Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

[Megan Blocker]

From this week's review of Perry St.:

Although Mr. Vongerichten's condominium apartment is just upstairs on the seventh floor and he has been spending much of his time in the kitchen here...

From August 24th's review of Spigolo:

To arrive at his new restaurant, Perry St., in the West Village, Jean-Georges Vongerichten takes neither subway nor bus, taxi nor limousine. He travels via elevator, from the seventh floor of the condominium building in which he lives to the first.

OK, we get it - Frank has done his research and knows where J-G hangs out. Can we move on now?

Have to say, it seems like this review might be right on the money - three stars seems appropriate (which is hard to say, since I haven't eaten at Perry St. yet), based on the descriptions of the food and service. His language and need for an angle still irk me a bit, but this review seemed less steeped in those problems.

Does anyone know if Frank has given any four-star reviews?

[oakapple]

Have to say, it seems like this review might be right on the money - three stars seems appropriate (which is hard to say, since I haven't eaten at Perry St. yet), based on the descriptions of the food and service.  His language and need for an angle still irk me a bit, but this review seemed less steeped in those problems.

The most I can say—since I haven't eaten there myself—is that a three-star restaurant from JGV isn't a surprise, and the language in the review is reasonably consistent with the rating.

Does anyone know if Frank has given any four-star reviews?

←

Frank has anointed two new four-star restaurants (Per Se and Masa), and he re-affirmed another (Le Bernardin). He has also yanked two restaurants out of that class (Bouley and Alain Ducasse).

Edited September 7, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[Megan Blocker]

Does anyone know if Frank has given any four-star reviews?

←

Frank has anointed two new four-star restaurants (Per Se and Masa), and he re-affirmed another (Le Bernardin). He has also yanked two restaurants out of that class (Bouley and Alain Ducasse).

←

Thanks, Oakapple! You are a font of knowledge.

[SobaAddict70]

And while it is undeniably flawed and surprisingly inconsistent, it's cause for celebration,

Given the winnowed options, there are too many disappointing dishes. An heirloom tomato and mozzarella salad was beautiful to behold but merely pleasant to eat. Steamed black bass was dressed in a basil vinaigrette so tart it suggested some kind of accident behind the scenes. So I tried this entree again on a subsequent night: still too tart, though appreciably less so.

It reads like what you would expect from a two star restaurant (albeit a high end two star).

Where you see it all come together at Perry Street is the fact that he has always had a vigorous flirtation with Asia, and here you see him wedding a more classic, a more Continental-French approach to his flirtation with Asia, so that you have those kinds of ingredients that the season is coming into; dishes that are otherwise more familiar.  It's an extremely pleasing restaurant in part because it's not too ambitious.  Here the focus really is on the food.

(from the online audio presentation)

Three stars isn't too ambitious?

Shades of Spice Market syndrome!

[BryanZ]

While it is true that most of this review reads like a high-end 2-star, Bruni stresses that when JG scores, he scores big. Maybe his repuation has something to do with it, but I think that JG's control of a wide spectrum of flavors is what sets him apart. Therefore, although there may have been disappointments on the brief menu, this review leads me to believe that the best dishes are of true 4-star quality.

[slkinsey]

The problem with this kind of thing, in my mind, is when this rating is reviewed against the backdrop of other ratings he has made. I don't get the impression that Perry St. is a clear step up from lower-star-rated The Modern, nor do I get the impression that Perry St. isn't a clear step down from same-star-rated ADNY.

[oakapple]

The problem with this kind of thing, in my mind, is when this rating is reviewed against the backdrop of other ratings he has made.  I don't get the impression that Perry St. is a clear step up from lower-star-rated The Modern, nor do I get the impression that Perry St. isn't a clear step down from same-star-rated ADNY.

←

It's worth separating the problems that are Bruni's fault, from the the limitations inherent in the NYT star system as he inherited it.

NYT critics generally do not say precisely how they've weigh the various factors that go into the rating (food, ambiance, service, price). Nor do they say whether a restaurant is comfortably in the "heartland" of a rating category, or if the restaurant just barely made/missed a level.

Overlaying this is what I call the "penalty system." Each rating category, except for four stars, includes restaurants that truly belong there, and also restaurants that should have been at a higher category, but are being "penalized" for some reason. (Less often, a restaurant that normally belongs at a lower level is given a "bonus star" for doing one particular thing extraordinarily well.)

Now, with all of that in mind, the ratings of Perry St, Modern, and ADNY aren't necessarily inconsistent. The tone of the Perry St review suggests it's a borderline restaurant at the lower edge of the three-star range. Since we're not told the reasons, we must infer that, as BryanZ said, "when JG scores, he scores big," and that makes up for some less-than-stellar dishes.

ADNY and The Modern, on the other hand, are clearly being penalized. Bruni knows that ADNY is designed to operate at four stars. He concludes that it's falling well short of the mark. He also considers ADNY's rather staggering prices, at which expectations are necessarily higher.

Likewise, I'm sure Bruni realizes that The Modern was designed to be a minimum of three stars, and a contender for four. Its two-star rating carries a significant penalty for getting a lot of things wrong at a fairly high price point.

Mind you, I realize that the reason we're having this discussion is because, at root, nobody trusts Bruni's judgment any more. But, assuming a competent critic, it is not necessarily inconsistent that ADNY, Perry St, and The Modern, would be carrying their current ratings.

Edited September 8, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Mr. Bruni reviews David Bouley's restaurant Upstairs in today's New York Times:

....on a recent Friday night, when a cooking class that Mr. Bouley was conducting in the restaurant's kitchen ran long, diners who showed up at the stated opening time of 6 p.m. were told by visibly confused employees that they should probably go away and come back later. Exactly how much later could not be predicted. Diners were advised to call every so often to check....Mr. Bouley had morphed into a gastronomic Godot.

Beautifully textured tofu, made in house, had a fantastic sauce of dashi, mirin and black truffle purée.

Reads like a three star restaurant, but for the incident mentioned in the first paragraph along with service and design issues.

More's the pity.

Soba

[rich]

Reads like a three star restaurant, but for the incident mentioned in the first paragraph along with service and design issues.

More's the pity.

Soba

←

However, he still can't help taking small shot at Bouley's personal problems.

Also noticed how he mentions Bouley came by to say hello - what a nice touch for inclusion in the review.

[oakapple]

Reads like a three star restaurant, but for the incident mentioned in the first paragraph along with service and design issues.

←

If you assume that Bruni stands by his three-star rating of the upscale Bouley across the street, it's hard to see how Upstairs could be three stars.

By the way, the well-connected Eater seemed to know in advance that this review was coming, as indicated in this post on Monday.

Edited September 14, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Reads like a three star restaurant, but for the incident mentioned in the first paragraph along with service and design issues.

←

If you assume that Bruni stands by his three-star rating of the upscale Bouley across the street, it's hard to see how Upstairs could be three stars.

←

Perhaps, perhaps not, but wouldn't it have been nice if it were three stars across the board?

[CiriloE]

←

If you assume that Bruni stands by his three-star rating of the upscale Bouley across the street, it's hard to see how Upstairs could be three stars.

←

Stanley,

Our kabayan, Romy Dorotan of Cendrillon, can now claim his restaurant is as good as David Bouley's Upstairs.

Cirilo

[Megan Blocker]

Frank pulled out some more fancy language today...

In stacks of tanks flanking the entrance of this Chinatown mainstay, crabs crawl, sea bass swim and clams loll about, for want of an even less kinetic verb.  But the presentation winds up seeming less theatrical than practical, less like an aquarium of incipient deliciousness than an unadorned aquatic larder, even a floating gallows.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Oh, my.

Interesting concept - a comparison of "uptown" and "downtown" Chinese food. Here's a link to the review: click!

[oakapple]

Frank pulled out some more fancy language today...

←

Frank's writing continues to be ridiculously overwrought, but reviewing two restaurants in the same column was a welcome innovation. For restaurants in the 1-2 star category, it might be a sensible way to get more mileage out of the year's 52 rated reviews.

[BryanZ]

Bruni's forced clauses and seeming love affair with kitschy, pseudo-alliteration aside, I find the 2-star review to be rather shocking. I don't know much about Oriental Graden but he seemed to be being rather generous. I guess this is an example of how a restaurant can perhaps exceed expectations to achieve a a higher (than perhaps deserved) rating.

[SobaAddict70]

I've been to Oriental Garden quite a few times, and two stars is a bit of a stretch for what is essentially pure Cantonese cooking in a typical New York Chinatown.

It's the Sriphraphai syndrome all over again.

There are a great many GREAT Chinese restaurants in New York, and very few possess anything beyond an honorable mention. For me to believe this rating, I would say Spicy and Tasty should receive two stars, Wu Liang Ye should receive two stars, Grand Sichuan (midtown) should receive two stars, Sweet-and-Tart should receive two stars, etc. These are all great Chinese restaurants, yet none of them currently have an assigned NYT star rating.

Try again, Frank.

Soba

[oakapple]

I find the 2-star review to be rather shocking.

←

...and...

I've been to Oriental Garden quite a few times, and two stars is a bit of a stretch for what is essentially pure Cantonese cooking in a typical New York Chinatown.

It's the Sriphraphai syndrome all over again.

←

It's consistent with my hypothesis that Frank has done his worst damage at the two-star level. There are hundreds of restaurants that are at least arguably one star (many of which will never be reviewed), so I can't complain there. And Bruni has been fairly stingy with giving out three stars, as he should be.

But to Frank, two stars seems merely to mean, "not bad." I also agree with Soba that Chinatown has many restaurants of approximately this calibre, most of which have never been formally reviewed, so why single out this particular restaurant?

[jogoode]

But to Frank, two stars seems merely to mean, "not bad."

←

Where did you get that idea? He raved about Sripraphai. He raved about Oriental Garden. Why does giving them two stars each represent a "not bad" assessment? They are arguably the best of their kind in the city.

I also agree with Soba that Chinatown has many restaurants of approximately this calibre, most of which have never been formally reviewed, so why single out this particular restaurant?

←

There are about 40 creative bistro-type restaurants that deserve one-star that haven't yet been reviewed; why single out one of them? Well, because that's his job. Reviewing means singling out notable restaurants and assessing them. Would we rather read more reviews of mid-priced Italian restaurants, whose gnocchi are either featherlight or gummy and leaden? I wouldn't. So bring on the Chinatown Chinese, K-town Korean, and outer-borough Thai.

[SobaAddict70]

But to Frank, two stars seems merely to mean, "not bad."

←

Where did you get that idea? He raved about Sripraphai. He raved about Oriental Garden. Why does giving them two stars each represent a "not bad" assessment? They are arguably the best of their kind in the city.

I also agree with Soba that Chinatown has many restaurants of approximately this calibre, most of which have never been formally reviewed, so why single out this particular restaurant?

←

There are about 40 creative bistro-type restaurants that deserve one-star that haven't yet been reviewed; why single out one of them? Well, because that's his job. Reviewing means singling out notable restaurants and assessing them. Would we rather read more reviews of mid-priced Italian restaurants, whose gnocchi are either featherlight or gummy and leaden? I wouldn't. So bring on the Chinatown Chinese, K-town Korean, and outer-borough Thai.

←

JJ -- Oriental Garden is nothing special. The type of cuisine served there is a standard that's more or less taken for granted within Chinatown and elsewhere.

That's what I'm getting at. Yes, OG is the best of its kind within its class but within the universe of the Times star system, to say it's the equivalent of a Blue Hill or a Hearth is laughable....in my opinion.

Unfortunately, these kinds of distinctions are lost on the dining public at large.

More's the pity.

[SobaAddict70]

I guess what I'm getting at is this --

Would Mimi Sheraton or Bryan Miller assess Oriental Garden and grant a two-star rating?

My guess is "no".

Even Ruth Reichl, who gave the Chinatown Joe's Shanghai a two-star rating on the basis of its xiao long bao might be hard pressed to give OG two stars.

I'm still mystified as to why OG gets two stars and not say, Grand Sichuan (midtown), all other things being equal.

[smgarsh]

The problem I see here is too many ppl take the NYT rating system (0-4 stars) to literal. The rating system is flawed and useless. Either come up with a more "sophisticated" system where every aspect of the dining experience (food, service, decor etc) is given a rating or don't use a rating system at all.

Too many ppl believe that just because a group of restaurants have the same rating then they must be equivalent. For something like OG ,what an educated/experience diner should do is compare it to other restaurants who are in the same "genre".

If someone asked me to rate Shake Shack within the boundaries of the NYT system, I would give it 2 stars also. Does that mean SS = BlueHill = OG? Of course not, and it would be foolish to.

Just read the review and forget about the rating.

[rich]

The problem I see here is too many ppl take the NYT rating system (0-4 stars) to literal. The rating system is flawed and useless. Either come up with a more "sophisticated" system where every aspect of the dining experience (food, service, decor etc) is given a rating or don't use a rating system at all.

Too many ppl believe that just because a group of restaurants have the same rating then they must be equivalent. For something like OG ,what an educated/experience diner should do is compare it to other restaurants who are in the same "genre".

If someone asked me to rate Shake Shack within the boundaries of the NYT system, I would give it 2 stars also. Does that mean SS = BlueHill = OG? Of course not, and it would be foolish to.

Just read the review and forget about the rating.

←

EGADS - someone who agrees with me - my sympathies.....

[oakapple]

The problem I see here is too many ppl take the NYT rating system (0-4 stars) to literal. ....

Too many ppl believe that just because a group of restaurants have the same rating then they must be equivalent.

←

The issue here is that, even within the context of an imprecise system, Bruni is taking it to a new level of irrationality.

For instance, uniquely among restaurant critics, Frank is lampooned weekly on a blog (here), which is "predicated on the suggestion that every Wednesday, in the Times Dining Out section, Frank lays a huge faberge egg of hilarity."

Eater refers to the "BruniCurve™," which is basically the idea that Bruni dines on happy sauce, and then hands out stars as if they were candy.

[Megan Blocker]

[For instance, uniquely among restaurant critics, Frank is lampooned weekly on a blog (here), which is "predicated on the suggestion that every Wednesday, in the Times Dining Out section, Frank lays a huge faberge egg of hilarity."

←

To be fair, this first blog really takes him to town on his language and his pretentions, not so much on the stars themselves. To me, there are two separate issues - and I am far more entertained by the former, I have to admit.

[oakapple]

In today's three-star review of Nobu 57, Frank Bruni turns in one of his better performances. Bruni seems to realize that when he's awarding three stars, a serious review is called for, and usually he delivers. Whether Nobu 57 actually deserves three stars is a matter that will be much debated, but at least this review makes the case intelligibly.

The review also demonstrates why critic anonymity isn't such a bad thing:

On a recent night several friends and I ate almost precisely the same meals at Nobu and Nobu 57, going directly from one to the other.

Much about the original Nobu had a frayed, complacent quality. There were epic waits for dishes and sloppy applications of dressings. And when I had called to make the 6 p.m. reservation, I was curtly told that we would have to leave our table by 8:30. We had yet to arrive and were already being shown the door.

Suppose he'd said, "Hi, this is Frank Bruni of the New York Times, and I'd like to make a reservation." Anyone want to take bets whether he would have had the same experience?

By the way, I myself have been told at Nobu, on more than one occasion, that I would have to vacate my table by a certain time. Evidently it's standard procedure there.