Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

Is Bouley Upstairs an Italian restaurant?

I said it was subjective, didn't I?

No, I wouldn't call Bouley Upstairs an Italian restaurant. What I did say is that there are restaurants straddling the border, about which reasonable minds can differ. Whatever you may call Little Owl and The Orchard, both have Italian chefs in the kitchen, and Bruni's reviews mention that background in each case.

you can't just exclude four star restaurants since there are French restaurants with four-stars...those have to be considered in company with formal Italian restaurants (Del Posto certainly had four-star aspirations).

in other words, if one set is "serious Italian restaurants" then another must be "serious French restaurants" which must include four star French restaurants.

←

As I noted upthread in the discussion about women chefs, Bruni can't give the stars unless the restaurant exists. Over a period of many years, all NYT critics have agreed that there were no Italian four-star restaurants. In that category, there's nothing to compare him to.

The four-star set is also statistically problematic because there are so few of them, so getting a meaningful sample is difficult. Bruni has reviewed only one restaurant in that category that wasn't previously reviewed by another critic: Per Se. Re-reviews are a somewhat different animal, because you're operating within a baseline established by someone else.

By the way, although Bruni did not give Del Posto the four stars Batali wanted, his three stars were higher than most other critics thought it deserved. I don't know a way to express that statistically, but we all know it to be the case.

Edited May 9, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Annisa deserves three stars and Anita deserves four for her food. Arguably one of the top 10 chefs in NYC.

Today's reviews are worthless - he gives Craftsteak another star because he thinks the "sear" is better but the other things (including problems) are still the same. Please don't insult my intelligence!!!! Who paid who off??? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Because he and Batali are symbiotic it is required he covers all things Batali does, not matter where he does them. Given his predilection for bathrooms, Batali should make sure the stall door is always closed. Otherwise that might wind up as a review.

[Nathan]

Bruni has reviewed several restaurants with four star aspirations.

Bouley Upstairs has an entire "Italian menu"...it's certainly more of an Italian restaurant than Little Owl or Spotted Pig.

the reason why four-star French restaurants can't be excluded is simple, it would skew the overall ratings given to serious French restaurants downwards.

[Nathan]

rich, Craftsteak has changed dramatically.

[oakapple]

Bruni has reviewed several restaurants with four star aspirations.

We've gotten a little distracted here. We're trying to figure out the parameters for a statistical analysis. "Four-star aspirations" are not statistically measurable. We think we know what the recent ones are. But when comparing Bruni to Grimes and Reichl, who's going to go through the old reviews and figure out which restaurants had four-star aspirations?

By the way, I can't think of a single new restaurant since Per Se, excluding re-reviews, for which Bruni appeared to be even close to awarding four stars. It would take some reading between the lines, since he never comes right out and says, "This would have been X stars, but for...."

the reason why four-star French restaurants can't be excluded is simple, it would skew the overall ratings given to serious French restaurants downwards.

←

Remember, the question was about Italian restaurants. But in any event, since there have been only six four-star reviews of Bruni's tenure (about 3% of his reviews), I doubt it's going to make much of a difference. Edited May 9, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

rich, Craftsteak has changed dramatically.

←

I'm not saying it hasn't, but he specifically (and only) mentions the sear as being more to his liking. Then he goes on to say he still prefers a char.

Are you saying that couldn't have been covered in his blog or Diner's Journal thingy? There comes a time when the excuses for him must stop.

He's bad at what he does - nothing else needs to be said. And he deserves every negative comment any restauranteur throws at him - cheap or not. Afterall, he's printed enough of them during his tenure.

By the way, has Chodorow visited the bald guy's Chocolate Factory yet? The Times critic is the only person who could give Chodorow a good name.

[Sneakeater]

I'm no Bruni fan -- I will state once more that I think he's incompetent for his job -- but he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

People here have said that, given the changes there, Craftsteak needed a rereview -- but that it never would get one given the Times's space constraints and the current trend against rereviewing.

So now, Bruni in fact does give it a rereview -- and he gets accused of being on the take.

I mean, jeez.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

I'm no Bruni fan, but he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

People here have said that, given the changes there, Craftsteak needed a rereview -- but that it never would get one given the Times's space constraints and the current trend against rereviewing.

So now, Bruni in fact does give it a rereview -- and he gets accused of being on the take.

I mean, jeez.

←

SE, I don't recall anyone saying that. I know that was said about EMP, possibly Gilt and Gramercy (though he wasn't the last reviewer), but not about Craftsteak. Not that I recall anyway.

I believe you got it half right about him - damned.

[oakapple]

rich, Craftsteak has changed dramatically.

←

You have got to be kidding. Basically, Colicchio is searing the steaks a little better than he did before. That's enough to get Craftsteak a re-review after ten months, but Gilt (which actually did change dramatically) just gets a few paragraphs in "Dining Briefs." The reason isn't difficult to discern. Bruni likes steakhouses. He doesn't like fine dining. So a major fine dining restaurant gets the minimal coverage that he can get away with. A steakhouse gets a re-review because it's searing the meat a bit better than last time. What a joke!!! Edited May 9, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

I'd be wary of casual, indiscriminate, mix-and-match use of the term "bias." Some people are using it to mean a prejudice, others are using it to refer to a statistical deviation (sometimes in the same post), and in some contexts it just means an inclination.

It's also not clear to me what the "Italian bias" is supposed to be. For one thing, most people I know who are aficionados of Italian food and have traveled extensively in Italy think the Italian food in New York is a joke. Their "bias," such as it is, is against New York's Italian restaurants. Is the allegation that Bruni has some sort of pro-New-York-Italian agenda? I really can't comprehend the claim.

I'd also be wary of substituting statistics for judgment. Statistics help establish various quantitative realities. They don't adequately describe the decisions a critic needs to make on a daily basis. Critics aren't hired to be robots. They're hired for their judgment. The problem is that Bruni has poor judgment. That's about it.

[Nathan]

rich, Craftsteak has changed dramatically.

←

You have got to be kidding. Basically, Colicchio is searing the steaks a little better than he did before. That's enough to get Craftsteak a re-review after ten months, but Gilt (which actually did change dramatically) just gets a few paragraphs in "Dining Briefs." The reason isn't difficult to discern. Bruni likes steakhouses. He doesn't like fine dining. So a major fine dining restaurant gets the minimal coverage that he can get away with. A steakhouse gets a re-review because it's searing the meat a bit better than last time. What a joke!!!

←

I said awhile back that I expected a re-review for Gilt...I still do btw.

Its darn clear to me that the NYT Dining Section does not work by the list of rules set forth for it on egullet.

Its also darn clear to me that the Craftsteak section was a hook for what was really a Craftbar review (basically saying "hey Colicchio, you fixed Craftsteak, what are you going to do about Craftbar?"). It seem relatively likely that Craftsteak would not have received a rereview at this point if it wasn't for the fact that Craftbar was going to get one....then it seemed merely good sense to do both.

(but that's thinking like a journalist, not like us restaurant obsessives)

[JohnL]

Bruni has brought a lot of this on himself.

A good critic should be able to take an objective look at a restaurant and convey key information about the place. He or she should be able to add their subjective perspective to this resulting in a total review.

In good criticism,

One should always be able to agree or disagree with a critic's assessments but one should always be able to understand the reasons or supporting case behind those judgments.

Criticism can come from differing perspectives. The gay perspective, a female perspective a WASP perspective a political perspective etc etc

In this case the critic is announcing his or her biases and the fact that these biases (or perspectives) will color and shape their judgments.

However, a critic can't have it both ways. A critic like Bruni can't toy with his readership coyly hinting at the fact that he may be viewing restaurants from a certain perspective at the same time he is presenting his opinions as based upon his experience and talent and understanding of food and cooking (and restaurants).

The fact that there is any debate or discussion about how his being gay impacts his reviews is a distraction as his readers attempt to infer what the impetus for Bruni's assessments is.

For most mainstream outlets, critic's perspectives should be based upon knowledge and expertise and thus reliable to everyone in their authority and gravitas.

At the very least, a critic should be clear enough as to leave no question as to their perspective and/or their authority.

Gender or sexuality as it impacts a review should never be in question one way or the other.

[oakapple]

It's also not clear to me what the "Italian bias" is supposed to be.

My perception—at the moment, not backed by statistics—is that Bruni chooses more Italian restaurants to review, and then gives them higher average ratings, than a more well-rounded critic would do. Call it bias, prejudice, or inclination. Bruni, an Italian-American who worked extensively in Italy, seems to have a particular affinity for Italian food, and understands (or thinks he understands) it better than other cuisines.

I'd also be wary of substituting statistics for judgment.

←

I totally agree there. I would use statistics for what they are able to tell. No statistics can help us make sense of the Alain Ducasse and Bouley reviews (to give but two examples).

Its darn clear to me that the NYT Dining Section does not work by the list of rules set forth for it on egullet.

Clearly: otherwise, we'd all be Bruni-lovers. It may well be that no critic would actually satisfy all of us. But there seems to be a consensus here that Bruni is singularly incompetent, even if we might not agree precisely which of his transgressions offends us most.

Its also darn clear to me that the Craftsteak section was a hook for what was really a Craftbar review (basically saying "hey Colicchio, you fixed Craftsteak, what are you going to do about Craftbar?").  It seem relatively likely that Craftsteak would not have received a rereview at this point if it wasn't for the fact that Craftbar was going to get one....

←

That may very well be. Then again, maybe it was the sear on the meat at Crafsteak that first caught his eye. Realizing he couldn't justify a full review so soon after the original one, he had to find something to partner it with, and Craftbar was the obvious choice. Edited May 9, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

funny but the sear on meat has nothing to do with its juciness!

(according to someone named Harold McGee)

maybe Bruni is simply more comfortable reviewing Italian restaurants and steak houses.

the fact that he has been to Italy may be a factor as well as the relative ease in

assessing Italian cooking vs cooking that is more challenging to the diner.

There is a basic simplicity in what good Italian cooking is all about as opposed to more cerebral or intellectual cuisine and cooking--

if I were to write about food I certainly would be more at ease with Italian and steakhouse fare in terms of understanding it.

Edited May 9, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[rich]

funny but the sear on meat has nothing to do with its juciness!

(according to someone named Harold McGee)

←

Very true, but comparing the wisdom of McGee to that guy from the NY Times is like comparing Frank Sinatra's voice to Burl Ives'.

[JohnL]

funny but the sear on meat has nothing to do with its juciness!

(according to someone named Harold McGee)

←

Very true, but comparing the wisdom of McGee to that guy from the NY Times is like comparing Frank Sinatra's voice to Burl Ives'.

←

I didn't know Burl Ives was gay!

You can say that again!

My point exactly. Bruni lacks authority regardless of his sexuality etc.

I often disagreed with Ruth Reichl but I never had any questions about her authority. Her opinions and assessments were almost always imbued with a well informed perspective that was always pretty clear to her readers. Often it is in disagreement that we often learn the most.

When I disagree with Bruni I learn nothing. (even worse--when I agree with him I also learn nothing).

[Nathan]

Bruni has brought a lot of this on himself.

A good critic should be able to take an objective look at a restaurant and convey key information about the place. He or she should be able to add their subjective perspective to this resulting in a total review.

In good criticism,

One should always be able to agree or disagree with a critic's assessments but one should always be able to understand the reasons or supporting case behind those judgments.

Criticism can come from differing perspectives. The gay perspective, a female perspective a WASP perspective a political perspective etc etc

In this case the critic is announcing his or her biases and the fact that these biases (or perspectives)  will color and shape their judgments.

However, a critic can't have it both ways. A critic like Bruni can't toy with his readership coyly hinting at the fact that he may be viewing restaurants from a certain perspective at the same time he is presenting his opinions as based upon his experience and talent and understanding of food and cooking (and restaurants).

The fact that there is any debate or discussion about how his being gay impacts his reviews is a distraction as his readers attempt to infer what the impetus for Bruni's assessments is.

For most mainstream outlets, critic's perspectives should be based upon knowledge and expertise and thus reliable to everyone in their authority and gravitas.

At the very least, a critic should be clear enough as to leave no question as to their perspective and/or their authority.

Gender or sexuality as it impacts a review should never be in question one way or the other.

←

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're saying here. And I say that as someone who was trained in critical theory (Lacan, Eagleton, Butler, Derrida, Fish, Rorty etc. etc. etc.) at the Ph.D. level during its heyday (the 1990's). If there's such a thing as a gay or feminist or racial perspective on "restaurant quality"...you're going to have to explain to me how that works. Cause offhand I see no prima facie reason to believe that who (or what) you sleep with affects your views on or judgment of restaurant quality. For example, there's no such thing as a gay or feminist perspective on gravity....culinary taste, being somewhat a matter of aesthetics, could conceivably have a relation to some of those factors...but I've never seen such a linkage expressed, described, or posited, let alone demonstrated. And Bruni, being a steak guy, kind of dispels notions of what a stereotypical effete gay man might be into food wise.

as for the one and only occurrence where Bruni interjected some humor relating to his orientation into a restaurant review (a situation mind you which was begging for it), was no more inappropriate or asking for a debate than it would be for a heterosexual restaurant critic to mention his or her spouse in a given humorous context.

there's something seriously wrong if this is an issue in Manhattan in 2007.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

That may very well be. Then again, maybe it was the sear on the meat at Crafsteak that first caught his eye. Realizing he couldn't justify a full review so soon after the original one, he had to find something to partner it with, and Craftbar was the obvious choice.

←

sure. my point is that the Craftsteak review doesn't stand alone. either of those reviews are certainly more justified when paired with the other.

[Sneakeater]

I think maybe this discussion of Bruni's sexual orientation (which I agree has like zip to do with his restaurant reviewing) got started off my comment that I thought McNally's "anti-woman" accusation was homophobic (like, would McNally have chosen to make that nakedly absurd* accusation against a hetero male?).

________________________________________________________

* I said "naked". Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh.

[Sneakeater]

I often disagreed with Ruth Reichl but I never had any questions about her authority. Her opinions and assessments were almost always imbued with a well informed perspective that was always pretty clear to her readers. Often it is in disagreement that we often learn the most.

When I disagree with Bruni I learn nothing. (even worse--when I agree with him I also learn nothing).

←

I think we all agree with this part. (In fact, I think it's probably the best succinct statement of what's wrong with Frank Bruni as a restaurant reviewer that I've yet seen.)

I just don't see where all the other stuff comes from. Not just your stuff, John. But everything from everybody. It's like, as far as many people here are concerned, Bruni couldn't possibly do a single thing right. His every move is apocolyptic.

I mean, he rereviews a restaurant that arguably deserves a rereview: he gets slammed.

He discreetly refers to his sexual orientation in a context so fraught that it would have been borderline fraud (and also astonishingly humorless) for him to omit it: he gets slammed.

He reviews a chain that has been highly touted within the NYC foodie community: he gets slammed.

I think all this carping diminishes the very real fundamental criticism that Bruni richly (no pun intended) deserves.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

I think part of the problem is that at least two posters have made much of the fact that Bruni, as a gay man, had a reaction to the "decor" at the Penthouse Club different than a straight man ostensibly would. This then purportedly affects how he reviews restaurants. There are several problems with this:

A. the assumption that Bruni's reaction is somehow problematic while that of a straight man would not be. which leads to;

B. ignoring the fact that a straight female may well have also had a different reaction to the "decor" and found humor in the situation and made light of it in a review (do you really think Reichl or Sheraton would have written that review with a straight face?)

C. the comically absurd assumption that somehow Bruni's reaction to the "decor" affected his (positive) review of the food and ultimate rating of the restaurant;

D. that somehow this singular reaction to a strip club indicates reactions and assumptions when dealing with other restaurants that are dissimilar to those of his readership.

those who know me well and know my distinctly un-PC nature know that I'm about the last person to go around making accusations of homophobia...but I think there's an undercurrent of it here (which to me was manifestly apparent in McNally's letter)

Edited May 9, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

Hey why not? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. [sMILEY]

[oakapple]

I think maybe this discussion of Bruni's sexual orientation (which I agree has like zip to do with his restaurant reviewing) got started off my comment that I thought McNally's "anti-woman" accusation was homophobic (like, would McNally have chosen to make that nakedly absurd* accusation against a hetero male?).

←

I totally agree that there's no evidence of sexual bias in Bruni's reviewing. On a few occasions he's made sly allusions to his own orientation, and in the Robert's Steakhouse review it wasn't sly at all. But Adam Platt frequently quotes his wife (nothing sly there either). Nothing wrong with that.

I just don't see where all the other stuff comes from.  Not just your stuff, John.  But everything from everybody.  It's like, as far as many people here are concerned, Bruni couldn't possibly do a single thing right.  His every move is apocolyptic. 

←

Not by me. I thought the Esca and Rosanjin reviews were among his best ever, and both are within the last two months. But I do think he is getting worse. Or perhaps it only seems that way, because he's failing to get better.

[Nathan]

you know, Richman is my favorite food critic on the planet (I realize that I just p____ed off the entire city of New Orleans by saying that). he's not quite as good a writer as Bruni, but his culinary acumen is second to none in my view. here's a review he just wrote of Wild Salmon:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...olumnist_usdine

I think it's an excellent review. better than the vast majority of Bruni's. but if Bruni had written that review I'm sure that someone here would have excoriated him for it.

[JohnL]

The question is: why is any of this an issue to begin with?

Why is it even raised?

Nathan:

google gay perspective and criticism. I would also suggest you read Brendan Beehan

Oscar Wilde or any of the myriad great gay critics/writers.

The gay perspective is an important and legitimate approach to music, film, art and yes even restaurants and food. For popular culture I suggest you try to view some TV episodes of the late lamented "Queer Eye..." or if that's too low brow how about Amistead Maupin's "Tales" or maybe "The L Word."

Bruni brought it up coyly in a review as an attempt at humor. The point is it was not relevant to the task at hand and in and of itself launched a discussion of how his sexual orientation may impact his reviews. I would posit that were Bruni possessing of stronger credentials and knowledge this would probably, for most, not be an issue at all. it was obviously distracting.

As a point of fact, many restaurant reviewers never mention the gender of their so called dining companions in the context of their reviews. Why? it just doesn't matter, does it?

You may think Bruni was being funny, I think he was being sophomoric and snarky.

We can disagree here (I like Benny Hill) but the end result was an awful lot of buzz or needless discussion about something that you yourself seem to believe is not very relevant.