Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[oakapple]

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?

←

If there were a mathematical formula, it would be something like:

rating = ambition * success * uniqueness * value

where:

ambition answers the question, "What is this restaurant trying to do?"

success answers the question, "How well is it succeeding?"

uniqueness answers the question, "How 'special' is this restaurant?"

value answers the question, "How good a value is it for the money?"

This is not to say that the critic actually answers all of these questions explicitly in every review. But they do explain why a 1-star review can seem almost ecstatic, while a 2-star review can seem rather nit-picky.

In today's case, Bruni clearly concluded that Blaue Gans is a restaurant of rather modest ambitions, but it is executing those ambitions reasonably well at a good value. However, the same chef has three other restaurants in Manhattan that offer a lot of very similar cuisine.

Al Di La benefitted from a Brooklyn rating premium. I strongly suspect that if the identical restaurant existed in Manhattan, it would get one star, because Manhattan has plenty of restaurants like that. (Then again, Bruni awarded two stars to Spigolo, which seems simply erroneous.)

[Sneakeater]

In addition to Al Di La's getting a Brooklyn uptick (which I definitely think is true), I think Blaue Gans might have gotten a "famous chef" downtick -- like, "I'll reward unexpected good cooking from someone unheralded, but from a kitchen (indirectly) run by Kurt Gutenbruner, I expect at least this much."

Also -- and here's where I think the "star system" becomes invidious -- I think Bruni might have gotten trapped by comparisons with past precedent. He might well have thought, "Well, I gave Ici one star, and now Al Di La is another Brooklyn neighborhood place but with more elaborate and surprising food: it must deserve two stars."

(I, too, find it hard to reconcile Al Di La's getting a star more than Blaue Gans. As I suspect everyone else does, I think the problem is that Al Di La got overrated.)

Edited March 8, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

As a diner, I really don't give a damn who the chef is, unless I like the food (or, I suppose, if I were to know the chef). I wouldn't rate a restaurant higher or lower because a particular chef "should do better," or some other nonsense. What percentage of diners do you think really gives a damn about such things?

[oakapple]

As a diner, I really don't give a damn who the chef is, unless I like the food (or, I suppose, if I were to know the chef). I wouldn't rate a restaurant higher or lower because a particular chef "should do better," or some other nonsense. What percentage of diners do you think really gives a damn about such things?

←

A restaurant with a celebrity chef is like a movie with a famous director. People who have appreciated the chef's work in the past are likely to give the place a try. Some may even give it a try based on reputation alone. I am sure that the new restaurant Morimoto is getting a lot of customers based on Morimoto's name, when they only thing they know is that they've seen him on TV. Obviously, if that reputation doesn't translate to success on the plate, the restaurant will eventually run out of luck.

Theoretically, the chef's reputation shouldn't influence the rating. Human nature being what it is, it may be unavoidable that a chef's latest venture is viewed through the prism of his past successes. One certainly has to wonder whether Spice Market, V Steakhouse, and Perry St would have received the identical reviews had they been launched by anonymous chefs, instead of Jean-Georges Vongerichten.

To give yet another example, one can't help but conclude that Alain Ducasse's reputation worked against him, when William Grimes wrote in a three-star review:

It's a pity that restaurants, like Broadway musicals, can't open out of town. Protected from the scrutiny of critics, they could work out the kinks before facing Manhattan's harsh spotlight. A detour to New Haven certainly would have saved Alain Ducasse a world of grief.

It seems like ages since Mr. Ducasse, trailing his Michelin stars like a sparkling cape, swept into town, threw open the doors of Alain Ducasse at the Essex House, and confidently waited for the standing ovation. The noises from the pit must have astonished him.

[Sneakeater]

As a diner, I really don't give a damn who the chef is, unless I like the food (or, I suppose, if I were to know the chef). I wouldn't rate a restaurant higher or lower because a particular chef "should do better," or some other nonsense. What percentage of diners do you think really gives a damn about such things?

←

Of course I think informed diners care. How could they not? (That's not to say they should, just that I think they [or at least some of them] do.) But I'm not trying to channel what I think diners think. I'm trying to channel what I think the reviewer might be thinking. After all, diners don't do anything as artificial as assigning stars to restaurants.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

To try to expand on that, if you asked someone how they compared two restaurants such as Al Di La and Blaue Gans, they'd probably give a brief verbal account that would be both more cogent and more nuanced than "One Star" and "Two Stars." I'm sure that if you asked Frank Bruni to compare them, you'd get that kind of brief, cogent, nuanced account. It's only when he has to give them each star ratings that you run into these problems where you have to try to figure out what's behind his ratings, because it doesn't seem possible he really thinks one is that materially better than the other.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

After all, diners don't do anything as artificial as assigning stars to restaurants.

←

Actually, I think they do -- if only to say "This really feels like X stars to me." You may say, "They never would have done that if the newspapers & Michelin hadn't done it first," but that's water under the bridge. I actually know someone who keeps a written log, and she assigns "snouts" (1 to 5) to each restaurant.

To try to expand on that, if you asked someone how they compared two restaurants such as Al Di La and Blaue Gans, they'd probably give a brief verbal account that would be both more cogent and more nuanced than "One Star" and "Two Stars."  I'm sure that if you asked Frank Bruni to compare them, you'd get that kind of brief, cogent, nuanced account.  It's only when he has to give them each star ratings that you run into these problems where you have to try to figure out what's behind his ratings, because it doesn't seem possible he really thinks one is that materially better than the other.

←

I thought he had more enthusiasm for Al Di La than he did for Blaue Gans, so it's quite possible he really thinks that the former is materially better.

But as many others have pointed out, ratings for non-luxury restaurants are not broadly comparable. To the extent Blaue Gans's star means anything at all, it's meaningful only against other Austro-Germanic restaurants that the Times has rated. Most of them, aside from Danube, happen to be Kurt Gutenbrunner's restaurants, so there's not a huge base to choose from.

Edited March 9, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

After all, diners don't do anything as artificial as assigning stars to restaurants.

←

Actually, I think they do -- if only to say "This really feels like X stars to me." You may say, "They never would have done that if the newspapers & Michelin hadn't done it first," but that's water under the bridge. I actually know someone who keeps a written log, and she assigns "snouts" (1 to 5) to each restaurant.

←

I REALLY don't think that's your average diner.

[Sneakeater]

To the extent Blaue Gans's star means anything at all, it's meaningful only against other Austro-Germanic restaurants that the Times has rated. Most of them, aside from Danube, happen to be Kurt Gutenbrunner's restaurants, so there's not a huge base to choose from.

←

Actually, that's a better way of putting what I said about the "famous chef" downtick. It's another case of getting caught up by comparisons with prior precedent. Since THOR got two stars, Blaue Gans couldn't possibly get more than one.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

Do you notice how all these things keep going back to that silly, archaic star system?

Thank God for Steve Cuozzo.

Thank God for the New Yorker magazine.

But there's no one to thank that's still breathing for the star system - thank God.

[Sneakeater]

That was sort of the subliminal point I was trying to make.

Or the point I was trying to make subliminally.

Or something.

[Pan]

As a diner, I really don't give a damn who the chef is, unless I like the food (or, I suppose, if I were to know the chef). I wouldn't rate a restaurant higher or lower because a particular chef "should do better," or some other nonsense. What percentage of diners do you think really gives a damn about such things?

←

Of course I think informed diners care. How could they not? (That's not to say they should, just that I think they [or at least some of them] do.) But I'm not trying to channel what I think diners think. I'm trying to channel what I think the reviewer might be thinking. After all, diners don't do anything as artificial as assigning stars to restaurants.

←

I do react to meals as 2-star, 3-star, etc.

Marc, I take your point about Morimoto, but that level of celebrity is unusual. I had never heard of Kurt Gutenbruner, and I suppose that a very large percentage of the dining public hasn't heard of him, either.

[rich]

I do react to meals as 2-star, 3-star, etc.

←

By what standard?

The Times 4-star?

New York Magazine 5-star?

Michelin 3-star?

Zagat 30-star?

I forget the on line group's 20-star?

Your own stars?

The Staten Island Advance 6-star?

The Daily News 4-star? (1/2 allowed)

The NY Post no-star?

New Yorker magazine no-star?

Crain's New York 4-star? (1/2 allowed)

Bastianich/Batali mega-star?

Brooklyn Eagle 10-star?

Astoria Penny Saver 5-star?

St. John's University Storm Stars?

International Herlald Tribune 3-star (1/4 allowed)?

The Farmer's Almanac 7-asterik system?

Each one has its own merits and I didn't even go into the critics who award toques, snouts, spoons, ears, cups, feet, checkered napkins or teeth.

Personally, the moment I sit down at a restaurant, I get out my book and begin adding or subtracting tusks. I work on the 100-point must system (much as they do in scoring prize fights). Sometimes I get so caught up in marking the restaurant's score, I never get to eat - that really throws off the final tally.

Methinks, this whole thing has become silly. Is it so terrible to eat at restaurant and either enjoy it or not. And then decide to go back or not based on the enjoyment/cost ratio. Does anything else really matter?

[Pan]

[...]Is it so terrible to eat at restaurant and either enjoy it or not. And then decide to go back or not based on the enjoyment/cost ratio. Does anything else really matter?

←

No.

But that doesn't mean I don't sometimes give my own star ratings.

In terms of the system, it's obviously my own. I sometimes think in terms of the stated categories in the Times, sometimes of Michelin. Most often, I do just what you do and enjoy the meal.

If it were up to me, Spicy & Tasty would have two stars, Lupa three. Neither has any NYT stars.

[oakapple]

By what standard?

The Times 4-star?

←

On most people's scoresheets, it's the Times rating that really counts, since it's the system that's been around the longest in this town. When Mario Batali said that Del Posto was designed for four stars, it wasn't the verdict of Bob Lape in Crain's that he was talking about.

I work on the 100-point must system (much as they do in scoring prize fights). Sometimes I get so caught up in marking the restaurant's score, I never get to eat - that really throws off the final tally.

←

Then by all means you should stop scoring them! Personally, it has never stood in my way of enjoying the meal. Edited March 10, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

Marc, I take your point about Morimoto, but that level of celebrity is unusual. I had never heard of Kurt Gutenbruner, and I suppose that a very large percentage of the dining public hasn't heard of him, either.

←

That's perhaps the extreme case. But I think Perry St attracted a lot of diners because of Vongerichten's known association with the place, Del Posto because of Batali, Per Se because of Keller, Bar Americain because of Flay, Upstairs because of Bouley, and so forth.

Gutenbrunner isn't a celebrity on the scale of any of those folks, but between those who know him from Wallse, Cafe Sabarsky, and Thor, he's got a reputation.

[oakapple]

It's another case of getting caught up by comparisons with prior precedent.  Since THOR got two stars, Blaue Gans couldn't possibly get more than one.

←

Any rating system, in any field of endeavour, is somewhat bound by the ratings that have been given out in the past. This is true of all subjective rating systems, and not just those for restaurants.

I haven't yet dined at Blaue Gans, but it's pretty apparent from all that's been written that this restaurant is serving far less ambitious fare, in a setting of considerably less formality, than either THOR or Wallse. It therefore seems to me perfectly correct that Blaue Gans should be one star, given that the others are two.

[Sneakeater]

I want to make it clear that, if I thought in terms of NYT stars, I'd have no dispute with Blaue Gans's getting one star. I'd probably give it one star myself, if I gave stars. The only reason I'm going on about this is that, like at least one other poster here (eatmywords, to give credit where it's due), I was somewhat caught up with Blaue Gans's getting a star less than another of my personal favorite restaurants, Al Di La. Not because I want all my personal favorites to have the same star rating, but because I just don't see a star's difference between the two restaurants. (Not that I think Frank Bruni or anyone else is bound by my own judgments, of course.) I think we've hit on several reasons for one of those restaurants' getting one more star than the other. (And I know you say, Oakapple, that one of those reasons is that Bruni materially preferred one over the other.) Even if that's so,* to me, this whole comparison just shows the fragility, or inherent flaws, of star ratings.

_____________________________________________________________

* Because believe me (and remember, this is my favorite restaurant I'm talking about), anybody here who walks into Al Di La -- well, you can't walk into Al Di La; make that who waits for an hour in the wine bar and then enters Al Di La -- and expects something a level above Blaue Gans is going to be very disappointed.**

** I'd be very interested in hearing whether other posters familiar with both restaurants concur. Maybe I'm just wrong (or idiosyncratic) in this opinion.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I do react to meals as 2-star, 3-star, etc.

←

I'm curious. Do you react to concerts and dance performances that way?

And if not, why do you think you react to restaurant meals that way and not performing arts events?

[oakapple]

It's only March, but we already have a candidate for the most pointless NYT review of the year: zero stars for P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson.

One might reasonably ask, "Why ever review a zero-star restaurant at all?" With only fifty-two Wednesdays a year, many restaurants are never going to be reviewed. So, why waste one on a marginal restaurant that probably won't attract diners outside its neighborhood, only to tell us it's not worth the trip?

Some restaurants are so newsworthy that they simply demand a review, even if it is unfavorable. But the Times has never paid much attention to the tourist and lunchtime restaurants in the Financial District. Most restaurants in the neighborhood have never been reviewed. Frankly, most don't deserve to be, but there are a handful that are at least "good", and perhaps a few that are even better than that. Why not review one that the critic can actually recommend?

Edited March 15, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

It's only March, but we already have a candidate for the most pointless NYT review of the year: zero stars for P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson.

One might reasonably ask, "Why ever review a zero-star restaurant at all?" With only fifty-two Wednesdays a year, many restaurants are never going to be reviewed. So, why waste one on a marginal restaurant that probably won't attract diners outside its neighborhood, only to tell us it's not worth the trip?

Some restaurants are so newsworthy that they simply demand a review, even if it is unfavorable. But the Times has never paid much attention to the tourist and lunchtime restaurants in the Financial District. Most restaurants in the neighborhood have never been reviewed. Frankly, most don't deserve to be, but there are a handful that are at least "good", and perhaps a few that are even better than that. Why not review one that the critic can actually recommend?

←

I couldn't agree more, Marc. It was the most meaningless review he has written in a long time. Twelve of the 20 paragraphs are devoted to Jackie Kennedy, over-sized urinals and cardio-vascular exercise while heading to the bathrooms.

It's time NY Times and long overdue; it's time... for a change - please, before your hallowed halls become mere alleyways to oblivion.

[Megan Blocker]

It's only March, but we already have a candidate for the most pointless NYT review of the year: zero stars for P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson.

One might reasonably ask, "Why ever review a zero-star restaurant at all?" With only fifty-two Wednesdays a year, many restaurants are never going to be reviewed. So, why waste one on a marginal restaurant that probably won't attract diners outside its neighborhood, only to tell us it's not worth the trip?

Some restaurants are so newsworthy that they simply demand a review, even if it is unfavorable. But the Times has never paid much attention to the tourist and lunchtime restaurants in the Financial District. Most restaurants in the neighborhood have never been reviewed. Frankly, most don't deserve to be, but there are a handful that are at least "good", and perhaps a few that are even better than that. Why not review one that the critic can actually recommend?

←

My thoughts exactly...before I even read the review this morning, I saw the headline and thought, "Why?" Why on earth would he review this restaurant? I don't get it. Sigh.

[Eatmywords]

It's only March, but we already have a candidate for the most pointless NYT review of the year: zero stars for P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson.

One might reasonably ask, "Why ever review a zero-star restaurant at all?" With only fifty-two Wednesdays a year, many restaurants are never going to be reviewed. So, why waste one on a marginal restaurant that probably won't attract diners outside its neighborhood, only to tell us it's not worth the trip?

Some restaurants are so newsworthy that they simply demand a review, even if it is unfavorable. But the Times has never paid much attention to the tourist and lunchtime restaurants in the Financial District. Most restaurants in the neighborhood have never been reviewed. Frankly, most don't deserve to be, but there are a handful that are at least "good", and perhaps a few that are even better than that. Why not review one that the critic can actually recommend?

←

My thoughts exactly...before I even read the review this morning, I saw the headline and thought, "Why?" Why on earth would he review this restaurant? I don't get it. Sigh.

←

Not to mention he didn't even detail the burgers which have (as long as I can remember) been their biggest claim to fame.

Oak said it so well, whata waste o'space.

I hope Friday's or Red Lobster doesn't open another branch.

[Nathan]

You're all wrong.

First, he did mention the burgers.

Second, P.J. Clarke's is a historical NY landmark...as much as say Keen's (and he noted that the steaks and raw bar were fine at Clarke's)....unlike Red Lobster. This review will be of interest to many people. Last time I checked, the NY Times had a larger circulation than just egullet subscribers.

Third, why review a place that you're going to give only a satisfactory rating too? Cause you have to have a few of those. Otherwise, everyone here would be attacking Bruni for only giving good reviews and for grade inflation. Look, there are many legitimate things to criticize Bruni for (including within this review), but sometimes I think he can't win....and you oversell your points because of it. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he only reviews good restaurants he'll be attacked for being Andrea Strong and purportedly never finding a restaurant he doesn't like (besides Morimoto)...if he gives a bad review it was a waste because he should have saved the space for a good restaurant.

[Eatmywords]

You're all wrong. 

First, he did mention the burgers.

Second, P.J. Clarke's is a historical NY landmark...as much as say Keen's (and he noted that the steaks and raw bar were fine at Clarke's)....unlike Red Lobster.  This review will be of interest to many people.  Last time I checked, the NY Times had a larger circulation than just egullet subscribers.

Third, why review a place that you're going to give only a satisfactory rating too?  Cause you have to have a few of those.  Otherwise, everyone here would be attacking Bruni for only giving good reviews and for grade inflation.  Look, there are many legitimate things to criticize Bruni for (including within this review), but sometimes I think he can't win....and you oversell your points because of it.  He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  If he only reviews good restaurants he'll be attacked for being Andrea Strong and purportedly never finding a restaurant he doesn't like (besides Morimoto)...if he gives a bad review it was a waste because he should have saved the space for a good restaurant.

←

My bad, re the burgers; "plump and tender, though not exceptionally so". -such are the details we've come to accept. (Then again, this is pretty descriptive for the count).

The TGIF and RL refs were obviously exaggerations but really, landmark or not, PJ's is barely glorified pub food. It doesn't merit to be 1 out 52 reviews per annum.