Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[BryanZ]

Comparing wd-50 and Alinea is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Nathan]

Comparing wd-50 and Alinea is like comparing apples to oranges.

←

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

[oakapple]

Comparing wd-50 and Alinea is like comparing apples to oranges.

←

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

←

I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto.

[BryanZ]

Comparing wd-50 and Alinea is like comparing apples to oranges.

←

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

←

I personally find the food at wd-50 and Alinea quite different. Yes, they are both modern, but the presentations and flavor profiles of the dishes are quite distinct from one another. To me both restaurants are incredibly unique and don't really warrant comparison on all but the most basic (and simplistic) levels.

[Nathan]

Comparing wd-50 and Alinea is like comparing apples to oranges.

←

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

←

I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto.

←

no...I meant Babbo and Lupa.

[oakapple]

why?  it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa.  two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant.  But they're both making the same type of food.  the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

←

I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto.

←

no...I meant Babbo and Lupa.

←

You say that Lupa was "clearly intended...to be a 3-star restaurant." Lupa has never had a rated New York Times review. Eric Asimov covered it in $25 & Under on November 10, 1999. If you are correct, then a restaurant with 3-star aspirations wound up with zero stars....zero. If they had been gunning for 3 stars, that would be a total failure.

Babbo has been three stars all along, and I don't recall anyone before suggesting that this was a step below their aspirations. We know this isn't the case, because while they were building Del Posto, the owners (the same people) described it as the first all-out push to build a 4-star Italian restaurant. By implication, then, Babbo was not an attempt at a 4-star Italian restaurant.

[Nathan]

why?  it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa.  two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant.  But they're both making the same type of food.  the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

←

I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto.

←

no...I meant Babbo and Lupa.

←

You say that Lupa was "clearly intended...to be a 3-star restaurant." Lupa has never had a rated New York Times review. Eric Asimov covered it in $25 & Under on November 10, 1999. If you are correct, then a restaurant with 3-star aspirations wound up with zero stars....zero. If they had been gunning for 3 stars, that would be a total failure.

Babbo has been three stars all along, and I don't recall anyone before suggesting that this was a step below their aspirations. We know this isn't the case, because while they were building Del Posto, the owners (the same people) described it as the first all-out push to build a 4-star Italian restaurant. By implication, then, Babbo was not an attempt at a 4-star Italian restaurant.

←

I'm sorry...I realize now that I wasn't clear.

It wasn't meant as a one-to-one analogy.

I merely meant that Babbo and Lupa serve food in the same genre...but one is clearly more casual and a little less refined than the other.

[Pan]

It's truly amazing that Lupa has never had a starred review in the Times. That seems like a tremendous oversight to me. Anyone disagree?

[oakapple]

Bruni the blogger is slowing down, as I had suspected he would. This is common in blogging, as the early exuberance is replaced with the sober realization that it's hard work to create a useful entry every day.

In the blog's first full week, Bruni made 10 posts. In its second full week, he made 5 posts. This week, there have been 3 posts. He hasn't been blogging on weekends, so unless there's an avalanche on Monday, it looks like he'll end this week with no more than 4.

(I'm counting Tuesday to Monday as a week, since the blog started on a Tuesday.)

[BryanZ]

Bruni's Friday podcast was interesting in that it defended Del Posto and some of it more supposedly pretentious aspects (and perhaps indirectly aimed to assert his review earlier in the week). Bruni again makes it seem like he's trying to convince the dining population to be more open-minded with respect to high-end Italian dining. His Batali favoritism and anti-avant garde perspective have already been discussed here, but I think that it's worth noting that Bruni continues to advance what seems like a distinctive agenda, for better or for worse.

[oakapple]

Bruni's Friday podcast was interesting in that it defended Del Posto and some of it more supposedly pretentious aspects (and perhaps indirectly aimed to assert his review earlier in the week).  Bruni again makes it seem like he's trying to convince the dining population to be more open-minded with respect to high-end Italian dining.  His Batali favoritism and anti-avant garde perspective have already been discussed here, but I think that it's worth noting that Bruni continues to advance what seems like a distinctive agenda, for better or for worse.

←

If you take the review as a stand-alone piece, there is nothing wrong with this. The problem, as Steven Shaw noted on the Del Posto thread, is that Bruni has seldom behaved this way before. In no other high-profile review, with the arguable exception of Perry St, has Bruni been so willing to recognize a restaurant for its potential, as opposed to what it is now. When Alto presented him with a directly comparable opportunity, Bruni found luxurious Italian dining "haute and cold."

In Friday's podcast, he says he "celebrates" restaurants like L'Impero, Alto, and Del Posto for challenging New Yorkers to think of Italian cuisine in fancy trappings and luxurious preparations usually reserved for French. Another podcast a day or two earlier also speaks favorably of Alto. He didn't seem to be in quite so celebratory a mood when he reviewed Alto last July. Scott Conant is vindicated, but his newest restaurant is still carrying two stars.

Edited March 5, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

In the blog today, Frank Bruni addresses the factors that go into the decision to re-review (and re-rate) a restaurant....or not.

He admits quite a few things that we already knew: With only 52 published reviews per year, most restaurants will never get a second review. But he does think it's important, "especially in the cases of prominent restaurants, to make an effort, no matter how random and flawed, to go back periodically to determine whether the initial published appraisals and existing star ratings seem to hold true."

He sees the blog, which is both less formal and less space-constrained than the newspaper, as a space where he can provide "dispatches" on previously-reviewed restaurants that don't warrant a full re-review, although those write-ups (usually based on a single visit) "will necessarily steer clear of sweeping judgments."

A reader asked him, "Are there restaurants you’ve reviewed during your tenure that have already changed enough that your rating would be different if you went back and re-rated them?" I was that reader, by the way.

Bruni concedes that there probably are, and there's no way he'll ever know for sure; otherwise, he'd have to keep eating at the same places over and over again. But, "Among the restaurants I've reviewed ... there are some that, more than others, struck me as places with the potential to be better a year or two down the road than they were a few months after they opened. I'll indeed make a special effort to return to these restaurants, but I'll probably only re-review them if I feel strongly that they need a different rating."

Bruni also concludes (as against Steve Cuozzo of the Post) that star ratings generally—if not always—remain reasonably valid over a long period of time.

Edited March 6, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Bruni also concludes (as against Steve Cuozzo of the Post) that star ratings generally—if not always—remain reasonably valid over a long period of time.

←

As the current "star keeper" how could he conclude otherwise?

[rich]

...and what does that say about Del Posto's fourth star?

[oakapple]

Bruni also concludes (as against Steve Cuozzo of the Post) that star ratings generally—if not always—remain reasonably valid over a long period of time.

←

As the current "star keeper" how could he conclude otherwise?

←

I believe Ruth Reichl was a bit more openly skeptical of the star system, even as she continued to award them. It's fair to note (as Bruni does) that New York magazine started awarding stars at almost exactly the time that the Post stopped. So far, nobody else is following the Post's lead.

Bruni says that the Post's approach offers "an interesting perspective and certainly a valid one." But then he asks, "is the abandonment of stars a better option or just another of many imperfect approaches?"

...and what does that say about Del Posto's fourth star?

We won't know till Bruni updates one of his own ratings. He referred to "a year or two down the road" as the timeframe when he might be inclined to do this. He's been in the seat for just over a year and a half, so presumably some of his earlier review targets might be in line for a re-assessment.

[Leonard Kim]

I don't want to overburden this post with details, so I'm just going to offer my opinions without supporting everything.

My reading is that Bruni does not consider Del Posto an almost **** restaurant but for a few flaws. I think that impression is simply wishful thinking by Batali and the Bastianichs and a mis-inference based on the hype surrounding the restaurant coupled with the precedent of the Babbo review.

I would guess in Bruni's mind Del Posto actually stands closer to the **/*** line than the ***/**** divide.

It seems to me that Bruni reserves a special kind of hyperbole for **** food that's simply not found in the Del Posto review: words like "transcendent", "magic," "insane" "soaring," etc., words that, to a good approximation, appear only in his three **** reviews and those actually on the ***/**** divide like ADNY. Del Posto is merely "terrific," a word that finds its way into many, perhaps most, of his positive reviews.

I'd even argue that in Bruni's mind, Del Posto's rating is closer to Alto than it is to ADNY, even though the latter has ***. It's certainly possible given the system, and it's consistent with his recent blog entry about the meaning of the stars. I don't think the reviews of Alto and Del Posto are inconsistent with each other. He characterizes L'Impero as an attempt to "elevate this city's ideas about Italian cooking" and considers its success "richly earned." So I assume he doesn't disagree with Asimov's *** rating. I think he simply found Alto less successful, for reasons laid out in his review, and preferred Del Posto's approach. A telling re-use of words demonstrating his bias:

Italian cuisine can certainly match the stature of any other, its altitude determined not by preciousness but by the pleasure it delivers.  Alto's shortcoming is that it runs so simultaneously haute and cold.

But one of the ways Del Posto stays faithful to Italy is the straightforwardness of most of the preparations themselves. Mr. Batali, Ms. Bastianich and the executive chef, Mark Ladner, tend not to go off on precious, rococo tangents.

Some of his writing is unfortunate, but I feel he's consistent in his belief in the legitimacy and possibility of ultra-fine Italian dining. But paradoxically, I have little doubt that he feels L'Impero rates better than Alto and Babbo rates higher than Del Posto.

For **** Bruni seems to be after a much more nebulous, subjective "total experience" that is not to be be strictly equated with "great food" + "luxury" (or ambience, or setting, or formality, or whatever) a formula which is, I feel, a mis-reading of the Babbo review. The specific trappings matter less than an overall sense of pleasure and pampering.

This slightly ragtag quality is Babbo's limitation, not because it bucks classic formality, which matters less than ever, but because it undercuts the kind of coddling that restaurants can also provide.

. . . Masa bucks the increasingly wobbly traditions of fine dining in this city. . . . But it is very much a restaurant of this time and place. Of a dining culture in which linens and petit fours are no longer nonnegotiable badges of class. . . .  This whole exchange [at Masa] has an immediacy and intimacy unlike anything at more conventional restaurants

But [Le Bernardin] eschews high drama, both in the dining room, which has all the sex appeal of a first-class airport lounge. . . And yet [Le Bernardin] somehow avoids stodginess and complacency, a minor miracle that, for us diners, is a major blessing.

The service [at Per Se] departs compellingly from the traditional French model by mingling formal attentiveness with breezy, even cheeky banter. . .  [Per Se] also feels blissfully indulgent. . . . The reward is a profound sense of peace that very few of this frenetic city's restaurants can offer.

I guess what I'm saying is that Bruni's (and others') **** reviews: Masa, Per Se, Le Bernardin a little less so, are first and foremost vivid expressions of peace and happiness and unique pleasure: "a wholly transcendent dining experience." This is somewhat independent of "fine" dining, which in some presentations, he's suggested can actually work against the diner's pleasure. Certainly I agree with everybody who has remarked he has donned a populist mantle.

Parting quote:

[babbo (+ a few others)] could become the first four-star restaurant in New York that owes no debt to France.

That was Ruth Reichl in her farewell column of 3/31/99. I find it interesting that two of the Times' critics have made almost the same point about Babbo. When they were writing, it was probably closer to **** than Del Posto. I don't think a re-review is inevitable. I'd think that restaurants just slightly on the wrong side of a fence ("** smackdowns" to use oakapple's(?) memorable phrase, also ADNY) would get first second chances.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[oakapple]

I've become a great fan of Leonard Kim's posts, which always add so much to think about:

I would guess in Bruni's mind Del Posto actually stands closer to the **/*** line than the ***/**** divide.   

←

I'm not going to agree or disagree, but I'll make an observation. The enthusiasm in a review is nearly always a function of expectations. Bruni's two-star review of Sripraphai seems far more enthusiastic than his two-star review of The Modern. Why? Sripraphai is performing at or above expectations for that type of restuarant, and in Bruni's opinion The Modern is not.

Now, if you parachuted in from another planet and read both the Babbo and Del Posto reviews, you'd probably conclude that Bruni likes Babbo better than Del Posto. You might therefore conclude that Del Posto just barely crossed the *** line, while Babbo is solidly ***, possibly verging on ****. And indeed, that may be the case.

But it's also possible that Bruni was reviewing Del Posto through the prism of its **** expectations. "Okay, guys, you think you're four stars? Well, not so fast!"

I don't think a re-review is inevitable. I'd think that restaurants just slightly on the wrong side of a fence ("** smackdowns" to use oakapple's(?) memorable phrase, also ADNY) would get first second chances.

I certainly don't think a Del Posto re-review is inevitable. They may simply fail to improve enough to satisfy him. ADNY has a better shot at it, if only because Ducasse fired Christian Delouvrier and replaced him with Tony Esnault. It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass. Edited March 6, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass.

←

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia????

[Nathan]

It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass.

←

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia????

←

Mark Ladner is officially the chef at Del Posto.

[rich]

It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass.

←

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia????

←

Mark Ladner is officially the chef at Del Posto.

←

Now it makes sense. How can a person with a non-Italian surname be expected to prepare Italian food?

If he's the chef - what do they call Batali? The Pope? Or just "Papa?"

Edited March 7, 2006 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass.

←

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia????

←

Mark Ladner is officially the chef at Del Posto.

←

Now it makes sense. How can a person with a non-Italian surname be expected to prepare Italian food?

If he's the chef - what do they call Batali? The Pope? Or just "Papa?"

←

Heh. I will point out that I am (or will be) amused by unfavorable contrasts between Lupa and Del Posto considering that Ladner is technically responsible for both menus and kitchens. (My surmise is that he has a relatively free hand in the Lupa kitchen but that Mario and Lidia have considerable input at Del Posto.)

[Sneakeater]

I will point out that I am (or will be) amused by unfavorable contrasts between Lupa and Del Posto considering that Ladner is technically responsible for both menus and kitchens. 

←

I genuinely, non-rhetorically, honestly don't get that. Why would that be any different from unfavorable contrasts between Del Posto and Babbo if Mario were the chef?

Or unfavorable contrasts between Jovia and Sumile?

Or between any of a number of other cases where the same chef runs two restaurants and you like one much more than the other?

[Nathan]

I will point out that I am (or will be) amused by unfavorable contrasts between Lupa and Del Posto considering that Ladner is technically responsible for both menus and kitchens. 

←

I genuinely, non-rhetorically, honestly don't get that. Why would that be any different from unfavorable contrasts between Del Posto and Babbo if Mario were the chef?

Or unfavorable contrasts between Jovia and Sumile?

Or between any of a number of other cases where the same chef runs two restaurants and you like one much more than the other?

←

stylistic...I have met or read quite a few people who much prefer Lupa to Babbo (and I can see their argument)...often their arguments for Lupa tend to work along the lines of "Ladner's cooking is simple and rustic while Batali uses too many ingredients in an over-the-top way at Babbo"...

the latter-criticism is already applied to Del Posto (it certainly appears to be more like Babbo than Lupa)...and I'm not saying the criticism doesn't have validity...merely that some would be shocked to discover that the Lupa and Del Posto menus were created by the same person.

[Eatmywords]

I'm no Bruni fan but I thought the Blaue Gans review was more explanatory, interesting and less cliché-ish than usual. Though, I don't believe the 1 star bestowed was fitting. The review is glowing. He had far more negatives for Al Di La and a host of recent others yet they received 2. Why?

Blaue has been on my list for a while so I hope to form my own opinion very soon.

[BryanZ]

The menu Mr. Gutenbrunner installed is brief, and it returns again and again to the same ideas and ingredients. Sausages have their day, sauerkraut gets a say and horseradish holds sway over a third of the dishes, or so it seems.

Why Frank? Why?

Is this type of writing really necessary?

Edited to add: Otherwise this is a pretty straightforward review. And, I think, the epitome of a one star restaurant. Solid, appetizing food that encompasses an all around "good" experience.

Edited March 8, 2006 by BryanZ (log)