Entries in Frank Bruni (21)

Thursday
Jul042013

Michelin–New York Times Ratings Comparison

After the jump, you’ll find the list of all New York City restaurants currently open, that:
(1) Have now, or have ever had, at least one Michelin star; or,
(2) Have now, or have ever had, three or four New York Times stars.

For both Michelin and The Times, the list shows the maximum number of stars it has ever had (“Max”), and the current number of stars it has (“Curr.”). In the last two columns, you’ll find the name of the last Times critic who reviewed the restaurant and the date of the review. Click the link on the date to read the review itself.

The two rating systems are correlated. Most of the Michelin 1-star restaurants have two or three Times stars. Most of the Michelin 2-star restaurants have three Times stars. Most of the Michelin 3-star restaurants have four Times stars.

Given this correlation, you can find restaurants where the two systems disagree. For instance, Babbo has three Times stars but zero from Michelin. Danny Brown in Queens has a star from Michelin but has never even been reviewed in The Times.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Jul252012

Pete Wells and the Two-Star Restaurant

In case you hadn’t noticed, the New York Times restaurant critic, Pete Wells, likes to give two stars. In seven months on the job, it has become his base rating. Half of his reviews (50%) have been two stars; just 27 percent have received one star:

It wasn’t always this way. Sam Sifton gave one star 44 percent of the time, two stars 33 percent. Eater has a handy distribution of Frank Bruni’s ratings over the course of his tenure. People jokingly called him “Frankie Two-Stars,” due to his fondness for that rating. But he always gave one star more frequently than two. In his final year, he gave one star 45 percent of the time, two stars just 33 percent—about the same as Sifton.

Has there been a sudden upswing in the quality of New York restaurants? I don’t know anyone who thinks so. Wells is just a far easier grader than Sifton or Bruni.

Wells’s reviews are infinitely better than Sifton’s, and his knowledge is superior to Bruni’s. He’s just generous with the stars—or at least, with two of them. (His percentage of three-star reviews is on par with Bruni’s and Sifton’s. He’s filed only one four-star review, Le Bernardin, and I doubt anyone would argue with that.)

In the New York Times star system, one star is supposed to mean “Good.” Wells’s one-star reviews almost never sound good. Although the rating system hasn’t changed, Wells is reviewing as if one star means “Fair.” Sifton, in contrast, wrote quite a few enthusiastic one-star reviews.

For instance, if we consider just Chinese restaurants: Sifton gave one star raves to Imperial Palace, Hunan Kitchen of Grand Sichuan, and 456 Shanghai Cuisine. Wells has given the deuce to Wong, RedFarm, Café China, and Mission Chinese Food. Are those four restaurants really a whole star better than Sifton’s trio of one-star places? I doubt it.

At this point, Wells would need to give one star exclusively for several months straight, just to get back to the ratings percentages of the Sifton/Bruni years. But the inflated ratings of his first seven months can’t be reversed. A sudden shift now would confer a boon on all the restaurants that got an extra star they didn’t deserve.

Perhaps it’s the descriptions of the stars that need to change. Readers are conditioned to believe that one star isn’t a compliment. Ryan Sutton of Bloomberg uses the same four-star scale, but in his system, one star means “Fair.” New York magazine claims that one star means “Good,” but its critic, Adam Platt, follows Wells’s de facto system: his one-star places never sound good, either. For an example, see his review of Mission Chinese Food this week.

On crowdsourced review sites like Yelp, a restaurant has to be really terrible to get anything less than three stars. None of the professional critics are that generous; nevertheless, the public perception is that one star is awful. For instance, the Eater.com headline after Platt’s review came out, was: “Adam Platt is Unimpressed by Mission Chinese Food.” Eater’s summary was accurate: Platt didn’t like the place, although he gave it one star, purportedly meaning “Good.”

Since Wells can’t retroactively re-rate seven months worth of restaurants, and the public will never think of one star as “Good,” perhaps The Times just needs to re-define its ratings. Change the definition of one star to “Fair,” and two stars to “Good,” and Wells’s ratings will make sense.

Friday
Nov182011

New York Times 3 & 4-Star Restaurants

This is a list of New York City restaurants currently open, that:
(1) Have now, or have ever had, at least one Michelin star; or,
(2) Have now, or have ever had, three or four New York Times stars.

For both Michelin and The Times, the list shows the maximum number of stars it has ever had (“Max”), and the current number of stars it has (“Curr.”)

The two rating systems are somewhat correlated. Most restaurants with at least one Michelin star have three NYT stars, or did at one time, and vice versa. Where this is not the case, it could mean that one service or the other has over- or under-rated the restaurant.

Unlike The Times, the Michelin ratings are anonymous (you don’t know who came up with them) and are published without explanation. But the Michelin ratings are updated annually, and are often reflect changes (for good or bad) that The Times fails to react to.

So you could think of this list as the set of restaurants that are plausible candidates for three or four NYT stars, or were at one time, whether or not they are now.



Restaurant

Michelin

New York Times

Max.

Curr.

Max.

Curr.

Critic

Date

15 East

*

*

**

**

Bruni

7-11-07

Ai Fiori

*

*

***

***

Sifton

4-23-11

Aldea

*

*

**

**

Bruni

4-7-09

Annisa

*

*

**

**

Sifton

6-23-10

Aquavit

*

*

***

**

Sifton

7-21-10

Atera

**

**

***

***

Wells

7-18-12

Aureole

*

*

***

*

Sifton

11-11-09

A Voce Columbus

*

*

**

**

Sifton

11-25-09

A Voce Madison

*

*

***

***

Bruni

5-10-06

Babbo

*

***

***

Bruni

6-9-05

Blanca

*

*

**

**

Wells

10-16-12

BLT Fish

*

***

***

Bruni

4-20-05

Blue Hill

*

*

***

***

Bruni

8-2-06

Blue Hill at Stone Barns

***

***

Bruni

7/28/04

Bouley

**

*

***

***

Bruni

3-25-09

Breslin, The

*

*

*

*

Sifton

1-12-10

Brooklyn Fare

***

***

***

***

Sifton

4-27-11

Brushstroke

*

*

**

**

Sifton

7-13-11

Brushstroke (Ichimura)

***

***

Wells

9-26-12

Café Boulud

*

*

***

***

Bruni

8-15-07

Café China

*

*

**

**

Wells

5-2-13

Carbone

***

***

Wells

6-5-13

Casa Mono

*

*

**

**

Burros

1-28-04

Colicchio & Sons

***

***

Sifton

3/17/10

Corton

**

**

***

***

Bruni

12-10-08

Craft

*

***

***

Sifton

9-7-11

Daniel

***

***

****

****

Bruni

1/21/09

Danji

*

*

*

*

Sifton

8-17-11

Danny Brown

*

*

NEVER

NEVER

Del Posto

**

*

****

****

Sifton

9/29/10

Dévi

*

**

**

Bruni

11/17/04

Dovetail

*

*

***

***

Bruni

2/20/08

Dressler

*

*

**

**

Bruni

6/7/07

Eleven Madison Park

***

***

****

****

Bruni

8/12/09

Esca

***

***

Bruni

4/18/07

Felidia

***

***

Bruni

8/30/06

Four Seasons, The

***

**

Bruni

4/4/07

Gilt

**

**

**

**

Bruni

2/8/06

Gotham Bar & Grill

*

*

***

***

Sifton

5-17-11

Gordon Ramsay

**

**

**

**

Bruni

1/31/07

Gramercy Tavern

*

*

***

***

Bruni

6/6/07

Hakkasan

*

*

*

*

Wells

6-12-12

Il Buco A&V

***

***

Wells

3/14/12

Jean Georges

***

***

****

****

Bruni

4/19/06

Jewel Bako

*

*

*

*

Bruni

6/21/06

JoJo

*

***

***

Grimes

4/17/02

Jungsik

*

*

**

**

Wells

2-28-12

Junoon

*

*

**

**

Sifton

3-30-11

Kajitsu

**

*

**

**

Wells

6-18-03

Kyo Ya

*

*

***

***

Wells

4/11/12

Kurumazushi

*

***

***

Reichl

10/6/95

Lan Sheng

*

*

Laut

*

DB

Moskin

7/29/09

La Grenouille

****

***

Sifton

12/23/09

Le Bernardin

***

***

****

****

Wells

5/23/05

Le Cirque

****

**

Wells

9/19/12

Le Périgord

***

**

Grimes

10/11/00

Marc Forgione

*

**

**

Sifton

10/6/10

Marea

**

**

***

***

Sifton

10/21/09

Masa

***

***

****

***

Sifton

6-15-11

Minetta Tavern

*

*

***

***

Bruni

5/20/09

Modern, The (Bar Rm.)

***

***

Bruni

1/10/07

Modern, The (Dine. Rm.)

*

*

***

***

Wells

3-26-13

Molyvos

***

**

Asimov

7/17/02

Momofuku Ko

**

**

***

***

Bruni

5/7/08

Momofuku Ssäm Bar

***

***

Bruni

12/3/08

Nobu

*

***

***

Reichl

9/8/95

Nobu 57

***

***

Bruni

9/28/05

Nobu, Next Door

***

***

Reichl

12/23/98

NoMad, The

*

*

***

***

Wells

6/20/12

Oceana

*

*

***

**

Sifton

11/18/09

Palm & Palm Too

***

*

Sifton

7-27-11

Patroon

***

**

Asimov

7/10/02

Perry St.

*

***

***

Bruni

9/7/05

Per Se

***

***

****

****

Sifton

10-12-11

Peter Luger

*

*

***

**

Bruni

9/19/07

Picholine

**

*

***

***

Bruni

11/8/06

Public

*

*

**

**

Grimes

12/17/03

River Café

*

*

***

**

Grimes

2/13/02

Rosanjin

*

*

**

**

Bruni

3/28/07

Rouge Tomate

*

*

*

*

Bruni

1/7/09

Sammy’s Roumanian

***

***

Sheraton

5/21/82

Saul

*

*

**

**

Wells

10/7/09

Scalini Fedeli

*

*

*

Grimes

10/13/99

Scarpetta

***

***

Bruni

7/30/08

Seäsonal

*

*

**

**

Asimov

2/25/09

Shalezeh

*

NEVER

NEVER

Soto

**

**

**

**

Bruni

9/5/07

Spice Market

***

*

Bruni

6/24/09

Spotted Pig, The

*

*

*

*

Bruni

1/25/06

Sugiyama

***

***

Reichl

3/17/99

Sushi Azabu

*

*

*

*

Bruni

10/29/08

Sushi of Gari

*

*

**

**

Bruni(1)

3/2/05

Sushi Yasuda

***

***

Asimov

11-16-11

Tamarind Tribeca

*

*

**

**

Sifton

8/4/10

Tori Shin

*

*

 –

NEVER

NEVER

Torrisi Italian Specialties

*

*

**

**

Sifton

6-8-10

Tulsi

*

*

*

*

Sifton

3-30-11

Union Square Cafe

***

**

Bruni

8/5/09

Veritas

*

***

***

Sifton

3-16-11

Wallsé

*

*

**

**

Hesser

5/5/04

WD~50

*

*

***

***

Bruni

3/5/08

 

Note 1: Frank Bruni actually reviewed Gari, the west side branch of Sushi of Gari. The latter does not appear to have ever been reviewed in The Times, but the two are quite similar.

Tuesday
Oct182011

Bye, Sam!

The tenure of New York Times restaurant critic Sam Sifton has ended. As of Monday, he took over as national editor, a position he’d had his eye on for some time. His departure is not a surprise. When Sifton was announced in the job, he already had a foot out the door:

For the record, it is our expectation that this will not be the end of Sam’s career as an editor/manager/entrepreneur/mentor. He has run two departments exceptionally well, and nobody would be surprised to see him running something in the future.

The guy who picked Sifton, former executive editor Bill Keller (who was also responsible for picking Bruni), practically admitted that Sifton hadn’t even applied for the job:

In the weeks since the announcement that Frank Bruni would be hanging up his napkin, we’ve received numerous applications for the job of NYT restaurant critic. We narrowed the list, and then narrowed it some more. We had some really impressive candidates, writers who know their food and have interesting things to say about the way we eat.

Then we threw out the list and drafted Sam Sifton.

Restaurant criticism burns people out, but Sifton had one of the shortest tenures on record. The Eater.com timeline shows just two New York Times critics with shorter stays: John L. Hess for nine months in 1973–74, and Marian Burros for a year in 1983–84. Burros, however, was never billed as a permanent replacement, which leaves Sifton in the dubious company of the now-forgotten Hess.

Here’s hoping Sifton has more enthusiasm for editing than he did for reviewing. I don’t think dummies get to be national editor, but as a critic, he was vacuous, bored, and intellectually lazy. At least half the time, he was more interested in reviewing the guests than the food—more fascinated with their shoes, clothes, hairdos and gadgets, than with what they were eating.

Sifton was a man of simple pleasures, seldom interested in being challenged, seldom engaged thoughtfully on any culinary subject except fishing. His reviews were full of empty adjectives like “delicious,” “terrific,” and “good,” and laden with obscure references to second-rate fiction. He embraced mediocrity, and neither established nor recognized trends.

He didn’t even work very hard. Frank Bruni, may have had no experience reviewing restaurants, but he at least realized he had a lot to learn, and worked his tail off. Here’s a comparison of Bruni’s first two years to Sifton’s:

  1. Starred Reviews. In his first two years, Bruni filed every Wednesday but two (and for those two, Julia Moskin filed in his place). In Sifton’s first two years, he skipped four Wednesdays (and no one replaced him).
  2. Critic’s Notebook. These are the longer “thought pieces” that appear roughly every couple of months In his first two years, Bruni filed 17 of these. Sifton filed 12.
  3. Diner’s Journal. Before the blog came along, Bruni used to file a shorter review (unstarred) on Fridays. He did 80 of these. The closest equivalent in the current system is “Dining Briefs”. Sifton has done 26.
  4. The Blog. That leaves the blog—difficult to quantify, because the NYT search engine can’t filter out blog posts specifically. Bruni often used the blog to write about restaurants he wasn’t going to review, whereas Sifton almost never did. Bruni generally filed at least 1–2 substantive blog posts per week, while Sifton’s average is near zero. (A short post linking to that week’s newspaper review is not substantive.) In lieu of writing about restaurants, Sifton posted near-useless “Hey, Mr. Critic!” Q&A pieces every so often.

If you don’t care for the numerical approach, just read Village Voice critic Robert Sietsema’s devastating lampoon of Sifton’s laziness or Josh Ozersky’s takedown in Time. These are notable, because critics seldom attack one of their own, whatever their private opinions may be. Why The Times was willing to pay Sifton to do so little work is utterly beyond me.

Industry people I spoke with found Sifton unimpressive. His predecessor, Frank Bruni, came in with a thin resume, but at least he worked hard, wrote well, took the job seriously, and established a clear voice that readers could relate to. Sifton treated it like a two-year vacation.

Fortunately, The Times needed a new national editor, so after two years we are done with him, and he is done with us. Sifton gets an early out from a job he never wanted, and management gets another chance to find someone competent to write restaurant reviews.

If this seems harsh, I offer no apology. There is no other critical discipline at The Times that is treated like a hobby—a mid-career sabbatical before moving on to greener pastures. In books, architecture, theater, film, music, and other fields, the paper has critics who’ve honed their craft for years—decades, even. Whether or not you agree with them, at least you’ve got someone dedicated to his craft.

For restaurants, The Times first gave us a dabbler who had never been to a Michelin-starred restaurant in his life, outside of Italy, before being appointed restaurant critic. And then it gave us someone who had his eye on management, and coasted along while he waited for a better job to open up.

The Times can do better. It must.

Monday
Nov012010

Should the Star Ratings Take Price Into Account?

At the bottom of every New York Times restaurant review is this blurb, essentially unchanged for many years:

Ratings range from zero to four stars and reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration. Menu listings and prices are subject to change.

The paper never explains exactly how price is “taken into consideration.” Presumably, it means that a restaurant could receive a bonus star for being an exceptionally good value, or be docked a star for being too expensive.

I’d like to challenge that. Should the rating be price-sensitive? I can state at least four good reasons why not.

1. It is Open To Manipulation. In many notable cases, restaurants have raised their prices—sometimes substantially—just after they received a glowing New York Times review. For instance, when Frank Bruni awarded four stars to Eleven Madison Park, the prix fixe was $88; a year later, it is $125. Sam Sifton awarded four stars to Del Posto just a month ago; now, they have dropped their à la carte option, locking customers into a (minimum) $95 prix fixe.

I am not suggesting that either restaurant would lose the fourth star if the critic went back today, but these are hardly isolated examples. Country raised its prix fixe from $85 to $110 after Bruni gave it three stars. Fiamma went from $75 to $95 (later partly rolled back after Bruni called them on it). At Falai, a two-star restaurant, Bruni likewise saw a noticeable price increase (beyond the rate of inflation) when he returned two years later. In a blog post, he surveyed several other examples.

Now, I do realize that anything can change at a restaurant. But a talented chef is probably going to stay talented; an attractive dining room is probably going to remain that way. Prices, on the other hand, are merely the function of what a manager types into a word processor.

2. It Depends on Factors the Critic Can’t See. According to Joe Bastianich (partner with Mario Batali at Del Posto and many other restaurants), food is only 30 percent of the price—the rest being rent, labor, miscellany, and of course profit. The critic can see the food on the plate. He generally has no idea if the restauranteur got a sweet rent deal that enables him to undersell comparable restaurants. The restaurant might be saddled with union labor, which tacks on added costs. Restaurants that are part of larger empires might have the flexibility to run at a loss for a while, an option that independent outfits don’t have. Restaurants in hotels might be subsidized.

Lower rents, of course, are the reason why the dining scene has flourished in neighborhoods not formerly known for fine dining, like the Lower East Side, the East Village, and Brooklyn. (The same was true twenty-five years ago in Tribeca, but it clearly isn’t now.) But those chefs don’t deserve bonus stars, just because they choose to locate in a low-rent district. Critics review restaurants, not rent deals.

3. It Makes Comparisons Much More Difficult. It is already hard enough to discern whether a pair of two-star restaurants are really comparable, when one four-tiered system needs to accommodate every genre and cuisine. But it only adds to the confusion when there is a mysterious price element in the mix. Is the two-star Torrisi Italian Specialties really punching at the same weight as fellow Italian two-stars Maialino and A Voce Columbus? Or is Torrisi getting a bonus for serving a bounty of pretty good food for just $50? It’s quite a bit less than you would pay at the other two places, but is it actually as good in the absolute sense?

4. Critics Should Evaluate Quality, Full Stop. Think about the other disciplines in which The Times employs critics: music, dance, film, theater, books, fashion, architecture. In no other, does the price of the product figure in the review. A critic gives an informed reaction to the product, independent of its economics. The Times doesn’t give better reviews to plays that open in cheaper off-Broadway houses; it reviews the production, not its price.

I am not suggesting that diners don’t, or shouldn’t, care what the meal costs. Of course we do. But value from the customer’s perspective depends on factors the critic can’t easily assess. For all of the above reasons, I think The Times ratings should be based on quality, full stop. The reviews, of course, would still show price ranges (as they do now). Diners can decide for themselves if the restaurant is “worth it.”

Wednesday
Sep022009

Born Round by Frank Bruni

I’m a slow reader. Frank Bruni’s memoir, Born Round, is two-week-old news. I finished it yesterday.

Let me first say what this book isn’t: a kiss-and-tell recap of Bruni’s five years as New York Times restaurant critic. There are twenty chapters, and he isn’t even offered the job until the sixteenth. There are anecdotes about the reviewing gig, most of which have been excerpted on various websites. But even if you don’t already know them, they’re not the reason for reading Born Round.

No, the book’s unifying theme is Bruni’s battle with a minor compulsive eating disorder. I have to call it minor, because he’s not Karen Carpenter, and he hasn’t had a rubber band surgically wrapped around his stomach. But he has struggled with self-loathing for much of his adult life. He would turn down dates if he was seven pounds too heavy. At his nadir in the early 2000s, he was upwards of 85 pounds overweight.

I can relate to some of this. At about the time Bruni hit rock-bottom, I was around 30 pounds overweight. Bruni solved it with relentless exercise. His willingness to endure six-mile runs and sadistic trainers is probably what saved him. For me, the only answer was deprivation. Today is a Wednesday. I haven’t had a full meal since Sunday, and probably won’t again until Friday. The only things I eat in the meantime are small snacks, and only a few of them. Despite that, I’m still the ever-elusive seven pounds away.

Before he hit bottom, Bruni tried just about everything: vomiting, speed, Prozac, starvation, Atkins, and many other dieting fads. Each step forward was countered with two steps back. He ate voraciously and indiscriminately. A maternalistic Times colleague wondered if he could become a restaurant critic without endangering his health.

Ironically, the reviewing job gave him the structure he needed. When eating 7–10 big meals per week is part of your job, you can’t rationalize it away. There’s no saying, “I’ll just go on a diet tomorrow.” There can be no diet. Knowing that there was no escape provided the motivation Bruni needed to stay in shape. The money he saved by not having to pay for his own meals went to trainers and health clubs. After five years of eating for a living, he is in the best physical shape of his life.

None of this would be compelling reading if Bruni wasn’t such an entertaining writer. He’s at his best when he’s writing about himself. Family members couldn’t possibly be as perfect as he makes them out to be. But when he turns inward, he writes with self-deprecating humor that makes even the most humdrum material stand out:

There were other problems with Prozac as well. While it diminished my sex drive only modestly, it pushed back its satiation much more substantially, so that I found myself going round and round the block without any sure sign that I’d ever get to pull into the garage. As often as not I just gave up and left my car idling at the foot of the driveway.

That has to be one of the better paragraphs about masturbation ever penned.

In case you haven’t heard, Bruni is gay. He writes volubly about his sex life, stopping only at the bedroom door: the film of Born Round will get a PG–13 rating with nothing left out. Growing up gay doesn’t seem to have caused him much trouble. Though his beloved Italian grandmother never knew, the rest of his family found out promptly before he was twenty, and he doesn’t seem to have suffered for it.

As a journalist, Bruni has led a charmed life, attracting one plum assignment after another. Writing well on a deadline comes easily to him. He’s also a dabbler. The five years he spent as restaurant critic appear to be the longest he has ever spent at anything. He is able to write about any subject on the shortest notice, which has spared him the necessity of developing real expertise. If he has a lifelong intellectual passion for any particular field, the book shows no evidence of it.

There is, of course, passion for family—gregarious, prosperous, well-fed, and relatively untroubled. There are two poignant deaths; aside from that, time with family is what makes him happiest. The lack of drama makes some of these episodes a tad less interesting than the rest of the book. After a while, many of the holiday dinners start to sound the same.

By now, it’s old news that Bruni did not have the conventional background for a restaurant critic. The book makes clear just how little experience he had. Until he was appointed Rome bureau chief for the Times—just two years before he got the restaurant gig—practically his only dining memories outside of the home were lowbrow: junk food, fast food, diners, chains and bodegas. Cold noodles with sesame paste was as close as he came to a gourmet experience, aside from an annual meal with Dad at the Four Seasons, and a steakhouse here and there.

After he got the restaurant job, the Times sent him on an immersion course in fine dining. Pierre Gagnaire in Paris—sampled on a whirlwind tour—seems to have been the only Michelin three-star restaurant he had ever tried in his life. The food was secondary on that occasion. The only memory he shares is that of dining in the same clothes he wore on the plane, because Air France had lost his luggage.

He has since been to a couple of other three-star places—none in France—which explains his bias as a critic. He waxes rhapsodic about ricotta cheese in Italy and Tyson’s chicken in Detroit, but the French restaurants are a blur. Indeed, given his lack of preparation for the job, it is miraculous that his tenure as a critic didn’t turn out a lot worse.

Ultimately, the book is about Bruni’s triumph over binge eating. The last chapter attempts to distill the lessons he’s learned. I don’t know how many readers will find themselves similarly situated. That’s not my case, as I’ve solved the problem my own way.

I found the book entertaining nevertheless. Bruni’s in his early 40s, but he’s had a lifetime’s worth of experiences. He makes them well worth reading about.

Wednesday
Aug192009

The Worst of Bruni

Frank Bruni’s tenure as a restaurant critic has come to an end. On Monday, we posted the Best of Bruni. Now, we turn to his failures.

My opinion of Bruni isn’t any great secret. He’s an entertaining writer and a top-notch journalist, but he had no background in food, and it showed. The Times would never put a novice in its music department or its science department. Why, then, did they put a novice in the restaurant department?

Despite his inexperience, Bruni eventually got the hang of it. Any intelligent person with a six-figure dining budget would make at least some of the right calls, and would improve with time. But his aversion to fine dining and his narrow preference for a few limited cuisines severely hampered his effectiveness.

As I did with the Best of Bruni, I’ve made a list of 10 items, but with so much to choose from, a few of the items are thematic rather than individual reviews. Here, then, is the worst of Bruni:

Click to read more ...

Monday
Aug172009

The Best of Bruni

As we count down the days to Frank Bruni’s exit, it’s time to look back on the best and worst of his tenure. This post will focus on his greatest hits. Another, dedicated to his failures, is available here.

Bruni’s best reviews were his smackdowns. It’s easy to write an entertaining bad review, but describing excellence requires a depth of knowledge that Bruni didn’t have. He couldn’t really explain persuasively why things were great; he came alive when they were awful. His other successes came when he broke the mold of the conventional review format, and I’ve selected a few of those examples, too.

Here, then, are Bruni’s 10 greatest hits:

Click to read more ...

Friday
Jun122009

Aimless Bruni Speculation

Frank Bruni was named New York Times restaurant critic on April 8, 2004. His first review appeared 62 days later, on June 9, 2004 (Babbo, three stars).

The first non-Bruni Times review will be published on August 26, 75 days from now. This suggests that if the Times does not name a successor sometime roughly within the next 2–3 weeks, there will likely be another interim critic, as there was between William Grimes’s departure at the end of 2003, and Bruni’s arrival.

Bruni, of course, had to relocate from Rome, where he had been the bureau chief. Someone who already lives in New York, and who is familiar with the local restaurant scene, wouldn’t need as long a runway.

It has been 29 days since Times editor Bill Keller announced that Bruni was stepping down. Aside from Eater.com’s long list of candidates, posted that same week, I haven’t seen any speculation or rumor-mongering, which suggests the Times is doing a good job of keeping its search private.

We can only hope that as Keller sifts through candidates, he is taking our advice to heart.

Thursday
May142009

Does Bruni have another 4-star review in him?

Over at Eater.com, Ben Leventhal asks the existential question:

The biggest question is, Will The Brunisimo inaugurate one more restaurant into the four star club before he leaves? He confirmed Daniel’s four stars in January, but hasn’t put a new restaurant into the club since Masa in late 2004. Frequent dining companions of his whisper about the man’s quiet interest in finding one more perfect restaurant before he departs. And these critics, they like to leave a mark, which to me means we’ve got one more four star review coming if any restaurant even comes close to getting it done.

We totally agree with Leventhal that Bruni must be itching to play king-maker one more time. Indeed, we’ve noted before, Bruni currently holds the record for the longest interval between new four-star reviews. Awarding four stars—not reaffirming, as he did with Daniel, but awarding—is a critic’s signature moment, and he has kept his powder dry for the last 4½ years.

We doubt, though, that Bruni will pull the trigger unless he’s convinced. In a post late last year, he mentioned recent visits to Eleven Madison Park and Del Posto—clearly looking for an excuse to promote them to four stars, but finding both wanting.

Here are the restaurants that Leventhal thinks could break the string, with Eater’s trademark odds:

Marea: 3-1
Aureole: 10-1
Del Posto: 18-1
Blue Hill, Stone Barns: 19-1
Babbo (Bruni’s first review): 75-1
Momofuku Ko: 298-1
Le Cirque: 500-1
Locanda Verde: 5,000-1

We do not think Marea is designed to compete with the likes of Le Bernardin and Jean Georges. In flusher times, Chris Cannon and Michael White would no doubt have liked to, but by all appearances it seems they (wisely) hedged their bets. The new Aureole, even if it ultimately gets four stars, is probably opening too late (not till June, by most reports).

Del Posto needs to be crossed off the list for now, based on Bruni’s year-end comments. Babbo? I doubt that even Mario Batali thinks it’s a four-star restaurant. We certainly agree that Le Cirque is the longest of long-shots, and Locanda Verde is (by its creators’ admission) intended to be a neighborhood place.

In our view, that leaves only Momofuku Ko and Blue Hill Stone Barns as plausible candidates. We think BHSB is a near-perfect restaurant, but even if Bruni thinks that, would he award four stars to a restaurant that is not even in New York City?

That leaves Momofuku Ko. Bruni has been curiously silent about the ambitious lunch menu that was launched after his original review. That lunch menu would certainly provide the excuse for a re-review, and if the inconsistencies he wrote about have been smoothed out, perhaps Ko would be the place.

Given Bruni’s long-standing shine for everything Chang, we have to think that Momofuku Ko is the best candidate.

Edit to Add: I am not saying that I believe Momofuku Ko will be (or should be) upgraded to four stars. I am only saying that if Bruni files another four-star review, Ko is a more likely recipient than any other.