convivium Osteria --

A friend and I ordered it at dusk one evening, as we waited for a tardy companion, and it perfectly accomplished such a platter's occasional mission of occupying people who are simultaneously trying to tame their hunger and pass an indeterminate period of time.

Soba

←

Sometimes a good line -- "this is like an antidepressant," "this is a pu-pu platter that's lost ot's way" -- says a lot about a dish or a place. After layers of adjectives and lists of ingredients and preparations, they serve as a fresh, tart summary. Bruni is just giving his companions credit to his witty companions, rather than stealing their lines outright, not writing reviews by committee. Why this should be found disturbing is beyond me.

Edited October 27, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[Bux]

Most of the reviews thus far include either direct quotes from his friends or commentary that includes his friends.  I could be wrong but I thought it's the job of a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant based mostly on his or her experiences.  I wonder what his friends thought of Per Se?  Didn't see any commentary there....maybe I should consider going? 

←

I've never seen a copy of the job description for a reviewer at the Times, but I doubt it limits the reviewer in that way. At the same time, I'm not convinced Bruni has any friends. I've never met anyone who's claimed to be his friend. Although I don't expect a reviewer to lie about the food, I'd have no problem with a reviewer who invented imaginary dining companions and their conversations in order to give life to his reviews. Okay, I've read below where Michael Ruhlman has dined with him, but even Ruhlman doesn't claim to be a friend, although he did call him a gentleman and I've never seen Ruhlman say that about any of his other acquaintances here.

It would be one thing for a reviewer to mention things he's heard from third parties if he wasn't there when they made their comments and if he didn't understand and appreciate the comments in context, but in all the examples you give, he's offering the statements with the distinct sense that he agrees. What he's doing here is treating his erudite dining companions as resources and using all of his resources to write his column. I'm not convinced he isn't putting words in his friends' mouths either, nor do I really care if that's how he can best and most interestingly make his point. The one thing I'm sure of, is that he's making a point that he wants to make and not just repeating something someone said to fill up space. Not only do I not see a problem, but I think it's well within his job description.

[Michael Ruhlman]

No reporter for the times (anymore!), no reputable reporter anywhere, makes up quotes, for any reason.

[Bux]

No reporter for the times (anymore!), no reputable reporter anywhere, makes up quotes, for any reason.

←

I suspect that's true, although I honestly feel it's an irrelevant issue here as I really don't get the objection to including the comments made by companions, who I would assume were selected on their ability to bring something to the table other than just an excuse to order more dishes, anyway.

[robyn]

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.

←

I'd divide the reviews somewhat differently - between big deal "destination" restaurants (which are always expensive) - and more casual "neighborhood" places - the places where people in New York are most likely to eat most of the time. The latter could perhaps have a price limit - but I think $25 is unrealistic these days. The way the reviews are divided - with most reviewers you get a lot of "big deal" - a lot of "cheap" - and very little in between. Robyn

[robyn]

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.)

←

If they wouldn't - there's something wrong with the NYT system. I know about the recent "expose" of the Michelin system - but whether or not the ratings are rigged - or out of date - or whatever - you can never accuse the organization of being anything but stingy with top ratings. Heck - when we were in London in May - there was only one restaurant in the whole city with 3 Michelin stars.

If 3 NYT stars isn't 1-2 Michelin stars - what is it? What is it supposed to be? I had a talk with one of my cousins Saturday night about restaurant ratings in New York. He isn't a foodie - he's an eater - but he's a wealthy trim 65 year old NYC resident who can taste the difference between cheap lamb and the good stuff. He thinks the NYT panders to certain business interests in the city in its reviews. In other words - there's a lot of "grade inflation". I have no way of knowing if this is true - but it wouldn't surprise me.

Now clearly - Babbo (3 recent NYT stars) is not even a Michelin 1 star. Not even close (we ate at 3 Michelin 1 stars in London - so I'm not relying on ancient recollections here).

And what is 2 NYT stars? That's what David Burke & Donatella got in February. Even though I thought it was a clear Michelin 1 star. (Perhaps the problem there was reviewing the restaurant a few weeks after it opened - which doesn't do any favors for the restaurant or those who read the reviews.)

Like I've said in other threads - I don't understand the standards at all. Whereas with Michelin I have more than a fighting chance (only bum steer we got from Michelin last trip was at a 1 star - it wasn't a 1 star - but I didn't know when we dined there that the chef who got the star had left the restaurant about a month before we got there). Otherwise the 2 1 stars were 1 stars - and the 3 star was a 3 star. Robyn

[robyn]

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

←

I agree that 95% about restaurant "style" is too much - but some discussion about style or the lack of it is warranted. And I think the higher you go up the restaurant food chain - the more I want to hear about style. When I eat $15 worth of dim sum in Chinatown - who cares? But when I'm spending a lot more - I want a place that pleases senses in addition to the sense of taste.

Also - I want - for lack of a better phrase - "a good fit". My husband and I walked into a London restaurant one night - and we knew immediately from looking at it that it wasn't for us (crowd was too young, too trendy, too loud - and the seating was uncomfortable ). On the other hand - someone disliked Per Se - thought it looked too '70's corporate. I thought it looked like what Barbara Barry and similar designers are doing in restaurants these days (even though she wasn't the designer) - not 70's corporate at all. I liked it a lot. On the other hand - I took a peek into V on the way out. Hated the way it looked. Not my cup of tea at all.

When you're talking about the top of the mountain - these differences in perception matter. They can enhance a personal experience - or distract from it. And it's clearly not a case of "one size fits all". So - to me - that part of a restaurant review isn't surplusage. Robyn

[SobaAddict70]

Bux, tommy et al --

I'm not interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni's friends have to say about a restaurant. I'm interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni has to say about a restaurant. Mr. Bruni is the reviewer, not his dining companions, no matter how well-informed they might be.

I want to hear about Mr. Bruni's thoughts, impressions, reactions and overall experience. These may involve other people and their experiences, but the substance of the review should be the impression left on the reviewer. Otherwise, it is indeed "review by committee". I might as well be reading Zagat.

It almost feels like he needs his friends to validate the points he's making. It's wasted space; it's filler. All of that commentary could have been better spent on describing an aspect of his experience in a way that provides additional informative, meaningful, useful information. If I wanted to hear about other people's experiences, I'd browse eGullet.

Soba

[robyn]

Let me follow up to my last post. A term many of us use to describe some restaurants is "destination restaurant." It's akin to the way Michelin describes two and three star restaurants. A two star restaurant is one that's worth a detour and a three star restaurant is one that's worth a special trip. In France, as many others have noted in other threads, there has traditionally been a single model for a restaurant, so "destination restaurant" is seen as synomymous to the top level of stars. Here in the states, and in other countries as well, we have a wider range of choices and ideals when we dine out. In fact, we don't need to dine. If you accept that dining requires a certain grace and involves a certain service, we have places where we just eat, rather than dine, but the quality of the food is sufficient to make that place in which we eat, a destination place. Katz's is a destination place. A good barbeque place would be a destination, as would a great pizza parlor. That attitude make the star concept confusing to many who don't accept the old school French standard for stars.

←

And we can't forget that the Michelin guides started as a way to sell tires. You didn't want people to think they'd wasted a lot of tire tread going to a mediocre place . Today - we don't worry about tire tread - just time and money. I don't want to waste a valuable vacation day and hundreds of dollars at a mediocre place anywhere - who does? Robyn

[tommy]

At the same time, I'm not convinced Bruni has any friends. I've never met anyone who's claimed to be his friend.

←

i just don't know how to react to something like this, even given the rest of this poster's comments.

moderators should note that my proclamation that i don't know how to react to this statement should, by any reasonable barometer, constitute a reasonable response. and i think that comment makes for a springboard into an interesting dicussion.

[tommy]

Bux, tommy et al --

I'm not interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni's friends have to say about a restaurant.  I'm interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni has to say about a restaurant.  Mr. Bruni is the reviewer, not his dining companions, no matter how well-informed they might be.

I want to hear about Mr. Bruni's thoughts, impressions, reactions and overall experience.  These may involve other people and their experiences, but the substance of the review should be the impression left on the reviewer.  Otherwise, it is indeed "review by committee".  I might as well be reading Zagat.

It almost feels like he needs his friends to validate the points he's making.  It's wasted space; it's filler.  All of that commentary could have been better spent on describing an aspect of his experience in a way that provides additional informative, meaningful, useful information.  If I wanted to hear about other people's experiences, I'd browse eGullet. 

Soba

←

have all of the other reviewers for the NYT (and i assume this is the standard to which you're holding Bruni) never mentioned the impressions of their dining companions? i haven't done the research. perhaps you're right.

[Bux]

Bux, tommy et al --

I'm not interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni's friends have to say about a restaurant.  I'm interested in hearing what Mr. Bruni has to say about a restaurant.  Mr. Bruni is the reviewer, not his dining companions, no matter how well-informed they might be.

←

Don't read the NY Times. Seriously, the Times is paying for Bruni's judgment and if in his judgment his companion's comments are worth his attention, they're worth yours. If nothing else, Bruni earns his salary by carefully selecting his dining companions and by selecting and editing their comments. Those carefully selected comments are anything but filler. This is Bruni's style of communicating information and opinion about the restaurant and its food. If you don't like his style, why do you want to hear more about what he says? What makes you think he knows more than his companions?

[bloviatrix]

I was actually, and I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here, at one of those dinners, Bruni's first visit there in early september (the only time I've met him).......

←

Michael, can you share with us how you came to be included in Bruni's dining party that evening?