Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

For a change, let's critique another critic. In this week's two-star review of Bar Stuzzichini, Adam Platt in New York says:

The endless stream of restaurants a professional critic must endure fall into various categories. There are the decent establishments respectfully reviewed then politely ignored, the innocuous places that aren’t good or bad enough to be reviewed at all, and the grizzly establishments it’s one’s duty to review but that you would never be caught dead in again. There are those grand venues you might revisit in the company of a well-heeled banker friend, and then there are those very rare establishments that you actually do revisit when, God forbid, you have to pay for the meal yourself. For this critic, Bar Stuzzichini, which opened several months ago in a cavernous space on lower Broadway, is one of those places. I’m biased by certain factors, of course. Bar Stuzzichini is in my approximate neighborhood. It is modestly priced (off-duty restaurant critics tend to be cheap), and as the name indicates, you can dine by yourself (off-duty restaurant critics also like to be left alone) at one of two long, convivial bars.

For my taste, there's a bit too much navel-gazing here. I don't care about "the endless stream of restaurants" the poor professional critic "must endure." Yes, we all have unpleasant duties to perform at times, but if it feels like an endurance test to poor Mr. Platt, perhaps he's in the wrong job. I don't think Platt's readers really care how put out he is by the rigors of his profession. Edited September 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Pan]

Platt (or perhaps his editors) misspelled "grisly." This isn't a type of bear he's talking about. I mean, unless he means "gray," in the sense of "old"?

Edited September 14, 2007 by Pan (log)

[docsconz]

For a change, let's critique another critic. In this week's two-star review of Bar Stuzzichini, Adam Platt in New York says:

The endless stream of restaurants a professional critic must endure fall into various categories. There are the decent establishments respectfully reviewed then politely ignored, the innocuous places that aren’t good or bad enough to be reviewed at all, and the grizzly establishments it’s one’s duty to review but that you would never be caught dead in again. There are those grand venues you might revisit in the company of a well-heeled banker friend, and then there are those very rare establishments that you actually do revisit when, God forbid, you have to pay for the meal yourself. For this critic, Bar Stuzzichini, which opened several months ago in a cavernous space on lower Broadway, is one of those places. I’m biased by certain factors, of course. Bar Stuzzichini is in my approximate neighborhood. It is modestly priced (off-duty restaurant critics tend to be cheap), and as the name indicates, you can dine by yourself (off-duty restaurant critics also like to be left alone) at one of two long, convivial bars.

For my taste, there's a bit too much navel-gazing here. I don't care about "the endless stream of restaurants" the poor professional critic "must endure." Yes, we all have unpleasant duties to perform at times, but if it feels like an endurance test to poor Mr. Platt, perhaps he's in the wrong job. I don't think Platt's readers really care how put out he is by the rigors of his profession.

←

Spelling aside, I find this bit of self-deprecating, tongue-in-cheek writing amusing. In addition, I think he makes his point pretty well that though it is not necessarily a great restaurant, Bar Stuzzichini is a pretty darned good one within its particular context. I haven't been, so I can't offer an opinion on the restaurant itself, but , if anything, that paragraph encourages me to go.

[Nathan]

from the Gemma review, this is why I think Bruni gets (or at least writes more clearly about) today's NY dining zeitgeist more than anyone:

"These are the makings of Gemma, a cheat sheet of a restaurant whose proprietors take fewer risks than a hurricane-insurance agent in Nebraska. They’ve turned to a fundamentally earnest cuisine for calculated purposes, and they know that many diners sprinting to the newest hot spot don’t really want to find anything new. They want reassurance that they’ve mastered what’s worth knowing."

[Fat Guy]

Danyelle Freeman makes a related point this week in her review of Upper East Side old-timer Elio's:

Some restaurants never change - it's precisely what people love about them. Unlike newcomers who bend to the latest culinary whims du jour, there remain a few steadfast institutions that succeed simply by resting on their laurels.

[Nathan]

I don't see any relation at all.

Danyelle was noting that many older diners in her hood like to eat the same exact things they were eating 30 years ago while Bruni was noting that most diners who are into "hot scenes" (which Elio's is the farthest thing from) want dishes that they've become familiar with in the last couple years. in other words, Gemma is "hot" in a way that Tailor cannot be (right now anyway).

[Fat Guy]

People gravitate towards the familiar. Two reviews that happened to run on the same day came at that point from two different angles. The relationship is obvious.

[oakapple]

People gravitate towards the familiar. Two reviews that happened to run on the same day came at that point from two different angles. The relationship is obvious.

←

I agree with FG...they're both making essentially the same point.

Even ignoring Restaurant Girl, Bruni's observation is hardly profound. He's merely observing the rather obvious fact that Gemma is a "formula" restaurant. Freeman noted that her own review several weeks ago.

Reviewers tend to write condescendingly of such restaurants, because they are boring. In fact, well-worn formulas are what 80-90% of diners want. These restaurants are, of course, less interesting to the reviewer. Had it not been for the background of the people running it, Gemma might not have even warranted a review.

Edited September 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

completely different sense of familiar.

[Fat Guy]

Seems like the same sense to me. Taken together, the two points paint a single picture: familiarity is not just the crutch of the older, more conservative crowd, but also of the younger, ostensibly trendier set.

[Nathan]

familiar=I've been eating this for 30 years.

familiar=this was new two years ago and for the last year has been trendy so I'm comfortable with it.

when do RG's reviews run in print?...I always read them for comedy on Monday.

[Fat Guy]

Right. Same thing. "I don't actually want to try anything new." The difference being that members of the latter group want to pretend they're forward thinking when in reality they're being just as unadventurous as the crowd at Elio's.

Wednesday.

[Nathan]

ah. well they're available on Monday online.

[oakapple]

when do RG's reviews run in print?...I always read them for comedy on Monday.

←

They appear in print on Tuesday. Edited September 27, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

New Question: Anyone who's studied physics will know of the Heisenberg Principle, which basically says you can't observe something without altering it. The question is, how does this apply to NYC critics?

Frank Bruni has been on the job long enough that his biases are pretty well known. For example, Italian: yes; French: no. Casual: yes; Formal: no. So the question is, are restauranteurs starting to design restaurants based on their perception of what Bruni likes?

My own view is that Bruni's tastes must surely be affecting design and menu decisions, even if only subconsciously, and even if only at the margin. The magnitude would be hard to assess, because there won't be many chefs who would actually admit to having done so. But his influence must surely be lurking in the shadows to some extent.

Edited September 27, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[ulterior epicure]

New Question: Anyone who's studied physics will know of the Heisenberg Principle, which basically says you can't observe something without altering it. The question is, how does this apply to NYC critics?

Frank Bruni has been on the job long enough that his biases are pretty well known. For example, Italian: yes; French: no. Casual: yes; Formal: no. So the question is, are restauranteurs starting to design restaurants based on their perception of what Bruni likes?

My own view is that Bruni's tastes must surely be affecting design and menu decisions, even if only subconsciously, and even if only at the margin. The magnitude would be hard to assess, because there won't be many chefs who would actually admit to having done so. But his influence must surely be lurking in the shadows to some extent.

Depends at what level you're talking about, I suppose. Regardless of Bruni, however, if a restaurant's main objective is to make $$, then I think the less likely a restaurateur/chef would tailor their designs with the tastes of the critic in mind. You just have to appeal to the masses - hip/trendy usually work.

[Nathan]

design. no.

food...maybe a little.

why?

Bruni's probably got what...a year or two left in the job? these days it takes a couple years from planning until a restaurant finally opens. menu items can be altered quickly but the scope and design of a restaurant? no.

[raji]

I shudder to think that any one critic would command that sort of influence. If you're saying that Bruni does a better job than any other critic at summarizing the sort of dining trends of the general public that a restauranteur would want to be tuned into, then perhaps he is in fact read that carefully.

But I always thought that it was the restaurants that were following trends in an obvious way were more subject to factors like location, design and service, whereas there is always enough of an adventurous audience in NYC for groundbreaking restaurants...

[Fat Guy]

Bruni gives every indication of being a long-lived critic. It seems he absolutely loves the job, and his interest in it seems to be increasing (he's also getting better at many aspects of it thanks to the inimitable on-the-job experience he's been accumulating, though he remains fundamentally tone-deaf to fine dining). I wouldn't be surprised to see him go to 2010 or beyond. Then again, these things can change quickly for many reasons.

In any event, I think it's an interesting question: do restaurants plan around Bruni? Needless to say, most restaurants don't because most restaurants either don't get reviewed or don't expect reviews in the 2- to 4-star range. Even most restaurants that get 2-star reviews probably don't have the sophistication to do that sort of planning. But seriously ambitious restaurants take everything into account. I have been at business planning meetings where restaurateurs and backers have specifically discussed Bruni's preferences. I don't think anybody is predicating an entire restaurant concept on Bruni, but when it comes to minor decisions I do think they take him into account.

At the same time, I think he's seen by the industry as an unpredictable critic -- one who doesn't play by a set of rules that anybody can discern. So a lot of the language of "we're designing a three-star restaurant" has moved away from thinking about the Times critic as a person and settled back at a more general conceptual level. Someone like Danny Meyer, when he opens his next New York restaurant, certainly isn't going to care about Bruni's preferences. He'll decide "this is going to be a three-star place" or "this is going to be a two-star place" and his team will pursue that vision. If Bruni gives some random review where he gives three stars to Bar Room and two to the Modern, that's just the way it is.

More generally, I think sophisticated restaurants plan for media. The Times critic is one of many critics, and critics are only part of the food media. There can also be coverage beyond the food media. And the relative importance of the Times critic has, I think, decreased a lot over the years. It's now easy to put together a media strategy that ignores the Times critic. That's what you have to do these days if, for example, you want to do fine dining or Japanese or anything he just doesn't get. The Times review is a big emotional moment for every serious new restaurant, but restaurateurs know it's only one moment in a decade.

[Nathan]

on the whole anonymity thing...this month's Gourmet has Barber explaining what a restaurant does when the Times critic is spotted. he also refers to him/her as the only critic who matters.

[oakapple]

Bruni's probably got what...a year or two left in the job?

←

Ruth Reichl was in the job for six years, and I believe Mimi Sheraton even longer. Bruni just passed his third anniversary, so we could have him in our midst for quite a while. Edited September 28, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[ulterior epicure]

on the whole anonymity thing...this month's Gourmet has Barber explaining what a restaurant does when the Times critic is spotted.  he also refers to him/her as the only critic who matters.

←

Nathan, I'm glad you mentioned this article. I especially enjoyed Barber's description of his phone exchange with Grimes. I find the whole chef-and-restaurant critic dance to be incredibly wonderful and silly.

Speaking of Grimes, where is he today? I know that Mimi Sheraton went on to write in other capacities post-NYT. Of course, Reichl is at Gourmet. But, what of the other former NYT critics? And, what, would one suppose Bruni will do when he "retires" from this position?

[oakapple]

on the whole anonymity thing...this month's Gourmet has Barber explaining what a restaurant does when the Times critic is spotted.  he also refers to him/her as the only critic who matters.

←

Nathan, I'm glad you mentioned this article. I especially enjoyed Barber's description of his phone exchange with Grimes. I find the whole chef-and-restaurant critic dance to be incredibly wonderful and silly.

It might not be that silly, given the stakes involved.

But there's an amusing twist in the article. It turns out that the guy who received the red-carpet treatment wasn't Grimes—he was some lawyer who merely resembled Grimes. In the meantime, Grimes's first Diner's Journal piece had already appeared, so apparently he had managed to dine there unrecognized at least once, while the restaurant fawned over his doppelganger.

Speaking of Grimes, where is he today?  I know that Mimi Sheraton went on to write in other capacities post-NYT.  Of course, Reichl is at Gourmet.  But, what of the other former NYT critics?

Currently, Grimes is writing book reviews for the Times. The most recent one was published yesterday.

And, what, would one suppose Bruni will do when he "retires" from this position?

←

Bruni is still quite a young guy. I believe he is not yet 40. With a solid background in both hard news and entertainment writing, he could probably write his own ticket. I strongly suspect he'll do something in feature writing, where he is no longer tethered to a weekly deadline.

[Nathan]

Grimes also writes books (he's a major cocktail historian as well).

Bruni was a Pulitzer finalist and a major political writer and foreign correspondent. Lots of options.

[Fat Guy]

Yes, Bruni will be just fine. Former New York Times restaurant reviewers have no trouble finding gainful employment afterwards. Bruni I believe already has a major book deal, and he should be able to write his own ticket. Grimes essentially gets to write whatever he wants. Ruth Reichl is editor-in-chief of Gourmet.

What I wonder about is how the Times will ever be able to find Bruni's replacement. It's clear to me that the Times has painted itself into a corner. By insisting on the charade of anonymity, the Times has ruled out most modern-era top food writers. Essentially, it seems the Times is going to be forced to use in-house reporters -- company men -- for this job, because no accomplished outsider in today's multimedia world is going to be obscure and unknown enough to do the job. So that means Bruni's replacement will likely know as little about New York restaurants as Bruni did when he started three years ago, and we'll all have to endure a years-long learning curve with unpredictable results. It's amazing that, just as food writing has been coming into its own as a recognized, serious discipline, the Times has created a situation where it won't hire a food writer to be its restaurant reviewer.