Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Nathan]

I guess my only point here is that any restaurant that is reviewed right now will provoke a response of "why did he bother to review that?"

there literally is nothing new to review.

(ok, the Tasting Room and maybe InTent are ready.)

[rich]

And if half the menu disappoints (and execution unpredictable) how do you bestow even one star?

←

You must have forgotten who is doing the review. Once you remember, the answer will become obvious.

Clue - He is charter member of the NAC club and has been named its president-elect.

[oakapple]

Yes, Da Silvano seemed to be a pointless review. Although it's slender pickings at the moment, I find it difficult to believe that there are no restaurants in the whole city that aren't worth calling attention to.

Now, the review was not totally without journalistic merit, because it tells us that the original two-star rating is no longer valid. But there are probably a lot of old two-star restaurants that don't deserve the second star any more. Why review this one?

I would add that if you asked someone to read the Freemans and Da Silvano reviews, without showing them the ratings, it would be hard to see why they aren't both zero stars.

[Nathan]

oakapple, I agree.

[bechamel]

Who knows, all (or at least some) of these arguments pro/con Bruni and the relevance of the NY Times reviewer may be moot, since Pete Wells is supposedly taking over the Dining section.

[Sneakeater]

That probably won't have any effect on Bruni, though.

[oakapple]

Who knows, all (or at least some) of these arguments pro/con Bruni and the relevance of the NY Times reviewer may be moot, since Pete Wells is supposedly taking over the Dining section.

←

Historically, the Times gives its critics very broad independence. Wells would have to tread very lightly around telling Bruni what/how to review.

[oakapple]

It looks like Frank is either taking a vacation or going out of town on a long assignment without his laptop. A blog entry yesterday mentioned that there would be no more posts for about two weeks.

Maybe we'll have a couple of weeks of Marion Burros reviews coming up.

[ned]

I liked the review. Thought it was measured, thoughtful and had a meta-quality necessary to looking at a certain kind of NYC restaurant of which there are many. The kind of place where there is great food alongside bad food, alongside throngs of people waiting to get in, some for dubious reasons. And with service that is attentive or forgetful or institutionally weird in a way that is charming. Bruni wrapped his mind around all that stuff in a way that for me was enjoyable to read.

Below the fold however, in the review of what sounds like a pretty cool place that happens to be very near my apartment, Peter Meehan writes

"The plainest version of the hot soba is served in a broth brightened up by pinches of yuzu and mitsuba."

You can't pinch yuzu. It's a citrus fruit. I guess you could use a pinch of the zest, otherwise it would be a dash or a squirt.

[Sneakeater]

FWIW, I agree with Ned. I thought this Da Silvano review (like the Freeman's review before it) was supposed to function at least in part as a sort of meta-review.

And you know, since people still recommend Da Silvano as a place to eat (it happens here with some frequency), I don't see why Bruni shouldn't weigh in if he thinks the previous rating isn't warranted.

[Nathan]

I'd say the review was explicitly intended to function as a meta-review. He said as much. I quote: "Although those of us in the criticism business like to talk in sweeping, definitive terms, many establishments resist such reduction.

In particular, many establishments like Da Silvano do. The context of my visits was a mini-survey of Italian restaurants that are neither proudly hokey red-sauce joints nor stylized, self-conscious destinations. I was curious about long-running restaurants that combined classicism or rusticity with lofty prices and currency on Page Six.

I went to Il Mulino, where half the food was fantastic, half not. To Il Cantinori — so pleasant in some ways, so forgettable in others."

People, you may disagree with his reasoning, but he's telling you flat out why he chose to review it.

[oakapple]

People, you may disagree with his reasoning, but he's telling you flat out why he chose to review it.

←

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't think he did. I think he rambled, as he so often does when the food bores him.

[bechamel]

Bruni has an impossible job in the sense that pre-publication of a NY Times review should be premised on suspense. It comes out 52 times a year. When you wake up the next day and see a review for Freeman’s or Da Silvano, wouldn’t you ask yourself, “So this is what I was looking forward to reading?” But then again, if his principal duty was to re-review established sacred cows (e.g. Daniel), wouldn’t some also ask, “So, Bruni, you call this news?!”

[Nathan]

bechamel:

I agree. I get killed for this here...but I think some of Bruni's early missteps have resulted in him being held to different standards than prior critics.

If Grimes had not reviewed Cafe des Artistes near the end of his tenure and if Bruni instead reviewed it, I have no doubt that he would be killed for it here.

Leonard Kim has done a yeoman's job in statistically demonstrating that some critiques of Bruni are fallacious (for example, he doesn't indulge in "star inflation" compared to his predecessors...unless you believe that his 100 reviews are of a materially different sample than that of his predecessors...something I find unlikely due to the numbers involved)...

now, does Bruni have a bias toward Italian cuisine? yes. does he have a bias toward "neighborhood restaurants"? yes. but then the Freeman's review appears to deliberately set out to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a mediocre popular neighborhood restaurant. is he impressed by celeb-heavy "scenes"? well, he does like writing about and commenting on them...much more so than Grimes. but he actually tends to pan those restaurants when all is said.

now, if like FG and others here, you hold the classic French model in high regard...its easy to argue that Bruni doesn't understand or appreciate that model enough, especially compared to Grimes. however, considering a changing NY restaurant scene and a changing dining demographic...I'm not sure that any critic in the old Grimes mold (still my favorite restaurant critic) would fly with the general dining public....as compared to the self-selected sample of the NY egullet set.

P.S. as I've noted before: if Bruni reviewed Otto de novo and gave it two stars...I can't even imagine the accusations that would fly of favoritism toward Batali, Italian-centrism etc. of course, in fact, Grimes gave Otto two stars. (and by that standard, the three stars for Babbo and Del Posto seem a little harsh.)

P.P.S. I've developed some appreciation for Bruni's critical acumen, and even courage, after he gave Sriphithai a well-deserved two stars (I think a case could almost be made for three -- give it a better decor and some sort of wine list and it would be entitled to three). That still upsets the Platonic ordering of the culinary universe for many here I realize.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Leonard Kim has done a yeoman's job in statistically demonstrating that some critiques of Bruni are fallacious (for example, he doesn't indulge in "star inflation" compared to his predecessors...unless you believe that his 100 reviews are of a materially different sample than that of his predecessors...something I find unlikely due to the numbers involved)...

Leonard Kim has demonstrated that Frank Bruni doles out ratings in about the same percentages that Grimes does. He has not expressed a statistical opinion on other controversial points, e.g., proportion of "neighborhood restaurants" awarded two stars, a bias against fine dining (Ducasse, Bouley, Alto, The Modern), an emphasis on celebrity-watching (Bette, Le Cirque, Da Silvano, Brasserie LCB), or the choice of dubious review targets (P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson, Freemans, Indochine).

There are only a handful of restaurants where I've disagreed with Bruni's actual rating. But the job is a lot more than assigning a rating.

Edited September 29, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I said that Kim has demonstrated that "some critiques of Bruni are fallacious"; not all.

[Joe Gerard]

bechamel:

I agree.  I get killed for this here...but I think some of Bruni's early missteps have resulted in him being held to different standards than prior critics. 

If Grimes had not reviewed Cafe des Artistes near the end of his tenure and if Bruni instead reviewed it, I have no doubt that he would be killed for it here.

Leonard Kim has done a yeoman's job in statistically demonstrating that some critiques of Bruni are fallacious (for example, he doesn't indulge in "star inflation" compared to his predecessors...unless you believe that his 100 reviews are of a materially different sample than that of his predecessors...something I find unlikely due to the numbers involved)...

now, does Bruni have a bias toward Italian cuisine?  yes.  does he have a bias toward "neighborhood restaurants"?  yes.  but then the Freeman's review appears to deliberately set out to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a mediocre popular neighborhood restaurant.  is he impressed by celeb-heavy "scenes"?  well, he does like writing about and commenting on them...much more so than Grimes.  but he actually tends to pan those restaurants when all is said.

now, if like FG and others here, you hold the classic French model in high regard...its easy to argue that Bruni doesn't understand or appreciate that model enough, especially compared to Grimes.  however, considering a changing NY restaurant scene and a changing dining demographic...I'm not sure that any critic in the old Grimes mold (still my favorite restaurant critic) would fly with the general dining public....as compared to the self-selected sample of the NY egullet set. 

P.S.  as I've noted before: if Bruni reviewed Otto de novo and gave it two stars...I can't even imagine the accusations that would fly of favoritism toward Batali, Italian-centrism etc.  of course, in fact, Grimes gave Otto two stars.  (and by that standard, the three stars for Babbo and Del Posto seem a little harsh.)

P.P.S.  I've developed some appreciation for Bruni's critical acumen, and even courage, after he gave Sriphithai a well-deserved two stars (I think a case could almost be made for three -- give it a better decor and some sort of wine list and it would be entitled to three).  That still upsets the Platonic ordering of the culinary universe for many here I realize.

←

Freeman's and Da Silvano??? I have to believe there are more relevant places to review in New York, whether new or not. I would suggest that he start with updated reviews of the establishments that Hesser butchered during her reign of terror, but I have no faith that the results would be much of an improvement.

This is probably Bruni's worst review. The writing is absolutely painful to muddle through ("It had a dead-on degree of the oxymoronic sweet sourness that this cheese is all about. ") In addition, he basically trashes the place and then awards it a star. Unbelievable.

[bechamel]

Have there been any studies on how an NY Times review affects a restaurant’s bottom line? Some (many?) have argued that a Times review in the Bruni era doesn’t carry as much weight anymore, that the post under Bruni marks the Times’ decline in influence on the restaurant scene, etc.

[oakapple]

Have there been any studies on how an NY Times review affects a restaurant’s bottom line?  Some (many?) have argued that a Times review in the Bruni era doesn’t carry as much weight anymore, that the post under Bruni marks the Times’ decline in influence on the restaurant scene, etc.

←

Not that I'm aware of. It would be an awfully difficult effect to study, because there are so many other factors that affect a restaurant's success. When Bruni reviews a neighborhood place that wasn't on other reviewers' radar screens, I'm sure there's a noticeable bump in business that is almost certainly attributable to him. At the other extreme, Bruni certainly didn't do Alto or Gilt any favors when he panned them.

On the other hand, there are some places that have continued to do quite well despite adverse Bruni reviews (Café Gray, The Modern).

[Mimi Sheraton]

I found during my tenure as the NYt food critic, that there are restaurants that are review-proof. Their clientele likes them for reasons perhaps other than food and may not even read reviews. Examples in my time were Mamma Leone's in the theater district, Tavern on the Green and Elaine's to name only a few.

I suspect that is the case with Da Silvano...As with Elaine's, it is practically a club and non-members need not go there. Those owners know how to coddle certain customers,. catering to their whims and, most of all, protecting them from the great unwashed. They also go there to be themselves without having to be "on."

However, a very favorable review for such places can bring a temporary rush of thrill seekers, thereby annoying the regulars..It is a tight-rope for owners to walk, especially as the thrill-seekers will disappear within two months.

Leone's and Tavern appealed to masses for other reasons and, mainly, their customers did not read restaurant reviews.

What found depressing was that when I gave other types of popular restaurants a bad review, even many loyal regulars stopped going, indicating either that they were unsure of their own tastes or that they were embarrassed to suggest the place to friends or guests because it had rececntly received a bad review.

[rich]

What  found depressing was that when I gave other types of popular restaurants a bad review, even many loyal regulars stopped going, indicating either that they were unsure of their own tastes or that they were embarrassed to suggest the place to friends or guests because it had rececntly received a bad review.

←

Sounds like an infomercial for the "Power of One."

Edited October 2, 2006 by rich (log)

[ulterior epicure]

This has nothing to do with the * rating system, but Frank Bruni mentioned it, and so I'll ask about it on this thread. I listened to Frank Bruni's podcast for today, Friday, Oct. 13. It was about "doggy bags." He mentioned a system at Craft where diners are given a claim check. I don't understand how such a system works. An explanation would be greatly appreciated.

u.e.

[Leonard Kim]

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=91#more-91

After servers cleared the table, one of them returned with a claim check instead of a doggie bag. We had not yet had dessert, so rather than give us a clunky bag we had to keep track of, Craftsteak kept it stowed somewhere behind the scenes. Servers told us that when we presented the claim check to a host on the way out, the bag would be given to us.

[oakapple]

This has nothing to do with the * rating system, but Frank Bruni mentioned it, and so I'll ask about it on this thread.  I listened to Frank Bruni's podcast for today, Friday, Oct. 13.  It was about "doggy bags."  He mentioned a system at Craft where diners are given a claim check.    I don't understand how such a system works.  An explanation would be greatly appreciated.

←

This is now quite common at higher-end restaurants. Your doggy bag is at the coat-check stand.

[Nathan]

in the latest entry in his blog, Bruni notes (specifically with reference to Uovo) that when he has a crappy meal at a small not-ambitious restaurant, he deliberately chooses not to review it....as a sort of beneficience.