Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Leonard Kim]

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.

←

I'm just being perverse and this is nothing you don't already know -- so think nothing of it. If you count Marika (other than the name, the only difference was dropping an owner -- the basic look and the exec chef remained the same), Compass was reviewed four times in less than five years.

edited to add Grimes Diner's Journal quote:

Compass, formerly Marika, is a restaurant looking for a new direction. Physically, it looks much the same, although a new abstract painting has been installed on the back wall. The executive chef, Neil Annis, who was called in to shore up Marika's kitchen, remains in place. . . With a new name and without one of its original partners, Marika has wiped the slate clean and started afresh.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Nathan]

I didn't know that! never heard of Marika...

of course, Compass was under the special circumstance of critics looking desperately for something to write about on the UWS....

but that obviates my point doesn't it?

I tried to eat once at Compass but this whole uncivilized thing of shutting down the kitchen at 9 P.M. on a weeknight (you'd think that the UWS had been transposed with Delray Beach)

[oakapple]

I didn't know that!  never heard of Marika...

of course, Compass was under the special circumstance of critics looking desperately for something to write about on the UWS....

but that obviates my point doesn't it?

I tried to eat once at Compass but this whole uncivilized thing of shutting down the kitchen at 9 P.M. on a weeknight (you'd think that the UWS had been transposed with Delray Beach)

←

In the post-Bryan Miller(*) era, no restaurant at the one/two-star level has done a better job at getting itself re-reviewed, although there was a bit of luck involved. In his Diner's Journal piece, Bruni said that he just walked into the place one day without plans, because he was hungry and knew it wouldn't be full. Obviously he liked it enough to make the repeat visits that led to a full review.

But by changing the name and repeatedly firing the chef, the owners of Compass created the conditions that made a re-review more likely. With the peculiar exception of Craftsteak, restaurants that make less splashy adjustments have almost no chance of attracting a prompt re-review.

* I refer to the "post-Bryan Miller era" because, as Leonard Kim often reminds us, Mimi Sheraton and Bryan Miller typically reviewed two restaurants per week (and occasionally even more than that), a system that allowed for more frequent re-reviews.

Also, although we have no way of measuring it, there's a widely held view that there were fewer "reviewable" restaurants in those days. Frank Bruni has revived the double review, but unlike Miller and Sheraton, the vast majority of his reviews are still just one restaurant.

[Fat Guy]

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

←

It seems to me you've made the case for him being derelict. To widen the scope a bit, we've now seen the several precedents for quick re-reviews, covering just about every permutation (2 times in 9 months, 4 time in 5 years, 3 quick re-reviews under Bruni):

Union Pacific

Daniel

Bar Room

Craftsteak

Masa

Marika

So, with the lack-of-precedent objection clearly overruled, what are we left with? The question becomes: was Ducasse more or less worthy of a re-review than the above examples? And it seems that Ducasse was more worthy of re-review than every restaurant on that list, and an order of magnitude more worthy of re-review than Marika, Craftsteak or the Bar Room. Ducasse was the only luxury restaurant in New York that could be seriously argued to be better than Per Se. It may have been the best restaurant in the history of New York. While the Michelin guide is a bit of a joke, a three-star rating is still significant. Even a critic who doesn't agree with all that should at least be able to comprehend the significance of the place. Ignoring it was the worst of several options.

[slkinsey]

As I understand it, the review demoting ADNY to three stars came out in February 2005, then Esnault was hired in April 2005 and the restaurant closed at the end of 2006.

If we consider that a major re-review would be largely, if not absolutely unprecedented before February 2006 (i.e., 1 year after the previous review)... is it not possible that there was already a sense that the writing was on the wall and that ADNY would be closing? Eater was reporting the closure in September 2006, which means that people in the right circles must have suspected this might happen several months before that. Indeed, Fat Guy posted at the time: "There has been talk of ADNY moving ever since the union exemption expired."

So, let's suppose that Bruni is thinking of fitting in a re-review of ADNY sometime after February 2006. It doesn't seem unconcievable to me that the Times started to get wind of a possible closure and a decision was made to not "waste" a review on a place that is probably closing within six to nine months. I don't think the argument can be made that Bruni had any obligation to re-review ADNY before February 2006 at the earliest. And, if ADNY hadn't closed, perhaps he would have re-reviewed it sometime around, say, May 2006.

[oakapple]

So, let's suppose that Bruni is thinking of fitting in a re-review of ADNY sometime after February 2006.  It doesn't seem unconcievable to me that the Times started to get wind of a possible closure and a decision was made to not "waste" a review on a place that is probably closing within six to nine months.  I don't think the argument can be made that Bruni had any obligation to re-review ADNY before February 2006 at the earliest.  And, if ADNY hadn't closed, perhaps he would have re-reviewed it sometime around, say, May 2006.

←

That's a pretty generous set of assumptions. If the non-review were a crime, we wouldn't have enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think we're operating on a lower burden of proof here. There are good reasons to believe Bruni didn't even pay a visit (i.e. the Esnault interview), which means he wasn't even gathering the raw data to determine whether a re-review was called for.

If I were in Bruni's shoes (or had his budget), a chef change at a three or four-star restaurant would be enough to prompt at least one visit. Obviously not all would get a full re-review, but certainly a blog post would be called for. Chef changes at those restaurants are infrequent enough to be inherently noteworthy when they do happen.

[ulterior epicure]

I didn't know that!  never heard of Marika...

Well, whew, then I, as a non-New Yorker, won't mind asking: what was the fate of Marika? Or, is it still around?

[Nathan]

I didn't know that!  never heard of Marika...

Well, whew, then I, as a non-New Yorker, won't mind asking: what was the fate of Marika? Or, is it still around?

←

see above...Marika became Compass...which supposedly was a rather good restaurant (the chef just left) at one point...they had a $35 prix fixe dinner. I never made it because it closed obscenely early during the week and the odds of my being on the UWS on the weekend were almost nonexistent.

[ulterior epicure]

I didn't know that!  never heard of Marika...

Well, whew, then I, as a non-New Yorker, won't mind asking: what was the fate of Marika? Or, is it still around?

←

see above...Marika became Compass...which supposedly was a rather good restaurant (the chef just left) at one point...they had a $35 prix fixe dinner. I never made it because it closed obscenely early during the week and the odds of my being on the UWS on the weekend were almost nonexistent.

←

Doh!

Sorry - I have really got to stop posting on the fly... Thanks for cleaning up after me, Nathan!

[Leonard Kim]

Here is why, in my mind, it's not so clear cut. I sort of follow Nathan in sensing an arguable difference between a 1st and 2nd review vs. later ones.

the first review -- many new restaurants have lofty ambitions which are not fully realized within the currently typical timeframe of a first review. The review can be stereotypically expected to note the restaurant's promise, ambition, and inconsistency.

the second review -- some of these restaurants shake off the perceived flaws and develop, without substantially changing themselves, to positions of particular relevance and prominence. On occasion, this merits an "X has arrived" type review involving a promotion to *** or ****. Typically this does happen quickly. I count seven recent-ish examples of restaurants that got **** on their second try: Ducasse, old Daniel, new Daniel, Bouley & Bouley Bakery, Lafayette, and Lespinasse. Five of these second reviews came in under 2 years, the other two within 3. I would put Union Pacific, Nobu, Picholine (2.2 years), Gramercy Tavern (1.3 years) and Modern as examples of this phenomenon at the *** level.

In the past, some established restaurants did get regular reviews past their second -- examples are places like Chanterelle, Coach House, Felidia, Four Seasons, Le Perigord, and River Cafe. Up through Reichl, such restaurants would get reviewed approximately every three years. But starting with Grimes and continuing with Bruni, 5, 10, 15, or even more years pass before an "established" place gets another look.

So why did Ducasse get a third review when it did? When Bruni started, he said part of his agenda was to revisit all the ****. At the time, LB had gone the longest without re-review, followed by J-G, Bouley, Daniel, and ADNY. You'd expect him to follow that order. However, Bruni started with Bouley. Why? Well, my guess is it's because the **** Bouley Bakery closed after 9/11, re-opening as Bouley in Feb. 2002. According to Fabricant's "Off the Menu" piece, "it's more than just a name change." I don't know what Grimes thought about thee need for a fresh review, but Bruni apparently thought this incarnation priority enough to be his third review ever.

For his second **** re-visit, Bruni again bucked the sensible order and reviewed ADNY, just three years after its last review. Why? Well, again, my guess is the "most significant tweak" of bringing in Delouvrier. Whether Ducasse actually believed it or not, his statements in Fabricant's article about the chef change are something of an admission that Bruni's rating wasn't wrong, saying "I knew we could not regain four stars with Christian Delouvrier at the helm, and I had to make important changes in the dynamic of the kitchen."

The problem is there is no precedent for a **** restaurant to lose a star and get "fast-tracked" for a review to win it back. The closest example is Le Cirque which, after Reichl's famous demotion, closed and moved and re-incarnated with a new chef as Le Cirque 2000 before getting back **** (hmm, maybe this is all part of Ducasse's master plan.) Nearly 4 years passed between those reviews.

There are almost no examples of a *** restaurant going to ** and getting it back fairly quickly either. And those examples are of the kind I mentioned above -- Miller and Reichl were reviewing places like La Caravelle every 2-3 years anyway, so it could ping-pong back and forth between ** and ***.

So one way of looking things is ADNY got a third review because Bruni was doing all the **** anyway. It got reviewed so quickly (3 years since the last) because the chef change provided a good rationale. However, as an established restaurant, Bruni's norm for yet another review would be to wait at least 5 years (barring a closing and re-opening) before coming back to it. Even if he adopted Reichl or Miller's practice, he'd have waited 2 or 3 years. Given FG's arguments about the importance of this restaurant and the rating, he might have been persuaded to do it sooner than later, but even so, as I said in a previous post, I think Bruni might arguably have been given two years before clearly justified irateness set in.

As for Craftsteak and Compass -- well, I'd say in some cases exceptions should stay exceptions, not become precedents. Also, there's the point that Bruni's self-revisions, even fairly important promotions like EMP and Bar Room at the Modern, have thus far occurred within double reviews. That would hardly be possible for a **** review.

[Fat Guy]

Leonard, with respect, I think you've made a simple issue into an unnecessarily complex one. If Ducasse had been reviewed nine times, this situation would have justified a tenth. Ducasse, perhaps one of the top two restaurants in New York, lost a star, then made major changes to its cuisine and kitchen staff. That, simply, demands a re-review, yet indications are that it didn't even earn a re-visit. We can parse the precedents all we like, but the fact remains that lesser restaurants have been re-reviewed for less.

[Nathan]

Leonard, with respect, I think you've made a simple issue into an unnecessarily complex one. If Ducasse had been reviewed nine times, this situation would have justified a tenth. Ducasse, perhaps one of the top two restaurants in New York, lost a star, then made major changes to its cuisine and kitchen staff. That, simply, demands a re-review, yet indications are that it didn't even earn a re-visit. We can parse the precedents all we like, but the fact remains that lesser restaurants have been re-reviewed for less.

←

but...it wasn't one of the top-two restaurants in NY. it was a three star restaurant. otherwise every three star restaurant that changed a chef could expect an immediate re-review. which doesn't make sense. there are too many of them.

(its irrelevant whether ADNY deserved to be a three star restaurant. what matters, from the point of internal consistency, is that is what it was)

[Fat Guy]

It was a restaurant that had two four-star reviews, three Michelin stars and, yes, it had been demoted to three stars. The most written- and talked-about restaurant of its time. Which is exactly why the chef change was so significant and demanded a re-review.

[Fat Guy]

Correction: one four-star review

[Nathan]

It was a restaurant that had two four-star reviews, three Michelin stars and, yes, it had been demoted to three stars. The most written- and talked-about restaurant of its time. Which is exactly why the chef change was so significant and demanded a re-review.

←

personally I agree on one level. but I think it's a vast overstatement to say that it was "[t]he most written- and talked-about restaurant of its time." most NY foodies never ate there and didn't talk about it either. neither was it heavily blogged...written about (other restaurants certainly received more press)...

NY restaurants in the same timeframe with more notoriety certainly included Per Se (by a massive margin), Babbo (probably the most talked about restaurant in terms of the general population), Gilt (among foodies), Jean-George...etc.

the number of people who found ADNY important was pretty small...and frankly, probably didn't include most NY foodies or restaurant people.

(wrongly so) most affluent NY diners saw ADNY as being in the La Grenouille line of things...not a place they wanted to eat.

[Leonard Kim]

All right, to put it simply, what is unprecedented is that the chef change came about immediately and as a direct result of the demotion with the explicit expectation that the change was to bring a return to ****.

Should that machination by the restaurant accelerate the critic's normal schedule of re-appraising certain restaurants (and I fully agree ADNY would be one) at a frequency of, at best, every two years, but more practically five or more? I think there's a strong argument, for various reasons, for no.

The point of my previous post is that I think certain precedents are more relevant than others. To me, the best two are Le Cirque and EMP.

[Fat Guy]

it's a vast overstatement to say that it was "[t]he most written- and talked-about restaurant of its time."

It's a simple fact that can be confirmed on Lexis-Nexis, and I did so when I was researching and article I wrote on the subject. I actually had a file of all the Ducasse news coverage from 1999 through 2001 and it filled half a very deep file drawer. The Ducasse opening was a huge media event, not just in food media but in financial and mainstream news media as well. I can post a few dozen reminder examples if anybody's memory needs refreshing. In addition, the time frame for Ducasse is several years earlier than for Per Se. When you say "neither was it heavily blogged...," well, of course not. Ducasse opened in 2000. Who was supposed to blog it heavily? We didn't even start the old eGullet.com until August of 2001 and the serious restaurant blogs came years later.

most NY foodies never ate there

This sort of statement is difficult to evaluate because it's so vague. If by "NY foodies" we mean "Nathan's friends and peers who he judges to be foodies" then maybe you're right. But a definition that takes a broader perspective and includes the older, wealthier core group of customers for high-end restaurants would likely lead to a different conclusion. In addition, since when did "NY foodies" become the standard? Restaurants like Ducasse and Per Se aren't supported by "NY foodies." They attract an international clientele. Moreover, most "NY foodies" probably haven't eaten at Per Se either. The number of people who have dined at either Ducasse or Per Se is incredibly small. And, the New York Times does not consider "NY foodies" to be its audience. It's supposed to be an international newspaper targeted at an audience of highly educated professional, academic and creative types. To that audience, Ducasse is quite relevant, which is why there was so much New York Times coverage of it at the time. Remember, the reason Ducasse's opening in New York was so significant was that he was the world's preeminent chef. Guys like Keller and Batali are local phenomena compared to Ducasse, who operates 21 restaurants around the world (with more combined Michelin stars than any chef in history), plus five hotels, a culinary institute, and a publishing group. The Ducasse organization employs 1,400 people.

other restaurants certainly received more press

McDonald's probably receives more press than every fancy restaurant combined, and anybody with a show on the Food Network will get more press than any other type of chef. But in the realm of serious food media, Ducasse got tremendous play. Moreover, it was tremendously controversial play. No restaurant I know of has ever triggered the kinds of reactions that Ducasse did, both at the positive and negative extremes. It was war, if you'll recall, assuming you were following the story at the time. There simply has not been that sort of dramatic tension surrounding other openings. So when Ducasse opened, not only did you have the story of the opening, but also you had the story of the controversy surrounding the opening.

[Fat Guy]

Should that machination by the restaurant accelerate the critic's normal schedule of re-appraising certain restaurants

←

As I've mentioned a number of times, this is the only argument that I find potentially persuasive in support of the no-review position. Were I in the critic's position, I'd be concerned about exactly that: not wanting to encourage restaurants to think that, by firing the chef, they can get an automatic re-review. Then I'd think about it for another little while, consult my editors and trusted advisors, and come out of the huddle realizing that I'm a journalist, this is a story, I'm a critic, this is an important change at an important restaurant, and my job is to cover that change not worry about how my decision to review a restaurant is going to affect the industry. Because once you go down the path of worrying about the externalities you're no longer focusing on journalism or criticism. At that point you may as well say you don't want to write any bad reviews because people might lose their jobs.

[Nathan]

only its opening was a media event. it simply wasn't talked about after that.

and I find it highly likely that most NY Times readers have barely heard of Ducasse...if at all.

[Fat Guy]

only its opening was a media event.  it simply wasn't talked about after that. 

and I find it highly likely that most NY Times readers have barely heard of Ducasse...if at all.

←

Alain Ducasse overall has been named in New York Time coverage more than Thomas Keller, or even Mario Batail. So if New York Times readers are reading the New York Times, they will have heard of Ducasse plenty. Of course, the nine tenths of New York Times readers who don't even look at restaurant articles at all aren't relevant, so when we say "most" it doesn't really mean very much.

According to the New York Times archive:

-Alain Ducasse: 387 articles mentioning his name

-Mario Batali: 332 articles mentioning his name

-Thomas Keller: 256 articles mentioning his name

In terms of time and subject distribution, of course there are fewer articles about Alain Ducasse at the Essex House post-opening-phase than there were during the opening phase. That's also true of every restaurant. However, Ducasse at the Essex House received a greater frequency of coverage than most even on a long timeline. In part that's because the drama of the opening lasted about three years. In addition, Ducasse opened Mix with Chodorow, bringing his operations back into the spotlight. Then Mix closed, with some controversy surrounding that. And then there were the two chef changes at the Essex House, both of which generated coverage.

So, I think it is fundamentally incorrect to say Ducasse was never talked about post-opening, and not at all relevant whether most New York Times readers have heard of Ducasse because the proper standard is who are New York Times readers more likely to have read about in the New York Times. The answer there is Ducasse by a 51.172% margin over Keller. And even I was surprised that Ducasse has had more play in the Times than Batali, at least as a person (much harder to evaluate which articles were about which restaurants, since some of Ducasse's restaurants have his name in them).

[docsconz]

Should that machination by the restaurant accelerate the critic's normal schedule of re-appraising certain restaurants

←

As I've mentioned a number of times, this is the only argument that I find potentially persuasive in support of the no-review position. Were I in the critic's position, I'd be concerned about exactly that: not wanting to encourage restaurants to think that, by firing the chef, they can get an automatic re-review. Then I'd think about it for another little while, consult my editors and trusted advisors, and come out of the huddle realizing that I'm a journalist, this is a story, I'm a critic, this is an important change at an important restaurant, and my job is to cover that change not worry about how my decision to review a restaurant is going to affect the industry. Because once you go down the path of worrying about the externalities you're no longer focusing on journalism or criticism. At that point you may as well say you don't want to write any bad reviews because people might lose their jobs.

←

I fully agree with this statement. I think it is an obligation of a journalist at the level of the Chief Food Critic of the New York Times to report on truly noteworthy events in the world of New York food. The reason that restaurants at any star level shouldn't be re-reviewed is because there have been no substantive changes and the previous review still applies. At a restaurant at the level and aspirations of ADNY, the changing of the chef and direction of the restaurant was a significant change in a significant restaurant that should have at least laid the groundwork for consideration of a re-review. It may have even turned out that the re-review would not have had a substantially different result than the most recent prior review (I couldn't say as I never got to ADNY under Esnault), but that in itself would have been worthy news. There are and were very few restaurants in NYC with the pedigree and potential importance of ADNY. That in itself busts any potential precedent questions in my mind.

[Nathan]

only its opening was a media event.  it simply wasn't talked about after that. 

and I find it highly likely that most NY Times readers have barely heard of Ducasse...if at all.

←

Alain Ducasse overall has been named in New York Time coverage more than Thomas Keller, or even Mario Batail. So if New York Times readers are reading the New York Times, they will have heard of Ducasse plenty. Of course, the nine tenths of New York Times readers who don't even look at restaurant articles at all aren't relevant, so when we say "most" it doesn't really mean very much.

According to the New York Times archive:

-Alain Ducasse: 387 articles mentioning his name

-Mario Batali: 332 articles mentioning his name

-Thomas Keller: 256 articles mentioning his name

In terms of time and subject distribution, of course there are fewer articles about Alain Ducasse at the Essex House post-opening-phase than there were during the opening phase. That's also true of every restaurant. However, Ducasse at the Essex House received a greater frequency of coverage than most even on a long timeline. In part that's because the drama of the opening lasted about three years. In addition, Ducasse opened Mix with Chodorow, bringing his operations back into the spotlight. Then Mix closed, with some controversy surrounding that. And then there were the two chef changes at the Essex House, both of which generated coverage.

So, I think it is fundamentally incorrect to say Ducasse was never talked about post-opening, and not at all relevant whether most New York Times readers have heard of Ducasse because the proper standard is who are New York Times readers more likely to have read about in the New York Times. The answer there is Ducasse by a 51.172% margin over Keller. And even I was surprised that Ducasse has had more play in the Times than Batali, at least as a person (much harder to evaluate which articles were about which restaurants, since some of Ducasse's restaurants have his name in them).

←

I don't buy this. how many of these articles were about Ducasse at the Essex House (you have to exclude all other articles about Ducasse and ones concerning Mix)?

edit: if you reread my contention above you'll find that it was explicitly about that specific restaurant....of course Ducasse has come up many times in the past 25 years in Times coverage!

Edited August 20, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

furthermore, if Robuchon changed the sous chef at Atelier tomorrow...does that automatically necessitate a re-review?

[docsconz]

furthermore, if Robuchon changed the sous chef at Atelier tomorrow...does that automatically necessitate a re-review?

←

L'Atelier is probably one of the few restaurants in that class that probably wouldn't need a re-review for a chef change unless the quality of the restaurant changed dramatically. L'Atelier is basically a chain. Given the food similarities from one to another, I do not see the chef de cuisine as being of creative importance. So, while it may not need a re-review it should probably be re-visited. At ADNY the chef from Delouvrier to Esnault was responsible for much more creative control and much more likely to result in a different and therefore re-reviewable experience.

[Fat Guy]

I don't buy this.  how many of these articles were about Ducasse at the Essex House (you have to exclude all other articles about Ducasse and ones concerning Mix)?

←

How many articles mentioning Thomas Keller have been about Per Se as opposed to French Laundry, Bouchon, his service charge policies, or cooking and celebrity chefs in general? Not that it matters. These big-name chefs are brands. Every mention furthers the brand. Still, Ducasse's restaurant at the Essex House, standing alone, received extensive coverage, including the types of articles that are rarely written about new restaurants, for example William Grimes's feature, "The Perfect Tempest: A Sneak Preview of Ducasse," written before the review, and "How Many Stars Can One Kitchen Take?" written by Florence Fabricant when Delouvrier took over. In any event, since there are plenty of counter-examples, sweeping claims like "it simply wasn't talked about" are pretty easy to disprove, and random demands to exclude every fact that doesn't support the sweeping generalizations ring hollow.