Well, they’re out. The Michelin results for their new 2009 guides leaked ignominiously into the public domain four days early, thanks to someone at the tyre company’s brilliant idea of putting them on their website! Well, who’d have thought to look for them there? For the full story, see Bloomberg.com.
The awards, for those who really want to read them, are here.
Most notable, as ever, is the absurd fawning over the biggest-name French chefs, with two of the three new two-star London awards going to offshoots of mega-starry Parisian outfits. The award to Alain Ducasse at the Dorchester W1 is a particular travesty. The Harden’s survey, concluded the place fell “woefully short of expectations” – this was also the common view of almost all press reviewers, and of Andy Hayler (who has eaten at every three-star Michelin restaurant in the world). Yet it débuts with two stars.
It is at times like these that people need to remember the recent words of Alan Richman (a major US critic who was, inter alia, until recently Bloomberg’s man in New York), writing in GQ:
“The Michelin … has become a monster, a self-perpetuating promotional periodical that appears all-too-often dedicated not to assessing cuisine but to gathering celebrity chefs into its fold. The guide takes care of the chefs; the chefs take care of the guide.”
Unfortunately, such perspicacity is not always shared by UK commentators. See, for example, Matthew Fort’s tendentious – my Michelin right or wrong – Guardian blog piece, which he’s (substantially) written before and he’ll no doubt write again.
To be fair, Matthew does begin by recounting many of the blatantly obvious criticisms there are to be made of Michelin, such as its “blinkered conservatism”. He then goes on to cite a number of specific instances where Michelin is ‘wrong’. Even so, he disparages most of the other guides, and concludes Michelin is the only one worth having.
The curious fact is, though, that, in many of Matthew’s specific examples, Harden’s is – on his own analysis – the guide which is ‘right’ when Michelin is ‘wrong’.
What is it with the Guardian/Observer team? Recently we had Jay Rayner going out of his way to complain about a particular bit of publicity for Harden’s, and then going on to cite his own personal restaurant recommendations in the particular area… which by and large agreed with Harden’s.
PS (19 January) There’s a well informed posting on the blog gen.u.in.ness which points out that Ducasse is not only given two stars, but actually tipped as a rising three star!
Sacré bleu. You really couldn’t make this up!
PPS (21 January) Marina O’Loughlin, in today’s Metro, describes the award of two stars to Ducasse as “ludicrous”. “By dishing them out to the two chain-y French imports [Ducasse and Robuchon], the tyre brigade looks about as credible as Bernard L Madoff”.
PPS (22 January) Catersearch put the bias point to the editor of the UK Michelin, Derek Bulmer. He defended the inclusion of the French big hitters, as follows: “These are multi-starred chefs in their own country and we cannot ignore them. They have chosen to open restaurants in London, and it's great for the capital.” As catersearch drily noted: “this is hardly a convincing riposte to those who claim that Michelin is seduced by big-name chefs”.
PPPS (23 January) The new blog GuideGirl summarises the above news item as follows: “the Hardens brothers are outraged not just at the results but also the fact that some of the food critics seem to value Michelin's judgement more than theirs”.
We can’t see where we say or imply anything of the sort. What we were noting was the bizarre way in which some restaurants critics are unwilling to back up their prejudices with anything resembling rational arguments.
We’d very much value some well-researched and properly informed comment on the guide book sector generally – perhaps GuideGirl will provide some – but much of what some restaurant critics write on the subject doesn’t stand up to any rational analysis.
Follow hardensbites Follow hardensparty
Become a Harden's fan
