Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Pan]

This is a restaurant that rates one star?  Mas is probably a two star restaurant but a review like that made it seem more like half a star to me.

I don't know the restaurant, but it read to me like a 1-star review of a place that he wished he could have given 2 stars to but didn't think he could.

Robyn, the reason I don't want to discuss New York Times art criticism is that it brings in another area of controversy that will take us off-topic. However, discussing the relevance and limitations of analogies between conceptual art and conceptual food, etc., is on-topic; it would just need another thread. Please feel free to start one if you like, and I'll probably have something to say there. (Though I'm sure we've had other threads that dealt with that, I don't feel like doing the thankless job of trying to search for one, especially as I think one was on the defunct Symposium.)

[dccd]

(From another thread)

Pan: "I don't miss Grimes. Bruni may not have "gotten" Mas - I don't know because I haven't been there - but I like his writing better than Grimes'.

But as for the star rating, I don't think it's 1 1/2 stars: I think it's 1 star, with a wish that the place will get better, from Bruni's viewpoint (whether that viewpoint is justified or not). "

dccd: "Which should be more important - the writing, or the actual review? "

pan:

Depends on why one is reading, but we should probably nip the digression here in the bud and discuss the relative importance of different elements of a review in more detail in the Bruni, Babbo and The NYT Reviewing System thread. If you repost your question there, I'll delete this post and do my best to give you a more substantive answer.

Oddly, I meant it as a rhetorical question, but to give you the opportunity to add your more substantive answer, I have reposted.

I think the basis for rating restaurants in the first place is to establish a frame of reference by which readers unfamiliar with the establishment can learn.

* Reader: "This place is 2 stars, and so is this one, they are similar because of this, so I will try it because I have this occasion. This one is 4 stars, so this occasion would warrant trying this one. This one serves this and this, it is not for me."

I don't think that it should be an outlet for the reviewer's restaurant comparisons (Wolfgang's and Lugers) or possible restaurant vilification (Bouley).

I think the review should present factual information ("His almond-crusted soft-shell crab, seasoned with paprika and paired with bacon" - Mas review ... distortion of dish) as well as founded opinion ("The delicious trout appetizer makes me wonder why I have always played favorites with more glamorous species of fish" - Mas review ... becausssseee?).

I'm beginning to believe, after re-reading past Bruni reviews, that although I too am happy to read more about the food, it is becoming apparent that he might not understand the food and must rely on other cues to make judgment, typically negative ones. It also seems as though he has a predisposition as to what the restaurant rating might be, and then as it falters, he takes away. I think this is fundamentally wrong in many ways and I hope it is not true. I would hope that the NEW YORK TIMES has specific criteria and the critic comes to a conclusion within their scale.

[oakapple]

With Mr. Bruni's review of Mas, we begin to see the inadequacies of the NYT four tier rating system:

... ... (snip) ... ...

This is a restaurant that rates one star?  Mas is probably a two star restaurant but a review like that made it seem more like half a star to me.

Begin to see? Any paper that awards stars has this problem, which you find in review after review. From the rating itself, you just can't tell if the restaurant is a solid one-star, or a two-star that's screwing up badly enough that a star needs to be taken away. On reading the text, it becomes clear that Mas is the latter.

You get the sense that Bruni wishes he could come back in six months or so, to see if these problems have been rectified. (Since I haven't been to Mas, I'm taking Bruni's word for it that the problems are what he says they are.) But he also realizes that he doesn't have enough reviewing slots to give every underperforming restaurant a second chance. Bouley might be important enough deserve that chance in a year or two. Mas probably is not.

dccd:

I think the basis for rating restaurants in the first place is to establish a frame of reference by which readers unfamiliar with the establishment can learn.

... ... ... (snip) ... ... ...

I don't think that it should be an outlet for the reviewer's restaurant comparisons (Wolfgang's and Lugers)

The Wolfgang's/Luger's comparison was obviously a unique situation. Given that Wolfgang's was patently designed as a Luger's knock-off, and marketed itself as such, how could the critic not make the comparison? Can you find me a review of Wolfgang's that has not compared its steaks to Luger's? It's unavoidable. Moreover, I think it's precisely the comparison Wolfgang wants.

I would hope that the NEW YORK TIMES has specific criteria and the critic comes to a conclusion within their scale.

I have yet to see any evidence that the institution has enshrined "specific criteria" for each star rating. Both Amanda Hesser and Frank Bruni have recently opined on what a four-star rating means to them. That each of them expressed it in personal terms—and differently—suggests that the ratings are no more than the critic's subjective reaction. Probably any critic in that seat has some healthy respect for the ratings that are already out there, coupled with an ambition to right a few wrongs.

Edited July 7, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[mikeyrad]

or a two-star that's screwing up badly enough that a star needs to be taken away. On reading the text, it becomes clear that Mas is the latter.

oakapple, I agree completely. Actually, this review made perfect sense to me.

[RobinsonCuisine]

I'm beginning to believe, after re-reading past Bruni reviews, that although I too am happy to read more about the food, it is becoming apparent that he might not understand the food.........

I feel much the same.

The Times review and the stars awarded used to be the benchmark by which a restaurant could market itself. But now, when relating your merits and notices for potential guests, you have to qualify which reviewer wrote about you as many no longer consider the Times a valid barometer.

And perhaps thats not such a bad thing.

[rich]

The review was fine and I think a pattern is beginning to emerge. Bruni enjoys writing more about ambience and the problems with the food, rather than positive food decriptions. (However, as soon as the Bouley connection was mentioned, I correctly guessed where this review was going.)

As long as everyone knows this, I think it's an acceptable formula. I would surmise Bruni is more of a "glass half empty" guy in "real life."

[oakapple]

The review was fine and I think a pattern is beginning to emerge. Bruni enjoys writing more about ambience and the problems with the food, rather than positive food decriptions. (However, as soon as the Bouley connection was mentioned, I correctly guessed where this review was going.)

As long as everyone knows this, I think it's an acceptable formula. I would surmise Bruni is more of a "glass half empty" guy in "real life."

Hmmm, let us see about this. There's Babbo:

Some restaurants revel in exquisite subtleties. Babbo, blessedly, goes staight for the gut, adding one big taste sensation atop another, gilding already delicious dishes with extra bits of texture and final flourishes of flavor. It's doing this now as well as ever.

Although its co-owners, Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich, have branched out considerably since they opened Babbo six years ago, the restaurant remains their cherished center of gravity, and the proof is in the pasta, always perfectly cooked.

There's Megu:

Those "Crown Gems," for example, are three tartarelike treatments of a subspecies of blackfin tuna with ruby-colored flesh so bright that it really does glitter, so meltingly tender that it seems to evaporate on your tongue. My favorite of the three dishes inserts cubes of the tuna between thick, silky slices of avocado that uncannily echo the fish's texture and richness.

The Kobe beef, which comes from Texas, is so deeply flavorful that it almost makes you swoon, and if the $180 price tag on a seven-ounce fillet makes you stagger, you can order, instead, paper-thin ribbons of rib meat, which are $30. You cook the ribbons yourself, on a hot rock that a server brings to you. Then you dip them in a sesame sauce, a soy sauce or sea salt (the best choice), each of which fills a separate chamber of a series of gorgeous condiment plates.

... ... (snip) ... ...

I also liked, or loved, more than three-quarters of the food I ate at Megu. Among the dozens of sushi and sashimi options, I came across creamy sea urchin that had the pitch-perfect degree of brininess.

Among the meats that Megu grills over bincho tan, a Japanese charcoal, I relished four Kobe beef skewers, each with a different paste: wasabi, miso, sesame and garlic. Sautéed shrimp in a cream sauce of kanzuri, a combination of citrus and chili peppers, were a spicy, lightly crunchy knockout. So was an unconscionably (but rapturously) gooey amalgam of foie gras, sea eel, black truffles and egg custard that appears frequently on the menu, depending on the availability of fresh eel.

Then there's Wolfgang's Steakhouse:

Best of all was the beef. A rib-eye steak (not on the Luger menu) yielded striations of color and texture: the black, crisp exterior gave way to soft red pinpricks in the center. A sirloin had similar virtues, and so did the porterhouse, arguably the raison d'être of Wolfgang's and Luger.

My cholesterol-impervious friend and I tried just a few slices, knowing there would be more in another borough, at a later hour. Then we each had another slice. It was definitely time to stop. We had another.

The meat was many wonderful things at once, or in rapid succession: crunchy, tender, smoky, earthy.

And lastly, Mas:

Mr. Zamarra's menu is a model of conciseness and variety. On any given night, the seven or so entrees are likely to include two to three fish dishes, some poultry, some red meat and a vegetarian choice.

In addition, a meal at Mas has the real possibility of excellence, in terms of the best dishes and best moments. Mr. Zamarra bakes squab in a clay shell, producing astonishingly moist flesh. His almond-crusted soft-shell crab, seasoned with paprika and paired with bacon, has a nice kick to it. The delicious trout appetizer makes me wonder why I have always played favorites with more glamorous species of fish.

This is the supposedly glass-half-empty guy? I don't think so. Indeed, perhaps the most serious criticism of Bruni is that he's more of a food fan than a food writer. He loves to eat well, but he doesn't yet have the verbal arsenal to describe taste and texture sensations so that we'll feel like we were there. Although I think that ambiance and background information are important, Bruni seems to dwell on them a bit too much, perhaps because they are easier for him to write about.

The Bouley review definitely had a glass-half-empty feeling to it, but this was a formerly four-star restaurant getting demoted. Four-star restaurants are supposed to be judged by the highest and pickiest standards. Nobody yet has seriously argued that Bruni got the rating wrong, but I do agree that he failed to touch on the positive attributes of a restaurant that, after all, is still rated three stars, which means (or is supposed to mean) "excellent."

Edited July 7, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

This is the supposedly glass-half-empty guy? I don't think so. Indeed, perhaps the most serious criticism of Bruni is that he's more of a food fan than a food writer. He loves to eat well, but he doesn't yet have the verbal arsenal to describe taste and texture sensations so that we'll feel like we were there. Although I think that ambiance and background information are important, Bruni seems to dwell on them a bit too much, perhaps because they are easier for him to write about.

The Bouley review definitely had a glass-half-empty feeling to it, but this was a formerly four-star restaurant getting demoted. Four-star restaurants are supposed to be judged by the highest and pickiest standards. Nobody yet has seriously argued that Bruni got the rating wrong, but I do agree that he failed to touch on the positive attributes of a restaurant that, after all, is still rated three stars, which means (or is supposed to mean) "excellent."

One can pick out some positive aspects from any of his reviews, but with the exception of the Babbo review, the negative inches are far ahead of the positive ones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

[Bux]

Speaking of reviews half filled and half empty, one gets to know more about posters than about the reviews they criticize here.

[Bux]

This is a restaurant that rates one star? Mas is probably a two star restaurant but a review like that made it seem more like half a star to me.

You say Mas is probably a two star restaurant. Could you clarify that? Do you mean that based on your meals there it seems like a two star place to you?

[Pan]

(From another thread)

Pan: "I don't miss Grimes. Bruni may not have "gotten" Mas - I don't know because I haven't been there - but I like his writing better than Grimes'.

But as for the star rating, I don't think it's 1 1/2 stars: I think it's 1 star, with a wish that the place will get better, from Bruni's viewpoint (whether that viewpoint is justified or not). "

dccd: "Which should be more important - the writing, or the actual review? "

pan:

Depends on why one is reading, but we should probably nip the digression here in the bud and discuss the relative importance of different elements of a review in more detail in the Bruni, Babbo and The NYT Reviewing System thread. If you repost your question there, I'll delete this post and do my best to give you a more substantive answer.

Oddly, I meant it as a rhetorical question, but to give you the opportunity to add your more substantive answer, I have reposted.

Thanks a lot, dccd. I'm very tired and have to go to sleep ASAP, but I want to try to address this now, lest I should forget.

I'm a little torn in how to answer, but I'll dig as deeply as possible into my psyche. In my role as a diner, I think that the things I care most about in a restaurant review are:

(1) That I get an accurate sense of what the cuisine is like, including some dishes the reviewer finds interesting (which doesn't mean I won't choose dishes s/he doesn't mention or suggests not getting, should I go)

(2) That I get an accurate sense of how the service, decor, and ambiance are - better yet, what kind of experience I can expect (but I don't trust that I'll have an experience similar to the reviewer's in terms of good service, so I discount reviewers' reports of good service somewhat)

(3) That prices are reported accurately (but I have no reason to consider that they aren't)

In my role as a reader, the things I care most about are:

(1) That the review be clearly-written

(2) That it be fun to read

(3) That it be clear on what basis the reviewer passed judgment on the establishment

Now, if I'm already personally familiar with the restaurant and like it, I'll take umbrage at a bad review. Etc. But if I haven't dined there, I don't know whether the review is accurate or not. The sad (?) fact is that there is no way I'll dine at even a large fraction of the restaurants the Times will review in any given year, so the only way I'd be likely to know if Bruni is describing restaurants' cuisines inaccurately is if there is such an accumulation of posts like yours, in which you explain in detail how he "got it wrong," that a preponderance of evidence against him starts to become conclusive.

[Pan]

I never ate at La Cote Basque and haven't been to LCB Brasserie Rachou, but this Diner's Journal article gave me a warm feeling. How does it strike the rest of you?

[ahr]

"There is a restaurant paradox, too. Sometimes restaurants succeed precisely because they do not try too hard. Because they are humble in reach. Because they are what they are, and they know what that is.

Ici provides a good example. Its menu is extremely brief, with as few as a half-dozen appetizers and a half-dozen entrees. The handiwork behind some dishes is as simple as a sauté pan, butter and a few accents and herbs."

Something about the cadence of Bruni's writing struck me as familiar, and now I think I have it. Does anyone else think that, at times, he sounds like the sainted Britchky?

[ahr]

Who? (Pardon my ignorance.)

Pan, Seymour Britchky was a pioneering restaurant reviewer of the '70s and '80s who died just recently. This thread contains links to his obit and to an earlier eG thread on La Crémaillère containing some Britchky excerpts.

[Busboy]

"There is a restaurant paradox, too. Sometimes restaurants succeed precisely because they do not try too hard. Because they are humble in reach. Because they are what they are, and they know what that is.

Ici provides a good example. Its menu is extremely brief, with as few as a half-dozen appetizers and a half-dozen entrees. The handiwork behind some dishes is as simple as a sauté pan, butter and a few accents and herbs."

Something about the cadence of Bruni's writing struck me as familiar, and now I think I have it. Does anyone else think that, at times, he sounds like the sainted Britchky?

Don't know Britchky, but I, too noticed the writing today:

"I lifted my gaze to the darkening sky; I lifted a glass of a bracing southern Italian white wine to my lips. I was happy. When the food came, it prolonged and even deepened that spell.

"There was arugula at the start...ingredients and flavors were more like suggestions than outright presences, diffident stagehands rather than histrionic scene stealers.....

"Later there was cod..."

Looks like someone searching for a voice -- or reading MFK Fisher just before he files. I think I like it; I'm curious to see where it goes.

I was surprised by the Ici review, not because it wasn't well written, but because it was about a small, well run restaurant achieving modest culinary heights.The kind of restaurant plentiful in every major city in the country.

There are also a boatload of overpriced, over-hyped restaurants that are more about buzz and design than food, but the Times reviews them, as well.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[Pan]

Thanks to SobaAddict for posting a link to Bruni's latest review in the March thread (q.v.).

I want to focus on one paragraph:

Without prompting, our server repeatedly extolled the talents, tastes and methods of the chef, Wayne Nish, never invoking his last name.

This tic was troubling in part because it was unnecessary. March doesn't need such buildup, bloviation and chef-as-rarefied-culinary-aesthete framing (intended, perhaps, as a disarming informality that just doesn't wind up playing that way). The food speaks impressively for itself.

Check out that appearance of "bloviation," Andrea.

But seriously, good points by Bruni. Sort of reminds me of the ads for [name of airline here] that are shown on flights. If you're already on the plane and it's already taken off, the best way the airline can advertise itself is by giving you a good flight. Similarly with restaurants and meals.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Pan (log)

[mascarpone]

that a preponderance of evidence against him starts to become conclusive.

You sound just like the prosecuting attorney in the case I just adjudicated on jury duty last week.

[Pan]

Bruni's latest review is of Ixta. He gave the place two months to address the criticisms he put in his "Diner's Journal" pre-review (or whatever you want to call it). Is anyone surprised that he doesn't find the place has turned itself around? And were two months enough time? I'm not sure, but I continue to think that using "Diner's Journal" to cover a place that will be reviewed in less than 6 months is pretty much of a waste of space.

[bpearis]

I continue to think that using "Diner's Journal" to cover a place that will be reviewed in less than 6 months is pretty much of a waste of space.

I don't think it's a waste if it's some hyper-buzz restaurant like Per Se or Masa or Spice Market. People want to know... now!

That said, I don't think Ixta is quite on that level.

[oakapple]

Bruni's latest review is of Ixta. He gave the place two months to address the criticisms he put in his "Diner's Journal" pre-review (or whatever you want to call it). Is anyone surprised that he doesn't find the place has turned itself around? And were two months enough time? I'm not sure, but I continue to think that using "Diner's Journal" to cover a place that will be reviewed in less than 6 months is pretty much of a waste of space.

Michael, you and I have been on the same side every time the issue has come up. However, to correct one factual inaccuracy, Bruni didn't write the Diner's Journal pre-review for Ixta. It was Sam Sifton, in his final D.J. column before Bruni took over. And in this case, Sifton's piece wasn't really a preview of what Bruni would write in the full review two months later. Sifton had, er, a unique personal slant on the matter.

But even allowing for a change in critics, I still agree that more time should pass between a Diner's Journal entry and a full review.

[Pan]

Yeah, I had forgotten that actually Sifton was the one who wrote that Diner's Journal, and that does change things somewhat for me. Still, we both agree that Bruni should have waited longer before reviewing the place. As bpearis points out, it's not exactly jumping.

[alacarte]

I have to say that the Ixta review is a fun read.

"Hello?" I bellowed into the phone. "Hellooooo?" Someone at Ixta had picked up after a few rings, started to say something and then, it seemed, become distracted and wandered off. I listened endlessly to what sounded like bar chatter before finally giving up. This exasperating experience replayed itself another few weeks down the road, when I tried again to make a reservation and a man cheerfully blurted, "Hold on." I did. Time passed. Tides turned. Glaciers shifted. He never returned.

As I said in the Ixta thread too -- I think I'm becoming a fan of Bruni's writing.

Still reserving judgement as to whether I agree with his assessments of the restaurants.

[AES]

The Post gives Per Se three stars.

Link below.

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....

[tommy]

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.

[phaelon56]

I'm with Tommy on this one. The reviewer stated in concise terms exactly what he did and didn't like about the place on repeat visits and in doing so justified the star rating he gave.

Edited to add: IMHO repeat visits is the key. We've seen many, many detailed and glowing reviews here but consistency over is a critical factor in earngint he highest ratings, is it not? I don't know that any eGullet members who've posted here have dined there on multiple (i.e. more than two) occasions over time. The review gave me the impression that although he didn't care for the decor and ambiance, his assessment was based on their failure to deliver the stellar results on all dishs and all his visits that they managed to provide on some.