Both of these examples come from movies but it is the same in real life. I have read several eloquent yet vicious reviews from the pages of the New York Times and other major newspapers. Including the following excerpt as the NYT critic took a prestigious four star restaurant down to two stars: "The kitchen could improve the bacon-wrapped cylinder of quail simply by not placing it on top of a dismal green pulp of cooked romaine lettuce, crunchy and mushy at once. Draining off the gluey, oily liquid would have helped a mushroom pot pie from turning into a swampy mess. I don't know what could have saved limp, dispiriting yam dumplings, but it definitely wasn't a lukewarm matsutake mushroom bouillon as murky and appealing as bong water."
Food criticism has a long history. People have been talking about food since a caveman or cavewoman put a hunk of meat over a fire. With the rise of restaurants in the 1700's in Paris, people started writing about the establishments and the dishes they served. One of the first restaurant critics was Alexandre Balthazar Laurent Grimod de La Reynière, a French lawyer and gourmand. His "Almanach des Gourmands", published in the early 1800's, reviewed Paris restaurants and gave his opinion on certain dishes. Others followed his lead and began writing about restaurants and what they prepared, including Alexandre Dumas of "The Count of Monte Cristo" fame.
The 20th Century brought about the professionalization of food criticism. First in 1900 with the publication of the Michelin Guide by the Michelin tire company. They wrote about restaurants and places out in the countryside, so people would get in their cars, hopefully riding on Michelin tires, and drive out and explore them. By the 1920's, the Michelin Guide began awarding stars to restaurants and became a benchmark for fine dining criticism. Several other guides, like Zagat and Gault Millau have appeared to join in the frenzy to be the defining guide. I have used all three to find good restaurants when I travel and they are fairly reliable.
After that came the start of food journalism, with recipes, reviews of restaurants and articles on food trends in newspapers and magazines. By the mid 20th century, newspapers and magazines employed food critics to cater to the growing interest in dining out. The main problem back then was they focussed on high end fine dining establishments, which at that time meant French restaurants. Today all major cities have food critics for their newspapers. There were also magazines devoted almost exclusively to food and wine and travel. When you travel you have to eat and if you're civilized drink wine.
It wasn't until the late 20th to early 21st Century that there was a democratization of food criticism. It expanded beyond fine dining to include a wider range of establishments, from casual eateries to street food vendors which reflected a shift in tastes for the majority of consumers.
With that came the rise of Food Media, television programs, whole television networks devoted to food. The early stars were mainly on PBS with James Beard starting in 1946. I especially remember watching Julia Child and Graham Kerr, the Galloping Gourmet. Their shows added a bit of humor and showmanship and took some of the mystery out of fine dining and gourmet cooking.
With the coming of the Internet, online platforms like Yelp, TripAdvisor as well as food blogs have entered the mix. These online platforms allow everyday diners to share their opinions, no matter how much or how little they actually know about food or cooking. Professional critics have had to learn to adapt to compete with all these widespread voices.
With all the old and new media focus on food and restaurants, chefs started to emerge as celebrities. No longer just masters of their kitchen, they became stars, with all the perks, challenges, and responsibilities that come with that. Their job was no longer just about cooking but also branding, media presence, and business ventures. With this, came money and power. Some of these rockstar chefs lost their way i.e. Mario Batali, Mike Isabella, and Paula Deen. Power, Money, and Ego is sometimes not a good mix.
When celebrity chefs lose their way, forgetting their main purpose is to create good quality food, the food critics are there to point out their failings. Which brings up the question, should they also pounce on small mom and pop operations, just trying to make a living. Or should they let word of mouth be the downfall of these types of establishments. Should they let the people who come in, sit in the seat, and put their money down each night be the ones to determine if a restaurant wins or loses. This is something I have pondered a lot over the years.
I have opened five restaurants in my career. I have been reviewed about twenty times by newspapers and magazines. I have received good reviews in every case except one and I deserved that bad review when I got it. I know for a fact, a good review will result in a surge in business, no one wants to miss out on the latest culinary hit, where the tables are full, the plates are empty, and there is a smile on every face. Critics wield a lot of power. They can make or break a small restaurant.
With the birth of social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Food Blogs we have witnessed the birth of the Food Influencer. Some of these folks are trained chefs and culinary experts who bring a vast knowledge of food and cooking techniques into their opinions, i.e. Emeril Lagasse, David Chang, and Massimo Bottura. Some of these influencers bring nothing more than a pretty or handsome face and the ability to snap a picture, but they have a large following brought about by the savvy ability to utilize this new media, i.e. Lara Lepp, Keith Lee, and Carleigh Bodrug. Then there are the middle ground influencers who have some not so formal culinary training and a huge following, i.e. Martha Stewart, Rachel Ray, and Nick DiGiovanni.
With the technology available today, pretty much anyone can take a great picture of a plate of food. With the technology available today most chefs can produce a beautiful plate of food. The ultimate question concerning that plate of food is: "What does it taste like". A picture doesn't tell you that. This is where a knowledgeable food critic becomes relevant.
In my career, I have run across several good knowledgeable food critics, Frank Bruni, Ruth Reichl, Jonathan Gold, Tom Sietsema, and Anthony Bourdain to name a few. These folks draw you an honest picture of a restaurant and its food without letting their egos get too involved.
Then you have someone like Michael Bauer, who spent 32 years as the critic for the San Francisco Chronicle. One could argue that being in that position for so long allowed his ego and power to take over. The old saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", could be abridged to read, "Power and ego corrupts and absolute power and ego corrupts absolutely".
No one has ever proved that Bauer used his power in a corrupt manner, although, several people have questioned it and especially combined with his 25-year relationship with companion Michael Murphy, who is involved in a culinary business. Conflict of interest?
The fact that Bauer never tried very hard to disguise himself when he visited restaurants and that most restaurants had his picture posted in their kitchens speaks a lot. Do you think he got special treatment? Where these restaurateurs and chefs intimidated by the fact that he was the only critic they had known their whole careers? Possibly.
This brings us to a key question. Is the purpose of a food critic to evaluate and analyze restaurants, chefs, and food trends, providing the public with informed, unbiased, and engaging insights into dining experiences? Or, should they shape culinary culture by guiding consumers to their vision of what constitutes a good restaurant and a good meal? Ego and power. Critics are not immune to the possibilities of corruption when these two get together. There is a certain lack of accountability in most situations with food critics.
Then we come to the selection of the restaurant the critic is going to review. Most of the major city food critics have a large expense account. The average consumer cannot afford to eat at the places most of these critics review. As Drew Magary said about NYT critic Pete Wells' review of Le Bernardin, "There are only three people who can afford to
eat at a place like Le Bernardin: Rich assholes, food critics, and other chefs
who run other restaurants that only serve rich assholes, food critics, and
other chefs."
Michael Bauer's replacement Soleil Ho, brought a more diverse and socially conscious perspective to restaurant criticism, as did the work of Jonathan Gold at the L.A. Times. Tom Sietsema at the Washington Post does this as well. This seems to be the wave of the future.
Having been in the restaurant business, when I read a negative review of a restaurant, especially on Yelp or TripAdvisor, my thoughts swing to motivation. Is this person looking for a free meal, is it another restaurateur looking to slam a competitor, is it someone with unrealistic expectations or personal preferences or is it someone with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, or is it someone looking for revenge or is it someone that has a personal grudge... I could go on but you get the idea. There are lots of reasons for a negative review that have nothing to do with the actual dining experience.
When a restaurant or chef receives a negative review, there are some strategies to mitigate the damage and respond in a professional, brief, and constructive manner. This is no time for an emotional, defensive, or aggressive response. You can't win and it will make things worse. This is a good time to get your longtime regular customers involved in writing reviews of their positive experiences.
To answer the question, "Do we need food critics in the digital age?" Yes, we do. More now than before. Of course that doesn't really matter because they aren't going anywhere. They have always been there and they always will be. We need restaurateurs and chefs that recognize the power of social media and have the ability to utilize the different forms of media to their advantage. Today there is a lot more to the restaurant business than just food, service, and ambiance.
This should be a two way street. Restaurants need customers with less entitlement and more enlightenment, people that understand how hard this business is. A customer that understands that restaurants are run by humans and anyone can have an off night. A customer who is willing to commit to a long term relationship.
The first few times you visit a restaurant, you have a transaction. They feed you and you give them money. When you visit a restaurant continually over a period of time, you develop a relationship. They have had the time to learn your likes and dislikes. They know you like a twist of lemon in your martini, not olives. They know you like Caymus Cabernet but are willing to try something different. They know you like yellowtail snapper but will try king salmon. You have built a relationship. That relationship is based on trust. You trust that they are giving you exactly what you like and exactly what it says on the menu. They trust that if they take care of you, you will take care of them through good times and bad. They trust that if they get a bad review, you will stand up for them and write a good one.
What if we didn't have food reviews? What if we let these restaurants and chefs win or lose each and every night with the person that sits in the chair, eats the food, and pays for it with their hard earned money. "Isn't it pretty to think so."