Balthazar - if you look it up on wiki - has a number of different meanings: the name of the god of fire and war; one of the three wise men; a character in Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, all of which are hummingly apposite in this week's latest episode of Restaurant vs Critic.
The lowdown: Keith McNally, beloved restaurateur and god of the New York dining scene decides to bring Balthazar, his all-day French bistro, to London. There is no way this can go wrong: EVERYONE loves Balthazar in New York. It is HOT. Critics this side of the pond are breathless with anticipation, some because they've never been, some because they have. It opened in February and from 9:01am that day, it's been booked solid. Heavyweights such as Jay Rayner have struggled to get a table. So the joint is buzzing, right? It's solid with humanity and humanity is loving Balthazar. But the critics are a bit meh, some more so than others. Metro's Andy Lynes loved it "genuine hospitality, good honest cooking and atmosphere." Zoe Williams at The Telegraph said the food was "simply not that good." Queen Fay Maschler had "quibbles". The Indy loved it. Jay Rayner said it "failed to live up to the expectation." AA Gill hated it. And Giles Coren, also of The Times, said (succinctly) it was "the best restaurant in London, the worst food in Europe." (You can just see the PR machine working that one *tongue sticking out slightly as they draw a line through the second half of that statement*).
As it stands it was neither good nor bad. The restaurant remains fully booked, the crowd obviously love it, Keith McNally is a pro and can surely ride out the storm. After all, it was to be expected. But no, in a slight hissy fit, he latches onto Giles Coren's particular piece, singling him out and accusing him in a statement of writing his piece for "controversy's sake". Because obviously critics aren't paid to have opinions. Some muttered he had the right of reply, which is true. Some said he would have been better off just ignoring the critics if his restaurant is busy, also true. The New York sites have basically accused GC of labelling McNally as Hitler (Giles went on Twitter to compare various PR machines to a form of Nazism, somewhat tongue in cheek but it did throw petrol on the flames) and it's all gone a bit Pete Tong.
Of course no publicity is bad publicity for either party: Balthazar will, no doubt, remain irritatingly fully-booked for its enthusiasts and GC might bag himself a new following, but once again we find ourselves pondering the age-old question: where is my G & T? No, not that one. Why can't a critic be critical? Giles Coren wasn't the only one who disliked what he considered to be inadequate food for the prices and a cynical attitude towards customers -' this place is so hot and if you complain, you obviously don't get it' sort of thing - indeed, he and the majority of his peers merely queried why the food wasn't actually, really shit hot, considering McNally and team aren't exactly green at this restaurant malarkey. Really, as far as we can call it, why do restaurateurs feel it necessary to throw their pots and pans out of the kitchen every time they get a review they don't much like? Certainly in McNally's case it will hardly affect him: he has the resources to correct problems and he's hardly some 20 year-old kid on a start up with everything to lose.
So come on, chefs, restaurateurs, proprietors, managers. Man Up. It's a review and sometimes they can be useful, pinpointing issues you may not even have known you had. And it's a good thing when not everyone loves your baby - it means there's work to do and perfection to be aspired to and staff to motivate. Complacency is not your friend, the critics can be.
