Mondovino

[bpearis]

Wine documentary Mondovino hits Cannes. You can check out a variety of articles on it via Google.

[Keith Talent]

Anyone else interested in this? Apparently there's a 12 part TV series that accompanies. I'm curious in spite of self-important statements like, "it is the only product that is as complex as a human being." Really? What about cats, they're more complex than wine. Airline seat pricing policy is every bit as complex as wine. Tax code is more complex than wine, easily. The neutral zone trap is almost as compex as wine. Ikea furniture is as complex as wine.

He also says wine is, "the sole guardian of Western civilisation.” Okay, screw it, maybe I don't want to see this. For someone who claims to hate the snobbery of wine, he certainly makes some pretty sweeping grand statements. And someone please tell wine to deal with bin Laden, he's in a cave in Pakistan. Save us wine.

Yahoo movie info

Article from yesterdays Globe & Mail

Info from official Cannes site

[Carolyn Tillie]

Okay, it is a documentary, but it follows and looks at the cult figure of Robert Parker. This article in the Baltimore Sun talks about the film's showing at the current Cannes Festival.

Can't wait to see it. More on the film, from the article:

CANNES, France -- He was born in Baltimore, became a lawyer, and now lives comfortably in the Maryland countryside with bulldogs and a bloodhound named J. Edgar Hoover.

But his reviews in the Wine Advocate can alter the price of wine around the world.

Is Robert Parker too influential? Jonathan Nossiter's new documentary, Mondovino, which premiered this week at the Cannes Film Festival, leans that way.

For the film, Nossiter journeys across three continents examining the struggles of the wine world's stars, supporting players and hangers-on. The 2-hour, 38-minute documentary was admitted into the festival competition at the last minute, allowing it to vie against 18 others for the Palme d'Or, Europe's biggest film prize. Among its competitors is another documentary, Michael Moore's politically charged Fahrenheit 9/11.

edited to fix broken links.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Carolyn Tillie (log)

[jmcnally]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm a bit concerned because I saw the director's last film (2000's "Signs and Wonders") and really disliked it. That wasn't a documentary, though, and I think he was out of his league. At the Toronto International Film Festival premiere, where I saw it, he was so excitable (and high?) at the post-screening Q&A that he fell off his chair. Maybe he'd already been into some of Mr. Parker's recommendations by that point.

Any news of a theatrical release yet?

[Carolyn Tillie]

Well, part of the whole Cannes culture is this is where a lot of directors and producers shop their films for distributors. As IMDB doesn't even show this film as EXISTING yet, it will probably be a while before the likes of us will get to see it... We can only hope it gets a good reception - then there is a chance we'll get to see it.

On a side note, this is what I hate about Cannes - I read about it and a lot of the films that get screened there - and subsequently get very frustrated that many of the really cool stuff never gets an American distribution.

Knowing how much Movie Moguls like wine, I can only hope this has a better chance than others...

[Brad Ballinger]

This quotation from the filmmaker is where I have problems with cowtowing to the scores of Parker and others...

"The world of wine is in danger because of a homogenizing of taste," Nossiter told the panel.

Later on the article mentions the term Everywine (I've used the term McWine).

2:38 is a helluva long time for a documentary on Parker, but it will be purchased on DVD and proudly displayed next to a 1985 Margaux in many a cellar.

[jmcnally]

If I'm interested in the subject, then the longer a documentary is, the more I like it. Especially on DVD, when you can watch it in pieces. I for one am looking forward to seeing this.

By the way, I just finished reading the long piece on Parker that William Langewiesche wrote for The Atlantic Monthly back in December 2000 (it was called "The Million-Dollar Nose"). I wonder if Nossiter got the idea for the film after reading this fascinating article.

Edited May 20, 2004 by jmcnally (log)

[Coop]

I rate the idea of a film on Robert Parker 85-90. Potential for greatness, see after 05 and forget by 07.

[Gifted Gourmet]

the article from Slate Online

Wine has been a symbol of Western civilisation for thousands of years - but never have the stakes been so high, or the fight for its soul so desperate. Across three continents, Mondovino weaves together the family sagas of billionaire Napa Valley power brokers, the rivalry of two aristocratic Florentine dynasties and the fight of three generations of a Burgundian family to preserve their few acres of land. Both a film maker and a wine expert, Nossiter is uniquely qualified to tell this epic tale, and through the prism of wine he entertainingly explores the problems of globalisation, the dominance of big business and tensions in the transatlantic relationship.

article here

Has anyone either seen this, which has yet to open in the US, or read anything about it?

At a time when the French wine industry is in crisis and France believes that its way of life is threatened by American economic and cultural imperialism, Mondovino affirms for the French that sinister forces have indeed been conspiring to weaken their winemaking tradition.the wine world is being overrun by corporations, consultants, and all-powerful critics, and that as a result, wine is becoming homogenized—an industrial product that evinces no sense of place, or, as the French call it, terroir ...

Has globalisation actually done what this film implies to the wine world? The review raises interesting questions and even discusses Robert Parker, among others ... a good read for today ...

[PS]

I saw this when it was on release in the UK back in January. It wasn't a bad film, if a little on the long side. I don't know how much of the film's gyst was the director's slant or objective. Unfortunately, my main memory of the film is feeling ill from about 20 mins in. Whether I'd a spot of food poisoning or whether it was due to sea-sickness brought on by the extremely irritating hand held camera work that never stayed settled on a subject, but instead zoomed into extreme close-ups on someone's eyebrow while they talked or, more often, followed a dog sniffing around in the background, I don't know. I got the impression that the cameraman had some sort of attention deficit disorder or just couldn't be bothered to give the interviewees any time.

There were some interesting characters in there, the odd amusing moment, and the Mondavis don't exactly come out of it well, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to recommend it.

[Gifted Gourmet]

At Cannes, a Sip Of Globalism's Bitter Juice from the Washington Post

[Gifted Gourmet]

Critique of Pure Riesling ....Wine snobbery in an age of globalization: Reason Magazine

[docsconz]

I saw the film Friday night. It was provocative, but clearly was made with a specific slant and therefore more than a bit propagandaist. I found myself reacting against the film even though I largely support many of its points. I felt that it really attempted (and succeeded at)character assassination. Did they really need to show the reaction to Robert Parker's dog passing gas?

I agree with the comments above about the camera work. I got the impression that many of he interviews were filmed with subjects unaware they were being filmed or the editing specifically looked for spots when people were their most vulnerable. I did not get this sense with Michel Rolland, though. He just seemed to be really arrogant.

[Bux]

I saw the film last week. My reactions are similar to Doc's. It's more than a bit propagandist. Even if you're anti globalization, some of it is difficult to swallow. It presents some very appealing romantic concepts, but it neglects a lot of the reality. It was not just Parker's dog I found annoying, but for a film about wine, it seemed to follow every stray dog as if that was more important than making wine or a point. It was self indulgent and abusive with my time to the extent that I had to watch dogs sniff each other and bark at the camera when I wanted to hear either side's arguments. This was more annoying that they jerky camera work that seems to have bothered others. There were some noble efforts to be fair, but largely the "bad" side was made to look evil and arrogant while the "good" side was make to appear as nobel peasants. The large Bordeaux clients of Rolland were asked about what they did during the war, but that question wasn't put to the other side. What was unfortunately clear was that the taste of the wine was never an object of the filmmaker's interest. The film moved me to have greater sympathy for globalism. Propaganda doesn't always work even for those who want to believe. Few of us really want to be so obviously manipulated.

[rjwong]

In the 16 Mar. 2005 LA Times Food Section digest, I inserted links to the four discussion threads about the movie Mondovino, including this thread. Also includes a link to David Shaw's review.

[Bux]

In the 16 Mar. 2005 LA Times Food Section digest, I inserted links to the four discussion threads about the movie Mondovino, including this thread. Also includes a link to David Shaw's review.

←

Thanks. We've merged all four threads here.

[Rebel Rose]

From Decanter:

Mondovino director launches savage counter attack on Parker website.

Get ready for a 4,500 word diatribe, plus responses.

Mark Squires' Wine Bulletin Board at eRobertParker.com

His friends claim he’s a man of the earth and I should have shot him among the vineyards. Had Michel taken me to the vineyards, I would have shot him happily there.

[malcolmjolley]

I saw the film recently. It's wonderful, but it's about as subtle as a Michael Moore movie. I am an honest to God believer in terroire and small handmade wines by makers who care and all that, but his argument is cheapened by his technique, and I think a very unfair portrayal of Parker.

He puts Parker out as a champion of Californian (i.e. big bad new world evil corporate) wine. But Parker started and made his true mark by writing enthusiastically about the Rhone. (Shameless plug: I go on about this a little more in this week's Gremolata.)

It's too bad. I still loved the film, but the first thing I have to mention, to those that ask, is that it's way biased, and probably unfair.

Then, I say, go see it anyway – I chuckled the whole way through.

[malcolmjolley]

No suprises here, I guess. Michel Rolland has been appointed consultant at Ludovico and Piero Antinori's Bolgheri estate, Tenuta Campo di Sasso.

[JohnL]

I have a DVD of Mondovino sitting here on my desk--looking forward to watching it.

I did read the book by Lawrence Osborne "Accidental Connoisseur" who was inspired by Nossiter. I loved this book which I believe is a much more fair presentation of the Nossiter side of the argument.

I also see Parker's side as well--he is an easy target after all and he has been misrepresented by many people. It should be noted that there probably would not have been a "Mondovino" if there was no Parker!

I would recommend Elin McCoy's bio of Parker which was just released--she does a pretty good job of laying out the two sides.

You make a good point ie the Rhone--- Parker has done way more good than many would admit.

The fact is small producers make good and bad wine and large producers make good and bad wine. Terroir is a fine concept but it is not the be all and end all some of its proponants make it to be.

The fact is--wine is a complex and fascinating drink with more than a little mysticism and magic involved.

[Rebel Rose]

I had to triple think about posting my review of Mondovino, because I disagree with many of my fellow eGullet Society members, fellow hosts and managers, many of the posters on eRobertParker.com, Pierre Rovani, and probably Robert Parker.

I thought the movie was charming and funny. I laughed out loud.

I finally got the newly released DVD via Netflix, which includes some hilarious material from Episode VI, and a director’s commentary. It’s also fun to use the freeze-rewind function, particularly when you’re not sure if you just saw what you saw . . .

I think that those of us watching this film in the comfort of our homes will have an entirely different reaction than those who saw it in theaters. There’s a certain expectation of theater releases that this film will not fulfill, and certain nuances that are lost if you blink an eye, as well.

A documentary is not necessarily journalism. There are documentaries that are journalistic in style, but the mere fact that one is interviewing real people on real issues does not make it journalism. This is a personal documentary. It’s a story. It is Nossiter’s vision. In his director’s commentary, he makes no bones (pardon the doggy pun) that he wanted to portray small, struggling producers who are pitted against the globalization, or the global homogenization, of wine.

This is not a movie for people who wish to place wine producers or writers on a pedestal. For they have most assuredly fallen off and stumbled into our midst. A Contessa’s husband is rude to her; an American tourist is chased out of a vineyard for eating grapes (memorialized forever on tape, poor guy); a wine industrialist’s son has his family goods pop out of his boxers; a cosmetic surgeon nervously massages a breast implant while being interviewed; an elderly French repairman looks like he’s having a heart attack; and on top of all this, the Burgundians insult the Bordelais; who in turn insult Robert Parker; and Parker returns the lob; and consultants insult their own clients. At one point I thought the next scene would be vignerons endulging in a messy, rotten fruit fight.

But I loved it all. They’re people expressing their passions.

There have been criticisms that Nossiter charmed his subjects into exposing their frustrations. That they trusted him and he betrayed them. But you know what? They knew a camera was rolling. The people who gave this vision voice and flesh did so willingly. They knew their comments were being recorded for posterity. There have been comments that Nossiter was misleading, that he smiled, and nodded, and seduced people into saying stupid things. (If that’s true, then I’m guilty of the same behavior every weekend in our winery tasting room.) If you’ve ever had a video or film camera thrust in your face, it can be very daunting. The few times it’s happened to me, I was grateful for a smiling, nodding videographer.

There are complaints about the strange eye zooms, and the camera following dogs around. Nossiter states in his director’s commentary that he was filming with a small digital movie-cam that could not hold focus, hence the zooms into people’s eyes, and back out, to re-establish focus. He admits that he was also a cat person, but found himself charmed by the vignerons’ dogs. (The film won the Palm Dog Award for strongest dog presence in an award-winning film, but Nossiter’s new puppy has already chewed up the award collar.)

So what if he has a political agenda? Think of it as Team America for wine drinkers. I don’t believe this movie will corrupt future generations of wine drinkers. The Future Generation in our house watched the movie with us. He loved the movie, and while opening a sangiovese, commented how alike these growers are to our neighbors. Politically they lean left, they lean right, and on weekend nights, they prop each other up while leaving the local pub.

And what’s with this young woman in San Francisco who supposedly burst into tears after the movie and claimed she could never work in the wine industry after all, because Michel Rolland was portrayed as an evil cad? Good grief. Did she decide on investment banking or politics instead? Or will she turn her enological passions toward the pastoral science of viticulture, where she will only have to deal with the bucolic dangers of insects, disease, weather, economic fluctuation and broken contracts?

Is the portrayal (and unfortunate closeup) of George the farting bulldog a character assassination of wine critic Robert Parker?

Perhaps members with a bulldog in their avatar could give us a little more background, but I believe bulldogs fart a lot anyway. The filmmaker zooms in on several (well done, I thought) portraits of beloved dogs on the family walls, stuffed bulldogs, including an expensive looking leather one, and the dogs themselves lounging happily under the table near their owners. Patricia Parker informs us that George is elderly, ailing, epileptic, and pretty much heavily medicated. A man whose nose and palate are insured for $1 million dollars allows his bulldog to accompany him into the room when he is smelling and evaluating wine, unless of course, George is having a GI challenged day.

Nossiter gives us an earthy view of growers and producers. We see their arms waving and their tempers bursting. I particularly appreciated the closing credits scene—two dogs sniffing, checking each other out, at once amorous and retreating, even pawing the earth. The camera cuts to an outdoor café where three men are sitting at tables, but not together, and we see them only from the back. Dogs, men. Dogs, men. An apt metaphor for the kooky and curmudgeonly world of wine.

In the end, however, it’s unfortunate and more than a little weird that Nossiter wrote a 4,500 word diatribe against his critics, including pretty much all the major industry publications, and making some really colorful statements about Parker’s associate Pierre-Antoine Rovani. So I guess it’s safe to say he sucks at marketing.

[Brad Ballinger]

Well, I was one of the last “wine people” I know to see Sideways (which really isn’t a wine movie), and I finally got around to viewing Mondovino last night. I rented the DVD through Netflix, and confess to not having viewed the film with the director commentary as Mary mentions above. What none of us will ever know is what got left on the cutting room floor and why. We have to take the film as it is presented.

I enjoyed it. I disagree that it vilifies Parker – except to simply make him part of the vilified U.S. wine industry. I found the “villains” of the film to be Michel Rolland, Robert Mondavi Winery, and Boisset (which no one has commented on thus far – other than Mary’s reference to something peeking out of a pair of boxer shorts). The sharpest criticism is of Boisset and comes from Alix de Montille (Volnay producer Hubert de Monille’s daughter). Alix was employed by Boisset at the time the film was shot. She comments that the same bottled wine will have three different Boisset branded labels. After making that comment, she adds that she will be quitting her job.

The other villain in the film is the U.S. wine industry (of which Nossiter makes Parker and Wine Spectator integral parts). It is the U.S. – as represented through the palates of its influential wine critics – that is to blame for the globalization and homogenization of wine. Parker is thus vilified by association, but I don’t see him as a target that has been set up.

What the film shows is that there is that wine is both an art form and part of a region’s culture, but that it is also a business. And many producers are caught between remaining true to the art form (most are portrayed positively in the film), or going over to the other side to make a living or maintain a certain standard of living. Some of this latter group are portrayed sympathetically and others as hypocritical. Rolland, Mondavi Winery, and Boisset are portrayed as the Darth Vaders of the dark side.

If the film is trying to change behavior, I think it’s trying to do so among consumers – the only target that has a remote chance of changing. After all, if the consumer palate, led by Americans, tends to be wooed by flashy wines that 1) fill the mouth, but don’t “cut” through, 2) come on “like a whore” then drop you just the same, and 3) are made to provide instant gratification now, the result can’t be anything but globalization. Consumers always get what they want in the end. The question to ask is, “Are they destined to continue to want what Parker, Wine Spectator, et al, tell them to want?” If the answer is yes, there will always be Rollands, Mondavis and Boissets.

[JohnL]

I finally watched this.

My comments:

---The film covers a lot of issues, most important: globalization of wine, the business of making and selling wine, the politics, terroir, the romance, oak vs no oak......

Unfortunately, the film is so politically skewed that it loses any intellectual honesty--it is a problem that is all too common, today, a case of the ends justifying any means.

---Lot's of irony (certainly unintended by the film maker). For eg. at the beginning of the film we meet one of Mr Nossitor's heroes: Aime Guibert the owner of Mas Daumas Gaussac who waxes poetically about the history of the Languedoc and how the wine and the land are so important--how he almost singlehandedly defeated the evil Mondavis from America in their attempts to buy land and make wine in the Languedoc. How Mr Guibert is protecting the land and the uniqueness of the wines the terroir, if you will, from the horrible globalization movement. How he is a "communist" fighting the evils of capitalism (the Americans).

A few facts about mr Guibert and his wine:

1--Mr Guibert bought Mas Daumas in the seventies --- he was a man who made millions selling leather gloves to such "people's commissaries" as Bloomingdales and Saks and chic shops on the rue St Honare in Paris.

Before 1978 there was no wine at Gaussac--in fact, were it not for the prodding of enologist Emil Peynaud -Mr Guibert was going to grow CORN on this "sacred" ground.

Mas daumas Gaussac (a really fine wine incidently) is made from Cabernet Sauvignon--a grape with little or no history in the Languedoc.

In fact for all his praise of communism--one would wonder how well a bourgeois wine maker would fare under commiunist rule--the state would own his winery and land and produce bad table grapes!

2--Mr Guibert speaks about how the winemakers band together with their fellow citizens to drive the Mondavi's out. A little history comes to mind. The Languedoc is in a turmoil because many of the farmers (grape growers) are subsidized by the government--the EEC is becoming fed up with supporting them via taxes etc. Their real fight is not so much with the Mondavi's but rather within their own government and the EEC. One immediately wonders if Mr Guibert is really concerned with competition from the Mondavi's rather than with protecting the "traditions" and "terroir" of the Languedoc.

Mr Nossitor also neglects to mention that in the Languedoc especially--the "noble" wine makers have in their history the illegal practice of adding Algerian wine to the "sacred" local wine for sale. Yet these same wine makers now complain about globalization and 'adulteration" of the wines.

And this is only the beginning of the film!

What could have been an interesting and informative look at many complex issues the wine world faces we are left with a piece of "agitprop."

There are good bits and pieces here and there--food for thought--but in the end one can not "trust" Nossitor to provide any real perspective--this is a one sided rant.

Instead:

I would highly recommend the book-"Accidental Connoisseur" by Lawrence Osborne.

The book was inspired by Mr Nossitor, a close friend of the author, and covers much of the same ground.

It does so honestly, passionately and artfully.

Edited August 10, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Andre]

John Hi,

I have also watched the movie with mixed emotions in the company of at least 30 winemakers.

M. Guibert of Gassac is no saint, yet, his cause is worth our attention.

Many "newcomers" to the wine industry are there to seek remedy for their soul. Some might argue that the Pax Romana, during Roman times, was based on that issue [working the land a opposed to war and politics, specifically the cultivation of vines]. I think it wrong to judge their past, as long as their future is paved with good intentions.

Nossiter's movie may be annoying in many ways starting with the hand camera that gets on the nerves and ends with discussing Parker's pets and their farting habits.

The wine industry involves money, power and politics, there is nothing "clean" about it, as well pointed out by your reply and Mr. Nossiter's point of view as expressed in Mondovino.

[JohnL]

Andre--

You raise some good points.

Unfortunately, there are precious few "pure" and good people in the world.

(I haven't heard about a 'dark side" to Mother Theresa or Ghandi yet)

The film pretends to explore many very real and complex issues by cleverly appearing to present both sides of the story.

However, what Mr Nossitor does is make sure "his" side is presented in one light and the other side in another light. --that is the viewer is treated as a "sucker" who will be "led" and "influenced" to reach the same point of view as the film maker. This is not honest debate nor is it impassioned advocacy it is propaganda.

I used Mr Guibert as an example because if one is aware of possible motives for Mr Guibert other than what he states on the film one would be less inclined to be sympathetic. Conversely, one wonders if the Mondavi's are as "evil" as they are depicted. (what are we not being told about them in the film).

The motivation behind any point of view is important. Unfortunately, these days, too many people are willing to accept anyone who says the "right things." for eg. Mr Guibert is in reality not that much different from the Mondavi's--he is just presented (or allowed to present himself) in a much more sympathetic light.

The fact is--there is a very real issue in the Languedoc --I am not sure that the Mondavi's would not have been a good thing for the region (there is a strong case they would be) in the film you did not get an accurate picture of the debate what you got can be boiled down to: Guibert and his fellow "peasant farmers" noble workers and preservers of the land and tradition and wine and the evil incarnate Mondavi's and their collaborator friends who were out to plunder the environment enslave or "kill" (this was actualy stated in the film) the poor and noble citizens.

America as the evil Empire--France as the utopia of art and humanity.

Therefore, I as an interested viewer have been cheated--it is bad enough that I did not get good information about this issue but worse, I have been tricked into forming an opinion-- (or at least the film maker tried to form my opinion for me)I am still not sure of where I come out on the issue.

If that is not propaganda or at least stacking the deck-I don't know what is.

Again, Lawrence Osborne's book "Accidental Connoisseur" IMOP, presents these issues and advocates for Mr Nossitor's POV in a much more intelligent, honest and forthright manner.