Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[chefboy24]

The only two people in NYC that REALLY care what he says/said are Batali and Bastianich.

←

wow. you have no idea what a review will do to the financial success of a restaurant. not a clue.

sorry. you lose.

Edited July 16, 2006 by chefboy24 (log)

[Nathan]

"Oh, I agree Nathan. I was referring to eGullet (and I guess other similar sites). My fault for not making that clear. "

your "P.S." indicates otherwise.

[rich]

"Oh, I agree Nathan. I was referring to eGullet (and I guess other similar sites). My fault for not making that clear. "

your "P.S." indicates otherwise.

←

I was just trying for sarcastic/funny with the PS. I always get myself in trouble that way.

[oakapple]

In a post yesterday, Eater opines:

There is now no doubt that the Times food section is broken. On the heels of his two star review of Le Cirque, Bruni awards Little Owl the same two stars. Two for Le Cirque, two for Little Owl. Other two star classics include Buddakan and Dressler. And The Orchard. And Gilt. (If and when they can dig deep and drop the price point from $25 and Under the state of affairs may improve. Until then, now is your chance to open a two star, twenty seat restaurant.)

Beyond the fact that Le Cirque and Little Owl are both two stars, seven of Bruni's last ten reviews have been two stars. If Tom Colicchio knew how to broil a steak, it could have been eight out of ten.

I think it has always been true—as Leonard Kim likes to point out—that the Times reviewing system is really two systems superimposed on one another. The systems seem to collide at two stars, which is the "penalty rating" for fancy restaurants that are under-performing, and the "bonus rating" for neighborhood restaurants that are especially good.

But Bruni has exacerbated the problem by being rather stingy at the three- and four-star levels, and rather generous at the two-star level. The upshot is that, whereas his one, three, and four-star ratings are relatively coherent, his two-star ratings are not.

One wonders whether Eater's provocative (but entirely justified) critique will cost him his inside information. Every week, Eater seems to know which restaurant Frank is reviewing next, and quite amusingly posts the rating odds the night before.

Edited July 27, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I don't know what inside information Eater may have...but you too may have inside information as to Bruni's Wednesday reviews merely by reading his blog on Monday (for example, he revealed that he was reviewing Little Owl two days early).

I believe restaurants are also always informed ahead of time (for one thing, they need to take photos)

[ulterior epicure]

I think it has always been true—as Leonard Kim likes to point out—that the Times reviewing system is really two systems superimposed on one another. The systems seem to collide at two stars, which is the "penalty rating" for fancy restaurants that are under-performing, and the "bonus rating" for neighborhood restaurants that are especially good.

Very true... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? Instead of looking at as a penal/reward system - why not see it for maybe what it is? That is, Bruni's really evaluating things on a total package deal - how he feels. Certainly, a restaurant critic's job is to opine - and it depends on his/her preferences. Clearly, Bruni like his steaks grilled, not roasted. He doesn't care for circus frills (e.g. Le Cirque, Del Posto and Morimoto), but he does like traditional cuisine (e.g. Le Bernardin). Menu simplicity also seems to be favored (e.g. Megu, Craftsteak, etc...).

... so, knowing his pattern, I know where I stand in comparison with his tastes - and it guides me just fine through the NYC culinary scape. That's all I can ask. To say that he's inconsistent, I don't think is fair. In fact, I find his preferences and aversions rather apparent. That's all I need.

But Bruni has exacerbated the problem by being rather stingy at the three- and four-star levels, and rather generous at the two-star level. The upshot is that, whereas his one, three, and four-star ratings are relatively coherent, his two-star ratings are not.

So, are we asking for a more predictable restaurant critic? One that plays to our tastes? Just a thought... don't all jump down my collar at once now!

Just some food for thought.

u.e.

Edited July 27, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Nathan]

"... so, knowing his pattern, I know where I stand in comparison with his tastes - and it guides me just fine through the NYC culinary scape. That's all I can ask. To say that he's inconsistent, I don't think is fair. In fact, I find his preferences and aversions rather apparent. That's all I need."

this is the best defense of Bruni I've seen. in other words, he is reliable in his tastes....which makes his reviews useful. I think too many here have some Platonic ideal for a restaurant critic (albeit not usually fleshed out) rather than focussing on the utility of a critic's reviews.

[Sneakeater]

Speaking for myself, I do have a platonic ideal of a critic. Maybe it's unfair to expect real criticism from a reviewer in a daily newspaper. But in general, I don't read criticism for the bottom line. I read criticism to learn things. If all I got out of the New York Review of Books was thumbs-up-or-down recommendations, I'd cancel my subscription.

[Sneakeater]

I guess maybe the way to be fair to someone like Bruni is to call him a reviewer rather than a critic. Which I guess is more accurate.

[oakapple]

Instead of looking at as a penal/reward system - why not see it for maybe what it is?  That is, Bruni's really evaluating things on a total package deal - how he feels.

I suppose it could be described in other ways. The "penalty/reward" metaphor is simply one way of explaining the de facto system as it has been for many years. For some restaurants, a two-star review is like winning the lottery ("reward"), and for others, it's represents a failure ("penalty"). I'm certainly not the first to have noticed this.

... so, knowing his pattern, I know where I stand in comparison with his tastes - and it guides me just fine through the NYC culinary scape.  That's all I can ask.  To say that he's inconsistent, I don't think is fair.  In fact, I find his preferences and aversions rather apparent.  That's all I need.

←

Oh, I totally agree that Bruni is predictable. In that sense, he is certainly better than someone who has no compass at all. But his consistency doesn't mean that we're living in an era of great food criticism at the Times. Edited July 27, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

the bottom line isn't the point at all.

the point is that I know Bruni's predilections, what he likes and why, what he dislikes and why. I know what he likes that I will dislike and what he dislikes that I will like...because he's consistent and gives his reasons. that's all I ask of a critic, in any field. they can't all be T.S. Eliot and introduce the concept of the "objective correlative" or Ruskin with the "pathetic fallacy" and change our way of reading or viewing.

Bruni is a critic in the same way that Michiko Kakutani is.

[Leonard Kim]

Out comes the calculator ...

In the past half-year, Bruni's percentage of ** reviews has in fact gone up from 36% to 49% which which does seem like a huge leap to me in such a short period of time (though overall * is still most common).

Whereas before he was relatively stingy with the ** compared with his predecessors, he is now one of the most generous. Reichl is still queen of the **. It would be interesting to see if her ** also features a mix of boosts to humbler places combined with "smackdowns" of ambitious places. Bruni's stinginess with *** has in fact mellowed somewhat in this same past 1/2 year.

Both of these trends are obviously compensated for by a decrease in *.

Bruni actually has more **** reviews than Grimes, in about 100 fewer reviews. But as mentioned already, a lot of that has to do with Bruni's self-confessed (in his blog) intent to re-review previous ****.

[rich]

He just awarded me two stars for not criticizing him on eGullet anymore.

[Sneakeater]

Reichl is still queen of the **.  It would be interesting to see if her ** also features a mix of boosts to humbler places combined with "smackdowns" of ambitious places.

←

It kind of has to, doesn't it? It's sort of endemic to the nature of the category, isn't it?

In any event, Ruth Reichl certainly did a lot of "boosting" of humbler places (especially Asian ones) -- which I guess is the more controversial use of the ** rating.

The use of ** for "smackdowns" of ambitious places seems sort of inevitable. I think the problem a lot of people have with Bruni's "smackdowns" isn't that he gives ** ratings to ambitious places he views as failed, but that he views too many ambitious places as "failed" that others view as successful (The Modern, Alto, Gilt). I don't hear a lot of wailing here over Le Cirque getting only **, for instance. (And, contrary to the response here at the time, I don't think there's a lot of bitterness anymore over the ** given to Cafe Gray.)

In sum, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think the problem is that the ** rating is being used as a combination of "boosts" to humbler places and "smackdowns" of ambitious places. I think the problem is that too many places are being "boosted" that people don't think deserve it, and similarly two many places are getting "smacked down" without desert.

We all have models for what a one, three, and four star restaurant should be. But I wonder if most of us have a similarly clear idea of a model two-star (i.e., not a failed three-star or an overperforming one-star, but a two-star performing at its level)?

Edited July 27, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Slightly off topic: Didn't the NY Times used to operate on a 3-star format? If so, who was the first critic to establish the 4-star review?

u.e.

[Todd36]

Slightly off topic: Didn't the NY Times used to operate on a 3-star format?  If so, who was the first critic to establish the 4-star review?

u.e.

←

It's a four star system in my 1968 NYT book......

[Jason Perlow]

One Star for Chinatown Brasserie.

http://events.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/dinin...ed=2&ref=dining

Dumbass.

While I agree the dim sum is among the strongest stuff on the menu, even if you were to evaluate the restaurant on dim dum alone, it would still be a two star place.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Jason Perlow (log)

[Sneakeater]

FWIW, I disagree pretty strongly. I think one star is right. Dim sum are only a part of a very flawed menu.

[dan.]

While I agree the dim sum is among the strongest stuff on the menu, even if you were to evaluate the restaurant on dim dum alone, it would still be a two star place.

←

But if the dim sum is the strongest menu item and 2 star worthy and Bruni's not evaluating on dim sum alone, than one star is entirely appropriate, as the remaining menu items are a drag on the rating.

[Jason Perlow]

I don't think their regular menu items are a drag. I thought the mains we tried were excellent examples for the genre.

[rich]

This is the type of place that should have received two separate star entries. The DS is three or four and the other is 0-1. Afterall, the restaurant has two separate chefs why not a two-level review with stars for each chef's cuisine?

However the Times could never be that creative these days - much beyond their scope.

[Sneakeater]

I don't think their regular menu items are a drag. I thought the mains we tried were excellent examples for the genre.

←

Especially considering the price, I think they're a pretty big drag. Even more especially if you consider, along with the price, their inconsistency. (Remember that most diners don't have the guy who conceived the place's menu telling them what to order.)

If I were a star-giving guy, I wouldn't give the entrees more than a star.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

It's also worth noting that Eater predicted one star. And not mainly on political/Kremlinological grounds, but pretty much on qualitative grounds:

http://eater.curbed.com/archives/2006/08/brunibetting_ch.php

Also, Adam Platt gave CB one star, and that's out of a possible five.

Finally, speaking personally, I have to say if I never walk out of a place without feeling vaguely ripped off, I consider that a bad sign. Speaking only for myself, of course.

[Jason Perlow]

Remember that most diners don't have the guy who conceived the place's menu telling them what to order

Actually, the only two dishes we tried that Ed mentioned was the Beef and Broocoli and the Pan Fried Noodles. Everything else we ordered off the menu. There were a few others that he emphasized that we didn't try. We also went on opening night and they knew we were there, so I will concede they probably were trying extra hard to make sure everything came out perfect.

As to the price/value issue I can't equate with what Chinatown Brasserie does with your typical C-Town cantonese resturant. Its a very expensive space and they need to recoup their costs somehow, and they are also using ingredients that are better qualitatively than what -most- Chinese restaurants in the city use.

I'm going there again this weekend with some people that haven't tried it yet, I'll let you know what they think -- they've certainly had enough 2 star, 3 star and 4 star meals to know what merits it and what doesn't.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Jason Perlow (log)

[Sneakeater]

As have you, of course.