Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Pan]

I think that the top level should be based on an absolute (I won't say "objective") standard, not a curve. If a restaurant like Bouley is sometimes mind-blowingly good and other times sort of mediocre, it shouldn't get 4 stars. To get 4 stars, a restaurant ought to be consistently mind-blowing - otherwise, Fat Guy's idea of a 5-star system becomes more appealing.

[oakapple]

[is] the four-star rating simply the rating that we give to the best 5-10 restaurants in the category -- in other words is it grading on a curve -- or are we applying an objective standard that gives us the potential to say "there are no four-star restaurants in New York right now"? Or is it some kind of a mix, and if so what are the proportions?

I suspect the reality is that the critics are grading on a curve. From the photos I've seen of Frank Bruni, he's not old enough to really know whether today's four-star restaurants are as good as those of thirty years ago. What he does know is that the category has historically been limited to the best half-dozen or so restaurants in the city. Bruni also knows the ratings that restaurants are currently carrying, and from this he will infer what the de facto standards are.

I'm not sure that the standards of thirty years ago would be the right ones to apply, even if we happened to have a critic who could remember them.

If a restaurant like Bouley is sometimes mind-blowingly good and other times sort of mediocre, it shouldn't get 4 stars.

Any restaurant should be docked a star if it doesn't consistently deliver its best performance. I haven't been to Bouley, but if it's as erratic as reported here, then it no longer deserves four stars.

[Bux]

It may be far more beneficial to have international contemproary dining experience, than to know first had what restaurants were like two or three decades ago in NY. If the top grade should be based on an absolute, that absolute has to based on the realm of the possible. What chefs are doing today is far beyond what they might have attempted thirty years ago. Tastes change, technology changes, the "absolute" changes, or at least our perception of it changes. Absolute perfection may be a curve.

[Fat Guy]

Historical perspective can be acquired from books. No, it's not the same as having lived through it, but if you're willing to put in a few days with Last Days of Haute Cuisine and a pile of old restaurant reviews, and you get yourself some mentoring from old timers, you can get up to speed on the evolution of the American dining scene.

My understanding is that Frank Bruni is the kind of guy who will do this. The latest I heard was that he was just out at French Laundry, gathering a basis for comparison for a forthcoming Per Se review. Word is also (and this was in print as well) that he has done some traveling to prepare for the job. He has the luxury of being able to devote himself to this effort 24/7, with a virtually unlimited budget, and with access to just about any expert source he needs (except, due to the system under which he labors, in-person access to chefs and restaurateurs).

[bloviatrix]

Word is also (and this was in print as well) that he has done some traveling to prepare for the job.

I saw Bruni talking about what he did to "prepare" for the job last Tuesday night and one of things he emphasized was that he travelled to a bunch of different countries in order to immerse himself in the cuisines. He talked about wanting to learn about the flavors.

[Pan]

Did he name any names of countries? That would be interesting to know - like, did he go to Hong Kong, Thailand, India?

[bloviatrix]

Unfortunately he didn't say which countries he travelled to. I wish he had. For those of you who live in NYC and have Time Warner as your cable provider -- he'll be on NY1 every tuesday night about 9:20 pm with a preview of wednesday's review.

One of the things that really stuck with me when I read Reichl's memoirs (I can't remember which volume) was that she talked about how important it was for a critic to travel a lot and to educated their palate the to varied global cuisines. It's such a simple and obvious idea, and as I read all the comments about Bruni and his qualifications (or lack, thereof) I kept wondering whether he would make an effort to do an eating tour. I can only hope that he continues to travel throughout his tenure and the experiences make him a better critic.

[Pan]

Bloviatrix posted a link to Bruni's second review, of Megu in the Megu thread on the New York Forum. Megu had come in for a mixed reception from eGulleteers, and Bruni also gave it a mixed review. I found this review much less straightforward than his Babbo review, but that makes sense to me because he himself found the menu at Megu confusing and seemed to me to have felt conflicted about the restaurant. Here is the conclusion of the review, where he ultimately wraps up a complicated review and ends it clearly:

There is ample good within Megu's plenty, even on the (separate) dessert menu, where a crème brûlée and the ice creams are standouts.

But one of a restaurant's main purposes is to bring order to a vast culinary universe — to weed and prune it, if you will.

Megu does not bother. So you stumble through an enchanting and maddening forest, distracted by the toro untried, the roe not taken.

Nice line, "the roe not taken."

I think the review served its purpose and I feel like he gave me a good mental picture of what Megu, a place I almost surely will never visit, is like.

[oakapple]

I found this review much less straightforward than his Babbo review, but that makes sense to me because he himself found the menu at Megu confusing and seemed to me to have felt conflicted about the restaurant.

It had to be less straightforward. Babbo is very solidly in the three-star camp. Last week's review reaffirmed what we, in essence, already knew.

The Megu review was an excellent reminder that there are two types of N-star restaurants: those that are N-star concepts executed well, and those that are N+1-star concepts with problems. Babbo is a 3-star concept executed well. Megu is a 3-star concept with problems, leading to a 2-star verdict.

It's not so much that Bruni was conflicted, but that he had the painful duty of reporting that what could be three stars is, regrettably, only two. I call it a "painful duty" because, like anyone who loves food, Bruni surely wishes that every restaurant lived up to its potential. When they don't, it's his job to deliver the news. I don't think he had any doubt what the rating should be.

I think the review served its purpose and I feel like he gave me a good mental picture of what Megu, a place I almost surely will never visit, is like.

Megu is so gorgeous inside, I think it merits a sightseeing trip. I've gone in twice just to admire it, and both times the staff have quite happily let me wander around.

Edited June 16, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Pumpkin Lover]

There is no end to Megu's nifty inventions and cloying gimmicks, and significant overlap between the two. Instead of using the green-tinged horseradish that many restaurants use, Megu sends servers out with real wasabi roots, to be grated at diners' tables. What results is a milder, more pleasant paste — and maybe a self-conscious performance. "It actually takes five years for this root to grow," said a philosophically inclined server. "Then I grate it in one night. This makes me think about time."

Including that quote in the review captured the spirit of Megu that Bruni was getting at. Not only did that passage make me laugh (hard), but it was clever to include it as a tool for explaning himself. Nice job, I dug the review.

[Amuse Bouche]

I dug the review too. I think he has a gift for capturing the flavor of a restaurant -- not just the food, but the dining experience, which is what he is reviewing. The section is not called food and wine; it is called Dining and Wine. There's a reason for that.

I don't think you can really understand the ethos of Babbo without having some inkling of Batali, and the image of the orange sneakers really draws that well. Batali is an iconoclast at heart -- he's not trying for the haute experience. And I think the review of Babbo gave us a glimpse of that.

In a way, it seems Megu is the opposite. And the descriptive details give me a glimpse into the dining experience at Megu, but also into the food. And the tools to weigh whether the merits of the food are enough to outweigh the attractions and detractions of the dining experience.

I think I'm developing a little crush on Frank Bruni. The Roe not taken! Bwah!

[Jinmyo]

So Bruni took a star away from Bouley:

BANG!

Makes sense to me.

So how do you think Frank's doing?

[Pan]

I think he's doing a great job! Best main Times critic there's been in quite some time.

[Fat Guy]

I thought this was a weak review, which is too bad because when a four-star restaurant is being demoted we deserve a more compelling treatment. Once you separate out all the gossip and nitpicking, the case he makes against the food is unconvincing and seems mostly to reveal a haute cuisine knowledge gap on the reviewer's part. More detailed analysis pertaining to the actual restaurant seems to fit better on the Bouley topic in the New York forum so that's where I've made the bulk of my comments.

[Jinmyo]

Bruni on Wolfgang's Steakhouse

What do you think? (Not so much about the restaurant but the review as a review and Bruni as a reviewer.)

I enjoyed it. I thought the story well told and provided a nice frame for the inevitable comparison between Wolfgang's and Peter Luger.

[Jason Perlow]

Jesus Christ man, what about the creamed spinach? Or the analysis of the quality of the beef and the skill of the aging? Sure, they know how to cook it, but is the beef just as good?

[Fat Guy]

The premise is great but too self-consciously stated. The story is well told -- keeping the audience hanging until the very end -- but ultimately doesn't reach a satisfying climax. The final analysis is disappointingly shallow.

On a more general level, as I've said before, I think it's a waste of time and space to have the fine-dining critic review steakhouses and assign them stars. I would put Ed Levine on that job, allowing him every year or so to do a big comparative roundup of all the major steakhouses, and to present a relative ranking rather than stars.

[Jason Perlow]

The story is well told -- keeping the audience hanging until the very end -- but ultimately doesn't reach a satisfying climax.

Yeah, I've been accused of that, in my time.

[Pan]

As I mentioned in the thread about Wolfgang's Steakhouse, I didn't think much of this review, and that's the first time I've really found that degree of fault with any of his articles since he was hired for his current position. I agree with Fat Guy that it's probably "a waste of time and space to have the fine-dining critic review steakhouses and assign them stars."

But what I'm not ready to do is write off Bruni simply because I didn't find this review very interesting or informative, having been spoiled by the folks here who are much more knowledgeable and interesting to read about steakhouses - most of all, Wesza, who I daresay knows more about meat than Bruni and any 10,000 other people you might think of will learn in their whole life. Methinks some of the sharpening of knives that happened before Bruni even showed up, paused briefly, and has been more and more reaching a crescendo on this site (mixed metaphor alert!) may be partly due to the mere fact of his position as chief New York Times food critic and the enjoyment people get out of criticizing a critic, any critic, and trying to cut him/her down to a shorter stature. Not all critics suck, even those who work for the higher-profile old media. Like it or not, we can't expect every review by Bruni to be good, nor that he will know everything about every aspect of dining and restaurants. I'll cut him a lot more slack than one or two reviews. I've enjoyed his forthright expression of opinion and have hope that he will grow in this job.

[Fat Guy]

Regarding Frank Bruni's incessant, tired, neo-puritanical and scientifically nonsensical references to heart disease, I find that behavior to be merely annoying when exhibited by normal people (who are just repeating what they've heard and read) but totally unacceptable among food writers (who should know better). In 1999, commenting on this phenomenon (comments of this nature were already unoriginal 5 years ago) in a Salon.com opinion piece ("Eat Up & Shut Up"), I wrote:

The new national pastime is feeling guilty about food. We've all heard the same lame jokes: "I'm going to schedule a quadruple bypass for right after dinner!" "I can feel my arteries hardening as I eat!" "I better go see my cardiologist tomorrow!" Everybody chuckles, but does anybody really think it's appropriate to joke about heart disease at the table, or anywhere else? How about sitting next to a guy on an airplane who says, "Gee, I hope some suicidal Egyptian doesn't crash us!" Likewise, I've never seen a comedian kick off a monologue with a few chemotherapy jokes -- and I've seen some pretty bad comedians.

Still, the average citizen is merely parroting the message that is repeated constantly on television and is trumpeted by just about every newspaper and family physician in America: Fat is bad for you. No, the true villains are the media and the medical establishment, who will not rest until they have deprived America of its basic ability to receive pleasure from food; until, like the Grinch, they have stolen the joy from Christmas dinner itself.

It's amazing to me that, of all people, the New York Times fine-dining critic would be subtly encouraging the party line on this issue.

[Jinmyo]

Well, I thought it was funny.

But perhaps more appropriate for a blog or NY Mag or other such trifles.

I don't think the New York Times fine-dining critic should be doing steakhouses (except on his own time and dime).

But then this is the fine-dining critic of the no tablecloth, tube tops, and tapas era of American cuisine.

I think that the relevance of the post might be much less than many people assume. And that with Bruni we will get entertaining accounts, some good observations, but without the experience and knowledge that the haute cuisinistas are looking for.

This is a New York fine-dining critic for the times.

[oakapple]

I thought it was a terrific review. People may think that the fine dining critic shouldn't review steakhouses, but that comment belongs in the same hopper as all of the other changes to the NYT system that people here have advocated. Until the Times changes its system, places like Wolfgang's fall into Bruni's territory. If he doesn't review them, nobody does.

Given that Wolfgang's is so obviously inspired by Luger's, the approach to the review was an inspiration: visit both on the same evening, and compare the two. I came away from it knowing exactly what I need to know about Wolfgang's.

[rich]

I thought it was an interesting review of Peter Luger (mentioned 21 times in the text), but I'm still waiting on the review of Wolfgang's (mentioned 20 times in the text.)

It's becoming obvious there are some very serious problems with the NY Times dining section with particular reference to the "star" reviews. Maybe a few months hiatus to clear the air - and start fresh (after Labor Day) with a different perspective would be the remedy.

Most of the review was about Luger and the American Heart Association.

[ahr]

Regarding Frank Bruni's incessant, tired, neo-puritanical and scientifically nonsensical references to heart disease, I find that behavior to be merely annoying when exhibited by normal people (who are just repeating what they've heard and read) but totally unacceptable among food writers (who should know better).

Word, bro.

Otherwise, the review was fun to read, but seemed lightweight. Is Bruni deliberately placing more emphasis on the text below the stars, i.e., his discussion of atmosphere, service, recommended dishes, and the wine list?

[Lesley C]

I think the whole heart disease premise is a bit off considering the increase in business steak houses are boasting since the invasion of Atkins. I know plenty of people who have lost weight eating the kind of meal Bruni writes about.

OK, maybe without the cheesecake...

I also thought it was a shame that he didn't get into the side dishes a bit more. The review seemed awfully short.