• Home
• /
• Lifestyle

Is the writing on the wall for the professional critic?

In an industry driven by economics, being the outlier comes with consequences - but there are a few who still believe the truth must be told

Last month, food critic Jay Rayner wrote a blistering review for The Guardian of a Michelin three-star restaurant called Le Cinq - or, as he preferred to call it, "the scene of the crime". By last week, dozens of publications had picked it up and were plugging it as 'the most brutal restaurant review ever'. The restaurant has chosen not to comment on the debacle, but with some of the less savage (read: family magazine-friendly) observations, including onion soup that was "mostly black, like nightmares" and pigeon "served so pink it just might fly again given a few volts", it's hard to imagine business is still flourishing. More so, it was a reminder that, in an industry increasingly driven by advertising and 'influencers' looking to make a quick buck, Jay might be the last of a dying breed of professionals - that of the unassailable, call-a-spade-a-spade critic.
It used to be that the release of a new movie, book or fashion collection would have their respective directors, authors or designers trembling in anticipation - not of the audience's reaction, but of the fearsome critic's. Today, any new launch is preceded - and succeeded - by relentless marketing campaigns, with creators giving themselves top marks. Everything has become a veritable production, driven by public relations executives who pamper groups of handpicked reviewers in exchange for glowing reviews. As a result, even those analysts who attempt to point out a niggle or two will usually play devil's advocate and ensconce their criticism in compliments, so as to continue to curry favour with all.
Are there any honest critics we can still bank on to tell us the truth then? A fair few, it seems - a response somehow both depressing and inspiring in equal measure, depending on whether you choose to focus on 'fair' or 'few' - and they don't necessarily think the writing is on the wall.

Critiquing is about integrity
Craig LaBan has been a restaurant critic for more than 20 years, 19 of which he's spent at The Philadelphia Inquirer - and during which time, he's given out almost as many 'no-bell' reviews. 'No-bells' is how Craig rates restaurants that merit zero on his scale of four Liberty Bells, the iconic symbol of independence located in Philadelphia. "It's the Nobel Prize you don't want to win," he puns. "It's really rare to give these out though. They're given when something is not just bad, it's a little offensive. Restaurants have to be of a certain notoriety to be considered for a no-bell."
Craig may be "one of the last people in America" who continues to uphold the old-school approach to critiquing restaurants. For starters, he never announces himself as being associated with a newspaper. Friends make reservations for him, and his food column in the paper does not carry his picture, so that he can remain discreet. He accepts no free food - the newspaper foots the bill for the entire meal - and he's not personal friends with any of the restaurateurs he covers. "Remaining anonymous helps me maintain the integrity of an independent review," he says. "Free food [which is what most reviewers today agree to] completely corrupts people's ability to honestly assess their dining experience."
The base line, Craig says, is multiple visits - or at least two. "You try to capture a restaurant in multiple moments - busy weekends, a quiet night - sample as much as possible, take good notes, and do extensive follow-up interviews with restaurateurs over the phone. You then triangulate what they tell you with your own experience at the place - and that helps you lay down a pretty authoritative review."
While he prefers not to name any place as the ghastliest in his experience, he admits that overpriced corporate steak chains have had a history of offending him the most. "I've nothing personal against steakhouses, but a lot of chains charge a lot of money and don't deliver a product that deserves that kind of a price tag."
For his candour, Craig notes he has been yelled at plenty and upset a lot of restaurants over the years. "But I'm not writing for them," he says. "I'm writing for readers who are grateful for honest reviews." Yet, while negative reviews might be fun to read and a "lot of critics in London seem to be making a sport of it", Craig says that's neither the American way, nor his way. Not all his unsparing reviews are met by railing restaurateurs either. Some like American steakhouse chain Del Frisco's have been only too 'happy to oblige'. When Craig complained, in a 2009 review, that the only thing the fine dining joint (with their "Borgata-style waitresses in teeny skirts and fishnet stockings") was missing was a brass pole, the restaurant promptly went out and installed a brass pole, along with a plaque with Craig's name on it. "They took it pretty tongue-in-cheek," he laughs. "It was funny."
With social media accelerating everything to another level altogether, the common chant is that nobody has the time - or the attention span - to read in-depth reviews anymore. But Craig disagrees. "The restaurant culture in a city like Philadelphia is at its peak right now - it's almost a sport here. In a way, people can't get enough information about food. So, while we're mindful of our audience and have capsule reviews of reviews for those who want them, the more in-depth kind are well-received by those who look for them."

Contrarian for the sake of virality?
The proliferation of bloggers forcing critics to stay on their toes is a phenomenon that's prevalent in most industries. Indian film critic Raja Sen - who's been in the business of critiquing films since 2004 - opines that one does not need to have a degree in film appreciation in order to be a film critic. A critic's main offering is perspective. "Bloggers come primarily from a position of passion," he feels. "Their work is engaging and intriguing. And while, a lot of times, their posts are unreadable, to be fair, a few are even more readable than actual critics."
He does, however, note a certain "juvenile streak" in some of the younger "more excitable fan boys wanting to get noticed". Sure, a negative review today is far more likely to get traction online than one that is all praise - but it also means that more reviewers are willing to be contrarian for the sake of hits. "It's easier to be snarky and brutal about a film than to champion one. If you're going to go on an expletive-ridden diatribe about cinema, that's fine - but qualify it with 'why'. Merely throwing around similes doesn't make a review."
Raja considers his work almost "masochistic by definition", because in a year where he typically watches 120-150 films, only about five or six qualify as "good". And also because being the outlier tends not to go down too well with die-hard fans of Bollywood. "The sheer outpouring of venom and anger from readers can get really vindictive. It shows me how passionate they are about their idols - everyone from Rajinikanth to Amitabh Bachchan - and how insecure they are about their own opinions. You learn very early on to take it all with a pinch of salt."
As an ex-Formula One reviewer, who would often respond to readers' comments, he says this would be unthinkable now. "The former was a very genteel crowd. This one tends to be quite abusive. Interestingly, a lot of the flak comes from those who haven't seen the movie in question but who have an opinion anyway. A friend of mine put it really well: 'You've made enemies among the ungrammatical,' she said - because it was all these people who couldn't spell that were the loudest in abusing me. At least, I wasn't being ignored," he jokes. "There are 'I hate Raja Sen' societies in every corner; it's very flattering."
Apparently, that feeling of personal affront occurs on both sides of the big screen - but it's all part and parcel of the life of a critic. "Over the first few years, it seemed like I was 'taking turns' p***ing everyone off, at some point or the other," Raja recalls. "A lot of them are very bad with criticism, so they lash out, ring me up, threaten me with lawsuits or accost me at parties - all of which has happened. I think that speaks more about them than it does about me. Directors will be incredibly mad at you for a negative review - but it only lasts until they make their next movie. It is what it is!"

NO HOLDS BARRED: (left to right) Raja Sen and Manish Mishra

Building credibility
For critics, the consequences of speaking one's mind tend to vary: you either become persona non grata - and get banned from major events - or you gain respect. But fashion editor of Indian newspaper DNA's After Hrs section Manish Mishra believes that people eventually value researched opinions over rave reviews. And readers are discerning enough to know the difference. "If you're constantly gushing over everything, it's going to affect your credibility in the long run," he says. "You have to know what you're talking about."
As far as dictionary definitions go, the word 'critic' tends to come with a bit of a negative connotation to begin with. But Manish sees his work as more neutral in nature. "As a journalist, my job is to filter the substance from the fluff - not go with PR-orchestrated press releases."
This was the case a couple of years ago, when at the Lakme Fashion Week, everyone was going "gaga" over a certain designer's collection - and he begged to disagree. "The presentation was amazing - very theatrical by Mumbai standards - but the collection itself didn't have any innovation," he recalls. "I felt people were getting really carried away by the drama (comparing the whole thing to Lagerfeld and what not) - instead of focusing on what we were really there for: the fashion styles."
That kind of review tends not to go down very well with the bigger brands who make it a point "not to invite you" for future events - but Manish adds they always come around. "If you do the groundwork, back it up with research and stand by your critique, people learn to respect you."
There are very few honest voices in fashion, he laments, citing the likes of Suzy Menkes, Cathy Horyn and Vanessa Friedman as people who know "exactly what's happening behind every collection" and whose writing evidences that. But that could well be said of any field today. There are very few across the board who swear by the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, how does one tell who's who? The conclusion is unanimous on that one: you'll know them when you read them.

SHOTS FIRED!
"Add it all up, and what you've got here is a waste of good electricity. I'm not talking about the electricity between the actors. I'm talking about the current to the projector."
- Roger Ebert on the film One Woman or Two

"Maybe it was the unbearable fame of Beyoncé, Baby North and Anna Wintour, together in the front row; maybe it was that brave army of models and the nudity of their bodysuits; maybe it was Kanye West himself earnestly singing, 'I want to create something better for you' - whatever it was, the mental effect of the Adidas show was powerful. I relate the generally positive response it produced to Stockholm Syndrome, a creeping problem in the fashion world, don't you think?"
- Cathy Horyn on Kanye West's first Yeezy collection for Adidas

"One of the curiosities of this week's restaurant - along with 'How do they live with themselves?' and 'Why isn't there a baying mob outside with pitchforks and burning torches?' - is that it should be named after a deity whose followers are famed for their serenity and yet should be capable of engendering in me such a blind, raging, spittle-flecked fury."
- Jay Rayner on London's Buddha Bar restaurant
karen@khaleejtimes.com