Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[rich]

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?

←

Actually, Nathan, that makes more sense to me than any other given reason.

Yes, I think he does. Today's JG review was probably his best to date.

Edited April 19, 2006 by rich (log)

[BryanZ]

Yes, I think he does. Today's JG review was probably his best to date.

←

I would agree.

[oakapple]

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

←

In general, the more serious the restaurant, the more serious the review. Many of his one and two-star review targets seem to bore him. Instead of just describing the retaurant, he struggles to find a theme, or he brings in irrelevant comments to fill the space. Edited April 19, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[ckkgourmet]

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

←

In general, the more serious the restaurant, the more serious review. Many of his one and two-star review targets seem to bore him. Instead of just describing the retaurant, he struggles to find a theme, or he brings in irrelevant comments to fill the space.

←

I'd agree with the above. I'd also say that I very much appreciated Bruni's analysis today of JG's ingenious juggling of flavors. In its sensitivity, Bruni's analysis of this aspect of JG touched the very heart of JG's cuisine. This is rare form for Bruni, I think.

[docsconz]

I don't think any wine would lose points for an unattractive bottle or label design.

←

But Mouton Rothschild may have occassionally gained some Has Bruni reviewed that?

Seriously, I agree that this was one of Bruni's better if not best reviews. I thought too that he actually captured the essence and nuances of the cuisine. I also think he did it without pandering to J-G-V for while he lauded this restaurant in the same article he essentially skewered some of his other undertakings including the late V Prime. I did not get this sense in some of his previous reviews of important restaurants.

[Sneakeater]

I love Kim Severson, but if she says one more bad thing about shad we're going to have to step outside.

[Dryden]

Shad tastes good. Shad roe tastes amazing. What's the great mystery?

[Sneakeater]

I believe her words were "mushy and unpleasant."

[Leonard Kim]

A couple of quotes of relevance to a discussion that's going on over in the Gilt thread. I tend to be in Marc's camp -- certainly he's spent more time trying to get into Bruni's skull than the rest of us here. Anyway, these are from Bruni's blog.

March 6

Some of these same readers have asked how durable star ratings can really be. . .

. . . 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.

I also think that in many cases, the fundamentals of a restaurant hold steady, giving a star rating continued relevance through more than a just a brief period of time.

February 16

The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant. The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement.

So I think Marc's right. Bruni doesn't seem to subscribe to the theory that in an initial review a restaurant should be cut "some slack in its early days, on the assumption that minor glitches will be smoothed out over time."

I think this is a reasonable stance. Most businesses with a pretence of competence should be expected to take care of minor glitches anyway, so cutting slack there seems to me a road to grade inflation. OTOH, it seems reasonable to me that a restaurant that gets it right from the start should get some credit, especially if the fundamental criterion is to make one "excited . . . to return."

(That February 16 quote, to me, is the single most explanatory statement of the star-system-according-to-Bruni.)

[oakapple]

So I think Marc's right.  Bruni doesn't seem to subscribe to the theory that in an initial review a restaurant should be cut "some slack in its early days, on the assumption that minor glitches will be smoothed out over time."

←

I do think that, at times, Bruni has chosen illustrative examples that seem trivial or petty. For instance, his review of The Modern included this critique of the service:

I appreciated the attentive service, although aspects of it sometimes contradicted the elegance of the dining room in jarring and seemingly unintentional ways. A server struggled at the cheese cart, cutting strangely oversize and undersize portions. A hostess, connecting coats to their owners, looked at the label of one and asked-shouted, "Made in Honduras?!"

These glitches seem like the kind of trivial mistakes at a new establishment that do not properly characterize the restaurant, and therefore did not belong in the review. If service really is an issue, surely there were better examples. If these glitches were isolated, I don't think they deserved to be mentioned.

Having said that, as Leonard has pointed out on other occasions, Bruni generally will not award three stars if he has significant issues with the food, as he clearly did at The Modern. He doesn't award "style points," or bonus stars for lofty ambitions not consistently realized on the plate. (Perry St and Del Posto are the only significant exceptions in his 21-month tenure.) So, I certainly wouldn't assume that, but for these mistakes, The Modern would have earned the three stars it clearly aspired to.

Edited May 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Anyone who thinks Piccola Venezia is better than Roberto's shouldn't be a critic, should never eat Italian food and probably should never eat in a restaurant again.

Any publication that publishes a half page photo of the place on the front page of their food section, should probably cease publication.

Any article that mentions Piccola, Tommasso, Manducattis and Bamonte as the prime example of their genre of Italian restaurant in NYC, should be disregarded without prejudice.

Can't understand why they didn't include Umberto, Dominick's and Vincent's while they were at it - a disgrace, a complete disgrace.

Ever hear of the Know Nothing political party? They have nothing on the NY Times.

Edited May 3, 2006 by rich (log)

[alanamoana]

Funny that he doesn't know anything about Italian food as he was based on Rome for the New York Times before he became the food critic. You'd think living in Italy would have helped?!

[rich]

Funny that he doesn't know anything about Italian food as he was based on Rome for the New York Times before he became the food critic.  You'd think living in Italy would have helped?!

←

It is amazing, isn't it?

Too much time sipping demitasse with JP & Benny. It affected his buds.

[Nathan]

Funny that he doesn't know anything about Italian food as he was based on Rome for the New York Times before he became the food critic.  You'd think living in Italy would have helped?!

←

actually, modern Italian food is clearly the one thing that he does know well.

I'll note that none of the restaurants mentioned in that piece fit that description.

rich, I have no problem believing that Bruni had an awful meal at Roberto's. it wasn't a review, he didn't claim to visit any of these restaurants more than once.

[oakapple]

actually, modern Italian food is clearly the one thing that he does know well.

I'll note that none of the restaurants mentioned in that piece fit that description.

Whether modern or classic, Italian food seems to be what Bruni knows best.

Rich, I have no problem believing that Bruni had an awful meal at Roberto's.  it wasn't a review, he didn't claim to visit any of these restaurants more than once.

←

It's worth bearing in mind that no restaurant delivers excellence every day, to every diner. Even on the Per Se and Le Bernardin threads, there's a fair number of disappointed diners, among many more who were satisfied. So at a restaurant like Roberto's, it's quite possible that Bruni's visit didn't catch them at their best.

[Leonard Kim]

Bruni expands on his article in yesterday's Diner's Journal blog.

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=55#more-55

Here he addresses some of the issues brought up here such as the rationale for his choice of restaurants. He also compares these restaurants to restaurants in Italy.

In choosing the six restaurants I did, I was selecting places that were wrapped in a bit of mythology, places with names that come up frequently in conversations. . . .

these old-fashioned restaurants, with their long menus, tend to cobble together dishes that reflect disparate regions of Italy to a more pronounced degree than newer, trendier Italian restaurants in the city do. And that’s a departure from authenticity right there. When you eat in Italy, the restaurant tends to reflect a less expansive patch of turf. It tends to reflect only the region in which it’s located and possibly adjacent regions. (Italy has 20 regions in all.)

quote]

I don't really understand some of the complaints. Past-the-primeness is, in some ways, the point. With one exception, age was an explicit criterion in selection. He addresses quality, and does not really have much good to say, but quality was explicitly not a factor in choosing restaurants to cover. Again, he makes a clear point in his blog that these restaurants represent an extreme, that most Italian places, including his favorites, occupy a middle ground (with places like Alto on the other extreme.)

Where's the evidence for a demitasse statement?

My own feeling is that it's fairly clear from the article what Bruni's intentions were. If there was any misunderstanding, the blog spells things out even more clearly. Some of the complaints about the article, I feel, are taking the article to task for not doing something Bruni never meant it to do. Rich's comments about the restaurants covered, to me, basically are in concordance with Bruni's own comments. For the most part Rich says the restaurants peaked 10-15 years ago. I think Bruni would agree.

edited to shorten quoted material, add link, and put in filler commentary --

Edited May 5, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[senorshuckerman]

In order to place this reply in context; let me say first off, that were I to rank Gray Lady critics since my arrival here on the Right Coast, Ruth Richel on, Bruni would not be the bottom dweller. No, that space would be occupied by AH. Yet, that his rank is one slot removed from hers is not a reason that I feel that I should abstain from defending Bruni on his nostalgic article praising Italian-American dinning.

Neither do I agree with Bruni. But it seems that the discussion here has been, in error, about Bruni's Italian food knowledge. I did not read his article that way. I read it that he thinks the newer waves of Italian cuisine are a wonderful thing. He just frequently hankers for the past. Sort of like drinking a wonderful assortment of well-made beers, but singing the praises of Falstaff Beer (-remember "Fall stiff with a Falstaff…") so to critique him is not to critique his food knowledge. In one way I agree with him, that taste, and everything else that goes into a stellar experience at a restaurant has as much to do with the emotional buttons pushed as the chemistry occurring on the plate.

Frankly, I perceive of the editorial decision, to deed it SO much space, and the writerly decision focus on it, as a populist move. He may alienate a few of us food-wackos writing our pathetic opinions in the ether, but he will be giving voice to many New Yorkers, especially those of a certain demographic. That I think, by writing the piece, he demonstrates that he has the cumulative taste of a gnat, seems of little consequence.

[rich]

I have no problem with the piece being written or to the amount of space it was given, but on the chosen restaurants. With the exception of Roberto's, the restaurants chosen have long-since past their prime (the only one where I haven't dined is Gino.) My feeling is and has always been, research is a sometimes thing for him, as it is with a large portion of the NY Times staff.

There are many, many other places that fill his criteria, that are better than the other four on the list and a few a within a stone's throw of places he visited. He says these are old time places full of warmth and nostaglia (paraphasing), but yet he includes the 1992 Roberto's.

And as an aside, Roberto's worst day is still better than PV's best at this point.

Finally, I disagree that the Times critic knows Italian food - modern or otherwise. As I said, his time in Rome was spent sipping demitasse with JP or Benny - good for the soul maybe, but did nothing for the palate.

Here are my opinions of the other four:

Piccola Venezia - very good when it opened, hasn't been very good in about 15 years. Ponticello, which is three blocks away, rises head and heals over PV.

Tommasso - always interesting, lost its edge some ten years ago, surviving on name and the gregariousness of the owner. Visit Michael's about 1 1/2 miles away.

Bamonte - Wise guy hangout that was never that good, but had a solid reputation as being safe for the right people. Even in its day, Prudenti's Vicino Mare was infinitely better (and had better wise guys). Travel about 15 minutes to Sapori d'Ischia for great regional Italian (regional was mentioned in the blog but not described accurately) and the warmth and nostaglia feel he so desparately needs.

Manducattis - this was excellent when it first opened and did have a great wine list - no more for either. Their food prices have risen as the quality has declined. People from the immediate neighborhood rarely go, it's frequented by those Manhattanites reading very old reviews. Travel one block and visit Manetta's or three blocks to Bella Vita, better food at a 1/3 of the cost.

Hope this helps.

Edited May 4, 2006 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

"I have no problem with the piece being written or to the amount of space it was given, but on the chosen restaurants. With the exception of Roberto's, the restaurants chosen have long-since past their prime "

That was the point of the piece.

[rich]

"I have no problem with the piece being written or to the amount of space it was given, but on the chosen restaurants. With the exception of Roberto's, the restaurants chosen have long-since past their prime "

That was the point of the piece.

←

I thought the point of the piece was to showcase older-style Italian restaurants (as opposed to the Del Posto, L'Impero, Alto, Babbo etc. crowd), not restaurants that are in a decline (quality-wise).

[Nathan]

I read it as talking about those places that people have a nolstalgia for and ascertaining whether that nolstalgia is really warranted.

"I have no problem with the piece being written or to the amount of space it was given, but on the chosen restaurants. With the exception of Roberto's, the restaurants chosen have long-since past their prime "

That was the point of the piece.

←

I thought the point of the piece was to showcase older-style Italian restaurants (as opposed to the Del Posto, L'Impero, Alto, Babbo etc. crowd), not restaurants that are in a decline (quality-wise).

←

[rich]

I read it as talking about those places that people have a nolstalgia for and ascertaining whether that nolstalgia is really warranted.

[

←

But that's different than saying the point of the artcle was Italian restaurants in decline. But if he was doing that - what would be the point? Just to pick six places and say don't go there and then give one of those a half page photo on the front page? Why bother? I don't get the logic behind it. Unless his point was just to insult the owners and patrons of those six places.

However if the nostaglia theory is correct (and I guess he's the only one who really knows), I go back to my original statement. How did he come up with those six places?

They certainly aren't the best known or most popular of the old-style Italians. Also, it makes including Roberto's even more puzzling as it's a relatively new restaurant.

Either way, I still question his research technique and his knowledge of Italian food of either genre. It appears to me this whole futile effort was haphazard at best or a total lapse of judgement at worst.

[BryanZ]

A recent meal at Aquavit got me thinking about the different inclinations of past reviewers.

Aquavit holds 3-stars from Amanda Hesser in a review in 2001. In this review she praised the restaurant's creativity and was willing to overlook early creative misfires when they were later refined. I personally loved the food at Aquavit and found it to be refreshing and surprisingly creative in the context of a plethora of New American/French that dominate NYC fine dining. Bruni, however, does not seem to award creativity in the least. To prove this statement, I will cite reviews of Gilt, Perry St., and Cru.

In the Gilt review, Bruni, besides his complaints about pricing which don't directly relate to the food or overall dining experience, seems to demote the restaurant from three to two-stars because it overextends itself in the reach of the cuisine and tries to do too much on too small a plate.

In the Perry St. review, Bruni repeatedly asserts that this is Jean-Georges-lite. While JG's food is certainly great, it hasn't changed much since the late 1990's. This suggests that Bruni is bumping up a very good restaurant (2-stars) to an excellent one (3-stars) on the basis that its chef is finally returning to what he does best, rather than forging new ground.

Finally, in the Cru review, Bruni does praise Chef Shea's ability to balance nouveau techniques with accesibility and awards the restaurant three stars. He, however, pans Will Goldfarb's desserts. Anyone who knows anything about NYC pastry puts Goldfarb in the avant garde category. Bruni's rhetoric in this section of the review almost seems like a direct attack on all avant garde chefs in NYC.

I realize that everyone has different tastes, but it just seems that Bruni is completely creativity-adverse.

[oakapple]

In the Gilt review, Bruni, besides his complaints about pricing which don't directly relate to the food or overall dining experience, seems to demote the restaurant from three to two-stars because it overextends itself in the reach of the cuisine and tries to do too much on too small a plate.

In fairness, the Times website says, and has said since before Bruni arrived, that the rating takes the price into account. I don't have a problem with that, as price certainly is part of the dining experience—namely, the last part of the experience, when you have to pay for it all.

Any critic must have a view on whether a chef's experiments have succeeded. If the critic concludes that quite a few of them have not, should the restaurant be awarded a bonus star because the chef boldly dares to go where no chef has gone before? When was the last time that any NYT critic said something like, "A lot of these experiements are unsuccessful, but this restaurant still gets three stars for pushing the edge of the envelope."

It's fair to say Bruni just isn't enamored with creative cooking, no matter where he goes. It's not a case of liking what Scott Conant did at Alto, while disliking Gilt. At every restaurant that has received at least three stars from him, the cooking is fairly traditional. On his blog recently, he admitted to very ambivalent feelings about WD-50, which suggests that Wylie Dufresne won't be getting a third star anytime soon.

I realize that everyone has different tastes, but it just seems that Bruni is completely creativity-adverse.

←

I agree with this. Frank is a meat-and-potatoes guy at heart, and creativity doesn't win any points with him.

[BryanZ]

Fair points. See, I can understand how something like wd~50 gets two stars, even though it puts out arguably my favorite food in the city. The Gilt review bothered me, however, because Gilt taps into a niche that I feel is under-represented in NYC. But then again these are my opinions and ones that I have voiced in the past. I brought all this up because my reading Hesser's review of Aquavit resounded more deeply than most all of Bruni's.