Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[oakapple]

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.

The old Clarke's is a NY landmark. So is Nathan's Hot Dogs. That doesn't mean it merits one of Frank Bruni's 52 reviewing slots this year.

The fact that the Times has such a large circulation base is the very reason why this review is so meaningless. I really question who will be interested in this review, given the way it turned out. As it is, the Financial District does not really attract diners, except for those who already have some non-food reason for being there. Had he chosen to review a restaurant he could actually recommend, it might have had some value.

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.... If he only reviews good restaurants he'll be attacked for being Andrea Strong and purportedly never finding a restaurant he doesn't like....

←

Frank Bruni is in no danger of becoming another Andrea Strong. His one, two, and even three-star reviews contain plenty of complaints.

Long before Bruni took over, the zero-star rating had become a statistically insignificant rarity. I don't know why Bruni decided to review this restaurant, but I'd be surprised if the reason was, "I haven't written a zero-star review lately, and I thought it was overdue." Gimme a break.

Given that Bruni does not purport to review every available restaurant, every review—regardless of the number of stars—should fulfill a journalistic purpose. I've no problem with the idea of a zero-star review, but I object to this one in particular. The main critic seldom covers this type of restaurant, and the Times devotes practically no coverage to restaurants below Chambers Street. So, why not pick a place that he could write about with some enthusiasm?

Edited March 15, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

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.

The old Clarke's is a NY landmark. So is Nathan's Hot Dogs. That doesn't mean it merits one of Frank Bruni's 52 reviewing slots this year.

The fact that the Times has such a large circulation base is the very reason why this review is so meaningless. I really question who will be interested in this review, given the way it turned out. As it is, the Financial District does not really attract diners, except for those who already have some non-food reason for being there. Had he chosen to review a restaurant he could actually recommend, it might have had some value.

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.... If he only reviews good restaurants he'll be attacked for being Andrea Strong and purportedly never finding a restaurant he doesn't like....

←

Frank Bruni is in no danger of becoming another Andrea Strong. His one, two, and even three-star reviews contain plenty of complaints.

Long before Bruni took over, the zero-star rating had become a statistically insignificant rarity. I don't know why Bruni decided to review this restaurant, but I'd be surprised if the reason was, "I haven't written a zero-star review lately, and I thought it was overdue." Gimme a break.

Given that Bruni does not purport to review every available restaurant, every review—regardless of the number of stars—should fulfill a journalistic purpose. I've no problem with the idea of a zero-star review, but I object to this one in particular. The main critic seldom covers this type of restaurant, and the Times devotes practically no coverage to restaurants below Chambers Street. So, why not pick a place that he could write about with some enthusiasm?

←

I would think that he picks the restaurant to review before knowing the number of stars it will garner.

Given that, wasn't/isn't there a possibility that J.P.C. is the best restaurant below Chambers?

[oakapple]

I would think that he picks the restaurant to review before knowing the number of stars it will garner.

←

He explained in his blog that he makes many more restaurant visits than there are reviews written. At some point, he has to decide which of those restaurants are worth the multiple visits that a review requires. For some percentage of restaurants, his conclusion is "not worth writing about."

Anyone who follows the Times knows that there are certain "must-review" restaurants, but that P. J. Clarke's wasn't one of these.

Given that, wasn't/isn't there a possibility that J.P.C. is the best restaurant below Chambers?

←

As I've lived below Chambers Street for 6½ years, I have a point of view on this. Even allowing for reasonable differences of opinion, there is no conceivable possibility that Frank Bruni believed P. J. Clarke's was the best restaurant below Chambers. Edited March 15, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Given that, wasn't/isn't there a possibility that J.P.C. is the best restaurant below Chambers?

←

The short answer is, no.

[Eatmywords]

Given that, wasn't/isn't there a possibility that J.P.C. is the best restaurant below Chambers?

←

The short answer is, no.

←

The long answer (given the aspirations of the flagship) is no-way-in-hell-can-this-pub-vie-for-top-spot. Several defeaters come to mind, the likes of Bobby Vans, Delmonico's, Mark Joseph and Bayard to name a few. -Sure, these are pricey (somewhat boring) steak houses but they blow away the PJ's in all categories.

[oakapple]

The long answer (given the aspirations of the flagship) is no-way-in-hell-can-this-pub-vie-for-top-spot.  Several defeaters come to mind, the likes of Bobby Vans, Delmonico's, Mark Joseph and Bayard to name a few. -Sure, these are pricey (somewhat boring) steak houses but they blow away the PJ's in all categories.

←

Heck, he could have reviewed Fraunces Tavern, which has considerably more history than P. J. Clarke's, and has never had a full rated review (at least as far back as the Times archives go).

Among new-ish restaurants, there are Battery Gardens and Flames Steakhouse, both of which received favorable write-ups from from Bob Lape in Crain's, but haven't been rated by the Times.

I couldn't find rated reviews for Mark Joseph or Delmonico's, either. Bobby Van's is a clone of its uptown sibling, which received one star from Ruth Reichl. Bayard's received two stars from William Grimes.

Edited March 16, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Delmonico's got * from Reichl on 10/14/98. Reichl reviewed Bayard's before Grimes on 3/10/99 and also gave it **.

I wonder what the proportion of the choice to review a given restaurant is the reviewer's vs. the reviewer's superiors. I think Reichl (in Garlic and Sapphires) sometimes alludes to the latter's suggestions and assignments. I'll try to dig up a quote or two.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Leonard Kim]

re: Morimoto

In Garlic and Sapphires, Reichl writes that the powers-that-be not only demanded that her Le Cirque double review be combined into a single review, but her double rating (* and **** depending on "which" Le Cirque one experienced) had to be combined into a single rating (***).

Morimoto was also recently reviewed in New York Magazine.

http://nymag.com/restaurants/reviews/16435/

Platt writes, "Morimoto . . . seems to have been conceived as several restaurants in one." After describing several dishes from the main menu, he goes on to note, "none of this food finds its way onto Morimoto’s omakase menu. . ." For the rating, we get, "The main dining room gets two and a half stars, the sushi gets three, and the omakase gets four."

Bruni's * rating seems consistent with his own practice and the tone of the review. It is probably also a fairly accurate rating for the a la carte menu. But I wonder about the omission of any mention of the omakase (except in "price range"). Would it have compromised his anonymity too much to have had the required number of reviewer's meals with Morimoto hovering on the other side of the table? Or did the Times frown on the necessity of making double the usual amount of visits to adequately sample "both restaurants" under the Morimoto roof? (N.B. Platt implies he only had the omakase once.) It seems a pretty big thing to omit, but then again, Bruni has done comparable things before, if I remember correctly.

The general question is how to review or rate a restaurant which offers several distinct, non-overlapping experiences, even if it's just tasting menu vs. a la carte. Bruni's review is not ideal in this respect, though I'm not necessarily faulting him for it since I don't know what the solution is. Platt might have the right idea, but as mentioned, it would involve double or triple the # of visits to do it right, and there's the question of the rating, which is probably a Times thing as much as the specific reviewer.

Hesser managed to get away with not officially rating Masa, while mentioning in the text of her review that she'd give it different ratings (*** or ****) depending on "which Masa" was under discussion. I guess it being her last review played a part in allowing her to do this.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[philadining]

Excellent questions Leonard, and I'm not sure what the answers are either.

I'm somewhat mystified by a Morimoto review that makes no mention of omakase, and barely acknowledges the availability of sushi and sashimi: "A vast selection of very fine sushi and sashimi roots the restaurant in Japan..."

It's true enough that the multiculti menu is the flashier part of the offerings, but perhaps not the best of the food. I'll caution that I'm basing these comments on experiences in Philly, but the omakase and sushi selections, while rather expensive, are the most satisfying aspects of that restaurant, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case in NY as well. So it's odd to ignore them in a full review of the place in the Times.

This is one review where the column inches devoted to scenesters and decor might be appropriate, but you'd think there might be room for a line or two about Morimoto's signature offerings.

[oakapple]

Platt writes, "Morimoto . . . seems to have been conceived as several restaurants in one."  After describing several dishes from the main menu, he goes on to note, "none of this food finds its way onto Morimoto’s omakase menu. . ."  For the rating, we get, "The main dining room gets two and a half stars, the sushi gets three, and the omakase gets four."

This is a definite plus for the star system as NY Mag has implemented it: Platt doesn't just give you his rating, but he also deconstructs it for you. Bruni has only very rarely done that.

Bruni's * rating seems consistent with his own practice and the tone of the review.  It is probably also a fairly accurate rating for the a la carte menu.  But I wonder about the omission of any mention of the omakase (except in "price range").  Would it have compromised his anonymity too much to have had the required number of reviewer's meals with Morimoto hovering on the other side of the table?  Or did the Times frown on the necessity of making double the usual amount of visits to adequately sample "both restaurants" under the Morimoto roof?

In my view, it's not acceptable to review a restaurant that offers an omakase without trying it at least once. Bruni's failure to mention it is certainly odd. Reviews are impressionistic, and can only present a subset of the reviewer's experiences, but the omakase seems to me too significant to ignore. Anonymity couldn't be the issue, because there are plenty of restaurants where Bruni is recognized every time. I also don't get the impression that the Times micromanages the number of visits, aside from establishing a minimum.

The general question is how to review or rate a restaurant which offers several distinct, non-overlapping experiences, even if it's just tasting menu vs. a la carte.

There probably aren't enough restaurants like that to have a separate rule for them. A three or four-star restaurant needs to be excellent or extraordinary in pretty much everything it does. (Yes, there are exceptions, but this is the general rule.) A two-star rating is appropriate for a restaurant that's terrific at some things, but with serious shortcomings in others. Bruni's single star for Morimoto suggests that even the omakase didn't wow him—assuming he tried it. However, one can only guess at this, given his silence on the matter.

Hesser managed to get away with not officially rating Masa, while mentioning in the text of her review that she'd give it different ratings (*** or ****) depending on "which Masa" was under discussion.  I guess it being her last review played a part in allowing her to do this.

←

True, but then again, editorial policies aren't fixed in amber. Perhaps the present Times management would allow Ruth Reichl's double-review of Le Cirque as she conceived it, if she were still reviewing today. Edited March 27, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Noting how difficult it can be to score reservations at some new restaurants, several readers have written to ask if I somehow get to take a pass on that tedious process — if I have special shortcuts, or pull strings, or use my real name, or at least have someone else take charge of the process for me.

No. I make my own calls. If I’m trying to get into an especially hot restaurant, I make those calls precisely two months or one month or four weeks ahead of time, in accordance with the restaurant’s reservation policy.

I make those calls at whatever hour of the morning the reservation line opens. I hit redial if the line is busy, and I hit redial another 20 times if the situation doesn’t change, and I feel the precious minutes of a life tick away. Such is the boundless, nonstop glamour of restaurant criticism. . . .

So, no, I don’t avoid the special hell of jostling for admission to — and even for contact with — hot new restaurants. And I frequently end up with 5:45 p.m. or 9:45 p.m. reservations, granted by disembodied voices with haughty tones.

From Bruni's blog.

Maybe he just couldn't get a reservation (or enough of them to do a review) at the omakase table.

As for anonymity, I agree in general. But in a case where the chef/partner is preparing your meal from across the table, there's an argument that being recognized could have a greater-than-usual impact on the experience.

Edited March 27, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[oakapple]

Maybe he just couldn't get a reservation (or enough of them to do a review) at the omakase table.

And Platt could?

As for anonymity, I agree in general.  But in a case where the chef/partner is preparing your meal from across the table, there's an argument that being recognized could have a greater-than-usual impact on the experience.

←

I'm quite sure he was recognized at Masa (as was Hesser), given that the omakase is the only thing they offer, and he must have tried it several times before awarding four stars. There too, the chef/owner is preparing your meal from across the table.

[Sneakeater]

Maybe he just couldn't get a reservation (or enough of them to do a review) at the omakase table.

←

Wouldn't that just be a ground for holding back the review?

[Sneakeater]

This is a definite plus for the star system as NY Mag has implemented it: Platt doesn't just give you his rating, but he also deconstructs it for you. Bruni has only very rarely done that.

←

I very strongly agree with this, FWIW.

[oakapple]

In last week's Post, Steve Cuozzo complained that Piano Due is "New York's best new Italian restaurant - and almost no one knows about it. Piano Due opened seven months ago with a Michelin-starred chef, a famous address that's also home to Le Bernardin and Bar Americain, and one of the prettiest new dining rooms in Midtown." Cuozzo said that the restaurant is seldom more than a third full.

But then, here's the strange thing. He complains that there have been no reviews, aside from a brief Gael Greene write-up after the place first opened. That's a little inconsistent coming from Cuozzo, since he was responsible for the elimination of reviews from the Post's own coverage. Had Cuozzo not made that dumb decision, he'd now be in a position to do the very thing he's complaining the other critics have not done.

Mind you, Cuozzo is not unaware of the irony, as he mentions the Post's no-review policy later in the article. Still, he was so troubled by the situation that he even called Frank Bruni to ask why there's been no Times review. Bruni replied:

"In some cases - not necessarily Piano Due - I'll make a fairly early visit and have a disappointing experience. Rather than continue to make visits and set up a situation where I may be inclined to give it a degree of negativity which calls into question why I bothered," he'll "defer it until a much later date."

This is a reasonable strategy for Bruni to follow, although it calls very much into question why he reviewed P. J. Clarke's a couple of weeks ago. If ever there was a "Why did he bother?" review, it was that one. Edited March 28, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I have to say, having been to Urena, that Bruni's review was exactly on point.

Indeed, was he cheerleading for a restaurant, practically begging people to go? Two stars for a restaurant with the most negative comments on decor he's ever given (and not positive comments on service either -- the service I had was fine) says something about how much he liked the food...(a judgment I agree with)...

[Lesley C]

Boy, for the first time I can really say I loved a Bruni review.

[Vadouvan]

While I have come to expect that different folks have different experiences, after two meals at Urena, I cannot undertand why he gives it 2 stars or calls it MODERN SPANISH, there is almost nothing spanish about it......

[Nathan]

many of the ingredients are Spanish based...he never said that it was "traditional" Catalan or the like.

but would one be flabbergasted to find this type of cooking in Spain today? no.

labels have their uses, they're even necessary...but their exact definitions tend to be in flux.

Bruni described Urena as using ingredients associated with Spain but utilizing modern French techniques .... that's pretty accurate in my opinion.

as for the stars...I think it was clear that the review basically stated that this was 3, almost 4 star cooking (especially considering the prices) brought down by the decor...the criteria for Times stars clearly states that other factors besides food are taken into account.

[rich]

as for the stars...I think it was clear that the review basically stated that this was 3, almost 4 star cooking (especially considering the prices) brought down by the decor...the criteria for Times stars clearly states that other factors besides food are taken into account.

←

I would agree - especially when 10 paragraphs (of 24) are devoted to decorating issues. I still believe the NY Times critic focuses way too much on these types of things. That's been his modus operandi since day one with Babbo.

Two stars and the only problem he finds with the food is 1/3 of one entree and one dessert - that's a lot emphasis on his date's forgiveness of a hooked nose and bad teeth.

[Nathan]

the review seemed to be saying that Urena has the worst ambience of a restaurant of its caliber in NY...thus the emphasis.

I remember thinking something along that line when I was there.

[Nathan]

Rich, this one's for you...

Eric Asimov gave the best defense of the rating system that I've seen:

http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=22#more-22

[rich]

Rich, this one's for you...

Eric Asimov gave the best defense of the rating system that I've seen:

http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=22#more-22

←

Juts read it. Thanks Nathan.

It is a good defense because it also points out the flaws of the system and indicates not no get too carried away with small number differences. It will be interesting to read his answer from the person who asked why the NY Times chose the 4-star system (which uses half stars that is not used in restaurants) as opposed to the 100 point system that he appears to advocate.

I guess you could mount the same type of defense for the restaurant star system, but more variables enter into a restaurant rating than a wine rating, such as ambiance. I don't think any wine would lose points for an unattractive bottle or label design.

He didn't change my mind. I still believe the Times should revamp the star system, but he made excellent points as to why a rating system is necessary for the general public, if for nothing more than a starting off point.

Asimov is a very logical guy and did a great job as interim restaurant critic - wish he would have stayed.

[oakapple]

I guess you could mount the same type of defense for the restaurant star system, but more variables enter into a restaurant rating than a wine rating, such as ambiance. I don't think any wine would lose points for an unattractive bottle or label design.

←

However, this is not without reason. Most people don't pay much attention to the bottle of wine once it's poured. But when dining in an expensive restaurant, most people do care about such matters as comfortable seating, quality service, noise level, and so forth.

[Nathan]

exactly.

to me...the single most necessary reason for some sort of rating system (the particular format is irrelevant)...is simply cost. with limited funds I can't just "decide for myself"...the average diner isn't going to be spending time on egullet...ratings at least provide some sort of shorthand for them to utilize.

on another note, is it just me, or does Bruni take his 4-star reviews (and demotions) more seriously than the other reviews?

Edited April 19, 2006 by Nathan (log)