Chef, There's a Restaurant Critic in Our Dining Room!
Can a restaurant actually do a better job if they recognize a restaurant critic or VIP in the dining room?
Let's face it, if a restaurant is mediocre to start with, what difference would it make?
On the other hand, if a restaurant is already above average, what extra embellishments would be necessary?
Wouldn't other tables take notice? Isn't this whole business about restaurant critics and commentators remaining "disguised" or "secretive" overdone?
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.
Start Talking!
Need a question answered? Have advice to share? Start a Talk topic now!
Sign up to get your questions answered and share advice.
13 Comments:
A lousy restaurant probably wouldn't recognize the critic, unless of course he made a reservation as Joe The Restaurant Critic.
I think that in some cases, the waitstaff would pay extra attention to the critic and might take extra care that everything leaving the kitchen was as perfect as it could be. So, no stupid mistakes.
But, as you said, the restaurant can only rise as far as it is capable, so the critic would always be critiquing the best possible effort at a particular place, rather than a random sampling that might include a cranky waiter or an overcooked fish.
I think there's room for both sorts of reviews -- the professional's version of the best the restaurant has to offer, and the average diner's impression of an average night. With all the online opportunities for average people to post their views, I think we've got plenty of the random/average. So if reviewers want to go in and say, "show me what you can do," I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's obvious that the reviewer is in fact getting the best the restaurant can do on that particular night.
dbcurrie at 1:26PM on 01/17/09
Well said dbcurrie! In fact I have nothing else to add.
dhorst at 2:24PM on 01/17/09
Actually, from what I've heard, a restaurant can do a lot--they can pick the best meats, the freshest produce, make sure special attention is given to everything--even go out and get extra fancy ingredients they don't normally serve and I've also heard that photos are posted of critics in the kitchens of lots of top restaurants for a reason.
Then again, I also recall reading a review where Frank Bruni's dining companion had white wine spilled all over her by the waiter, so there is only so much you can do when incompetence really runs deep. At least it wasn't red! Obviously, if he hadn't been working for the NY Times it would have been red!
HeartofGlass at 3:01PM on 01/17/09
I worked in a Fine Dining restaurant that was expecting a critic to show up soon after it opened. She either made a place or not. Whatever she wrote her readers would go by, my whole issue was she had no food background whatsoever. She never went to Culinary School or anything near it. Not many people even knew what she looked like. Our only advantage was one of the restaurant managers worked at another restaurant where she had been before. I just don't know why people would read her column.
joanpieroni2 at 3:07PM on 01/17/09
There are two different things here -- one is a restaurant expecting to be reviewed shortly after opening. In certain towns, with restaurants of a certain class, they will be expecting a review. Nothing you can do about that. And even with advance notice, not all of them meet expectations.
The other thing is reviewers hiding their identites. Making a reservation a week in advance gives the restaurant time to shop and prepare, but if the reviewer's face is known but he doesn't give advance warning, the restaurant can only do a certain amount of upgrading. They might hand-pick the fish fillets for a particular dish, but they can only choose from what's on-hand -- it's not like they're going to run to the docks and catch some fish while the reviewer waits.
And if the treatment the reviewer gets is too special, then the dining public isn't going to be happy with what they get, so wowing the reviewer can backfire. So if the review says "There were seventeen extra-large shrimp per diner" but the average serving is three shrimp, people aren't going to be happy, and the online average-guy reviews are going to reflect that.
As far as what the reviewers know, the local paper has started running anonymous reviews, and I swear they're written by different people, based on the style. And I think they're passing this off to interns, based on the not-so-good writing. And the fact that in some cases, the reviews are so far off the mark that if the restaurant name wasn't mentioned, I'd never recognize it from the reviews.
dbcurrie at 3:51PM on 01/17/09
My issue is no one knows what the name is that she uses for a reservation or what she looks like but moreover she has NO food background at all. So why does everyone swear by what her review says?
joanpieroni2 at 4:38PM on 01/17/09
@joan, it's the same thing as people who get their political views from celebrities or who buy unrelated products endorsed by sports stars. It doesn't make sense, but it's common.
When it comes to reviews, if someone's opinions are close to my own, I trust that I'll agree with them again. If their opinions are far from mine, then I trust that I should do the opposite. Either people generally agree with this woman's taste in food, or they just like following the leader.
dbcurrie at 5:09PM on 01/17/09
Well, I am not an unbiased commentator here. But there are several points to be made. Most dining customers didn't go to culinary school, either, of course. I think the primary requirement is that they love to eat, and have some ability to discriminate in terms of their food. As the retired-after-30-years-at-the-local-lalrge-newspaper's-food-critic says, "If being recognized makes such a difference, why did I get so many bad meals?" It's very easy to tell if you've been "made" as you dine. It's very easy to tell if other people are having service problems - craning necks, un-bussed tables, raised voices, overheard comments. The steaks may be larger. But why are critics being served brown lettuce in their salads? Spilled wine is (presumably) an accident. But a plate so hot that it scorched the tablecloth? Not telling the critic about all the specials that night when you hear the next table being offered them? If the soup is oversalted, they're not going to make a new, less-salty batch when Frank Bruni walks in. And if the critic is recognized and the chef insists on offering, gratis, his new appetizer and the ap is truly awful, what's to be done about that?
It's an interesting, challenging life. And I'm not complaining. But it aint' all beer and skittles, especially facing the second visit to the Truly Awful Restaurant
lemons at 5:49PM on 01/17/09
Thanks Pavlov
joanpieroni2 at 7:30PM on 01/17/09
And actors say the same things about theater and film critics.
lemons at 7:37PM on 01/17/09
Great feedback...to use two unrelated examples that appeared in the media...there was the animated film: Ratatouille not long ago, when the house knew that their city's notoriously fussy restaurant critic was coming to visit and were able to win him over (it was interesting to hear the philosophy on both sides of the issue)...and the recent documentary about Le Cirque in Manhattan, when soon after re-opening in the Bloomberg building, Sirio says he knows the New York Times is coming in next Wednesday, or something...(well, how did he know this? But that is another issue). Even with 'knowing' that Bruni would be coming in they managed only a 'two star' rating, which for Le Cirque was not adequate. After changing chefs, they managed to finally get their 3 stars...
gutreactions at 9:07AM on 01/18/09
Another thing to consider with restaurant reviewers is that, depending on the newpaper they work for and the city they report on, as well as when they were hired, they might have been hired based on a journalism degree rather than any culinary knowledge beyond what a normal person knows about eating at restaurants.
In smaller markets, the reviewers tend to be reporters who have earned the "bonus" of getting a free meal or theater tickets, which they review afterwards.
Someone who is good enough at writing the reviews (meaning that the editors and readers like the reviews in terms of being an interesting read, and not necessarily that they have intricate culinary experience) that writer might move on to more reviews or a better market.
So in many cases, the journalism degree and/or experience might have initially been more important than the culinary background.
A NY newspaper hiring today might have different criteria, but in the smaller markets, that reviewer might very well be the same person who is proofing the classifieds and typing in the obits.
dbcurrie at 2:22PM on 01/18/09
To lighten things a bit, we used to have a ridiculous 'anonymous' critic who would show up at restaurants with a paper bag over his head. It was fun watching him try to eat through the whole in the bag :-)
Josdean at 4:23PM on 01/21/09