Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

oakapple · February 28, 2006

not to take anything away from telepan and the orchard
i think the people that are really grousing are the team at gilt
even for a futurist it is hard to compare in any way
thoughts?
←

I think this is accurate. The Telepan folks might have believed they had an outside shot at three stars, but two isn't a failure. But for a restaurant with Gilt's aspirations and price structure, anything less than three stars is a serious let-down.

Another way of looking at it is this: How often does a restaurant in Telepan's genre open? There's probably a good dozen of them per year, and probably more. How often does a restaurant in Gilt's genre open? On average, maybe it's once every couple of years, or even less.

The Gilt review raises many questions. Does Paul Liebrandt get extra points for being an experimentalist, even if the critic thinks some of the experiments have failed? Or is an over-wrought dover sole the same as an over-cooked ribeye steak? Frank Bruni seems to be saying that whether it's sole or steak, there are no extra points for daring to be different.

Another question is, should the critic give more leeway to a restaurant that is trying to be unique? Should he, perhaps, wait a bit longer to pass judgment? Or should he say, "Sorry, but my schedule is the same, whether you're a four-star wannabe or a neighborhood trattoria." Obviously Bruni is in the latter camp.

Sneakeater · February 28, 2006

1. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to leave some out. Just because her selection of restaurants includes all the hot/cool/important/new/whatever places doesn't mean she should be required to comment on all of them.
←

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that there's no evidence that Andrea Strong withholds reviews of restaurants she doesn't like. Since she reviews practically everywhere that opens -- i.e., since it doesn't appear there are any reviews she's holding back -- it seems more like she just likes everywhere she goes (except for the few places, like Morimoto, that she has some extraneous reason to dislike).

Edited February 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

Sneakeater · February 28, 2006

Yes, I sometimes find the unfavorable reviews useful in their own way. But I can't criticize anyone for not posting/publishing them. At least not anyone who is not making a direct profit off the posting/publishing. I have little doubt her emails and the reviews help her get more writing assignments, but that's indirectly profiting in my mind.
←

I don't think profit is the point, really.

I think that people who write for public consumption have responsibilities. Even on boards like this. "Responsibilities" is too strong a word, of course. I'm not talking about anything approaching an ethical obligation -- and certainly not anything that could ever be enforced. But let me put it this way. I think we'd all agree that when you write for others to read, you're obliged to be honest. Nobody can make you be, but it's the right thing to do. Similarly, I think that when you write for others to read, it's the right thing for you to be as, I don't know, comprehensive as possible. Meaning, write unfavorable stuff as well as favorable, so your readers can understand your preferences. I'm not saying you're a bad person if you don't. I'm just saying that you're doing the readers of your writing a disservice.

(Obviously, by "you" I don't mean you, herbicidal.)

Edited February 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · February 28, 2006

I think that people who write for public consumption have responsibilities. Even on boards like this. "Responsibilities" is too strong a word, of course. I'm not talking about anything approaching an ethical obligation -- and certainly not anything that could ever be enforced. But let me put it this way. I think we'd all agree that when you write for others to read, you're obliged to be honest.
←

I agree with Sneakeater's earlier comment that Andrea Strong is not withholding the negative reviews, since she covers pretty much every major restaurant that opens.

But I would not accuse her of dishonesty. It seems her palate is such that she is relatively easy to please. I see no crime in that. It might not get her hired as Frank Bruni's successor, but there's nothing wrong with operating a blog in which you talk about the places where you eat, and it so happens you like most of them.

By the way, in this week's Buzz Ms. Strong takes a definite dislike to Destino, but that's only a mini-review. The main review (Christos in Astoria) is, as usual, extremely favorable.

Edited February 28, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Sneakeater · February 28, 2006

But I would not accuse her of dishonesty. It seems her palate is such that she is relatively easy to please. I see no crime in that. It might not get her hired as Frank Bruni's successor, but there's nothing wrong with operating a blog in which you talk about the places where you eat, and it so happens you like most of them.
←

Just to be clear -- and I can see I wasn't -- I am NOT IN ANY WAY accusing Andrea Strong of dishonesty. (There are sort of two parallel issues being aired here, although I think herbicidal may be conflating them, too: (1) whether Andrea Strong is withholding negative reviews (I think she's not), and (2) if (AND ONLY IF) she or anyone else not writing directly for profit withholds negative reviews, whether there's anything wrong with that (I think there is [if "wrong" isn't too strong a word]; I don't think it's dishonest to do so, though: I only used honesty as an example of an obligation I think we'd all agree even amateur writers have, since it seemed like it was being argued that amateur writers essentially don't have any obligations).

ALL I'm "accusing" Andrea Strong of is being undiscriminating. That's it. I'm not saying she's dishonest in any way. Sorry if I was too abstruse.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · March 1, 2006

I've just read the Del Posto review a second time. I think this is the high-water mark of Frank Bruni's restaurant criticism. It is mostly about the food. It is free of the puns, distractions, clichés, contrived agendas, and hackneyed prose that have marred so many of his reviews. It is well informed about the relevant culinary and cultural context.

I have not dined at Del Posto, so I can't say whether he pegs the restaurant accurately, but many of Frank Bruni's reviews have been so obviously laughable that it almost didn't matter what he thought. Whether you ultimately agree with him or not, this is a literate review that stakes out a meaningful position and defends it with relevant examples.

The three-star rating is well supported by the text. The owners are no doubt a bit disappointed, but certainly they should not be despondent (as the owners of Gilt undoubtedly were). Bruni is clearly disposed to give this place another shot at four stars, if they fix some of the problems he and other critics have identified.

Edited March 1, 2006 by oakapple (log)

rich · March 1, 2006

At least this review does talk about the food for the most part, but he still goes into music and the noise made by the copper pots.

It's the first time he's written (at least in my memory) about other critics and the public. He seems to take a swipe at the critics of the place as not being open-minded enough (paraphrasing). Interesting comment to make in a review - almost stating his impressions are better than those other critics and some members of the public.

His fondness for Batali comes through in giving him the benefit of the doubt with the menu and room for improvement. In my opinion that's what got Del Posto the third star - just an opinion, but I stated that up-thread (about the third star).

oakapple · March 1, 2006

With the Del Posto review out, are there any four-star candidates on the immediate horizon? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Of the five current NYT four-star restaurants, three are successful copies of restaurants that originated in other cities: Le Bernardin, Masa, and Per Se. The other two are helmed by chefs who had earned four stars previously at other establishments: Daniel and Jean Georges.

What is the last restaurant to score four stars without one of those two stepping stones: either a model created outside of New York, or a chef who had already earned four stars before? I believe Bouley and Chanterelle would qualify, and there doesn't appear to be much chance of either one of them reaching four stars again anytime soon.

Alain Ducasse, of course, will probably be restored to four stars eventually. But ADNY fits the first category: it's a near-clone of the same chef's restaurants in Paris and Monte Carlo.

All of which suggests that it's pretty hard to earn four stars de novo.

rich · March 1, 2006

Maybe New York doesn't need any four-star places in the traditional meaning of the term. We have a few other places serving four-star food that don't meet the archaic ambiance requirement of the NY Times (WD-50, Blue Hill come to mind - ADNY would probably get four if its bathroom gets fixed). New York has become less formal than many other major metropolitan areas and this is reflected in its best restaurants.

Personally, I would rather eat at WD-50 than Per Se, not because of the food (I think they're both terrific), but because of the comfort level.

Edited March 1, 2006 by rich (log)

oakapple · March 1, 2006

At least this review does talk about the food for the most part, but he still goes into music and the noise made by the copper pots.
←

Rich, I think that most people would agree that a review is supposed to cover the food, service, ambiance, and prices. The food comes first, but I don't think it's taboo to discuss non-food aspects of the overall experience, as long as it is in reasonable proportion to the overall review length.

The Babbo review was flawed, because he asked the rhetorical question, "Why isn't this restaurant four stars?" And he proceeded to complain about the music. He went on to list a number of other very reasonable (non-musical) complaints that amply bolstered his argument that Babbo isn't a four-star restaurant.

But if you're making the case for the prosecution, should the chef's taste in music be the first exhibit admitted into evidence? No, it should not. That was a lapse in judgment. However, in this review—where the audio background is mentioned merely as an aside—I see no problem with it.

It's the first time he's written (at least in my memory) about other critics and the public. He seems to take a swipe at the critics of the place as not being open-minded enough (paraphrasing). Interesting comment to make in a review - almost stating his impressions are better than those other critics and some members of the public.

Whether stated or not, any well-informed review cannot help but be a response to the body of critical opinion that is already out there. In its short life, Del Posto was starting to acquire a mildly negative vibe, which Bruni seeks to correct. All critics think that their opinion is correct.

His fondness for Batali comes through in giving him the benefit of the doubt with the menu and room for improvement. In my opinion that's what got Del Posto the third star - just an opinion, but I stated that up-thread (about the third star).

There is one other comparable example in Bruni's tenure. He awarded three stars to Perry St, while noting some fairly significant flaws. Edited March 1, 2006 by oakapple (log)

rich · March 1, 2006

At least this review does talk about the food for the most part, but he still goes into music and the noise made by the copper pots.
←
Rich, I think that most people would agree that a review is supposed to cover the food, service, ambiance, and prices. The food comes first, but I don't think it's taboo to discuss non-food aspects of the overall experience, as long as it is in reasonable proportion to the overall review length.
The Babbo review was flawed, because he asked the rhetorical question, "Why isn't this restaurant four stars?" And he proceeded to complain about the music. He went on to list a number of other very reasonable (non-musical) complaints that amply bolstered his argument that Babbo isn't a four-star restaurant.
But if you're making the case for the prosecution, should the chef's taste in music be the first exhibit admitted into evidence? No, it should not. That was a lapse in judgment. However, in this review—where the audio background is mentioned merely as an aside—I see no problem with it.
←

I agree Marc. I just found it amusing that one of the first comments he made was about the difference in music in Del Posto from other Batali places.

oakapple · March 1, 2006

Maybe New York doesn't need any four-star places in the traditional meaning of the term. We have a few other places serving four-star food that don't meet the archaic ambiance requirement of the NY Times (WD-50, Blue Hill come to mind - ADNY would probably get four if its bathroom gets fixed). New York has become less formal than many other major metropolitan areas and this is reflected in its best restaurants.
←

The meaning of the four-star experience will morph over time. Peter Luger was once four stars, and I don't think it ever offered a "Per Se" kind of experience. I suspect the Times will always have somewhere around half-a-dozen four-star restaurants, even if our notion of formality evolves. But in the meantime, restauranteurs keep opening restaurants that seek to mimic formality of the traditional kind, which suggests that the market for them has not yet evaporated.

Incidentally, WD-50 and Blue Hill are both two-star restaurants per the Times. While neither of them has the ambiance of any current four-star restaurant, either one could easily be elevated to three stars without offending the purportedly "archaic" requirements referred to above.

Nathan · March 1, 2006

At least this review does talk about the food for the most part, but he still goes into music and the noise made by the copper pots.
←
Rich, I think that most people would agree that a review is supposed to cover the food, service, ambiance, and prices. The food comes first, but I don't think it's taboo to discuss non-food aspects of the overall experience, as long as it is in reasonable proportion to the overall review length.
The Babbo review was flawed, because he asked the rhetorical question, "Why isn't this restaurant four stars?" And he proceeded to complain about the music. He went on to list a number of other very reasonable (non-musical) complaints that amply bolstered his argument that Babbo isn't a four-star restaurant.
But if you're making the case for the prosecution, should the chef's taste in music be the first exhibit admitted into evidence? No, it should not. That was a lapse in judgment. However, in this review—where the audio background is mentioned merely as an aside—I see no problem with it.
It's the first time he's written (at least in my memory) about other critics and the public. He seems to take a swipe at the critics of the place as not being open-minded enough (paraphrasing). Interesting comment to make in a review - almost stating his impressions are better than those other critics and some members of the public.
Whether stated or not, any well-informed review cannot help but be a response to the body of critical opinion that is already out there. In its short life, Del Posto was starting to acquire a mildly negative vibe, which Bruni seeks to correct. All critics think that their opinion is correct.
His fondness for Batali comes through in giving him the benefit of the doubt with the menu and room for improvement. In my opinion that's what got Del Posto the third star - just an opinion, but I stated that up-thread (about the third star).
There is one other comparable example in Bruni's tenure. He awarded three stars to Perry St, while noting some fairly significant flaws.
←

I think Bruni is swiping a little at the NY dining audience and saying that we're not as open as we think we are. He's right. (Of course the same has been said about Bruni in reference to Gilt.) I do see this in terms of certain "ethnic" cuisines where once a pattern as to how that cuisine should be served is established...every future restaurant in that milieu, to be successful in NY, inevitably follows that pattern. For example, I ate at El Centro the other night....I think I'm swearing off NY Mexican restaurants for good. I don't want more Pueblan food, I don't want tableside guac....I'd kill for some competent Oaxacan...but I fear that such a restaurant would not survive in NY because it wouldn't conform to expectations of what a "Mexican" restaurant should serve. I think Bruni's making a similar point about Del Posto.

Nathan · March 1, 2006

Maybe New York doesn't need any four-star places in the traditional meaning of the term. We have a few other places serving four-star food that don't meet the archaic ambiance requirement of the NY Times (WD-50, Blue Hill come to mind - ADNY would probably get four if its bathroom gets fixed). New York has become less formal than many other major metropolitan areas and this is reflected in its best restaurants.
←
The meaning of the four-star experience will morph over time. Peter Luger was once four stars, and I don't think it ever offered a "Per Se" kind of experience. I suspect the Times will always have somewhere around half-a-dozen four-star restaurants, even if our notion of formality evolves. But in the meantime, restauranteurs keep opening restaurants that seek to mimic formality of the traditional kind, which suggests that the market for them has not yet evaporated.
Incidentally, WD-50 and Blue Hill are both two-star restaurants per the Times. While neither of them has the ambiance of any current four-star restaurant, either one could easily be elevated to three stars without offending the purportedly "archaic" requirements referred to above.
←

I love WD-50...but I fail to see how it is (or was ever intended to be) a four-star restaurant. Although some dishes work spectacularly, others fail almost as spectacularly. And the ambience and service, by design, is certainly not exactly refined. It is not Alinea and it is not what Trio was.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Nathan (log)

johnder · March 1, 2006

With the Del Posto review out, are there any four-star candidates on the immediate horizon? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Depends on how you qualify immediate. The only one I can think of this year off the top of my head is Gordon Ramsey's place at the Righa hotel -- rumored to be this fall.

He will definately be striving for 4 *'s that is for sure.

John

herbacidal · March 2, 2006

Of the five current NYT four-star restaurants, three are successful copies of restaurants that originated in other cities: Le Bernardin, Masa, and Per Se.
←

Just wondering, but is the original Parisian branch closed?

M.X.Hassett · March 2, 2006

Just wondering, but is the original Parisian branch closed?
←

Yes,

After closing the Paris side of their transatlantic duo, Gilbert and Maguy plunged into America, not only putting Le Bernardin at the top of the New York restaurant scene but opening Brasserie Le Coze in Coconut Grove, Fla., and Atlanta; Maguy left New York to oversee them.

Wine Spectator aricle May 31, 1995

herbacidal · March 2, 2006

Thanks, their own website mentions a change in focus to the NYC outpost, but not about the actual closing of the original.

That article is only accessible to subscribers, by the way.

rich · March 2, 2006

I love WD-50...but I fail to see how it is (or was ever intended to be) a four-star restaurant. Although some dishes work spectacularly, others fail almost as spectacularly. And the ambience and service, by design, is certainly not exactly refined. It is not Alinea and it is not what Trio was.
←

Interesting comment Nathan. What dishes failed spectacularly? Granted I've only been once, but of the 13 courses I sampled, one was better than the other. In my opinion none failed - they all ranged from very good to outstanding.

I do agree that WD-50 and Blue Hill were never geared for get four stars by the NY Times, especially since the Times puts too much (in my opinion) emphasis on ambiance. But I do think both serve four-star food. Again, it highlights one (of several) of the major flaws with the current NYT star system.

Dryden · March 2, 2006

In terms of 4 star possibles, there's also the new Robuchon restaurant - but they may not be aiming that high on decor. But for food, certainly.

oakapple · March 2, 2006

I love WD-50...but I fail to see how it is (or was ever intended to be) a four-star restaurant. Although some dishes work spectacularly, others fail almost as spectacularly. And the ambience and service, by design, is certainly not exactly refined. It is not Alinea and it is not what Trio was.
←

I am quite certain that WD-50 was not intended to be a four-star restaurant. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the investors, certainly knows the difference. I suspect they were not surprised to receive precisely what they got, which was two stars. (Which is not to say that they were necessarily pleased with all of William Grimes's specific criticisms.)

I do agree that WD-50 and Blue Hill were never geared for get four stars by the NY Times, especially since the Times puts too much (in my opinion) emphasis on ambiance. But I do think both serve four-star food. Again, it highlights one (of several) of the major flaws with the current NYT star system.
←

I've been to Blue Hill twice and WD-50 once. As enjoyable as they are, I see a clear gap between their cuisine, and what you get at Per Se or Alain Ducasse. And that's without considering the ambiance. I do think there's a strong argument for elevating them both to three stars.

It's interesting that Rich says the Times puts "too much...emphasis" on ambiance, since the Times has never stated precisely how much weight they attach to all of the various factors that go into a rating. So, how does he know how much emphasis they're attaching to it? I can say that I've not yet seen a credible argument that any New York restaurant is serving food comparable to the current four-star restaurants, aside from restaurants that (in some critic's opinion) failed to receive four stars because of the food.

Take Rich's specific examples, Blue Hill and WD-50. The critic (William Grimes in both cases) had specific complaints about the food. Even if the Times system were revised to disregard ambiance, he would not have awarded four stars to either restaurant. Indeed, he didn't even award three.

Edited March 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · March 2, 2006

I love WD-50...but I fail to see how it is (or was ever intended to be) a four-star restaurant. Although some dishes work spectacularly, others fail almost as spectacularly. And the ambience and service, by design, is certainly not exactly refined. It is not Alinea and it is not what Trio was.
←
I am quite certain that WD-50 was not intended to be a four-star restaurant. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the investors, certainly knows the difference. I suspect they were not surprised to receive precisely what they got, which was two stars. (Which is not to say that they were necessarily pleased with all of William Grimes's specific criticisms.)
I do agree that WD-50 and Blue Hill were never geared for get four stars by the NY Times, especially since the Times puts too much (in my opinion) emphasis on ambiance. But I do think both serve four-star food. Again, it highlights one (of several) of the major flaws with the current NYT star system.
←
I've been to Blue Hill twice and WD-50 once. As enjoyable as they are, I see a clear gap between their cuisine, and what you get at Per Se or Alain Ducasse. And that's without considering the ambiance. I do think there's a strong argument for elevating them both to three stars.
It's interesting that Rich says the Times puts "too much...emphasis" on ambiance, since the Times has never stated precisely how much weight they attach to all of the various factors that go into a rating. So, how does he know how much emphasis they're attaching to it? I can say that I've not yet seen a credible argument that any New York restaurant is serving food comparable to the current four-star restaurants, aside from restaurants that (in some critic's opinion) failed to receive four stars because of the food.
Take Rich's specific examples, Blue Hill and WD-50. The critric (William Grimes in both cases) had specific complaints about the food. Even if the Times system were revised to disregard ambiance, he would not have awarded four stars to either restaurant. Indeed, he didn't even award three.
←

Off the top of my head...on one visit the venison tartare with wasabi ice-cream was indubitably tasteless. I could have been eating tofu.

Like I said, I enjoy WD-50 a great deal...but neither the food or the service is at a polished four-star level. It's just not. It's not aimed at that. Like I said, check out Alinea or Trio back in the day to see what WD-50 would be if it was intended to be a four-star restaurant. I imagine that Gilt is something like this as well.

rich · March 2, 2006

You're correct Marc, I don't know how much emphasis the Times puts on ambiance in star system, but by recent example it certainly has some significance. The ADNY and Babbo reviews go out of their way to emphasize ambiance problems. It's also listed as one of the printed factors in a rating.

In the end, I don't think the Times is sure how much it's worth and it probably changes from reviewer to reviewer.

oakapple · March 2, 2006

You're correct Marc, I don't know how much emphasis the Times puts on ambiance in star system, but by recent example it certainly has some significance. The ADNY and Babbo reviews go out of their way to emphasize ambiance problems. It's also listed as one of the printed factors in a rating.
←

Oh, absolutely...ambiance counts, as I believe it should.

That said, it is a matter of good judgment to emphasize the issues that reasonable diners would care about, and at times Bruni's judgment has been lacking. In the Alain Ducasse review, he complained that he had not been informed that a certain "critically important fixture" in the restroom was out of order. Given the rather limited space that the Times allots to its reviews, was this point worth mentioning, especially given that the said fixture probably is working correctly 99.9% of the time? I don't think so.

In the Babbo review, I don't mind that he informs us about the loud rock music. But as the leading reason (albeit, not the only reason) given why Babbo is not a four-star restaurant, it was inappropriate.

Edited March 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · March 2, 2006

I love WD-50...but I fail to see how it is (or was ever intended to be) a four-star restaurant. Although some dishes work spectacularly, others fail almost as spectacularly. And the ambience and service, by design, is certainly not exactly refined. It is not Alinea and it is not what Trio was.
←
I am quite certain that WD-50 was not intended to be a four-star restaurant. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the investors, certainly knows the difference. I suspect they were not surprised to receive precisely what they got, which was two stars. (Which is not to say that they were necessarily pleased with all of William Grimes's specific criticisms.)
I do agree that WD-50 and Blue Hill were never geared for get four stars by the NY Times, especially since the Times puts too much (in my opinion) emphasis on ambiance. But I do think both serve four-star food. Again, it highlights one (of several) of the major flaws with the current NYT star system.
←
I've been to Blue Hill twice and WD-50 once. As enjoyable as they are, I see a clear gap between their cuisine, and what you get at Per Se or Alain Ducasse. And that's without considering the ambiance. I do think there's a strong argument for elevating them both to three stars.
It's interesting that Rich says the Times puts "too much...emphasis" on ambiance, since the Times has never stated precisely how much weight they attach to all of the various factors that go into a rating. So, how does he know how much emphasis they're attaching to it? I can say that I've not yet seen a credible argument that any New York restaurant is serving food comparable to the current four-star restaurants, aside from restaurants that (in some critic's opinion) failed to receive four stars because of the food.
Take Rich's specific examples, Blue Hill and WD-50. The critric (William Grimes in both cases) had specific complaints about the food. Even if the Times system were revised to disregard ambiance, he would not have awarded four stars to either restaurant. Indeed, he didn't even award three.
←
Off the top of my head...on one visit the venison tartare with wasabi ice-cream was indubitably tasteless. I could have been eating tofu.
Like I said, I enjoy WD-50 a great deal...but neither the food or the service is at a polished four-star level. It's just not. It's not aimed at that. Like I said, check out Alinea or Trio back in the day to see what WD-50 would be if it was intended to be a four-star restaurant. I imagine that Gilt is something like this as well.
←