Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Sneakeater]

Eater may or may not be correct in his reading of Bruni's evaluation of the food at the RTR, but I thought his remark about "The Age of Two Stars" having been succeeded by Bruni's "Wild Card Period" was spot on.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

That's laughable.  Sorry.

It's a business.  There are financial people behind it.  When a positive NY Times review can still mean a 40% upsurge in business (and that's a fact), unless the RTR expects to sell out every night for the next five years (yeah right)...no such business, no matter how egotistical, would go out of their way to intentionally garner a bad review.

Bruni can make or close a restaurant.  It's that simple.  No one else can say that.  And if you don't believe that you might want to start talking to restaurant owners.  Cause they believe it.  That's why his expertise (or lack thereof) is such a topic of conversation...because he matters.

Adam Platt is a pretty awful critic.  No one cares.  Cause he can't make or break a restaurant.  Bruni can and does.

Grimes gave RTR a Satisfactory a few years ago.  You don't think that wasn't a factor in its closure (not long after)?  I do.

←

I don't disagree with the theory, but it has not proved flawless.

The Biltmore got three stars and closed - you could get a reservation anytime while it was open. Cru has three stars and reservations are easy to come by. Blue Hill has three - reservations are generally easy. I'm sure there are others. Yet Landmarc has one - try a get a seat after 7pm (even on a Monday).

It think your statement was more true with other reviewers. The current person's rep is such that even the general public doesn't pay attention much - and they're always the last to know.

And no, RTR was "gone" long before the Grimes review - it was a tourist trap and everyone knew it. But is was like Luchows toward the end - it was a place to go to look at a world that no longer existed.

Edited December 20, 2006 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

ok, I'm a glutton for punishment.

here's why the chicken kiev doesn't count, cause Bruni says so:

"That’s easy: because a torpedo of breaded chicken with a butter-filled cavity isn’t really what Gary Robins, a seriously gifted chef, wants to cook. Mr. Robins, whose new American cuisine at the Biltmore Room won him widespread praise, has a deservedly grander and less fry-happy sense of self."

how about:

" goose breast carpaccio isn’t all the rage in St. Petersburg, but maybe it should be."

stroganoff "terrific dish"

"Slices of pork tenderloin were complemented by a version of stuffed cabbage — steamed and filled with ground pork shoulder and foie gras — that was out of this world. And the pickled cabbage beside a beautifully roasted fillet of turbot was a kraut to end all krauts, studded with pastrami and suffused with butter and olive oil."

"Sumptuous appetizer crepes"

"potato pancakes...wholly on target, hitting that crunchy-oily bull’s-eye."

now, compare this with the Robuchon review:

"though not in so pious a posture, and certainly not on that day, during a supposedly “soft” opening when prices were actually higher than they are now. Although L’Atelier had already been installed and refined in Paris, Tokyo and Las Vegas, it hit the ground limping: bad bread, flustered service, palpable arrogance."

"you still have to push past some nonsense."

"making this L’Atelier feel fractured and conflicted."

"The hotel intrudes on the restaurant" etc. (there's even more)

"And many appetizers (a category apart from the tasting portions) are significantly larger than some entrees, like a few undistinguished slices of roasted rack of lamb.

That lamb was one of the menu’s definite soft spots and the $46 that it cost underscored how seriously expensive, in bites per dollar, L’Atelier can be."

and, of course, Robuchon is even more expensive than RTR.

[Nathan]

"The Biltmore got three stars and closed - you could get a reservation anytime while it was open."

that wasn't true after the review. reservations were not easy. and it closed 3 years later. reviews matter. old stars from the past don't.

" Cru has three stars and reservations are easy to come by."

also a couple years ago.

"Blue Hill has three - reservations are generally easy. I'm sure there are others."

ditto.

"Yet Landmarc has one - try a get a seat after 7pm (even on a Monday)."

That's called "price point"

"It think your statement was more true with other reviewers. The current person's rep is such that even the general public doesn't pay attention much"

absolute b.s.

most people that read the reviews barely know the names of the reviewers. its the outcome of the review that they care about.

look, I know a bunch of the average readers of the Times dining column who actually eat out at expensive restaurants but are not foodies. They're called lawyers....and other professionals.

They don't sit there wondering if Bruni is worse than Grimes or whether Hesser had some sort of deal with JG -- all they know is that RTR got one star and it's very expensive so it must suck, while Spice Market is really good cause it got a rave review and 3 stars -- and it's not even very expensive!

Most people who spend money on food don't know anything about it. But they read reviews.

once again, talk to some restaurant owners.

[rich]

As I started this, I'm saying logic dictates you're correct.

I'm just trying to come up with some theory why he was dissed. I don't buy he wasn't recognized. Everyone in the restaurant industry knows who the Times critic is and what he looks like (even I know what he looks like) - especially at the level RTR is attempting to operate. And they knew as a new place he would be showing up.

Maybe he was in drag.

[Sneakeater]

Nathan's last post got me to thinking.

It's true about places like the Biltmore Room and Cru: they get these extremely favorable reviews, for a while you can't get into them, and then at some point it's all too easy to get into them.

Meanwhile, you still often can't get near Landmarc, even after all these years. Not to mention a place like Balthazaar. Or even Al Di La, for that matter.

Which makes me wonder: are there actually more expensive restaurants in New York than the market can bear? Were there always so many new openings each year, with new places edging out old places, and then getting edged out in turn? Or is this a relatively new phenomenon (maybe having its roots in the 80s and developing from there)?

I'd have imagined that there used to be more stability, but maybe I'm just imagining a past that never existed. (Certainly, things still stay fairly stable at the very top: it's not like it's that easy to get into JG or Daniel.)

This seems like the kind of thing Fat Guy would know.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Relevant to that last comment (but not necessarily supportive of it) is the following excerpt from the interview of John LeFemina (proprietor of Peasant, Apizz,and the Orchard) that Bruni posted on his blog a few weeks ago:

"On the subject of crowd rhythms, which was why I had called, I told him that I’m regularly struck by the fact that so many new restaurants (and every month there are many, many new restaurants) are jammed from the get-go, their tables packed night after night and week after week, even though they’ve not been around long enough to create loyal customers or get reviews.

"I see all these people and wonder how they know about a place so early and get there so quickly. And I wonder why so many restaurants struggle, as we all know they do, when it can look so easy and automatic at the start.

"In recent years Mr. LaFemina has opened Peasant, Apizz and, lastly, the Orchard. What has he learned from those restaurants?

"'Everybody wants to go to a new place,' he said. New Yorkers want to be the first to have opinions about, and experiences at, the latest place to open, the place their acquaintances haven’t managed to visit, especially if it’s been mentioned prominently in a few publications.

"So the first months, he said, are the cakewalk. After about five months, he said, it gets harder, and without doubt, he said, the most challenging, predictive months of a restaurant’s initial year are the 11th and 12th ones. If a restaurant can remain packed then, it may well hang around for a significant while.

"But being packed at the start, while a good thing, isn’t something with a whole lot of meaning for the long haul."

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

As I started this, I'm saying logic dictates you're correct.

I'm just trying to come up with some theory why he was dissed. I don't buy he wasn't recognized. Everyone in the restaurant industry knows who the Times critic is and what he looks like (even I know what he looks like) - especially at the level RTR is attempting to operate. And they knew as a new place he would be showing up.

Maybe he was in drag.

←

I got treated fine the two times I was there.

Maybe they got us confused.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

The Biltmore got three stars and closed - you could get a reservation anytime while it was open. Cru has three stars and reservations are easy to come by. Blue Hill has three - reservations are generally easy. I'm sure there are others. Yet Landmarc has one - try a get a seat after 7pm (even on a Monday).

←

A very high percentage of new restaurants don't survive their third year. This doesn't mean that the Times review is economically irrelevant. Many factors determine whether a restaurant lives or dies, and critics' reviews are a part of it.

Reservations aren't easy to come by at Cru. I mean, it doesn't take 2 months like Per Se, but my anecdotal experience on Opentable is that prime times fill up pretty quickly, and most evenings sell out all but the most undesirable times. Blue Hill is similar.

Everyone in the restaurant industry knows who the Times critic is and what he looks like (even I know what he looks like) - especially at the level RTR is attempting to operate. And they knew as a new place he would be showing up.

Bruni's reviews are full of examples where the staff very obviously had not figured out who he was. This was certainly not the first time it has happened.

here's why the chicken kiev doesn't count, cause Bruni says so.

What Bruni says, is that Robins doesn't really want to be cooking it. But he is cooking it, and presumably other people will order it, and it tastes like airline food.

To support his contention that this was a three-star food review, Nathan trots out the Joel Rubuchon review for comparison. There is nothing about the food in the Rubuchon review that compares to Bruni's clear dissatisfaction with "more than a few" items at the RTR. There is quite a bit of distance between "undistinguished" lamb and a dish that "had an acrid aftertaste," or that tastes like airline food.

most people that read the reviews barely know the names of the reviewers. its the outcome of the review that they care about.

Here I agree with Nathan. The food industry's low esteem for Bruni is not widely recognized.

[Eatmywords]

"I don't doubt that Bruni thought that "more than a few dishes weren't so successful.""

I doubt it. 

I think he really, really loved the food.  But was absolutely poisoned by the front of the house.

←

Haha.....dude, thats nuts.....why would he confuse your (supposed) ignorant Times readers with such comments? Clearly, he cites the kitchen's shortcomings (as Oak pointed out)

Don't forget, a key to good service stems from an efficient, consistent kitchen.

[Nathan]

there were five paragraphs of positives about the food and one of negatives. you guys are reading a different review then I am

[Nathan]

"Don't forget, a key to good service stems from an efficient, consistent kitchen."

issues with the kitchen only plausibly related to one service gripe (food coming out slowly). did you read the review?

[oakapple]

there were five paragraphs of positives about the food and one of negatives.  you guys are reading a different review then I am

←

With so many people reading it the way we are, doesn't that tell you something?

I would add one more point. I think it was the redoubtable Leonard Kim who pointed out that Bruni has hardly ever doled out three stars to a new restaurant if he had any significant reservations about the food.

You can debate just how "significant" the reservations must be. But I challenge you to find very many three star reviews in which his complaints about individual dishes were of comparable intensity to his complaints at RTR — even if it was only one paragraph (by my count it was two paragraphs).

Your best example was L'Atelier, where he merely complained that lamb was "undistinguished."

Edited December 20, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

that unfortunately Bruni gave a different impression then he intended?

though, cheez, come on guys, how can overlook the first fricking paragraph?

"....Gary Robins, a seriously gifted chef....Mr. Robins, whose new American cuisine at the Biltmore Room won him widespread praise, has a deservedly grander and less fry-happy sense of self."

you're reading what you want to read.

[Nathan]

He had at least four paragraphs of complaints about L'Atelier.

As I said above, I think it would have taken perfect service (certainly at its price point -- Bruni is far more price conscious than many here realize -- or maybe they just disagree with that emphasis) for RTR to garner three stars. But it is obvious to me that his critique of the food is very half-hearted. In fact, if he had given it more than one star I don't think he would have included most of them. the food critiques are generally so vague (he clearly doesn't think the kiev counts) as to indicate that he threw them in to help justify one star...so it didn't look like it was service alone!

[Eatmywords]

I wonder if Bruni reads this crap. I can picture him laughing his ass off.

[oakapple]

that unfortunately Bruni gave a different impression then he intended?

Unless any of us have a previously undisclosed inside track, the guide to what he intended is what he wrote. All of it. And I think he's made it abundantly clear that, to get three stars, it is not enough to be "seriously gifted." One also must be consistent.

He had at least four paragraphs of complaints about L'Atelier.

←

Almost none of which were about the food on the plate, except for "undistinguished" lamb, to which he devoted not even a full sentence.

[Nathan]

Bruni on Perry St.:

"Given the winnowed options, there are too many disappointing dishes. An heirloom tomato and mozzarella salad was beautiful to behold but merely pleasant to eat. Steamed black bass was dressed in a basil vinaigrette so tart it suggested some kind of accident behind the scenes. So I tried this entree again on a subsequent night: still too tart, though appreciably less so."

Bruni on RTR:

"More than a few dishes weren’t so successful. Tea-smoked sturgeon had an acrid aftertaste."

Bruni on Perry St.:

"Other dishes also varied from visit to visit......Although Mr. Vongerichten's condominium apartment is just upstairs on the seventh floor and he has been spending much of his time in the kitchen here, it could use more discipline."

Bruni on RTR:

"The kitchen was also bedeviled by inconsistency."

If you can parse some qualitative difference between these remarks, your are much better at hermaneutics than me.

Every culinary criticism of RTR was paralleled by a near identical caveat re: Perry St.

And here is the last word, Bruni on RTR:

"But this restaurant’s real shortcoming is its service, unforgivably poor"

[Nathan]

one could throw in the comments on inconsistent food at Bouley as well -- but I would agree that a three star demotion should be judged differently.

[raji]

I wonder if Bruni reads this crap.  I can picture him laughing his ass off.

Guaranteed he's reading this. Probably googles his name monthly too!

[Sneakeater]

I'll just note that how critical you think Bruni was of the food at RTR depends in large part on how much you think the "coach not first class" "airline" chicken kiev counts. That was clearly his most damning criticism of the food -- and it was extremely damning.

I have to say that I tend to think it doesn't count. I don't agree with Bruni for criticizing them for doing so, but I think it's clear, as he said, that the restaurant is trying to discourage people from ordering it, making it almost an "off menu" item. But I also have to note that I saw a surprising number of people ordering it anyway. So it's hard to say that it's not still in play.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Eatmywords]

Oak, do you think it's possible that Nathan has this rare "inside track"? He's been kissing Bruni's ass for so long that he just might have formed a telepathic connection through his colon right up to his brain. It's kind of like the movie "Being John Malcovich" but instead of entering his brain through a little door, he goes through the rear. I think it's quite possible Nathan knows every thought Bruni has before he has it not to mention his next bowel mvmt.

[Sneakeater]

Is that "Bruni" or "beyond"?

[Nathan]

How many here really think it was Robins' decision to be serving chicken kiev and beef stroganof upon request?

[Sneakeater]

Of course it wasn't. But the problem is, they still serve it. And people still order it. Even if Robins is dragged into making it kicking and screaming, people are still paying good money to buy it.