Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[jogoode]

That's just a start.  Why not have it written in stone that if you want one star you must first accomplish the aforementioned?

←

Because those are your criteria for a star-worthy restaurant. With these criteria, Reichl would've spent all her time at Daniel and much of New York would have missed out on great Korean and Japanese. To get one star you need to have a wine program? Talk about a European bias--or at least a high-end bias. Al di La, a restaurant that does Italian food well deserves to be starred, but Sripraphai, a restaurant that does Thai food well, does not because there's no wine program? No cute hipster servers?

Why doesn't the Times reviewer just rotate his weekly reviews between Le Bernardin, Jean Georges, and whatever Batali's latest venture is. Then we can all read about banquettes and sous vide and opah. He fails to encourage our chefs? Doesn't one fail to encourage chefs by sticking them in $25 & Under unless they have big investors and a pedigreed chef?

Bruni might have dropped service from the mini reviews--does that mean the summary below the main review's text?--but he still writes about service in the main review. So there's your service.

Edited for italics

Edited January 18, 2006 by jogoode (log)

[cru]

the last post misunderstood me, i think. the Times review has always been about "dining" which implies an experience, ie wine, service, silver, ambience, etc. $25 and under is about "eating". An experience altogether different. We agree that a restaurant must serve food to be considered for both $25 and under and the Times restaurant review, right? I merely suggest standards for getting one star. That's the way it's done around the world. to falsely give a chef a star because you want to encourage them is bogus. As for the service, taking it off the mini review minimizes it's importance. And no one EVER suggested only reviewing "top" restaurants. God that would be disguisting. I think there should be a certain standard to recieve at least one star. You may be a fantastic Korean restaurant and get a glowing review, but if you don't have a beverage program your not a complete "dining" experience and you don't deserve a star. It's not snobbery, it's common sense. And what's wrong with being euro-centric anyway? Hey, this is the New York Times, I want a snobby review. I'll read the fluff in Zagat and New York.

Edited January 18, 2006 by cru (log)

[Pan]

[...]You may be a fantastic Korean restaurant and get a glowing review, but if you don't have a beverage program your not a complete "dining" experience and you don't deserve a star.  It's not snobbery, it's common sense.

←

You might want to reconsider suggesting that your taste and opinion are "common sense," as it seems to imply that different opinions may lack sense. I happen to disagree with your point of view, "common sense" or not. I don't see why wine service is of importance in a Korean or Thai restaurant. I'd go further and say that I'd generally be less likely to enjoy food in a Korean or Thai restaurant that had a long wine list. Thai food is more likely to be served with beer, Korean food with soju, to take some examples (not to mention tea). My feeling is that a restaurant with a long wine list is trying to appeal to non-Asians. I'm a non-Asian but don't want watered-down Korean or Thai food. And I also see nothing wrong with a starred review for Sripraphai; though one star might have been more appropriate than two, I really wasn't much bothered by the star rating.

And what's wrong with being euro-centric anyway?[...]

←

Nothing, if that's what you want to do on your own time. But I don't think the New York Times has only Eurocentric people for an audience, and Eurocentrism, which is usually associated with some kind of prejudice against things non-European (such as a desire to square the round pegs of Thai or Korean dining into the circle of French formal service), is fortunately out of favor politically, at least in highly diverse cities like New York. And like it or not, it's predictable that New York will become increasingly Asian, Latin American, Caribbean, and African in the coming decades. (Depending on future events, a net emigration of Americans to Europe, rather than vice versa, would not surprise me. But that's a topic for another time and place...)

[Sneakeater]

Rich was right. It's pointless to keep arguing against the star system. Cru's posts have just stated the arguments against the star system better than anything I'd write ever could.

[Sneakeater]

But, because I can't help myself:

Would anyone think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to have a policy of only reviewing mainstream Hollywood films? Or limiting their main film critic to reviewing such films, relegating independent films, foreign films, and art films to some ghetto?

And would anybody think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to officially adopt a set of criteria that favored mainstream Hollywood films over all others? (So that, say, the Charlton Heston El Cid would by definition rate higher than, say, Pretty Poison?) (Sorry for the dated -- and dating -- references.)

Or, how about if the Times had a policy that its chief opera critic could only review operas at the Met and maybe City Opera? And officially adopted a set of criteria that favored what the Met does well, and disvalued the things the Met isn't good at (such as theatricality, immediacy, programming of lesser-known or new works, etc.)?

But that's what the star system (certainly as Cru would have it -- but I think that's the way it's generally understood here) does for restaurants.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[cru]

Rich was right.  It's pointless to keep arguing against the star system.  Cru's posts have just stated the arguments against the star system better than anything I'd write ever could.

←

You keep implying I've got something against a certain type of restaurant. I'm a HUGE fan of New Yorks diverse ethnic dining options. But under this idea of yours a good street cart could potentially get a star. Some of the best food in the world is street food, but its not "dining" now is it? I never said a korean restaurant or chinese restaurant should have an extensive wine list or any wine for that matter.

Dining implies an experience beyond just food. Dining incorporates service, flatware, ambiance, beverage program, standards. Any thing else would be better suited for $25 and under. That's not a diss, my favorite restaurants in the city are $25 and under, but saying they don't deserve a star is hardly a knock.

[jogoode]

to falsely give a chef a star because you want to encourage them is bogus.

No one's suggesting that he hand out stars to restaurants that don't deserve them. I'm just saying that chefs cooking great food deserve to be recognized, even if they aren't shooting for three or four stars. With explicit standards comes inflexibility that would prevent a reviewer from praising a restaurant that deserves praise. Had your standards been laid out 10 years ago, Reichl, as I said before, would have been holed up at Daniel.

To gripe about which restaurants are being reviewed seems misguided, because the big ones are going to be covered eventually and because most of the arguments I've heard for or against including a particular restaurant betray Eurocentrism. If Al di La and Sripraphai had both received one star, we'd be mum about Al di La and still be up in arms about Sripraphai, though neither takes reservations and both, at least now, look presentable.

[oakapple]

To falsely give a chef a star because you want to encourage them is bogus.

←

In which reviews did Frank Bruni award a star (or stars) on that basis? Although I disagree with his ratings of Al di La and Sripraphai, I do not doubt that he genuinely considered them "Very Good" — by his standards.

There should be standards. Let's start here: to recieve one star you must 1. have a serviceable wine program that serves selections not ridiculously marked up and wines that are served at temperature. 2. Must have consistenly good food. 3. Must recieve consistently good service.

I am willing to accept one-star restaurants that don't have a wine program, if the food is sufficiently remarkable. At two stars, the points you mention should be there, except that I don't think the wine markup should disqualify a restaurant from being starred. If it's way out of line, the critic should mention it in his review, just like any fault.

The Times says that the rating takes the price into account. What that apparently means is that if a restaurant is over-priced in relation to the value it delivers, it can cost them a star. That seems fair to me, and part of the reason that the owners of Gilt should be worrying. All three critics now who've written about it have had some form of complaint about the cost.

Edited January 18, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Please, call me Leonard.

As for Sheraton's zero star ratings, here's a sampling. I've selected restaurants that were either re-reviewed by a later critic (and therefore was considered "review-worthy" by a later critic) or a restaurant that is (I think) still open today, so that somebody here can opine whether such a restaurant would merit a review today.

Note I do not view this as evidence for or against star inflation, except in a limited way. Obviously, restaurants can change greatly in 10-20 years, and often re-reviews are prompted by major changes in the restaurant in question.

Also remember there was no "satisfactory" rating when Sheraton was reviewing. So, "fair" should be taken to equal "satisfactory."

Anche Vivolo -- Fair (1/8/82).

Ben Benson's Steakhouse -- Fair (2/25/83). (Asimov gives * on 7/16/93).

Brasserie -- Fair (1/30/81). (Grimes gives ** on 3/15/00).

Capsouto Freres -- Fair (2/6/81). (Reichl gives Satisfactory on 3/21/97).

Century Cafe -- Fair (11/5/82). (Miller gives ** on 9/11/92. This is not the Chinese place currently open under this name.)

Elio's -- Fair (1/22/82).

Empire Szechuan Balcony -- Fair (10/30/81).

Gallagher's -- Fair (9/25/81). (Miller gives Satisfactory on 1/22/88).

Hosteria Fiorella Italian -- Fair (6/3/83). (Miller gives ** on 7/24/92).

Joe Broadway Steakhouse -- Fair (3/19/82).

Le Relais -- Poor (5/28/82).

Nicola's -- Fair (5/6/83).

Quo Vadis -- Fair (6/11/82). (Burros gives Fair on 7/15/83 and Miller gives ** on 1/23/87).

Raoul's -- Fair (6/25/82). (Miller gives * on 4/5/91).

Sardi's -- Fair (3/6/81). (Miller gives Poor on 12/9/88 and Satisfactory on 3/8/91)

Victor's Cafe 52 -- Fair (4/3/81). (Miller gives * on 9/18/87 and 12/20/91).

I certainly wouldn't know, but it seems to me that of these only Empire Szechuan Balcony would be unreviewable today.

I'm pretty sure the single greatest reason for the death of the zero star rating is Reichl's shift to "one review, one restaurant." Before that, it was quite common to see Miller or Sheraton rate two restaurants in a single review, often one being starred and one not.

I want to repeat that the New York Times used to state that "comparable establishments" are considered when granting stars. Yes, that language isn't there anymore, but I don't know that the NYT has explicitly repudiated it. If that's the case, what does it matter that different types of restaurants have the same rating? They're not to be compared to each other. No matter how one thinks the system should work, only the NYT and its critics can dictate how it actually does work.

Historical practice suggests that **** and most *** are "absolute" ratings. Restaurants may aspire to these ratings and fall short in the eyes of the critic and hence receive ** or *. Other restaurants without such aspirations are clearly ranked on a separate scale, relative to their own set of peers, where ** restaurants exceed expectations and * restaurants don't (with the odd *** thrown in.) Certainly a restaurant with ** on the former scale and one with ** on the latter are not comparable, and I don't see why that should bother anybody.

[oakapple]

Again, thanks to Leonard for some wonderful research. Of the restaurants to which Sheraton gave zero stars, Capsouto Freres is the only one with which I have a recent experience — I've been there twice in the last couple of years. On the current de facto scale, I would certainly award it a star.

Here's another example of grade inflation. Mimi Sheraton awarded two stars to Chanterelle in 1980, which Marion Burros re-affirmed in 1984. In 1985, Bryan Miller upped it to four stars, which Ruth Reichl re-affirmed in 1983. Now, restaurants of course change over time, but it is highly unlikely that Chanterelle changed that dramatically in just one year. One must assume that Miller had a very different notion of what constitutes four stars.

Your list has three examples where Miller awarded two stars to a place that got zero from Sheraton. He must have been aware of this, so I would guess it was a conscious decision to change the standard.

Also remember there was no "satisfactory" rating when Sheraton was reviewing. So, "fair" should be taken to equal "satisfactory."

These days, the "Satisfactory" rating is really anything but. On the few occasions when Bruni has handed out a "Satisfactory," the text of the review suggested a distinct lack of satisfaction. A lot of his one-star reviews read like the old "Satisfactory."

I'm pretty sure the single greatest reason for the death of the zero star rating is Reichl's shift to "one review, one restaurant."  Before that, it was quite common to see Miller or Sheraton rate two restaurants in a single review, often one being starred and one not.

I'm glad to see that Bruni has restarted that practice, although he's only done it three times, and all but one of the six restaurants got at least one star.

I want to repeat that the New York Times used to state that "comparable establishments" are considered when granting stars.  Yes, that language isn't there anymore, but I don't know that the NYT has explicitly repudiated it.  If that's the case, what does it matter that different types of restaurants have the same rating?  They're not to be compared to each other.  No matter how one thinks the system should work, only the NYT and its critics can dictate how it actually does work.

Historical practice suggests that **** and most *** are "absolute" ratings.  Restaurants may aspire to these ratings and fall short in the eyes of the critic and hence receive ** or *.  Other restaurants without such aspirations are clearly ranked on a separate scale, relative to their own set of peers, where ** restaurants exceed expectations and * restaurants don't (with the odd *** thrown in.)  Certainly a restaurant with ** on the former scale and one with ** on the latter are not comparable, and I don't see why that should bother anybody.

←

I think that's an excellent statement of what the de facto system is. Viewed that way, most of the ratings make sense. But even given this understanding, one can still disagree with individual ratings.

Edited January 18, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Historical practice suggests that **** and most *** are "absolute" ratings.  Restaurants may aspire to these ratings and fall short in the eyes of the critic and hence receive ** or *.  Other restaurants without such aspirations are clearly ranked on a separate scale, relative to their own set of peers, where ** restaurants exceed expectations and * restaurants don't (with the odd *** thrown in.)  Certainly a restaurant with ** on the former scale and one with ** on the latter are not comparable, and I don't see why that should bother anybody.

←

Leonard, that whole post was great, and I for one am grateful for it.

What you describe in the paragraph I quote is pretty much how I used to understand the system to work. Until I started reading on this Board that it was some kind of perversion of the system for unprepossessing Asian places to be given two stars. Am I wrong in thinking that's the majority view?

[Sneakeater]

These days, the "Satisfactory" rating is really anything but. On the few occasions when Bruni has handed out a "Satisfactory," the text of the review suggested a distinct lack of satisfaction. A lot of his one-star reviews read like the old "Satisfactory."

←

FWIW, I agree with you completely about this, and think it's a major problem with Bruni's application of the system.

[SobaAddict70]

Not a comment on Mr. Bruni's writing style so much as one about the dearth of great restaurants in the Upper West Side, as in today's review:

Pair of 8's permits you to elect a proper, refined meal out over a thrown-together meal in, without digging too deep into your pocket or courting much guilt. It speaks to what many people really want from restaurants, as well as to how they choose where they go.

They're looking, in their own neighborhoods, for a setting more pleasant than home, with dishes they tend not to make so often, or so well. They're looking for a little less work, a little more pampering.

At Pair of 8's they find that. At its best, it's a model of the restaurant that's a minor indulgence rather than a major splurge.

It's a bistro restaurant in an area renowned for...neighborhood restaurants. Why can't it strive to be something more? Especially since the chef worked at Lutèce and Café des Artistes.

(What Mr. Bruni found fault with in his review is another story altogether.)

[Sneakeater]

I just noticed that, at least in its electronic version, the Times now defines the rank below one star as "Poor to Satisfactory" rather than "Satisfactory".

[cru]

But, because I can't help myself:

Would anyone think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to have a policy of only reviewing mainstream Hollywood films?  Or limiting their main film critic to reviewing such films, relegating independent films, foreign films, and art films to some ghetto?

And would anybody think it was anything other than stupid for the Times to officially adopt a set of criteria that favored mainstream Hollywood films over all others?  (So that, say, the Charlton Heston El Cid would by definition rate higher than, say, Pretty Poison?) (Sorry for the dated -- and dating -- references.)

Or, how about if the Times had a policy that its chief opera critic could only review operas at the Met and maybe City Opera?  And officially adopted a set of criteria that favored what the Met does well, and disvalued the things the Met isn't good at (such as theatricality, immediacy, programming of lesser-known or new works, etc.)?

But that's what the star system (certainly as Cru would have it -- but I think that's the way it's generally understood here) does for restaurants.

←

In fact, the Times does have a criteria for Opera and Film reviews. A Miller Lite commercial is not a film, and a taco stand is not dining. The Singing Cowboy is not Opera, either. There must be a criteria. Otherwise, there is chaos, and that's why everyones hot and angry at Bruni, because of his misinterpretation. Again, there is NOTHING wrong w/ being in the $25 and under column. Please tell me what you think should be included in $25 and under and if we should have that column at all.

[Sneakeater]

But YOU'RE the one (not just you -- I think most people here agree with you) saying that the main restaurant review should be limited to "dining" rather than restaurants. That's NOT like saying opera reviews should be limited to "opera"; rather, it's EXACTLY like saying that opera reviews should be limited to A CERTAIN KIND of opera, to the exclusion of others. I.e., you're saying that only a certain kind of restaurant (e.g., one with a wine program) should be reviewed in the "restaurant review" column -- even though there are many restaurants that don't have wine programs, but are still restaurants and can be perfectly worthy ones.

(Also, BTW, a Times music reviewer can review a singing cowboy if he finds it worthy. There's nothing stopping him. To be less reductive, the Times music reviewers can AND DO review things like Rinde Eckhart's Moby Dick or Philip Glass/Robert Wilson's Einstein on the Beach, which may or may not be opera, depending on how you want to define things.)

As for the "$25 and Under" column, my problem with that column is that it's a ghetto. Everything sounds the same there. You can't tell which well-reviewed restaurants there are "good for their price" and which are just "good, period." For example, I think New York Noodletown (at least in its prime) deserved its starred review: to me, it was one of the best restaurants in NYC at the time. I think the Hell's Kitchen Grand Sichuan International deserves a starred review now. I think Grand Sichuan was disserved by being reviewed in the same column, using the same terms, as a place like, say, Via Emilia (very good, but only very good for its price; not one of the City's greatest Italian restaurants). Reading the reviews, it's hard to tell that Grand Sichuan is an order of magnitude better -- one of the best of its kind in the City.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Also, you're misrepresenting my position. All restaurants that don't have wine programs aren't taco stands. And to the extent the star system necessarily excludes things like the taco counter in the back of that place on 10th Avenue -- which is NOT a stand, BTW, there are seats there -- then that's what I think is problematical about having a star system. Believe me, if there was music or a film as good as that taco counter, the Times would review it (or at least would not exclude it on principal). They have music and film reviews like that all the time.*

_______________________________________________________

* That was the problem I had when Robyn complained last year that giving Sripraphai two stars was like giving a rave review to a concert held at Queens College. Queens College has an excellent concert hall. Why wouldn't a deserving concert there get a rave review? And how could you possibly contend that concerts there shouldn't be reviewed at all?

Edited January 18, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

I just noticed that, at least in its electronic version, the Times now defines the rank below one star as "Poor to Satisfactory" rather than "Satisfactory".

←

Yes, but it's not a single rank. Bruni has given out one "Poor" rating (Ninja). So, Satisfactory means Satisfactory, not anywhere from Poor to Satisfactory.

[jogoode]

In fact, the Times does have a criteria for Opera and Film reviews.  A Miller Lite commercial is not a film, and a taco stand is not dining.  The Singing Cowboy is not Opera, either.  There must be a criteria.  Otherwise, there is chaos, and that's why everyones hot and angry at Bruni, because of his misinterpretation. Again, there is NOTHING wrong w/ being in the $25 and under column.  Please tell me what you think should be included in $25 and under and if we should have that column at all.

←

Bruni veers into "taco stand" territory to address what he feels are significant restaurants. But let's be clear: He reviewed La Esquina because it was buzzing like mad and because it's not a taco stand. It has waiters and an enormous tequila list (look, here's your wine program!). He reviewed Sripraphai because it's the best Thai restaurant in the city. So let's not pretend he's starred to Dumpling House.

Film critics have similar flexibility, depending on the publication. If a short film or documentary is significant enough, it gets full treatment.

$25 & Under is where everything else goes--and I think Peter Meehan does a great job.

[Sneakeater]

I just noticed that, at least in its electronic version, the Times now defines the rank below one star as "Poor to Satisfactory" rather than "Satisfactory".

←

Yes, but it's not a single rank. Bruni has given out one "Poor" rating (Ninja). So, Satisfactory means Satisfactory, not anywhere from Poor to Satisfactory.

←

Got it. Thanks. And you're right: his "Satisfactory"s don't seem very satisfactory.

[oakapple]

Actually, the Times does have a double-standard for opera. Every production at the Met or the New York City Opera gets reviewed, including first-nights of revivals. Other opera productions are not necessarily reviewed. The Amato Opera, which puts on quite an extensive season, is practically never reviewed.

As for the "$25 and Under" column, my problem with that column is that it's a ghetto.  Everything sounds the same there.  You can't tell which well-reviewed restaurants there are "good for their price" and which are just "good, period."

←

The Times is the only paper that makes this distinction. Restaurants that have appeared in that column have been reviewed by other papers' main critics, if they are sufficiently notable (e.g., Fatty Crab). Part of the reason all the $25&U restaurants sound the same is that there are no stars. If those restaurants were concretely rated, suddenly it would give those reviews a focus they now lack.

Of course, there are other differences with $25&U. You can pretty much predict about 75% of the restaurants Frank Bruni will review. Not necessarily the date he'll review them, but that they will be reviewed at some point. But with rare exceptions, the $25&U reviews are totally random and unpredictable. Of the restaurants that could reasonably be reviewed, Meehan is getting to maybe 1% of them. So it may be that the paper considers nearly all of these restaurants recommendable in their category, because there just wouldn't be any point in devoting space to that type of restaurant only to trash it, since there are hundreds of others to choose from.

(There are exceptions to everything. Kim Severson trashed Dinosaur BBQ in $25&U. Dinosaur was the rare example of a $25&U restaurant that you could predict.)

And to the extent the star system necessarily excludes things like the taco counter in the back of that place on 10th Avenue -- which is NOT a stand, BTW, there are seats there -- then that's what I think is problematical about having a star system.

There's nothing inherent in the star system that prevents such places from being rated, except at the Times. Of course, this presumes that the critic discovers this restaurant, is as enamored of the food as you are, and that he thinks it's important enough to write about. None of the city's food critics publishes more than one review per week, so they have to decide whether a taco counter on 10th Avenue is the best use of limited space.

Edited January 18, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Actually, the Times does have a double-standard for opera. Every production at the Met or the New York City Opera gets reviewed, including first-nights of revivals. Other opera productions are not necessarily reviewed. The Amato Opera, which puts on quite an extensive season, is practically never reviewed.

←

That's not a double standard. Every production at the Met and City Opera is newsworthy by definition (just like pretty much every expensive restaurant is newsworthy by definition). Other things that are not newsworthy by definition get reviewed to the extent they're deemed notable. They all have a fair chance. (I think we all know why the Amato Opera, loveable as it is, rarely gets reviewed.)

To me, that's like saying that Gilt et al. will pretty much automatically get starred reviews, and places like (say) Noodletown will get them if the critic deems them worthy. I.e., the way Mimi Sheraton and Craig Claiborne and Ruth Reichl did it.

What the Cru party is proposing here, however, is a standard that EXCLUDES venues other than the Met or City Opera from the review system. They can ONLY be reviewed in subsidiary columns by subsidiary reviewers. They CAN'T be reviewed by the main critic in the main column no matter how good they are, if they don't meet a fairly rigid standard of "grand opera" (or in the instant case, "fine dining"). That's MUCH different from the way the Times treats opera, music, and dance.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Now that I think of it, though, it's pretty consistent with the way the Times treats theater. Ben Brantley pretty much limits himself to Broadway. Off, Off-Off, Off-Off-Off, etc. are handled by others. And Brantley's reviews tend to be on the first arts page, but not the others'.

Maybe this is even an apt comparison. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Sneakeater]

Part of the reason all the $25&U restaurants sound the same is that there are no stars. If those restaurants were concretely rated, suddenly it would give those reviews a focus they now lack.

←

I obviously hate to admit it, but that's a real point.

[Sneakeater]

There's nothing inherent in the star system that prevents such places from being rated, except at the Times. Of course, this presumes that the critic discovers this restaurant, is as enamored of the food as you are, and that he thinks it's important enough to write about. None of the city's food critics publishes more than one review per week, so they have to decide whether a taco counter on 10th Avenue is the best use of limited space.

←

Just to be clear (cuz as you know, things tend to get twisted in ongoing discussions), my problem with the star system vis-a-vis the taco counter isn't so much that the star system necessarily excludes it, as that the star system necessarily undervalues it once its discovered.

(As you may recall, I started talking about the taco counter more as argument against New York Magazine's adoption of a star system. My point was that the taco counter is the kind of place that New York's old system had handled very well, but that would tend to get underrated in a star system.)