Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Fat Guy]

It's also a fallacy to point to someone's blog entries as evidence of amateurish writing. That would be similar to pointing to someone's message-board posts as evidence of the same. If you're going to evaluate someone's carefully outlined, crafted and edited writing, you have to find an example of it before you can evaluate it -- and you may not find that on a blog, which is typically a first-and-only-draft, off-the-cuff medium.

[oakapple]

The restaurant reviewing season tends to run from September to August, kicked off by the fall preview issues in all of the major food sections. Frank Bruni's three-star review of Café Boulud today brought to mind a remarkable stat about the 2006–07 season.

Since last September, Frank Bruni has not awarded four stars to any restaurant, while he has awarded three to the following:

Felidia

L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon

Picholine

Eleven Madison Park

Bar Room at the Modern

Esca

Gramercy Tavern

Café Boulud

Of those eight restaurants, only L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon was new—although, in a sense, it wasn't new, since there are at least four other L'Ateliers around the world, of which this was a clone. The other seven were all re-reviews. Danny Meyer can consider himself the big winner, since he owns three of the seven.

So, an entire year has gone by with only one new three-star restaurant, and no new four-star restaurants. That must be a new record for futility. Perhaps Leonard Kim can search his database. Has there ever been a year with so few new restaurants at the top two levels?

Is this Bruni's fault, or has something changed in the industry? I think it's the latter. I can think of only three other new restaurants that could have rationally considered themselves three-star candidates: Gordon Ramsay, Anthos, and perhaps Insieme. Given the mixed reactions of other critics, I cannot say Bruni was wrong when he awarded two stars to each of them. (I gave three to Anthos on my blog, but it was a close call.)

What's going on here? It seems that, while there are still plenty of new restaurant openings, investors are reluctant nowadays to make the larger commitment required to launch a three or four-star restaurant. Bruni's view, which he re-iterated in today's Café Boulud review, is that we're living in a more informal era, and there are fewer diners interested traditional fine dining.

But ironically, while Bruni disdains traditional formality, he remains a tough grader at the three-star level. Aside from the anomaly of the Bar Room—which I'm sure even Danny Meyer never conceived of as a three-star restaurant—it is awfully tough to get a trifecta out of Frank Bruni. I wonder whether restauranteurs are consciously avoiding the challenge, with the view that the risk/reward ratio just isn't worthwhile.

[Nathan]

It's also a fallacy to point to someone's blog entries as evidence of amateurish writing. That would be similar to pointing to someone's message-board posts as evidence of the same. If you're going to evaluate someone's carefully outlined, crafted and edited writing, you have to find an example of it before you can evaluate it -- and you may not find that on a blog, which is typically a first-and-only-draft, off-the-cuff medium.

←

I disagree.

not when the blog is intended to be a professional, money-making product...which it was.

[Nathan]

the demand for formal dining has definitely diminished (although Bruni did, in fact, have nice things to say about it in today's review)

[oakapple]

the demand for formal dining has definitely diminished (although Bruni did, in fact, have nice things to say about it in today's review)

←

There's no question the long-term trend is toward less formality. But "conventionally formal" restaurants continue to open in New York, and quite a few of them aren't easy to get into, which suggests there is unmet demand. The trouble is mainly the larger up-front investment it takes to launch such a place, and hence, a larger loss if you fail. The city's two main critics (Bruni, Platt) have not only failed credit to the effort in many cases, but indeed, practically resent it.

In today's review, the "nice things" Bruni had to say about this kind of dining were arguably back-handed. He said that Café Boulud was "no less fun to visit," hardly a marquis quote that the restaurant wants to market itself by. He repeated his past statement that CB is "the most consistently enjoyable" of Boulud's restaurants, which is probably not what the owner of Daniel wants to hear.

Edited August 15, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

He repeated his past statement that CB is "the most consistently enjoyable" of Boulud's restaurants, which is probably not what the owner of Daniel wants to hear.

←

It is, however, true.

[Leonard Kim]

So, an entire year has gone by with only one new three-star restaurant, and no new four-star restaurants. That must be a new record for futility. Perhaps Leonard Kim can search his database. Has there ever been a year with so few new restaurants at the top two levels?

It hasn't happened in over ten years. It last happened between 9/95 - 8/96. Reichl handed out 11 *** and 0 ****, but only one of the *** reviews was new: Fifty-seven Fifty-seven (at the Four Seasons Hotel, where L'Atelier also is), though I gather it had been open a couple of years before the review.

For some reason, giving only one new restaurant a year a *** or **** rating is actually very common in the 80s. I don't know whether it was different reviewing practices (with frequent re-reviews, it's more feasible to rate conservatively at first and promote restaurants in re-review) or something real about that decade.

Keep in mind that there are almost no new **** restaurants anyway. Almost all of them start at a lower rating and get promoted. That's why you see people pointing to Le Bernardin as an odd example of a restaurant starting at **** and never giving them up (it's been reviewed 4 times in all.) Jean-Georges can now say the same thing, with Bruni's re-review. Masa is arguable, since Hesser declined to rate it on a first go. There's Per Se, and that's it for the last 30 years or so. Grimes and Sheraton never gave a new **** review.

My nomination for all-time futility year is 9/83 - 8/84. Mimi Sheraton did September and Marian Burros did the rest (Brian Miller didn't take over till October '84). In that time the Quilted Giraffe was promoted to ****. There was one *** review, a re-review of Parioli Romanissimo. And that's it.

[oakapple]

As ever, thanks to Leonard. I knew we could count on him!!

Keep in mind that there are almost no new **** restaurants anyway.  Almost all of them start at a lower rating and get promoted.  That's why you see people pointing to Le Bernardin as an odd example of a restaurant starting at **** and never giving them up (it's been reviewed 4 times in all.)  Jean-Georges can now say the same thing, with Bruni's re-review.  Masa is arguable, since Hesser declined to rate it on a first go.  There's Per Se, and that's it for the last 30 years or so.  Grimes and Sheraton never gave a new **** review.

←

I think you'd have to say that the standard has changed. Among the five current members of the four-star club, only Daniel had to work its way up from a lower rating. The others were rated at four to begin with. (I am counting Masa in that latter category, since Hesser never actually put a rating on it. Had she done so, Bruni's review almost certainly would not have been written—at least, not so soon.)

I do realize that new members of the four-star club come along relatively rarely. As controversial as some of Bruni's ratings have been, I can't honestly say that he clearly missed the boat on any four-star restaurant candidates that have come along during his tenure. There are two or three that some might argue are four-star restaurants, but none are compelling enough for me to say that Bruni definitely got them wrong. (I am not counting his demotions, which are a different story.)

My guess is that it's definitely weighing on Bruni's mind. He's now in his fourth year, and there hasn't been a new entrant to the four-star club since Per Se and Masa, both reviewed in the first seven months of his tenure. He's has to be thinking: three years later, and there's nothing new that's as good?

[ulterior epicure]

My guess is that it's definitely weighing on Bruni's mind. He's now in his fourth year, and there hasn't been a new entrant to the four-star club since Per Se and Masa, both reviewed in the first seven months of his tenure. He's has to be thinking: three years later, and there's nothing new that's as good?

Well, is there (anything that opened since that is as good)?

[Nathan]

no. well..Ssam Bar is something else...

but is there any reason to think Bruni cares about more 4 star restaurants?

[oakapple]

My guess is that it's definitely weighing on Bruni's mind. He's now in his fourth year, and there hasn't been a new entrant to the four-star club since Per Se and Masa, both reviewed in the first seven months of his tenure. He's has to be thinking: three years later, and there's nothing new that's as good?

Well, is there (anything that opened since that is as good)?

←

Well, it's time to cue Leonard Kim again. As of December, it will be three years since the last new entrant to the four-star club. I'm not aware of any reasonable candidates that are opening this fall, so it will be a surprise if Bruni names a new one by then. My guess is that, by historical standards, that's a fairly long time to go without a new four-star restaurant (or a promotion) being crowned.

but is there any reason to think Bruni cares about more 4 star restaurants?

←

He inherited a four-tier system, and since Masa in December 2004 he hasn't been able to find anyplace else deserving of that rating. Any intellectually curious individual would naturally ask: why?

If there are none worthy right now—and I concede that's quite possible—in a sense, that's news. It makes you want to ask what's going on. Is the category moribund? Why are no chefs trying to reach that level...or, if they're trying, why aren't they succeeding?

[ulterior epicure]

My guess is that, by historical standards, that's a fairly long time to go without a new four-star restaurant (or a promotion) being crowned.

You can't crown anyone if there are no worthy princes in the land... Edited August 15, 2007 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Fat Guy]

The most noteworthy oversight was Ducasse. Here you have a place that got three Michelin stars under Tony Esnault and had very strong positive buzz from people who knew what they were talking about, yet Bruni never reviewed it -- did he even visit at any time when Tony Esnault was chef? I think it deserved four before Esnault, but I guess I could see somebody disagreeing based on consistency, maybe. But under Esnault, Ducasse was the very definition of a four-star restaurant.

Me, were I in Bruni's position, I'd also have the Modern on the four-star roster. I think it's one of the very best restaurants in the country, and has all the elements in place -- it's just waiting for a serious critic to champion its way of doing things.

I might have four-starred Alto too.

[Nathan]

I agree that Ducasse under Esnault deserved a rating. the problem is, Bruni reviewed Ducasse under Delouvrier less than a year before the announcement of its closing.

it'd be unheard of for a restaurant to be reviewed twice in a year....and frankly, except perhaps for the hard-core formal foodies...there'd be some wonderment and outcry over him doing so.

I think ADNY needed to stay in business for another year to get that Esnault review. heck, it would have been unfair to other restaurants.

[Leonard Kim]

My guess is that, by historical standards, that's a fairly long time to go without a new four-star restaurant (or a promotion) being crowned.

It's long but not unusually so. As of today, it's been 2 years and 7.5 months since Bruni gave Masa ****. In the last 30 years, that puts him in 4th place in dryspells without new or promoted ****. He needs five more reviews to take 3rd place, 27 to take 2nd (late February), and 38 to take the crown in May.

That record is 3 years and 4 months, which occurred from August 1990 to December 1993. It began with Miller's promotion of Bouley, which he had initially given ** in 1987, and ended with Reichl's re-promotion of Chanterelle, which had been demoted by Miller from **** to ** in 1989. Also in that time period, Miller re-affirmed **** for Le Cirque and Lutece.

[ulterior epicure]

My guess is that, by historical standards, that's a fairly long time to go without a new four-star restaurant (or a promotion) being crowned.

It's long but not unusually so. As of today, it's been 2 years and 7.5 months since Bruni gave Masa ****. In the last 30 years, that puts him in 4th place in dryspells without new or promoted ****. He needs five more reviews to take 3rd place, 27 to take 2nd (late February), and 38 to take the crown in May.

That record is 3 years and 4 months, which occurred from August 1990 to December 1993. It began with Miller's promotion of Bouley, which he had initially given ** in 1987, and ended with Reichl's re-promotion of Chanterelle, which had been demoted by Miller from **** to ** in 1989. Also in that time period, Miller re-affirmed **** for Le Cirque and Lutece.

←

My, my, and so starring becomes a sport!

Game on.

[Fat Guy]

it'd be unheard of for a restaurant to be reviewed twice in a year

Union Pacific was reviewed on 26 November 1997 and 5 August 1998 -- the second review was titled "A Short Trip From Promising to Polished."

[Nathan]

it'd be unheard of for a restaurant to be reviewed twice in a year

Union Pacific was reviewed on 26 November 1997 and 5 August 1998 -- the second review was titled "A Short Trip From Promising to Polished."

←

ten years ago. a lot fewer restaurants worthy of being reviewed.

edit: as well, I'm guessing those weren't the third and fourth times that it was reviewed.

if Bruni had also reviewed ADNY under Esnault it would have been the 4th review that the restaurant would have had in, what, five years? I heard complaints after that 3rd review!

Edited August 15, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

The most noteworthy oversight was Ducasse. Here you have a place that got three Michelin stars under Tony Esnault and had very strong positive buzz from people who knew what they were talking about, yet Bruni never reviewed it -- did he even visit at any time when Tony Esnault was chef? I think it deserved four before Esnault, but I guess I could see somebody disagreeing based on consistency, maybe. But under Esnault, Ducasse was the very definition of a four-star restaurant.

The most damning thing about the Ducasse demotion was not merely the fact of it, but some of the reasons given. I tend to agree with Nathan that, having done so, a quick re-review was probably not appropriate.

But after Esnault had already been in place for a while, I recall reading an interview in which Esnault mentioned that Bruni had not yet even paid a visit, to the best of Esnault's knowledge (and Esnault almost certainly would know). And that's a visit I think a competent critic was more-or-less obligated to make. My guess is that Bruni had no plans to even try the place again anytime soon.

Me, were I in Bruni's position, I'd also have the Modern on the four-star roster. I think it's one of the very best restaurants in the country, and has all the elements in place -- it's just waiting for a serious critic to champion its way of doing things.

I gave it four on my blog, so I agree with you. I would note, though, that every current NYT four-star restaurant has at least two Michelin stars—and The Modern, as of now, has only one. So while I can say with near-definitive certainty that Bruni missed the boat when he awarded two stars, I can't say that three would have been wrong.

I might have four-starred Alto too.

←

Alto seemed like a solid three to me, but there too, Bruni gave it two. Edited August 15, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Not quite within a year, but Daniel was reviewed on 30 July 1993 and 11 November 1994. Masa was reviewed on 2 June 2004 and 29 December 2004, in a year when there were probably more noteworthy high-end openings than in the year Ducasse closed. In both of those cases, the reviews were from different critics (Burros/Reichl, Hesser/Bruni), however at the same time there had not been a major change in the kitchen at either place. I can understand not wanting to re-review a restaurant just because of a chef-de-cuisine change -- you can't just allow all restaurants to demand re-reviews simply by firing their chefs -- but here there was a major shift in the cuisine as well and we're talking about arguably the best restaurant in Bruni's territory. It doesn't matter who complains, or who experiences it as unfair -- as a critic you have to keep up with what the leading examples of the state of the art are doing. And if Bruni never even ate there -- that's unconfirmed -- then that's outright negligent.

[Nathan]

I agree he should have eaten there...but we'll never know for sure if he didn't (unless Bruni tells us).

although I find it likely that Bruni would have been spotted....Bruni is clearly not spotted on many occasions when you would expect him to be...so it's certainly possible that a visit slipped by. (it's obviously the first visit that is most likely to get past)

[Leonard Kim]

After looking at it from a number of angles, I can't decide whether Bruni was derelict wrt re-reviewing Ducasse or not.

The time between EMP reviews was just under two years. Bruni explicitly writes, "I normally wouldn't review a restaurant again so soon" but, "Humm's food. . . made me do it." Humm had been at EMP for about a year by the time the review came out. And even then, the revision came as part of a double review.

Bruni's first Ducasse review came out after Delouvrier had been there a half year. It had been three years since Grimes last review. Bruni's review came out in February '05. Esnault started in April. The Times announced the closing, I think, in September 2006. So Esnault had been there long enough to review, but the time elapsed since the initial review is short (less than 1.5 years). That's because, as Ducasse himself said, the chef change came about explicitly and immediately as a result of the *** review. Under the circumstances, I might have given Bruni about two years. I wonder if he'd have tried to make it part of a double review, as all of his revisions have been to date.

In her memoirs, Reichl writes numerous people told her she was wrong about Union Pacific, and that example is the fastest post-Sheraton turnaround on record. Grimes promoted Ducasse after a little more than a year and Daniel in a little under two. Maybe you can get faster re-reviews by changing nothing but the critic's mind (since changes justify waiting longer to let them get their groove.) All Bruni said about the rationale for promoting the Bar Room at the Modern was that after the first review, he'd "repeatedly found myself drawn back to the Bar Room, at first just worried, then persuaded, that I’d shortchanged it." The new half-review came out 1 year 8 months after the original.

The stupid exception is Craftsteak which was promoted in less than a year because it had "undergone so many targeted and consequential changes [including chef de cuisine] that I feel compelled to update my initial review." The only (though real) mitigating consideration is the double review format.

[Nathan]

to me the key part is that it would have been 4 reviews in 5 years for ADNY...which I think other restauranteurs could rightfully be irked about.

[oakapple]

After looking at it from a number of angles, I can't decide whether Bruni was derelict wrt re-reviewing Ducasse or not.

We don't have—and will probably never have—all the information we need to reach a definitive conclusion. I believe it's exceedingly unlikely that Bruni could have visited ADNY unnoticed. But as Nathan observes, it's not inconceivable. If Bruni went there and still felt it was a three-star restaurant, I would obviously disagree with his critical acumen, but clearly in that case a re-review wouldn't be justified.

I also recall that, before the closing was publicly announced, it was well known that Ducasse was looking for another location. If Bruni was aware of that, he may have felt that it was better to wait until the matter was settled.

The stupid exception is Craftsteak which was promoted in less than a year because it had "undergone so many targeted and consequential changes [including chef de cuisine] that I feel compelled to update my initial review."  The only (though real) mitigating consideration is the double review format.

←

Until Bruni files a few more re-reviews (of himself), it will be hard to know his criteria. But I think there are many one-star restaurants that undergo "targeted and consequential changes" after early reviews, and most of them have no prayer of getting reviewed again. What helped Craftsteak was A) Colicchio's very savvy self-promotion; B) The fact that it was a Colicchio restaurant; and C) Bruni loves steak.

[Nathan]

yup