Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[rich]

His review of Varietal appears perilously close to a "zero."

Ironically, it also appears the savory part of the menu saved them from the dreaded goose egg - just the opposite of what most eG'ers thought.

I think the song "Goodnight Irene" might be playing at Varietal tonight.

NB - Once again, another one-star review sans front page coverage, double headlines, multiple photos or a slideshow. And there was plenty to choose - upside down glasses hanging from the ceiling, photos of the desserts plates, photos of the the stark whiteness, photos of the two chefs hugging each other and photos of the grape portraits. In fact, the one published photo shows grapes completely naked.

If I was a NYC restauranteur, I would be very upset. My sources indicate more and more will be emulating the Peter Luger model. Remember, PL's new marketing strategy begins in less than two weeks (April 1).

Edited March 21, 2007 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

Big surprise that Frank Bruni doesn't like Jordan Kahn's style of cooking. Gee, never saw that coming.

There is nothing remotely as interesting about Varietal as Robert's. Even most two or even three star restaurants aren't as interesting as Robert's.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

There is nothing remotely as interesting about Varietal as Robert's.  Even most two or even three star restaurants aren't as interesting as Robert's.

←

Agreed - that's the reason for PL's new marketing strategy.

[Sneakeater]

What I thought was intereseting about Bruni's review was the proportion between the discussion of the savories (high) and the desserts (higher than normal, but still low).

This is different from most other reviews of Varietal that I've read, which were heavily weighted toward discussions of the desserts.

[BryanZ]

I felt as though Bruni did fully evaluate the desserts as he did the savory offerings. He simply listed some of them, their ingredients but refrained from going into much detail. In a restaurant like this, I felt like this was an oversight. I also feel that he pigeonholed Varietal into a more pretentious restaurant than it is. Many restaurant have esoteric ingredients, stark interiors, and give thanks to farmers. Although it is clear the Bruni does not favor "gonzo" modern cooking, he also does not like anything bordering on pretentious on the "haute barnyard" side of things as well.

[rich]

What I thought was intereseting about Bruni's review was the proportion between the discussion of the savories (high) and the desserts (higher than normal, but still low).

This is different from most other reviews of Varietal that I've read, which were heavily weighted toward discussions of the desserts.

←

Possibly more interesting - very little discussion of the wines. Since the name of the place is wine focused and the program quite ambitious, it should get a little more attention.

PS - Just spoke to my NY Times source and she/he tells me there has been a lot of discussion about Robert's publicity and it isn't good.

However, the answer given was the Times needs money so anything goes now. Don't be surprised to see ads on the front page of the news section soon.

I can't wait for the Times to run its first contest - "pick the next restaurant reviewer."

[Sneakeater]

You're right about the lack of any real discussion of the wine program (beyond the carping about the "grower champagne" card -- shit, I knew what "grower champagnes" were). That really is a surprise and something of a disservice.

[docsconz]

Given Bruni's clear biases, I'm surprised that he liked Varietal as much as he did. Nothing about that review surprised me. Unfortunately for Jordan Kahn and others with a bent towards culinary creativity it appears to me that we are entering into a period of a little backlash against the style. Santi Santamaria's reception at Madrid Fusion is perhaps another example of this. Bruni is certainly feeding into this perception. I don't think that we will have heard the last of Jordan Kahn though, despite bruni's essentially negative review of his work.

[Sneakeater]

Bruni's criticism certainly caused Will Goldfarb's career to take a turn that many of us have found very interesting and enjoyable.

[JohnL]

You're right about the lack of any real discussion of the wine program (beyond the carping about the "grower champagne" card -- shit, I knew what "grower champagnes" were).  That really is a surprise and something of a disservice.

←

I thought there was enough information on the wine program. what specifically did he miss?

The "carping" about the grower champagne card was in keeping with his discussion of the pretensions of the place. Most people do not know what is meant by "grower champagnes" and in truth most people do not care though providing a brief explanation/some education is a good thing.

I personally think that the whole exotic ingredients thing is becoming a tad pretentious as is citing the provenance of ingredients exotic or not. If diners are interested they can ask.

I also continue to believe that Bruni approaches restaurants and food as though he were a reporter of hard news. His pieces seem to lack a certain passion and joy for eating. Dining out, for him, seems to be no different than any reporting assignment.

[Nathan]

[ I also continue to believe that Bruni approaches restaurants and food as though he were a reporter of hard news. His pieces seem to lack a certain passion and joy for eating. Dining out, for him, seems to be no different than any reporting assignment.

I think he is getting fatigued....

the most joy he's shown was in the Sriphithai, S&T, Ssam Bar, Babbo, Robert's and the Bar Room/EMP review...

[rich]

You're right about the lack of any real discussion of the wine program (beyond the carping about the "grower champagne" card -- shit, I knew what "grower champagnes" were).  That really is a surprise and something of a disservice.

←

I thought there was enough information on the wine program. what specifically did he miss?

←

He mentions that there is a wide and varied list with good by the bottle prices, but then fails to give any examples. He mentions the by the glass prices are high, but doesn't give any examples of the choices or the flights.

He wasted enough space on the ambiance and on the pedigree of the owners and chefs (and on his mandatory "cute" opening paragraphs). I think he could have devoted another paragraph or two on the focus of the restaurant - wine.

[JohnL]

You're right about the lack of any real discussion of the wine program (beyond the carping about the "grower champagne" card -- shit, I knew what "grower champagnes" were).  That really is a surprise and something of a disservice.

←

I thought there was enough information on the wine program. what specifically did he miss?

←

He mentions that there is a wide and varied list with good by the bottle prices, but then fails to give any examples. He mentions the by the glass prices are high, but doesn't give any examples of the choices or the flights.

He wasted enough space on the ambiance and on the pedigree of the owners and chefs (and on his mandatory "cute" opening paragraphs). I think he could have devoted another paragraph or two on the focus of the restaurant - wine.

←

I agree generally. He could have said more and given some specifics though I thought he captured what the wine service all about well enough.

Again, he seems to have found his "hook" and unfortunately, as usual, he spends too much time/verbiage on things that do not matter and not enough on those that do.

His real passion seems to be when he gleefully comes up with the hook and then beats it to death (gleefully of course). The decor thing is out of control! He should seriously consider writing for Elle Decor!

[mugsy]

i most be missing the boat in this society of professional eaters... it is amazing to me that still that people thought that varital should have got a better review. varital should wake up this morining and kiss the sky and have "grower champagne" that they recieved one star. that is an illconceived restaurant that was very pretentios, and not very good food, unpolished service, an empty dining room, and then the desserts.... of course bruni talk more about the desserts, he has probably being reading blogs like this that say how amazing they are. "everyone" is talking about the desserts! talking yes, eating not so much, on my visits to varital the restaurant wasn't very busy. i think bruni is very entertaining, and i think he doesn't review restaurants like reports, i think he tells a story and most times they are fun to read, he has fun with his job and that is why he is successful.

[BryanZ]

I don't think anyone has said Varietal should have gotten a higher rating.

[Sneakeater]

I certainly didn't say Varietal should have gotten a higher rating.

[rich]

...and I can't say it because I haven't been.

[docsconz]

i most be missing the boat in this society of professional eaters...  it is amazing to me that still that people thought that varital should have got a better review.  varital should wake up this morining and kiss the sky and have "grower champagne" that they recieved one star.  that is an illconceived restaurant that was very pretentios, and not very good food, unpolished service, an empty dining room, and then the desserts....  of course bruni talk more about the desserts, he has probably being reading blogs like this that say how amazing they are.  "everyone" is talking about the desserts!  talking yes, eating not so much, on my visits to varital the restaurant wasn't very busy.  i think bruni is very entertaining, and i think he doesn't review restaurants like reports, i think he tells a story and most times they are fun to read, he has fun with his job and that is why he is successful.

←

Varietal or any specific restaurant aside, I think you hit the nail on the head with Bruni.He is entertaining and he tries very hard to be. Now there is nothing wrong per se about writing that is entertaining, but his reviews tend to be more style than substance at least when it comes to food. I suppose that I shouldn't complain too much about him though as he is consistent and predictable in his reviews and therefore fairly easy to calibrate against one's own tastes. The only problem is that as the NYT critic if his tastes differ from one's own, then due to his (or any NYT restaurant reviewer's) undue influence on the NYC dining scene, one may not have much of one's interest around to enjoy.

[Sethro]

I actually thought that was one of Bruni's more fair and informed reviews.

He duely noted the pedigre and talent of the chefs. His major gripe dealed with the restaurant at its conceptual core, which I agree is a little pretentious (and expensive).

The positve is that he actually reviewd the desserts! Hopefully he shows similar respect to other hard working pastry chef in reviews to come.

[BryanZ]

But he didn't really review the desserts. His comments seemed like throwaways because he had to say something about them more than his usual schpiel. It was disappointing in that regard.

[rich]

The only problem is that as the NYT critic if his tastes differ from one's own, then due to his (or any NYT restaurant reviewer's) undue influence on the NYC dining scene, one may not have much of one's interest around to enjoy.

←

Doc, while that's an accurate statement to a certain degree, the Times' influence is not nearly what is was five, ten, twenty, forty years ago (and that's not just dining but news, sports and arts & entertainment as well). I began reading the Times in 1956 (mandatory in first grade) and its influence then, in all areas, was unchallenged by any other media entity in the world.

IMO within ten years, the Times will assert no more influence than a typical tabloid complete with all the exaggerations.

The mast head may change to: "All the Sensationalism that Fits, We Print."

Edited March 21, 2007 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

Bruni says:

Learn its elevated argot. What servers promote at the start of dinner isn’t just Champagne. It’s “grower Champagne,” identified that way on a special matte card, which conveys the odd impression that sparkling wine is a crop, like soybeans. The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes, and if you read the text accompanying the selection of a half dozen glasses, you’ll learn that.

For me the issue with the grower Champagne swipe is that he takes the swipe at Varietal, and implies (perhaps intentionally) that this terminology may even be Varietal's creation, when in reality the phrase grower Champagne enjoys widespread use and is standard language in the food-and-wine world.

Use of the term grower Champagne is about a decade old. It was the big wine trend in, oh, 1998 (Terry Theise brought his first nine grower Champagnes into the US in 1997).

For example, Richard Nalley wrote an article in Esquire's December 1998 issue titled, "Champagne with Indie Cred: The hottest french bubbly follows a trail blazed by microbrewers." The article says, among other things:

The most obscure of these homeboy champagnes are bottled by top grape growers for themselves--a kind of private stock reserved from whatever the grower sells to the big champagne houses. Until recently, these treasures rarely left the country, or even the region, except when a French aficionado would park the family Citroen at a farmer's door and wedge a case or two into his trunk.

and

But as a holiday gift, a good grower champagne, like a bottle of Egly-Ouriet brut, for example, will knock your recipient off his chair

Time magazine reported on the trend in the year 2000, in an article titled "Grower Champagnes." Time magazine, people. This is not some obscure wine-geek trend. This is mainstream information:

Something new has been bubbling up in champagne. Rather than just selling grapes to the big champagne houses like Moet & Chandon or Perrier-Jouet, more and more small growers in the Champagne region of France are making wines of their own. These handcrafted artisan champagnes, which have been arriving on U.S. shores in discernible numbers since the mid-'90s, have caught on with sophisticated champagne lovers, and sales have tripled in the past three years.

Grower champagnes capture the terroir--the unique flavors derived from specific parcels of land--which is often blended away by the big brands in their striving to maintain a consistent house style.

Grower Champagnes are something to be celebrated, not ridiculed. Yes, the term lacks elegance, but Varietal didn't invent it, as any reader of the Asbury Park Press or Hartford Courant should know (both papers have written about it). I could go on and on listing non-ironic uses of that terminology in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle . . . even the New York Times, in this story by Jacqueline Friedrich from 2000:

Finally, as I am interested in grower Champagne -- made by a single family from its own vines -- I looked for these on every wine list, only ordering the tried-and-true versions from major houses when no other possibility presented itself.

("Choice Tables: Savoring Champagne, Reveling in Foie Gras, in Reims," 12 March 2000)

So I can't tell whether Bruni's comments are disingenuous, ignorant or just out-of-touch and behind the times.

[Nathan]

it did look like he was unfamiliar with the term, didn't it?

I thought that was an egregious error. of course, he's the second professional reviewer to make a bizarre reference to the grower champagne list. someone else complained that none of them were below $20 a glass....that has an easy explanation...to the best of my knowledge there are no grower champagnes available for below $40 a bottle (cremant is another story). Bruni's just not a wine guy (I'm not one either so I don't have an inherent issue with that in a restaurant reviewer...but I think they should still have at least a baseline knowledge equal to that of mine own)

[Sneakeater]

So I can't tell whether Bruni's comments are disingenuous, ignorant or just out-of-touch and behind the times.

←

A Clue:

Do you remember in one of his early reviews where Bruni talked about food that was slow-cooked in hot water while wrapped in plastic (or whatever they use), without using the term "sous vide"?

[JohnL]

At first I was going to accuse FG of going a bit overboard in his interpretation of Bruni's "swipe" but on second thought I think he may be correct in that Bruni may not understand the term.

scary!