Skip to main content

A Restaurant Review Worthy of Ebert and Siskel (z"l)

A bunch of years ago, Gene Siskel (z"l) and Roger Ebert were reviewing a movie on their public TV show, "At the Movies." I can't tell you the name of the movie, but I can recall the palpable outrage of these two film critics - men who loved everything about film, who lived for the cinematic experience, who took and studied the art form very seriously - at a piece of mediocre movie making that was being passed off as fine art. They were livid, and they made no bones about it. It wasn't that the movie was bad; bad movies are 99% of what gets produced. What made them furious was what (if I recall) appeared to them to be an obscene waste of time, money, precious and rare creativity and resources on a half-baked, mediocre effort. The movie was bad? Fine. The intent was mediocrity? THAT was unforgivable. I came away from that episode shaken by their intensity.

And yesterday, Pete Wells, a restaurant critic for the New York Times, offered a scathing review of Guy's American Kitchen & Bar in Times Square. At first glance, it's wickedly funny; the entire review consists of sarcastic questions, such as the opening lines:
GUY FIERI, have you eaten at your new restaurant in Times Square? Have you pulled up one of the 500 seats at Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar and ordered a meal? Did you eat the food? Did it live up to your expectations?
Drinks that taste like "formaldehyde" and "radiator fluid." Service that would be unacceptable at a fast-food chain drive through. Food that is either unrecognizable from the menu description or cold or never served or inedible. The sarcasm drips and drips and I was left breathless with laughter and then stone-cold silent with an uncomfortable pit in my stomach.

I was immediately brought back to that "At the Movies" episode. And I immediately understood what was happening here.

Wells didn't go (or was sent) to this high-priced tourist trap so that he could enjoy the atmosphere, dine on an epicurean masterpiece, and write a Zagat-quality review. Wells went, I believe, to expose anger at what's being foisted on diners and "foodie" television viewers: mediocre food and mediocre television values by a network that has reduced itself to porn-style food competitions (think I'm kidding? watch Giada De Laurentiis in her low-cut, form very fitting top ingest one of her succulent ... you get the point). Guy Fieri went from being "The Next Food Network Star" to the FN equivalent of Curtis Sliwa few years ago on WFAN radio (WFAN listeners will remember when WFAN was going through transitions in its morning line up and had become "all Curtis all the time").

Here's the thing: most New Yorkers - and frequent visitors - know enough to steer clear of Times Square dining. We know that, armed with our Yelp and Trip Advisor apps or a reasonable guide book or some back issues of New York Magazine or the Times, we can walk a few blocks in either direction and find ourselves in really good, moderately priced restaurants with wait staff that want to serve and chefs and cooks and bartenders that take pride in their offerings. But tourists either don't know that or they think that Times Square is what its PR says it is, the center of the universe. They see "Guy Fieri" or Hard Rock or some other brand-y, chain-y, familiar name, and they think, "ah - I recognize this." They think that eating at Hard Rock or Cheesecake Factory or, now, Guy's gives them the "New York Experience." It's the rare tourist who's willing to fork over funds to an unknown entity. 
"Hey - how was New York City? Where'd you eat?"
"Some really great out-of-the-way places with delicious ethnic foods and great New York atmosphere!"
"Wait - you didn't eat at [insert famous place/name here]"?
"No; we heard it wasn't very good."
"Oh. Well, that's nice."  
It's not a blame thing here - it's just the way tourism works. When my husband and I visited South Korea in 2011, we were tempted to do the same thing: if it looked familiar, we went there. It was only when our son and great tour guides helped us get beyond the few blocks surrounding our hotel in Seoul that we found really good and honest experiences.

Bottom line: I believe Wells went to this restaurant knowing exactly what he was going to get and determined to perform a Siskel-and-Ebert rage-infused public service aimed at letting New Yorkers and tourists know that should they decide to eat at this celebrity joint, at least they should know for sure what they are getting into. Enough with the celebu-chef nonsense that drains wallets and diminishes what for him should be, if not fine dining, then at least an honest menu/meal. Do I think that Guy Fieri intended mediocrity? I hope not. But it wouldn't surprise me if he really doesn't care. And that, my friends, is what I think made Pete Wells go through the roof.











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Erev Rosh Hashanah 5777: WAIT

I got the best advice from my son: "Mom, why are you even engaging with these people? Please stop."

I've got people on Facebook who - while holding similar philosophies in some areas - are 180 degrees from me politically. I long ago determined that arguing with these people is counterproductive, only useful if I believe - science notwithstanding - that heartrate-raising arguments is equal to a good cardio workout.

And so my goal for today is to WAIT (by the way, not an original concept - I learned it from Rabbi Andy Sklarz): Why Am I Talking?

Provocateurs and bullies want to be engaged. They poke, someone responds, and the game is afoot. Like fire, they need constant air renewal. So if don't engage, don't respond, they will run out of air.

So for today, I grit my teeth ... and wait.


Elul 21: The airline safety guide (Love)

You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am Adonai. (Lev. 19:18)

You shall love the stranger that dwells with you (who will be for you like the native-born among you), as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am Adonai, your God. (Lev. 19:34)

And you shall love Adonai your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might ... (Deut. 6:5)

If you've paid attention to your flight attendant, you know that in the event of an emergency, you put your own oxygen mask on first. Only then do you help someone next to you, including a child. Why? Because if you don't have oxygen, you're useless to anyone else.

It's the same with love.

Start by loving and caring for yourself. It's not selfish; it's just a place to start.

Then move outward: your neighbor, your community, the strangers around you.

Then, finally, the realm of God: the spiritual love that holds all the others together.

But it all starts in your own home.


Elul 23: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:50 (Begin)

Someone I knew hated the expression "new beginning" because it was redundant. The argument was that beginning implies new, right?

Not necessarily. A "do-over" is a beginning of sorts that acknowledges that the first try got muffed up. "Start again, from the beginning" and "begin again" are phrases I use regularly with students and choir singers. A "new" beginning is an attitude, a mindset, an awareness that we have a chance to do something with a fresh take, a new vision. 

Even  בראשית ברא אלוהים, B'reishit bara Elohim, the first words in the Bible, are translated frequently as "when God was beginning," implying that starting this new venture was an ongoing event. It's suggested that God had given this new world thing a go several times already, was about to abandon the effort, and only the angels' intervention gave God the oomph to give it another try ... this time with feeling (as the saying goes).

We're about …