Author: misschryss

Ejo #18 – The French Laundry versus In-N-Out (And A Little Bit About Michelin Stars)

Food, Travel, United States of America, , , , , , , , , View all 4 comments

I consider myself a “foodie”.  Someone who appreciates fine food (and yes, eats lots of it, as evidenced by my ongoing battle with weight).  But I am by no means a food snob.  I can get just as much gastronomic pleasure from a well made shwarma as I do from delighting in the whimsical creations of a Michelin starred chef.

Ah, Michelin!  Growing up I always associated this name with a chubby man made of rubber tyres.  As I got older and started my passionate love affair with travelling, I realised that Michelin also made road maps and travel guides.  It made sense – those wheels had to go somewhere.  But I only became aware of Michelin as a rating system for fine dining restaurants after I graduated into a full blown foodie sometime in my mid-thirties (around the time I actually started being able to afford the type of food that can blow your mind).

My first Michelin star experience was with David in Paris, 2008.  It was a restaurant called Dominique Bouchet and it offered a “degustation” menu.  The word degustation derives from Latin and means “to taste or savour appreciatively”.  As such, restaurants use it to describe a set menu of several small dishes, each one created to tantalise and delight.  At Dominique Bouchet’s restaurant the degustation menu included “veal head” as one of the courses.  The sound of this neither tantalised, nor delighted us.  I imagined a baby cow’s head presented to us on a silver platter.   But, as the maitre’d explained, it was a roasted cut of veal cheek.  So we went ahead and ate it.  It was sublime.  It was our first demonstration of the kind of experimentation and envelope pushing that can occur in a Michelin starred kitchen.  We were hooked.

Since then we’ve been to a couple of other places deemed good enough to earn the coveted star or two, but we’d never had the chance to eat in a (highest rated) 3 star restaurant before.  That is, until our recent trip to the USA.  Six months in the planning gave us ample time to organise, and save for, a dinner at the famous “The French Laundry” in Napa Valley, California.  Following is a review of this restaurant – and to demonstrate that I am not at all a food snob, I have reviewed it alongside “In-N-Out”, a fast food burger outlet.

HISTORY

The French Laundry started life as a saloon bar in 1906 but when prohibition came along in the twenties, the building was sold and used to run a French steam laundry, hence the name.  The current owner and head chef, Thomas Keller, bought the restaurant in 1994 transforming it into one of the finest dining restaurants in the world.  In fact, Anthony Bourdain has called it “The best restaurant in the world, period!”

In-N-Out started life in Los Angeles in 1948 and was the first ever drive through burger stand.  It was (and still is) a relatively small, family run chain with the simple goal of providing their customers with the highest quality food possible – a credo they still operate to.  To this end, the chain has never frozen any of their produce or meat patties.  No In-N-Out is located more than a one day drive from their regional distribution centres.  Furthermore, to maintain the high quality, none of 258 stores located throughout the western states of the USA are franchised.

RESERVATIONS

To get a reservation at The French Laundry you must call them 60 days before the date you’d like to book.  And the tables go fast.  I was intent on bagging a reservation – no matter what – so two months before our holiday, with three minutes left until their Reservations Desk opened, I started dialling.  No answer.  At the exact moment their desk opened I dialled again – it was busy.  And it stayed busy for the next 45 minutes.  When I finally got through I was told that there were no tables left for that night.  There was nothing for it but to repeat this ridiculous rigmarole of sitting hunched over the phone, hitting the redial button over and over again for the next three evenings – and, eventually, I was rewarded with a reservation for 8.30pm on the 4th May 2011.  Yay!

In-N-Out, on the other hand, doesn’t take reservations.  That would be silly.  It is, however, not as easy to find an In-N-Out as, say, a McDonald’s or a Burger King.  That’s because there aren’t as many of them.  Quality over quantity.  So we found ourselves driving out of our way to dine there.  While it is slightly scarcer than other fast food outlets, getting a table at In-N-Out was a far simpler affair than The French Laundry.  Winner: In-N-Out

IMPRESSIONS

The building which houses The French Laundry looks like a French farmhouse set in a pretty, informal garden.  It’s rustic and provincial.  On entering, we were struck by the country chic interior and by the hushed, formal tone.  The restaurant was, of course, full – though this didn’t detract from, or negatively impact on, the level of service provided.  The servers themselves performed like a well-oiled machine, choreographed to unobtrusive, yet fully effective, perfection.  The service itself was friendly and playful, and not at all stuffy or snobby – which was nice.  The only negative was that when David asked if they would hang up his suit jacket, he was told that they would “prefer” it if he kept it on.  A quick glance around the dining room revealed that yep, all the men still had on their jackets.  Now, I’m completely on board with a formal dress code in a fancy restaurant but I think that not being able to take your jacket off is just stupid.  All it achieved was making all the men in the restaurant more uncomfortable than they needed to be.
Points deducted.

In-N-Out, naturally, doesn’t enforce a dress code.  Like The French Laundry, however, every time we visited (three) they were absolutely jam packed.  There were always at least ten cars in the drive through and at least six people in the queue at the registers.  This was, in no way, an indictment on the service.  Just like the fine dining restaurant, the service at In-N-Out ran like Swiss clockwork.  I recall one occasion when there were 50 orders ahead of ours; we both rolled our eyes, thinking we’d have to wait at least half an hour before we could eat.  Less than ten minutes later though, we had our meal.  Now, most fast food joints pre-prepare a lot of their food items – this isn’t the case at In-N-Out.  The kitchen is completely open and it was easy to see why the food was coming out so fast.  There was a lot of staff and they all worked well together.  Sure, the ambience of In-N-Out doesn’t come anywhere close to matching that of The French Laundry but both restaurants provided magnificent service – efficiently and with a smile.  Winner: Draw.

FOOD

The French Laundry serves two nine-course tasting menus that change daily (one is entirely vegetarian).  They pride themselves on no two dishes having the same ingredient.  Every dish here is an exercise in the mastery of food elevated to art.  This type of thing doesn’t appeal to everyone (it does, if you hadn’t already guessed, appeal to me).  For some, food is fuel.  At The French Laundry, food is theatre.  It is performance.  Each tiny dish, presented with a flourish, is designed to be consumed in three or four bites.  These dishes take hours to compose.  Some take days.  This is NOT food for fuel.  This is food for the senses, first to be devoured by the eyes and then by the mouth, each texture and taste precisely calculated to elicit a rapturous response in the diner.  On this occasion, whilst the food was absolutely lovely, it elicited no rapture.  The sum of the parts equalled, disappointingly, only the sum of the parts.  Perhaps the six months anticipation of dining at this revered culinary institution had inflated my expectations to a level where they could never be met.  Or, maybe it’s just an over-rated (and ridiculously over-priced) restaurant.  I’m glad we went, but I don’t think we’ll be in a hurry to return.

In-N-Out, whilst in a completely different league, also had high expectations to meet.  My favourite blogger, Michael K (www.dlisted.com), first brought the chain to my attention years ago by way of his ardent and avid loyalty to it (as well as the depth of his despair that it is not available in his adopted east coast home of New York City).  During our travels in the USA some very good friends (who, incidentally, are health freaks) insisted that if we were to indulge in fast food it had to be In-N-Out.  So, we did.  The menu is very simple and small – they offer Hamburgers, Cheeseburgers and Double-Doubles (double meat, double cheese).  They also have fries, three flavours of milkshakes and soft drinks.  That’s it!  So let’s talk about the quality of the food.  Every element was super fresh and extremely tasty.  The meat was juicy (but not greasy) and cooked to perfection.  The lettuce was green and crispy.  The tomato was red and actually tasted like tomato, and not cardboard.  Wow, imagine that!  The grilled cheese was melted just right – not like in McDonald’s where they often don’t cook (MICROWAVE!!) it enough.  When ordering, you are given the option of fresh or grilled onion with your burger.  The grilled version was absolutely delicious, caramelised to perfection and full of flavour.  And each burger has a special sauce called “Spread”.  I don’t know what it is (and it looks gross) but it’s yummy.  And just about the best thing of all for me was that if you don’t eat bread (which I don’t), you can simply ask for your burger “Protein Style” and they’ll serve it wrapped in lettuce.  Amazing.  Simply put, this was the best burger I’d ever eaten in my life!  And at just over three bucks, it was excellent value.  I have no doubt  whatsoever that we’ll eat there again – next time we’re in California.  Winner: In-N-Out

I know it seems childish and perhaps a little disrespectful to compare The French Laundry (winner of The Best Restaurant In The World Award in 2003 and 2004) to a family run burger joint – but the fact of the matter is that I walked away from In-N-Out extremely impressed and more than satisfied.  I walked out of The French Laundry feeling kind of… meh!  And ripped off.

Of course this hasn’t completely dampened my enthusiasm for Mr. Michelin and his stars.  But for now I feel like that box has been ticked and I doubt I’ll go out of my way again to eat at a restaurant simply because it has three stars.

If you’d like to compare the menus of the two restaurants (with blurry pictures), here’s the link:

https://ejochryss.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/ejo-18-the-french-laundry-versus-in-n-out-the-menus/

Photo Series: The French Laundry versus In-N-Out (The Menus)

Food, Photo Series, Photographs, Travel, United States of America, , , , , , , , , , One comment

The French Laundry

The French Laundry

“OYSTERS AND PEARLS”

“Sabayon” of Pearl Tapioca with Treasure Cove Oysters and White Sturgeon Caviar

Schramsberg, Extra Brut, “Cuvée French Laundry” – California, 2006

Oysters And Pearls

*

MOULARD DUCK “FOIE GRAS EN TERRINE”

Rose “Gelée”, Pink Lady Apple, “Génoise”, Nasturtium, Red Walnuts and Périgourd Truffle

Karthäuserhof Riesling, “Eitelsbacher Karthäuserhofberg” Spätlese – Mosel, 1994

Moulard Duck Foie Gras En Terrine

*

SAUTÉED FILLET OF ATLANTIC HALIBUT

Hobbs’ Bacon, “Petit Pois”, Tokyo Turnips and Wild Ramps

Sauteed Fillet Of Atlantic Halibut

*

“CAESAR SALAD”

Sweet Butter-Poached Maine Lobster Tail, Caramelised Romaine Lettuce, Garlic Melba and “Bottarga di Muggine”

Louis Carillon, Puligny-Montrachet, “Les Combettes” 1er Cru – Burgundy, 2006

*

DEVIL’S GULCH RANCH “JAMBONETTE DE LAPIN”

Stinging Nettles, San Marzano Tomato Marmalade, Braised Pine Nuts and Parsley Oil

Frank Balthazar, Cornas, “Les Chaillot” – Rhone Valley, 2007

Jambonette De Lapin

*

“RAVIOLI DE RIS DE VEAU”

Black Trumpet Mushrooms, Sunchokes, Fava Beans and Knell’s Mangalitsa Ham “Consomme”

Copain Roussanne, “James Berry Vineyard” – Paso Robles, 2008

Ravioli De Ris De Veau

*

SNAKE RIVER FARMS “CALOTTE DE BŒUF GRILLÉE”

Akita Komachi Rice, Eggplant “Confit”, Cherry Bell Radishes, Kanzuri Purée and “Sauce Japonaise”

Marques de Murrieta, “Castillo Ygay”, Gran Reserva – Rioja, 2001

Calotte De Boeuf Grille (the best dish of the meal in my opinion)

*

“BOHO BEL”

Yukon Gold Potatoes, Pickled Pearl Onions, Cornichons, Frisée and Dijon Mustard

Meyer-Fonné, Pinot Gris, “Hinterburg de Katzenthal”, V.T. – Alsace, 2007

Boho Bel

*

STRAWBERRY SORBET

Mascarpone “Bavarois”, Sicilian Pistachio and Ages Balsamic Vinegar

*

“MOUSSE AU CHOCOLATE BLANC”

Morello Cherries and Marcona Almonds

Disznókõ, Tokaji Aszú, 6 Puttonyos – Tokaj, 2000

Mousse Au Chocolat Blanc (David’s Dessert)

*

“ÎLE FLOTTANTE”

Lemongrass, Meiwa Kumquat, Black Sesame and Ginger “Anglaise”

La Morandina, Moscato d’Asti – Piedmonte, 2009

Ile Flottante (my dessert)

*

MIGNARDISES

******************************************************************************************

In-N-Out

In-N-Out

Hamburger

Lettuce, Tomato, Grilled or Fresh Onion (Optional) and “Spread”

*

Cheeseburger

Lettuce, Tomato, Grilled or Fresh Onion (Optional), Cheese and “Spread”

*

Double Double

Lettuce, Tomato, Grilled or Fresh Onion (Optional), Double Meat/Double Cheese and “Spread”

Double Doubles (the one on the right is “Protein Style”)

*

Animal Fries

Melted Cheese, Grilled Onions and “Spread”

Animal Fries (look disgusting, taste delicious)

Ejo #17 – A Response to A. A. Gill’s Dubai-Bashing Article in Vanity Fair

Learning About Dubai, Travel, Writing, , , View all 4 comments

A couple of weeks ago there was a little bit of controversy surrounding a Vanity Fair article written by Scottish restaurant critic A. A. Gill. It was a piece that rather viciously attacked the city of Dubai – but that in itself isn’t what caused the scandal. It was the fact that the article had been removed from copies sold in the UAE. There was, of course, the expected furore about censorship and freedom of information, blah blah blah. But when asked about it, the UAE censorship committee shrugged their shoulders and said, “It wasn’t us!”. A theory has evolved that, in fact, Conde Nast (the publisher of Vanity Fair) was responsible for ripping out the “offending” article from copies sold in the UAE in order to drum up publicity for the story.  If so, bravo, because it worked – it was a form of viral marketing that has stirred up far more discussion about A. A. Gill’s work than had it been just another Dubai-bashing story.

If you are interested in reading the article, you may do so HERE.

And if you are interested in reading my response to it, you may do so here:

Dear A. A. Gill,

This letter is addressed to you but it is not, in fact, directed towards you at all because I know that it would fall on deaf ears.  Based on this, and previous articles you have written, you don’t really care about anything except creating a fuss.  Congratulations, you have, yet again, succeeded in offending an entire city (if not country) and its inhabitants.  What a shame that this was actually your goal and that the tools you employed to do so included bigotry, bitchiness and bullying.

If I thought that you would actually be open to feedback and discussion then yes, I would write this for you.  However I don’t.  And thus, I am writing it for anyone who may have read your article and taken it at face value – which, admittedly, it would be easy to do as it reads just like a real article from a real travel journalist.  What most people may not realise is that you are actually just a restaurant reviewer and TV critic.  It seems that these days anyone with a passport and a pen can pose as a travel writer.  I promised myself I would not use against you the fact that you have such severe dyslexia that all your work is done by dictation, so I shall not.  I will, however, rephrase my previous sentence: It seems that these days anyone with a passport and a Dictaphone can pose as a travel writer.

Having read some of your previous scathing travel reports it would appear that being offensive is your ‘bit’.  Well done for having found something that you’re good at (and kudos to you for getting paid for it).  But let’s be honest, it’s not very nice, is it?  And even more importantly, it means that not much of what you write is actually very accurate (it’s a bit harder to be controversial when you have to stick to the facts, isn’t it?).  So, I guess the only problem I really have with your article is that it is being touted as non-fiction when it is nothing more than a deliciously nasty short-story.

For the clarification of your readers, and mine, I will now address a few of the many fallacies in your story (I don’t have the time or the inclination to correct them all).  Let’s start with the first sentence: “The only way to make sense of Dubai is to never forget that it isn’t real.”  The city I have chosen to adopt as my home town is not, as you go on to say, a fable.  Nor is it a fairy tale.  How silly of you to say so.  Of course it’s real.  It’s as real as New York, London, Edinburgh, Melbourne or Singapore.  People live here, work here and play here.  There is an art scene, a stock exchange, several universities, efficient public transport and even a burgeoning film industry.  Approximately 5 million people choose to live here and about 50 million people a year pass through this so-called “imaginary” city.  They demand (and receive) an infrastructure that solidifies it as very real indeed.  So while it sounds really good to start your story off by calling Dubai a “fairy tale”, let’s agree that it’s not true and move on.

You say that Dubai can’t buy a culture of its own.  I shall concede that argument while pointing out that perhaps it isn’t trying to.  Culture can’t be bought anyway.  Culture is grown, earned and nurtured over time.  Dubai, as a city, hasn’t had the time to attain what you refer to as “culture”.  Its history goes back only about 30 years; I challenge you to find any 30 year old you could describe as being cultured.  In that short time though, it’s gone from a small, but thriving, pearling and fishing port village to the bustling metropolis you see today.  It has never been, as you assert, inhabited by a “handful of tented families herding goats and shooting each other”.  I believe that the families you are referring to are Bedouins (from which the majority of locals in Dubai do not actually originate).  And as for your reference to them shooting each other, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.  My guess is that you’re just trying to be inflammatory.  More silliness.

Let’s continue.  You state that Dubai’s economy is maintained by oil rich families.  Not so.  Yes, these families do exist, of course.  But Dubai, unlike Abu Dhabi, doesn’t have a huge amount of oil.  As a result they’ve had to work for their money and they’ve done that by creating an international city with first class facilities to entice tourists.  The economy is driven by those 50 million travellers that pass through each year.  And the reason they come is that a member of one of those rich families, Sheikh Mohammed (the Ruler of Dubai), realising that the emirate’s meagre oil supply would be insufficient to feed the growth of the city, invested that money in making Dubai a destination city; making it attractive to tourists; making it a beautiful, strange oasis in the middle of the desert.

And guess what, it worked.  The tourists came and they had a good time.  And yes, some people, including David and me, decided to move here.  Not because we are, as you say, “mercenaries” or “parasites”.   Sure the tax free salary was a contributing factor in our decision but the reality is that we don’t actually make that much more money here than back home.  The primary reason for moving was to take up the opportunity to work abroad.  The options were Dubai or Ireland and I don’t like the cold.  The secondary reason was adventure.  We love to travel and compared to Australia, geographically, Dubai feels like the centre of the world.  In the two and a half years we’ve been here we’ve been overseas nine times and have another three trips planned for 2011.  We simply could never have enjoyed this lifestyle back home.  The money came much further down the list.  So as easy as it is for you to call western expats “greedy sycophants”, in our case (and several others) it simply isn’t true.

Next, you claim that Emiratis are “born retired” and are unable to “even change a fuse”.  I know for a fact that you must not know any Emiratis otherwise you couldn’t make such ridiculous statements.  I do have the pleasure of knowing a handful, and the truth is that they do have to work, and they are actually good at what they do.  Not all of them are born rich and not all of them have been rendered useless by a menagerie of servants.  Yes, people like that do exist but they are not representative of the entire nationality.  Broad statements like that are usually referred to as being “racist”.  Please be careful Adrian.

Finally, I’ll address your crude statement that the Burj Khalifa is a “monument to small-nation penis envy”.  I wonder what kind of envy you suffer from to make such an observation.  Phallic-centric, much??  The Burj Khalifa wasn’t built out of any kind of envy.  It was built as a monument of beauty and incredible architecture.  A feat of modern engineering.  I look upon this building from my living room window every day and I honestly think it is an amazing structure.  As a resident of the city I am very proud of it.  Were the Eiffel Tower, St. Paul’s Cathedral or the Sydney Opera House built because their designers had small willies??  I don’t think so.  All of these buildings may be considered ostentatious too if you look at them through your mud coloured glasses.  What they do all have in common is that they were built by people who had a dream to create something memorable, lasting and unique.  The Burj Khalifa is an incredible achievement; a testament to human endeavour and vision.  I defy anyone to stand before it and not feel some sense of awe.  You don’t have to admit that you felt it Mr. Gill, but I bet that you did.

It seems almost naive of me to even bother writing this response to your article.  I’m sure you’re not even invested enough in what you wrote to care what people think.  I debated with myself whether writing this letter would be falling into the trap of doing exactly what you wanted me to do.  In the end I decided that even if that was the case, I didn’t mind.  I had to respond.  Dubai is very far from perfect and you did actually make a couple of salient points regarding the city’s terrible human rights record.  The treatment of construction workers here is abysmal.  It’s getting better but the process is frustratingly slow and, unfortunately, I can’t see an improvement of the situation in the near future.  But you didn’t write about it in order to find a solution.  You did so for entertainment and that, sir, is just as despicable as the act itself – if not more so because, indeed, you have a platform to bring attention to the plight of the labourers in order to effect a change for the better.  To help them.  Instead, you chose to use it only as a means of belittling the city.  Shame on you.

Dubai is certainly a strange creature, and most definitely not to everyone’s liking.  Anyone who reads my ejos knows that there’s lots about it that really annoys me too.  But it doesn’t deserve to be lambasted by the likes of you.  Leave the lambasting to people who live here and know it intimately and can complain about the real issues.  You, almost certainly, visited here with the intention of being mean and looking for faults.  Sure it makes a great article, but you know what A. A. Gill?  If that’s the way you go through life, I imagine you’ll be unhappy wherever you find yourself, and all I can feel for you is pity.