Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

Tess · February 2, 2006

I've heard Bruni's voice before on other NYT multimedia pieces but this podcast thing is quite entertaining. He really does sound like he's whining on the "Life as a Waiter" one.
←

I'm a little surprised that (assuming anonymity is still a goal they are shooting for at NYT) they would give away what his voice sounds like-- not terribly distinctive but not like just anyone's-- for that little bit of multimedia fun.

ulterior epicure · February 2, 2006

while i've never had much of an opinion either way about mr. bruni, i'd have to say that today's review (of barbounia) was rather disrupted... as noted above, it took me a three paragraphs just to get "seated" - and all that belabouring language just to let me know that my butt would meet a soft welcome.

i finished the review not really know what the restaurant was about... just what to and not to order.

u.e.

oakapple · February 2, 2006

I'm a little surprised that (assuming anonymity is still a goal they are shooting for at NYT) they would give away what his voice sounds like-- not terribly distinctive but not like just anyone's-- for that little bit of multimedia fun.
←

The NY Times restaurant critic has had a regular spot on radio station WQXR for years. I think I remember hearing Mimi Sheraton on the radio, and I certainly heard Bryan Miller. In more recent times, the incumbent has delivered a weekly review on cable TV, although they do hide his face. So the podcast is just one more medium where his voice can be heard. Edited February 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · February 2, 2006

of course it has a place...it tells you something about your fellow diners...something which one may want to know before eating there.

I'll note that others have read it the same way I did:

http://brunidigest.blogspot.com/

The Spotted Pig
The line for the small unisex bathroom downstairs can be long. But it can also be interesting. Two young, pretty women entered the bathroom together. And stayed for a bit.
Classy, Frank, classy.
←
I think he's just implying that some coke use was taking place...which is probably true and worth mentioning in the context of a restaurant's vibe. I take it you read it differently than I....
←
I also wondered if it may be another case of NFL cheerleaders.But of coarse I'm guilty of having a dirty mind at least once a year.
←
well, I think that's what Bryanz was reading Bruni as implying...thus his "classless" remark. I just read it as implying cocaine use (the standard reason for two people to go into the bathroom together in a Manhattan restaurant or bar).
←
Cocaine use or whatever else, a comment like that really has no place in a restaurant review. Sure he wants to comment on the scene, but by that point in the review it was just overkill.
←

JohnL · February 2, 2006

while i've never had much of an opinion either way about mr. bruni, i'd have to say that today's review (of barbounia) was rather disrupted... as noted above, it took me a three paragraphs just to get "seated" - and all that belabouring language just to let me know that my butt would meet a soft welcome.
i finished the review not really know what the restaurant was about... just what to and not to order.
u.e.
←

the more I read from Mr Bruni the more I am convinced that he (and the Times editor) has no grasp of what a restaurant review should be and how it should be written.

The most annoying thing--aside from the tendency toward cuteness/cleverness (the "Bugs in a Blanket" silliness)--is the need to find a "hook" in every review leading to the bizarre "orange decor theme" or the "my ass was comfortable" stuff.

He can't seem to provide clear and concise critical observations.

This recalls the departed movie critic Elvis Mitchell whose awkward writing and Dennis Milleresque riffing made movie reviews unreadable. (unfortunate because Mr Mitchell did have a lot of knowledge).

This may be a result of the computer age but I wonder where the editors are?

rich · February 2, 2006

but I wonder where the editors are?
←

On job interviews with other papers.

annecros · February 2, 2006

but I wonder where the editors are?
←
On job interviews with other papers.
←

ROFLMAO

oakapple · February 2, 2006

The more I read from Mr Bruni the more I am convinced that he (and the Times editor) has no grasp of what a restaurant review should be and how it should be written.

I am not sure there is a well established restaurant review template that he is violating. I find his prose mediocre and his judgment dubious, but that's a matter of opinion with which some may disagree.

The most annoying thing--aside from the tendency toward cuteness/cleverness (the "Bugs in a Blanket" silliness)--is the need to find a "hook" in every review leading to the bizarre "orange decor theme" or the "my ass was comfortable" stuff.

I don't have a problem with his "finding a theme" style, when he manages to find the right one. Last week's Spotted Pig review was pretty reasonable. "My ass was comfortable" is one of his sillier efforts.

This may be a result of the computer age but I wonder where the editors are?
←

My understanding is that critics are given a fairly wide berth to cover the beat as they see fit. At some point, management will pull the plug if a critic isn't getting the job done. That hppened with Elvis Mitchell and Herbert Muschamp, although Muschamp was there for years before that finally happened. Many people hated Muschamp's writing, but he was also very provocative. For all I know, Bruni may have a ton of fans, although they don't seem to be on eGullet.

Tess · February 2, 2006

←
The NY Times restaurant critic has had a regular spot on radio station WQXR for years. I think I remember hearing Mimi Sheraton on the radio, and I certainly heard Bryan Miller. In more recent times, the incumbent has delivered a weekly review on cable TV, although they do hide his face. So the podcast is just one more medium where his voice can be heard.
←

Thanks, that's interesting. If I already suspected someone was Bruni, that voice would nail it for me.

oakapple · February 2, 2006

The NY Times restaurant critic has had a regular spot on radio station WQXR for years. I think I remember hearing Mimi Sheraton on the radio, and I certainly heard Bryan Miller. In more recent times, the incumbent has delivered a weekly review on cable TV, although they do hide his face. So the podcast is just one more medium where his voice can be heard.
Thanks, that's interesting. If I already suspected someone was Bruni, that voice would nail it for me.
←

Beyond that, Bruni's photo can be found on the Internet. Edited February 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

oakapple · February 9, 2006

This week, Frank Bruni awarded two stars to Gilt, Paul Liebrandt's temple of luxury that has opened in the former Le Cirque space.

The review reminds me of Amanda Hesser's one-star slapdown of Asiate. Not since then has a restaurant with such high aspirations received so disappointing a rating. (The one star that Jean-Georges Vongerichten's V Steakhouse received also comes to mind, but that was a steakhouse, and such establishmens seldom exceed two stars, no matter how good the execution may be.)

For argument's sake, I am going to assume that everything Bruni wrote about Gilt was factually correct. None of us had the same experiences, and at this point he has probably spent more time at Gilt than anyone else who has written about it. (The Times expects its critics to visit a minimum of three times; as far as I can tell, no one else who's posted about Gilt on eGullet has been there more than once.)

Assuming the Bruni review was accurate as far as it went, was it responsible criticism? I am reminded of what Steven Shaw said after the Asiate review:

Since we've already had a hundred or so discussions of the meaning of the star ratings, suffice it to say that -- from a totally non-judgmental perspective, ignoring what should be or what could be -- the stars are emphatically not all about the food. They are a shorthand system for indicating a combination primarily of food quality and level of luxury. In their planning stages, restaurants very carefully consider whether they are aiming to be four, three, two, one, or no-star establishments. The chefs they hire, the amount of money they spend on decor, their ingredients budgets, their wine programs, the number of waitstaff, their prices . . . all these things flow from a conception of being in a certain star catgegory. There's no question in my mind -- and I assume this is obvious to any observer who pays attention to this sort of thing -- that Asiate's creators were attempting to build a three-star restaurant.
Of course, that's no guarantee of three stars. Critics are not there simply to convey a restaurant's desired star rating to the public; they need to judge whether a restaurant has delivered. But a restaurant's plan establishes the baseline from which to work, and if a critic can't speak that language then we are left with a failure to communicate.
On every front, Asiate has all the trappings of a three-star restaurant. If it doesn't live up to its promise, fine, it gets two stars. But a one-star review of Asiate is an insult. It is the equivalent of saying the restaurant has been a complete failure in almost every way imaginable -- and indeed that seems to be what Hesser (incorrectly) thinks.
←

Fat Guy's comments boil down to three observations:

1. Every high-end restaurant is built with a certain conception of luxury (or lack thereof) in mind.

2. The critic's role is certainly not to ratify the restaurant's desired star rating, but the critic needs to operate within the realm of what is reasonably expected — otherwise, "we are left with a failure to communicate."

3. If a restaurant is been built for N stars, then an award of N–1 conveys some level of failure, and an award of N–2 conveys a very profound failure.

I think there is very little doubt that Gilt was designed for four stars, with three as a minimum. I agree with Fat Guy that the critic has no obligation to award three or four, merely because that's what the restaurant wanted. But I do think that it's the critic's responsibility to be aware that the rating he is assigning connotes a very substantial failure. If that's what the critic concludes has happened, the critic's duty is to tell us very clearly why he thinks so. Our judgment of the critic is not merely a question of whether his verdict is correct, but also whether that verdict—whatever it may be—is adequately supported.

Bearing in mind that a two-star review for this type of restaurant connotes a very significant failure to achieve most of the goals it had set out to achieve, is Frank Bruni's two-star rating adequately supported in the review? In other words, was it responsible criticism?

I don't think so.

Edited February 9, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Leonard Kim · February 9, 2006

Some assorted observations in the wake of Bruni's ** review of Gilt.

Bruni has still done relatively more **** reviews than any other NYT critic since 1981. (He's given out 3: Per Se, Masa, and reconfirming Le Bernardin, in the space of 89 ratings.)

Bruni has given out roughly the *same* percentage of *** reviews as his predecessors: 8 so far, or about 9%. Actually, he is on the stingy side. Grimes and especially Reichl were more generous.

2 of those *** ratings (ADNY and, essentially, Bouley) were demotions, giving him only 6 "fresh" *** ratings. It could be that had he been the first reviewer of the two aforementioned places, he might have actually given **. (It calls to mind Reichl's account of her demotion of Le Cirque in Garlic and Sapphires where her impulse was to give ** but the powers-that-be pushed for *** instead, reasoning that the only thing people would care about was that she had taken the 4th * away.)

It shouldn't be hard to read six reviews to see what they say about Bruni's standards for a *** restaurant.

The restaurants are: Babbo, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, BLT Fish, Cru, Nobu 57, and Perry St.

Setting aside one's own opinion of these restaurants --

In 5 out of 6 cases, Bruni has *nothing* bad to say about the food (though he will find fault with other things.) The worst thing he writes about the food at Nobu 57, for example, is "most of the food was terrific."

The exception is Perry St. where he does find flaws but also writes, "But when Perry St. scores, it scores much, much bigger than most restaurants."

Hey, he's not a robot, so can't be 100% consistent. But I think it's fair to say that if he or his dining companions genuinely didn't like something about the food, he's not going to give it ***. I tend to agree that you can't rate something highly if people have problems with it, even if a vocal, expert contingent "know" it's better. And he's good about giving credit to the chefs' talents despite any such reservations.

Contrary to the previous post's quoted assertion, I believe the evidence is there that *** is, for Bruni, clearly about the food.

I think the dining companions are important here (though I know others here don't like Bruni's invocation of them). If it were just him, then I can see the argument that one man's taste shouldn't dictate the rating. I think he recognizes that something as rare as a *** or **** review needs to have some consensus behind it. Previous critics have recognized this as well. Put another way, it does not seem to be policy to give a high rating to a restaurant where some or even many people *for whatever reason* will have a transcendent experience and others will be disappointed. In Bruni's case, I think what incenses so many people here is that "the reason" appears to be the "uneducated, non-expert" palate of the reviewer and his buddies. But it's still a legitimate reason and arguably as legitimate a reason for the vast majority of readers and restaurant goers as Reichl's socially non-elite and faux-non-elite diners at Le Cirque and Daniel.

Again, Bruni is not a robot. He'll pull rank with the readership if he wants. That's part of the fun of being a critic.

I regularly field complaints from friends who found their experiences there disappointing.
Because of the restaurant's legend they expect a riot of flourishes, an explosion of fireworks. Nothing less than being made to levitate above the table will do. Le Bernardin does not work that way. Sure, it musters bits of incidental theater: in keeping with its French background it serves many appetizers and entrees with a final, fancy application of broth or sauce at the table.
But it eschews high drama, both in the dining room, which has all the sex appeal of a first-class airport lounge, and in the dishes, many of which are paradigms of subtlety.

As far as ratings go, he seems to give no extra credit for innovation and originality (nor demotion for lack thereof) though he will acknowledge these characteristics in the reviews. I believe the following quote, from the Nobu 57 review, is crucial:

. . . regular folk were my usual companions. What mattered most to them, and to me, wasn't whether Nobu 57 was exploring new culinary horizons. . .

I believe one can legitimately take issue with a "no credit for innovation" stance because it's a no-win situation. He will penalize a restaurant if he feels the innovation, especially of the ostentatious sort, detracts from taste. Innovation can't help your rating, but it can hurt it. That doesn't seem right to me (if it's in fact true), especially since I think this is an issue where Bruni does let his personal preferences color his evaluation.

. . . at moments too intent on culinary adventure or too highfalutin in its presentation and descriptions of dishes. . . . But Per Se also dares to be different, and insists, sometimes to its slight detriment, on departing from favorites like grouper or Dover sole for something like cobia, a game fish that, at least at Per Se, was too chewy to warrant the trouble.

Dessert almost spoils the party. The pastry chef, Will Goldfarb, has been known, in past jobs, to use tobacco and mentholated cough drops in his concoctions. While he restrains himself at Cru, I still sensed inclinations toward both rebelliousness (pools of chocolate from which most traces of sweetness had been banished) and self-conscious showmanship.

I understand the complaints I read about him here. But I strongly believe that he *knows* he's not writing for an audience like egullet. I think practically, considering that it is the New York Times, that's the right decision.

BLT Fish affirms the enormous appeal of the middlebrow. It presents great food without airs.

[66, Spice Market, and V Steakhouse] rely as heavily on the novelty of their overarching conceits (Chinese goes sexy, the steakhouse does sarcasm) as they do on what happens in the kitchen. It was Jean-Georges the high-wire entrepreneur more than Jean-Georges the culinary genius who sired them. They have vacuous showmanship in their DNA.
Perry St. doesn't. This one is from the heart, not the head. And while it is undeniably flawed and surprisingly inconsistent, it's cause for celebration, chiefly because it marks Mr. Vongerichten's return to the straightforwardness of Jo Jo, which he opened in 1991, and of his flagship, Jean Georges, which came along in 1997.

I think Bruni is probably right to reject the notion that the restaurant's aspirations (n) sets the baseline and that n+1 or n-1 constitute particular successes and failures. And it's his right. As time goes by, it's probably true that new restaurants will become more and more ambitious, and objectively that raises the bar. The key question is whether the Times should raise its standards to maintain the relative numbers of starred ratings, or whether they should keep constant standards, resulting in greater numbers of *** and **** star restaurants. I believe one can validly hold either opinion, but that Bruni has chosen the former. In order to maintain ratings scarcity, he is holding ambitious new entries to higher standards than might have been held in the past, simply because there are more such entries with such ambitions. If he gave *** or **** to every restaurant that people here thought might possibly merit it, he would become the "softest" NYT food critic in at least 25 years.

My last point isn't about Bruni directly, though I think it's relevant. I'm thinking about Grimes' review of WD-50. He gave ** and stated directly that some people didn't derive much pleasure from the food. He cites other diners and admits that he himself is somewhat in agreement. I believe that's a very Bruni-esque rating and rationale. But Grimes, and perhaps Bruni too, realizes that though the stars are for the masses, they are nobody's end-all, and writes

in the end, Mr. Dufresne should listen to his muse and ignore everyone else.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

Sneakeater · February 9, 2006

That was one of the best posts I've ever read on this topic. Thank you.

ulterior epicure · February 9, 2006

Leonard, I echo Sneakeater in applauding you for that thoughtful and thorough post.

Hey, he's not a robot, so can't be 100% consistent... I tend to agree that you can't rate something highly if people have problems with it, even if a vocal, expert contingent "know" it's better. And he's good about giving credit to the chefs' talents despite any such reservations.

In my opinion, thank goodness he's not (a robotic reviewer) and that he doesn't (review just for himself, or fail to give credit where he thinks it's due, even if he disagrees with the results).

I think Bruni is probably right to reject the notion that the restaurant's aspirations (n) sets the baseline and that n+1 or n-1 constitute particular successes and failures. And it's his right. As time goes by, it's probably true that new restaurants will become more and more ambitious, and objectively that raises the bar. The key question is whether the Times should raise its standards to maintain the relative numbers of starred ratings, or whether they should keep constant standards, resulting in greater numbers of *** and **** star restaurants. I believe one can validly hold either opinion, but that Bruni has chosen the former. In order to maintain ratings scarcity, he is holding ambitious new entries to higher standards than might have been held in the past, simply because there are more such entries with such ambitions. If he gave *** or **** to every restaurant that people here thought might possibly merit it, he would become the "softest" NYT food critic in at least 25 years.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Leonard Kim · February 9, 2006

I wish I had ended my last post a little differently, perhaps a little more crankily. While I continue to believe the Times and Bruni essentially know what they're doing, I should have drawn this contrast between Grimes WD-50 review and Bruni's Gilt review.

My reading of the Grimes review is that the ** is one thing and Wylie Dufresne another, and that Grimes wouldn't presume to offer Wylie Dufresne advice about things he could do to get a higher rating.

On the other hand:

He's an evolving young artist who needs to draw sharper distinctions between his greater and lesser ideas.

I could do without the classic example of critic's arrogance. (It's really just the one word, "needs," so I'm not really complaining. Nobody should be held to the every word just right standard.) But it's one thing for a critic to point out a possible disconnect between chef and Everydiner. It's quite another for the critic to presume to tell a chef what he or she should be doing. "Paul, you just listen to me, and you'll get those *'s in a couple of years."

Eatmywords · February 9, 2006

I know it's been discussed but I'm still miffed by these supposed "dining companions" -who appear to be confused at anything more elaborate than meatloaf. - "By the time the appetizers were explicated, my companions began to look less dazzled than dazed" or "Another friend could remember little but the bread" - Are you kidding me? Is it safe to assume these companions have yet to hit puberty? I understand he/the powers that be are ever wanting to reach more readers but with all due respect, shouldn't the (supposedly) most respected food critic in the country be surrounded by "friends" who, at the very least, have a culinary inclination, patience and curiosity? I think he needs new friends. Drop this crew of simpletons off at Red Lobster. (I hope they don't get too confused and bored with the multiple renditions of shrimp…….."folks, will that be fried, grilled, cajun or cocktail?"....."hunh?"....."what?".....zzzzzz)

ulterior epicure · February 9, 2006

I know it's been discussed but I'm still miffed by these supposed "dining companions" -who appear to be confused at anything more elaborate than meatloaf. - "By the time the appetizers were explicated, my companions began to look less dazzled than dazed" or "Another friend could remember little but the bread" - Are you kidding me? Is it safe to assume these companions have yet to hit puberty? I understand he/the powers that be are ever wanting to reach more readers but with all due respect, shouldn't the (supposedly) most respected food critic in the country be surrounded by "friends" who, at the very least, have a culinary inclination, patience and curiosity? I think he needs new friends. Drop this crew of simpletons off at Red Lobster. (I hope they don't get too confused and bored with the multiple renditions of shrimp…….."folks, will that be fried, grilled, cajun or cocktail?"....."hunh?"....."what?".....zzzzzz)
←

i'm no bruni groupie, but - ouch...

personally, with the kind of phrases that you quote, i don't literally read-in "adolescence of the palate," rather, i take it more (whether accurately, or not), as a literary hyperbole to highlight the confusing and overwhelming ("dazzled than dazed") litany of ingredients that i can imagine a waiter spewing off in a memorized chant; or a way to convey the idea of unimpressionable food, but particularly good bread ("little but the bread"). i don't read that deeply into all of mr. bruni's comments, but that's just me - you're entitled to your reading, and i certainly respect that.

...just make sure it's not your own words you end up eating! :wink:

Edited February 9, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

Nathan · February 9, 2006

That was one of the best posts I've ever read on this topic. Thank you.
←

I agree.

Nathan · February 9, 2006

I know it's been discussed but I'm still miffed by these supposed "dining companions" -who appear to be confused at anything more elaborate than meatloaf. - "By the time the appetizers were explicated, my companions began to look less dazzled than dazed" or "Another friend could remember little but the bread" - Are you kidding me? Is it safe to assume these companions have yet to hit puberty? I understand he/the powers that be are ever wanting to reach more readers but with all due respect, shouldn't the (supposedly) most respected food critic in the country be surrounded by "friends" who, at the very least, have a culinary inclination, patience and curiosity? I think he needs new friends. Drop this crew of simpletons off at Red Lobster. (I hope they don't get too confused and bored with the multiple renditions of shrimp…….."folks, will that be fried, grilled, cajun or cocktail?"....."hunh?"....."what?".....zzzzzz)
←

I think you're reading him wrong. I would daresay that his companions (like Grimes') are pretty serious foodies....what is clear is that their palate stems more toward the Blue Hill than the Gilt model.

oakapple · February 9, 2006

I've just a couple of comments on Leonard Kim's wonderful statistical analysis:

Contrary to the previous post's quoted assertion, I believe the evidence is there that *** is, for Bruni, clearly about the food.
←

I wouldn't draw that conclusion from the statistics that have been offered. As Leonard mentioned, Frank Bruni has doled out eight 3-star ratings. Seven of the eight conform to the traditional notions of a 3 or-4-star restaurant, in all the points that Steven Shaw mentioned in his Asiate post. The lone exception is BLT Fish, which from its trappings has the appearance of a 1 or-2-star restaurant.

As you say, Bruni isn't a robot, but from one exception I don't think you can generalize that Bruni considers only the food in assigning in a 3-star rating. The statistics say that he is generally following the traditional model.

It's worth noting that Bruni has given just four 3-star ratings that are uninfluenced by a prior rating: BLT Fish, Blue Hill Stone Barns, Cru, and Perry St. Babbo, Bouley, and ADNY had already been elevated to that level (or higher) by a prior critic. And Nobu 57 is merely a branch outlet of a restaurant that was already 3 stars.

I think Bruni is probably right to reject the notion that the restaurant's aspirations (n) sets the baseline and that n+1 or n-1 constitute particular successes and failures.
←

To the contrary, I don't think Bruni has rejected that notion. He is well aware of this convention, and follows it most of the time. This is most evident in his "demotion" reviews, such as ADNY and Bouley. In both cases, there could be no question that both the restaurant and the public expected them to be 4 stars, since they were at that level already. The reviews, therefore, express a considerable amount of disappointment—how else would he explain why they are no longer 4 stars?

When Bruni reviews a new place, one can only make informed guesses as to what rating the restaurant was aiming for. But it is pretty clear that Bruni knows he is coming in lower than expectations. Read the reviews of Alto, The Modern, or Café Gray. Those reviews convey disappointment, in some cases profoundly so. Bruni is aware that these restaurants, as well as members of the dining public who follow such things, expected 3 stars or more. His comments, therefore, are designed to explain why the expectation was not met.

Contrast those write-ups with the reviews of restaurants that never had any pretension to three stars, and you'll find Bruni is far more enthusiastic, the criticisms (if any) far gentler.

Edited February 9, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Leonard Kim · February 9, 2006

A couple comments on the comments:

I guess it would have been clearer to say that I read the evidence as saying:

1) regardless of aspirations, no restaurant can (or should) have a "baseline" rating of ****. So that it shouldn't come as a shock if a top-gunning restaurant ends up with ** because of perceived flaws. And yes, in such reviews, he needs to explain those flaws.

2) his reviews indicate that to get ***, the food must either be flawless (the "no bad comments" thing) or must be transcendent enough in some respects to offset a few negatives (Per Se, Perry St.) I didn't mean to imply that he considers *only* food for ***, but that the food must meet this minimal standard to achieve ***.

Wasn't this what his premiere review on Babbo was all about? That perfect food (as he seems to consider Babbo's) is his *** standard but more is needed for ****?

3) I do view demotions to *** as an exception and, as I've stated before, I'd venture to guess that if these were first reviews, rather than re-reviews, Bruni might have given at least Bouley **.

4) Interestingly enough, another thing he said in the Nobu 57 review was that he thought it was better than the original.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

Pan · February 9, 2006

[...]I'd venture to guess that if these were first reviews, rather than re-reviews, Bruni might have given at least Bouley **.[...]
←

My feeling is that if he considered a two-star rating most accurate for Bouley, he should have given them two stars. Do we have to be Kremlinologists to understand the meaning of the stars? It sure isn't what the Times claims the meaning is!

P.S. Please don't interpret this as sniping at you. You've done a great job in going pretty far to demystify all of this.

Leonard Kim · February 10, 2006

Well, there's the added consideration that Bouley was only his 3rd review ever. Sure things are never simple, but it's not Kremlinology, just rocket science

Interesting how a quarter of his *** ratings were accomplished in the space of his first three reviews (Babbo, too.)

oakapple · February 10, 2006

[...]I'd venture to guess that if these were first reviews, rather than re-reviews, Bruni might have given at least Bouley **.[...]
←
My feeling is that if he considered a two-star rating most accurate for Bouley, he should have given them two stars. Do we have to be Kremlinologists to understand the meaning of the stars?
←

I think Leonard is just saying what Steven Shaw and I (and I suppose many others) have said: there is clearly an unstated expectation element in the stars. Bruni would have known that it's news enough to take a fourth star away; to take two away would have been shocking. I agree with Pan that if he truly believed it was a two-star restaurant, Bruni should have said so, but the expectations inherent in Bouley's history are difficult to ignore.

Leonard is right: Leaving the expectation element aside, the Bouley review reads like the two-star smackdowns he has delivered to places like Alto and The Modern. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Bouley would have received two stars if it were a new place.

Interesting how a quarter of his *** ratings were accomplished in the space of his first three reviews (Babbo, too.)
←

They are also not independent judgments, because they relied on expectations that earlier critics had set. Edited February 10, 2006 by oakapple (log)