Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

rich · March 2, 2007

That's so unusual for a restaurant that, in my opinion, it warrants a format-buster review. If there is a slippery slope, the Penthouse Club review is not nearly as far along that slope as the Waverly review -- so at least we're going up the slope for now.
←

It's not unusual behavior for a Strip Club or anything done under the Penthouse name. What's truly unusual is they serve very good food. So the emphasis should have been on the food, not the antics that are done in every strip club in the world.

rich · March 2, 2007

But it would be both silly and irresponsible to downplay the very odd scene in any account of eating at this place.
←
True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did.
←
The thing is, I think it's so odd that it should.
To me, the story here is (a) very good steaks in (b) very odd surroundings with ©very high prices. To me, in making a consumer choice, "(b)" and "©" are probably more important, in this case, than "(a)".
←

"B & C" are no surprise when dealing with the name Penthouse and strip club. "A" is more of the surprise.

Sneakeater · March 2, 2007

That's so unusual for a restaurant that, in my opinion, it warrants a format-buster review. If there is a slippery slope, the Penthouse Club review is not nearly as far along that slope as the Waverly review -- so at least we're going up the slope for now.
←
It's not unusual behavior for a Strip Club or anything done under the Penthouse name. What's truly unusual is they serve very good food. So the emphasis should have been on the food, not the antics that are done in every strip club in the world.
←

In an odd sort of way, I think that approach would have been appropriate in publication directed to afficionados of strip clubs. They would have assumed all the weird strip club stuff, and to them the news would be how good the steak is.

But in a general-interest publication, once you get past how good the steak is, the news really is all the weird strip-club stuff. Because that really is so different from what most of us encounter in the places we normally go for good food that it bears emphasis.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

rich · March 2, 2007

Once the story was on the editor's desk, it was obvious that it was going to be the section-leading material for the week.
←

And that was a very sad day for the NY Times.

rich · March 2, 2007

But in a general-interest publication, once you get past how good the steak is, the news really is all the weird strip-club stuff. Because that really is so different from what most of us encounter in the places we normally go for good food that it bears emphasis.
←

By that logic, the next time (if there is a next time), very good food is served in an unlikely, "far-out" location (maybe Brooklyn :laugh: ), the Times should cover it the same way. Would anyone want to bet if it has nothing to do with sex that won't be case?

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

Sneakeater · March 2, 2007

Maybe it's because I live there, but in no way do I see being located in Brooklyn as being as odd as women I don't know coming up to me during dinner, chatting me up out of nowhere, and asking me to give them money to take their clothes off and gyrate in my lap.

Maybe I view being located in Staten Island as being that odd. But not Brooklyn.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

rich · March 2, 2007

It didn't take the Times three years to cover it.
←

It took them three years to cover it as a restaurant (and they certainly have the right to wait as long as they want).

However, when it was covered the first time, it was about the quality of the steaks and the Strip Club aspect was mentioned in the piece to provide responsible information and accuracy. There were no headlines, slide shows, nipple references or photos to go along with it.

So three years later they decided the sex was more important - how clever of them.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

rich · March 2, 2007

Maybe I view being located in Staten Island as being that odd. But not Brooklyn.
←

See SE, I could be your straight man too. :laugh:

Oops, wrong term (straight man) to use in this thread - sorry.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

Sneakeater · March 2, 2007

But it would be both silly and irresponsible to downplay the very odd scene in any account of eating at this place.
←
True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did.
←
The thing is, I think it's so odd that it should.
To me, the story here is (a) very good steaks in (b) very odd surroundings with ©very high prices. To me, in making a consumer choice, "(b)" and "©" are probably more important, in this case, than "(a)".
←
"B & C" are no surprise when dealing with the name Penthouse and strip club. "A" is more of the surprise.
←

See, that's your emphasis.

To me, I'd say that "(b)" and (to a lesser extent) "©" are a surprise when dealing with "(a)". I guess I just view the thrust (we both obviously can't avoid all these unintentional puns) of this story differently from you.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

oakapple · March 2, 2007

But in a general-interest publication, once you get past how good the steak is, the news really is all the weird strip-club stuff. Because that really is so different from what most of us encounter in the places we normally go for good food that it bears emphasis.
←

Does the Times really have that many readers who are unaware of what goes on in a strip club??? Bruni writes about it in a very entertaining way — which is what makes the article — but you can't really think that most NYT readers actually need to be educated about what's going on there.

Sneakeater · March 2, 2007

No, it's a matter of expectations. This is in the "restaurant" column, not the "strip club" column. You expect that places that are written about there are going to be "restaurants" as we commonly understand them. Differences need to be explicated. As FG said above, just saying the restaurant is in a strip club doesn't convey the full experience, which I think DOES need to be explained to some extent to a general readership (my late wife, for example, wouldn't have had more than the most vague general idea).

Also, just because this restaurant is "in" a strip club doesn't necessarily mean that it's integrated (as Robert's is) into what I guess you could call their "strip club" program. It could conceivably have been kept more separate. All that needs to be explained and described in order to convey what this place is about.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

H. du Bois · March 2, 2007

I loved this review and I think I love the outcry even more.

Me too.

rich · March 2, 2007

Oh, how I long for the days when a strip club was a strip club and a steakhouse was a steakhouse.

...and even more, I miss the days when the Times was the Times and the Post was the Post, but now everything's the same.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

rich · March 2, 2007

I loved this review and I think I love the outcry even more.
Me too.
←

See H., we can be as entertaining as the Times. :laugh:

robyn · March 2, 2007

Frank Bruni didn't open a steakhouse in a strip club. He's a journalist who reviews restaurants. If someone opens a steakhouse in a strip club, you can either ignore it or review it. Given that the chef worked at Daniel, Le Cirque, et al., and is also a competitive barbecue champion (and also happened to be the roommate of my best friend in law school), and that there seems to be an ambitious (by the standards of steakhouses) culinary program in place, reviewing it seems to have been the journalistically responsible move.
←
For the record, I agree 100% with FG.
←
I don't recall anyone saying the restaurant shouldn't have been reviewed.
←

I don't know whether anyone said it or not. But I'll say it. This place got a long features article in the Dining Section 3 years ago - written by someone who knows about food. It stated that the steaks were very good. That's probably more NYT coverage than the place deserved. Robyn

robyn · March 2, 2007

[...]I don't know about Bruni - because I don't know the guy personally - but - after reading a piece like this - I'd bet he has a profound sense of contempt for women. Because - instead of concentrating on the chef at this restaurant (who really does seem to be a serious chef with a great CV) - he spends almost his whole review putting down women.[...]
←
I reacted to it very differently -- that he was making a joke out of the whole situation, not that he was putting down women and showing himself to be a misogynist.
←

I hope he is equally funny when he reviews his first gay bar/restaurant. They're a lot funnier than strip clubs. Robyn

robyn · March 2, 2007

I do think there are parallels at least to the Waverly and Sascha pieces, because in those he intentionally departs from the standard review format. However, I think both the Waveryly and Sascha pieces are failures, and the Penthouse Club review is a success. To me, the fact that Graydon Carter owns a place, or that it's a scene place on multiple floors, doesn't justify a cutesy review. I also don't think those reviews were particularly clever, and, worse, Bruni comes across as believing he himself is extremely clever. The Penthouse Club, however, is an envoronment where women come to your table, take their clothes off, give you massages, flirt with you, etc. That's so unusual for a restaurant that, in my opinion, it warrants a format-buster review. If there is a slippery slope, the Penthouse Club review is not nearly as far along that slope as the Waverly review -- so at least we're going up the slope for now.
←

So unusual? Have you been living in a nunnery? Have you ever been to a strip club - or a gay bar/restaurant - of either the male or female persuasion? I have - a fair number of times - for various reasons. They're not unusual at all - they're all over the place. All over the world. Even here where I live in the Bible Belt (although the laws here provide that an operator can't sell liquor in a place where the women/men are totally naked - there has been a lot of litigation over whether women wearing "'pasties" are or are not totally naked ).

About the only thing that possibly makes this place different is the steaks are aged. And Alex Witchel pointed that out. So what more can you say?

I'll note that the only time I ever had a lot of fun at a place like this was at a sex show/club in Germany. Musical comedy. The climax was 6 men having sex with 6 women. The women were naked - and the only thing the men were wearing was condoms. The plot of the show was pretty thin - but I thought it was very sexy - and non-sexist. Something for the men - and something for the women. BTW - there wasn't a lot of food - but the pours were good on the drinks. Maybe it deserves a review in the NYT. Robyn

H. du Bois · March 2, 2007

I really don't get why you are so outraged by this article. I really, really don't.

It's not from a lack of your saying enough about it. Rather, I just cannot see what provoked this degree of response from you.

Fat Guy · March 3, 2007

Robyn, I think you've established your street cred on the adult entertainment scene. I'll try to remember to send you my CV as well. But the reason this is interesting is not because it's a gentlemen's club, and not because it's a serious restaurant. It's because it's both. I only know of one other such example, which operated briefly about a decade ago. So, I think that meets the definition of unusual.

TarteTatin · March 3, 2007

We totally agree with Pan and Fat Guy.

This was a funny review, creating a new (perhaps) genre of reviewing.

Frank Bruni rocks.

Who cares what his sexuality is.

We're a married couple writing this together, and it really doesn't enter our minds.

He's funny, he writes well, and we like him.

Everyone seems way too serious about this.

As the Chef of Lucas-Carton said, "It's only grub."

robyn · March 3, 2007

What's funnier is the Bruni Digest take on this. Robyn

robyn · March 3, 2007

And I'm not taking it too seriously. I am really looking forward to the next installment - is Frank "butch" or "femme". Inquiring minds want to know. Those of you in New York - what's the gossip?

Of course - I doubt I will ever take the New York Times seriously in the future. Robyn

Sneakeater · March 3, 2007

Robyn, I think that's really going over the line into homophobia.

I'm glad you find the fact that someone is gay so amusing, though.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

Pan · March 3, 2007

Totally and completely off-base Pan. I'm not offended, hurt or sensitive about his sexuality or have a problem with him being "out." His business, his call. But restaurant reviews are not the place to promote a personal agenda.[...]
←

I don't think he's promoting a personal agenda, just being funny!