A reader I trust sitting at Fuel’s bar tonight has sent word that Alexandra Gill, the restaurant critic for the Globe and Mail, came in and sat down for dinner with a friend, only to be told she had to leave after being recognised. She and her friend left immediately.
It was Gill who likened one of chef/co-owner Robert Belcham’s dishes to a limp and flayed penis in her review a year and a half ago.
“When is a slowly poached loin of heritage-breed organic pork a lot less appetizing than it sounds? When it pops up on your plate pink, wrinkly, soft and bearing a distinctly bizarre resemblance to thick, squishy slices of a certain male appendage.”
“What does that look like to you?” I gulped, before tentatively digging in.
“It does have a nice girth,” my companion conceded, poking uneasily at her matching plate of fleshy meat.
The rest of the review is pretty rough, too, full of cringing criticisms. If I dined like a betting man, I’d wager that Fuel winning a flurry of awards for their efforts in their first year testifies to Gill’s review being an outlier, a statistical anomaly (I’ve written a few).
That she returned at all showed a willingness to give it a second chance, that she had maybe heard a few good things and was curious. I have no doubt that she didn’t enjoy herself the first time around (shit happens, and I loathe all penises save my own), but this was probably a difficult review for the restaurant to swallow.
If it was the cause, then Gill is the first critic I know of (other than the other “Gill” in Britain who was famously booted by Gordon Ramsay) to have been tossed when returning to dine after a bad review. Rather selfishly, I hope she is the last.
I doubt Fuel will see anything in the way of retribution. The motivation would be too transparent, especially now since we’re talking about it, and no food was consumed before she was shown the door, so there can’t be a review.
So I guess it dies here. Only your thoughts remain. Share away in the comment field below…
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Personally I think the whole (MPW, Ramsay) tossing thing is rather passe. If it was a customer who was causing a disturbance or being out of line of course kick them out (which should be done move often in restaurants regardless of the amount they spent on wine that night.) At the end of the day it would have perhaps been a better move to blow her away with the food and service and have her look like the idiot when she has to eat her words.
Now appearing on menus all over town.
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
A classic but in the right font, very modern.
About time a critic was shown the door. Good on them. It must suck to know you a banned from an establishment. Bravo Fuel
I’m glad she got the boot, she couldn’t review her way out of a paper bag.
I agree with Cam entirely.
Although I don’t think that her comparison of the meat to a flaccid member was appropriate, I do agree with her that meat that is going to be prepared sous vide, should be seared post sous vide to achieve that maillard crust that makes meat so tasty. The contrast of the crust versus the soft interior is a lovely thing. I can understand her disappointment. I once had a sous vide rack of lamb that wasn’t seared…..and it was boring. Tender…..but boring.
Taking criticism is part of being a chef.
Time for a poll Andrew?
What would the question and answers be?
That is goooood stuff! How anyone can expect to piss all over someones business and then expect to come back for another meal is laughable. I think if she was held in high regard for her column it might be different, but she’s kind of the “Jerry Springer” of food writers now isn’t she. Stretching the truth or flat out lying in a column just to make a story juicer.
I have always found Gill’s reviews to be fair. She is a critic and will sometimes be critical, even of restaurants other food writers fawn over. Tossing her out is childish.
We were not looking for retribution when we explained to Alex that we would not be cooking for her (we didn’t think her review was that bad), nor were we looking for publicity. I guess nothing gets past Andrew in this city though. And to agree with Cam_13, day in and day out we work our hardest to blow guests away with great food and service. We simply feel when Alex is writing, great food and service are completely overlooked while she searches for phantom sensationalism and opportunities for defamation. We collectively decided that even a great review from Alex would not be taken seriously either, so non-participation was what we came up with. When a reviewer actually loves food, it comes through in their writing, whether they are being positive or negative, and we can handle those negatives. Those critics will always be welcome at Fuel, for without positive, legitimate feedback, we will never have the chance to grow and become better. As for our actions last night, we were simply attempting to adhere to old adage that no gnews is good gnews!
Tom
Nod, to all of the above.
After re-reading the review I can see Tom’s point when dicks, tattoos, a drunk friend and showing up late are equally mentioned with the wine and service…regardless I would’ve taken her money.
interestingly in the review Ms. Gill says she will return ” if they will have me” I wonder if that line planted the seed.
I could go either way on booting Gill out or taking the success-is-the-best-revenge path, but honestly: in each column, she’s got two good thoughts drowning in a sea of Carrie Bradshaw lameness.
Best bet: stop reading the Globe.
didn’t Sir Conrad Black go to jail?
*cough*
Not funny, at all, but very.
tom’s “explanation” sounds as flaccid as his pork.
fuel was #1 on my to-dine list.
WAS being the operative word. a restaurant so terrified of criticism is never one that i would support with my hard-earned dollars.
Tom, did you call Alex a gnew?
Sadly, and without criticism to be directed either way, I think the boys lost an opportunity to show they could rise above it all.
As much as they were probably atwitter at doing what most of us wish we had the stones to do, I think it’s simply poured more Fuel on the fire.
A clever marketing tool, clearly, complete with the requisite ‘leak’ moments later. I can’t help but imagine the chef hi-fiving the brigade as they all pat themselves on the back for landing a blow for all the poor embattled restaurateurs.
But what were they thinking? Fighting fire with fire maybe? That strategy could only mean that they were answering bad press with worse press, and feed this ‘tiny group of restaurateurs and hangers ons’ with the same such tripe, gossip and innuendo as Mz Gill herself dishes out in the Globe.
I remember when a local restaurateur called me up to form a group to march on city hall and battle the liquor board head on. As I sent him off with a hearty handshake and a ‘have fun storming the castle!’ I remember thinking, damn. . i’m sure glad someone’s doing something and I’m even more glad it isn’t me.
Perhaps Fuel has landed a blow, but to what end, and what are we fighting for? This type of circus mentality only further degrades the dialogue, draws lines in the sand and legitimizes the fact that Ms. Gill’s articles read more like S.i.t.C. than a serious food column.
I can’t help but feel happy for Fuel, they got what everyone wants, a chance to give it back to a critic and be the alpha for a change. Clearly, Alex has a thick enough skin to deal with it professionally, but I wonder, what if she was going back to make good on that first review, and deliver a stunner of a serious article, bringing to the national spotlight a bright beacon of inspired West Coast cuisine? What if she’d already had it in her mind she’d been rough on them, and finally had some column inches to devote their way as way of apology?
I’d feel pretty awkward then, but thankfully, we’ll never know, and the beat goes on.
“what if she was going back to make good on that first review, and deliver a stunner of a serious article, bringing to the national spotlight a bright beacon of inspired West Coast cuisine?”
What part of that is even possible? Sean, you ignorant slut. :-)
I think you’re reading way too much into this. This wasn’t the beginnings of a city-wide restaurateur revolt. It was an isolated and situation-specific incident, one that – despite your suspicions to the contrary – Fuel has not been bragging about (at least to me).
Great video stream Andrew, soooo Canadian!
:) i know better than to take on the guy with the final edit :P
Although you’ve baited the hook generously, I can only offer you a nibble.
Ignorant yes, slut perhaps, but I rarely read too much into things, quite frankly that just smacks of effort. Suspicions aside, you’re quite correct. It is completely situation specific and I would imagine it won’t happen again.
Now that I get to sit in the armchair and qback from the sidelines, I’m the biggest fan of those ‘tin cup’ moments that light up the industry’s imagination. And, like foie, feenies and freedom fries, this qualifies as such.
The first volley has been launched, and the casualties are minimal, but will the next upstart restaurant to brave Ms.Gill’s saucy quill be collateral damage?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s this adversarial approach that is the wetnurse to writers like AA Gill, and celebrities like Gordon f’ing Ramsay, nurturing the animosity and disdain until the lines are finally drawn in the sand and it all goes Feenie on us.
I could be reading far too much into it, sure, but isn’t that the point? Don’t writers, bloggers and editors get goosebumps about food fights and ego’s that go bump in the night? It’s the grass you graze on, the teat you suckle and the bacon you bring home.
Stories that engage us, force us to ask difficult questions, and challenge what we currently hold dear, these are the lifeblood of any writer. This story is the whole raison d’etre of this website, and the millions like it. It exists to feed us with the kibbles and bits with which we form our opinions on the industry. And it does it well (yes, i’m sucking up).
That being said, however, just because we want to rise above it all doesn’t mean we don’t want to watch a little. If I’m giving it too much Don King and not enough Tom Brokaw, then I apologize, but really, who can look away from a pillowfight like this?
I’ve done a couple of scathing reviews, and I will not return to those places. Not even if I’m being offered to review them, or have a dinner voucher, etc. I know why I hated a place and I don’t need a second chance.
There are restaurants that I’ve given bad reviews to, and that I’ve clearly said “I will have to give them another chance”. Those, I can visit again. If I get tossed, I can tell them “um, I was going to give you guys another chance but if you won’t have me, you have EVERY right to refuse to give me service”. Which I believe, they do.
And I will not be pouting about it. If that happens, I brought it all on myself.
The reason why I use myself as an example is because I don’t know Alexandra Gill well enough, but if it had been me, I would have known that a scathing review can lead to refusal of service.
On a side note – I have never tried Fuel but friends of mine have and they say it’s awesome, so I’ll have to try them when I come back to Vancouver.
Hmmm…
Momentary hoorah that leads to longterm dissatisfaction? Far be it for me to judge as I was oft too short sighted myself, but isn’t rising to the challenge one of the greatest accomplishments of your night? Great food, service, ambiance, and a lovely experience are often molded by the actors that deliver it, n’est pas? Many say the line was crossed by what was written, but last I checked freedom of opinion makes up two thirds of press-journalism, wouldn’t more say the line was actually crossed when someone willing to show their face in your establishment with money to give you in exchange for food, drink, and service is shown the door? I celebrated for a second, then realized the hubris.
{ 1 trackback }