Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Sneakeater]

Leonard Kim will have to tell us, but I have the impression that Bruni does review more neighborhood places than his predecessors, and that he tends to rate such places higher.

Giving The Red Cat and Al Di La two stars isn't comparable, to me, to giving Honmura On or Molyvos three stars. Neither of those places is an unassuming neighborhood place. It just seems to me to be a different style of overrating.

[oakapple]

This article by Frank Bruni in Men's Vogue is about his dining habits, and how he stays in shape while ingesting 12,000 calories a day.

[Leonard Kim]

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. . . .

Not that anybody cares, but I made a mistake in my calculations and this post was in error. Bruni's % of ** reviews is rock steady. His distribution of stars continues (numerically) to be a very close match to Grimes.

As for the kinds of restaurants Bruni reviews -- I don't know that I can offer much here other than, say, a list of all of Bruni's ** restaurants vs. some other critic's. Somebody more knowledgeable than I would then have to make the call as to whether Bruni puts relatively more "neighborhood places" in this category.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Sneakeater]

At first, I had the same knee-jerk reaction I'll bet almost everybody had: why waste a review slot on an inexpensive place like Freeman's, appropriately (and, in fact, already) covered in "$25 and Under", if you're only going to rate it "Satisfactory"?

But when I thought about it, I saw that Bruni's Freeman's review actually sort of served a purpose. He's been reviewing all these relatively modest neighborhood places, putting a lot of stress on the star system by giving some of them relatively high (for what they are) two-star ratings. And he's been taking a lot of heat for it.

Whether by design or not, I think this week's review of Freeman's, and last week's review of Trestle on Tenth, operate as a sort of corrective. Trestle is fairly a one-star restaurant: there is a level of technical expertise there, but the food is not of a consistent level -- and even the best of it isn't that great. And, much as many of us enjoy Freeman's, it's fairly a no-star restaurant (indeed for pretty much exactly the reasons Bruni stated): while the food is mostly perfectly edible, the only stand-out dish is the famous artichoke dip; everything else is rather dull and lacking in any special expertise.

Now you might say that Freeman's is a prototypical "$25 and Under" place: fun decor, fun experience, decent food that's good enough for the price but no better. But on the other hand, taken in conjunction with the Trestle review, the Freeman's review goes a way toward establishing what the rating parameters are at the "modest neighborhoody place" level. Although I'm not condoning two-star ratings for places like Little Owl, you can sort of see how Little Owl could get two stars, Trestle could get one, and Freeman's none. By reviewing Freeman's and denying it any stars, Bruni showed by negative example why he thinks some such places deserve the higher ratings he gives them. (Although I also suspect there may be some sort of retrenchment going on, and that we can expect to see fewer two-star "Bruni kisses" for modest places in the future.)

Now he'll have to do something to reconcile the ratings he gave Alto, Del Posto, and the Modern. And to reconcile those with two stars for Little Owl, Al Di La, and the Red Cat.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

(Of course, the real answer is that you can't rate places like Freeman's, Little Owl, and Trestle on the same scale as places like Alto, Del Posto, and the Modern. But we all know that.)

[Nathan]

of course, Freeman's did massively expand since it was in the $25 and under column.

(I expect a Tasting Room review sometime soon for the same reason)

and...it has had a lot of "hipster" and even chowhound type buzz.

[oakapple]

The last two reviews might seem to be a corrective to the rather generous two-star kisses given to Little Owl, Dressler, yada yada yada. Unfortunately, those other reviews are still out there, and will be forever. (They are not likely re-review candidates.)

It's not yet clear whether Bruni thinks he did anything wrong. Of course, he's never going to come out and say "I blew it," but Bruni's often uses coded language to give subtle hints. I see NO indication that he has second thoughts about The Modern, as he has continued to make back-handed comments about it.

The Freemans review is open to more than one criticism, not only that he wasted a reviewing slot on a zero-star restaurant, but that the price point is really more in Meehan's territory, and Meehan reviewed it only two years ago. Although Freemans has expanded, it does not appear that the basic idea of the restaurant has changed.

Do we truly have a new Frank Bruni? It will take a while before we know if that's the case, or if he will return to being his usual random, all-over-the-map self.

I agree that Tasting Room is very likely a re-review candidate, but in this case I think it's appropriate. There's no question that it's Bruni's territory, and a move to new digs is very different from an expansion in existing digs. Also, the existing Grimes review is much older than Peter Meehan's Freemans review.

(Of course, the real answer is that you can't rate places like Freeman's, Little Owl, and Trestle on the same scale as places like Alto, Del Posto, and the Modern. But we all know that.)

The new Grub Street blog has a brief interview today with the new dining section editor, Peter Wells. He's asked if the time has come to raise the $25-and-under price point, and he implies that this might be considered.

[Nathan]

"not only that he wasted a reviewing slot on a zero-star restaurant,"

well...if he never gave out no-star reviews we'd really be talking about grade inflation.

[oakapple]

"not only that he wasted a reviewing slot on a zero-star restaurant,"

well...if he never gave out no-star reviews we'd really be talking about grade inflation.

←

A zero-star review is appropriate in two situations:

1) A high-profile new restaurant must be reviewed, even if it gets zero stars. Mr. Chow's TriBeCa was in this category.

2) A previously reviewed restaurant may deserve a zero-star re-review if quality has fallen off considerably. Mercer Kitchen was in this category.

It's a waste when Bruni awards zero stars to a restaurant that really didn't call out for a review in the first place.

[Sneakeater]

Yeah, but just to clarify the point I was muddledly trying to make, my suspicion is that Bruni did this no-star review to make a point (i.e., to show that he won't give a star or two to every modest neighborhood place, and to show by negative example what he thinks makes some such places deserve stars) (sort of like how his very first review not only reviewed Babbo but also attempted to give an idea of what he thought a four-star restaurant is like).

I'm not saying there's a "new Bruni" or that Bruni's succeeded in either rationalizing his star distributions or remedying any damage he's already done to the star system. Only that I see this Freeman's review as a possible attempt.

(Fortunately, Freeman's is sufficiently "Teflon", as Eater put it, that being used as an example probably won't hurt it much.)

Edited September 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[adamru]

couldn't it be that he looked at the dining landscape of the lower east side and with freeman's constantly busy, their expansion and - according to the journal on eater - their attempts to expand on and improve their menu, that bruni thought a lower east side equivalent to the spotted pig had the most potential to be star-worthy in a neighborhood that doesn't get much critical attention?

[Sneakeater]

Sure. But Bruni doesn't ultimately review every place he checks out. He could have decided not to do a review of Freeman's after he determined he didn't think it was starworthy.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

these are all good point.

I'd also suggest this: that there aren't any restaurants crying out for a review right now. it is too early for Robuchon and the new Picholine. I assume he will do the Tasting Room soon. otherwise, I can't think of any notable new restaurant that he hasn't covered. Ducasse under Esnault would have been ripe for a rereview except for two factors: a. it was reviewed last year under Delouvrier; and b. it is closing/moving anyway.

maybe I'm missing something but is there anything right now besides re-reviews to do? a couple steakhouses I guess.

on the LES, what has been reviewed besides WD-50, Stanton Social and Falai?

[ewindels]

A factor that seems to me to be missing from this discussion (or at least this page of it) is the changed demographic the Times is aiming for, IMO misguidedly. The expansion of the Styles section etc. bespeaks a perceived need on the Times' part to attract the shishi wannabe crowds pouring money into the meatpacking district and lower Park Avenue, whose primary concern is facades over content. This would explain today's review, a venue I can promise you remains high on the list of this crowd, as well as those for such other pointless properties as Bette, Barbounia, and all the "Japanese" aberrations. Bruni, I suspect, is under pressure, directly or otherwise, to make these places a priority, despite the fact that the demographic in question doesn't really read the Times, or newspapers at all. Of the examples I've had the misfortune to meet few were, I suspect, even literate. Catering to them, therefore, strikes me as a singular waste of time.

[Sneakeater]

Hey waitaminute. I like Freeman's.

[Sneakeater]

on the LES, what has been reviewed besides WD-50, Stanton Social and Falai?

←

Not that it's important (or changes your point), but just to be obnoxious and show-offy, Orchard.

[Nathan]

ah, good memory.

did they ever get their liquor license?

[Sneakeater]

I think I read that they announced that they had, but then something got screwed up and they haven't. So they're still doing their no-corkage BYOB, which is great for customers if not for them.

[Sneakeater]

And we both forgot THOR.

[Nathan]

ewindels:

I'm confused as to your point.

The MP and Asian mega-plex diners are primarily a mixture of expense accounters, B&Ters (and their young, affluent UES equivalents), and tourists.

Freeman's gets much more of an LES/Williamsburg tragically-hip, Imitation-of-Christ-wearing crowd.

Those two worlds don't mix much. (I'm just eurotrash so I eat everywhere and don't really fit in to either.)

Although you are somewhat right about the first group not reading much, the second group at least pretends to.

(btw, I do think that those MP and Asian megaplexes would have been reviewed by any prior NY Times food critic -- they're simply too large and expensive not to be.)

[Nathan]

oh...crap..right on Thor (only the best restaurant on the LES -- with the possible exception of WD-50)...

isn't there a moratorium on liquor licenses for the next 4 months?

[oakapple]

I'd also suggest this:  that there aren't any restaurants crying out for a review right now.  it is too early for Robuchon and the new Picholine.  I assume he will do the Tasting Room soon.  otherwise, I can't think of any notable new restaurant that he hasn't covered.

←

There are literally thousands of restaurants that have never had a New York Times review. When the new-and-notables are exhausted, I think the critic should look for the old-and-notables. In a city of 20,000 restaurants, he can't find an overlooked restaurant worthy of at least a star? He can't find a restaurant that's never been reviewed before? Or a restaurant reviewed long enough ago that it deserves a fresh look?

[ewindels]

ewindels:

I'm confused as to your point.

The MP and Asian mega-plex diners are primarily a mixture of expense accounters, B&Ters (and their young, affluent UES equivalents), and tourists.

Freeman's gets much more of an LES/Williamsburg tragically-hip, Imitation-of-Christ-wearing crowd. 

Those two worlds don't mix much.  (I'm just eurotrash so I eat everywhere and don't really fit in to either.)

Although you are somewhat right about the first group not reading much, the second group at least pretends to.

(btw, I do think that those MP and Asian megaplexes would have been reviewed by any prior NY Times food critic -- they're simply too large and expensive not to be.)

←

Nathan, very true, though the night I was at Freemans (or more accurately attempted Freemans -- the wait became absurd) the place was full of people who looked like they more properly belonged at Megu, which surprised me. In the few recent instances that I've been able to stomach such ventures I can't say as I've noticed so much one type of crowd or another (i.e. I won't claim much recent in-depth expertise), so much as one generically vapid herd desperate to be validated by their surroundings and what they perceive to be the cachet thereof. Or more to the point here, what some media outlet has told them has cachet. What little reading they may be doing is largely in search of the next Holy Grail (read, Hot Spot), and this is exactly a market or demographic I think the Times is desperate to get a foothold in (on?), in order to boost advertising revenue. Depth or quality is of little interest to these folks, on that I can speak reliably. In most cases you could serve them styrofoam, and as long as it was impressively priced they'd rave about it.

Jaded? Me? Naw...

[Nathan]

I partially agree.

that "one generically vapid herd desperate to be validated by their surroundings and what they perceive to be the cachet thereof." is absolutely true of both groups.

but trust me on this: they are two entirely different groups with very different tastes (and attire and habits). and the one that Freeman's is going for is certainly not the same one as the MP places.

(indeed, it is at a very different price point)

I have pseudo-hippy LES friends who eat there regularly but who wouldn't be caught dead in the MP.

with that said, practically any restaurant with any cachet at all in the city on a Friday or Saturday night is heavily B&T (especially one with press of any sort)...but that's just rerum naturum.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

"and this is exactly a market or demographic I think the Times is desperate to get a foothold in (on?), in order to boost advertising revenue."

I'm very curious: does anyone have a breakdown on the NYT national revenues v. NY? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the local market is far less important than one would think.

(and I think we often don't consider this when critiquing the restaurant reviews. heck, I read them religiously long before I moved to NY...just to keep abreast of culinary trends in NY...and I know I wasn't unique in that respect)