Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

I thought some had interpreted Yvonne as saying that the Times should only review restaurants which are clear contenders for the highest rating (hence cries of elitism). I think she was in fact saying that they should only review restaurants which are contenders to be rated somewhere on the four star scale.

 

Maybe I am making it all more confusing.

Yes, I agree that that's what Yvonne said. My question is: what disqualifies the 2nd Avenue Deli? The perception that the NYT critic historically reviews only sit-down places with wine lists just ain't so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

but a hypothetical awesome taco truck could be a contender for one star. why not?

 

Of course. Although it's hard to imagine what could be so special, why not indeed?

 

If the 2nd Ave Deli was producing "transcendent" deli food, I'd have no objection to the review. As we've seen, people have had to fall back on "history" and "publicity" as the reasons for the review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
re the taco truck: It should be a $25 and under. I think we all agree that the line between the two categories has been muddied.

 

 

why? a hypothetical most awesome taco truck on the planet would deserve a full review.

 

seriously, do people here actually care about food?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought some had interpreted Yvonne as saying that the Times should only review restaurants which are clear contenders for the highest rating (hence cries of elitism). I think she was in fact saying that they should only review restaurants which are contenders to be rated somewhere on the four star scale.

 

Maybe I am making it all more confusing.

Yes, I agree that that's what Yvonne said. My question is: what disqualifies the 2nd Avenue Deli? The perception that the NYT critic historically reviews only sit-down places with wine lists just ain't so.

In my own view, that there's nothing about the food which makes it a better contender for a review than a bunch of other good delis and diners around town. And the newspaper had already covered the history.

 

I think Frank's need to import a celebrity panel is very supportive of my point. He didn't need to do that with Luger, for example: it's easy to write five hundred words about Luger's steaks. Ditto Katz's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but a hypothetical awesome taco truck could be a contender for one star. why not?

 

Of course. Although it's hard to imagine what could be so special, why not indeed?

 

If the 2nd Ave Deli was producing "transcendent" deli food, I'd have no objection to the review. As we've seen, people have had to fall back on "history" and "publicity" as the reasons for the review.

 

 

but that's not a fallback!!!!!!!!!!!

 

that's the reason that many restaurants get reviewed. if Adour sucks, that would still be a reason to review it!

 

that's why the Four Seasons merited a review! or Cipriani!

Link to post
Share on other sites
re the taco truck: It should be a $25 and under. I think we all agree that the line between the two categories has been muddied.

 

 

why? a hypothetical most awesome taco truck on the planet would deserve a full review.

 

seriously, do people here actually care about food?

 

No, only about arguing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that when Sokolov reviewed McDonald's, it was unique. He was probably reviewing the one and only McDonald's in town. There was no Wendy's, no Burger King, no Papaya King, no Pret-a-Manger. It was, in other words, critically noteworthy.

 

Exactly. He reviewed the first McDonald's to open in the City. When it was a big deal -- a paradigm shift, you might say -- to have an urban McDonald's, or indeed to have any suburban chain open a franchise in the City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but that's not a fallback!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Then why wasn't the review about the food? Why did Bruni himself say they weren't talking about a "specific" restaurant?

 

that's the reason that many restaurants get reviewed.

 

Name one.

 

if Adour sucks, that would still be a reason to review it!

 

But that would be about the food.

 

that's why the Four Seasons merited a review! or Cipriani!

 

The Cipriani review was a waste of space too - more so, even. The Four Seasons review, as I said earlier, was an overdue take down, based on the food.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
but that's not a fallback!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Then why wasn't the review about the food? Why did Bruni himself say they weren't talking about a "specific" restaurant?

Oh, I agree with you that this review was poorly written. That's true of many Bruni reviews—not because the restaurant is inappropriate, but because Frank just whiffs on the opportunity.

 

The Cipriani review was a waste of space too - more so, even. The Four Seasons review, as I said earlier, was an overdue take down, based on the food.

In that case, why not Harry Cipriani? It was carrying two stars from Bryan Miller. Arguably, it was more overdue than the Four Seasons. After all, Bruni still left the Four Seasons at two stars ("very good"), and there was plenty there that he liked. Harry Cipriani came way with no stars at all.

 

To put it another way, if you order right, you can still have a three-star meal at the Four Seasons, but there is no conceivable way to have a two-star meal at Harry Cipriani.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I named several. including Adour.

 

there are 52 review spots each year. hundreds of new restaurants. hundreds of restaurants that merit re-reviewing. Buzz, historical considerations, etc.....obviously are basic criteria that every critic uses to assess which restaurants to review. simple as that.

 

why will Dovetail get a full review while BLT Market (so far...though it could still get a full review) doesn't?

 

cause Dovetail being on the UWS makes a review necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cipriani review was a waste of space too - more so, even. The Four Seasons review, as I said earlier, was an overdue take down, based on the food.

In that case, why not Harry Cipriani? It was carrying two stars from Bryan Miller.

 

That is a very good reason. One thing I've learnt from this discussion is that some people have amazing command of historic Times restaurant rankings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I named several. including Adour.

 

We can immediately discount that as it has no history and it will not be reviewed because of publicity.

 

cause Dovetail being on the UWS makes a review necessary.

 

The relevance eludes me, unless you're suggesting that Dovetail would be inappropriate for a review if it was located elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
why will Dovetail get a full review while BLT Market (so far...though it could still get a full review) doesn't?

 

cause Dovetail being on the UWS makes a review necessary.

There may be an important point lurking there, but Dovetail is a bad example. That restaurant would be reviewed no matter where in town it was located (entrées in the $30s, chef previously earned two stars at another place).

 

Bruni apparently decided to ignore BLT Market (a bad call on his part) because he thought it was just another outpost in a chain. Had Tourondel called it simply "Market", I think it would have been reviewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...