When we eventually get around to the review bit of Mr Gill’s review, we find that the critic seems to be on best mates terms with its subject: the owner of the eponymous Smithfield newcomer “has been teasing [Gill] relentlessly” about some perceived bloomer in a former review. All credit to the critic for making so clear that it’s going to be difficult for him to write a truly dispassionate critique, but it does highlight the fact that Hix is so much in bed with the foodie establishment that almost all professional reviews are going to fail the Caesar’s wife test.
Gill’s actual commentary, is, in fact, the most mixed of the major reviewers so far. He finds the food “well-meaning and, generally, slightly overcooked and a touch underseasoned”, and “the service is pleasant if you can catch it, but a bit like fishing in the Thames: mostly happening somewhere else”. So far, commendably independent, but quite why the place therefore deserves four stars is anyone’s guess.
The most interesting point in the piece is perhaps the general one, that the product of the English Culinary Renaissance is “all getting to look, sound and taste the same” – “[i]t’s a good noddle, but I do wish the menus would brave something more than the well-thumbed pages of Jane Grigson”.
“Since the mid-18th century, cash-strapped Londoners have turned to the chop house for a hearty meal at a decent price. So a brand-new one is a timely move, especially when it has been opened by one of London's most talented and affable chefs, former chef-director of The Ivy, Le Caprice and Scott's, Mark Hix.”
‘Affable’ is of course one of those warning words, tending to confirm that there’s a bit of a critic/chef luv-fest going on, and so the review proves. Just when we’re getting in to the details – which are a general hymn of praise – the review moves Back to That Man Again.
“Hix seems to love being in restaurants… and tonight he happily cruises the room, stopping to chat to those he knows, and those he doesn't. The former outnumber the latter and include a fair proportion of local food gentry, including [a media-friendly chessemaker, an aristo food critic, a food photographer and a fashionable chef]. They all look pretty happy. I know I am. Something within us recognises when food is perfectly of its time and place, rather than imported, forced, contrived or modified. Hix makes it look natural and easy – … why can't more people pull it off? I'm just thankful that he has chosen to put his knowledge, passion and skill into a restaurant that can be all things to all people, instead of a few things to some.”
It’s all becomiing clear. This is The Restaurant that Came After St John. And we all know Who came after him.
“Hix… turns out to be charming, chatting to munchers. He also spends much of lunch on his mobile; everywhere, really, bar the kitchen. Perhaps after years overseeing restaurants, taking the art of British cooking to new levels, he prefers creating new works to knocking out copies. And what culinary masterworks he exhibits here.” And so it goes on…
The critic finds this Kensington back street restaurant “much better value” in its new guise, and she’d have been in 7/10 territory until some disappointing puds. “I still say it's worth a look, but mainly if you're likely to be pleased at how unlike it used to be it now is.”
The critic finds this Kew dining room “comfortable and friendly as only a suburban restaurant can be. The cooking is “accomplished” too, and “unharried by fickle metropolitan fashion”.
It must have a new PR firm or something: this country house hotel restaurant gets a major review for the second week running. The Indie’s man comes to broadly the same conclusion as Zoe Williams at the Telegraph did: he finds the “most imaginative” cooking of the year so far here, if perhaps with too much emphasis on “Presentation”.
19th May 2008
