Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Leonard Kim]

Long, quote-ridden post -- sorry.

1) Yes, Miller and his predecessors did multiple restaurants in a single column with no pretence of linking them thematically.

2) Just my opinion -- I've already expressed negative opinions of the Times' classical music reviews. I think they'd be more useful if they were actually more like the restaurant reviews. I think it would be more useful to have reviews (and re-reviews every year or couple of years) of institutions (not performances) taking into account the venue, the staff, the personnel, audience makeup, prices, programming choices, general performance quality (considering several performances and programs), consistency of performances, strengths and weaknesses in different repertoire and genres, performance with and without guest artists, general caliber of guests artists, etc. With all that, heck, I'd even accept a star rating. This could even be done (though harder to accept) for individual artists (on the basis of several recent performances and recordings, with periodic re-reviews.) I'm not saying they have to be written in the breezy, anecdotal style cited above (of which Bruni is not the only offender.)

3) The history lesson. Regarding ADNY, I think **** star restaurants have been demoted for less, or been slammed worse for the same faults (inconsistency). Reichl's *** review of Le Cirque is famous, but here are some others:

Grimes' *** review of the "new" Daniel, which seems almost Bruni-esque to me

It was a foregone conclusion that New York would be getting an important new restaurant in Daniel. It has. What it's still waiting for is the best that Mr. Boulud can deliver.  Daniel, which opened in January, still has the feel of a work in progress. When the kitchen is firing on all eight cylinders, immortality seems within reach. . . .  Many dishes, however, are merely very good, and the occasional clunker is not unknown. . . . if the waiter happens to be bringing the oxtail, it's not much of a stretch to believe that Daniel is the finest restaurant in New York.

Hatsuhana (**** from Sheraton on 4-15-83, demoted to *** by Miller on 2-21-86)

Miller says he encountered "a few rough spots." I think this is one of the few reviews that actually support the popular image of him as having "frankly Continental" sensibilities.

When Hatsuhana received a four-star rating in 1983 it was praised for having some of the freshest and most intriguing sushi and sashimi in town. While that remains true, the restaurant's overall performance merits a more realistic three stars, which still places it at the head of a crowded and competitive class.

Here's Grimes not quite having the heart to deliver a full ** smackdown of Le Cirque 2000 after the departure of Sottha Khunn. (After her famous review, Reichl did "come around" and re-instate the fourth star for Le Cirque 2000). He gives *** but writes:

As a social dynamo, the restaurant thrums along, even if the roster of regulars often makes it seem like Le Cirque 1982 rather than Le Cirque 2000. But the kitchen merely equals the performance of the better two-star restaurants in town.

Others have had fewer qualms. At least five restaurants have actually been demoted from **** to **:

1) Lafayette (**** from Miller on 4-22-88, ** from Miller 10-18-91). Changes: Chef

Funny thing is, this is a positive review, like it's not a bad thing to be docked **.

Lafayette may no longer be the four-star showcase of cutting-edge cuisine that it was under Mr. Vongerichten. But it doesn't need to be. Under Ms. Boller, Lafayette is a relaxed, inviting place that serves refined two-star fare.

2) Vienna '79 (**** from Sheraton on 1-9-81, ** from Burros on 7-6-84). Changes: Chef

To those for whom Austrian-German food means dumplings and library-paste gravies, Vienna 79 will be a revelation. To those who already know that most of Europe, not just France, has lightened its food - blurring the distinctions between national boundaries in the process - the cooking will come as no surprise. . . .  Vienna 79 continues to provide deftly prepared examples of today's Austrian cooking. But when the chef, Andreas Kisler, who has been at the restaurant for six months, gets carried away with the lightening process, flavor goes out the window, and consistency, the sign of a finely honed kitchen, is missing. Thus Vienna 79 no longer seems up to the standards it set when it received a rating of four stars

3) Le Cygne got **** in 6-20-80 (in a themed reviews of three restaurants, all awarded **** stars -- the others were La Grenouille and Lutece). A little over a year later, Sheraton demoted it to ** on 10-16-81. There doesn't seem to be an external motivation for a re-review (and she specifically says the menu itself has changed very little over the years.) All she seems to be saying is some dishes are exceptional, most are above average, but several are, in brief, not as good as they were last year.

IT is not often that an ambitious French restaurant in New York deserves two stars, and such a rating attracts attention and optimistic diners. But if a four-star restaurant is reduced to a twostar ''very good'' rating, it does not seem quite good enough in relation to ''extraordinary.'' This came to mind after recent return visits to Le Cygne, on 54th Street, between Madison and Park Avenues, which indicate that while it is not the four-star restaurant it was a year or two ago, it continues to offer a number of dishes that make a visit worthwhile.

4) Of the other two restaurants from that 6-20-80 review, Lutece held on the longest (12-1-95 -- with a new chef, Reichl knocked it down to ***, but implied it still had **** potential). La Grenouille fell to ** on 3-15-85. Miller wrote:

the food and the service fail to communicate any sense of celebration, or a feeling that the customer is out for a special occasion. A four-star restaurant must do this. While the service staff here is efficient and pleasant enough, it's like the cooking, in a way: well-rehearsed but lacking in spontaneity.  The chic gastronomic palace built by Charles Masson has become merely another fancy French restaurant.

5) Chanterelle got **** on 2-27-87 from Miller and was demoted by the same critic to ** on 7-28-89. Changes: moved to new building

My first revisit was befuddling - overcooked steak, flaccid sweetbreads - but I wrote it off to reopening jitters. Three more dinners and nearly 50 dishes later, puzzlement has turned to dismay. The new Chanterelle still has its soaring moments, but they are not so frequent as before. Maybe larger crowds have overburdened the kitchen, but the sublime integration of flavors and textures that once marked Mr. Waltuck's cooking is not always evident.

Miller eventually bumped it back up to ***, and Reichl to ****. In 2000, Grimes reduced it to ***, giving it a positive, but nuanced review.

It is unquestionably a fine restaurant, but the fresh face in TriBeCa is well into middle age now.  Admittedly, it's a Catherine Deneuve sort of middle age. . . . It's still there, and it's still pretty much the same. That is its appeal and its weakness.

[Sneakeater]

But then, aren't you substituting other people's opinions for your own? Is a critic supposed to present received opinion, or shape opinion?

←

I've been thinking about Pan's many comments to this effect all weekend. At risk of moving this discussion backwards, let me write down some thoughts.

If someone told you he liked Bruckner more than Brahms, you'd take that as a fairly uninteresting statement of personal preference. If someone told you he thought Bruckner was better than Brahms, your immediate thought would be to question his knowledge and judgment. The person could conceivably offer a plausible, obviously educated justification (as Thomson was able to justify his privileging of the French tradition over the German tradition) that, even if it didn't persuade you, would establish his credentials as someone whose evaluations are to be taken seriously. But the burden would be on him. He couldn't just rank Bruckner over Brahms without offering such a justification and expect anyone to take him seriously.

The reason for this is that there's such a thing as an educated opinion. Is it a coincidence that there's general agreement that Brahms is better than Bruckner? I don't think either of us thinks there's some external reality that makes it a foregone conclusion. I don't think either of us would say it's anything like an existing fact that simply needs to be discovered. I think that we're all educated in the same way so our perceptions are the same. If anyone who demonstrably doesn't know anything about music has a different opinion, we don't care much about it: that's just an unschooled preference. We'd only care, as I said before, if someone who seemed knowlegeable -- educated -- gave an informed explanation of such an evaluation. And not as a simple personal preference, but as an "objective" evaluation, based on standards that can be articulated and applied elsewhere.

I'd finally note that critics have more of a role in forming new judgments with respect to things that are new and current. One problem that classical music critics now have is that classical music currently is heavily freighted with recreations of old work as opposed to introductions of new work. When Hanslick was writing, it was different.

Not that I'm advancing Hanslick as a good critic. From the little of him that I've actually read, he's too much like Frank Bruni (and me): an uneducated enthusiast purporting to make informed judgments.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I hope this will not distract Leonard from making actual worthwhile posts.

[Pan]

[...]The reason for this is that there's such a thing as an educated opinion.  Is it a coincidence that there's general agreement that Brahms is better than Bruckner?  I don't think either of us thinks there's some external reality that makes it a foregone conclusion.  I don't think either of us would say it's anything like an existing fact that simply needs to be discovered.  I think that we're all educated in the same way so our perceptions are the same.  If anyone who demonstrably doesn't know anything about music has a different opinion, we don't care much about it:  that's just an unschooled preference.  We'd only care, as I said before, if someone who seemed knowlegeable -- educated -- gave an informed explanation of such an evaluation.  And not as a simple personal preference, but as an "objective" evaluation, based on standards that can be articulated and applied elsewhere.[...]

←

This post was all very interesting, but I have another question for you and anyone else who wants to answer it: What's the difference between an "educated opinion," which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you presume to be a form of knowledge, and "received opinion," which is simply what the prevailing taste currently holds, taken on as one's own opinion unthinkingly?

[oakapple]

This post was all very interesting, but I have another question for you and anyone else who wants to answer it: What's the difference between an "educated opinion," which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you presume to be a form of knowledge, and "received opinion," which is simply what the prevailing taste currently holds, taken on as one's own opinion unthinkingly?

←

I don't think there's a whole lot of difference, because "received opinion" is what one tends to learn in the course of an education. What's more, while it is probably impossible to avoid being influenced by "received opinion," it doesn't necessarily mean one hasn't thought about it.

[Sneakeater]

I think that "received" opinions are simply accepted without much thought. I think in the case of "educated" opinions you learn it and internalize it, to the extent that you are able to think independently within the tradition.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

by definition there's a vast distinction between a "received opinion" and an "educated opinion"

I can't even see how they could be confused.

An "educated opinion", by definition, can be opposed to a received opinion. In other words, the substance of a "received opinion" is pre-determined, while only the process of deriving an "educated opinion" is pre-determined.

It is an RO that Dosteyevsky was a better writer than Lermentov. It is conceivable, although not likely, that one could hold an EO that Lermentov was a better writer than Dosteyevsky.

Furthermore, there are many aesthetic instances where there is no RO, but where an EO is certainly possible, even likely. For example, there is no RO placing either of Tolstoy or Dosteyevsky over one another. Certainly, many people have an EO on the subject.

Another example: many people, who don't really read, have an RO that Shakespeare was a better writer than John Grisham. But since they only read Grisham (if that) and don't read Shakespeare, they don't actually know this. It's merely an RO. On the other hand, every person on the planet who actually reads holds an EO, to some extent anyway, that Shakespeare was a better writer than Grisham.

[Sneakeater]

I'd finally note that critics have more of a role in forming new judgments with respect to things that are new and current.  One problem that classical music critics now have is that classical music currently is heavily freighted with recreations of old work as opposed to introductions of new work.  When Hanslick was writing, it was different.

←

Although, of course, educated opinion concerning "old" work changes over time. Mozart wasn't nearly as highly regarded at the turn of the last century as he was at the turn of this one. Bach, of course, famously disappeared from view until Mendelssohn revived him. Haydn's gone down and up (although never back up to where he was). There are countless examples. And, of course, critics have a role in this constantly ongoing reshaping of educated opinion.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[bechamel]

Back to ADNY/NY Times. Given the high profile ouster of Delouvrier and the installation of Esnault, it was an appalling abdication of responsibility for Bruni not to re-review the restaurant. We're talking about one of the biggest restaurant news stories of 2005, a new chef with a completely new menu and take on cuisine, etc.

As far as the option of the Times running multiple reviews, I somehow doubt they would do that. I mean, I hope they do. Part of the power of The Times review is that there is only one a week.(I don't count the $25 and Under nonsense.) Would the mulitple format make them look more like TimeOut?

[Sneakeater]

(I don't count the $25 and Under nonsense.) 

←

This is exactly why exceptionally good "cheap" restaurants should get starred reviews and not be relegated to "$25 and Under".

[Nathan]

I think most readers of the dining section would have seriously questioned 2 consecutive re-reviews of ADNY in the same year.

There was no way that was going to happen....no matter who was the reviewer. If ADNY was still functioning in 07 there might have been a a third re-review. (ADNY has already been re-reviewed twice in a four year period and has been granted 3 reviews in six years....no way was it going to get a fourth.)

edit: Indeed, it would have done a disservice to the Uovos of New York for one restaurant to get four reviews in six years, including 2 in one year.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[bechamel]

I think most readers of the dining section would have seriously questioned 2 consecutive re-reviews of ADNY in the same year.

There was no way that was going to happen....no matter who was the reviewer.  If ADNY was still functioning in 07 there might have been a a third re-review.  (ADNY has already been re-reviewed twice in a four year period and has been granted 3 reviews in six years....no way was it going to get a fourth.)

←

So why not a fourth? There were two reviews under the opening chef, Didier Elena, and one under Delouvrier. Why not one for Esnault, particulary given, once again, the high profile nature of the circumstances? The Times itself ran a story on the three-star demotion right after Delouvrier was canned! And interesting how you the use the word "granted." I'm not sure anyone at ADNY (or anyone in the restaurant business) would want to be "granted" the right for reviewers to keep hounding them with reviews. Can you imagine Daniel, JG, Le Bernardin surviving that kind of scrutiny?

[Nathan]

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the readers of the dining section (and most NY foodies for that matter) could care less about ADNY.

Frankly, I would have been appalled to see one restaurant, which I will probably never go to, get four reviews in six years or two in one year. There are too many good restaurants without a review (and yes, most restaurants would do anything for a Bruni review, even a negative one...if you don't get that you don't get NY restaurant economics).

frankly, I find it to be the height of snobbery to assume that a high-end French restaurant deserves a new Times review within months of every chef change. Does that go for every other two-star and above restaurant? If that's the case, we'll need a separate re-review section of the Times every week.

edit:

put differently: It'd be grotesquely unfair to far too many restaurants for any one restaurant to garner that much review space. And talk about leading to charges of elitist Francophilia on the part of the Times dining column....! No way, Jose. Bruni has nothing to do with it. Grimes wouldn't have done it. No critic in the modern era (i.e. the last 10 years or so) would have done it. Wouldn't have made it past the dining editor.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[bechamel]

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the readers of the dining section (and most NY foodies for that matter) could care less about ADNY.

Frankly, I would have been appalled to see one restaurant, which I will probably never go to, get four reviews in six years or two in one year.  There are too many good restaurants without a review (and yes, most restaurants would do anything for a Bruni review, even a negative one...if you don't get that you don't get NY restaurant economics).

frankly, I find it to be the height of snobbery to assume that a high-end French restaurant deserves a new Times review within months of every chef change.  Does that go for every other two-star and above restaurant?  If that's the case, we'll need a separate re-review section of the Times every week.

←

Again, you're missing the point. The Times set the standard for issuing so many re-reviews of ADNY in a relatively short period of time. And I hasten to add that just because ADNY is a place you would not go to doesn't mean many people don't care about the place. If they didn't, why would the Times devote so much ink on the restaurant. As far as me not understanding restaurant economics, let me ask you this: Do you really think Keller, Vongerichten, Boulud, Masa want to get re-reviewed? They already have four stars, and hence are reaping the financial windfall. It would be a nightmare for them if Bruni walked into one of their restaurants with the aim of re-reviewing.

[Nathan]

I don't think a four-star restaurant wants to be re-reviewed. Agreed.

I can't ascertain your argument. Because Grimes re-reviewed ADNY two years after its opening and Bruni reviewed it again four years after Grimes, that somehow justifies another review four months after the last? Huh?

Just cause it got a substantial amount of ink doesn't necessitate it getting even more. So what are you saying?

People already gripe about high-end restaurants getting too much attention from the Times. So the solution is for one of the three most expensive restaurants in the city to get reviewed twice in six months? (Surely we can agree that once it was announced that ADNY was closing/moving (rumor on Eater today is that it is closing for good) that no re-review would happen.)

Sorry, there are way too many deserving restaurants in need of a review and I would like to read about some of them.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

oh, and it's not that ADNY is not a place that I would not go to -- but I already went to Alinea and Atelier d'Robuchon in the past six months and I'll go to Per Se and Masa before I would get around to ADNY....and those won't happen in my budget for quite some time.

[bechamel]

I don't think a four-star restaurant wants to be re-reviewed.  Agreed.

I can't ascertain your argument.  Because Grimes re-reviewed ADNY two years after its opening and Bruni reviewed it again four years after Grimes, that somehow justifies another review four months after the last?  Huh?

I won't repeat my arguments.  Perhaps others would like to comment?

Just cause it got a substantial amount of ink doesn't necessitate it getting even more.  So what are you saying?

That's not how the media works.  Just look at how much attention the premier restaurants get, and you'll understand.  Do you think Vongerichten, Keller, Boulud, etc. appear in print every 5 seconds by accident?   

People already gripe about high-end restaurants getting too much attention from the Times.  So the solution is for one of the three most expensive restaurants in the city to get reviewed twice in six months?  (Surely we can agree that once it was announced that ADNY was closing/moving (rumor on Eater today is that it is closing for good) that no re-review would happen.)

I agree, there was no need for a re-assessment once the closing was announced.

Sorry, there are way too many deserving restaurants in need of a review and I would like to read about some of them.

←

So would I, but the Times format isn't conducive to that.

[Sneakeater]

I just don't know about this. (Certainly it's a moot point now that ADNY is closing.)

A new chef at ADNY seemed like big enough news to me to warrant a reevaluation. I mean, Bruni at least should have gone. He could have written it up in Diner's Journal (in whatever form that column/blog was then taking) even if he did not make it the subject of a formal re-review.

I think Eleven Madison Park should be re-reviewed in light of the change in chefs, despite the fact that its last review was only about a year ago. I think the change in chefs made it in essence a new restaurant -- and to my mind a highly significant one. I think it's just silly that the Times has on its books a rating that has nothing to do with what this (again, and to my mind) now highly significant New York restaurant is now doing.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I'll go further and say that I wouldn't feel as strongly about the need to do these re-reviews IF the Times didn't utilize a star system.

Without the star system, there would only be reviews, specific to the time and circumstances of their publication.

But the star system purports to do permanent consumer rankings. As oakapple keeps reminding us, the stars are remembered (and consulted) long after the reviews are forgotten. Since the star system purports to be a permanent consumer guide, it seems to me that the Times has some kind of obligation to update when circumstances change. (At least at the upper end, where there are comparatively few restaurants and the high prices charged give more weight or import to the recommendations.)

[Fat Guy]

It's necessary for the Times reviewer to be somewhat suspicious about chef changes. He can't allow a situation where all a restaurant needs to do to get re-reviewed is change executive chefs. It would be even more problematic to do re-reviews upon every change of chef de cuisine. I mean, some would say that the chef at ADNY has never changed -- it's this guy named Alain Ducasse -- and that he has had three chefs de cuisine over the years. Sort of like how Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Daniel Boulud periodically have to replace guys like Didier Virot and Alex Lee. You don't get re-reviewed when that happens. At the same time, the transition from Delouvrier to Esnault was major. I think if Frank Bruni had dropped in for a single meal he would have seen that the restaurant had undergone a major direction change, worth writing about despite all of the aforementioned reservations.

[Sneakeater]

Yeah, of course you're right.

[Nathan]

"A new chef at ADNY seemed like big enough news to me to warrant a reevaluation. I mean, Bruni at least should have gone. He could have written it up in Diner's Journal (in whatever form that column/blog was then taking) even if he did not make it the subject of a formal re-review."

This I agree with. I see FG's point but like I said, I don't see how the Times would do two re-reviews of the same restaurant within a year of each other. Most readers wouldn't understand it....no matter how notable the change.

Especially since most such readers (most diners at ADNY as well) could care less who the day to day chef is....it's Ducasse's name that matters.

edit: in other words, I don't dispute the significance of Esnault taking over...but no restaurant can expect constant re-reviews. Ducasse got one when he went from Didier Elena to Delouvrier, that doesn't mean Esnault automatically gets one a few months later....but yeah, it could have been mentioned in the Bruniblog -- or, maybe it was a matter for Florence to cover (did she?)

Edited December 5, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

Florence Fabricant might have mentioned it, but it deserved more than a mention. It warranted an evaluation. Bruni could have said in the Diner's Journal column (as I think it still then was) that there's been a change in chefs at ADNY and that, based on a few visits, the difference is . . . whatever he thought.

[Nathan]

I don't think he could have justified expensing multiple visits to ADNY (the time not just the cost) without doing another full review.

I do agree that he should have done one visit and blogged that.

[oakapple]

As far as the option of the Times running multiple reviews, I somehow doubt they would do that.  I mean, I hope they do.  Part of the power of The Times review is that there is only one a week.(I don't count the $25 and Under nonsense.)  Would the mulitple format make them look more like TimeOut?

←

Funny you should mention it, as tomorrow's review is exactly that: a double-review of Tocqueville and Tasting Room — this only a short time after the double-review of Porter House and STK. Given that Times critics did this regularly before the Ruth Reichl era, I would have no problem with reviving the practice. It would allow more restaurants to get reviewed, and it would allow outdated reviews of important restaurants to be refreshed more often. Edited December 5, 2006 by oakapple (log)