 In a town obsessed with celebrity and publicity, there are a few well-known residents in Los Angeles who prefer their picture is never taken - Los Angeles Times food critic S. Irene Virbila is one. That professional anonymity ended Tuesday night when she and three others arrived at Red Medicine, a new Vietnamese restaurant in Beverly Hills. Virbila had her photo snapped and her party was turned away and refused service; a bitter pill to swallow for a restaurant critic. Red Medicine is the latest project from Umami Burger founder Adam Fleischman, Noah Ellis, previously of Michael Mina's restaurant group, and Chef Jordan Kahn, who counts stints with chefs Thomas Keller, Grant Achatz and Michael Mina on his résumé. So why would a brand new restaurant, with three high-profile partners, risk outing and angering the LA Times food critic, a fixture on the scene for the last 16 years? On a Wednesday night visit to Red Medicine, Ellis told me that he, Kahn and Fleischman had long talked about what they would do if Virbila showed up to their restaurant. They played out scenarios, they talked about potential fallout and they came up with a working plan. If Virbila was spotted, they would turn her away and in essence, decline her review. They would also take her picture and post it. Tuesday night’s critical outing has certainly drawn praise and criticism from the blogosphere. On Yelp, Garry G. wrote: “I’m disgusted.” Steve L., a Yelper from Pasadena, Calif., offers this advice: “Do you have crow on your menu? You should eat a double helping of it…” Maxsap (Eater LA) says: “Bravo! Finally someone has taken action… She is the 'mean girl' of reviewers. We and the Los Angeles Times deserves better!” Also on Eater LA, Jack Straw says: “She is one voice. Yes, she has a bigger platform than most, but it's shrinking daily.” So what happens to S. Irene Virbila, whose anonymity is gone? According to the LA Times, “Virbila has been our restaurant critic since 1994. We consider her to be one of the premier restaurant critics in the U.S.” The LA Times still plans to review the restaurant. Food Editor Russ Parsons said, “the restaurant was chosen for review, because of its pedigree,” adding, “We had hopes that they would be doing interesting things with Southeast Asian food.” Noah Ellis, for his part, welcomes the review explaining, “Jordan and I did not want her review. We understand that in this age, anyone can express their opinion, and people have the right to choose what to read and what to listen to. This is specific to her, not to the Los Angeles Times, not to print critics in general, not to bloggers, Yelpers, etc. We want feedback from our guests, because ultimately, that's the only way we're going to make them happy.” |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
There are really two issues here:
1) Do the owners have the legal right to refuse service? – yes
2) Was it a good idea to do it and will it affect their business more than tue dreaded crap rec
Good idea? Maybe
I find it hilarious that the commenters here think they're making an important stand by announcing they're not going to Red Medicine. First, you can't afford to go, because your mom won't let you out of your room. Second, nobody cares about your opinion, so go sit on something pointy.
I agree with many of these comments about the downright rude, mean-spirited and petty treatment of this restaurant critic. Refusing her service is one thing and sends a strong message to be sure, but outing her and taking her photo is downright immature and vindictive. I for one, will be sure to NEVER EVER frequent this restaurant on any of my monthly visits to the area! I have worked in many a restaurant myself and maybe the chefs should put their egos in the oven for a little shrinking...
The primary reason critics remain annonymous is because if they don't, the place being reviewed will fall all over themselves to give the writer special treatment and therefore, he/she will be receive a biased experience unlike that which "regular" customers would get. By remaining annonymous, the critic is assured of seeing the restaurant (or place being reviewed) as the average visitor otherwise would. So the outing essentially minimizes her ability to give an impartial review
Actually in her case being anonymous was to help her avoid the consequences of abusive reveiws, which what happened to her in this story is an example of. Normally it is what you stated but she obviously wasn't doing anything to protect her anonymity and rubbed people the wrong way which led to her shaming more than her outing. It was obvious she was already out because they new her.
I just checked their site. It says happiness and comfort. What a load of cr**p.
Now I know they are incredibly hateful people. Especially, when they have to post this stuff on a website.
Definitely, not going.
I doubt they'll stay up nights worrying about their cash flows now that you've announced you're not going. You couldn't afford to go anyway, basement-dwelling retard probably doesn't pay all that well.
Ramsey would have done no such thing to anyone. Ramsey may scream but he does not hit.
The reality is that Red Medicine has insulted everyone by attacking this critic. They have attacked bloggers and critics alike by attacking Irene. I do rely on critics doing reports on restaurants and movies because I don't want to waste hard earned money on a less-than satisfying experience.
I will certainly avoid this group in the future.
Insult bloggers? God forbid we don't cotton to a class of self-important nimrods perched on a trash can in their mom's basement spewing their pointless opinion about the world to anyone dim enough to read it. Go sit on an overturned stool.
They "long talked about what they would do if Virbila showed up to their restaurant. They played out scenarios."???
CREEPY. Business must not be so good if they've got so much time to plot and scheme against a lone food critic!
Really. They planned this because negative attention does get press. They would rather be hated and make some money for a short time like Spencer Pratt than create a legacy.
hooters
i think she got off easy. gordon ramsaey would have just punched her in the face. :)
LMAO! I'd pay to see that!
Food critics are entirely useless. If a food critic is so great, then I suggest said critic opening his/her own restaurant . But maybe the old saying is true: those who can, do; those who who can't, teach; those who can do neither, criticize.
Interesting, never heard that saying made quite like that, however it sums up the whole outing thing quite nicely. Well done.
Tonight, after reading this article, I was curious to see just how fellow readers reacted and decided to scroll down to see the "comments'. I rarely scroll down to view reader comments for one prevailing reason – I'm absolutely disgusted to witness the stupidity and utter lack of intelligent, educated English grammar so proudly displayed. Self important readers splash their opinions on screen for everyone to read while, unbeknownst to them, literally "announcing" just how moronic their level of intelligence and lack of the English language actually is. My advice to readers: If you feel you have something to contribute, take the time to capitalize the necessary words, display some sense of grammar and intelligence, and maybe – just maybe – your words and thoughts will actually be taken seriously. After reading most of the comments following this article, I can honestly say that I completely disregarded a good 80% of the comments due to utter amazement and disgust at the complete lack of education and ability to write. And for the record, I think critics – no matter what industry they may be in – should be required to demonstrate that they have earned their right to judge others in their field. For example: If you're going to be qualified to judge a chef and his/her restaurant, you, yourself, should have been selected as one of the best chefs around. Same goes for movies, art, etc. Unless you've produced or directed movies and earned the respect of your peers, you should NOT be respected for simply sitting aimlessly aside and making personal judgment calls. The absolute worst are art critics. They can't draw a straight line to save their life, but they certainly have something profound and self important to say regarding others. Utterly ridiculous.
The place sounds kinda gay.
LOL jules, yea really!
I don't really feel strongly one way or another on this story, except for what really makes someone an "expert" on what food should taste like, but couldn't she easily have a lawsuit against them for outing her and potentially ruining her career? If this ruins her to the point where she can't do her job therefore she's out of any pay she would get she could easily say, and quite possibly prove, based on the timeline, that that was a direct cause of that. Just saying that was a very immature and dumb thing for them to do and could backfire on them. Although what's it off their backs to pay millions if they're charging so much for their food like some have said.
lol i cant even afford to go to subway can we have some REAL news that might affect the other 99% of the populous?
Jules, it does affect us. You and I can be outed for our opinions and ideas.
Look at the larger picture.
There is nothing so odious as a restauranteur who exudes attitude rather than professionalism. The single visit I and my party made to Red Medicine can be summed up in a single word: Barf! The salad was wilted, the entrees over-salted, the wine selection insipid, the waiters snotty, the dessert selections tasteless and the attitude of all at the restaurant was that they were doing us a favor just by serving us. Give me a break!
There are superior restaurants in Beverly Hills in which I can drop a grand on dinner/drinks for my party and feel as if I got a bargain; enduring the gastronomic travesty that is Red Medicine only made me long for a hot shower upon exiting...and, a decent meal!
Careful, anahadwolves. Given the time they have on their hands to plot & scheme, they'll lie in wait for you to enter their establishment only to ambush you to take your pic, then publish it! LOL
This is the long-overdue outing and expose' of a malignant, hateful, and deliberately mean slob of a woman, who has a highly exaggerated sense of entitlement and standards. She can now wash dishes at one of the restaurants – That is, if she's lucky enough to find one who will hire her.
... by malignant, hateful, and deliberately mean slobs of men who have highly exaggerated sense of entitlement and standards.
Pah. Works on both sides. They make food. They're not the damn Peace Corps.
The Peace Corps isn't the Peace Corps any longer...that's my critique
Incidentally, for everyone on here... I just read her review of XIV. It's fine – there's no mean spirit, it's not "sound bite" pithy, it doesn't fail the wait staff, hand someone their head on a platter, nor is it malignant or hateful.
She didn't like the mushy dessert and this is how the chef responds? Time to put on his big-boy pants.
I hope she sues their arses off and wins.
As a former Restaurant owner, I enjoyed being reviewed by Food Critics because I felt I was producing quality and if their reviews were honest it would increase my business and inform the public better than 'word of mouth' or advertisement. The owners of Red Medicine have the right to deny her service but the ramifications might be their demise. How many people might think they have something to hide? (Maybe Crows on the menu was mentioned by another poster.) Now they will be getting a review done by another Food Critic who just might enact revenge for their colleague.
This owners are smart. By doing this look at all the attention the are getting. You cant buy this, by outting her they are now on fox new website and not just in one news paper. People going on vaction there may just stop in and get a bite to eat just to try it that would never have heard about it if they never didnt this and got on fox news website.
Do you want to be exposed for your opinion? This is bigger than just outing a food critic.
I don't think that this was a smart move on a number of levels. As a photographer, I realize the importance of a signed model or property release. Publishing an image without one of these releases signed can result in being sued for invasion of privacy. Since they also made mention of who she is, and what she does on their blog, an argument could be made that they have also just destroyed her career. Since anonymity for a 'critic' is important, it could be argued that by publishing her photograph without consent, thereby damaging her career. It will most likely mean that the owners of Red Medicine will have effectively shot themselves in their own foot. It is likely that a lawsuit will be filed, and then settled out of court for what will probably be a hefty sum of money.
Wait, who reads news papers anymore? Cavemen?
The owners of Red Medicine are like spoiled babies who feel entitled to be coddled and throw a tantrum when their fragile egos are threatened. They seem to believe that their best interest should be the focus of everyone everywhere. I think it's unbelievable they asked this woman's party to leave; she wasn't even there to do a review, she was just there to have dinner. I'm NEVER eating at this restaurant and will urge everyone I know to eat elsewhere.
Oh great, now how am I going to know if I am supposed to like something? Taste it? sheesh.
how can one be a food critic when everyones pallets are completely different?
Actually most pallets are the same. Old wood nailed together, but that has nothing to do with this.
ALL critique is subjective - be it of food, film, literature or anything else. But that doesn't make it random or ill-informed. Critics use their own knowledge, objective criteria and yes, personal experience to draw their conclusions then share them. Just like we all do each and every day when we tell a friend about a great (or awful) meal we've eaten, film we've seen or book we've read. We're all critics, but most of us don't get paid for it.
As Anton Ego so eloqantly stated it:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."
Running from criticism, whether it is deemed fair or not, is not a trait I try to teach my children.
I have a family member who was a prominent restaurant critic in New England for many years. I used to accompany him to dinners where he would be reviewing and it was always an entertaining and educational experience. Some of restaurants were not happy with his reviews and more were proud of them, many going so far as to frame and prominently display the reviews where guests could see them. It was his job to review their food and service and their job to provide an enjoyable evening to their guests.
If Red Medicine can't take the heat, then why are they still in the kitchen?
Because they are rich and mean.
I've always found that I am my own best critic....If I like your food, I come back; If not, I don't....I don't need someone who studied in France to tell me what I should like...I read this story because I was bored at work....I must say that the responses to it were far more entertaining than the article....
"Never mind the reputation of the critic. Posting her photo was a deliberate and mean spirited personal attack designed to ruin her life. "
As opposed to her deliberate and mean spirited personal attacks that were designed to ruin others lives?
Do you think the people working at the restaurants she writes about are working for free? Its not just some hobby , this is how they earn their livings.
Never mind the reputation of the critic? No I don't think so. If a critic has a tendency to be a complete elitist jerk it matters.If The restaurant owners feel that this critic has a tendency to outright lie so just so she can get good ratings they need to be able to defend themselves.
But they cant because the system itself is flawed and unfair.
*.Do food critics have any kind of training or certification for critiquing food ?
No.
*What are the rules food critics have to follow for critiquing food ?
There really are not any rules. Anything the critic says that is covered as their 'opinion' is fair game. True or not
*What can a restaurant do if it feels it got an unfair review ?
Nothing. They don't get equal time to counter what the critic is saying. They cant sue because its an 'Opinion'. And even if they could show the critic was grossly unfair and get the newspaper to print a retraction it will be hidden in some backwoods part of the paper. Plus the damage is already done.
The only defense any restaurant has against unfair critics is to not play their game.
*But how will people know if a restaurant is any good?
Simply ask around. Get the opinions of people you know and trust. Plus if you go to a restaurant and it sucks, Vote with your Wallet. Do not go there again and let your friends know it about it. If the restaurant is really sucks then it wont be there long.
And as for them posting her picture. Sorry but she was in a public place and she is a public figure. She choose to be a public figure. She picked a job where she is telling everyone here is my opinion on this restaurant and my opinion is important. That is what she gets paid for.
Do you think it would be fair for her to be able to be essentially anonymous. The restaurants she slams don't get to be anonymous. The people working in those restaurants certainly are not walking around wearing hoods. They are not anonymous. So why should she get to be.
You want an example of the kind of abuse can happen when you can say whatever you want , true or not with out having to worry about having people know it was you that said it. Surf the web for a day or two.
Sure anonymity has its place but a paid food critic is not that place.
What this restaurant did is called Self Defense.
Bull. She's got a job to do as well. Where's my "self defence" from crappy food and $15 spring roll? If the food sucks do I get to tell the "chef" and get my money back?
She pays for the food, she can be anything she damn well pleases. If you don't want to serve her, then don't. If you don't want to be reviewed ask the LA Times to stay out of your joint.
I also think its pretty ridiculous how detailed the reviews are. With such a subjective thing as taste, it makes no sense to put it under such scrutiny.
Good. If youre going to ruin peoples restaurants because of your "refined palette" its only fair people know who you are.
Do you want to be outed for your opinion on these forums? Post your full name.
Outing a journalist! Great! With any luck no eatery will let the pig enter again. That help with the obesity!
Ok Chicago who are you? Let's us know who you are since you are not afraid to voice your opinion.
If you cannot stand the heat, I suggest you stay out of the kitchen. I have read her for years and she is very fair. She tells the good and the bad - that's exactly what readers expect from her. In the end restaurants survive by consistent quality and word of mouth. A good restaurant has nothing to fear from a critic.
She is a fat pig that has done one too many dessert reviews.Unless a food critic has an award winning cooking background they are nothing but scum.
Merry Christmas.
Happy holidays.
Andrew, may we assume from your little temper tantrum that you are a food critic? Then, please share with us YOUR favorite part of the meal: is it the seeded buns or the special sauce?
Some critics may be overly critical, but I wish my city had someone who told it like it is. Too often critics in smaller areas are scared they might offend a current/future advertiser therefore they find nice things to say about every restaurant. How is that supposed to help the people reading know whether a place is worth trying or not?
Why is this even news? you morons salivate at a taco johns commercial
Actually, I do. I love potato Ole's. You must be in the MidWest.
I love 'em too. It's news because....It's just news.
There is no reason. If you don't like it, don't read it.
GO AWAY!!!
you can read and write apparently...SO...if it isnt 'news' to you why are you commenting. the ignorance wafting from yoooooooouuuuuu! is astounding!
Good. Some people read restaurant reviews for guidance but many just read them because they enjoy seeing someone being torn apart by the papers resident b###h. Theres a fine line between being an effective food critic and being a vicious little tyrant. Who reviews the reviewers?
That guy called "the editor". Most papers have one . . .
Look at all the free publicity these guys are getting out of this! Way to play the system.
So obviously their own sniviling little lives take presedent and they gave no thought to the fact that she could have lost her job. Cowards – if you're that afraid of what she has to say that can't say much for your food.
Today I had a double cheeseburger and stuffed my face, with fries at Chubbys. the heinz packets were of a fantasticulous temperature and i ate the cheese off the wrapper. i drank coke, because diet tastes like a.s.s . all in all it was a harmoniousistiacular experience. Four stars.
You forgot to finish it off with the pocket apple pie.
The only review I really care about comes from the restaurant's health inspector.
Sorry friend. The health inspectors only visit once a year or it depends on the budgets of most cities. Good luck.
I think most diners take any review (whether from a newspaper, a website, friends or family) with a grain of salt until they can judge for themselves. Does the restaurant really think their success or failure hinges on whatever Ms. Virbila may have had to say (or has said previously), despite the many other options/reviews potential diners have access to? Is the restaurant that insecure, petty, and/or vain that they would choose to act as they did? I checked their website and they seem to be trying awfully hard to make excuses before anyone even tries their food – don't judge us for this, or don't compare us to that. From what I've read on Yelp (of folks who've eaten there) the general idea I get is that it's another place that has anywhere from decent-to-great food, but is overpriced, has small portions, and the service is mixed – i.e., not bad, but nothing special; nothing that would dissuade me from eating there, but nothing that stands out that would make me go out of my way to get there. If that's all they have to show, and they're so concerned (or vindictive) about Ms. Virbila, I have to think they're simply thin-skinned and may need to get over themselves (just as Ms. Virbila may need to get over herself). If you're not confident enough to stand by your food on its own – regardless of anyone else's opinions – then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business.
Totally mean-spirited, amateurish, and classless behavior – congratulations to them for stooping down to the level they consider Ms. Virbila to be at.
She never allowed the restaurant to be anonymous, why should she be? Many restaurants love getting high praise from famous critics, but it's a risky proposition.
Those who wield so much power should have a check put on them, and this is what was done to this lady. I wonder if she will give them a favorable review anyhow... that would be funny.
Who are you?
Judging by her mostly negative personally insulting reviews of chefs and restaurants, Irene Virbila was engaged in a biased war with the food industry, striking anonymously. The Chefs of Red Medicine were right to out her identity, so that others in the food industry can protect themselves from this previously one sided assault.
To honor and reward them, I will be going to their restaurant, and provided the experience is good, will recommend them to all.
Bravo! Who really cares about food critics in any news media? I never care what they say. I listen to friends who have eaten there and even then, I like to find out for myself. Just another person with a super ego who thinks their taste buds are the only ones in town who can recognize good food.
Hahahah i love what these guys did. That lady looks so bitter and egotistical she was probably already using a thesaurus to think of lots of long fancy words to use in her latest attack article.
This must be for all the uppity people that needs someone to tell them whats good or not. Want some good cooking? Let my chef (fiance) cook for you. It'll knock your socks off. :)
Wait... didn't you just try to tell me what food is good? Uppity snot. And your "chef" gf too.
Regarding both the critic and the resto guys, (to quote The Wire:) "Its all in the game..."
At least one reviewer was able to get in to the restaurant: http://www.kevineats.com/2010/12/red-medicine-beverly-hills-ca.html
Just look at that throw back to a forgotten age. Do you really think she understands or appreciates the creative and imaginative chefs of this century?
Not the classiest move by the restaurant owners. People, in general, need to learn how to handle rejection, criticism and hurt feelings. Life is not kindergarten, but some of us need to revisit the sandbox.
Food critics have every right to be anonymous, and they probably need to be, to protect the integrity of reviews. That just means a restaurant has to deliver...consistently.
I've never let a food critic decide whether or not I'll dine at a particular restaurant. I talk to friends and business associates, when I want to know where to go. The actions of the owners probably did far more damage than a bad review from a surly food critic could have ever done.
Just checked out restaurant menu. Wow, spring rolls. Innovative. You don't have to be a food critic to conclude that the place sucks.
I've always found food criticism to be rather stupid. I don't care how well tuned a palette is, if that palette dislikes say, basil, then anything with basil is going to come out poorly.
Besides almost all critics seem to forget the first rule of their profession. You don't critique something based on your own personal taste. A good critique (food, movie, play, etc,) is aimed at the intended audience.
Too many critics now simply try to be "witty" or come up with a good quote they hope to see printed instead of doing their job.
I don't listen to anyone!!!!!! I make my own choices!!!!!! I don't conform to anything! EVER!!!!!! I smell the cork to judge wine!!!!!!
Take that society.
how many times does vapor have to tell you... the cork is NOT a part of the wine tasting process!
You just had to go there, didn't you Wit?
Great, now he'll be over here posting for the next two weeks.
Thats why I didn't put his name anywhere in the post....he probably google's himself constantly.
I don't give critics reviews any serious weight. I listen to feedback from every day people, friends, and family.
That's not a bad way to do it. Family and friends tend to know what you like and don't like. I also like to get multiple opinions before I try things. I listen to the masses.
And they use big words that I don't understand.
Amazes me how many grown up 'children' post on here. Does your Mommy know you're calling people names?
Yes, Mommy also tells me what to type, and she has a great big glass of STFU for you.
Zing!
hello pot, meet kettle.
Zing! Again!
P.S. Joy is a poo poo face.
Ok, is everyone home from work or are you hitting alt/tab when your boss turns the corner? Another thing, Mr McHammerpants, you make me LOL several times a week, thank you. i love this stuff. way funnier than anything on the tube, i could care less about critics and posh restaurants but i love to read these postings. merry christmas and to all a good night.
Yeah, we work, but we have gotten good at avoiding the bosses (LOL)
Some of us are actually the bosses that our employees avoid.
Pretty sure we're all at work. ALT+TAB is a crucial element to my work day.
Well done. Bravo.
I don't pay much attention to professional food critics just as I don't pay all that much attention to movie reviewers and book critics. I tend to pay more attention to what the patrons write about their experience. If I heeded the advice of the critics, I would have missed out on many great experiences. As for refusing Virbila service, I think that is their business. Taking her picture and posting it online? Sounds like middle school stuff to me.
I'm very glad the staff of Red Medicine had taken the appropriate action of booting out that foul mouthed restaurant critic S. Irene Virbila. But the author of this article made a mistake because there isn't a Steve L. Yelper from Pasadena, CA as this shows – http://www.yelp.com/member_search?action_search=Search&query=Steve+L.
Hey there Chris,
Actually there is a Steve L. from Pasadena–here's a link, he posted on Red Medicine's page.
http://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=tOrSPx79eVn9OpCAeodxlg
Seems to me if you're not willing to be judged on the quality of the food you serve, you should try getting into another business. Or perhaps just grow up.
I am a firm believer that if you turn your nose up at a restaurant based on some "professional critics" review than you are a dunce. I have eaten at many restaurants that critics have given bad reviews to yet all the diners loved in review websites such as citysearch.com and trip advisor. Better to get a review from an average joe than a professional snob!
Sigh. And? So what? You clearly believe your opinion to be better than others, why wouldn't some be free to trust hers? I've never read her reviews. And while I do occasionally read reviews when visiting a joint, I trust my own judgement but don't have a problem with theirs.
I don't get it: the article starts by claiming that this incident broke this chick's anonymity, yet the proprietors recognized her on sight, which indicates that she wasn't anonymous to begin with.
She wouldn't have a job if people didn't read her column and heed it's advice. So her "job" is valid, because readers of the LA Times make it so. They should have never taken her picture. Refusing her review was a great idea to get their point across, but they were out of line for snapping a pic and posting it on Tumblr, all because they didn't get a favorable review previously. I think they would have gotten a lot more respect by turning her away, but then again, they wouldn't be getting all this free publicity. :)
Look for my comment below. The problem is that most critics simply do a poor job. There is a major rule of the subject that most critics ignore.
A critic is supposed to critique for the intended audience, not for their own personal taste.
She always has been a food bully- I have eaten at many restaurants that she has ripped up mostly because they did not cater to the type of food she thinks should be fine dining. This group is way too modern for her tastes- stuffy bird!
WHO THE HE** CARES! Very elitist article. I think next week I'll go to perkins.
Where is the elitism? Serious question... where? What is elitist about a restaurant review?
I bet you think people with GEDs are elitist? Did you just learn this word from you buddy Sarah Palin?
Good for them for standing up to someone they consider a bully in their profession.
who gives a rats ass?
Who gives away rats asses? Just sayin'...
i always wondered that...
It has always baffled how some folks read an article and then say "who gives a rip?" Assuming they read the article, I bet they just read the headline and post.
I hope the giver of rats asses leaves one under the tree for me this year.
I gave a rats ass once... NO WAIT...whoa there.. I was way off on that one..
It's one thing to block her from reviewing their restaurant, but was it necessary to make it a lot more difficult for her to review others? This is more the action of high school "mean girls" than adult professionals.
I agree. Refusing her service? Fine. Do as you wish at your establishment. Posting her pic? That's neither necessary nor professional.
If you find your chosen profession so daunting as to be injured by the review of an other, perhaps another profession is in order? I like the voice of both sides. Silence one and I'll choose somewhere else, thanks.
Good for Red Medicine and its owners. Critics are just that...critical. They are not researchers who disclose information about a restaurant; they are diners who are paid to critique and most often criticize. Food referrals are the best way to pre-judge an establishment prior to spending your hard-earned money. Check your local department of health for violations and listen to the advice of friends...in that regard restaurants know that every customer is important and all factor in either bringing in more business or pushing it away.
Food critics are just like CNN journalists. They suck...
sowhat is just like a food critic, you suck. Here, have a slice of STFU fruitcake.
Must be a critic...hehehe
A whole slice of STFU fruitcake?? Wow, I hear that stuff is pretty rich, might want to only give him half a slice.
Naw, a good dose of any kind of STFU needs to be rich and strong for desired results I dig your username. You should hang out at Coffee klatsch sometime.
Careful I think he wants to ...nah never mind.
How original. Vapid, Irrelevant, gnome. Looks like you need another slice of STFU fruitcake. Go away.
If a reviewer has a reputation for being nasty and I had a new restaurant, I wouldn't want her to hurt my business before the public had a chance to try the food and make their own minds up about if they think its good and if they will continue eating there.
Agreed, but how far do they go? Turning her away would have been enough. If they wanted the media attention (which they obviously did), making a spectacle out of turning her away (as they did) is tacky perhaps, but probably not over the line. But... publishing a picture of her that could threaten her entire career? A bit over the top, don't you think?
Just considering "food critic" as a "career" is ridiculous enough. Then again, if the masses are stupid enough anyone can make money offering their opinions for sale.
The rest of us "poor" souls will just have to eek by on morsels of freebies....and happy we don't subscribe to pompous stuck up people as having a "serious" job and make our own decisions on where to eat.
Point is... they got plenty of publicity for their restaurant.
I used to wait tables and the critics were fairly easy to spot. They usually came in groups of four, each ordering different apps, entrees and desserts and they would swap plates during each course.
I disagree that this was bad press–it was good press. Nice to see people who are willing to stand up for their rights rather than kiss critic derriere. They do not owe this woman anything, certainly not the opportunity to derogate their hard efforts as she has in the past.
Uh, unless they've invited her for dinner at their house what "rights" do they have to determine what she can say about their food? She paid, she can slag it all she wants.
The same thing happened to me when I dissed my Moms Fruit and Fish Pie.
Yet eating it in the Hairy Taco shell was a little much,don't ya think?
As proprietors, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. If they don't want some snotty food elitist in their business, well, that's their business.
As a food writer and previous service industry worker I know exactly why the restaurateurs turned away this 'critic'. We have a couple here in Houston, too. When a person is renown for their tendency to complain and when said person thinks this makes them seem more knowledgeable than they really are, offers no positive feedback, uses their column as a soapbox to spotlight not the restaurant on review or one that really deserves recognition, but to flaunt their own 'style' and 'voice', they lose all respect from the chefs and workers who bust their a$$e$ just to get to opening day. Food writers need to focus more on featuring places that deserve recognition, not bashing a business as soon as they open their doors.
I'm a critic of critics being critics. Say it three times. Critics critics critics.
Pussies
LMGDAO! The best!
Some "critics" take that word entirely too seriously and think that it is a necessary part of their job to be as critical – as negative – as possible.
What they did was incredibly unprofessional and mean-spirited. A critic's job is, well, to critique. It's their opinion and hopefully an educated one. I live in San Francisco and have been to Michael Mina's restaurant. Overated and overpriced. Now, I could go to another of his restaurants and it could be wonderful. They didn't know what she was going to say. So, their feelings were hurt that she didn't like a dessert. Are you kidding me? How freakin arrogant. Get over yourself. What will happen if another critic isn't impressed. Will they out him/her too? Where does it end?
Food critic, what a lame profession
RIGHT ON!!!
What an ass. He obviously doesn't realize that his actions give his place bad press. I hope everyone avoids it now.
I think it's funny that a Jew would own & run an Asian Restaurant; no wonder he didn't want it reviewed by a professional.
what does THAT have to do with anything??? because we all know that only Mexicans open mexican restaurants, and Italians Italian restaurants, Chinese food is only cooked by the Chinese. you just negated every other comment you could possibly make by extravagantly making your ignorance known. i'd call you a racist, but that would mean that you at least had a clue as to what you just said.
And dogmeat restaurants by Koreans. Toss that into the stereotypes, too, wendy.
thanks! i forgot that one...
Seems like a publicity stunt to me, or perhaps Adam Fleischman, Noah Ellis and Chef Jordan Kahn know their venture would be a sinking ship if reviewed.
Did she sign a release allowing her picture to be taken, & published? if not, they opened themselves up.
She writes for a public periodical, in LA of all places. Now we start dealing with Privacy/Anonymity of Public Figures issues, or lack thereof, and what is deemed to be legally reasonable expectations of such position.
Here's what disturbs me... never mind the anger over the previous review. Never mind the reputation of the critic. Posting her photo was a deliberate and mean spirited personal attack designed to ruin her life. Nothing can justify it and anyone freely able to perpetrate that sort of thing can be expected to do it again – maybe with food safety or staff or the quality of ingredients. It sets the worst kind of example for employees – showing that retaliation is preferred over ethics, tolerance or even kindness. How can I trust a server who thought my last tip wasn't enough? How can I trust the kitchen staff if I send something back? Can I be sure the manager won't throw me out if I complain that there's no soap in the restroom? Their standards have been displayed for all to see. I can't trust them. I can't patronize any of their restaurants. Agree or disagree with their feelings toward her, I don't see how you can either.
Excellent point.
Bravo. We even teach our children better.
How did they know what she looked like to take her picture? Did they piece together who she was by the last review she gave for their other restaurant? That's all I can guess.
If you don't like critics don't read what they have to say. But why deny others the right to hear their opinion. In a town with celebrity chefs on almost every corner in town the pretenders need to be less sensitive. There is a trend in this town for restaurants to not put up a sign. I'm thinking that this one should consider a sign saying, "This Space Available Soon."
If someone has a history of giving bad reviews, and your business needs good reviews, why take a chance. Besides, in their own words, their refusal was specific to her:
"This is specific to her, not to the Los Angeles Times, not to print critics in general, not to bloggers, Yelpers, etc. We want feedback from our guests, because ultimately, that's the only way we're going to make them happy.”
OK, you don't want her to review of your product, ask her to leave. If it had ended there we would not be discussing this to death. But to take her picture and 'out' her was vindictive and absolutely uncalled for. What did they think that they had to gain, the love and admiration of the dining public? All those aware of this incident will always wonder what were they afraid of? Unless Virbila had come down with food poisoning the mere fact her review appeared in the Los Angeles Times would have been enough to interest me. Do you think all of us blindly listen to critics? Give some of us enough credit to be capable of decoding the nuance of their comments.
I completely agree and support the restaurants decision. If you are going to be critical and review restaurants while the identity of the restaurant is clearly known it is only fair the identity of someone who feels free to provide an opinion and publicizes to the world is known.
It is too easy in todays age to have someone with an opinion run around the blogs and websites and degrade a business. Some opinions may be valid but often times they may have a vested interest in a competing restaurant or some underlying motivation behind the opinion.
As Business owners they are only protecting their business. If they disagree with the opinion a critic has given them in the past they have every right to deny them service at a new restaurant and I think its fair they expose the identity. You should not be afforded the right to hide behind annonymity and criticize a business freely without putting your own identity out there and your own reputation at stake. These are people who put alot of their own capital, heart, emotion and energy into creating a business and livelyhood only to have someone who samples a random plate and an already negative disposition on everything rain on their parade. These critics could never run a restaurant on their own and more then likely they would be a disaster if they tried.
I think the point of the food critics remaining anonymous is so that the restaurants can't see them come in and purposefully do everything to make that meal perfect. A review of a restaurant would be skewed if they serve crappy food and have horrible service to everyone else, but they are always at the food critic's table and go out of their way to avoid a bad review of the food.
It isnt very easy for a restaurant to adjust their recipe for one person they know is a critic within the 15-20 mins they order their meal. It is also very dangerous for a chef/cook to do this.
In the end most people within the business know who the critic is anyway isnt that the point of this article?
The public doesnt know who the critic is but the critic is able to publicly critique the business. Whats wrong with a restaurant making that identity publically known?
@ Mike
I don't think you understand. You don't have to change the menu to give preferential treatment to a food critic. All you have to do is make sure your chef, servers, etc are more attentive than they normally may be. Whether that's being sure the food is out at the freshest possible moment (when it may be delayed for normal customers) or an overly attentive server (who may care less about the rest of the customers). That's the problem. If the owners are aware (and in this case, they were only aware because of a previous run-in), they can easily affect the overall experience for a single customer. Hence, the need for some sort of anonymity.
Well, I think all of this started over a pass encounter.grow up fellas. so what if she would have given your restaurant a bad review. If your chefs are such great culinaries, a food critic should be proven wrong,you guys just wanted to wave your little sticks( dicks ) at her as for me. I would not waste my time or my money at your establishment. Word of mouth has ruined many businesses just add yours to the chopping block.
So, if Jeffrey Steingarten came into their restaurant, would they turn him away? He's the NYT's most disgruntled food critic, and yet he's someone who has no problem with his identity being known. He would flat out pan them for denying him service on the grounds that he might give them a bad review. If you want to get accolades from the voices of the food industry, you must put up with the reviews of your peers and of critics. This incident shows the gentlemen involved to be petty and to have thin skins in regards to their food. Whether she's a critic or not, she was still a paying customer who wanted to eat their food. Suck it up.
waaaaahhh... she gave us a bad review, we're gonna get her!
Maybe if you had made a decent dessert, that didn't taste like ________ then perhaps you would have gotten a good review.
sour grapes, spoiled "chefs", come off your high horse people. This is the age of the internet and dealing with reviews is part of the landscape for high restaurants. DEAL WITH IT.
I don't think that was the point. If you read what others know about her and her reviews, you will see there is a common consensus that she is unfair and bitter in many of her reviews. This isn't based on a single review, but a pattern of behavior they will be a part of.
*will not....be a part of/tolerate.
I think a lot of you are missing the point. By doing this, they have increased their exposure enormously. Yes, they will lose business from those who feel that this was wrong, but the influx will make up for it.
Goog point.
And this from Noahs website. "We find that some of her reviews can be unnecessarily cruel and irrational, and that they have caused hard-working people in this industry to lose their jobs — " That alone justifies the outing. When you start messing with a mans source of income, that is where I draw the line.
Umm...carry that point a little further. By outing the critic, aren't they messing with her source of income? I've got no problem with them refusing her service. Even up to putting out a press release saying why. But when they decided to out the critic, that's where they crossed the line into douchebaggery.
Nope. Outing her just evened up the playing field. If she smart, and I'm sure she is, she would use it to her advantage.
Who the hell does Noah Ellis think he is? He is serving meals in a public venue, and shouldn't get to pick and choose who reviews his food. Does a film producer get to cherry-pick their film reviewers? If the food and ambiance work, they will stand on their own. Red Medicine will certainly not get a dime of my business, they seem pretty damn full of themselves.
You can refuse to let people eat in your restaurant.
To paraphrase my exclusion principle in physics, "No shoes, no service"
I think the statement being made by Ellis is that restaurant reviewers are pompous snobs who elevate nothing more than their opinion to gospel status. Sure there will be anonymous reviews sneaking in but this wakes up the population to the fallacy of relying on professional "critics" for something so subjective. Face it, the critics are as elitist and arrogant as the snobbish restaurants are. It's like newspapers "endorsing" a politician in an election. Why is one person's opinion so important over anyone elses'? It isn't. Newspapers and media people have too much power and the restaurant was simply outing the critic. I say good job. The Wikileaks mentality isn't so great now, is it?
Way to stand behind your food, Red Medicine. Regardless of what one thinks of what you did here, one can't escape the impression you had no faith in your chefs or culinary creations.
Nice going gentlemen. You just proved yourselves primadonnas. I would never grace your restaurant with my presence. And although I've never eaten there. I'm sure your food sucks.
Dan,
Except for cacophony being defined as discordant sound, she did use the word properly. Moreover, critics are individuals with their own tastes. The key to using a critic is to follow one and then determine how your taste compares. Some will be agreeable to your taste most of the time; others will differ drastically. They all have value
I used to believe in movie reviews until the internet came along and sites like imdb.com let average people review movies. Suddenly there were REAL reviews-and intelligent discussion-about movies. As many here have pointed out, the "critics" are very often full of crap when they review a movie, their review just doesn't match personal experience or even the majority of viewers' experiences. There are similar sites for restaurant reviews too. And restaurants change over time-new waiters, new chefs and decor. So one pompous reviewer's snotty comments mean nothing. Look at what average people say and why they say it, and eat there yourself. Who reads the LA times anyway? Film critics, restaurant critics, columnists; they all have to say something whether they have something to say or not. Who cares.
They could've just turned her party away without photographing and "outing" her. This smacks of revenge. Maye now she'll have to review in disguise!
Barring service to a suspected food critic is one thing. Outing a food critic, most of whom operate under pseudonyms or anonymously as a necessary part of their jobs, can be the kiss of death for restaurants, chefs and owners. For every critic they out, ten more will take their place and write reviews that will make them wish they'd never pulled such a stunt. Congratulations. Everyone associated with Red Medicine may well face a blacklist.
That is just the case, other critics are going to give them a bad review as pay back or as you say, black list them. The point is they are not to allow personal feelings towards the chefs or owners influence the review. They are there to try the menu, check the decor...peroid. If she is mean spirted and unfair she should find another job. If someone feels there are personal reasons a critic should be barred from their business, I think that is fair.
I find that if a place or movie gets a great review it will suck in my personal opinoin. Those guys (critics) are just full of themselves.
Critics don't actually do anything. Restaurants do. Black listing won't hurt them.
As for "outing" a food critic, are you serious? If she goes onto their property they have the right to film her and make it public. No one forced her to be there. There is no legal right to privacy in public.
O really? Let them try that stunt with a even a C-lister and they'd face a lawsuit. The restaurant and its owners still might get sued for this. Don't forget, either, the distinct possibility that other restaurant owners and those who back them financially won't lend or give another investment dime to this group. Red Medicine's food, service and ambiance had better be remarkably good; it will take enormous feedback from the public to counter the negative attention it's drawn to itself.
So their food is so bad they fear a review...I for one will not be visiting Red Medicine...especially if their attitude & desert is as awful as it sounds
Way to think for yourself ! I suppose you believe everything you read?
I have to laugh, I've eaten at XIV in West Hollywood and the restaurant is just blah. It's overpriced and they try way, way too hard with too many weird concoctions. If the new restaurant is anything like it then it's no wonder they don't want people reading about it. You must not have the public find out your food is mediocre too early.
WikiLeaks strikes again!
Virbila used to deliver fair and balanced reviews. Unfortunately, like many creative people who have been doing their thing for a very long time, her tone has gotten a little snarky, narrow, and she writes as if her personal taste is the last word for everyone. I don't trust her reviews anymore, and Red Medicine has every right to turn away whom they choose.
I can't say I like that they posted her picture when she needed to remain anonymous for her job, but I can't fault them for refusing her service. Food reviewers tend to be overly critical and sometimes downright nasty because that is how they are considered "good" reviewers. So a lot of times a restaurant will get an unfairly bad review, and it really does effect their business, especially with some crowds.
I understand why the review system was started, but it's flawed enough that it's hard to get angry when someone takes steps to stop that system.
The critic wrote in one her reviews OF THESE SAME CHEFS: “With its cacophony of flavors, this may be one of the worst desserts I've tasted,”
First, she didn't use the word "cacophony" properly – so much for editing LA Times. Second, these guys are world renowned chefs. They don't become world renowned for creating food that taste bad. Third, have any of you criticizing the restaurant for their actions even read any of her reviews? She's horribly unfair sometimes! I wouldn't let her eat at my place either.
"Cacophony" can be used metaphorically. And I'm confused: is your argument "fame necessarily implies quality?" So we should automatically assume that someone who is 'renowned' is very good at what they do? Seems a bit...intellectually-lacking.
They were renowned for being good chefs. Uh, I think that means they are good. Just like Derek Jeter is renowned for playing baseball. Now if Paris Hilton (who is famous for being famous) were involved, that would be a case where fame does not imply quality.
Well, we should assume that being renowned means that the person is good at something since that is what it means by definition. If the word was 'notorious' then no assumption should be made.
Sweetenedtea – Your attempt at smug superiority has not succeeded. Try again.
They're renowned for past work, that doesn't mean that everything and anything they put out in the future will be amazing.
People lose their touch. And often, when people reach a level of fame they become egotistical and don't want or care to hear other peoples opinions... whether they be professional food critics or just the random people who decided to have dinner there that night.
If it were just some random person with no professional experience in reviewing food giving them a bad review it'd be written off like they don't know what they're talking about because they don't have credentials.
With an attitude like that on the part of the "chefs", I would not likely want to eat at such a place. I would guess that they serve little dabs of food, charge out the wazoo for it, and they have 'attitude' about who can eat there and who can't. If they out a food critic, what's to say they won't decline other patrons they don't care for (specifically those who they think aren't rich enough or elite enough) to eat at their precious tables. I'd say boycott the place. You don't get to choose your reviews, and you don't get to tell people what to say about your precious restaurant.
there are plenty of welcoming restaurants in soCal. Patronize the ones who don't have attitude and you'll find a better meal than the ones where you pay through the nose for "creations."
Highest priced dinner menu item is 21$, hardly paying out the wazoo........
i just looked at the menu for this restaurant....doesn't seem all that appealing...If i were to eat in a LA restaurant i would sooner take my business to the contestants of the 1st episode dinner service of hells kitchen...I always wanted to try beef wellington...
I think they have the right to refuse service to anyone, and I am sure the little bits of food they serve are absolutely delicious.
Of course you wouldn't want to eat there, some pompous bi tch didn't decide it was fit for you.
(rolls eyes), some people are so full of themselves they can't even decide where to eat...on their own.
Yes, after reading your comments, you DO seem full of yourself. But, thanks for playing.
You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
The woman didn't decide for me that I wouldn't eat there. The actions of the chefs did. Pure and simple.
But hey, I guess they didn't teach reading comprehension where you grew up, goob.
Obviously they didn't need her two cents. way to go dummies!!!!
Ohh how i miss LA, born and raised there. Funny part about it is that us Angelenos don't really care to much about celebrities and people
Here, here!
When you live in LA, whether it's a restaurant opening, movie premier,or a film shooting on location it's an annoyance. It's just another detour preventing you from getting the things you need to get done, done.
But back on topic, why wouldn't the restaurant try to impress the woman who apparently is the 'mean girl' of food critics?! I would have tried their food regardless of what this woman (whom I've never heard of before this happened anyways) said about the place, but now... no way. The chefs and owners apparently aren't all that confident in their work, so why should I be?
And lastly, what constitutes a 'real job'?! Sounds to me like there's a bunch of people commenting on this article who aren't happy with what they do and are jealous of anyone who holds a job that not only pays the bills but also makes them happy.
kudos to the restaurant for standing up. if i knew going into something that it would turn out badly i wouldnt do it either.
Bravo for Red Medicine. Anonymous, clueless and mean critics have no place in the restaurant industry.
Way to go ... your food is so artistically full of taste ...:)
Who would have thought chefs could be such cowards!
This restaurant should be ashamed. How dare you turn away folks?
Legally guaranteed right. Also they own the place and if they don't want her money they don't have to take it.
As with any establishment, there is a sating and sometimes a posting. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Well they exercised their rights and good for them. The most important review comes from your customers. If they are happy, you done a good jod. If the customer is unhappy, the the ower/manager/server should find out why, offer some compension (free dessert, coffe, etc.) and strive to correct and problems. In the end, It's not the food critic, by the customers, that make the difference.
I have no use or respect for critics. There's a saying about opinions...
hah!! yes, yes there is!!!
Gee, you do realize that your opinion of critics makes you one, don't you?
Not really. Technically yes, everyone on earth is a critic. I it's not his actual "legit" job though.
I have respect for any critic,
Line them up against a wall ......................................... Yell .... FIRE!!!!!!!!!
Issue resolved
I can understand Thomas Keller and/or his former associates not wanting fair cirticism. Chef's like him have an elitest attitude that reads something like, "If you don't like what I serve, go somewhere else." They're good at some marketing, but their food is not all that special. I can be happy at MacDonald's........No attitude.
Why say anything mean about Thomas Keller? Do you know him? Thomas Keller is a god. He is a perfectionist who heads some of the best restaurants in the world. He has always accepted criticism at his restaurants and would never behave in this manner toward a food critic. He has absolutely no relationship to Red Medicine nor to this article other than the fact that Jordan Kahn, one of the partners at RM used to work under Keller.
You are simply an idiot. Enjoy your MacDonalds(sic). BTW, its spelled McDonalds. I guess that makes you barely literate as well. Gosh Jeff, sucks to be you.
Here's what gets me. They just assumed that her review was going to be negative before she'd ever even tried the food. Obviously, I don't have all the information. If every review of hers is severely negative, then yes, they probably did what's best for them. On the other hand, they may have just well publicly ruined what could have been a very positive review from someone whose laud is hard earned.
Or they could very well have just made the perfect public statement that will ensure the establishment does well.
"Restaurant Critic" isn't a job. It's eating and writing your own friggin opinion. Film critics are the same. For the most part, I find restaurants and films great when typically given bad reviews and Vice Versa.
The film "Spiderman" comes to mind. LOTS of bad reviews, grossed $981235792384. Went to a steakhouse once in NM, best food and steak I've ever eaten (aside from my own), but always got negative reviews cause the decor was "'70's" (it started out as a tavern 30 years back) and never updated by the owners. That was one of those places you didn't get in unless you had reservations.
"Critics" are idiots.
Not to defend critics too much, but Spider-Man isn't exactly your best example. On Rotten Tomatoes, 83% of Top Critics gave it a positive review. So more than 4/5 top critics gave it a positive review. The top critics would have reviewed the movie before the big box office numbers, so they wouldn't have been swayed by popular success the way, say, Fight Club initially got very mixed reviews but since it has become a cult classic has gotten much better reviews.
I don't think I've ever looked at what a restaurant critic has said, though. I'd much rather look at Yelp and see what regular people think (although they can sometimes be just as pompass).
Spiderman, like most comic or graphic novel derived films, is horrible. It has bad acting and stupid plot. It was popular because those films are trendy – big explosions and lots of special effects. A good analogy might be calling it junk food film. A couple decades from now, no one will want to watch it and we'll be embarrassed that we consumed it.
But, basically my review, like that of the critic's take on a restaurant, is an opinion, and we are all entitled to voice our thoughts just as the readers of this are entitled to tell me to shut the bleep up.
they are popular because they are trendy???? That is a redundant statement. Comic book movies are popular because America LOVES comic books. I am 25, been reading comics since I could pick up anything with pages. They are diverse characters that have daily, normal problems added with a bunch of over the top costumes, super powers and world threatening consequences....
No Hooligan, comic books are not as popular as you think they are – in fact the number of comic book readers in America has been shrinking steadily since the 1960's.
I don't think Hooligan gets laid much. just sayin.
What about The Dark Knight, Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, etc.? All based on comics, all good films- In the case of The Dark KNight, even though it is a "superhero" movie, it should have won best picture last year- an amazingly well done movie by C. Nolan. 20 years from now, nobody will be watching or remembering The Blind Side, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious or A Serious Man, but The Dark Knight will be a true classic for Nolan's abiliy to make a comic piece into a truly engaging and dramatic film about revenge, destiny, and the inherent dichotomy of man's nature.
You are referring to Paul's Monterey Inn, which has gone downhill substantially in the last decade or so. And no, reservations are not necessary.
You're right! Couldn't remember the name. Too bad on the news of decay. I was there in 2000.
Jdizzle wrote:
" "Restaurant Critic" isn't a job. It's eating and writing your own friggin opinion. Film critics are the same. For the most part, I find restaurants and films great when typically given bad reviews and Vice Versa....Went to a steakhouse once in NM, best food and steak I've ever eaten (aside from my own), but always got negative reviews cause the decor was "'70's" (it started out as a tavern 30 years back) and never updated by the owners."
Sorry, but I disagree. It's interesting how many people post their "great" and "terrible" on websites such as Yelp and influence people without any consistency in what they're reviewing, how they review it, or what they're in fact saying, let alone understanding the food preparation and/or service.
No, Restaurant Critic isn't eating and writing your own friggin opinion; restaurant critics for the most part have trained and probably worked in the industry for a while before becoming a "critic", someone who reviews more than "it's a nice place", but who has an understanding of what people look for – or should look for – before they spend their money. That said, I have yet to see a restaurant critic of reknown dismiss or a place with good food and good service, etc., because it had "70s decour." They may have noted that, but that's not why a restaurant would have received a low rating.
I would much rather have someone of credibility review a restaurant and provide an intelligent perspective before possibly spending good money to find out that there were a number of faults that would have been nice to know about in advance.
Certainly I find most restaurant critics (the more national ones, rather than Shirley or Fred in the local paper or hometown magazine more credible than someone who, anonymously, posts: "Critics" are idiots". Why should I take that as an intelligent insight or as an intelligent statement.
Sorry, but I think most consumers, as in everyone that's a human being and in need of nutritional intake, could really care less about how pretty something is or the immense flavors and how they compliment each other. It's sometimes upsetting to hear that your job is pointless, but "food critic" serves one distinct population, the elitists, who know no better. Food is substance, and I personally don't consider it art.
Plus, everyone's tastes are different. Just cause it tastes good to you means nothing to me. Therefor, your job is pointless.
So, what's your useless job, JDizzle?
Your sister's OB/GYN.
Considering what some of these restaurants charge for small portions of food, I welcome any insight a restaurant critic can provide. I take what they say with a grain of salt, but I do pay attention to the details they give. There are some pretty pompous restaurants and chefs out there who don't make great food.
I believe that most people who use food critics are sheep, plain and simple. You guys follow the flock and let the rest of the herd make your decisions for you. I am so glad that someone stood up for themselves against these wolves. If i were there I would have taken her picture too. I wonder what the success rate for a restaurant is after a bad review from her, my guess is not so well . In this day and age, and economy, I dont think that it is fair for ONE person to determine the success of a restaurant that employs a staff or uses recources that are then limited and diminished due to a small article in a newspaper!
I agree. I think there's a really simplistic view of critics that isn't always accurate. A good food critic isn't just saying "don't eat there on account of I didn't like the cheeseburger." They're able to recognize what the food is *trying* to be, and how well the chefs are achieving that goal.
It's like with movie critics–there are some who take the authoritarian route and tell you "don't see this because one of the actors is a HOLLYWOOD LIBERAL," completely ignoring the text of the film itself. Then there are those who decontruct the movies a little more, who can simultaneously give Movie #1 a good rating for being a dark, relentless, daring exploration of social conventions (or whatever), and also give Movie #2 a high rating because it's a piece of dumb, entertaining crap that was TRYING to be a piece of dumb, entertaining crap. I think the A.V. Club recently gave "Burlesque" a B+ for being "a terrible movie you'll love" (not a direct quote, but close enough).
There's a subtlety to criticism that's lost on a lot of people. Betsy from the local coupon paper and a trained restaurant critic are two very different animals.
Here's a question to ponder: has the rise of the Internet causes this loss of credibility by those who ARE credible, when "beavis69696969@yoohoo.com" has the same platform as a critic who's dedicated their life to their subject?
Food or film critic is a subjective job. You are neither right or wrong, or at least you are one or the other completely dependent on who you ask.
most "critics", especially on the food side are precocious, pompous, arrogant arses who just like to throw about frufru words and get rich and famous doing essentially nothing, well nothing that's really meaningful anyway.
Sadly there are many people out there who will take their word as gospel regardless just to "be a part" of the "sophisticated" crowd.
I've personally had very expensive food by world famous chefs and some of it was really good, some of it I wouldn't give you .50 cents for and that's just it, everyone's taste is different.
I guess that makes you an IDIOT...cridic....
What does mainstream popularity have to do with quality?
Whiner,Whiner or should that be winer,winer? Cut these guys some slack.
While these gentleman were well within their right to refuse to provide her fodder for another review, to take her photograph and post it on-line smacks of sour grapes. Not everyone is going to like your food, grow up and get over it.
"sour grapes" is when you want something, but when you can't have it, you say it must be "sour" anyway... I don't see how that applies here.
So what You know what he meant. Do you feel better about yourself now for making an issue out of something as incredibly petty as that?
I'm glad that DNA pointed it out–petty or not, wrong is wrong!
maybe they wanted a good review, thought they couldn't get it, and so they said it would be crappy anyway?
Actually it was stated that a review was welcomed...just not by Virbila. The eatery wants a pass is what they want, a critic that will tell everyone how wonderful the place is. How dull is that?
DNA are you serious....get out of your box...
Rod, if you were a food critic, would *you* want to visit that restaurant now though? If I were a reviewer, and knew they'd done that to another reviewer, I wouldn't set foot in there. It would make me nervous that if I didn't review the food in a way that pleased the owners, they'd out me too. I think this will ultimately only serve to backfire on the restaurant itself.
i think you should grow up and get over it, Queen of Garbage!
Another Internet keyboard tough guy.
Is that your professional opinion?
Mines Bigger than Yours so try me toothless wonder. Pick on me Buttwipe!
Exactly Hillary, I mean why would anyone want to bother with something as petty as some snob's precocious blatherings about food anyway. Oh dear, she's been outed, whatever will she do? How about actually get a job.
Couldn't agree more! They "long talked about what they would do if Virbila showed up to their restaurant. They played out scenarios"??? Talk about unhealthy obsession. Very unprofessional.
I agree. Their chef is a pastry chef, I suspect he is not up to the challenge at hand & they know it.
Evidently, her level of popularity is well-earned. When someone like this uses their position as an entitlement to pass harsh judgment on other people's livelihoods, I have no problem with them being ratted out. The LA Times is run by a bunch of foolhardy idiots anyway.
...but the chefs choose to trade on their names and reputations. These guys aren't some Mom and Pop storefront- the draw here is their culinary "street cred", which is not helped by refusing to be reviewed. What they are basically saying is "the food must be good because we say it is, nobody else's opinion really counts."
I agree... sour grapes in posting the photo. If you want to refuse service, as an owner, that is certainly your right.
Worse than that, people have sued and won. They basically ruined her career... She has a pretty good lawsuit on her hands if she wants to push it.
The problem is not wether someone likes the food or not. As a matter of fact, most people like some dishes and dislike others. The problem is that the owners decided against her opinion because they did not value it. They care what their customers think and that's all – that's who they choose to please. Irene Virbila has hurt many hard working chefs and restaurant owners with her cutting remarks. Red Medicine did not want to fall under her web! Bravo for having the "cojones" to dethrone the queen!!!
About time someone stood up to these "mindless twits" called Food Critics. Job well done.
About time someone stood up to these "mindless cooks" who call themselves Chefs. Scented-this, foam-that... Think there might be a few egos in the kitchen as well as in the column? Hmmmm?
I agree with you. So many of these high profile resturants serve you a portion to feed a small puppy and dress it up and want you to pay top dollar for it and it tastes no better then the local joint down the street. My mother and everyone elses mother are better then these snobby chefs will ever be or wish to be!!!
About time someone stood up to the people who stand up to people for standing up while waiting to be seated.
nice one rick....and so true..... and all this standing around is exhausting, im sitting down
I have lived in Los Angeles for thirty years and was a restaurant owner, albeit briefly. I have always enjoyed Irene Virbila's reviews.
While the owners have every right to refuse to seat Ms. Virbila, taking her photograph and outing her was petty and mean-spirited. I have no intention of visiting Red Medicine.
I will sa one thing the owners have guts and it is funny. From what I read this critic is not very popular and the owners chose to say screw you. It's nice to see someone stand up to someone. The only critics that matter are the paying customers and they will be the ultimate judge if the food is good or not. Good for you Red Medicine.
As a critic you are as well are a paying customer...she gets no free lunch, otherwise where is the objectivity....
So Red Med is afraid of a food critic, eh.
What are they hiding. How about some transparency here red med?
Perhaps frontgate what they are trying to hide is an overt disdain for rude obnoxious mean-spirited jerks. Or perhaps this is just a publicity stunt. As for th anonymity of restaurant critics, it can't be much since these gentlemen spotted her outright, photo oped her and turned away at the door. Hint hint that means they know you on sight, anonymity requires a lack of recognition.
Sounds like a job for Julian Assange.
It's not science, but a well written opinion with good explanations helps people decide where they might want to spend their hard earned money. I sure wouldn't want to eat only at places that someone I knew, who's tastes i shared, had already eaten & recommended. I'd never eat out at that rate! Critics, who are good, do serve a useful purpose.