... a stake being driven through the heart of a restaurant. Woke up this morning to an email from Food Dude, telling me to check out the Oregonian's Karen Brooks's review of Ten 01, with a one word summation: "Astonishing." I sensed what he meant: that we were not, per usual, going to get an equivocal review with a B- rating, but something with teeth. Little did I know what a surgeon Brooks' can be: she eviscerated the place, which, from the sound of things (I've never eaten there), was a sitting duck, quaking to be put out of its misery. Here's a snip:
"What's a sunfish" asked a dining companion while perusing the entree options. "It's a fish," says the waiter. "It swims around Hawaii, has fins and, ah, it's really good." It's really not. Delivered to the table with the exclamation, "Here's your rockfish," it was bland and indifferent and topped with a warm wad of argula that brought to mind -- no kidding -- cow cud."
Okay, that's stunning writing: descriptive, involving, exacting. It puts us at the table and tells us everything at once. Man, I was happy to read this. This, though I am sure the owners of Ten 01, are not.
Not that they couldn't have had a clue. In January, Willamette Week reviewer (and my pal) Heidi Yorkshire reviewed Ten 01 and -- big surprise! -- was pillioried online for not liking it. Per usual, she was accused of having a vendetta against the owners; of being unsupportive of the restaurant community; of not knowing the first thing about food and of being unqualified to review. This, about a woman who's reviewed for 25 years and for many national publications. Do read some of the comments. What I find galling, and also amusing, is how transparent they are. Gee, do ya think andyi, beth, and rebekka might, I don't know, be friends of the owners? Lisa went so far as to suggest Heidi "take up yoga and release some of her hostility there instead of against this wonderful restaurant." This reminds me of when I used to read scripts for a living, and if I gave one negative coverage, was accused by the writer of reading it while I "had my period."
Anyway, I was astonished by Brooks' review, and also, delighted. I think she got it exactly right when she said there's "a built-in audience hungry for Portland's next level cooking." She's scored one for those of us who want not something that gives the appearance of a great restaurant, but is a great restaurant. Which reminds me: last year Roger Porter (then at WW) took a similar chunk out of the delicatessen Balaboosta, which he noted had "no tongue, no pastrami, no knishes, no bialys." Some deli. I sensed the place was headed for the chopping block, and knew for sure when, the following week, Ristretto received a resume from a guy identifying himself as, "Balaboosta's sole employee."
Cute hatchet job. Only thing is, I thought Ishtar was pretty funny.
Don't think I'd like Ten 01 though-- FAR TOO MANY ingredients is my pet hate, and a feature of FAR TOO MANY California establishments.
Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris | March 16, 2007 at 09:46 AM
I was certainly glad to see Brooks holding Ten01 responsible for things like a "fenugreek panna cotta layered with Meyer lemon gelee and cara cara orange foam," which needs to be tattooed on the forehead of the next person who claims that Portland isn't pretentious.
And I'm even more happy to see that some of the locals are following Heidi and Camas Davis' examples: that restaurant criticism is just that, and not an outgrowth of the city's tourism bureau. Portland has a bounty of great ingredients and talented chefs, but there are some serious problems here with basic consistency and service. All the foams and gelees and dusts and mists and deconstructions in the world don't mean squat when your server seems to be filling in from Bishop's Supercuts.
Posted by: Kevin | March 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM