Restaurant critic Philip Innes evaluates his fellow reviewers and finds their work too often in critical condition.

Who died and made him God? What gives her the right to pass judgment? These are questions frequently asked about restaurant critics. And they're troubling questions.

Restaurateurs are wont to follow up these initial queries with others like: Is this person a chef? Has this critic ever worked in a restaurant? Can this individual even cook? Has this reviewer ever been required, as most chefs have, to pass a test proving he or she knows something about food?

One thing is certain: Restaurant critics engender strong feelings among restaurant owners, chefs and wait staff. A good review might propel a restaurant to dizzying heights, while an unkind one might even shut it down.

A Reel Food Lover
The stereotype of the all-powerful restaurant critic is reflected in numerous celluloid portrayals-some serious, others humorous. There has never been a more delicious Hollywood send-up of the world of haute cuisine than the film Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? In this 1978 flick, fine dining has taken its toll on portly critic Max Vanderveere (played to perfection by Robert Morley). Vanderveere's doctor tells him: "You are suffering from gout, enlarged liver, duodenal ulcer, spastic colon, heart murmur and severe hardening of the arteries. You're suffering from these maladies because you're calamitously fat.You'll be dead within six months."

Vanderveere fends off his doctor's pleas that he diet. "Cut down? I am what I am precisely because I've eaten my way to the top. I'm a work of art created by the finest chefs in the world. Every fold is a brush stroke, every crease a sonnet, every chin a concerto. In short, doctor. in my present form I'm a masterpiece."

In one scene, Vanderveere instructs his Girl Friday: "Beacham, take one star away from Chez August. I dined there last night and it generated more gas than the Middle East produces in a month."A chef challenges Vanderveere's authority, saying "And what do you know, you critic, you who have never cooked anything?" Vanderveere's Churchill-esque reply is: "My dear fellow, you don't have to lay an egg to be able to smell a bad one."

But distraught on his deathbed, the curmudgeonly Vanderveere appears to recant: "I was never worthy of any of you. You created. I just appreciated."A Death in Burgundy."

Lately, if you ask who is killing the great chefs of Europe , some restaurateurs just might answer-restaurant critics. The February 24, 2003 suicide of Bernard Loiseau focused worldwide attention on the power wielded by critics. One week after the GaultMillau guide downgraded his Burgundian restaurant, La Côte d'Or, from a 19 to a 17 (out of 20) and two weeks after Michelin issued a statement to put a stop to rumors that his restaurant could be losing its third star, the 52-year-old Loiseau ended his life with a hunting rifle.

Sadly, there is precedent for French chefs taking their own lives. In the 17th century, the legendary François Vatel fell on his sword when a fish delivery was late for a meal at which King Louis XIV was the honored guest. And in 1966, Parisian chef Alain Zick shot himself after his restaurant lost a Michelin star.

Renowned chef Paul Bocuse struck a nerve when he held GaultMillau responsible for his friend's death. "We should not allow ourselves to be manipulated like that-I give you a star, I take one away." Echoing the words of Vanderveere's detractor, Bocuse added, "These critics are like eunuchs. They know what to do, but they can't do it."

Some commentators have since accused Bocuse of biting the hand that has fed him so well. Wrote Mike Steinberger of Slate, "It's not a little ironic that Bocuse has been doing most of the finger-pointing during the past week, since no one has prospered more than he from Michelin's imprimatur." Steinberger went on to say, "If anything, Michelin appears to have cut (Loiseau) some slack in recent years. It is common knowledge that the guide is slow to demote underperforming stars.The first and only time I ate at La Côte d'Or, three years ago, the food was tired and so was he."

GaultMillau refused guilt over Loiseau's death. Director Patrick Moyenabe stated, "Loiseau, this great French chef, certainly had other problems. In no way can we imagine it was a grade, a simple grade, that could have taken his life."

Addressing the celebrity chef psyche, Loiseau's widow, Dominique said: "All these people, all these exceptional beings who give you the impression of so much assurance, they are all very fragile, they all have such strong moments of doubt." Marc Veyrat-whose restaurant, La Ferme de Mon Père, recently became the first awarded a 20 by GaultMillau-said top chefs are "like fragile little boys, under pressure from all sides.When we've reached the summit, swords of Damocles hanging over our heads. there's only one way to go."

Critical Assessment
As lamentable as Loiseau's suicide was, I am loathe to blame it on any restaurant critic or guide. More to the point, the restaurant business may be tough, but no more so than the stock market, the military or academia. Everyone who works in a competitive field-and what field isn't?-is hostage to the vicissitudes of life and the judgments of others. And if the restaurant business has experienced one prominent suicide in recent years (even one is too many, of course), then it probably is faring better than most.

Many restaurateurs expect critics to fulfill the role of industry cheerleaders, their cinematic portrayals notwithstanding. As a restaurant critic of nine years, I couldn't disagree more with those who would relegate restaurant criticism to a cheerleadership role. In my experience, a writer (or publication, for that matter) seen as unwilling to be critical when it's called for, quickly loses his or her power to mobilize the public. Most readers learn to tune out any person who appears to like every eatery and every item he or she tries.

Discerning members of the public recognize such people for what they are-arms of the publication's advertising department. Conversely, an impartial critic who tells it like it is will win the respect of the public and wield great influence over people's dining decisions.

After all, there are bad restaurants and chefs. And even good restaurants and chefs produce some bad dishes. No matter how partisan a restaurant professional is on the subject, it's difficult to argue that the public doesn't have a right to know which is which. Furthermore, while some restaurants may be trying to do their level best, there are others who are making conscious decisions to mark up their wines excessively, use less than high quality ingredients or pander to lowest common denominator tastes. Again, the public has a right to know which is which.

Most legitimate critics would profess to serve the public first, the restaurant industry second. And most would aver that, whatever their tone, they mean their criticism constructively and are offering restaurants a blueprint for success-if they would only listen.

And many do. I reviewed one French bistro shortly after it opened, emphasizing its potential but flagging some areas that needed attention. Tracking me down, the restaurant owner told me that a few things I had written had stung but he wanted me to know he had added an oven and replaced a pastry chef, a waitress and an air conditioner. While I felt uncomfortable confronting the fallout from my review (as I believe most critics would), the truth is this restaurateur got a chance to get his house in order before it was too late and his business is thriving. Restaurant consultants get paid big bucks for that kind of feedback-restaurant critics give it away.

Rating the Reviewers
Sadly, second-rate critics seem to be proliferating like bacteria on warm fish. The problem is that while restaurants and chefs of dubious merit are answerable to critics, not to mention the public, to whom are restaurant critics answerable? Ultimately, they're accountable to editors-in-chief, few of whom are as concerned with getting food stories right as they are with "real news." Even when the public rises up against a critic, it may do little good. When restaurant reviews stir up a firestorm of controversy, most editors see it as a blessing that sells newspapers rather than evidence that their critic might need replacing. The losers, in such cases, are the restaurants and the restaurant-going public.

Nor are many restaurants in a position to take on their tormentors. When Grand Central Oyster Bar, after receiving a rating of "fair," took out an ad in The New York Times quoting the few positive parts of William Grimes' March 5, 2003 review, many people (even some who agreed with Grimes) cheered. Such a move showed the ownership had a sense of humor-that it could dish it out as well as take it. Similarly, a restaurant I was tough on purchased an ad in the same publication contesting what I wrote and offering a discount to anyone showing up with the ad in hand.

But only the most confident or economically viable restaurants are likely to risk taking on a critic. So who has sufficient authority, credibility and media access to right such wrongs? The answer is: another restaurant critic. In 1999, I may have broken new ground by evaluating and ranking 27 current or recent New York and Connecticut restaurant critics on their food knowledge, writing ability, fairness and liveliness. In descending order, my top five were Gael Greene ( New York magazine), John Mariani (Esquire magazine and the Journal News), Ruth Reichl (The New York Times), Elise Maclay ( Connecticut magazine) and William Grimes (The New York Times). At further risk of antagonizing my colleagues, I have also on occasion used my columns to respond to critics who have erred. Erred, you are thinking?

Isn't reviewing just a matter of opinion? Well, yes and no. First, some opinions are better than others. Second, analyzing the writings of other critics over the years, I have found that many make errors of fact, misidentify ingredients and generally misunderstand ethnic food.

I have no problem with a restaurant critic wielding great influence if he or she is knowledgeable, consistent and has a well-developed sense of fairness. I may even like a critic who also writes engagingly and well. However, such critics are almost more the exception than the rule.

Starting with the next issue of SLAMMED, I will be taking a hard look at the nation's restaurant critics one metropolitan area at a time. I will be examining each critic's food knowledge, writing ability, fairness and liveliness. You will see that not all restaurant critics are created equal.