I know a few maverick restaurants in France have declared themselves out of competition for the three-star derby and chosen to stay at the two-star level. What I'd love to see is someone recognize the publicity value in absolutely refusing to compete for Michelin stars at all, in fact, attempting to bar the Michelin reviewers from the place outright (an impossibility I'm sure but it would be amusing to try). The cachet of being two-or-three-star level but NOT in the book all those English and Japanese cart around would surely outweigh the value of being yet another restaurant in it, at least when you factor in the money you'd save on needless amenities.

Restaurants are born free, and they are everywhere in tire chains...

probably not too difficult to bar the michelin man - just get melamine counters and plastic apholstery.

Coming from someone in the industry, I don't think the michelin (or other reviewing sources) are necessarily bad; certainly michelin in particular are set up to review only what they know, and are self-admittedly conservative when listing(in france, at least). That said, I would be surprised to see Alinia listed at all for another couple of years.

Michelin does one thing well, it fills restaurants that are not fillable any other way. Michelin is the archetype of the "Check, Please Effect," and I am sure that many of our currently starred french restaurants aimed to appeal to michelin for that exact reason, especially the ones that are a long haul from the major cities. Although part of my mind is now screaming "sellouts!!", the restaurant business is first and foremost, a business. For everyone screaming "also an artistic statement," in the end it all comes out in the toilet.

As we all know, a business' only responsibility is to legally make money for its investors, and a restaurant cannot do that without guests. Art or not, it isn't going to exist very long if it doesn't make people happy, and if it doesn't make money from those same people.

To appeal to the michelin men in the hopes of being rated is good business, a single star can elevate a small-time chef's career to celebrity, and bring a lot of guests to the establishment. Just to be listed in the book(not starred) can boost business immensly, there are tales of restaurants being unable to cope with the influx and suffering badly because of it.


systematics aside, a michelin guide in the states is important, and not necessarily irrelevant although it certainly can be; the book is not intended to promote new, progressive restaurants, but is rather intended to serve as a guide to places that are guaranteed to provide a certain level of service, sophistication, quality, and snobbery. For those not listed, the rising importance of other news sources such as LTH will insure they are not left out. The michelin guide will never be the make-or-break book that it has been in france, but my personal opinion is that it cannot be a bad thing, to have another source to consider. So what if they only give high marks to classical french places. At least it gives us all something to talk about, and gives the listed places more business. The more successful that other restaurants become, the more successful ALL good restaurants will become - this is the one business where other similar businesses are not necessarily competition.

Erik.

SushiGaijin wrote:So what if they only give high marks to classical french places. At least it gives us all something to talk about, and gives the listed places more business.

While I generally agree with the points you've made, a narrowly-tailored Michelin guide may give us something to talk about, but if it leaves out non-classical French places that are getting high marks elsewhere, then, in that sense, it renders itself irrelevant.

Let me put in a few good words for the Michelin Guide, which I've used in France.

I've never been to a three- or two-star restaurant, since, frankly, I usually can't afford it and I prefer not to eat in churches. One-stars are as high as I go, and I usually find the level of these restaurants to be comparable to, say, Les Nomades on a good day, sufficiently haute enough to satisfy whatever temporary yen I might have for real haute cuisine.

But the Michelin includes hundreds of other restaurants at other levels, and I must admit, I don't recall ever having been disappointed when I've chosen one of these. They all seem to be characterized by a certain degree of what I would call (for want of a better word) "civility"--a concern for ambience, service, and fidelity to the food of the region, quality of ingredients, and traditional cooking that the French seem to expect in their dining. On the other hand, I have had some memorably awful meals in France, and invariably these have been places that had either been dropped from the guide or had never been mentioned there.

Of course, this only applies to France. The only other European country where I've used Michelin has been Italy, and although it was dependable for the higher-end, white tablecloth kinds of places, these are the kinds of places I don't usually seek out when I'm in Italy. In other words, they, for the most part, just didn't seem to get it there.

I think it's likely to be some time before they "get it" here, too, but a Michelin guide for Chicago certainly should, at the very least, provoke a lot of interesting discussion.