Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Fat Guy]

I also feel like it shortchanges Daniel Humm and Eleven Madison Park. They deserve not to be caught up in Bruni's half-baked theories of the Union Square Hospitality Group.

←

I'm not sure I understand the comment. I don't know anyone who thinks Union Square Cafe is the real flagship of the operation these days (except in name only), and we all know that Gramercy Tavern is in transition. These comments seemed to me unremarkable.

Are you thinking that I'm talking about Union Square Cafe as such? I'm talking about the Union Square Hospitality Group (USHG), which is the corporation that manages all of the "Danny Meyer restaurants." (Danny Meyer, though the driving force and most public figure in the operation, doesn't exactly own them; he owns various percentages of them along with partners and investors.) My point is that Bruni has various theories about USHG, an operation that he has no real feel for, and that Eleven Madison Park and Daniel Humm got caught up in those theories instead of getting a real review.

Bruni's contempt for USHG -- for whatever reason he's annoyed by Danny Meyer's populist vision of fine dining -- can be seen in his earlier review of Eleven Madison Park. He undermines his early praise for friendly service with:

Like his other restaurants, Eleven Madison is user-friendly on all levels. . . .

But its skin shines brighter than its soul. Although the dining room is flooded with those smiling servers, their dance is less a ballet than a military drill, glaringly mechanized.

and

You can hone fine dining into a science, but you may lose out on some of the art.

His current review is to some extent a retreat from and an apology for that failure of comprehension. It's the kind of review you get when a critic isn't significant enough to review significant restaurants.

[Fat Guy]

he has too little comprehension of the food to distinguish great cuisine from tasty comfort food

←

I think this is insightful, and I can only imagine that the Bar Room is doubly confusing to him because its food is much more complex and haute-cuisine-like than most comfort food. At the same time, I'm quite sure Gabriel Kreuther makes a clear distinction in his mind between the kinds of dishes that would be appropriate in the Bar Room and the kinds that would be appropriate in an haute-cuisine restaurant. I can just imagine people now saying to poor chef Kreuther, "Hey, you should make the dining room's food more like the bar room's!"

[robert40]

Seems to me what he lacks in food comprehension he more then makes up for in building anticipation and selling newspapers.

Is it a coincidence that he took pot shots at Gramercy Tavern in the very same review that all have been anticipating since Humm's arrival? Now with Michael Anthony coming on board at Gramercy Tavern he has planted a curiosity seed in those waiting for that review. It is my impression it has been all about business to Bruni from the very beginning.

[oakapple]

Bruni's contempt for USHG -- for whatever reason he's annoyed by Danny Meyer's populist vision of fine dining -- can be seen in his earlier review of Eleven Madison Park. His current review is to some extent a retreat from and an apology for that failure of comprehension.

←

I completely agree that his original review of EMP was off-base. He has, unfortunately, written far too many of those for us to expect that they will be corrected.

But what is your concern with this review, aside from the fact that The Bar Room got one star too many (a not inconsiderable error, I admit).

[vivin]

Whatever Bruni's motivations/shortcomings might be, I have to agree with him on this one.

One is likely to have a much better dining experience at the new EMP and The Modern than at Gramercy or USC. The latter two are resting on their laurels, in my opinion. Maybe I am new to the high end in New York (relatively) and do not remember when these places were at their peak. But I just don't get the incessant beating of the Gramercy/USC drum in their present form.

[oakapple]

Seems to me what he lacks in food comprehension he more then makes up for in building anticipation and selling newspapers.

Is it a coincidence that he took pot shots at Gramercy Tavern in the very same review that all have been anticipating since Humm's arrival? Now with Michael Anthony coming on board at Gramercy Tavern he has planted a curiosity seed in those waiting for that review. It is my impression it has been all about business to Bruni from the very beginning.

←

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. Nobody knows when Frank Bruni is going to review Gramercy Tavern until after it happens. Are you suggesting that readers will be snapping up copies of the Wednesday Times in giddy anticipation of GT's Hour of Judgment? I think not.

And exactly who are those people who've been anticipating an EMP re-review? He said nothing in earlier reviews to suggest this was coming, and there was no precedent for it — this being the first time Bruni has redone one of his own reviews.

Obviously, the Times hires critics because it believes their work helps sell newspapers — they are running a business, not a charity. But in that regard Bruni is just like any other critic. Indeed, there is probably less anticipation for his reviews than that of most critics, because it's totally unpredictable when his reviews will arrive.

[rich]

I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review. It doesn't make sense, was totally uncalled for and displayed a pettiness that has become one of the author's unfortunate trademarks - starting with his Bouley review at the beginning of his meaningless tenure.

As far as giving the Bar Room three - it's just another example of "not getting it." It's about as simple as that.

[vivin]

"But every time I left Eleven Madison Park, it was with at least one dish, and usually several, lingering in my thoughts and prompting me to rave to somebody the next day. That’s not the case with most restaurants, and that hasn’t been my experience in recent years at Gramercy Tavern or Union Square Cafe. They may have the more steadfast retinues of loyal suitors. But the crowns rest uneasily — and perhaps unjustly — on their heads."

This reflects my own experiences/thoughts very closely.

[Nathan]

I don't understand some of the comments above, while others I agree with. But:

"While I've no doubt Danny Meyer's crew are floating on air this morning, when the dust settles, they have to face the preposterous fact that the main dining room is at two stars while the bar is at three."

There's nothing whatsoever inherently preposterous about that at all. If you think that the Bar Room is fabulous and bargain-priced (which it is) and the The Modern is mediocre and overpriced (I don't know)...then it is perfectly coherent to rank the Bar Room over The Modern.

As I've said before, it's clear that some people here think price should never be taken into account. But you should state that presupposition explicitly, especially considering the Times guidelines specifically state that price is taken into consideration.

"Seems to me what he lacks in food comprehension he more then makes up for in building anticipation and selling newspapers.....It is my impression it has been all about business to Bruni from the very beginning."

This is incoherent, ludicrous and simply wrong.

"Bruni's contempt for USHG -- for whatever reason he's annoyed by Danny Meyer's populist vision of fine dining -- can be seen in his earlier review of Eleven Madison Park."

b.s. EMP before simply wasn't that good. It was never a three-star restaurant -- except for the room. It charged three star prices for two-star (on a good day) food.

USC, of course, simply isn't very good at all.

Bruni likes "populist" fine dining. That's obvious throughout his entire ouvre of reviews. And it's blatant with his three star review for Bar Room.

EMP was simply bumped up a star because its simply better now...not as an "apology".

I disagree with Bruni on all sorts of things...and I agree that he's no food expert (he knows more than most of us about Italian food...maybe more than any of us -- but that's it). But some of these critiques make no sense at all.

[Nathan]

"The latter two are resting on their laurels, in my opinion. Maybe I am new to the high end in New York (relatively) and do not remember when these places were at their peak. But I just don't get the incessant beating of the Gramercy/USC drum in their present form."

You are 100% correct. It's just nostalgia. They were good for their time...but no better. People just have fond memories of loving them in their heyday.

Yes, the Tavern Room at Gramercy Tavern is a relative bargain...but it's not superlative....Bar Room blows it out of the water.

[Fat Guy]

I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review. It doesn't make sense, was totally uncalled for and displayed a pettiness that has become one of the author's unfortunate trademarks - starting with his Bouley review at the beginning of his meaningless tenure.

←

It's especially petty given that just a few days ago Michael Anthony's new menus were presented at Gramercy Tavern, a piece of information that surely got to Bruni just as it got to every other food writer in the universe. To publish a comment like, "It’s anyone’s guess how it will emerge from its current state of transition, which isn’t pretty," at such a moment is particularly odious.

[Nathan]

"I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review."

Well, he could review them instead...that'd be much worse. Cause they clearly don't deserve the stars they have.

(I have a soft spot for the tuna entree at USC and the fresh bacon entree in the Tavern Room.....but by no means are these especially good restaurants right now -- certainly not in anything besides service.)

[vivin]

When was the last time people had a great meal at Bouley, GT or USC?

And yes, Bruni and the NYT are a business. Just as the restaurants they are reviewing.

I can't believe I am defending Bruni. Just do not understand the criticism.

[Fat Guy]

Bruni gets some central points right in this review: I do think he correctly pegs the hierarchy of USHG restaurants at this moment. That's why it's such a shame that he poisons the review with so many wrong-headed comments and incomplete theories. He could have had a triumphant review just reporting what plenty of folks here already know: that the Bar Room is one of the city's best kept secrets and Eleven Madison is now truly a top restaurant. But he can't let well enough alone.

[robert40]

Seems to me what he lacks in food comprehension he more then makes up for in building anticipation and selling newspapers.

Is it a coincidence that he took pot shots at Gramercy Tavern in the very same review that all have been anticipating since Humm's arrival? Now with Michael Anthony coming on board at Gramercy Tavern he has planted a curiosity seed in those waiting for that review. It is my impression it has been all about business to Bruni from the very beginning.

←

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. Nobody knows when Frank Bruni is going to review Gramercy Tavern until after it happens. Are you suggesting that readers will be snapping up copies of the Wednesday Times in giddy anticipation of GT's Hour of Judgment? I think not.

And exactly who are those people who've been anticipating an EMP re-review? He said nothing in earlier reviews to suggest this was coming, and there was no precedent for it — this being the first time Bruni has redone one of his own reviews.

Obviously, the Times hires critics because it believes their work helps sell newspapers — they are running a business, not a charity. But in that regard Bruni is just like any other critic. Indeed, there is probably less anticipation for his reviews than that of most critics, because it's totally unpredictable when his reviews will arrive.

←

Uhh. Since Chef Humm came on board last February it has been one of the most discussed restaurants in the city. Naturally people was anticipating Bruni's next review and would it be upgraded from two stars. Bruni said so much in the review himself if not for Humm it would not have been re-reviewed.

And for Michael Anthony one of the most respected and admired chefs out there.

I am sure there are those wondering in anticipation Bruni's next review of Gramercy Tavern and if his opinion has changed.

[Fat Guy]

When was the last time people had a great meal at Bouley, GT or USC?

←

Two in 2007.

Bouley is chronically underrated, and just give the Mike Anthony buzz another few weeks to start getting around.

[Nathan]

"I am sure there are those wondering in anticipation Bruni's next review of Gramercy Tavern and if his opinion has changed."

eh...the few who are eagerly waiting in anticipation either already subscribe to the NY Times or read it online. The fact that it has extensive dining coverage may help the Times sell copies (though I think it more likely that like the Book Review its actually an economic loss), but the number of extra copies that Bruni may be able to sell by stirring up "extra buzz" is probably like three copies.

Seriously, this makes no sense at all.

[vivin]

"...But he can't let well enough alone."

I think that is the point. Why can't one criticize well established places if they have slipped? Why not? I have gotten shot down before for saying that Daniel has been resting on its laurels.

Maybe negative comments about GT do not belong in an EMP review. However, that was his thought and I appreciate his putting it out there.

"Two in 2007."

Fair enough. I will try again if you say so. I respect your comments. That is partly why I read these boards.

[oakapple]

If you think that the Bar Room is fabulous and bargain-priced (which it is) and the The Modern is mediocre and overpriced (I don't know)...then it is perfectly coherent to rank the Bar Room over The Modern.

As I've said before, it's clear that some people here think price should never be taken into account.  But you should state that presupposition explicitly, especially considering the Times guidelines specifically state that price is taken into consideration.

That is not my supposition. I am not only aware that the Times reviewers take price into account, but I also use that same principle myself. The respective ratings of The Modern and The Bar Room are incoherent even in light of that principle.

b.s.  EMP before simply wasn't that good.  It was never a three-star restaurant -- except for the room.  It charged three star prices for two-star (on a good day) food.

USC, of course, simply isn't very good at all.

One should be careful of freely tossing around "simply" (though I'm guilty of that myself sometimes). I thought EMP was indeed very good in its previous incarnation. USC would probably get two stars if it were re-reviewed, which means "very good" according to the Times' definition.

Bruni likes "populist" fine dining.  That's obvious throughout his entire ouvre of reviews.

←

This is absolutely correct. The problem is that it leaves a whole genre of fine dining out in the cold. Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

"I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review."

Well, he could review them instead...that'd be much worse.  Cause they clearly don't deserve the stars they have.

(I have a soft spot for the tuna entree at USC and the fresh bacon entree in the Tavern Room.....but by no means are these especially good restaurants right now -- certainly not in anything besides service.)

←

Yes, that's my point Nathan. If he wants to put down those places, it's certainly his right. But do it in their own review where an explanation is necessary (at least for most critics). Don't throw out of couple of negative lines and end two very positive reviews with negative comments about other places. That's pettiness.

Why didn't he do a four-split review? The he could have have two three stars and two one stars, averaged them to two and call it a day.

[Sneakeater]

But what is your concern with this review, aside from the fact that The Bar Room got one star too many (a not inconsiderable error, I admit).

←

I probably shouldn't answer for FG, who I'm sure has already posted something smarter than this in the remaining segment of this thread that I haven't read yet, but . . . .

The problem with this review is that it shortchanges Daniel Humm's achievement at EMP. EMP has been given a side-by-side review with a completely incomparable restaurant. They both received the same ranking, but not in a way that sheds any particular light on EMP (and in fact tends to favor the Bar Room). Being given three stars alongside the Bar Room sort of devalues EMP.

I mean, read the review. Do you think it conveys the excitement that EMP deserves? (I agree with vivin that the paragraph toward the end, where he says there's always a dish or two he keeps wanting to talk about the next day, EXACTLY conveys what I feel about EMP. But IMO it just gets lost.)

Also, it has to be said, from a business perspective, when two places get the same rating at the same time, and one of them is much cheaper than the other, how much does that devalue the review for the more expensive place? I'll bet Chef Humm is pretty disappointed with this turn of events.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review. It doesn't make sense, was totally uncalled for and displayed a pettiness that has become one of the author's unfortunate trademarks - starting with his Bouley review at the beginning of his meaningless tenure.

←

In general, I think it's entirely reasonable for Bruni to make comments about other restaurants besides the main restaurant he's reviewing. In the same vein, a film critic might compare the film he's reviewing to other films by the same director.

The Gramercy Tavern comment was wrong for the very reason he stated: the restaurant is in transition. USC, on the other hand, is stable (as far as I know), and Bruni is entitled to comment on its current state whenever he wants.

The Bouley comments were in a whole other category, because they had nothing to do with the restaurant.

[rich]

and Bruni is entitled to comment on its current state whenever he wants.

←

Not arguing his right to do it Marc, I'm saying it's petty. Those four restaurants are very different and have different concepts with the common denominator being DM. There's no comparison worth mentioning aside from that (except service).

What was he saying - "Well Danny, I'm going to give two of your places great reviews, but within those reviews I'm going to smack down two others with off the cuff comments." In my mind that's how it read, and that's petty.

[Nathan]

"The respective ratings of The Modern and The Bar Room are incoherent even in light of that principle."

Why? If The Modern sucks compared to other restaurants at its price point (I haven't eaten there so I don't know), then it is perfectly coherent.

"The problem with this review is that it shortchanges Daniel Humm's achievement at EMP. EMP has been given a side-by-side review with a completely incomparable restaurant."

This is a fair point.

"I thought EMP was indeed very good in its previous incarnation. USC would probably get two stars if it were re-reviewed, which means "very good" according to the Times' definition."

I thought EMP was quite underwhelming in the past. And I was by no means the only one.

I'd be surprised if USC got more than a star. It doesn't deserve more than that either. The food is worse (or at least no better) than Little Owl (albeit in a much more comfortable room)...except for the tuna entree...and it charges three star prices.

The menu hasn't changed in 20 years after all!

[oakapple]

And exactly who are those people who've been anticipating an EMP re-review? He said nothing in earlier reviews to suggest this was coming, and there was no precedent for it — this being the first time Bruni has redone one of his own reviews.

Uhh. Since Chef Humm came on board last February it has been one of the most discussed restaurants in the city. Naturally people was anticipating Bruni's next review and would it be upgraded from two stars. Bruni said so much in the review himself if not for Humm it would not have been re-reviewed.

What I meant was that I don't think there are people who rush out to buy the Wednesday Times in giddy anticipation of a particular review. The people who buy the Times were gonna buy it anyway.

Yes, it's true that EMP wouldn't have been re-reviewed without a change of chef. But there was no precedent for Bruni re-doing one of his own reviews, and as much as a few foodies might have liked for it to happen, there was no assurance he would.

One must always be careful of a claim like "most discussed restaurants," as we tend to talk within a self-selected community, and may not realize what other people are talking about. FWIW, in my totally unscientific impression of the year-end food wrapups in many papers/magazines/food blogs, The Little Owl was the most talked-about restaurant. Heck, Nathan alone mentions it at least twice a day.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)