Interlude review in the Weekend Australian

[ozmouse]

Did anyone read the Interlude restaurant review in the Weekend Australian on Saturday? It was in the weekly restaurant review column in the lifestyle section.

I am sorry to bring this up without the article at hand (article is not on the web that I can see, nor did my newsagent have a copy this morning), but I have to vent.

It has been written by someone, whom’s name I do not recognize, and more to the point, by someone with not much expertise in the area of hospitality or fine dining.

Two points that pushed me over the edge was he admitted to not knowing what degustation meant up till 2 years ago (remember Interlude has only degustation menus now). And continuing on the theme, his apparent lack of knowledge of the word sous vide.

In addition there was the dismissive attitude in the article with regard to being invited on a ‘freebie’ review outing to the restaurant in the first place. Finally summarizing, (and I am paraphrasing here), there was no real reason to return to dine there!

Why would the Editor want to use that column to express this sort of commentary on a restaurant?

I googled the author’s name at the time, and he is an accomplished jorno and author. But what is his credibility with regard to hospitality or dining? Are they trying to publish a ‘punters’ view of the fine dining?

Anyways, as a restaurant review I thought, at minimum, it was dismissive and un-informative. Indeed, considering the profile of the paper, and the weekly column, damaging to Interlude’s custom.

To put it bluntly, any of us reading this forum, have more interest in, and would deliver a more knowledgeable and informative review of an establishment than Saturday’s effort.

No wonder the restaurant review fraternity have such a bad reputation. I put this one up as an example as not doing them any benefits.

Am I missing the point? Or am I just fueling the fire with regards to the debate/merits of restaurant reviewing?

[The Chefs Office]

Haven't seen the review but completely understand where you are coming from.

Happens all the time. This is why I often get myself in hot water....and why I try to stay as far away from that end of the "scene" as possible.

I prefer to deal with the real people in the industry, but I am from the kitchen after all.

No one can deny that every restaurant does need to deal with the "marketing" aspect of the business. This is where I'd rather leave it to the pro's.

On the flip side, I guess it's likely hard to find someone who knows their stuff and can write as well.

[Shinboners]

On the flip side, I guess it's likely hard to find someone who knows their stuff and can write as well.

←

ozmouse and PCL. There, there's two of them.

I haven't read the article (in fact, I haven't read the Australian once I twigged that their sports journos knew s.f.a. about A.F.L.), but from the sounds of it, it reminds me of Peter Carey's review of Jean-Georges in New York. He did write about the food, but then went on about how wearying the entire experience was. Personally, I'd rather read about the dining experience rather than his guilt complex.

I reckon one condition for being a good reviewer is that you need to have a love of the subject you're writing about. If you love your subject, you'll be spending your free time learning about the nuances of the topic. It will help you speak to your readers as you will be speaking the same language. I reckon that many people reading the review would have taken a double look when the author admitted to not knowing what a degustation menu was.

Restaurants and chefs are not immune to criticism. But, if they are to be made, they should be made by someone with some knowledge of the area.

[chef robin]

Reviews are part of running and cooking in a restuarnt and you have to come to accept them good or bad. We have had a share of both at interlude which is fair enough. People ar allowed to voice their opinions.

The thing that bothers me most about reviews is when details are false but yet still printed. There are serious reviewers who take their jobs as seriously as those people they are reviewing and take the time out to check facts before going to print.

As you stated ozmouse i have never heard of the reviewer from the Australian and his review was filled with misleading inaccurcies. Yes we do not offer a choice, but our waiters put you through a process of finding out any dietary requirements, like dislikes etc, so although there is no choice we can alter the menus to suit requirements.

the prawn cocktail dish is actually served on a plastic pipette, there is no 'toothpick' anywhere near the dish.

he also talks about a complementary squab dish we sent him, that his partner doesn't eat. We often send extra course to people we know or industry people. Im not sure why he was sent an extra course but it could have happened. If we had sent an extra course we would have checked before that it was something they could both eat. there is nothing more embarresing than sending out a complementary dish that the guest cannot eat. On the off chance that this did happen the squab would have been immediatelly removed and another dish bought out.

He also comments about only four tables being taken on a tuesday night. All our reservations are automated. i have checked every Tuesday since we opened and they have all been nearly full.

Mr Megalogenis also says about not being full after the eight course. Our eight course is equivelant to two courses from an a la carte menu, (again this would have been explained by the waiter), so most people would not be full after it. Maybe he should have had the 11 course.

His final and most irritating comment was 'i cant see myself going back . I feel as if we've already had everything on the menu'. He had tried only 9 course from 38 different course we offer from a menu that changes around every 6 weeks. How exactly does he think he has tried everything on the menu.

I dont normally respond to reviews and they dont ever alter how i run my business. I just wanted to point out exactly how inaccurate some of these reviews are and yes in some cases, although not this one, they could be damaging to some businesses.

The public should not believe everything they read.

Chef Robin

[Shinboners]

The public should not believe everything they read.

←

That seems quite appropriate since George Megalogenis is a member of the Canberra press gallery.

[lamington]

Disappointing stuff indeed. My experience of reviewing is that, with the exception of the professional reviewers (with whom we all disagree from time to time), almost anyone will be given the job to review stuff. I've accompanied a cadet to a classical concert in order to "help" her write a review -- she had probably never even heard of Bach. On the food side, there is also the depressing problem that some reviews, especially the short semi-anonymous type, get fed through a hip/cool/garbage filter before publication and come out creating a totally different picture (though that's clearly not the problem with the review under discussion in this thread).

[NMM]

I agree with you totally, except it's worth noting that Peter Carey doesn't pretend to be a food or restaurant critic. He's writing about the experience of being Peter Carey in a restaurant. And he definitely does know how to write.

[NMM]

oops, that was a reply to Daniel Chan, above.

I agree with you totally, except it's worth noting that Peter Carey doesn't pretend to be a food or restaurant critic. He's writing about the experience of being Peter Carey in a restaurant. And he definitely does know how to write.

←

[ozmouse]

On the flip side, I guess it's likely hard to find someone who knows their stuff and can write as well.

←

ozmouse and PCL. There, there's two of them.

for the record...... when you read my reviews of top shelf restaurants, you are getting a very biased point of view. if i have decided to drop 100's of dollars to eat out, the decision making process of selecting a restaurant has me in a position where I will pick an establishment based on my exposure to available info and that process has me walking into a joint wanting to have a good evening. you could say they had me from hello.

i look at dining out as a luxury i am fortunate to partake in. i come from a very average social economic background, and do not take opportunity for granted. At the same time, it is my hard earned money being expended.

i rely on the current media to keep abreast of food and wine in this country. on the other hand, i worked in the industry for 10 years, have travelled abit, dined out a bit, cooked abit, hunted and gathered abit. a bit of passion there.

i do not consider myself a writer. but i know what i like.

[ozmouse]

Reviews are part of running and cooking in a restuarnt and you have to come to accept them good or bad. We have had a share of both at interlude which is fair enough. People ar allowed to voice their opinions.

←

OMG i totally forgot chef robin lurks here. and this article is causally dismissing the work of one of our own brethren (sorry mate - you might not have known that - you are stuck with us now! )

could not agree more about expressing one's opinion. i have more than enough opinion than one man should have probably. and i look for other's opinions and comment to further valid and meld my own perspectives on life and living. and more so in the case of restaurant reviews, talk about an arena where one must weight up personal opinion through rose coloured glasses. i.e. one man's meat is another man's poison? (is this a good pun or a good analogy?)

my angst at the review did not even consider any factual inaccuracies, for in many cases, as a reader i am unable to verify such details myself anyways. but as a reader and a diner, i was not impressed with the way he dismissed the dining experience as a chore, and then communicated the experience so half heartedly while exhibiting lack of knowledge along the way.

Upon reflection, i now have more of an issue with the editor of that section. Why did he publish that piece as is? This is a national paper, with a high profile review column covering some of the best restaurants in the country. Indeed, up til now, i respected the column for the points of view expressed for other restaurants around the country.

What advantage/gain is made publishing this piece? As mentioned, were they trying a 'new angle' with a layman's point of view? Did the editor 'miss' the 1/2 page of copy, because of the author's other credible writing and it slipped through to print?

hopefully most knowledgeable readers will dismiss it. like i said, maybe i have given it too much profile as it is. maybe it is just my ego.... thinking i could have done a better job!

[ozmouse]

That seems quite appropriate since George Megalogenis is a member of the Canberra press gallery.

googling his name pulls up:

biography here

an article he wrote here

and a review of his work here

he has some credability in his field, no denying that.

imo, he has none in the hospitality industry after reading one restaurant review.

[ozmouse]

also ironic/topical/interesting ....

many a friday night finds me hanging around the neighbour Interlude finds itself.

we frequent the standard hotel in fitzroy street and have been known to pop into the Labour in Vain on the corner. I usually stick my nose against the window of Interlude to check for menu changes!

Last friday was as described above, but we ate at Kenzan.

[Shinboners]

for the record......  when you read my reviews of top shelf restaurants, you are getting a very biased point of view. 

i do not consider myself a writer. but i know what i like.

←

I really love reading your reviews. I get plenty of those, "now why didn't I write it like that" moments when I read your posts.

Apart from the bit on having worked in the industry, I'm in the same boat as you. I do look to informed reviews to help me decide where to spend my hard earned money.

From a reviewing viewpoint, there will always be some bias in the review. I'd be useless at reviewing a Mexcian restaurant as I have little interest in the food. But put some French food in front of me and I start to take notice of as many things as possible. When going to a restaurant, I'm looking forwards to enjoying myself. As I eat, I do think about what I'm going to write on eGullet and I take as many mental notes as possible (often I'll get home and scribble down some notes). I don't ever go into a place with a view of trashing it. I'd always prefer to give a postive review than a negative one. And if I do make some negative comments, I hope that I do give good reasons for them.

[beandork]

interesting to note that a similar discussion - the subjectivity of restaurant reviews - cropped up in the UK forum at recently as well.

Difference being, the UK restaurant that copped the bad review DESERVED it!

[ozmouse]

[Shinboners]

Irvine Welsh seems to be the only one who really enjoyed himself.

Maybe the Observer could do another series. 5 Australian footballers (any code will do) review a book by a great modern writer.

btw, does anyone else here use the Green Guide? The critics seem to have a competition going on who can twist the knife the most into the various chefs that appear on TV. Off memory, they've bagged the Maggie Beer Cook and Chef show, John Burton Race's "Coming Home" series, Jamie Oliver (twice in two weeks), and Gordon Ramsay's appearance on Parkinson (apparently spending 16 hours in the kitchen is no excuse for never having changed one of his kids' nappies). The criticisms seem to be less about the show (that is, does the format work? Is it entertaining?) than taking personal shots at the people involved....Beer comes across as a know-it-all, Oliver is full of himself, Ramsay is arrogant, Race is arrogant - although I'd have to admit that Race does come across as being a bit of a prat.

[Julian Teoh]

Ozmouse, thanks for posting the links. Am I the only one who found it weird that The Observer decided to allocate Michelin stars to the French Laundry and Jean-Georges in 2003 when the New York Guide was only a twinkle in the eye of Mr Brown and M Naret (and the California Michelin still is)?

The Observer's point was obviously novelty, to make an interesting headline. I'm not sure what novelty you'd generate by having Mr Megalogenis write an article, but NMM makes a good point when he says that Peter Carey wasn't trying to be a restaurant critic. In the same way, when Mr Megalogenis states that until two years ago he didn't know what a degustation menu was, it's quite clear that he doesn't intend to assert any credibility as a food reviewer and he's just calling it as he sees it. There is nothing wrong with writing a personal view of a meal, provided it doesn't contain any malicious concoctions and people take it on its own merits.

As Chef Robin points out, he does not believe that this review will damage his business and I'm inclined to agree with him. Mr Megalogenis's disclaimer at the start of the article took care of that. While Mr Megalogenis's tone is dismissive to the point of being brusque, I'm sure that Chef Robin, along with other "creative chefs," can accept that the unique dining experience he proposes has the potential to alienate a segment of the population whose tastes do not run in that direction. The dining experience is necessarily subjective, but where food is presented as innovation, it is a truism that the potential for alienation increases dramatically. You need only refer to Rachel Cook's review of El Bulli for further evidence.

Mr Megalogenis's comments about the toothpick and "having tried every course (an indication of palate fatigue for someone who doesn't normally indulge in tasting menus?) " are merely symptomatic of this. I don't think he was trying to assert that Interlude's food was all the same or misleadingly light, but merely an everyman's view that "gee, eight courses is a lot of courses and I'm still not full. I MUST have eaten everything on the menu. Ha ha, guys, this is pretty funny. Laugh with me. Now where's that toothpick?"

I'm sorry that Chef Robin had to put up with Mr Megalogenis's review; regardless of the knowledge or the station of the person wrote it, it is never pleasant to see your work put down or dismissed. However, I'm much more inclined to trust the myriad others who have praised Interlude, rather than Mr Megalogenis's "punters'-eye view."

Edited to add: Daniel, I wouldn't mind having the Observer send a National Rugby League prop forward to write a review of El Bulli.

Speaking of chefs twisting knives into each others' innards and pureeing them into a bloody pulp, Neil Perry once remarked that "Nigella should whip her top off and be done with it." This coming from a person who later posed for a Vittoria coffee ad in nothing but a towel.

I'm of the view that Nigella is a much more attractive proposition.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Julian Teoh (log)

[Shinboners]

The Observer's point was obviously novelty, to make an interesting headline.  I'm not sure what novelty you'd generate by having Mr Megalogenis write an article, but NMM makes a good point when he says that Peter Carey wasn't trying to be a restaurant critic. 

The Guardian/Observer is, imho, one of the most pleasureable newspapers you can read on the internet. I love their wry sense of humour.

I guess the thing that bugged me about the Carey article and three of his cohorts (Welsh, you are excused and can join your mates on the Easter Road grandstands) is that they're so damn world weary about it. They seem to be on the verge of enjoying themselves, but can't quite bring themselves to say, "F*ck that was great. I'd do this again, and damn it reader, if you can do it, you should". Actually, Rachel Cook hated el Bulli, but I suspect that the punters will always either love or hate the place.

Edited to add: Daniel, I wouldn't mind having the Observer send a National Rugby League prop forward to write a review of El Bulli.

Shane "baked beans" Warne on el Bulli would be hilarious.

I'm of the view that Nigella is a much more attractive proposition.

←

Comfortably so.

[Shalmanese]

Shane "baked beans" Warne on el Bulli would be hilarious.

←

I bet he would have nothing on Glenn McGrath on L'Arpege

[Shinboners]

In the Age Green Guide today, Kenneth Nguyen opening his review of the TV show, "The Chef And The Cook" with the line, "Maggie Beer steers well clear of Robyn (sic) Wickens territory on the happily suburban The Cook And The Chef"

I think the chef from Interlude is making quite a name for himself.