Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

[Bux]

Admin: An archive of "Bruni and Beyond" discussion from 2004 may be found here.

As much as some believe the NY Times rating system owes a debt to the Michelin's star system, there are a few differences I think are very significant. The first is that when the Times adopted the star system, Michelin published no text at all about the restaurants, except to list three dishes and a couple of recommended wines (usually local-no wines listed for Parisian restaurants). Today, Michelin adds two lines about the restaurant, but not about the food. There are symbols used to tell you about the elegance or lack thereof, and other amenities such as parking, air conditioning, dogs allowed or not, etc.

More importantly, and I think this is key, all of the restaurants are recommended, at least for their location and price range. The NY Times takes on the role of warning consumers about restaurants its reviewer deems unsatisfactory. Even exclusion from the Michelin guide doesn't necessarily mean a restaurant is unsatisfactory. There's long been a debate over the role of the reviews in a paper such as the Times, where they only print 52 reviews a year. I'd rather be steered towards a restaurant worth my time and money than warned about poor values. In fact, I could probably argue that I'd like to see the Times review the 52 best restaurants in the city. If NYC has 52 restaurants worth eating in, it's a waste of space to talk about one that's not worth visiting. I don't mind the stars all that much. To me, four stars signifies a restaurant that any earnest diner with sufficient funds, should visit once in his life, even if it's not his style of restaurant. Perhaps I should emphasize "sufficient funds" and maybe I even need to define "earnest." Three stars is a similar rating of less urgency, and so forth down the line. What I'd really want from most reviews however, is to get an idea if this is my kind of restaurant and some advice on how to make the most of my first meal there, or what I may have missed if I've already been there. "Missed" in this case doesn't mean any particular dish, but an understanding of the restaurant and its food.

GaultMillau, another French guide that's had its ups and downs in terms of respect, but has had enough respect at one time to earn a place in the discussion of restaurant guides, uses a 20 point system that in effect, is really a ten or eleven point system. Restaurants from ten to twenty are considered worthy of one's trade and the lowest rating for any restaurant selected for inclusion in the guide is ten. GM also deigns not to discuss restaurants that are unsatisfactory. By the way, it also uses chef's hats as stars. Twelve and thirteen merit one toque; fourteen, fifteen and sixteen merit two toques, seventeen and eighteen get three; and four toques go to restaurants rated nineteen and twenty, although only recently have they awarded a twenty and then, in my personal opinion, it was because they needed the publicity such a news story would bring. This is an interesting system because it implies there are breaks at various points. In terms of the NY Times and the Guide Michelin, people often refer to different restaurants as being a strong three point restaurant or a weak three points. The difference between a strong two pointer and a weak three pointer, may be less than between a restaurant regared as a stong three point one and another regarded as weakly earning three points.

[oakapple]

The NY Times takes on the role of warning consumers about restaurants its reviewer deems unsatisfactory. Even exclusion from the Michelin guide doesn't necessarily mean a restaurant is unsatisfactory. There's long been a debate over the role of the reviews in a paper such as the Times, where they only print 52 reviews a year. I'd rather be steered towards a restaurant worth my time and money than warned about poor values.

←

An "unsatisfactory" review in the Times is rare. I think there were three zero-star reviews all year. There might have been a handful of one-star reviews where the critic was clearly implying "not worth the bother," although this was never expressly stated. The vast majority of reviews—say, 40 to 45 out of the 52— constituted a recommendation in some sense, even if it was offered with significant caveats.

Edited January 2, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

A newspaper (emphasis on "news") and a guidebook serve different functions. It makes sense for newspaper restaurant reviews to emphasize recently opened major or otherwise interesting or unusual restaurants. Such restaurants are always newsworthy if they're good, and sometimes newsworthy if or because they're not particularly good. If Michelin, for example, were to publish a weekly restaurant newsletter (emphasis on "news"), it would make most sense, I think, to include in that newsletter all major openings with some kind of commentary.

[cmling]

Bux, does GaultMillau really use that system now? I recall it as 13-14 points: one toque, 15-16 points: two toques, 17-18: three toques, 19-20: four toques.

Incidentally, when the first GM for Austria appeared (1980?), they gave a "distinguished" restaurant 8 points, probably just so people would talk about it (cf. 20/20, probably for the same reason).

[oakapple]

I don't think a single indication, like a check mark or asterisk, for a "critic's pick," is tantamount to a star rating system, especially when it is only presented in the context of aggregated archived information on a web site.

←

Agreed it's not the same system as the Times or Michelin, but like those systems, it's a shorthand that can be used to channel the reader to a decision without having to read the words. It's used in the printed magazine too, not just the website.

[Bux]

cmling, the latest GM I have is 2003 and it didn't provide a chart, so I had to leaf through the volume find at least one of each of the 12 through 20 classifications, but that's what I thought I had found at a quick glance. It seemed a bit odd at the time but I was sure I saw a 12 with a toque and a fourteen with two. On more careful observation, you're correct -- "13-14 points: one toque, 15-16 points: two toques, 17-18: three toques, 19-20: four toques."

FG, there's no question that a guide and a daily newspaper, or even the weekly dining edition of a daily newspaper are different, but it's been mentioned that the NY Times stars were fashioned after those of Michelin. Therefore the differences are germane to the discussion. I don't however, agree that the reviews are really at all topical in the way the "news" is topical or even in the way that almost all of the other reviews -- theater, music, film, tv, books, etc. -- are topical. Almost all of the other subjects are reviewed far more topically than restaurants. In a way the Diner's Journal is the topical news and review rolled into one and it goes out of it's way to be less judgmental, if only by avoiding stars. Anyway, my point might be that newspaper restaurant reviews are in a class by themselves and it's a very artificial situation where the reviews are usually not news or even topical and not a thorough survey of the dining scene. The one purpose they seem to serve is that they sell newspapaper to some extent and advertising to a larger extent.

oakapple, it's true that most reviews are favorable on the whole, but if five to twelve are not, that's ten to twenty percent or more that are not. That's not inconsiderable. When one considers how many restaurants there are in NY, one might wonder how well we, as diners, are served by the whole process anyway.

[oakapple]

FG, there's no question that a guide and a daily newspaper, or even the weekly dining edition of a daily newspaper are different, but it's been mentioned that the NY Times stars were fashioned after those of Michelin. Therefore the differences are germane to the discussion. I don't however, agree that the reviews are really at all topical in the way the "news" is topical or even in the way that almost all of the other reviews -- theater, music, film, tv, books, etc. -- are topical. Almost all of the other subjects are reviewed far more topically than restaurants.

{snip}

oakapple, it's true that most reviews are favorable on the whole, but if five to twelve are not, that's ten to twenty percent or more that are not. That's not inconsiderable. When one considers how many restaurants there are in NY, one might wonder how well we, as diners, are served by the whole process anyway.

←

I think the reality is somewhere between what FG and Bux have said. When the Times reviews a new restaurant, the analogy to "news" is at its strongest. It's just like reviewing a new {film, book, musical, play, opera} when it first comes out. The public expects timely reviews of major new restaurants, and the paper can't reasonably duck from providing them. I'd say that about 75% of the reviews are in this category.

The critic has more discretion where he is re-reviewing an established restaurant, or reviewing for the first time a restaurant that is no longer new. In this case, I agree that the paper shouldn't waste precious space on a restaurant that the critic dislikes. Several of the Times's most pointless reviews in 2004 fell in this category. Here, I agree with Bux that an unfavorable review serves very little purpose, unless the restaurant has suffered a decline that is so newsworthy that it demands coverage.

In a way the Diner's Journal is the topical news and review rolled into one and it goes out of it's way to be less judgmental, if only by avoiding stars.

Although the DJ column does not award stars, many of them are quite judgmental. Frank Bruni has used this space to deliver some scathing criticism. In some cases this is actually less fair to the restaurants than the main reviews, as these columns are often based upon a single visit not long after the restaurant has opened. Some of these restaurants get a full review shortly thereafter, but others do not—meaning that the less-rigorous DJ column becomes the Times's long-term critical statement on the restaurant—permanently accessible in web searches, and the like.

[ckk9]

If it hasn't yet been done--I thought it might be interesting, even illuminating, to think about the Time’s star system in relation to another (in)famous ranking system—perhaps the "no.1" ranking phenomenon—the U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of the “Best Universities in America”.

You are wondering what important similarity exists between these two systems, apart from their being rankings? Mainly the social-cultural logic behind them. One thing that both rankings share in common is the perception amongst cognoscenti of their lack of consistency, accuracy, coherence, and efficacy. But is that really what we expect from them, as they exist for us today? The NY Times stars largely match a system of expectations in the public that are not necessarily rational or systematic, as I agree they should be. But the criteria of the NYTimes stars is not so alien to us as to be unrecognizable either. Indeed, they respond to our need for orderly information and status. They reflect, and frequently follow, a set of expectations of what "extraordinary dining" should be. These expectations may be a prejudice, for instance, for French cuisine (or, now, Japanese), or a certain type (note I do not necessarily say "quality") of service. And this is not to say that these expectations are necessarily the wrong ones either. Quality often follows perceptions, or conforms itself to expectations. We only loose because the reverse is less often true and quality sometimes goes unacknowledged.

We should perhaps use the Times' star system as a mirror of our society's cultural aspirations in food rather than a connoisseur's evaluation of the restaurants themselves.

[oakapple]

This restaurant works best as an upscale, downtown Red Lobster — a Garnet or Ruby Lobster.

For an upscale Red Lobster, one star is a bit much....or is it?

←

Frank Bruni's sloppy writing has got the best of him again. Lure is not serving a "Red Lobster" menu, except in the very narrow sense that both serve seafood. A pity, really, as Frank was doing quite well in this review until he uncorked that blooper. The waves of maritime puns come crashing over the breakwater with ferocious intensity that's almost breathtaking. Then....Red Lobster. Oh, Frank, how could you!

[Jinmyo]

The manky maritime merriment was making me wobbly and woozy.

[Nathan]

actually, I unfortunately had to eat in a red lobster recently...the comparison isn't that far off....at rl these days they're attempting more elaborate presentations (I actually had some salmon prepared sous vide--not described that way on the menu of course)....and failing

[Kim WB]

it's like FB read a 6th grade grammar text.."simile's use LIKE or AS"...this review was heavy handed in the comparisons, and not much true reviewing...eh,, I like Luxe, maybe I'm a bit bothered by that.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Kim WB (log)

[oakapple]

A wicked parody of Frank Bruni's writing style can be found here.

[oakapple]

One of Frank Bruni's annoying tics is that he uses his reviews as a platform for making sweeping comments about the New York restaurant industry that have little to do with the place he's talking about. For instance, in today's Diner's Journal, where the subject is Bistro du Vent, he begins:

I have had a vision of the city's restaurant future.

It's 2009 and Jean-Georges Vongerichten has begun trying his hand at Burmese-Basque fusion in the newest hipster haven, South Ozone Park. Tom Colicchio, having scored big at the start of the decade with Craft and Craftbar, is adding Craftnoodles to a Craftempire that has also come to include a chain of Craftomelets.

And Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich have lost count of the restaurants they own, advise or influence.

He's three paragraphs into the article, and we have yet to get to Bistro du Vent, the purported topic of the review. In the meantime, he's dragged in Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Tom Colicchio, neither of whom have the least bit to do with that restaurant.

If Bruni wants to write a column about celebrity chefs' spin-offs, then by all means he should write one. This wasn't the place for it.

Edited January 14, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[Bux]

If Bruni wants to write a column about celebrity chefs' spin-offs, then by all means he should write one. This wasn't the place for it.

←

I don't know that he specifically wants to write a column about celebrity chefs' spin-offs, but he certainly wants to voice his opinion about the restaurant scene in general. I don't know that he wants to write a regular column on that subject or if he thinks that it's best expressed as part of his diner's journal. I tend to suspect the latter and that he's interpreting Diner's Journal quite literally as his notes on dining with a focus on a single restaurant, but not an absolute dedication to just that restaurant. I suppose it depends on what one wants to read in that column.

[Bux]

Than again, the Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich comment is on topic and it's only the first three sentences which, for the record, are a little under 10% of the column, by my count.

[oakapple]

I don't know that he specifically wants to write a column about celebrity chefs' spin-offs, but he certainly wants to voice his opinion about the restaurant scene in general. I don't know that he wants to write a regular column on that subject or if he thinks that it's best expressed as part of his diner's journal. I tend to suspect the latter and that he's interpreting Diner's Journal quite literally as his notes on dining with a focus on a single restaurant, but not an absolute dedication to just that restaurant. I suppose it depends on what one wants to read in that column.

←

I've noted this "tic" in quite a few of Bruni's columns, including some of the Wednesday reviews. He'll say, "In Manhattan these days, we have too much raw fish." Or whatever. I wasn't suggesting that a column on celebrity chefs' spin-offs would be a regular feature. More that a particular review should stick to its focus. If spin-offs are an important enough part of the dining landscape to talk about then, then dedicate the DJ column to that topic on one particular Friday. This review was about Bistro du Vent.

[bloviatrix]

Oakapple, Bruni wrote a feature article about the abundance of raw fish in NY restaurants sometime in the fall.

[oakapple]

Oakapple, Bruni wrote a feature article about the abundance of raw fish in NY restaurants sometime in the fall.

←

I remember it quite well....he keeps reminding us. It's quite clearly a hobby horse that will turn up whenever there's raw fish on a menu. Edited January 14, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[jogoode]

                                        

Is ADNY as good as some of the European 3 stars? Certainly not. But to say it is on par with Babbo is ridiculous.

(Quoted from the ADNY thread)

That's not what the three-star review signifies for Ducasse. Babbo is by its concept a two- or three-star restaurant that has succeeded in earning the maximum amount of stars it could. Ducasse is a four-star restaurant that didn't live up to the reviewer's expectations and thus earned only three stars. The star ratings exist within the context of the restaurant being reviewed. To use these ratings to compare different types of restaurants is not appropriate -- though the tendency to do so is created by the system itself and is one of its disadvantages.

[rich]

Whether the review was fair in its final assessment is certainly a debatable point. But what seems totally unfair to the restaurant is that of the 19 written paragraphs, only five were dedicated to food. The other 14 dwelled on the misadventures in the life of the reviewer. Is this any way to assure readers that the ultimate rating of ADNY is credible?

When Doc wrote his ADNY review, the non-food aspects covered about 20-25 percent. The food and his descriptions were more important than the ambiance - as it should be. ADNY (whether it's two, three or four stars), as all restaurants, deserves to be judged more by its food than anything else. If a restaurant such as ADNY is willing to go the extra steps of acquiring top of the line ingredients, then more than half of a review should be devoted to such.

This last thought may belong in the "Beyond" thread, but I'll say it here because I believe it's relevant at this point. It seems the NY Times reviewer writes more about ambiance issues when writing a "negative" review (as he did with Bouley - but there he got personal as well). It appears that has become his methodology of justification.

Edited February 2, 2005 by rich (log)

[R Washburn]

You do wonder if Bruni plans to reduce the number of 4-star restaurants to two (Per Se and Masa). I can't see any of the other four stars being rated ahead of ADNY.

[rich]

You do wonder if XXXXX plans to reduce the number of 4-star restaurants to two (Per Se and Masa).  I can't see any of the other four stars being rated ahead of ADNY.

←

That very well may be true. I hear he will re-review Sri if it gets a wine list - that will make it eligible for four stars.

Imagine if ADNY's bathroom wasn't fixed on his last visit - it would have wound up with the same rating as Sri.

[zeitoun]

Whether the review was fair in its final assessment is certainly a debatable point. But what seems totally unfair to the restaurant is that of the 19 written paragraphs, only five were dedicated to food. The other 14 dwelled on the misadventures in the life of the reviewer. Is this any way to assure readers that the ultimate rating of ADNY is credible?

←

I had the same observation as I was reading the review. In addition, I personally felt that there was little to no sense of mitigation in Bruni’s recounting of his actual meals. Based on this review, and if we were to look at food only, it seems that the four star standing remains. With Delouvrier (a four star chef) at the helm of Ducasse’s (four star) kitchen, you really wonder what could possibly go awefully wrong. If this is the case and considering what is at stake when revisiting a restaurant’s four star rating, I find it preposterous that his comments on food were encapsulated in 5 short paragraphs.

[jogoode]

Imagine if ADNY's bathroom wasn't fixed on his last visit - it would have wound up with the same rating as Sri.

←

I'll repeat what I just said above. It makes no sense to compare star ratings across genres. There is nothing strange about Bruni's rating; whether you agree with it or not is another thing altogether. He is working within the star system and if he feels a four-star restaurant underperforms, then he's obligated to dock stars. If a three-star restaurant lives up to expectations, he's obligated to give it three stars. But if the reader is at all informed, he or she can see that these two restaurants -- with the same star rating -- are not directly comparable.