Chodorow's Response to Bruni's Review

[Sneakeater]

Listen: off-topic, but when I referred to the "is cuisine art?" discussions, I didn't mean that anyone should let the specific views of aestheticians (if they've expressed any) close the discussion. I just meant that it seems naive to me (to put it charitably) to discuss whether something is art without any reference to the criteria that have been generated over the centuries for making that precise determination. Of course, people with knowledge of cuisine have a lot to contribute -- and the opinions of an aesthetician ignorant of cuisine would be worthess. But equally worthless are the opinions of someone who knows a lot about cuisine but nothing of aesthetics, because they don't know how to frame the issue.

This sounds like I'm talking about hairdressers.

(It's kind of like when people with no knowledge of Constitutional Law -- or apparently, of the contents of the Constitution -- argue whether or not something is unconstitutional [which to them usually seems to mean the same thing as "unfair"]. They may know a lot about the particular subject matter, but if they don't know anything about the Constitution, their opinion just isn't very meaningful.)

Edited February 21, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

no, I don't think there is such a thing as restaurant criticism (in the narrow sense of the term).

there may be such a thing as food criticism...i.e. Brillat-Savarin.

I'd thought it was clear that was my contention.

[Sneakeater]

I wonder why we're even talking about this.

[BeefCheeks]

I, for one, am getting a raging headache and I doubt I'm alone.

We're talking here about Chodorow and Bruni; the former, by the way, has a very clear indication on his so-called blog that unless feedback is positive, posts and comments won't show up. Only one person had the guts to pretty much say "you acted like a spoiled brat." I'm sorry: like Bruni or loathe him, Chodorow's utterly ridiculous, self-righteous, pitiful response reminds me of the time that I was threatened by a restaurateur whose establishment I covered in the metro area. It wasn't that I said anything she disagreed with nor did I say that her food was dreck; I just mentioned her ex-husband's restaurant in the piece, and she nearly had a stroke because the review included something that she didn't like. And for that, my newspaper had to hire protection for me.

At a certain point, critiquing ceases to be about the food itself -- especially if it's served in quasi-theatrical "flights" whilst diners pray silently that they're not skewered lengthwise by swords ("you'd better like my food, or ELSE") -- and more about the overall experience, which, in this case, Bruni clearly found utterly ridiculous and, unless I read the review wrong, actually pugnacious.

That Chodorow would be so deeply concerned about his staff is utterly hilarious, given his reputation. He spent close to $100,000 and made a mockery of himself, poor man, and he doesn't even have the good sense to realize it.

[Sneakeater]

For all of which we should be profoundly grateful.

[rich]

It's quite surprising there is this much time and effort being spent on a restaurant critic who possesses the moral fiber, dignity and professional standards similar to an over-zealous gossip columnist.

[flinflon28]

Reviews = Bruni's pieces every Wednesday

Criticism = Bruni's occasional pieces

Unabomber = Chodorow's new blog

←

Brilliant!

[Felonius]

Oh how I love eGullet. Where else could something like this garner 110 posts in less than a day, with such erudite discussion? Fantastic! Steven, you should be very, very proud of this great beast you've unleashed on the world.

Down with Bruni! Up with Fat Guy!

[Nathan]

Mimi Sheraton ways in:

http://www.slate.com/id/2160474/

read the whole thing...lots of insight into the whole critic business.

[Dave H]

Quite an interesting article by Mimi but I disagree on two points:

First, I have to take issue with, "Chodorow claims to have had some positive ratings but cites none specifically"; the ad (the PDF version at least) has links to distinctly positive takes from Gael Greene and John Mariani, and a three star review from Bob Lape. Granted he doesn't literally write "Bob Lape gave me three stars," but the reviews are all cited, and accurately.

Second, I completely disagree that this stunt isn't a brilliant move by Chodorow. The same tactic may not have paid off for Assembly Steak House or Dish of Salt, but those establishments, I suspect, were not running the same game as he is. People don't go to a China Grill Mgmt restaurant because they care about good food; they go for an upscale theme park experience, or maybe just because they've heard of it. Especially in the case of Kobe Club, where the entire purpose is a flashy but commodity menu item costing $150 per person, people will go only as long as it remains a scene. At this point you can get Wagyu steaks anywhere.

The danger of a zero star Bruni review was not so much that people would think Kobe Club is bad, but that they would stop thinking about it at all. In New York, at least, Chodorow had become a total has-been; after The Restaurant and the ensuing lawsuits and Brasserios blew over, you pretty much forgot he even existed. Opening up Kobe Club didn't get him back in the public eye, but kicking up a shitstorm about Bruni will, and the new blog means he can keep it up indefinitely. I think this has a huge payoff, for Kobe Club and the whole brand.

One thing I do agree with is that this incident has ratified Frank Bruni in my eyes, if for somewhat different reasons. Being the lover of shitstorms that I am, I actually clicked through to read those three positive Kobe Club reviews, as well as searched out the Steve Cuozzo column from which Chodorow plucked the dubious assertion that Quality Meats is filled with Kobe Club rejects. Wow. Reading these four Kobe Club writeups, it is striking how much better, and how much more professional, Bruni's review is. Not that Bruni is a fantastic dining critic; more that these guys are hacks.

Regarding Greene, Mariani and Lape, the "important" "respected" critics who gave such positive notices: I really used to agree with Fat Guy that whether the reviewer got comped was irrelevant to the quality of the review. After reading those? Not so sure.

[Fat Guy]

Dave, I don't think Bruni's review is appreciably better than what Mariani or Lape wrote, and Greene's copy isn't comparable. Also, we don't know who got comped. It's clear from Gael Greene's writeup that she got at least one comped dish, however her disclosure on this point could easily indicate that she paid for the rest of the meal. Greene, Lape and Mariani have extensive dining budgets and pay for many meals. Without specific knowledge of what went down at Kobe Club, I'd be reluctant to accuse anybody of being unduly influenced.

I'm not at all reluctant to say that Chodorow's behavior is more like that of an insane person than like a restaurateur trying to get some good PR. His narcissistic ad reads like a ransom note or a manifesto from the lunatic fringe. His plans to become a professional amateur stalker of Bruni and Platt are indicative of someone who has come totally unhinged.

Which isn't to say he doesn't bury some reasonable points in there, as many nutty people are wont to do. I mean, he's right that Bruni thinks the steaks are delicious, and I have to agree emphatically that if you go to a steakhouse and the steaks are great only a non-culinary agenda can justify ripping the place with a mean-spirited zero-star review -- no matter how bad and overpriced the sides are. And he's right that pretty much all the critics agree on this point -- that the steaks are excellent. At least Mariani gives some bona fide information and speculates in an interesting way about Kobe/Wagyu beef itself. If Mariani got his meal comped, he nonetheless seems to have much less of an agenda than Bruni.

And Bruni is a lousy critic. While Mimi Sheraton wrote a piece defending him, and while any such wacko attack against a legitimate journalist should be met with harsh disapprobation, I have to wonder whether she doesn't agree that Bruni is a lousy critic. She must. As perhaps the preeminent Times restaurant critic, she couldn't possibly take Bruni seriously.

[robert brown]

Does anyone recall one of the more memorable food critic remarks which goes that at the birth of New York Magazine Clay Felker said, "Let's just give the restaurant job to Gael."? In the context of this thread, it conjures up hypocracy if Chodorow considers Gael Green's praise legitimate and Bruni's not. I think Bruni is rounding into shape and is starting to gain a valid perspective on New York dining. He's also a very good writer, and his essay on kissing the chef's napkin ring was the best and most relevant one on New York dining in years. After what must have been several years of dining on real food in Italy, I think he knows what's good and what isn't. Look, entry to food reviewing is easy. You can become a notable restaurant "critic" in no time flat relative to being a critic in just about any other worthwhile field. Restaurant reviewing is a creation of the journalism. Restaurants were around for a nearly couple of centuries before reviewing them reached a few hundred words. Chodorow's restaurants are hardly about gastronomy, and if he wants to be a shadow critic (no doubt praising the restaurants of investor types he likes and dumping on those who successes irk him), be my guest. Let's see how his reviewing measures up against the Sultan of Bruni's.

[Fat Guy]

It's barely worth noting that Chodorow addressed this letter to the wrong guy. Pete Wells, though currently the editor of the dining section, didn't hire Frank Bruni and wouldn't be able to fire Frank Bruni. Nor is he responsible for the stuff Frank Bruni writes. Pete Wells is doing a great job with the rest of the dining section -- it has improved quite a bit in the past few months, but like the new dean of the English department at a university he inherited a group that includes several tenured professors. The restaurant critic publishes in the dining section, and probably uses dining section resources for copy-editing and such, but is a relatively independent figure. For all we know, Pete Wells would like to be rid of Bruni just as much as any of us -- it wouldn't matter. In any event, anybody who has a serious non-publicity-stunt complaint about the Times restaurant critic should really address it to the executive editor, Bill Keller.

Still eagerly awaiting Chodorow's first review.

[Fat Guy]

Quite an interesting article by Mimi but I disagree on two points:

←

I take issue with a third point as well, and this is a cheap shot taken by critics all the time when responding to their detractors:

"Chodorow yelped like a stuck pig, questioning Bruni's credentials as a food critic (something he never would have done had the review been favorable)"

We're talking about restaurateurs, not journalists. It's not incumbent upon them to act against self-interest in the pursuit of truth. That they don't object to favorable reviews is a non-observation.

[TAPrice]

The New Yorker picked up the little feud as a Talk of the Town piece:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/arti...ta_talk_collins

A Slate piece, a New Yorker piece and endless blog posts. It's beginning to look like Chodorow's money was well spent. Sure, he's not coming off so well, but more people know about the restaurant.

[weinoo]

So when is Chodorow reviewing Ssam bar?

[slkinsey]

I take issue with a third point as well...

While we're taking exception to points, I'd like to point out my disagreement with this last one:

Frank Bruni will have the last word, of course, as we in the press always do.

This is the kind of nose-thumbing closing of ranks I've always found distasteful in reviewers of all stripes. No, in fact, the press do not always have the last word. If that were true, then the highly-reviewed restaurants and movies and musicals and novels (etc.) would be the ones to succeed while the lower-reviewed ones failed. Needless to say, this is not, nor has it ever been the case. All too frequently, it is exactly the opposite. If Kobe Club maintains reasonably good profitability for a reasonably long lifespan for this type of restaurant, Frank Bruni will not have had the last word.

[weinoo]

If Kobe Club maintains reasonably good profitability for a reasonably long lifespan for this type of restaurant, Frank Bruni will not have had the last word.

←

So what's reasonable - he had to sink a mint into opening it...gotta take a couple of years just to make that back, no? But as Chodorow himself said, he's not in it for the money.

[rich]

I take issue with a third point as well...

While we're taking exception to points, I'd like to point out my disagreement with this last one:

Frank Bruni will have the last word, of course, as we in the press always do.

This is the kind of nose-thumbing closing of ranks I've always found distasteful in reviewers of all stripes. No, in fact, the press do not always have the last word. If that were true, then the highly-reviewed restaurants and movies and musicals and novels (etc.) would be the ones to succeed while the lower-reviewed ones failed. Needless to say, this is not, nor has it ever been the case. All too frequently, it is exactly the opposite. If Kobe Club maintains reasonably good profitability for a reasonably long lifespan for this type of restaurant, Frank Bruni will not have had the last word.

←

The fourth estate believes it's the first, second and third estate as well. At times the press becomes much too full of itself.

Excellent point Sam. The public untimately decides the success or failure of just about anything.

Just ask Gene Rodenberry who created Star Trek, ask the producers of Cats, ask the restauranteurs who opened Tavern on the Green or The Water Club, ask the sportsmen who wanted to build a stadium in Manhattan (okay, they were right about that), ask the Wright Brothers (the critics were wrong about that), ask the people who built a city in the Nevada desert, ask the people who thought sound was a good idea for movies, ask the manufacturers who came up with the idea to build a mechanized wagon (or better yet, ask the horses) and finally ask the men who gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1776 to create a new form of government.

Unfortunately, Mimi's article and especially her conclusion was a bit disingenuous.

Edited February 26, 2007 by rich (log)

[slkinsey]

Of course he's in it for the money. Ultimately, they're all in it for the money. If there's one measure that the culinary arts haven't reached the same level as the classical arts, it's that people aren't willing to do it as a money-losing venture just so it can be done.

I'd say that what's reasonable is whatever one plans to make on these ventures. I'm quite sure that Chodorow has charted out what he feels would be an reasonably good return on this investment.

[slkinsey]

The public untimately decides the success or failure of just about anything.

While this is often true, I wouldn't say that it's universally true. For example, the music critic for the Boston Globe more or less ran conductor Erich Leinsdorf out of town.

I suppose one could also say that Mimi's right, if her point is that Bruni has the last word with respect to his validation of Chodorow's work.

Edited February 26, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[oakapple]

So what's reasonable - he had to sink a mint into opening it...gotta take a couple of years just to make that back, no?  But as Chodorow himself said, he's not in it for the money.

←

Most restauranteurs probably want their creations to last forever. I would say anything less than 5 years must be reckoned a disappointment.

It would be interesting to create a running list of Bruni reviews that have been prohpetic, and those that have not.

Prophetic: Alain Ducasse, Barca 18, Gilt, Sasha, Russian Tea Room, V Steakhouse

Not: Cafe Gray, Ninja, Mr. Chow TriBeCa, Freeman's, The Modern, Porter House

Jury Still Out:Alto, Gordon Ramsay, Lonesome Dove

[Nathan]

He gave Porterhouse a good review...and The Modern and GR reviews were more lukewarm then downright negative.

[oakapple]

He gave Porterhouse a good review...and The Modern and GR reviews were more lukewarm then downright negative.

←

Porter House was "....a generically sophisticated upgrade of the kind of chain establishment found in a lesser mall. It's like an M.B.A. program for beef eaters who did undergraduate work at the Outback Steak House." If that's the kind of review Michael Lomonaco considered "good," I'll eat my hat.

When a restaurant like The Modern or GR is charging three or four-star prices, and gets two stars, Bruni is basically saying "it's not worth your money." In his review of the Bar Room, Bruni came right out and said it: "head for the cheap seats." If that's not an unfavorable take on the main dining room, I don't know what is.

As for Ramsay, the British press raked him over the coals when he received a rating two notches below the top rating available. There's no doubt it was perceived as negative.

To build on Sam Kinsey's point, the public really do have the last word. If The Modern is full every night, it means the dining public — or at least, those who patronize that restaurant — think it is worth spending the price that other three-star restaurants command. The Modern is a particularly good example, because it doesn't have tradition, celebrity cachet, a globe-trotting chef, or stratospheric Zagat ratings behind it. The people who dine there must, on some level, actually believe in what Gabriel Kreuther is doing.

Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[mikeyrad]

Whether or not you think that Chodorow's retort was a good idea, most would agree with his argument that Bruni is an incompetent restaurant reviewer. Unlike Grimes, it doesn't appear that Bruni has learned much about food or wine during his tenure. Either that, or he is unwilling to share that knowledge with his readers. I base this opinion on the fact that many of us have noted how little space is devoted to describing the food in comparison to describing the decor and/or everything else not remotely associated with the subject at hand. And that's too bad because unlike me, he is a wonderful writer.