Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

[Bux]

. . . .

Everyone has some relative famous for some dish made in a "non-standard" way.  Does that make it not real?  Becuase it's non-standard and a bit unusual?  . . . .

←

I think that's true for traditional indigenous, authentic, etc. dishes. I would tend to except the classic haut cuisine dishes as codified by Escoffier. The codification laid down the law pretty much precisely as to how a dish was to be cooked and garnished to a very great degree, leaving far less room for individual interpretation. forty years ago, I assumed my progress in becoming a sophisticated diner would be tied to remembering the codes for garnishes and the like so as never to be surprised at the appearance of a dish. Today of course, most sophisticated diners go to creative restaurants hoping to be surprised by the chef's creativity and ingenuity and we no longer expect a three star restaurant to cook the same dishes as the two star restaurant, only a little better.

[Megan Blocker]

A link to this week's review of Taboon, a Mediterranean restaurant in Clinton. I've eaten there a couple of times, and quite enjoyed it. (The bread he mentions was worth the trip for this Upper East-sider.)

Seemed like Frank's kind of place - very pretty, and a clean bathroom.

[rich]

The review today of Bette is, in my opinion, the final straw. He must resign the position and go back and hang out with Benny in Rome.

The Bette review was the poorest excuse for a restaurant review in the entire history of food journalism. At least 2/3's of the article dealt with going to the place for celebrity hunting (and then he has the audacity to give it one star). In one of his first lines, he refers to his friend from Washington and "...her newly gleaming eyes...". When did he start writing reviews about eye transplants?

I understand the NY Times as a whole has been trying to dummy itself down to compete with the NYC tabloids, but it's getting silly at this point. What was once a great paper has turned itself into a laughing stock among serious journalists. And now, one of the last sections of the paper that people respected (at least somewhat) is traveling the same path.

It's time for Eric Asimov to become the main reviewer (if he wants) and Amanda Hesser to take a more prominent role - her Sunday article on Sous Vide was an excellent piece of reporting. If the NY Times continues much longer with the present critic in place the stars will mean absolutely nothing. In another thread someone said NY Times four stars equals a Michelin 1 or 2 stars. Under its present critic, it would be an insult to mention the NY Times stars in the same sentence as Michelin stars.

Please reviewer have some respect for yourself.

[Carrot Top]

In one of his first lines, he refers to his friend from Washington and "...her newly gleaming eyes...". When did he start writing reviews about eye transplants?

[oakapple]

The review today of Bette is, in my opinion, the final straw. He must resign the position and go back and hang out with Benny in Rome.

I have to agree, this is probably the low-water mark of Bruni's tenure, although he has come close to it several times. However, there is no evidence that Frank himself has any doubt about his qualifications to be writing these reviews. The paper could remove him, but he won't resign.

It's time for Eric Asimov to become the main reviewer (if he wants)....

I think the post was already Asimov's if he wanted it. He appears to be very happy as wine critic.

If the NY Times continues much longer with the present critic in place the stars will mean absolutely nothing. In another thread someone said NY Times four stars equals a Michelin 1 or 2 stars. Under its present critic, it would be an insult to mention the NY Times stars in the same sentence as Michelin stars.

At the 1 and 2-star levels, the Times stars have been pretty much stripped of their meaning already. I do believe that Frank (so far) has been faithful to the system at the 3 and 4-star levels. He has perhaps been stingy about awarding three stars (Alto, Modern, Café Gray), but when he does so, it is nearly always reasonable.

[Nathan]

To me the criticisms of this review seem a little strong:

at least in terms of whether a Times star rating has any validity or not -- I'm not sure that any of us knows whether Bette deserves 1-star or not....it certainly seems plausible that it might. Bruni (in the half of the review dedicated to the food) makes the cooking sound competent enough. As for the amount of space dedicated to the celebrity-watching aspect, well, I guess that is the point of the restaurant. What bugs me is when he spends that much space commenting on other diners at other restaurants that are not implicitly "scenes." In other words, this particular review does not appear to me to be especially onerous.

overall, I guess I'm not quite as down on Bruni as others -- the review and rating of The Modern (the Bar Room deserves a separate review) was an absolute travesty (but before we start pining for Amanda Hesser do recall those three stars for Spice Market) but he was right about Petrosino (an overlooked and underrated restaurant) and, imho, very right about Spriphithai. the Babbo review was marvelously well-written.

with that said, I miss Grimes a great deal but I'll take Bruni over Hesser....and he's been especially good on Italian-oriented restaurants, imho

Edited August 17, 2005 by Nathan (log)

[rich]

Bruni (in the half of the review dedicated to the food) makes the cooking sound competent enough. 

←

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article.

[Nathan]

Bruni (in the half of the review dedicated to the food) makes the cooking sound competent enough. 

←

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article.

←

hmmm...I'm looking at it online...but it appears that most of the first page is not about food and most of the second is. as for recommended dishes not in the body of the article...that's true of every review and I think was true for Grimes as well.

[BryanZ]

The above echoes my sentiments exactly. This review seemed to far even further from the food than Bruni's typical. He tells so little of the food that I would expect to see this type of restaurant review in a magazine like People.

[rich]

Bruni (in the half of the review dedicated to the food) makes the cooking sound competent enough. 

←

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article.

←

hmmm...I'm looking at it online...but it appears that most of the first page is not about food and most of the second is. as for recommended dishes not in the body of the article...that's true of every review and I think was true for Grimes as well.

←

Got out my trusty ruler just because I wanted to check my eyesight. Here are the numbers: 13 inches to non food (entire first part and last two paragraphs), 7 1/4 inches to food and 1 inch to a wine he found that he personally has enjoyed in the past. If I include the wine as part of the food that's 61% to non food, if I don't include the wine the number rises to 66%.

As for recommeded dishes in the insert, I don't say everyone needs to be mentioned, but some of the four should be since he had room for discussing his friend's eyesight and that he had a Torii Spelling sighting one night - hey, the latter makes me want to cancel my reservation at the Modern for some Spelling liasions.

[Megan Blocker]

The above echoes my sentiments exactly.  This review seemed to far even further from the food than Bruni's typical.  He tells so little of the food that I would expect to see this type of restaurant review in a magazine like People.

←

Ditto. And I think this is the point Rich is making when he says...

I understand the NY Times as a whole has been trying to dummy itself down to compete with the NYC tabloids, but it's getting silly at this point. What was once a great paper has turned itself into a laughing stock among serious journalists. And now, one of the last sections of the paper that people respected (at least somewhat) is traveling the same path.

I admit to being a bit of a gossip lover myself - I read my Gawker.com and IMDB faithfully every day (though I can't bring myself to actually spend money on US Weekly and the like). However, when I read a restaurant review, I expect to hear about the food, not the celeb sightings. I can get that elsewhere; say, in the TWO style sections the Times puts out every week. In other words, I am not necessarily disinterested in reading about Bette as a celebrity hangout, but I certainly don't expect that kind of piece to replace the weekly review.

[JohnL]

I would have to say that at a basic level a lot of the comments in this thread are foodies who are unhappy that Mr Bruni is not reviewing/writing for them but rather the broader audience the Times seeks.

Foodies seem to "salivate" over long involved "pictoral" reviews (like those found here at eGullet): "just tell us about (describe) the food!--the cooking!"

Just like the wine geeks who want nothing more than tasting notes and details about winemaking (hence the plaintive cries when the Wine Spectator added more and more lifestyle coverage) the foodies rail against anything that deviates from the food--"It's about the food..."

Mr Bruni's culinary qualifications aside, I believe he is writing for an audience that goes well beyond foodies--or even serial restaurant patrons (though NYers could qualify in greater numbers than the citizens of most other metropolises).

Bruni is writing for what the paper sees as their market. The tonality and the focus of the writing is uniform with what the paper is offering these days.

My problems with most of the paper's writing has been with style--I have criticisms of the substance, but that is for another day. The paper has been struggling in its attempts and has stumbled --Film reviews: Elvis Mitchell was close to unreadable, Darghis is much clearer--their styles and approaches are similar though(audience appropriate). Restaurant reviews-the mistake of the temp assignment of Hesser (she is a writer not a reviewer) etc.

The Bette review is one of Bruni's better pieces. He approaches the restaurant review as a reporter--looking for an "angle" which he attempts to execute in print with cleverness. This can be maddening--see his review of Bar Americaine where he clumsily attempts to use the angle of color (orange)/decor and tie it in to the food.

He overdid it a bit with his writing about the BLT empire. (a tad pedantic-ok we get it Frank!).

Bruni's angle for the Bette review is its pedigree (owned by someone who made a name for herself via the cult of celebrity) a place to "see" and be "seen."

His whole approach to the place is based on that.

He gets it.

Dining here is clearly not about the food. He does a pretty good job of putting the fare into perspective. I can not argue the star --according to the Times--a star is "good" --certainly Mr Bruni's review leads one to the conclusion that the food at Bette is "good" no better no worse. I certainly can't see much point is going into any greater detail about the cooking here.

I still have questions as to Mr Bruni's ability/credentials to handle restaurants whose pretensions are greater than those of say, Bette. It hasn't been the one and two star joints that have concerned me (though the writing as noted before can be clumsy), rather it has been the three and four star reviews that have been troubling.

Mr Bruni, often seems to be reporting on the "scene" and in restaurants where the "scene" is most important Bruni seems at home.

Where the food is "the thing" --I sense Bruni is uncomfortable--a reporter's appraoach doesn't work as easily--we don't need someone with an "angle" we need someone who understands fine dining and cooking who has perspective and can provide insight. Reichl (I have some nits with her) did this very well--she conveyed the "scene" well--she was on a mission--the Le Cirque 2000 angle was brilliant--but she "got" the food part too.

I am not sure about Bruni but the Bette piece is fine--he seems to be in his element here!

[rich]

I am not sure about Bruni but the Bette piece is fine--he seems to be in his element here!

←

Then it should have been reviewed in the society column , not the food section.

[JohnL]

I feel your pain Rich! lol

I think that what's going on at the Times is not just reflected in the restaurant reviews --its the whole paper.

In fact it is reflective of what's going on with print media in general.

The current restaurant scene in NYC is all over the map.

The grande dames are fading--the traditional three and four star places.

Serious food and dining is not just French anymore---hence the confusion with the star system--believe me the Times is as confused as we are.

Reichl got this (Asimov gets it too).

Bruni, as I noted, seems to be a reporter. Yes, part of a restaurant review is a "report" but there is a lack of gravitas in the reviews.

There is a sea of "good" restaurants in NYC now--many of these are part of a "scene" -young hip etc. Frequented by people (there are a lot of these folks) who are not so much dining but rather are "socializing" over food. The Times sees these people as the "future" and, I believe, is trying--sometimes desparate--to reach them.

It is not a coincidence the Times has begun to look at Brooklyn a lot more these days.

I think Bruni is ok here--how much detail about the food can one get into--how much do we need?

[rich]

I feel your pain Rich! lol

I think that what's going on at the Times is not just reflected in the restaurant reviews --its the whole paper.

In fact it is reflective of what's going on with print media in general.

The current restaurant scene in NYC is all over the map.

The grande dames are fading--the traditional three and four star places.

Serious food and dining is not just French anymore---hence the confusion with the star system--believe me the Times is as confused as we are.

Reichl got this (Asimov gets it too).

Bruni, as I noted, seems to be a reporter. Yes, part of a restaurant review is a "report" but there is a lack of gravitas in the reviews.

There is a sea of "good" restaurants in NYC now--many of these are part of a "scene" -young hip etc. Frequented by people (there are a lot of these folks) who are not so much dining but rather are "socializing" over food. The Times sees these people as the "future" and, I believe, is trying--sometimes desparate--to reach them.

It is not a coincidence the Times has begun to look at Brooklyn a lot more these days.

I think Bruni is ok here--how much detail about the food can one get into--how much do we need?

←

I understand the NY Times trying to reach a new, hip market. That's good business. Saying that, they should still have a serious restaurant review each week.

Maybe another review column called "Food as a Vehicle" should be created for those less inclined to eat - then the current reviewer would be in his element.

[Megan Blocker]

I am not sure about Bruni but the Bette piece is fine--he seems to be in his element here!

←

Then it should have been reviewed in the society column , not the food section.

←

Exactly my point. This could even belong in the Dining section (as Rich points out above), but might have been better served as a feature, not a review. Or, rather, the readers of the Times might have been better served.

I actually enjoyed the piece for itself, which I may not have made clear enough. I just think it didn't feel like a restaurant review. Bruni may be writing for the Times' perceived (or real) audience. However, since that audience includes faithful little old me, I think it's ok to say that I would have liked to read a true review (not necessarily food porn, but something that felt less like something they just couldn't squeeze into Thursday Styles).

Edited August 17, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[Megan Blocker]

Here's a link to today's review of Spigolo, right down the street from me, and now destined to be more crowded than it was before.

My favorite Frank-ism from the review:

"That's such a pretty dress," Ms. Fratangelo said. If she didn't really mean it, Cherry Jones better watch out. There's an even better actress in town.

PLEASE.

[oakapple]

Here's a link to today's review of Spigolo, right down the street from me, and now destined to be more crowded than it was before.

←

Unfortunately, it's yet another review that awards two stars to a restaurant that appears to be merely above-average. A two-star rating is supposed to mean "very good," but to Frank it seems to mean "not bad."

Edited August 24, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

Exactly. I have a hard time understanding how Spigolo is worth two stars while Landmarc is only worth one star (albeit, a Hesser star rather than a Bruni star).

[JohnL]

I have tried to give Bruni a chance-(benefit of the doubt so to speak).

His approach is pretty much established, at this point.

That is, he opens his reviews with an attempt to establish what the restaurant in question is all about. The reporter's viewpoint--covering decor, atmosphere, the ownership etc etc etc.

Then he moves on to the food--here too he tries to establish a "theme" before he talks about the food.

This is fine--we need to know these things but Mr Bruni execution is just bad writing.

It is awkward, often too cute, more often just confusing.

For eg --a while back he spent an inordinate amount of time trying to tie the decor and food together --in his review of Bar Americain--orange. It was awkward and strained at best.

In his review of Spigolo today, he spends an inordinate amount of prose establishing the fact that the restaurants owners live nearby ("above the restaurant") and seem to be in his opinion a really cute and friendly couple. He actually opens the review talking about how JGV and Daniel Boulud live above their restaurants.

What this has to do with anything is beyond me.

The owners of Spigolo and their restaurant have nothing whatsoever to do with either of these chef/owners and their establishments.

Is he making a comment about the current restaurant scene in NYC?

Is he trying to show us he is knowledgeable about the current scene--that he is "hip to it?"

He actually notes that the owner complimented his dining companion's dress then to show us he is hip to the NY scene he notes:

"If she (the owner) didn't really mean it. Cherry Jones better watch out. There's an even better actress in town."

All this to say that the staff are friendly to the customers?

Why the Cherry Jones reference? To show he (Mr Bruni) is hip to the scene.?"

He writes of his "memories" of the meals at Spigolo as if they happened at meals eaten long ago. There's this bit of awkwardness:

"...These supporting players (side dishes) are at once pedestals, skirts and side dishes and he doesn't mold them into geometric wonders......"

awful awful awful.

The Times is now rife with this kind of poor writing. Critic's who are attempting to dazzle us with third rate Dennis Miller riffs. It's rampant in the movie reviews it is present in Sports--where are the editors?

Is the Spigolo review a restaurant review-- or is it a puff piece/human interest story on the owners--the darling Frantangelo's. Incidently there is not a word written about their restaurant experience which might be of at least passing interest. One wonders if Mr Bruni is so smitten with the owners how he can possibly be objective in reviewing their restaurant.

And here one finds the great flaw in Mr Bruni's review. He has selected an angle--living above one's restaurant--like the reporter he is he is going to force the story to fit the angle.

A poster here at eGullet on another thread (Spigolo) noted these owners were from Union Square Cafe. This would help establish the dedication to customer service the effusive greeting etc Mr Bruni finds at Spigolo. wouldn't this have been a better "angle" (if he needs one)? Wouldn't this provide the reader with some information that is actually germain to the review?

Could Mr Bruni communicate important (to consumers) details in clear concise writing?

Must we endure this strained style--forced metafors--awkward alliteration--confused and convoluted paragraphs?

(incidently, in yesterday's Sunday book review there is a small review of Selena Robert's book--she is a sports writer at the Times--the reviewer details (far more eloquently than me)--what is wrong with not only Ms Roberts writing but a lot of the current writing in the Times itself.

[Megan Blocker]

Exactly.  I have a hard time understanding how Spigolo is worth two stars while Landmarc is only worth one star (albeit, a Hesser star rather than a Bruni star).

←

Ditto. I've been, and it's a great neighborhood place, definitely solid and very good for the price, but not on what I would consider the traditional NY Times two-star level.

I really think we have to ignore Frank's stars. I don't think they mean anything in the overall context of the star system (even if there can be some semblance of understanding where things fall within his own reviewing history). Do you think his goal is to prove that rating on a scale of 1 to 4 is outdated and no longer workable? Or is he deliberately trying to stir controversy in order to increase his readership?

I, for one, would not read his reviews if it weren't for the painfully hilarious prose (thanks to John for going more in-depth on that than I did above), and to see whether he's managed to rate yet another restaurant at the two-star level. It's a game. If he stopped doing that, I don't know that I would keep reading.

Edited August 24, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[Bux]

JohnL probably hasn't said anything that will alter how much attention I pay to Bruni's reviews, but he's probably nailed the reasons I haven't paid much attention lately. I could only add that of all the restaurants in NY he could choose, I'm often puzzled as to why he chooses the ones he does.

Sam questions the two star rating. Perhaps we're moving back to Ruth Reichl's bell curve.

[JohnL]

I don't even try to figure out the stars.

My thought is Bruni is not a good critic. He does not have a critic's sensibility. He is a reporter who likes to eat! I believe that he envisions himself a junior Johnny Apple and that one day he can "retire" and underwrite his travel and food bill by writing a col for the Times.

The difference is Apple is a reporter who can write, loves food and who has a critical sensibility.

Bruni does not seem to have the ability to apply context to his work. That is, it seems as though each restaurant is reviewed as if he had eaten nowhere else let alone reviewed other restaurants. There's no context for the reader, no sense of perspective. He dwells on things that have little import and ignores critical areas.

For eg--his whole review of Spigolo is focused on the friendly service and dilligent hands on involvement of the owners.

To set this up he takes the fact that they live above the restaurant and notes that two other chef owners live above their restaurants (both of whom represent paradigms). OK we get it. This is an awkward analogy--it is not needed and is distracting.

If he wanted to make the point about the service approach of the owners of Spigolo he would have been better served if he noted the fact that these people worked (" grew up") at Union Square cafe lending some historical perspective as well.

He takes the name Spigolo and notes it means edge or corner then awkwardly tries to work this into notes about the sound levels. He even notes that the owners have "Hired a consultant" do deal with the noise levels--does he inquire of every owner of a restaurant where the noise level is a problem if they are doing anything about it?

He seems to be straining to give the Spigolo folks the "benefit of every doubt."--a bit above and beyond for a critic.

I am sure that this restaurant is a "solid" neighborhood joint and the owners are dedicated and hands on-but this could apply to literally hundreds of restaurants in Manhattan where's the perspective--one star?

What does one star mean to Mr Bruni?

It seems if he can establish that then he can work his way up to two, three and then four.

[rich]

What I found interesting is the reviewer listed four dishes that had problems and six that he enjoyed - poor ratio for a two-star rating.

[oakapple]

This week, the Count's glance settles for the nonce on Jean-Georges Vongerichten's Perry St, which garners three stars.

Eater is none too pleased:

Perry St., Jean Georges much heralded return to simplicity, received three stars from Bruni today. (Two stars, if you factor in the BruniCurve™.) If JGV has any sense, he'll send his boy Scott Conant a case of Macallan 18 this morning. It is conceivable that Perry St., the very epitome of a solid two star restaurant, in our intermittently humble opinion, owes its third star to Conant.

In Eater's view, "Unofficially, two stars is the new one star and one star is the new zero stars." And apparently, three stars is the new two. I would disagree with that. It's true that many of Bruni's one- and two-star places have been over-rated by at least a star. But along with that come places like Alto, Modern, and Café Gray, which arguably were under-rated by a star. The reality is that Bruni's one- and two-star ratings are all over the map.

In contrast, his three-star reviews, few & far-between as they may be, have generally been defensible. That doesn't mean every last reader will agree with them, but they don't seem to come out of the same random-number generator that produces his one- and two-star entries.

The Conant reference above is to this piece in the latest New York:

Does New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni have something against Italian food? The former Rome bureau chief opened his review of Della Rovere (one star) with the line "New York needs another Italian restaurant like Seattle needs rain." Babbo aside, he has never given more than two stars to any Italian eatery. Just ask the owners of the new restaurant Alto, who got two, which, according to industry snitches, made chef Scott Conant (L’Impero) go ballistic in the kitchen.

The piece quotes Bruni as saying, "I don't intentionally or consciously go tougher on Italian restaurants.....I think one star is my most frequently given rating, regardless of ethnic orientation."

I disagree with Eater that the Perry St review is over-compensating for the heavy-handed slap-down of Alto. I thought that three stars for Perry St was pretty much pre-saged by Bruni's Diner's Journal entry of July 29th. If he was over-compensating at all, the cause might have been his harsh one-star review of JGV's V Steakhouse, although comments in today's review don't suggest he has any regrets about that assessment. (If anything, he seems to imply that Spice Market's three stars from Amanda Hesser might have been a tad generous.)