Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

Todd36 · November 17, 2005

salmon and yellowtail neck/collar is common.
I haven't seen tuna collar before (which is what Bruni specifically stated was unusual).
←

I've seen Tuna collar on menus. In fact, if you run Google, it shows up in a New York Times surburan review of a Hartford Japanese restaurant!!!! It's not some great exotic thing.

Nathan · November 17, 2005

fair enough...but if it shows up in all of a couple menus...I would think it would still be classified as unusual (I haven't seen it before).

BryanZ · November 17, 2005

This most recent review wasn't that bad. Unlike the review of Dor Ahn, this review actually had a point and made sense. After reading it, I'm inspired to check this place out.

Bux · November 17, 2005

. . . I'm inspired to check this place out.
←

If a review can inspire the right people to check out the right restaurant, it serves a purpose. I felt the way Bryan did about the place after reading the review. It would be an interesting place to check out, although it's clearly not the destination restaurant I feel I need to reserve far in advance or the place I'll regret if I miss it, but it gets a place on the list.

TAPrice · November 17, 2005

Is Bruni getting better? I know nothing about his judgment, because I've never tried a single place he mentions. His prose, however, seems to have improved lately.

At first, it was so overwritten that it hurt. A good editor could have cut 2/3 of his florid language and made a solid piece. Now, even though there are a few strained metaphors, he seems to be relaxing as a writer.

Perhaps the vacation did him good? Perhaps, like the always incomprehensible Elvis Mitchell, the Times hired a freelance editor to work over his prose.

BryanZ · November 17, 2005

. . . I'm inspired to check this place out.
←
If a review can inspire the right people to check out the right restaurant, it serves a purpose. I felt the way Bryan did about the place after reading the review. It would be an interesting place to check out, although it's clearly not the destination restaurant I feel I need to reserve far in advance or the place I'll regret if I miss it, but it gets a place on the list.
←

Exactly.

I have some questions about the NYT Dining section, though. Is Bruni like a pseudo-editor or just food critic? How does his pull in the section compare to some of the other writers? Who's at the top of the chain, are there multiple editors for the section, what's the hierarchy like?

oakapple · November 19, 2005

I have some questions about the NYT Dining section, though. Is Bruni like a pseudo-editor or just food critic? How does his pull in the section compare to some of the other writers? Who's at the top of the chain, are there multiple editors for the section, what's the hierarchy like?
←

Bruni isn't an editor at all. He's a critic who happens to have a very high-profile beat.

It doesn't make any sense to refer to his "pull" in the section, because he's not competing for anyone else's assignments, and nobody else is competing for his. He gets his regular slots on Wednesdays and Fridays. He has broad latitude to choose the restaurants he reviews, and what he says about them.

Several other writers have far more seniority on that page than Bruni does (e.g., Florence Fabricant, Marian Burros, Eric Asimov, Frank J. Prial, and even R. W. Apple, Jr.). Asimov and Burros have subbed for the main critic on occasion, and probably either one of them could have had the job if they wanted it. It's a demanding position that has burned out most people within a few years. Bruni probably got the nod after others declined it.

oakapple · November 23, 2005

Two months ago, Frank Bruni posted a double-review of Mainland (*) and Oriental Garden (**). Today, he's done it again, demoting Cafe Luxembourg to one star and bumping Compass back up to two stars.

I don't believe any of Bruni's predecessors have published double-reviews, have they? This is apparently his innovation, which I applaud. Not every restaurant needs a full review to itself. The occasional double-review allows the paper to cover more restaurants in the same amount of space.

Compass has got to be one of the luckiest restaurants in New York. In under four years, it has had five chefs and three rated reviews in the Times. An awful lot of restaurants are never re-reviewed, so Compass has fared well. Originally two stars, Amanda Hesser demoted Compass to one star last year. Katy Sparks promptly departed. Two chefs later, Compass is practically a new restaurant, and in fact a very good one. I entirely agree with the reinstated two-star rating. But coupled with Bruni's Diner's Journal on Compass several weeks ago, the restaurant has had plenty of coverage. A shared review with the next-door Cafe Luxembourg was appropriate.

Although I dine in the area frequently, Cafe Luxembourg has never caught my attention. I see it there (usually on the way to Compass), and walk right by. The 22-year-old restaurant has been resting on Bryan Miller's two-star review for thirteen years. Since I haven't dined there, I can't say whether today's demotion is fair. But if it is, I agree with Bruni that a half-column, rather than a full column, was appropriate. If Cafe Luxembourg ever wants to get its second star back, I suggest that it hire Compass's publicist. Any restaurant that attracts three rated reviews in four years is doing something right.

I've long believed that critic anonymity is a useful thing. There are some who say that critics are always going to be recognized, so they might as well shed the pretense that their visits are anonymous. And yet, Bruni reports two experiences at Cafe Luxembourg that strongly suggest otherwise:

During one visit, we waited 35 minutes past our reservation time without anyone's offering us an apology. On another visit, one friend, arriving mere minutes after the rest of us had been seated, was told there was no record of our party. We were 20 feet away.

I think it's abundantly clear that, on both occasions, the restaurant did not know that they were serving Frank Bruni.

aaronwcpa · November 24, 2005

As an old reader of the Times, I recall until the arrival of Ruth Reichl, two restaurants would be reviewed every week and I go back to Craig Claiborne, who I believe was the first restaurant critic. I remember Mimi Sheraton, Bryan Miller and there was someone whose first name was Richard, who was there in the 80s?

All the above before there was $25 and under, which nearly always reviews one restaurant.

Aaron

mrs.albanese · November 24, 2005

I know people who work at both Cafe Lux and Compass. I think that Cafe Lux is disapointed by the review because 1) comparing Lux and Compass is like comparing apples and oranges, 2) After having two chefs leave within 2 months, they finally have a great young chef (formerly of Oceana and Chanterelle) who is really turning the kitchen around, even after only six weeks on the job. On the other hand, the service could really use some work dealing with the 200-300 covers they do in the 80 seat restaurant. They never noticed that Bruni was there- Compass knew every time. Cafe Lux is what it is- a noisy & fun neighborhood restaurant. The review will not affect their business.

This review will hopefully be good for Compass- the place puts out great food, but it is always empty. They are also benefiting from a great new chef. I would love to read about people's experiences there- I am thinking about going this weekend.

Todd36 · November 24, 2005

I live near Cafe Lux. Unless it has recently significantly improved, one star is generous. For several years in a row, according to the NYC Dept of Health website, it was cited for a large number of violations for a place in its price point. That, along with the food, made me stop going there.

aaronwcpa · November 24, 2005

My comments on NYT restaurant reviewers requires some correction.

As I slept the name of the Richard critic popped into my mind. It was not Richard but Raymond Sokolov, a name I have not thought of in many years.

Aaron

Bux · November 24, 2005

. . . . Asimov and Burros have subbed for the main critic on occasion, and probably either one of them could have had the job if they wanted it. It's a demanding position that has burned out most people within a few years. Bruni probably got the nod after others declined it.
←

You say "probably." I wonder if that's more than supposition on your part. I supsect the times has it's own reasons and probably didn't offer the job to either one, but that's pure speculation on my part. Actually I'd have been curious to see what kind of job Asimov could have done. If nothing else, Burros' review of Casa Mono suggested to me that restaurant reviewing wasn't her strong suit.

Pan · November 24, 2005

I like Asimov and was expecting him to take over as main critic when Grimes resigned (retired, whatever). I think he would have done a good job, producing consistently interesting and thoughtful reviews, even if I wouldn't have always shared his taste. And another thing, Asimov is really passionate about food and wine, and it seems to me that that passion causes him to respect producers and chefs and restaurateurs who themselves care about craftsmanship.

Edited November 24, 2005 by Pan (log)

BryanZ · November 30, 2005

Today's review of Cookshop seemed to be one of the more convoluted ones in recent memory. Ten Commandments, virtue??? The pseudo-religious language added nothing to the review and seemed way too contrived.

Ruth Reichl recently noted in her eG conversation that a restaurant review should be a good review. It should provide good information, but it should also be entertaining and engaging. In this review it becomes painfully clear how hard Bruni is trying to draw in his readers, to the extent that his writing is fragmented and confusing to read.

rich · November 30, 2005

Today's review of Cookshop seemed to be one of the more convoluted ones in recent memory. Ten Commandments, virtue??? The pseudo-religious language added nothing to the review and seemed way too contrived.
Ruth Reichl recently noted in her eG conversation that a restaurant review should be a good review. It should provide good information, but it should also be entertaining and engaging. In this review it becomes painfully clear how hard Bruni is trying to draw in his readers, to the extent that his writing is fragmented and confusing to read.
←

You obviously missed his point Bryan. The reviewer was writing for his former bosses at the Vatican.

If memory serves (and I will not read it again to confirm the count), I think three or four paragraphs were dedicated to food. The rest of the column discussed theology, philosophy, ethics, paying for one's own meal, receiving Communion on Sunday, taking a bus to work on Saturday and using sun screen during the winter months as a solution for aging skin.

But in the end I was happy to see that just when you thought the NY Times reviewer's columns couldn't get worse, they move further into the abyss - Congratulations on the worst review of the year. However, as luck would have it, there are four more to go. We can only hope the reviewer will attempt to beat his personal best. I, for one, say go for it.

I heard Compass will be reviewed again next week - just to make it a baker's dozen over the last few years.

Edited November 30, 2005 by rich (log)

oakapple · November 30, 2005

Ruth Reichl recently noted in her eG conversation that a restaurant review should be a good review. It should provide good information, but it should also be entertaining and engaging. In this review it becomes painfully clear how hard Bruni is trying to draw in his readers, to the extent that his writing is fragmented and confusing to read.
←

Ruch Reichl correctly noted that some restaurants are about more than just the food. However, when food was the subject, Reichl always knew what to say, and how to say it. Frank Bruni does not.

If memory serves (and I will not read it again to confirm the count), I think three or four paragraphs were dedicated to food. The rest of the column discussed theology, philosophy, ethics, paying for one's own meal, receiving Communion on Sunday, taking a bus to work on Saturday and using sun screen during the winter months as a solution for aging skin.

I counted twelve paragraphs that discussed the food, not four. Beyond that, the restaurant's philosophy in sourcing ingredients is certainly a relevant topic for a restaurant review. Many of the non-food comments are similarly relevant (the comfortable layout of the room, the fact that the heat from the kitchen makes some tables too warm, etc.).

But in the end I was happy to see that just when you thought the NY Times reviewer's columns couldn't get worse, they move further into the abyss - Congratulations on the worst review of the year.

How quickly they forget! Any of the following were worse than this one: Florent, The Red Cat, Frederick's Madison, and that silly uptown Italian place that got two stars. Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

rich · November 30, 2005

But in the end I was happy to see that just when you thought the NY Times reviewer's columns couldn't get worse, they move further into the abyss - Congratulations on the worst review of the year.
How quickly they forget! Any of the following were worse than this one: Florent, The Red Cat, Frederick's Madison, and that silly uptown Italian place that got two stars. Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.
←

And the nominees are...

Nathan · November 30, 2005

This wasn't a bad review. It gave a clear sense of the restaurant and actually spent a lot of space on the food.

TAPrice · November 30, 2005

I agree with Nathan, there was nothing wrong with this review. You know what to expect from the food and the atmosphere. You get some background on the philosophy. He compares it to other restaurants in a meaningful way ("deviled egg restaurants").

Yeah, the Ten Commandments reference was a little out of left field, but I didn't find too many other instances where the prose really fell flat. I also didn't find it convoluted.

JohnnyH · December 14, 2005

Bruni's style has really reached its nadir with this one. The opening paragraph was enough to make me want to stop reading.

oakapple · December 14, 2005

Referring to today's two-star review of Keens Steakhouse:

Bruni's style has really reached its nadir with this one. The opening paragraph was enough to make me want to stop reading.
←

The first few paragraphs were Bruni at his worst:

THERE'S a secret to the surprising mellowness of the "legendary mutton chop" at Keens Steakhouse, a restaurant long synonymous with that gargantuan slab of meat. (The menu announces it with a verbal trumpet blast.)

Nix the trumpet and commence a drum roll: it is lamb. The mutton lore is a mutton lie. For at least two decades and perhaps many more, the legendary mutton chop has indeed been a matter of legend. The following sentence is inevitable, as is the one on its tail. Diners have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
But they haven't been fleeced.

The review also has the obligatory references in a steakhouse review to "artery-clogging proof" and "testosterone cuisine," as well as an homage to Bruni's former career as a movie critic ("surprisingly effective cameos"). All we needed was a quote from one of his friends, and this would have been a Bruni classic. On the other hand, I did get a good appreciation for what the restaurant is about—Bruni's tortured and cliché-ridden prose notwithstanding.

By my count, four steakhouses have received rated reviews in the last two years (BLT Steak, Wolfgang's, Ben & Jack's, Keens). All of them received two stars.

Edited December 14, 2005 by oakapple (log)

rich · December 14, 2005

Referring to today's two-star review of Keens Steakhouse:
Bruni's style has really reached its nadir with this one. The opening paragraph was enough to make me want to stop reading.
←
The first few paragraphs were Bruni at his worst:
THERE'S a secret to the surprising mellowness of the "legendary mutton chop" at Keens Steakhouse, a restaurant long synonymous with that gargantuan slab of meat. (The menu announces it with a verbal trumpet blast.)
Nix the trumpet and commence a drum roll: it is lamb. The mutton lore is a mutton lie. For at least two decades and perhaps many more, the legendary mutton chop has indeed been a matter of legend. The following sentence is inevitable, as is the one on its tail. Diners have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
But they haven't been fleeced.
The review also has the obligatory references in a steakhouse review to "artery-clogging proof" and "testosterone cuisine," as well as an homage to Bruni's former career as a movie critic ("surprisingly effective cameos"). All we needed was a quote from one of his friends, and this would have been a Bruni classic. On the other hand, I did get a good appreciation for what the restaurant is about—Bruni's tortured and cliché-ridden prose notwithstanding.
By my count, four steakhouses have received rated reviews in the last two years (BLT Steak, Wolfgang's, Ben & Jack's, Keens). All of them received two stars.
←

The NY Times critic's recently installed verbiage editor was off this week, so no one was there to monitor the writing - thus you get what you get.

tommy · December 14, 2005

apparently keens doesn't have any sides.

rich · December 14, 2005

apparently keens doesn't have any sides.
←

tommy, you should know better - the NY times doesn't allow its critics to review or even mention sides. That would give them additional bad writing to edit. :wink: