Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Sneakeater]

I call him Chef because that is what he is, that is his title.  I could call him Mr., or Chef Donny or Chef Jean, or whatever ,but that is stupid. 

←

I don't want to get into a fight because I basically agree with much of your post.

But I do want to say that it's one thing to call a chef, to his face, as a matter of address, "Chef."

It's another thing to refer to the chef, in the third person, to someone else, as "Chef" rather than "the chef" or "Chef [his name]." You have no idea how grating and pretentious that sounds.

I mean, you'd call a doctor "Doctor" to his face when talking to him. But you'd think it was highly pretentious if the receptionist were to say, "'Doctor' wants to see you again in two weeks."

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

a few thoughts:

1. yes, Bruni's piece was a rant.

2. as he also noted, he gave these very same restaurants three and four stars -- I think this piece was supposed to be an exercise in "tough love"

3. matthewJ: have you been to Cafe Gray? I think every review by every person who has ever been there has raised exactly the same complaint.

4. yeah, the whole "Chef" thing was getting on my nerves too.

5. the music at Babbo can be obnoxious -- at that price point. it's fine at Lupa or Otto but it is kind of an atmospheric issue in a white tablecloth restaurant.

6. as I noted way up the thread, the Waverly Inn review was a little precious and too cute by half. with that said, I think this is one situation where someone unfamiliar with the whole Waverly Inn saga is more likely to have a WTF? response while if you've been following it -- it makes a lot more sense...this was one case where I think the review assumed way too much knowledge on behalf of the reader.

[Sneakeater]

The music at Babbo raises a point that I think is sometimes missed on boards like this (not just food boards). Batali has every right to play the music he wants at his restaurant in order to "personalize" it. And I have every right not to like it, and to say I think it's inappropriate in a restaurant like that.

People sometimes seem to think that "self-expression" is good in itself, and that to say someone is doing something on purpose to express his vision answers all criticism. But it doesn't. That's where serious criticism starts. You then get to critique what the person does.

********************************************

OK, this post should have ended with the last paragraph, but let me say one more thing to respond to matthewj. I agree that places that are personal reflections of someone's vision can be preferable to corporate places. But only if I agree with the vision and find it competently expressed. As I said above, if someone is in earnest, that's only the first step. You still have to judge the work.

Moreover, a competent "corporate" place can be better than an incompetent "personal expression" place. Again, it's all in the work.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

6.  as I noted way up the thread, the Waverly Inn review was a little precious and too cute by half.  with that said, I think this is one situation where someone unfamiliar with the whole Waverly Inn saga is more likely to have a WTF? response while if you've been following it -- it makes a lot more sense...this was one case where I think the review assumed way too much knowledge on behalf of the reader.

←

This is all true. Beyond that, he seems to be "punishing" the restaurant for what he perceives as an overly long soft opening. I am not sure why we should care. I mean, was there a huge public furore about this? (No, there wasn't.) Or was Bruni just ruffled because it interfered with his personal timetable?

I also think it's symptomatic of boredom with his job. He couldn't find any restaurants that warranted a real review, but he wrote this crazy piece instead.

[Sneakeater]

(Also, if you have to listen to rock music at a restaurant, I think David Chang has much better taste than Mario Batali.)

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Bobbo]

Does anyone else wonder why he has so conviently forgot about reviewing GR. Bruni's only reliable trend is that he harshly and unfairly tends to review new places less than two months after they open. Why the wait at GR? Looks awfully shady to me. Or did he get beat to the punch with Adam Platt's review and now will be second in that shock factor he ever so desires.

[oakapple]

Does anyone else wonder why he has so conviently forgot about reviewing GR.  Bruni's only reliable trend is that he harshly and unfairly tends to review new places less than two months after they open.  Why  the wait at GR?  Looks awfully shady to me.  Or did he get beat to the punch with Adam Platt's review and now will be second in that shock factor he ever so desires.

←

He hasn't forgotten about it at all. Comments in his Critic's Notebook piece this week and in recent blog posts show that he's already paid multiple visits to GR. I suspect the review is no more than 2-3 weeks away.

If you look back over the past year, I think you'll find that Platt's reviews of the major restaurants usually precede Bruni's.

Yes, it has taken him slightly longer to get to GR than it did for Del Posto or Gilt. But not so much longer that it begins to look shady. It took him a very long time to get to Per Se.

Edited January 25, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

Does anyone else wonder why he has so conviently forgot about reviewing GR.  Bruni's only reliable trend is that he harshly and unfairly tends to review new places less than two months after they open.  Why  the wait at GR?  Looks awfully shady to me.  Or did he get beat to the punch with Adam Platt's review and now will be second in that shock factor he ever so desires.

←

I don't think this is fair. Can you name more than one restaurant that has been reviewed by Bruni within two months of opening?

As for shock factor...that's one thing I haven't noticed in his reviews at all. I would expect that RGR is intended to be the first big review of the year.

[Nathan]

"Yes, it has taken him slightly longer to get to GR than it did for Del Posto or Gilt. But not so much longer that it begins to look shady. It took him a very long time to get to Per Se."

I think we all have a guess as to why on that one (and this may go for RGR as well)....he couldn't get in enough times to write the review.

An educated speculation is that it takes a minimum of four visits to write a Times review (some other critics clearly do less)...both to get an adequate sample and to increase the odds that he is not recognized every time. I would suspect that a restaurant with four star aspirations may get even more. It probably took him six months to get into Per Se enough times...

[Nathan]

Bruni has greatly expanded his Critic's Notebook article on his blog:

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/

the moneyquote:

"One of the reasons we go to restaurants is to avail ourselves of others’ expertise, talent, perspective. We say to them: show us what you can do, and show us what you know.

But we also go to restaurants to be coddled: to have, in exchange for very significant sums of money, our specific appetites addressed, our particular tastes indulged.

And the realities of restaurant-going today convince me that some of that coddling is falling by the wayside."

Edited January 25, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Bobbo]

One of the top of my head is The Modern. It was reviewed in less than two months.

Dont get me wrong. I beleive NO restaurant should be reviewed before six months. As we all know, it takes some considerable time for a restaurant to hit its stride.

[whisk]

It really is a shame that the NYTimes continues to waste precious resources on Bruni. Perhaps in the past you wouldn't find a chef's book in the foyer, but the "cult of the chef" thing is still NOT a new phenomenom. Although I never dined at Fernand Point's La Pyramide, I can't imagine anyone not walking in there and feeling his presence. So what if Ducasse, Meyer, et al. show off some of thir books? How does that detract from the dining experience? It just seems Bruni misses the point, that he has these strange ixations on everything except for food.

[Nathan]

The Modern opened on January 5, 2005.

However, the kitchen had been serving dishes in the Bar Room since November 20, 2004.

The Modern was reviewed on May 4, 2005.

It had been officially open for 5 months.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

"So what if Ducasse, Meyer, et al. show off some of thir books? How does that detract from the dining experience?"

Well, it is rather gauche, frankly. but agreed that it has minimal impact overall.

[Nathan]

the reason why I asked for MORE THAN ONE example of a restaurant being reviewed by Bruni in less than two months was that I knew the Russian Tea Room had been reviewed that early.

Indeed, it was, by a week and a half.

The RTR re-opened on November 1, 2006. The review was published on December 20, 2006.

I know of no other examples.

[glauer]

Although I never dined at Fernand Point's La Pyramide, I can't imagine anyone not walking in there and feeling his presence. 

←

I think the big difference is that in Point's case it actually was his presence and not some books that impressed. With the superstar chefs having all 10 and more places these days the cult had to replace the person.

Btw, even today, with La Pyramide living to a significant degree from its history, the Fernand Point ash trays and books etc are presented in a small vitrine on the way between dining room and bathroom.

Overall I think the trend is very real and Bruni's article timely. Whether it could have been written better is another matter.

[oakapple]

I beleive NO restaurant should be reviewed before six months.  As we all know, it takes some considerable time for a restaurant to hit its stride.

←

There may be some good arguments for your viewpoint. But the problem shouldn't be laid at Bruni's feet, as he is simply conforming to an industry-wide norm that he had nothing to do with creating.

I don't think there's any realistic way that the media are going to wait six months. I mean, they don't wait six months to review Broadway plays, either. They don't evey wait six days.

Something they could do is to go back and take a quick second-look at major restaurants, and revise the rating (if it seems to be warranted) without having to go through the expense of a full re-review. As Leonard Kim has documented, in the Mimi Sheraton era the Times was much more responsive about re-rating restaurants — up or down — reasonably promptly.

[Sneakeater]

Yeah, but Broadway plays have long preview periods -- something Bruni has explicitly criticized a restaurant for trying.

[oakapple]

I would expect that RGR is intended to be the first big review of the year.

←

Well...no. That distinction is already claimed: the six-star review for Eleven Madison Park and the Bar Room.

[oakapple]

Yeah, but Broadway plays have long preview periods -- something Bruni has explicitly criticized a restaurant for trying.

←

Even if you count previews, the review of a Broadway play appears much sooner than the six months the earlier poster was suggesting for restaurants.

There are other examples: Opera productions are reviewed immediately after opening night, after zero previews.

[chester copperpot]

Maybe I am missing something....but if a seasoned chef and restauranteur wants open a restaurant that is positioning itself to be a outpost of haute cuisine in NYC, I don't feel that a six month grace period is warranted. This a seasoned veteran, that self admittedly thrives on the thrill that chasing stars brings him. He was most outspoken about how much he relished this challenge. I find extremely difficult to understand that a Chef of his talent and reputation, doesn't accutely understand the importance of first impressions and the necessity to be able to adjust and refine on the fly.

I have not eaten at the London yet, but I am shocked that there is a sense that we must coddle this restaurant. This man clearly understands what the definition of a fantastic restaurant is (I have eaten at his restaurant in Chelsea and am a big fan). If for some reason it is not at the moment a fantastic restaurant, we are supposed sit by and wait until it is, before we comment on it, or the press reviews it?

[robert brown]

Bruni's articles and this ensuing discussion are enough to shake me out of

my posting lethargy. I hate to state it, but it's the veteran diners such as

Robyn who are part of the constantly diminishing universe of those who dined

well before the onset of the apparently unending Post-Gastronomic era we

have been in for the past decade. Those of you who are younger than

30-something or are Johnny-Come-Lately's to upper-echelon dining can

never experience what dining was like when the paradigm was chefs who aimed

to make an honest living in the service of gastronomy as opposed to those who create overpriced-dining empires and enterprises at gastronomy's expense. By doing so, they rob their clients of dining autonomy while creating generations of culinary

know-nothings. Ironically, as Bruni writes, it is mostly the top-tier chefs who are debasing any remaining gastronomic currency.

For several ardent gastronomes I know, dining out in what the media hypsters call "The Dining Capital of the World" is an exercise in permanent frustration. Almost never is overwhelming satisfaction or a semblance of value for money met with in restaurants in which one pays over $100 a person. Take away the non-culinary trappings and atmospherics and one is just as likely (or even more likely) to find gustatory satisfaction at the “cheap eats-simple cooking” establishments that “The New Yorker” and, on occasion, Bruni himself devote full coverage to. Take away the expensive, big-name restaurants that put you in a dining straitjacket; offer you nearly no interesting bottles of wine for less than the cost of the meal; dispense with, for all practical purposes, the need for a knife; never offering whole fish or fowl and using mundane truffles or third-rate caviar to jack up prices; and you’re forced to go off and running to the few remaining real delicatessens, the ethnic “discovery” in the outer boroughs, or a formal Japanese or Indian restaurant. Notice now that “original” dishes in these chefs’ restaurants almost never have a name; they are identified by the compilation of their seeming multitude of random ingredients. Other than catchy names such as “Hot Potato, Cold Potato” or “Oysters & Pearls”, we no longer see contemporary equivalents of “Vol au Vent”, “Gateau St. Honore” or “Beef Wellington” (names that live on and evoke or describe a classic preparation) for the simple reasons that there are almost no classic dishes, but rather those that fade almost immediately from memory because no chef wants to be caught dead making a dish that someone has made before.

Robyn hits the target by referring to labor-saving that today’s menu formats provide to kitchens. Add to this the shortcutting that is increasingly endemic to these restaurants that turn out many little portions of dishes their chefs choose for you, and you see most vividly why “haute cuisine” has gone the way of the great Transatlantic steamships and grand hotels. About four weeks ago, I dined at the kitchen table of what most consider to be the most famous restaurant in the Midwest. Even though this restaurant didn’t have “Laboratory” or “Laboratorio” in its name, I realized however wittingly unintentional it may be that this squeaky-clean and odorless kitchen (and the one I visited two nights later at an avant-garde restaurant in the same city), had more in common with a hematology lab or a semiconductor clean room than with the traditional kitchens I see in France or described in “Kitchen Confidential”. Between what was “prepped” and finished off, there didn’t seem to be anything completely fried, roasted, boiled or broiled from scratch and completely made a la minute, and the chefs seemed more like assembly-line workers than cooks. After the meal service was over, I went over to an Asian stagier who was pouring for future use some blood-colored liquid in a plastic bag before encasing it with a sealing machine. After explaining what he was doing, he was actually proud to tell me, “We cook a lot of vegetables, fish and meat sous-vide. In fact, we cook everything that way.”

These and many other of the culinary phenomena du jour are best explained by what happens when one of mankind’s special endeavors takes on added prominence in daily life. With this particular one, dilution occurs in the form of ill-equipped and underachieving restaurateurs and chefs; a strain on foodstuffs that brings inferior, tired, pseudo-glamorous and often travel-fatigued examples to the table; and a new subject area for the mass media that glorifies the mediocre by filling space, and turning cooking and dining into entertainment. Unlike La Nouvelle Cuisine Francaise and even fusion cooking, which are considered connecting links in the evolution of gastronomy, what we have today is a detour derived from and fueled by the exploitation of the upsurge in disposable income. As a practical matter, it puts a premium on each person taking smart eating and dining into his or her own hands, a task made easier by one positive aspect of the food boom, which is the availability of useful information on the Internet and in serious books and articles.

For me, the most revealing and damning part of Bruni’s article was the brief but telling “wisdom” of Thomas Keller. First, he and every aspiring gastronome should realize that tasting menus are the scourge of serious dining for the concise and simple reason that when you have a small taste of a dish that you like, there isn’t enough, and when you encounter a mediocre dish that the chef has foisted on you, it debases the meal. Keller also should realize that food, unlike an exhibition at the Met or a visit to the theater, isn’t spiritual; and experiencing a notable restaurant and its chef requires many visits over many years (or at least it used to).

I’m sure that Frank Bruni’s essay speaks for many ardent diners who have been waiting for an influential food writer to have the courage to criticize exactly the manifestations he addresses. I’m not willing to bet his piece will change anything substantially. But if it makes diners think twice and consider from time to time symbolically putting their middle finger through the napkin ring, there will at least be some progress that will benefit us consumers for a change.

[hjshorter]

Bravo. I would only quibble with this:

Keller also should realize that food, unlike an exhibition at the Met or a visit to the theater, isn’t spiritual; and experiencing a notable restaurant and its chef requires many visits over many years (or at least it used to).

Food can be spiritual. The tasting menu format provides only brief illuminations, instead of a full-blown awakening.

[robyn]

The problem with many of these tasting menus is the lack of choice, in terms of number courses and in terms of selection. The old prix fixe idea still seems to me a good one.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes it's fun to go into a great restaurant and say to the chef, "I'm in your hands." Other times, I like to have a list of options and choose for myself. It's not as if one is bad, and the other good.

Anyone asked to call to confirm a reservation should politely reply: "I would prefer if you called me to confirm the reservation. Thanks you." My physician and my dentist both call to confirm I do not think it is too much to ask of a host or hostess.

←

While restaurants do say that, I have yet to be cancelled out because I didn't call. Even when they say that, if I forget to call, usually they'll call me.

←

I like to have options too - but the point of Bruni's article was that you're getting fewer of them. I was really surprised about the mandatory tasting menu at Per Se. And I don't think I'd go to any restaurant that had a mandatory tasting menu (sure the chef will prepare "alternate" dishes for me - but I don't care to share my medical problems with a bunch of strangers).

I just got back from Atlanta - and the notion of "no choice" apparently hasn't hit there yet. We dined at one really good restaurant where there are only 4 course meals - and you have multiple choices in each category. At the restaurant in the hotel (which can afford to subsidize more choices) - there was a choice of 3 or choice of 4 menu - as well as a tasting menu - as well as a totally a la carte menu (and a separate "light" menu in the bar).

Anyway - I don't know why the concept of choice seems to be disappearing. If a chef has a signature dish (or more than one) - or something I really like - I don't necessarily want it to be buried in the middle of a 20 course meal. Robyn

[robyn]

Robert - I agree with everything you said. If I can add....

I know there are lots of areas where I am "old" or "old fashioned" - and I think it's appropriate to live with them. E.g., we went to the Honda Battle of the (historically Black college marching) Bands in Atlanta this weekend. Between bands - they had a couple of DJs doing a battle of "old" and "new" music. Needless to say - the oldest of the old was just a little newer than the music I really like. No big deal. Each generation has its own music - and hates the music of the generations that come after it.

But with restaurant food - there are certain basic things. First is that it's a service industry. The restaurant is there to serve you - not the reverse. Now we may not like certain foods or cuisines - or styles of cooking - but that's how we decide which places to go to. Once we go to places we should like - we shouldn't have them dictating to us what we *must* like.

Just as an aside - I'll note that there are several problems with the "tasting menu only" format. The first is that if it's a total formula - the "chef's greatest hits" - it can last - but it will get stale if the restaurant lasts for a while. Who will want to go again and again if they always get the same meal? The second is that it doesn't leave room for or encourage experimentation. If you have a 10 course "hit" tasting menu - what happens when the visitor comes 1000 miles and gets a couple of new dishes that are total clunkers (which can happen). Of course - this could happen in a non-tasting menu - but at least the diner will have a choice. And - on more than one occasion - I've had a chef offer us a small sample of a dish he's working on - just to give our impressions in the middle of an otherwise terrific meal. Sometimes we are thumbs up - sometimes not.

Anyway - I am beginning to think that New York simply isn't that much fun to dine in these days. Too full of itself. We were pleasantly surprised by Atlanta this trip. We go a couple of times of year (it's a 5 hour drive) - and try different things. There is a big deal emphasis in Atlanta these days on the "slow food movement". There's a new magazine - Edible Atlanta (Celebrating the Bounty of Local Foods, Season by Season). And even artisan cheeses from Thomasville (Georgia). The chefs aren't as talented as the best in the world. Nor are the ingredients the best in the world. And the customers' incomes are modest by world standards (which is why a four course menu at one of the best restaurants in town costs $72). But it's enjoyable having very good meals prepared by people who are trying to - quite literally - cook up new things. Without a lot of attitude. I can only imagine what New York would be like given its talent and access to big spending customers if it brought the same attitude to bear on the dining experience. Robyn