Bouley

[MonsieurSatran]

Admin: with the new review in the New York Times by Frank Bruni, we are going to start a new thread for discussion of this restaurant. An archive of previous discussion of Bouley may be found here

On that note, Bouley just lost a star!!!! Three stars from Frank Bruni...

[robert40]

Here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/dining/23REST.html

[Jinmyo]

From what I know, a good review that makes sense.

Bruni's not kidding around.

[bloviatrix]

So much of Bruni's review echoed comments people have said here. Anyone else notice that?

[Jason Perlow]

The Bruni doth giveth, and the Bruni doth taketh away.

Thus sayeth the flock.

[tan319]

I liked the flow of that review.

Looking forward to more from this guy!

[Pan]

I had a very disappointing meal at Bouley, yet I found the review a little mean in parts. The opening two paragraphs were painful to read. But Bruni had important things to say, and as he has in every review so far, he said them effectively. Jinmyo is right: This guy is no shrinking violet, and restaurants are going to have to put on their thinking caps and bust their asses to meet his high standards. And I think that's great!

[Mark Sommelier]

Wow, rough review. It almost seemed personal.

[chopjwu12]

im going to say two things and thats it.

First- Come in and see for yourself and i will personally prove we are 4 stars.

Second- this was supposed to be a dining experience review. The fact that the whole 911 thing was mentioned had no place in this review in my opinion. I thought it was in poor taste to mention it.

Edited June 23, 2004 by chopjwu12 (log)

[Bux]

- this was supposed to be a dining experience review. The fact that the whole 911 thing was mentioned had no place in this review in my opinion. I thought it was in poor taste to mention it.

Are you referring to the damge from the collapse of the towers, or the Red Cross funds?

[Pan]

I think it's fine for a critic to give some historical perspective in a review.

[chopjwu12]

historical perspective meaning bouley shut down because of the bombing is fine to say. mentioning the whole, his alleged fund misuse has nothing to do with his dining experience and its almost like tryign to give a reason to hate bouley. Thats a dead issue that was settled along time ago. Funds were never misused and the post had to print a retraction for sayign the same thing. So why on earth is somethign liek that sitting in the middle of a food review?

[Pan]

Am I crazy to think that if he really hated Bouley, he would have given the restaurant 2 stars?

Also, is this false?

Mr. Bouley was publicly questioned about his use of Red Cross funds to feed rescue workers

Was he publicly questioned about this? Also, this is the context:

But this venture was thrown off track. The restaurant sustained damage from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers; Mr. Bouley was publicly questioned about his use of Red Cross funds to feed rescue workers, and employees left when Bouley Bakery was closed for half a year.

Wasn't Mr. Bouley's being questioned at least arguably part of what threw the venture off track?

On a personal note, if I were you, I'd be pretty pissed, too. But I'm not you. Was it former House Speaker Tip O'Neill who used to say "Where you stand depends on where you sit"?

[chopjwu12]

im not mad more disapointed and i dont disagree with alot of what was said in the article. I think in the end the front of the house lost us a star with alot of the things they did. I just think that the 911 thing shouldn't be mentioned because it doesn't have anythign to do with the dining experience. The misuse of funds felt like a headbut after the bell(to use boxing) I didn't mean to say bruni hates bouley that came out wrong. It just felt as if that part was in there to help justify the lost star is what i meant(or thats how it felt). But again i dont disagree with alot that was said. I think the man makes clear points on things that we needed to improve upon. I do think however that if he were to come in starting say june 15 or july when all our good new people get settled in completely, he may have a different experience. I gues in the end Its just disapointing to see all the faces(including my own) of the people that have worked so hard 80,90, even 100 hours in a week that look like they just got kicked in the balls.(another sports reference) its like running back a kickoff from deep in the endzone, breaking like 15 tackles only to get tackled at the 1 yard line. Thats just how it feels is all. Again i dont blame bruni for the three stars i just wish there could have been something more that i could do, to prevent this from happening and seeing all my coworkers sweat and tears go to waste.

[oakapple]

chopjwu12, I know you're all upset, but on a fair reading it's more than just the FOH that lost Bouley its fourth star. Of the food, Bruni wrote:

The sous vide technique produces a commendably moist chicken breast, but on the night I sampled it, the meat came so thinly sliced and thinly sauced that it tasted like spa cuisine — the kind of thing that appears on a menu with a little "heart-smart" symbol beside it.

...and...

None of the entrees or appetizers were an out-and-out failure, but most fell short of fantastic, and a few puzzled me. Kobe beef has so much to offer on its own; why muddle that by choosing the funky, idiosyncratic flavor of Asian celery for a purée beneath it? The Parmesan dressing that accompanied a nicely cooked piece of skate overwhelmed it.

These are not four-star comments, even had the FOH been perfect.

I do think however that if he were to come in starting say June 15 or July when all our good new people get settled in completely, he may have a different experience.

Possibly, but Bruni's comments reflect the kind of write-ups Bouley has been getting for quite a while now. If you "don't disagree with a lot that was said," then you more-or-less must concede that three stars is accurate today, and most likely has been for quite some time. I'd question whether a few new hires can turn things around that quickly, and I'd also question why it took Bouley so long to take these necessary steps.

I guess in the end it's just disapointing to see all the faces (including my own) of the people that have worked so hard 80,90, even 100 hours in a week that look like they just got kicked in the balls. ... Again, I don't blame Bruni for the three stars. I just wish there could have been something more that I could do, to prevent this from happening and seeing all my coworkers' sweat and tears go to waste.

They have not gone to waste. Bouley is still rated three stars, which means "excellent." Even without the fourth star, you're in pretty select company. Bouley has an established reputation, and business isn't going to dry up because of this review. Just focus on getting things right for every diner, and avoiding the kind of erratic reviews you find throughout the eGullet archives. Business will take care of itself.

Edited June 23, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[RobinsonCuisine]

I'm not so much disapointed at Bouley losing a star....they are in very good company in that respect.....but out of three reviews, two have been re-reviews and both only served to confirm public and industry opinion........that is.......they brought nothing new to the table and, IMHO, that is a waste of type.

There are thousands of new restaurants waiting for the chance to be mentioned-good or bad- and many other excellent but struggling restaurants that could use the publicity of a Times review.

If he is going to focus on re-reviews, lets correct the mistakes of the past 6 months (Asiate? Spice Market?) or give the dining public (and the industry) new information to work from.

[oakapple]

I'm not so much disapointed at Bouley losing a star....they are in very good company in that respect.....but out of three reviews, two have been re-reviews and both only served to confirm public and industry opinion........that is.......they brought nothing new to the table and, IMHO, that is a waste of type.

I also am a bit perplexed at the timing, but I won't draw inferences from a sample size of three. I suspect that with a (most likely) four-star Per Se review forthcoming, he felt it was appropriate to take Bouley out of a category in which it no longer belongs. The Bouley review is different than the Babbo review, because it came in with a new rating, so it is certainly not a waste of type. The typical NYT food page reader isn't necessarily aware of the "public and industry opinion" to which you referred. If Bruni maintained a pace of two re-reviews to every new review, it would be a problem. I don't expect this to happen.

There are thousands of new restaurants waiting for the chance to be mentioned-good or bad- and many other excellent but struggling restaurants that could use the publicity of a Times review.

There aren't thousands of "reviewable" restaurants that haven't been reviewed, bearing in mind that the whole $25-and-under category is out of Bruni's scope.

If he is going to focus on re-reviews, lets correct the mistakes of the past 6 months (Asiate? Spice Market?) or give the dining public (and the industry) new information to work from.

If you're unhappy with re-reviews of restaurants last reviewed in the '90s, what would people say if Bruni reviewed Asiate or Spice Market so soon? He should visit them again next year.

Edited June 23, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Demotion of a four-star restaurant is a major step, and there are quite a few problems with the way Frank Bruni went about it with respect to Bouley.

Without a four-star review to anchor his rhetoric about “Bouley as a whole does not create or sustain the kind of rapture that the very best restaurants do,” the statement sounds more like ass-covering than criticism. Who could dispute it?

The whole review seems more concerned with itself than with the restaurant under consideration. Much energy is spent in what comes across as a calculated effort to undermine Bouley's credibility and nitpick the cuisine just enough to justify the demotion.

There is historical perspective presented in the review, but not of a culinary sort: here Frank Bruni betrays a degree of inexperience that places him in an inferior posture to the chef he is judging. Without such a body of experience, his attempts to demean Bouley -- “the default centerpiece of his frustrated ambitions” (without so much as a mention of Danube)-- say more about the critic's inability to make his case about the food than about the restaurant's inability to serve it well. I too found the reference to the Red Cross incident to be more character assassination than restaurant reviewing. And what restaurant in New York isn't constantly experiencing staff turnover, especially a restaurant like Bouley that is a culinary academy unto itself?

The actual food commentary is thinner than any spa cuisine sauce. Let's count the actual instances in which the review criticizes the cuisine: There is the spa cuisine swipe made in reference to the chicken dish. There is the complaint that the flavor of Wagyu beef is “muddled” by the “funky, idiosyncratic flavor of Asian celery.” There is the claim that “The Parmesan dressing that accompanied a nicely cooked piece of skate overwhelmed it.” And there is the pronouncement that “The pairing of citrus dressing with a seafood carpaccio (scallops, in this case) is a tired, uninspired concept.” That's four actual objections to food in a 1000-word review. And they are hardly compelling objections. Are we now to believe that four-star restaurants aren't allowed to dress seafood carpaccio with citrus dressing? Does Le Bernardin now need to rush to remove its “Lemon-Splashed Slivers of Scallops” from its menu for fear that it will be judged tired and uninspired? How about, was it a good dish? I'd love to see how he'd review a restaurant like Ambroisie, and how is he going to wrap his mind around Ducasse's cuisine, where there is so much emphasis on refinement of the tired, uninspired classics? Do we learn anything more from the critique of Bouley's beef than that Frank Bruni doesn't like Asian celery? And having had Bouley's chicken about a million times, I've got to say I think he totally missed to point of that dish: it's supposed to be a minimalist, lightly sauced composition that emphasizes the excellence of the product and Bouley's mastery of sous vide cooking, of which he has long been the leading American practitioner, having taught the technique to a generation of young American chefs. Taken as a group, the comments about the cuisine, both positive and negative, suggest that we may have a reviewer on our hands who isn't all that familiar with haute cuisine. (Vanilla is a surprising flavor with seafood? Not in this quarter-century.)

Does Bouley deserve a demotion to three stars? Maybe. But not like this. Frank Bruni is going to be with us for a good long time. He needs to consider that it might be wise to slow down a bit. There's no way to travel back in time in order to acquire experience of dining at Bouley over the past few years, but there was no rush to get this review to press: more visits to Bouley over a longer period of time going forward would have given a firmer basis for comparison. Being “one of the most celebrated American chefs of the last quarter century” doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free card, but it should give a still-wet-behind-the-ears critic the impetus to conduct a more thorough investigation.

As a reference point, the William Grimes review of Bouley Bakery does a good job justifying the highs of the restaurant.

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.

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. For textural interest, he sprinkles the dish with minuscule cubes of roasted potato and crunchy grains of gray Breton salt.

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.

If you can get William Grimes that excited, I think the question of "can you create rapture?" is settled.

Bouley is and has long been a restaurant of extremes. There are lows that match the highs Grimes wrote about. But Frank Bruni seems to have missed both the highs and the lows. His review of Bouley makes it sound middle-of-the-road, and that's just not the Bouley I know.

[oakapple]

Fat Guy has more of the historical context on Bouley in his pinky finger than I have in my entire body. If he says that "Frank Bruni betrays a degree of inexperience that places him in an inferior posture to the chef he is judging," I take it on face value.

But if this is indeed the problem, waiting a little while to re-review Bouley isn't the solution. If Bruni lacks the insight, he isn't going to acquire it anytime soon. If you can't trust him to rate Bouley at three stars, then you can't trust him to rate Per Se at four.

[GordonCooks]

Bruni captured my last 3 start experience at Bouley accurately just as Grimes captured my 4 star meal there as well. Same place but different experiences. I feel as a food tourist who pays attention to these ratings - I'd like a little accuracy for the money I'm spending.

[rich]

This sounded more like a personal attack than a review. If anyone read this who knew nothing about Bouley, you would come away with two thoughts: Why does this place deserve three stars and I guess I'll go there for chocolate desserts.

Someone who isn't familiar with the restaurant or the chef would avoid it "like the plague" after reading this. Bruni criticizes everything except the chocolate desserts. I don't think the line about the "almost undercooked lobster" will attract many diners. Even the photo that was used was totally unflattering.

I don't want to hear that Bouley is a four-star restaurant and received three stars because it didn't meet those expectations. (First of all Bruni didn't award it four stars, Grimes did, so he had no basis that it was four stars.)

That review wasn't worth three stars no matter how much "you spin it." Compare it to the first two Bruni reviews and it doesn't measure up to either and one was three stars and the other two. Based on the text, that was a one-star review. I thought Bruni's first review was very good, his second was good, this was terrible, not for his opinion, but for his methodology.

And the comments about the rescue workers problem is sophomoric at best, yellow journalism at worst. First, it has no place in a restaurant review. But if you're going to pursue that ill-conceived notion and include it, than it needs further explanation. That's Journalism 101. What J-School did Bruni attend - Philadelphia Textile? To leave it hanging there is a disservice to Bouley and the readers.

If I was Bouley, I would be very annoyed as it appears this was a biased piece based on pre-conceived concepts.

Edited June 23, 2004 by rich (log)

[rich]

Bruni captured my last 3 start experience at Bouley accurately just as Grimes captured my 4 star meal there as well. Same place but different experiences. I feel as a food tourist who pays attention to these ratings - I'd like a little accuracy for the money I'm spending.

Except the text of the review wasn't equal to awarding it three stars - it was one.

[robert40]

I can't help but believe this review has much more to do with Bruni then it has to do with Bouley.

" I am the new kid on the block" ..... Take Notice.

And people are.

[rich]

I can't help but believe this review has much more to do with Bruni then it has to do with Bouley.

" I am the new kid on the block" ..... Take Notice.

And people are.

Excellent point Robert, it certainly read that way.

[bpearis]

reading the review on the train this morning, the thing i noticed is that almost all of the reccomended dishes in the little box weren't even mentioned in the review.