Mondovino: A World of Thought About Wine
by Ed Young
Frugal MacDoogal's Monthly Guest Wine Letter September, 2005
|
In the movie “Sideways”, wine appreciation was used as the fabric to tie together the lives of the principal characters. The most recent movie about wine, “Mondovino” (world wine), is of a totally different genre. It is a documentary about how global marketing is changing the way that wine has traditionally been produced and sold. This movie has a definite point of view that is summed up as follows:
The wine industry, although now worldwide in scope, is increasingly controlled by the biggest mass producers, such as Robert Mondavi.
In the new world of wine, Robert Parker and Wine Spectator have become the most powerful players because ratings determine prices and profits.
Wine consumers like what they are told to like, and the combination of singular taste and mass marketing is wiping out individuality and adherence to ancient traditions in wine-making.
Wine imperialism is now a part of the ongoing exploitation of the poor.
The movie is two hours and fifteen minutes long, and was shot entirely with hand-held cameras, which gives some people motion sickness. It was filmed in seven or eight countries, but most of it focuses on Italy and the Bordeaux region of France. First, there is certainly evidence to support some of the claims made in the film. We saw the movie “Sideways” increase demand for Pinot Noir and reduce demand for Merlot, so public opinion can be manipulated. As wine has become a bigger and bigger business, ratings mean millions of dollars to producers. In the same way that the drama critic of the New York Times can make or break a theatrical production with one review, Robert Parker, or Wine Spectator, can make or break a vintage, or even a winery, with a rating. In the movie there is an interesting interview with Parker at his modest home in suburban Baltimore. I find Parker a sympathetic character. He is scrupulously honest (his rating publication does not accept advertising), and he did not seek out the fame and power that have come to him. He does have one of the most perceptive noses and palates in the business, and, of course, he has preferences, as do we all.
The film zeroes in on a Monsieur Rolland, who makes an excellent living advising wineries on how their vintages can be “doctored” to achieve the big taste that will merit a high rating. In shot after shot he is seen telling wine-makers that they need “micro-oxygenation”, a mysterious process that introduces precise levels of oxygen to the wine at key points in fermentation. Rolland would come across as a likeable charlatan except that he happens to be a very close friend of Parker, who is one of his admirers. In addition, Rolland is accused of substituting new oak for terroir, and in this way eliminating the qualities that a unique place imparts to grapes.
The film also focuses on the Mondavi family’s unsuccessful effort to gain a foothold in Bordeaux-an effort repulsed by the Communist mayor of a town near the proposed acquisition. Rebuffed in France, the Mondavis retreat to Italy where they are courted by several of the oldest and most famous wineries in the country (such as Frescobaldi). The film makes much of the extraneous fact that several scions of these wine-making families supported Mussolini and the fascists during World War II. Finally, the film focuses on protests incidental to a meeting of the “G-8” developed nations to suggest that wine has become just another big business which rips off the poor.
What is one to make of all this? When I buy wines, I don’t feel that I’m being manipulated by multi-national corporations. There are too many choices on the shelves, in too wide a diversity of tastes, to accept the basic premise of the movie. That point may well be true of Bordeaux, and to some extent, of California Cabernet Sauvignon, but it doesn’t seem to apply to Shiraz, or Malbec, or Zinfandel. Maybe there is some manipulation going on, but when prices of Bordeaux reach hundreds-even thousands-of dollars per bottle, it is only the very rich who are being exploited. There are “contrarians” on Wall Street who make fortunes by going against the grain of conventional wisdom. Likewise, there will always be a niche in the wine business for consumers who want terroir. If there is money to be made selling highly individual wines from boutique wineries, and I believe there is, the opportunity won’t be overlooked.
The film treats the effort of the Mondavis to gain a foothold in France as some kind of dire conspiracy, but ignores the fact that many French wine-makers such as Chandon, Roederer, and Remy Martin, now own wineries in California. Is that part of the world-wide conspiracy too, or are only American wine-makers guilty of imperialism? A lot of the negativism in this movie reminds me of the fight against Wal-Mart. This hugely successful company displaces “Mom and Pop” shops, causes boarded up Main Streets across America, and alters shopping patterns and traffic flows, but it also brings a wide variety of quality goods to consumers at unbeatable prices. It’s a free country and people who don’t like Wal-Mart have many other choices. I believe wine drinkers will always have choices too. If consumers prefer wines that have been “micro-oxygenated” to those that haven’t, who is to say that they are wrong? This film has generated tremendous controversy. If you are interested in this inside look at economic globalization and how it affects what wines you drink, rent the DVD and make up your own mind.
Miss last month's letter? >click here<
For A List of Ed Young's Archived Newsletters >click here<
|
 |
|
|
|
