Bouley

[GordonCooks]

Personally

Have I had 4 star meals by Bouley? - Yes!

Have my recent experiences been 4 star? - no

Do I like Bouley the restaurant? - yes

Do I like Bouley as a person? - don't know him personally

Do I want bad things to happen to him? - No

Do I think He's one of the best chefs in the country? - Yes

Will this review have a positive effect? - Yes (this is probably the best time to eat there)

[Fat Guy]

Robert: Bouley is number 5 in food rating in Zagat, ahead of Jean Georges and Alain Ducasse. It is number 12 on the favorites list. So I think its position with Zagat survey participants is somewhat secure. And certainly at this point Zagat is more important to most established restaurants' bottom lines than the New York Times because Zagat is reflective of what the customer base thinks, whereas a Times review is mostly helpful in bringing new customers. Still, there is no denying that there is some effect when a restaurant gets a demotion from the Times. Restaurants for the most part operate on thin margins. Even a shift of just a tiny percentage, such as the loss of one party of big-spending customers each day, can make a significant difference in a restaurant's profit picture.

Marcus: If you read through code upon code of ethics-in-journalism guidelines (this is something I monitor with some frequency on Poynter and elsewhere), what you will mostly find is reference not (usually) to a specific duty to the public or the readers (although most newspapers do see themselves as in positions of "public trust") but, rather, a duty to "truth," "fairness," "integrity," "openness," "impartiality," or other similar concepts stated at a level of generality that places it above the concerns of any particular group. I think most reporters and critics do speak casually of their duty to the public, but by that they mean that the public is best served by the best possible reporting -- thus the question of serving the public is really just collapsed into the larger concerns of good journalism. And good journalism can mean telling the public what it doesn't want to hear, or in criticism it can mean fundamentally disagreeing with public tastes or otherwise serving truth and excellence without regard to what the public wants. Likewise, while it would be unacceptable to cater to any specific constituency, such as advertisers or restaurateurs, everyone must be treated fairly by reporters and critics. On one level that can be viewed as a balancing act -- as the Times ethics policy says "The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible -- without fear or favor, in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch -- and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so." -- but I don't think it needs to be framed that way from the writer's perspective. Questions of balancing the obligations of fairness to different constituencies mostly fade away when you focus on commitment to higher principles of journalism.

[Pan]

The way I see it, a critic isn't responsible to the readers or anybody else at all. The critic is not the newspaper's equivalent of the city's Public Advocate or the paper's Reader's Editor. Rather, the critic, as a critic, is responsible to the cause of excellence in his field and, as a journalist, is responsible to the cause of excellent journalism as circumscribed by the somewhat different mission a critic has from a news reporter. So I don't really see a critic as having direct obligations to the public, the paper, the restaurant industry, etc. The commitment to excellence dictates everything else.

I see where you're coming from. As a performer, I see my first responsibility as being to myself, to maintain a high standard of performance for my own sake. But a very close second is my responsibility to transmit the meaning of the music to the audience. There's obviously no direct analogy here, but while one assumes that a good writer is motivated above all by pride in the quality of his/her writing, there are certain other responsibilities that come with the role taken by those particular writers who act as critics. One can debate what precisely those special responsibilities are and to what extent each is important (e.g. a responsibility to advocate excellence in the restaurant industry, a responsibility to write reviews that are useful to/interesting to his/her audience), but I don't think it makes sense to consider critics as having no special responsibilities. That said, it seems to me that we differ mainly in emphasis, as you state that a critic does not have direct obligations except to pursue excellence. You clearly imply that the pursuit of excellence will ensure that the critic fulfills the other responsibilities s/he has, and do not suggest that those other responsibilities don't exist at all. I'm not sure whether we disagree if I say that really good writing can be really poor criticism. I'm thinking of Amanda Hesser, a very skilled writer, whose stint as temporary chief New York Times food critic I viewed as highly problematic.

[Fat Guy]

Agreed on all those points, Pan. Any writer or performer (or chef) needs to consider the audience -- that's so fundamental to writing and performance that to do otherwise puts you into a bizarre rarefied postmodern performance-art category that doesn't have any relevance to a discussion like this one. In newspaper criticism the main example of that would be changing your tone and assumptions based on your media outlet and audience: the same writer, hired to be a critic for the New York Times, the Daily News, or the Village Voice, is going to need to present three different facets of his craft, but all of course within the boundaries of being true to himself. At the same time, quality of criticism and quality of writing are as different as a performer's technical skills and his ability to capture the underlying music, or you could probably come up with a more fitting analogy. But being a good writer and a good critic, and maintaining your position of public trust with integrity, needs to be circumscribed and ultimately defined by overarching principles, otherwise it does lead to pandering and, worse, sensationalism. Liberace and Yanni are always going to be more popular and beloved by the public than any great classical musician, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to good reviews from serious music critics. Critics like A.A. Gill who behave outrageously are likely be more popular with the public than low-key critics like Bryan Miller, but Bryan Miller is the better critic. The public trust isn't really about the public; it's about truth and independence, or getting as close to those things as possible.

[Pan]

Your points are well taken, Steven.

[oakapple]

This thread has hinted at another component of journalistic responsibility: the timing of reviews. The Times's main theater critic doesn't have a choice about which Broadway shows he reviews, or when he reviews them — he reviews every show when it opens. It's also rather rare for a show to get re-reviewed later on, even though shows, like restaurants, change over time.

Bruni, on the other hand, has complete discretion over what he reviews, and the 52 slots per year aren't enough to accommodate every deserving restaurant. Bruni didn't have to re-review Bouley, and he didn't have to do it now. There was no event, such as a substantial change in the menu, chef, or décor, that specifically motivated this re-review.

Fat Guy said that it's pretty common knowledge in the biz that David Bouley was aware that things had slipped, and was actively working on upgrading the staff. If Bruni knew this, then a re-review now was irresponsible. Given the scarcity of reviewing slots, he should have waited till the situation at Bouley was stable once again.

However, if Bruni didn't know that David Bouley is upgrading the place, he might have felt it would be irresponsible to leave it at four stars when it is clearly operating below that level, particularly with an expected four-star Per Se review coming within the next few weeks.

Edited June 24, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

My money is on a third scenario: the Frank Bruni was not aware of Bouley's current project to improve itself when he made his visits and started writing his review, but that during follow-up research he spoke to David Bouley on the phone and David Bouley spoke of impending improvements. That is simply my theory as to the most likely scenario, based on how these reviews usually progress. And it would be totally in keeping with David Bouley's personality to say, "Come on, Frank, give me a couple of months here." I wonder if Chop has any additional insight he can share with us, without getting in trouble with the boss of course.

[Pan]

If Mr. Bruni knew Chef Bouley and his crew were in the process of busting their asses to try to improve the place, didn't Bruni at least owe it to them to mention that and say that he would check up later to see what the results were? I have no problem with the "snapshot," which relates not only to the present but to some time into the past, but perhaps some context was missing - and here I'm not speaking of the more distant past, but of the possible near future.

[Fat Guy]

That's actually a hole in my theory: I imagine Bruni would have mentioned something like that, if he had been informed. So maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

[Bux]

Personally

Have I had 4 star meals by Bouley? - Yes!

Have my recent experiences been 4 star? - no

Do I like Bouley the restaurant? - yes

Do I like Bouley as a person? - don't know him personally

Do I want bad things to happen to him? - No

Do I think He's one of the best chefs in the country? - Yes

Will this review have a positive effect? - Yes (this is probably the best time to eat there)

My emphasis. This may not be the most illuminating or thought provoking post on the thread, but it may be the most practically useful post you will read here. In absolute terms, the best time to eat at any restaurant is shortly before it gets its fourth star, (or three if we're talking Michelin, just to keep this international) but that requires hindsight as does avoiding eating just before a restaurant loses a star.

Generally speaking, restaurants that lose stars, more often than not continue to slide downhill, but we have reason to believe efforts are already being made to reverse a slide at Bouley. What the three star rating is likely to mean is that Bouley will not be able to raise prices for a while, but that everyone will be on their toes and traffic, if anything, is likely to fall off a bit making it easier to get a reservation. That last thing will be interesting to check.

Often the worst time to eat in a restaurant is just after it's gotten it's fourth star, especially if the restaurant is not prepared to deal with the increased traffic and demands of a new set of clients rushing to be served. This is even true to a lesser extent when a review appears confirming the four stars already held by a restaurant as it serves as a reminder to diners to put it on their short list.

[agno]

Long time reader , first time poster.

Just couldn't keep quiet any longer.

I'd probably have waited a couple of months, revisited a couple of times, and looked for some improvement. If the restaurant was trending upwards I'd continue to hold off on the review.

A Four star restuarant should act as four star restaurant at all times, no matter the time of day, the lack of employees or the hope of someday doing better. I feel the NYT is responsible for telling the public what a four star restuarant experience is like and thus has the ability to change it's opinion whenever it feels necessary.

As for the mentioning of Bouley's history, I find it very relovent. Being a professional cook I have no desire to work for Chef Bouley because of the past treatment of his employees, and for his way of doing business. I know i'm not alone in my way of thinking, so I'm curious to know what kind of cooks he can hire who will be so willing to help him regain his fourth star.

[chopjwu12]

Long time reader , first time poster.

Just couldn't keep quiet any longer.

I'd probably have waited a couple of months, revisited a couple of times, and looked for some improvement. If the restaurant was trending upwards I'd continue to hold off on the review.

A Four star restuarant should act as four star restaurant at all times, no matter the time of day, the lack of employees or the hope of someday doing better. I feel the NYT is responsible for telling the public what a four star restuarant experience is like and thus has the ability to change it's opinion whenever it feels necessary.

As for the mentioning of Bouley's history, I find it very relovent. Being a professional cook I have no desire to work for Chef Bouley because of the past treatment of his employees, and for his way of doing business. I know i'm not alone in my way of thinking, so I'm curious to know what kind of cooks he can hire who will be so willing to help him regain his fourth star.

last time i checked i was a cook at bouley.

Last time i checked i was a preety good cook and an even more dedicated son of a bitch.

So when you ask that question what kind of cooks will bouley hire to get his four stars back. I say this to you, we dont have to hire anyone else. We allready have one of the best cooking teams in new york as indicated bby one of teh first line sin teh review.

Where may i ask do you cook agno?

[Fat Guy]

Chop: Can you give us a brief history of recent events in the Bouley kitchen? Am I correct in my belief that over the past few months DB has hired some sharp new people and focused his energies and is right in the middle of a big improvement project at the restaurant? Or am I totally off base? I'm sure you know better than I.

[chopjwu12]

Chop: Can you give us a brief history of recent events in the Bouley kitchen? Am I correct in my belief that over the past few months DB has hired some sharp new people and focused his energies and is right in the middle of a big improvement project at the restaurant? Or am I totally off base? I'm sure you know better than I.

The low down is this. We have been for the last months getting some great people in the restaurant. Yes before this we were short and tryign to get by and all that. But now things are moving foward towards being great. We have hired an assistant gm to help out, formerly of tabla. He is doing great things with the organization of the place. It all started when we were first put on open table. That was teh begining of upgradeing technology's in teh restaurant. The office had to be taken care of first to help make everythign else fall into place. Now that the office is preety much done there are so many great things in the works. Remodeling of the dining rooms, we have a great knew stove comign in, new enthusiastic people are coming in including a service manager to help improve our overall waitstaff. I mean the list goes on and on. Thats why i said in an earlier post if the review would have taken place a month or two from now maybe things would have been different. But all these plans have been takign place there not just because of the review. We aren't running around crying about it, I mean what is going poor me poor me goign to do. We are just goign to continue with the plan that has allready been in place and secure our ranking as one of the best restaurants not only in new york but in america and since i like to think big ill even say in the world.

The people are whats important to us and we want to focus on that. We want the people to come in and say you know that was one of the best meals ive ever had the pleasure of experiencing. The people are the biggest concern not a simple star. make the people happy and the fourth star will simply folow.

[Fat Guy]

Thanks for the background, Chop. That's pretty much what I've been hearing, though your version is of course much more detailed and authoritative. In the end, a restaurant always has to be prepared to be judged on every meal it serves, but still in light of the context the timing of the review feels wrong to me.

[MonsieurSatran]

I have a reservation for my birthday dinner- July 31st- at Bouley, and I'm hoping it will be great! I'm also going to Danube on July 2nd- double David Bouley! I'm looking forward to it.

Edited June 25, 2004 by MonsieurSatran (log)

[robyn]

Long time reader , first time poster.

A Four star restuarant should act as four star restaurant at all times, no matter the time of day, the lack of employees or the hope of someday doing better.  I feel the NYT is responsible for telling  the public what a four star restuarant experience is like and thus has the ability to change it's opinion whenever it feels necessary.

As for the mentioning of Bouley's history, I find it very relovent. Being a professional cook I have no desire to work for Chef Bouley because of the past treatment of his employees, and for his way of doing business.  I know i'm not alone in my way of thinking, so I'm curious to know what kind of cooks he can hire who will be so willing to help him regain his fourth star.

I agree with you with one small exception.

I don't live in a world class city - but I do travel to world class cities and spend world class amounts of money on food. I don't care what a restaurant was like a year ago - or what it might be like a year from now. If a review is written today - I want to know what it is today. And a high class restaurant should meet standards every night of the week - except perhaps if the chef's mother has died that evening - or his wife has just walked out on him.

My one exception - and it's not really a quarrel with what you say - is I don't know why Bruni seems to be focusing on all these old war horses of restaurants. We all know what they are - and I suspect just about everyone in NY knows where they stand now. And I don't much care about reading about new places like Per Se - which has been written up in recent months in every food and woman's magazine in the world except perhaps Seventeen.

I'd like to read about restaurants that are new and/or somewhat unknown - where the chef is in the kitchen - turning out wonderful things. I am frankly sick of chefs who spend most of their time making celebrity appearances at food festivals - writing cookbooks - traveling on planes to manage their restaurant empires - etc. I don't mind chefs who are celebrities - but I'd like to experience their food about 5 years before they become celebrities. I guess I will in the future - as I have in the past - continue to do most of the necessary homework on my own - because all critics like Bruni appear to be doing is eating a lot of expensive meals at restaurants everyone knows about.

Interesting what you have to say about Bouley's past treatment of employees. Apart from allegations that he failed to pay employees - were there allegations that he failed to pay IRS for things like SS and FICA withholding for employees? Just curious about the ways in which he allegedly mistreated employees. Robyn

[Pan]

Robyn, we could argue about the "warhorses," but wouldn't you have to agree that Per Se is such a high-profile new restaurant that the Times simply has to review it?

[R Washburn]

chopjwu12,

Thank you for your insider's report. It has inspired me to dine again at Bouley in the near future.

I am curious about one thing. Has Bouley solved its chronic overbooking problem? That was one of the things that used to drive me crazy about Bouley. I have also noticed a large drop off in the quality of service when the restaurant is working near capacity. I am not sure if Bouley can consistently deliver a four star experience to a full house.

[greenfield]

[Please note two different folks are quoted here]

A Four star restuarant should act as four star restaurant at all times, no matter the time of day, the lack of employees or the hope of someday doing better.

Yes! I should not be able to go into a four star restaurant and get two- or three-star service and food.

I think it is important to note that the problems mentioned in the article are not small, one-time problems. They are long-standing problems with the restaurant that should have been addressed a while ago.

My money is on a third scenario: the Frank Bruni was not aware of Bouley's current project to improve itself when he made his visits and started writing his review, but that during follow-up research he spoke to David Bouley on the phone and David Bouley spoke of impending improvements.

Wow. I really hope that Bruni did not contact Bouley before the review ran. I feel that would be a lapse in journalistic ethics. Bruni is reviewing a restaurants product: the experience of dining there. The NYT reviewer goes to the restaurant more than once to make sure that their experience is not a fluke. It is not a reviewer's obligation to investigate the business reasons for a restaurants failure or success--it is a reviewer's obligation to tell me about the experience of dining in the restaurant. If I want an insider's view of the restaurant, I read eGullet. :-) Alternatively, I can read any number of other articles in the NYT food sections that discuss a restaurant from front to back. Would you expect a theater critic to call a producer after several bad performances of a show and ask, "Can you explain why my experience at the theater was poor? Should I hold off reviewing for now until you fix these problems?"

If Bouley really wanted reviewers to hold off reviewing his restaurant, he could have issued some sort of press release indicating that the restaurant was being retooled. In effect, he could have thrown the business into preview mode; it would be as if he were opening it for the first time. Of course, that would have a real financial impact, whereas the financial impact of a negative three-star review in the Times is questionable.

Steve, I'm a bit curious if your vitriol towards the review is due to the content of the review itself, or the fact that it was a negative review of a restaurant you clearly love. If this were any number of other restaurants in the city, would you be so passionate?

[...]his kind of four-star informality dovetails with comments Amanda Hesser made in one of the only good things she wrote during her interim critic stint, the "No Tablecloth? This Is Fine Dining?" piece.

I would love to see an eGullet thread which mentions the NYT food section and does not contain gratuitous Hesser bashing. Even if it is a backhanded compliment.

[Fat Guy]

Steve, I'm a bit curious if your vitriol towards the review is due to the content of the review itself, or the fact that it was a negative review of a restaurant you clearly love. If this were any number of other restaurants in the city, would you be so passionate?

It's hard to answer your question because it makes so many assumptions with which I disagree. My comments are neither vitriolic nor motivated by anything other than my fundamental disagreement with much of what is said in the review and, to a lesser extent, the timing of the review. Rather than saying I love Bouley, I would say that Bouley is a restaurant that has over time been beloved by many. And as I've repeatedly stated, the three star rating doesn't bother me -- it may very well be the right rating. But there are many paths to three stars, and I can't follow Frank Bruni along the one he has chosen.

[robyn]

Robyn, we could argue about the "warhorses," but wouldn't you have to agree that Per Se is such a high-profile new restaurant that the Times simply has to review it?

It probably has to - eventually. Why not give it some time and see how it develops? What's the urgency?

Along these lines - I read a review of Tom Aikens - one of the restaurants I went to in London - written by Jay Rayner (who posts here from time to time). I liked the fact that he gave the restaurant time to "settle down" - and that his review was divorced from the general media hoopla which accompanied its opening. He sounded like a serious reviewer - not a restaurant groupie.

And tell me - in light of what I've read about Per Se - and everyone here getting reservations at 5 or 10 - what is Mr. Bruni going to do? What Ruth Reichl did in her first meals at Le Cirque (dine anonymously) - or is he going to pull strings to get what has been described here as VIP treatment? Like I said - I'd feel better if he let the frenzy die down - and then attempt a serious review of a slightly established restaurant. Robyn

[plattetude]

Infrequent poster, frequent thread-follower here.

For me, Bruni's review really nailed it. Perhaps it didn't talk enough about the food highs and was more a demotion-rationale than a review, but it really resonated with me. I recently had my first dinner at Bouley a few months ago and was frankly appalled at the shoddy service -- alternatingly inattentive and inarticulate wait staff, served the wrong items in not one but two courses (and no apology for it, just a brusque whisking away and return with the correct plates), numerous other gaffes I've since been thankfully able to forget.

While much of the food was indeed superb, the *experience* of dining there was a vast disappointment (shared by the other three in my party). So not only do I understand and agree with the demotion, I also understand and agree with Bruni's focus on the negative (Red Cross red herring aside); I fully expected to be wowed by dining at Bouley, and having those expectations so thoroughly dashed by things other than food made the food unforgivably forgettable.

I hope it turns around.

Christopher

[bhoward]

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.)

I also raised an eyebrow about the vanilla comment.

(Admin: post edited to eliminate excessively long quote)

Edited June 25, 2004 by slkinsey (log)

[greenfield]

It's hard to answer your question because it makes so many assumptions with which I disagree. My comments are neither vitriolic nor motivated by anything other than my fundamental disagreement with much of what is said in the review and, to a lesser extent, the timing of the review.

Steven, I apologize; "vitriol" is too strong of a word to use to describe your posts regarding the review. However, I feel some of your criticism has been a bit overstated:

[...]the statement sounds more like ass-covering than criticism.

[...]The whole review seems more concerned with itself than with the restaurant under consideration.

[...]The actual food commentary is thinner than any spa cuisine sauce.

[...]but for now this review feels a bit directionless.

Rather than saying I love Bouley, I would say that Bouley is a restaurant that has over time been beloved by many.

I do think it is fair to say that you love the restaurant, even though your review from 2001 indicated decidedly mixed feelings. Your defense of Bouley, the person, as a four-star chef is passionate. I do agree that many people have a fond place in their heart for Bouley, the restaurant.

And as I've repeatedly stated, the three star rating doesn't bother me -- it may very well be the right rating. But there are many paths to three stars, and I can't follow Frank Bruni along the one he has chosen.

I definitely understand, but do not agree, with your statements regarding the timing and appropriateness of the review. I understand your point about the three-star rating. However, I am honestly confused about your criticism regarding Bruni's "path." I can certainly relate to what Bruni was saying. Are you saying that you found his comments inaccurate or illegitimate? I think you are saying that Bruni missed something in his experiences at Bouley, but I don't know what he missed.

All that being said, part of me now wants to go to Bouley to see what the fuss is all about. I would love to read a follow-up review of Bouley by you; I think the contrast in reviewing styles would be interesting.

I think that in the end assesment, we will probably have to agree to disagree about Bruni's review.