Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[oakapple]

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."

←

As Leonard Kim noted at the time, Perry Street was that very rare three-star review from Bruni that expressed significant reservations about the food. That's why I said "hardly ever" in my upthread post.

On top of that, if Bruni thought the food alone was worth three stars, then he docked two for service. I cannot remember another review in which he appeared to have awarded two fewer stars than what he thought the food was worth on its own.

Of course, he never says outright what the rating would have been for the food alone, so one can only read tea leaves. If food, service, and ambiance were rated separately, as Rich always reminds us they should be, then there would be no debate.

Edited December 20, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

1. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with Bruni's review. I haven't been to RTR. I have neither criticized nor endorsed Bruni on the RTR subject.

2. What I have said is that he clearly thinks a great deal of the food at RTR....putting it conceivably in the three star category (food-wise).

3. I think the basic problem here is that some of you saw the one-star and went "wow, he killed this place...Robins is doomed" -- that is the way Eater read it. And then you read the review in that light -- missed the 90% of the food verbiage that was positive and concentrated on the 10% that was not.

When I read the review I noticed euphoric comment after comment on the food and went, huh? that one-star must be a misprint. then I got to the service comments.

4. Pair the RTR review with the PS review and the only difference is on the service side of things.

[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.

←

And I must add, this isn't like ordering Cantonese or Shanghainese or Chinese-American dishes at Grand Sechuan. This is the Rusian Fucking Tea Room, for God's sake.

[Nathan]

"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."

But those people want it coach class quality. It was clear to me that he wouldn't have downgraded RTR for the Kiev if everything else was fine.

[Nathan]

does anyone serve chicken kiev in Russia these days?

"On top of that, if Bruni thought the food alone was worth three stars, then he docked two for service. I cannot remember another review in which he appeared to have awarded two fewer stars than what he thought the food was worth on its own."

I cannot remember another review where he had half as many negative things to say about the service.

[Sneakeater]

I admit this is getting sick:

"As for service, well, let’s get there by way of one of Mr. Somer’s pre-Freemans commercial enterprises. He designed T-shirts with cheeky messages. One said, 'My girlfriend is out of town.' Another: 'Emotionally unavailable.' That’s the shirt that should be worn by some of the servers, including the bossy, brittle man who wouldn’t let us order the artichoke dip and the Cheddar toast — a version of Welsh rabbit — while we studied the rest of the menu.

"He said we needed to give our whole order at once, so our meal could be properly paced and we could have 'a much more pleasant experience.' Of course that prohibition had nothing to do with our enjoyment and everything to do with the kitchen’s convenience. It also had no place in a restaurant as studiously unfussy as Freemans, but it exemplified the real attitude here. Bartenders forgot drink orders. A hostess had all the cuddly charisma of Cujo."

[Sneakeater]

But don't get me wrong. I agree with you, Nathan. When I read the review, my thought was, "he makes some negative general remarks about the food, but his specifics make it sound like he thought most of it was really exceptional."

[raji]

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.

 

←

I'm starting to think that Nathan is both Bruni and also a a Michelin reviewer. That means Bruni moonlights as a Michelin reviewer. Earth-shattering!

[Nathan]

SE: yeah, he ripped Freeman's a new one...but that was just equivalent to his general rip of the service at RTR. there was nothing analogous to the sommelier incident.

[rich]

I just thought of something. If the Times did separate its ratings we wouldn't be having this debate and we wouldn't be having so much fun. So maybe it's a good thing they don't.

I can't tell if he thought the food was two or three, but it's clear he deducted something for the service and wine fiasco. I can't imagine him deducting two full stars for that however - hell he only took away one from ADNY for non-working bathrooms. And that could get a lot uglier than trying to up-sell wine.

It was probably a very strong two and if the service was flawless that would have elevated it to three. But since it was a borderline three he made it a very strong one - maybe to teach them a lesson - don't mess with my Burgundy.

But he's sure laughing at all this. We keep talking about him and the Times keeps paying him, so I guess he's doing something right.

Edited December 20, 2006 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

Re: Bruni and Service

Actually, the closest analogy is his recent blog entry about the new Turkish restaurant on Madison Avenue near the Library. The entry mentioned the food, but put its primary focus on some service lapses that were really unforgivable (e.g., spilling wine on a patron and not even apologizing for it).

Not that I'm an apologist for RTR, but to me, this early on, that's the way to handle something like this. Note it in Diner's Journal, and give them a little time to get it together before doing a formal review.

I guess his reasoning is, the food at that Turkish place is such that it probably will never warrant a full review, and in any event it certainly isn't a big-deal front-page-headline place like the new RTR.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

I imagine the Turkish place isn't charging $40 an entree either.

Like I said, price is a big deal to Bruni.

"It was probably a very strong two and if the service was flawless that would have elevated it to three."

I agree with this.

[Leonard Kim]

We all read differently, but my own opinion is that the food part of the RTR review is not quite ***. Marc's already referenced an older post where I talked about Bruni's *** reviews, and yes, there I said Perry St. was an anomaly. Since that time he's done 7 more: Del Posto, A Voce, Country, L'Atelier, Blue Hill, Picholine, and Felidia. The last three are re-reviews with Blue Hill getting a bump from ** to ***.

I think most of what I said in the old post still holds basically true. Two of the reviews, Picholine and Country, have no negative food remarks whatsoever. In another two, the only negative food comments are basically insignificant:

A Voce: "If April Robinson's fittingly straightforward desserts. . . are a bit of a letdown, it's because she has such a tough act to follow."

Blue Hill: "For better and worse, Mr. Barber loves the tenderness that comes from sous vide cooking. . . . But while the results are gorgeous they can often be sexless, making you long for crunch and ooze, for some charred skin here, some messy fat there."

The other three do have negatives, but to my reading nothing on the level or quantity of the RTR review. And note that these negatives don't actually say individual dishes are bad -- just comparatively less successful or just unexciting.

Del Posto: "[reducing the # of menu offerings] would improve the ratio of outstanding dishes to less successful ones. The veal shank. . . was dull and slightly dry, as was swordfish. Pappardelle with wild boar needed more kick"

L'Atelier: "a few undistinguished slices of roasted rack of lamb. That lamb was one of the menu’s definite soft spots"

Felidia: "Seafood is not Felidia's strength While grilled branzino. . . had a clean, clear taste, it mostly seemed like a sop to health-conscious or timid eaters. A poached fillet of striped bass couldn’t quite stand up to the mushroom and tomato broth and celery root purée around it." "desserts are an otherwise uneven affair, the joy of a peach-flavored tiramisù undercut by the joyless pairing of a watermelon sorbet with a chocolate-almond cake. Felidia is uneven in other ways, too. Humdrum lamb chops didn’t live up to heavenly beef cheeks. A dull dish of fettuccine with soft-shell crab couldn’t compete with a salty, zesty dish of chitarra with speck and razor clams."

In terms of positives, the majority of these reviews have a blanket, across the board statement about the dishes such as "most are fantastic" "mostly exhilarating" "mostly terrific" "most ... make you happy ... very happy" and they also continue to display Bruni's bias against what he sees as pointless inventiveness: "straightforward . . . tend not to go off precious, rococo tangents" "They don't wow you with their inventiveness, but they do wow you with their execution." "cares more about robust flavors than about clever conceits. . . sating diners as opposed to wowing them" "avoid excessive trickery or unusual flavor combinations"

[Fat Guy]

(Responding generally to several posts upthread.)

Restaurant reviews aren't algebra problems, where you balance an equation of good and bad comments. Nor are they exercises in star arithmetic. I don't know any reviewer who thinks of his or her own reviews that way. A review has to be understood as a whole, and part of that whole includes the rating. It's easy to pick apart Bruni's reviews because they tend to be easy targets, however there has never been a New York Times reviewer whose reviews would fit into a structure that, for example, demands five examples of bad dishes for a one-star review, four examples for two stars, etc. It just doesn't remotely work that way.

[oakapple]

Marc's already referenced an older post where I talked about Bruni's *** reviews, and yes, there I said Perry St. was an anomaly.  Since that time he's done 7 more: Del Posto, A Voce, Country, L'Atelier, Blue Hill, Picholine, and Felidia.  The last three are re-reviews with Blue Hill getting a bump from ** to ***.

←

For a change, this post is not about The Russian Tea Room.

As I look at this list of Bruni's seven most recent *** reviews, something strikes me. Of the seven:

Two are re-reviews of restaurants that were already ***.

Four have chefs that previously earned *** elsewhere: Del Posto (Babbo/Felidia), A Voce (Cafe Boulud), Country (Town), Blue Hill (Blue Hill Stone Barns).

That leaves L'Atelier, and while Rubuchon was new to New York, he brought enough Michelin stars with him that the expectation of at least *** from the Times was established before his arrival.

There's a similar pattern in Bruni's **** reviews. There have only been four of these, but two of them had **** already, and the other two were copies of models that had been created elsewhere. Also, in 2½ years on the job, Bruni has yet to award **** to a restaurant that opened on his watch.

There is, in other words, a distinct lack of boldness in Bruni's *** and **** awards. He has confirmed pre-existing reputations; he hasn't made them. He certainly hasn't hesitated to slaughter sacred cows (Bouley, Ducasse, Kreuther, Conant, Liebrandt), but he hasn't elevated anyone to sainthood.

This is in stark contrast to Bruni's ** reviews, where he has shown himself quite willing to shatter conventional boundaries. Whether we agree with him or not is a whole other story, but he has at least left a mark. Yet, his *** and **** reviews are more notable for the smackdowns and the ratings not given.

Edited December 21, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

(Responding generally to several posts upthread.)

Restaurant reviews aren't algebra problems, where you balance an equation of good and bad comments. Nor are they exercises in star arithmetic. I don't know any reviewer who thinks of his or her own reviews that way. A review has to be understood as a whole, and part of that whole includes the rating. It's easy to pick apart Bruni's reviews because they tend to be easy targets, however there has never been a New York Times reviewer whose reviews would fit into a structure that, for example, demands five examples of bad dishes for a one-star review, four examples for two stars, etc. It just doesn't remotely work that way.

←

But that really is what the problem is with (a) the monolithic star system in general and (b) this review in particular.

Under a star system, the main news is how many stars the place got. Here, it was one. You read the review to try to determine why. Mostly because some things aren't as important to you as they are to others. But also because things are contingent (what if that unfortunate wine incident hadn't happened to Bruni -- as it didn't to me?).

So, in a sort of ironic way, the star system ends up putting a lot of pressure on the written review, as it has to explain the star rating. For people who care a lot more about food than service, how was the food? For people like rich who don't care much about ambiance, how much did ambiance count? Without explanations of all that, the star award can be very misleading.

I think this review has engendered the kind of debate it has because it really isn't clear, on its face, what Bruni is saying about the various categories. Like Nathan, I read it as saying the food was either "high two" or "mixed three", but service brought it down to one, especially in view of price. But others obviously don't read it that way.

Moreover, this isn't just empty Talmudic disputation. Many of us would go to even a fairly expensive place with bad service if we thought the food would be good enough.

I think that's why this review has been subject to this kind of parsing.

[Fat Guy]

The good motivation for parsing reviews this way doesn't actually make it useful to do so. Anyway, even if Bruni subdivided his opinions, they'd have little value: garbage in, garbage out.

[Sneakeater]

And it's not just this review, either. Bruni has frequently been criticized for insufficiently supporting his conclusions.

Also, to be clear, it's not that I'm disputing his one-star rating. I'm just criticizing the text of the review for not being clear as to how he reached it.

[Fat Guy]

Who decided there's a rule that says the review has to explain the star rating? If anything, it's the other way around: one should interpret the review in light of the star rating. That's how you can have a one-star rave or a three-star pan.

[Nathan]

its both. both should be read in the context of the other.

this particular case has become especially controversial because you have the bizarre situation where a review is mainly ecstatic about the food at a high-priced ambitious landmark restaurant and then assigns one star. the review makes it clear that the restaurant was heavily downgraded for service (anyone who doesn't comprehend this should reread the first line of the first paragraph of the second page), but how many stars it would have gotten if the service had been good is unclear.

The fact that Bruni devotes as much space to service as he does, combined with plaudits to Robins' talent, shows that he is at least aware that he has to explain this downgrade.

Unfortunately, some (Eater notoriously so) read the review in light of its one-star as being a slap at every aspect of the restaurant. That was manifestly not Bruni's intent, but it has apparently come across that way for some.

That's why, in this particular review, Bruni should have made a conscious effort (actually I think he did, but apparently not clearly enough) to say: "The food is not the problem at RTR. It is mostly good. But they need to fire the front of the house and start over."

[oakapple]

Unfortunately, some (Eater notoriously so) read the review in light of its one-star as being a slap at every aspect of the restaurant.  That was manifestly not Bruni's intent, but it has apparently come across that way for some.

That's why, in this particular review, Bruni should have made a conscious effort (actually I think he did, but apparently not clearly enough) to say: "The food is not the problem at RTR.  It is mostly good.  But they need to fire the front of the house and start over."

←

I think both Eater and Nathan are wrong.

It's abundantly clear that Bruni loved a good deal of the food. This is definitely not a fire-the-chef type of review, although Robins certainly should be taken to task for some of the inconsistency Bruni complained of. What's more, even if they do fire the chef, as Le Cirque has now done, the Times won't be back anytime soon, so they're stuck with the curent rating—whatever the reason for it.

But as Leonard Kim once again documented for us, Bruni has never awarded three stars when the negative food comments were as severe as here—even if the most severe comment was reserved for an off-menu dish. The closest he has come was Perry Street, and as Leonard explains, that was an anomaly.

Anyhow, practically the only type of bad publicity is none at all, so I strongly suspect the RTR will do just fine. Even the recipient of Bruni's most scathing review ever, Ninja, has survived, and has just made the Forbes list of the World's Most Unusual Restaurants (along with WD-50 and El Bulli, among others).

Edited December 21, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

"Anyhow, practically the only type of bad publicity is none at all,"

tell that to Sascha.

[Sneakeater]

Who decided there's a rule that says the review has to explain the star rating? If anything, it's the other way around: one should interpret the review in light of the star rating. That's how you can have a one-star rave or a three-star pan.

←

You're probably right. But then all I can say is that the whole idea of assigning stars to restaurants is retarded. Or at least overly reductive to the point where it becomes retarded.

[Sneakeater]

I usually think that speculating about business prospects is sort of beside the point, but FWIW I'd be very surprised if the RTR were still operating in its current form a year from now. I think that, in order for this experiment with Robins to have worked, they needed a great review from the Times. Look for it to dumb down pretty soon.

If you're interested in trying Robins's menu concept,* I'd say you should go pretty soon.

________________________________________

* I'm not saying he's necessarily going to be fired. Only that the menu will change, a la Alta.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

"Anyhow, practically the only type of bad publicity is none at all,"

tell that to Sascha.

←

Or Craftsteak.

Or Gilt.

Or (I'd imagine) Lonesome Dove.