Review of Mondovino (aka Michel Rolland sucks)
I saw Mondovino last week just before I jetted out of town. Those quirky, stubborn Frenchmen just tugged at my heartstrings. What a contrast to the creepy, unabashedly capatalistic (Proustian, even) Mondavis.
But one of the criticisms I kept hearing about the movie, before I saw it, was the way that Lassiter portrayed some of his subjects unfairly. Allow me to disagree. I think everyone is portrayed quite fairly-as in, you can’t edit someone into an asshole, without some footage of them being an asshole. I offer you some of the things, straight from the mouths of the following:
Sheri Staglin of Staglin Family Vineyards, talking about how good they are to their immigrant (Mexican) employees, “We know all of their names, and we give them t-shirts”…
This is after she makes sure to tell you that the veranda table is solid marble modeled after a table in The Godfather 2 and points out a sculpture in the garden made by the number one funk ceramic artist(wha?) in the US. Her husband then goes on to compare their property’s allignment with Mondavi’s and Opus One as very similar to that of the Washington Monument and the Capital building. I shit you not.
Exhibit B: uber-consultant Michel Rolland making his mafia-like house calls (is he consulting on wine or collecting protection) to what seems to be every fricking winery in Pomerol:
At Chateau le Gay, in response to the interviewer wanting to know Rolland’s relationship with the owner, “She doesn’t understand anything. If I say do it, she does it…. Bonus: he later in the movie, calls the entire Languedoc “dumb peasants….
Yeah, how “unfair” it all is, that Michel Rolland and these people are so arrogant that they had no idea that they might come off this jerky. That’s the nouveau riche for you. Makes you wish it were 18th century France all over again.
Wine is food. The problem with a lot of the people in this movie? They want wine to be like Gucci handbags and Ferraris. And these assholes are winning.
Oddly enough, I got to taste the new vintage of Opus One last week, right after a $17 Merlot from Northern Italy from Italian imorter that can do no wrong Domaine Select. That little sassy Merlot was a dead ringer for a fourth growth Bordeaux of elegant years, say a 1996. Allow me to rephrase: at $160-ish, the 2001 Opus One offered no sign of its price. After the depth, structure and character of that little Merlot, it seemed like a rip off. Doing a little wine algebra, that’s almost a case of my d’Attimis Merlot (and all that many more hours of enjoyment) for a one night stand with one bottle of Opus One.
June 14th, 2005 at 1:03 am
I must agree with your comments completely, but also add another insight to this so-called documentary.
I do wish that I was able to make up my own mind during this movie. For starters, the movie was an amateur film to say the least. The constant zoom in to the eyes, then back was an annoying aspect, as well as a shaky camera. Tripods are inexpensive and are quite easy to use for those members that prefer not to divulge into motion sickness.
As far as the content, I felt like Mr. Nossiter decided to vilify these characters before they could do it themselves. The message was good, but also very basic. I think I could’ve have written a better story line….and that’s where the main problem is. He tried to write a story within his so-called documentary. While in the Napa Valley he shot indoors with a cold blue light and merely talked about business with the Mondavi’s. But yet in Italy and France there were beautiful music, gorgeous sunsets, and a rustic feel to the land. He obviously lost objectivity to his own film and instead turned it into a Michael Moore propaganda sort of film. I agree with the message, but I feel he could have done it much more objectively…
November 20th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
“What’s wrong with propaganda when it’s so fucking transparent?” the Vice President asked.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:20 am
Ah Maggie, your snark warms the cockles of my heart.
January 30th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Just saw this yesterday. Agreed on your point of how Rolland came across. By contrast Parker, who has as much reason to stand accused, came across very well indeed. Probably because he’s not an asshole!
June 6th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I agree totally with your review and with vyper’s comments. But the movie’s point to me is whether they be asshole (Rolland) or cool (Parker… debateable), these MFer’s have too much influence over what used to be an infinitely diverse industry. If you liken wine to literature, today all novels would need to be vetted by just 2 or 3 editors.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
i agree with all the shit about rolland being a fat rich pig, and that these ass-fucks have way too much influence. However, I don’t understand why everyone thinks documentaries are supposed to be objective. The director goes in with a concept, and then tries to tell a story through footage which conveys that concept. If u haven’t already realized, all documentaries are propaganda.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Well, I do believe Parker comes across as someone with a political agenda (imperialism, they call it) which has little to do with wine itself. That’s not flattering. But, coming from Argentina myself, let me tell you that the biggest assholes in the movie turn out to be the Etchart family in Salta, who seem to be fresh from a Garcia Marquez noire novel. What a bunch of pricks!
Thank God, and give the director some credit for featuring so many wonderful dogs in the movie!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Yes. The pompous pricks are exposed alright and rightfully so.
I always fail to understand why so many wealthy people are so confident that having a lot of money necessarily render refinement and delicacy.
This Shari Staglin is a piece of work:
“The number one ceramic artist…”. I bought a sculpture from the number one artist in California hence I exist.
If she would not get the sculpture from number one artist there is no justification to her miserable, empty life.
Sometimes I think that only in North America every Idiot with some cash is considered an asset to society. Nothing else matters.
Hearst castle in my mind is the same megalomaniac phenomena.
We do not have any inspiration of our own because we are a bunch of culture deprived, dumb hill-billies so let’s imitate some European architecture but because we are crude ignorants let’s do it in a big scale and create this eclectic, tasteless monster with an emphasis on enormity.
No elegance, no aesthetic sense
Pathetic.
Dear Americans (and I know nor all Americans are create equal, thank goodness), Some humility never killed anyone.