PrintAlan Richman Slams Les Halles: Payback for Anthony Bourdain's Golden Clog Awards
Food critic Alan Richman, blogging for GQ, totally dogs Les Halles, the restaurant many food TV fans know as Anthony Bourdain's joint. (Bourdain consults for Les Halles as "chef-at-large.") Says Richman:
What's more appalling than the food or even the absurd title of Chef-at-Large is that the smirking Bourdain has somehow become the de facto public face of the restaurant industry. It's as if Steven Seagal had been named president of the Screen Actors Guild.
The review is unusually harsh, from seating to dessert, and one can't help but wonder if it's payback for the Golden Clog award that Bourdain and Michael Ruhlman bestowed upon Richman last month. Why Les Halles? Why now?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
Hot Topics
Sponsored Link
Recipe
Mango Bean Salad
Fresh fruit and hearty beans make a refreshing side for our Morningstar
Farms® Southwestern Style Veggie Cakes.
Get this recipe »
23 Comments:
Is it payback or living up to the dubious award?
wookie at 1:16PM on 03/12/08
I seen last nights show and have had lunch at Les Halles within the last year. It's certainly not the same as it was a few years ago when Tony ran the show, but it's not as bad as Alan is trying to make us believe. The negative comments did seem more geared towards Tony and his association with Les Halles as opposed to the actual quality of the food.
jonfoxx at 1:34PM on 03/12/08
Is it payback or living up to the dubious award?
When you mess with douchebags, you should expect douchebag behavior.
After watching the show, I looked up the menu and to be completely honest, it entirely depicts the current casually upscale dining experience: one step above Applebees, one step below a steakhouse.
jayfallon at 1:49PM on 03/12/08
It's payback from someone who looks like a cross between a Chijuajua and Fidel Castro. Sorry to both the Chijuajua and Fidel Castro. Richman is as relevant to cuisine today, as Corazon Aquino is to the shoe industry. Cheaper shots haven't been taken since spring break at Senor Frogs in the late 80's! Get over yourself Richman, Steven Seagal will be president of SAG before you realise talent.
Pavlov at 1:53PM on 03/12/08
I think you're being a bit harsh, Pavlov. I think Alan is a terrific writer and first-rate critic. It's just that sometimes he can be excessively vituperative, as he was in the case of his Les Halles post. We try to stay away from that kind of bile-filled invective on Serious Eats.
Ed Levine at 2:02PM on 03/12/08
If it is retribution for the award, I find it incredibly amusing that someone would take those awards so seriously. They were a self-professed invention of drunken stupor, delivered in a drunken stupor. All in good fun.
lexophile at 2:06PM on 03/12/08
@ Ed... perhaps you're right... I should have kept the word Chijuajua out of it... I guess it just sort of slipped out. It has been my experience that Mr. Richman doesn't really like food, or the process of getting to good food. A lot of folks are good writers... Dr. Seuss comes to mind, and he didn't like green eggs n' ham.
Pavlov at 2:16PM on 03/12/08
jonfoxx, which review did you read?!?!?
He destroys the food:
"flavorless and fatty house terrine, tasted like truck-stop cuisine"
"escargots acrid from undercooked garlic"
"Steak au poivre [...] was another variation on the theme of acridity."
"the duck leg wasn't any tastier than those that come from a can"
""truffled potatoes" accompanying it were greasy diced spuds."
"choux pastry was inedible—cold, soggy, and undercooked."
"mushy crêpes drowned miserably in an alcoholic, orange-flavored bath."
seyo at 2:23PM on 03/12/08
Um, "acrid from undercooked garlic"? No. Undercooked garlic is harsh; overcooked garlic is acrid.
BaHa at 2:35PM on 03/12/08
Bourdain is a big boy, no biggie.
foodinmouth at 4:47PM on 03/12/08
Eh, whatever. Bourdain still has my heart.
cochon at 4:56PM on 03/12/08
what's worse, a poorly written review or living up to every descriptor you are reacting to?
sorry, how can you take anyone seriously who compares plates you know are not even close to "truck-stop" and "canned goods". It's just lazy and thoughtless. And I am not saying that they were not "bad" or arn't prepared poorly on the regular, just that those are the words of a grinding axe who can't even find a truly clever way to dis the food.
You could pick this thing apart 100 different ways, but in the end all you have to do is look at how many times Tony is mentioned, the context of those mentions and then think: what the hell does it have to do with the food? Nothing at this point, and I think all those involved would be happy to admit that.
Abe Froman at 5:26PM on 03/12/08
bourdain worship is bizarre. I like the books and the shows too, but the way any critique of the man raises hackles is pretty silly.
of course bourdain openly admits he hasn't cooked in years (its part of his carefully constructed public identity these days it seems), and it surely benefits the management to have his name on there, but he doesn't seem to mind the attention and I don't know that he ever requested his name be removed, however dubious his title as "chef-at-large" might be.
like foodinmouth said, Bourdain can handle it, probably even appreciates when people attempt to slam him, however bitter and flaccid the attack. if he is such a great guy he probably gets tired of all the sycophantic babble.
intheyearofthepig at 5:44PM on 03/12/08
Bourdain worship is certainly frowned up...worship of anybody is. But the fact remains that Richman's 'review" was more of a personal attack against Bourdain, probably because of the golden clogs. Criticism of hte food is certainly fair, but the restaurant doesn't seem to pretend to be somthing that it isn't. The snarky and vicious tone certainly suggests that Richman wasn't really talking about the food...
acomment at 6:37PM on 03/12/08
he sounds so bitter and angry...its kind of funny
acomment at 6:40PM on 03/12/08
I've been to Les Halles both when Bordain was the actual chef, and with him as "chef at large." And I have to say, the place just isn't that great. I mean, it's a perfectly decent bistro type place and it's fine if you just want to go have dinner, but if you're expecting some great dining experience based on Bordain's fame as food writer (at which I think he awesome) or television personality, in my experience you're going to be disappointed.
Did it deserve all of Richman's vitriol? No, probably not.
I think what Bordain excels at is knowing great food and writing about great food, not necessarily making great food. And I say this with all respect. I adore Jeffrey Steingarten, and I love Calvin Trillen, but I could not dig up an ounce of enthusiasm at the idea of attending a restaurant opening by them.
I think that maybe what sticks in the craw of some food writers is his lack of actual skill vs. attitude. The man is not Jean-Georges Vongerichten (who I swear to god, if there is a heaven, the man will be making me breakfast, lunch and dinner), but he kind of acts sometimes like he thinks he is.
Personally, I don't care. I love his food books and will keep buying them as long as he keeps writing them. And I LOVE the Golden Clog Awards, and Alan Richman really needs to get over himself. He came across in the review exactly as his award described him.
chisai at 6:54PM on 03/12/08
The review sinply went overboard. Bourdain's not God and Les halles isn't Daniel, but the man is wonderful writer (and good fellow) and the restuarant is interesting and reliable. And Ruchamn's review was egregious.
annien at 8:23PM on 03/12/08
A lot of Richman's reviews go waaaay overboard. That's just his style. Remember his rip on New Orleans? Or his absurd hamburger list (that he lifted from me?) He's a total ass.
Hamburger America at 12:05AM on 03/13/08
The thing that disgusts me most about Richman’s post is the sheer lack of professionalism and ethics. I have no problem with someone giving a little back when they’ve been attacked; but Richman didn’t do it in the open. He hid his attack on Bourdain in what was supposed to be a restaurant review. Let’s be honest, there is absolutely no question that this was a personal attack on Bourdain. The whole post referred to him personally and little to do with Les Halles. Why not do the honest thing and trash Bourdain in the open? Why try to hide it?
This person is supposed to write reviews of restaurants that consumers can trust, at least to some degree. How can anyone trust any review that he has written or will write, after knowing that his reviews are directly related to personal feelings he has towards ownership? Will Le Bernardin get a bad review now because Ripert was on No Reservations? What about Per Se because Ruhlman wrote books for Keller? His poor attempt at subtly is not only unethical, but leaves him and GQ open to libel lawsuits.
I’m not saying the guy is Jayson Blair, but this certainly isn’t good journalism. GQ should retract the post in my opinion.
brandonphx at 12:30AM on 03/13/08
It also seems like Alan is spending to much time eating at truck stops and eating out of cans...
jonfoxx at 9:12AM on 03/13/08
Hey jonfoxx, I read an interview with him where he held up the Wendy's bacon cheeseburger as the best food available for 99 cents. So I don't trust anything else he'd have to say about the low end.
Generally, I'm relieved when anything Bourdain-related (such as this post and most commentors) doesn't refer to him as "Tony."
renzata at 11:25AM on 03/13/08
Sour grapes. Not professional. He deserved the "award".
PerkyMac at 6:16PM on 03/13/08
I love both Tony and Alan. I'm not sure why Tony called Alan a "douche" but if it was retribution for the New Orleans debacle, then I'm with Tony on this one.
--Guttergourmet
guttergour at 6:15PM on 03/15/08