Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

senorshuckerman · May 16, 2005

I did not mean for us to get off track...

I thought the Observer piece was interesting in that, as FatGuy pointed out, the Observer is not BMOC when it comes to food, yet there seems to be the bouquet of something off at the gray lady's food critic's desk.

slkinsey · May 25, 2005

I thought the Koi review was amusing in the way that music theater reviews can be funny when the reviewer is going out of his way to pan the show. Is it just me, or is Bruni turning in an unusually large number of "satisfactory" ratings? Unless the restaurant is so noteworthy that a review is more or less mandatory, I'd rather not bother reading a detailed review of a place that isn't even worth one star. Especially considering the fact that there are plenty of star-worthy restaurants out there that have never been reviewed by the Times.

oakapple · May 25, 2005

Is it just me, or is Bruni turning in an unusually large number of "satisfactory" ratings?
←

Bruni has posted two zero-star reviews in the last three weeks. That is most unusual. To the best of my recollection, there were only two zero-star reviews in all of 2004 (one of them by Bruni, another by Hesser).

Unless the restaurant is so noteworthy that a review is more or less mandatory, I'd rather not bother reading a detailed review of a place that isn't even worth one star.

I agree, and based on historical practice, it seems to be the Times' de facto policy. I do think that English is Italian and Koi are "more or less mandatory" reviews. (Whether one agrees with the rating is a whole other question, but they're "buzzy" enough that a Times review was expected.) It's regrettable that these two reviews came so close together, as it gives the impression that the Times is going to start handing out a lot of zero-star ratings. I presume that's not the case.

On the other hand, Bruni's lone zero-star review last year, Indochine, was entirely pointless. Indochine had been around for years, and there was no particular reason to review it again.

oakapple · June 17, 2005

Stanton Social: * ?
One star for the Stanton? Its more like a bar with tables that serves snacks. All-be-it decent snacks but I always thought the NYT criteriea for a 'starred' restaurant would exclude places like that. Especially with Bruni. He probably took a star away from Cafe Gray because he couldn't see the park and the crystal like walls reminded him of a seventies hotel or something (and they charged him for a compted drink). What would the Michelin Man think? Maybe one star really only means it was "Good" as it says in the paper but is that really all the stars mean? My dining experience last xmas at Charlie Mom was good but does that mean it was one star or it would if it had a nice view of the perk or a swanky lounge area with mini buger plates on the L Side?
←

This comes from the Stanton Social thread. I'm responding here, as it's really a meta-reviewing comment.

The standards for what constitutes a "reviewable" restaurant have been relaxing for a long time now. Bruni has continued the trend, with the two stars awarded to Sripraphai being perhaps the most extreme signpost seen to date. Another recent example was Florent (one star), which prompted Andrea Strong to write, "Why is Frank Bruni reviewing a diner?" I haven't been to Stanton Social, but if Sripraphai can be two stars, it seems to me Stanton Social can be one.

What would the Michelin man think? Well, the Times system and the Michelin system have never had much in common, aside from the superficial resemblance that both are based on stars.

By the way, I don't think Bruni docked Café Gray a star for the reasons you suggest. One never knows for sure, since there is no exact formula, but I took his comments about the décor & view to be observations not affecting the final rating.

Edited June 17, 2005 by oakapple (log)

DutchMuse · June 17, 2005

They don't have to, but speaking for myself, I derive satisfaction from a review if the reviewer manages to impart concrete, specific information. That doesn't seem to be the case with Bruni.
On another note, whereas Grimes focused on decor and design, and Reichl focused on the food and presentation, Bruni seems to focus on indicia that are irrelevant to the restaurant he's reviewing more than half of the time. Should falling lamps and broken toilets be mentioned? Seems like filler to me.
Soba
←

Absolutely they should be mentioned. If there's, say, outstanding food but in a 'broken down' atmosphere, I want to know that. Yes, he should definitely mention it. Its important information for me; therefore, not filler.

SobaAddict70 · June 17, 2005

They don't have to, but speaking for myself, I derive satisfaction from a review if the reviewer manages to impart concrete, specific information. That doesn't seem to be the case with Bruni.
On another note, whereas Grimes focused on decor and design, and Reichl focused on the food and presentation, Bruni seems to focus on indicia that are irrelevant to the restaurant he's reviewing more than half of the time. Should falling lamps and broken toilets be mentioned? Seems like filler to me.
Soba
←
Absolutely they should be mentioned. If there's, say, outstanding food but in a 'broken down' atmosphere, I want to know that. Yes, he should definitely mention it. Its important information for me; therefore, not filler.
←

Perhaps, but for such mention to constitute more than 10% of a restaurant review serves no real discernible purpose. People do not read restaurant reviews to hear about the aesthetics of bathroom design. Less smoke, more substance please.

Your mileage may vary considerably.

Soba

DutchMuse · June 18, 2005

Hi Soba

I understand your point and I'm sure we generally agree. Guess I was thinking that (and I was born and raised in the USA) Americans tend to singularly empahsize the food whereas in Europe and other places, the 'experience' as a whole is more prized. (I hope I don't get bashed on this, but I really believe its true). Therefore, for a reviewer to emphasize atmosphere and things like that, to me, is to encourage the entire experience be excellent rather than just acceptable with great food. For me, I wish restaurants would also focus on a great experience as well as great food.

Years ago, I took a friend from Europe to a 'fancy' restaurant in LA. We had a great dinner. After dinner, my friend ordered cognac (Louis XIII in fact). He asked that he be served slightly warm. It came virtually boiling with steam pouring out of the snifter. "How did you do this?" my friend asked the waiter. "We've never done this before, so we put the espresso steamer in it" was the reply from the waiter.

OK, the story is no doubt extreme and would be rare, but such a thing should never happened in a top restaurant. IMHO, management had not paid sufficient attention to teaching the staff about the 'entire experience.'

Edited June 18, 2005 by DutchMuse (log)

SobaAddict70 · June 24, 2005

From today's Diner's Journal:

He could make a bid for the breakfast crowd: BLT Cornflakes. Or he could get really cheeky with the initials and entendres and apply them to a casual lunch place that serves only variations on a certain sandwich classic.

:huh:

A little over the top, eh wot?

Soba

Bux · June 25, 2005

Hi Soba
I understand your point and I'm sure we generally agree. Guess I was thinking that (and I was born and raised in the USA) Americans tend to singularly empahsize the food whereas in Europe and other places, the 'experience' as a whole is more prized. (I hope I don't get bashed on this, but I really believe its true). . . . .
←

I'm not sure I agree. It's been my impression than 90% of Americans think the service and ambience is far more important than the food when choosing where to dine. "Foodies," although I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that term, are a very minor subset of Americans who dine out, although they are disproportionately represented here in the membership. I'd say that most Americans place little emphasis on the food and a small percentage focus almost entirely on the food. I won't make a judgment call, but it's obvious that the foodies resent not having their own writing the reviews for the NY Times. :biggrin:

There is no restaurant in the world that is more about the food than Adrià's elBulli and yet I've been compelled to comment on the phenomenally professional service lately in my posts on our recent meal. Moreover, I've come to realize how important that service has been towards enabling my appreciation for Adrià's food. I have gone, since my first discovery of food as an obession, from dismissing anything outside the kitchen, to putting up with the luxury service and style that accompanies haut cuisine in order to eat said food, to learing to appreciate that service in itself and now perhaps in my old age, to learning to synthesize the entire experience. I used to make fun of those people, now it's like going to the opera and appreciating it as a recording, that is, without enjoying the scenery, to dimiss the rest of the restaurant.

oakapple · July 13, 2005

In Today's New York Times, Frank Bruni "awarded" two stars to Scott Conant's Alto. I put "awarded" in quotes, because I doubt Conant feels like he's won any kind of award today. Only a few weeks ago, Adam Platt of New York Magazine had a feature on the likely candidates for the next four-star chef in New York. Scott Conant was at the top of his list. With his review today, Bruni seemed to be saying, "Not so fast, Platt!!"

It seems to me that Bruni has done most of his damage at the two-star level. When The Red Cat and Sripraphai are two stars, but so are the Modern, Café Gray and Alto, the category no longer means anything.

rich · July 13, 2005

Not only do the stars and/or categories have no meaning, neither does the person who does the weekly main "review" column for the NY Times. I thought said "reviewer" was leaving the food desk to become the private chef for BTP?

oakapple · July 14, 2005

Not only do the stars and/or categories have no meaning, neither does the person who does the weekly main "review" column for the NY Times.....
←

I should add a corollary to my original post (which I implied, but did not state): At the one, three, and four-star levels, the Frank Bruni has been coherent. I do realize that we want more from the Reviewer of Record than mere coherence, but we must take our small favors where we can get them.

DutchMuse · July 14, 2005

I thought the two stars were a disconnect with the text. In the article, he seemed much more positive; I was surprised after reading the review to see only two stars.

Megan Blocker · August 3, 2005

After giving two stars to Cendrillon and two stars to The Modern, Frank has worn me out. I can no longer pay any attention whatsoever to the stars. None, nada, nopers.

I understand that different restaurants are rated according to different scales, depending on one's expectations. But Bruni, with the NYT four-star system, does not have the luxury that a casual diner does of, say, describing this restaurant as "excellent, as far as Filipino food in NYC is concerned." Because of the star system, he is bound to one rating scale, and one alone.

I wonder if he'd be prepared to say that Cendrillon is just as good as The Modern, full-stop. Not because they are good in their different ways, but because they are equal in food quality, ambience, service...

Maybe I'm being too rigid.

rich · August 3, 2005

I posted this on another board, but it is best here. I was speaking of Cendrillon.

Whoever wrote the review indicates the restaurant was only 1/6 full on one occasion and 1/5 the next two times. It must be tough to go to dinner with a slide rule and calculator as companions. Maybe that's the best the reviewer can get these days.

Interesting two star review. Whoever the writer was seems to be awarding the two stars because the restaurant serves different food from others of this ilk, rather than the quality of the overall experience.

Edited August 3, 2005 by rich (log)

SobaAddict70 · August 3, 2005

I am of Filipino descent and it's difficult for me to believe that a Filipino restaurant would rate two stars -- in the same category as ostensibly Blue Hill (Greenwich Village), the Modern and Hearth. I haven't been to Cendrillon, though this review will probably spur me to dine there once or twice, if only to determine how good their version of adobo manok or kare-kare is.

Filipino cuisine is really home cooking. There's only so much you can do to the basic dish before it becomes something wholly opposite what was originally intended.

Oh, and Mr. Bruni, if you're reading this....kare-kare NEVER contains tomatoes, at least the version that I grew up eating.

Todd36 · August 4, 2005

I am of Filipino descent and it's difficult for me to believe that a Filipino restaurant would rate two stars -- in the same category as ostensibly Blue Hill (Greenwich Village), the Modern and Hearth. I haven't been to Cendrillon, though this review will probably spur me to dine there once or twice, if only to determine how good their version of adobo manok or kare-kare is.
Filipino cuisine is really home cooking. There's only so much you can do to the basic dish before it becomes something wholly opposite what was originally intended.
←

This goes back to the "there is no such thing as a four star bowl of noodles or hamburger or beef stew or loaf of bread or lobster roll or shrimp dumpling" argument. All of that stuff is more or less home cooking. Or to put it another way, if Alain Ducasse showed up at your door and said "you've won the lucky prize today. I'm here to cook for you a spinach omlet, made from scratch bread, fruit salad, some sausage I made and chocolate chip cookies", would you say "sorry Alain, that's all typical stuff any home cook can make, don't bother coming in"? If that's your view, please send him my way. The second best baked thing I've ever eaten was a simple chestnut tart at the old Bouley Bakery take-out....not exactly haute cusine. Every cusine on the planet has four star possibilites, as long as you stay away from say peanut butter and jelly...which probably can't hit four stars, but who knows.

smgarsh · August 4, 2005

Filipino cuisine is really home cooking. There's only so much you can do to the basic dish before it becomes something wholly opposite what was originally intended.
Oh, and Mr. Bruni, if you're reading this....kare-kare NEVER contains tomatoes, at least the version that I grew up eating.
←

I don't see why a Filipino restaurant can't be rated 2 stars? Isn't every cuisine in one way or another based on home cooking? Cendrillon may be an updated version of a Filipino restuarant that caters more to non-filipinos than filipinos. Something comparable might be any chinese restaurant in Chinatown vs. something uptown such as Shun Lee.

SobaAddict70 · August 4, 2005

I could be wrong but it's difficult for me to think of something like a wd-50's foie gras, beet powder and pea dirt as a dish that was grounded on home cooking.

What I am saying is that Filipino restaurant cuisine is essentially Filipino home cooking. That said, Cendrillon's version of adobo manok is so far removed from most renditions of adobo manok that to me, it is adobo manok in name only.

Ditto for oxtail kare-kare -- which by the way is redundant, given that kare-kare is by definition made out of oxtail. :shock: A little fact-checking in Mr. Bruni's review couldn't have hurt either. Tomatoes are an ingredient not commonly found in Filipino cuisine. True he does mention that dishes at Cendrillon are more authentic or "slightly tweaked" Filipino dishes.

I don't know about you, but an adobo manok that contains rice vinegar, Thai chili pepper and coconut milk isn't particularly authentic nor is it even "slightly tweaked".

Cendrillon as a two star restaurant is on par the same as trying to conceptualize Sripraphai as a two star restaurant. It may be that either is a two star restaurant to someone for whom such cuisines are alien, but to put each in the same category as an establishment like Blue Hill or the Modern goes beyond the realm of believability.

Maybe next time, Frank.

Nathan · August 4, 2005

I could be wrong but it's difficult for me to think of something like a wd-50's foie gras, beet powder and pea dirt as a dish that was grounded on home cooking.
What I am saying is that Filipino restaurant cuisine is essentially Filipino home cooking. That said, Cendrillon's version of adobo manok is so far removed from most renditions of adobo manok that to me, it is adobo manok in name only.
Ditto for oxtail kare-kare -- which by the way is redundant, given that kare-kare is by definition made out of oxtail. A little fact-checking in Mr. Bruni's review couldn't have hurt either. Tomatoes are an ingredient not commonly found in Filipino cuisine. True he does mention that dishes at Cendrillon are more authentic or "slightly tweaked" Filipino dishes.
I don't know about you, but an adobo manok that contains rice vinegar, Thai chili pepper and coconut milk isn't particularly authentic nor is it even "slightly tweaked".
Cendrillon as a two star restaurant is on par the same as trying to conceptualize Sripraphai as a two star restaurant. It may be that either is a two star restaurant to someone for whom such cuisines are alien, but to put each in the same category as an establishment like Blue Hill or the Modern goes beyond the realm of believability.
Maybe next time, Frank.
←

a couple thoughts:

1. none of us appear to have eaten at Cendrillon...thus, prima facie, Bruni's opinion carries more weight than anyone else's here.

2. I think you're contradicting yourself....according to your post (and my own recollection -- I've eaten a fair amount of Filipino home cooking in the past)...the dishes at Cendrillon vary quite a bit from Filipino home cooking. thus, as far as I understand your definition of restaurant dining...it quite easily could be a two star restaurant. In other words, Cendrillon may be to Filipino cuisine what Kittichai is to Thai.

P.S., fwiw, I agree with Sripraphai garnerning two stars but believe that the Modern rating was a travesty.

SobaAddict70 · August 4, 2005

I could be wrong but it's difficult for me to think of something like a wd-50's foie gras, beet powder and pea dirt as a dish that was grounded on home cooking.
What I am saying is that Filipino restaurant cuisine is essentially Filipino home cooking. That said, Cendrillon's version of adobo manok is so far removed from most renditions of adobo manok that to me, it is adobo manok in name only.
Ditto for oxtail kare-kare -- which by the way is redundant, given that kare-kare is by definition made out of oxtail. A little fact-checking in Mr. Bruni's review couldn't have hurt either. Tomatoes are an ingredient not commonly found in Filipino cuisine. True he does mention that dishes at Cendrillon are more authentic or "slightly tweaked" Filipino dishes.
I don't know about you, but an adobo manok that contains rice vinegar, Thai chili pepper and coconut milk isn't particularly authentic nor is it even "slightly tweaked".
Cendrillon as a two star restaurant is on par the same as trying to conceptualize Sripraphai as a two star restaurant. It may be that either is a two star restaurant to someone for whom such cuisines are alien, but to put each in the same category as an establishment like Blue Hill or the Modern goes beyond the realm of believability.
Maybe next time, Frank.
←
a couple thoughts:
1. none of us appear to have eaten at Cendrillon...thus, prima facie, Bruni's opinion carries more weight than anyone else's here.
2. I think you're contradicting yourself....according to your post (and my own recollection -- I've eaten a fair amount of Filipino home cooking in the past)...the dishes at Cendrillon vary quite a bit from Filipino home cooking. thus, as far as I understand your definition of restaurant dining...it quite easily could be a two star restaurant. In other words, Cendrillon may be to Filipino cuisine what Kittichai is to Thai.
P.S., fwiw, I agree with Sripraphai garnerning two stars but believe that the Modern rating was a travesty.
←

But Cendrillon isn't Filipino restaurant cuisine, at least in relation to the review. It's food based on Filipino cuisine. Subtle difference.

Re Bruni's opinion -- this is coming from a man who places equal weight on bathroom decor as food and service when it comes to reviewing restaurants. Consider the source if you please. I was born in the Philippines, my parents are Filipino, I am Filipino, I grew up in a Filipino household. I think I know my Filipino food. I would give a bit more weight to Mr. Bruni if other aspects of his tenure as critic for the Times were, shall we say, within the realm of possibility.

Of course I haven't eaten there yet either. Thus my opinion is subject to change. :wink:

Jinmyo · August 4, 2005

You've got to admit, Frankypants has strong opinions about bathrooms. So there's that going for him.

Nathan · August 4, 2005

But Cendrillon isn't Filipino restaurant cuisine, at least in relation to the review. It's food based on Filipino cuisine. Subtle difference.

But that's my point. You seem to be asserting that Cendrillon could not be a two star restaurant because it's Filipino cooking...and then in the same breath asserting that it's not authentically Filipino.

Whether it is or is not a two-star restaurant isn't germane...thus Bruni's track record isn't relevant. The question is, could it be a two-star restaurant...based upon your own standard, the answer is yes.

rich · August 4, 2005

Frankypants has strong opinions about bathrooms.
←

I thought said individual wasn't with the NY Times food department anymore - that JK Rowling was doing his ghostwriting.

It was my impression he was back in Italy with Ben.

SobaAddict70 · August 4, 2005

But Cendrillon isn't Filipino restaurant cuisine, at least in relation to the review. It's food based on Filipino cuisine. Subtle difference.
←
But that's my point. You seem to be asserting that Cendrillon could not be a two star restaurant because it's Filipino cooking...and then in the same breath asserting that it's not authentically Filipino.
Whether it is or is not a two-star restaurant isn't germane...thus Bruni's track record isn't relevant. The question is, could it be a two-star restaurant...based upon your own standard, the answer is yes.
←

Many Filipinos will tell you that the cusine served in Filipino restaurants is essentially Filipino home cooking. The boundaries between home cooking and restaurant cuisine tend to blur.

Yet the adobo manok as reported by the review isn't authentic, in my opinion. The reviewer liked it, and liked other dishes enough to give the restaurant two stars. If he had eaten adobo manok using ingredients commonly found in Filipino homes, one wonders whether he would have given the restaurant two stars. If he had eaten balut, who knows? Balut isn't easy and it isn't sexy, but it's surely authentic and more than enough to cure a restaurant goer of that malady called dining deja vu.

Once more with feeling, it's not a Filipino restaurant serving authentic Filipino food. It's a restaurant serving food based on Filipino cuisine. Not only that, what is pad thai doing in a "Filipino" restaurant? Give me a break.

edit: I'm really saying two things --

In my view, it's difficult for me to conceive of a Filipino restaurant as meriting more than one star. That it rates two stars means that it's in a category reserved for restaurants of a certain nature. And to top it off, the descriptions don't match up to experience. Frank must know something I don't.

Secondly, the review makes no sense. Service descriptions such as "epically absent-minded" and mentions of "unremarkable dishes on the menu" don't smell like a review of a two-star establishment, in my opinion.

Edited August 4, 2005 by SobaAddict70 (log)

Sign In

Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members