Mondovino is a 2004 documentary film on the impact of globalization on the world’s different wine regions. The film explores the impact of globalization on the various wine-producing regions, and the influence of critics such as Robert Parker and consultants like Michel Rolland in defining an international style (Oaky, extracted, fruit forward, dense color, rounder styles). It pits the ambitions of large, multinational wine producers, in particular Robert Mondavi, against the small, single estate wineries who have traditionally made wines driven by their terroir and a great passion for individuality.
I viewed the documentary earlier this week and was wondering if any here has seen it? If so, do you have any thoughts, impressions, takeaways etc.? I won’t weigh-in unless anyone else comments based on their viewing.
This was discussed ad nauseam back when it came out. I guess that would have been on the Parker board. Probably some later discussion here too if you do a search.
I’m actually one who has never seen a second of it, and don’t really plan to. I’ve never really cared for that kind of “propaganda masquerading as news or documentary” genre, whether 60 Minutes, Michael Moore or this movie.
Having an agenda is fine, but when you’re deliberately stacking the deck with editing, lighting, camera angles, surprising the bad guys while prepping the good guys, and all that, it doesn’t sit right with me and I’d rather not be involved. For those who are entertained or inspired by these kinds of productions, that’s cool too, it’s just not for me.
I’d love to go back and watch it again. I remember most parts of it though.
I’ve been to St. Saturnin, where Mas de Daumas Gassac is. It was interesting to see him wax poetic about Mondavi wanting to put up billboards and hotels. You know what’s there now…???
NOTHING.
It’s a shame, several other great wineries there, may be the most under rated terroir in the world. It’ll take folks forever to find out…b/c there is no where to stay when you get there. (FWIW, it’s a socialist town, so things won’t change)
Thanks John for posting the link I’ll look through it.
Chris, I can certainly understand your position. Like so many documentaries that have been produced over the years… the producer/film maker seems to have a preconceived hypothesis/agenda/point of view and then sets out to substantiate it.
I thought this documentary was drenched in cliches, stereotypes and political agendas. The stereotypes Nossiter reinforced were that New World wines are “Coca-Cola” with no sense of terrior, lacking in character and providence. He did a particularly Machiavellian number on the Mondavi’s by portraying them as back stabbing, money grubbing American capitalists, who should be shunned at all costs. Hypocritically, as it turns out, it’s just swell if a rich Frenchman representing a global marketing company comes in to southern France and starts buying up land as long as the imminent Gerard Depardieu is leading the charge on behalf of the homeland!
To me one of the more despicable characters was the gasbag wine distributor from Queens NYC, who droned on about the "evil’ effects of Robert Parker. Talk about your hyperbole. However, not to be outdone on the reprehensible scale, is Nossiter himself. I really objected to the way he tried to make the Staglin’s seem like bourgeoisie plantation owners. One of the more outrageous lines of questioning was when he asked the Staglin wine maker how many Mexican laborers are making wine or how he showcased Mrs. Staglin as some frivolous heiress, by letting us know the Staglin’s give their staff free T-shirts every year. I’d like to see the full film footage on how he got her to arrive at that statement. Nossiter clearly went to the Mike Wallace school of character assassination.
In summary there were so many things wrong with this documentary it would take an hour to go through them all.
The “despicable gasbag” is Neal Rosenthal. Really, Dave, you don’t know who he is?
The Mondavi saga is one of the more fascinating threads in the series, and the depiction much more nuanced than you allow. I came away with a fairly in depth view of the Mondavi clan, much respect for Pere Mondavi, a true visionary, and sadness for the outcome - his lost legacy. Lost, I think most would agree, for playing with the very fire that Nossiter, Rosenthal, et al., rail against. And don’t forget: the wines that Robert preferred, their finest estate wines, were routinely denigrated by the likes of Parker and Laube.
And while it may not have come through in the terribly truncated film version, the ulterior motivations of all sides in l’affaire Aniane are laid painfully, hilariously bare in episode 1 “Where’s Asterisk?”.
I’m only basing my reaction on the film. I haven’t seen the mini-series, therefore I wouldn’t know how nuanced the Mondavi story was really portrayed. I can only base my observations on what I saw and I think it’s accurate. I thought the close up camera shot on the eyes of the younger Mondavi was a film technique used to portray an unflattering caricature. “Creepy” was the word that instantly came to my mind.
I’m sure Mr. Rosenthal is a big name in the wine distribution world, otherwise he wouldn’t have been featured. I’m not in the wine business, so distributors who send their wines to the club I belong to is not of much importance to me. I will say Neal’s views had a decidedly political twinge and I would hypothesize are inline with Nossiter’s.
Am I any relation to Leo McCloskey of Enologix? Given Leo lives in California and I’m from the same state, along with the rarity of the McCloskey name (small area in the north of Ireland), I’d say the chances are high I am related to him. I plan on investigating the family tree to check for a DNA match.
That sums it up well. It was fun to see the characters, and the Michel Rolland portions (“micro-oxygenate!”) were hilarious. But as someone who was sympathetic to Nossiter’s broad thesis, it was extraordinarily annoying that he was so tendentious. I was less bothered by the strong subtext of anti-Americanism itself than by the fact that Nossiter didn’t seem to realize what an important motivating factor that was for many of his witnesses.
The three-hour version is a disaster as a piece of movie-making – utterly disjointed and often tedious. Perhaps the full 10 hours is more structured, but I find it hard to imagine that it could sustain my interest.
FYI: I loved Neal Rosenthal, who I found passionate, articulate and sane – a refreshing change in that cast.
I’ve been to St. Saturnin, where Mas de Daumas Gassac is. It was interesting to see him wax poetic about Mondavi wanting to put up billboards and hotels. You know what’s there now…???
NOTHING.
It’s a shame, several other great wineries there, may be the most under rated terroir in the world.
Moreover, Aimé Guibert is full of shit. He was a wealthy manufacturer of gloves who bought his place as a vacation home. Kind of like say, Harlan or many others who made money elsewhere and bought into Napa. Moreover, he and Mondavi weren’t that far apart in terms of what they considered good wine, as others have pointed out.
Of course, globalization hurt the glove business and he ended up shutting down as far as I know. But he had this land and someone suggested that it would be good for grapes - he considered planting lots of other things before settling on grapes. And who helped with his first vintages? Why Emile Peynaud, who was the teacher of Rolland.
And what is done with all of the wonderful wine produced by the peasants in the area, who represent the heart of France that nobody wants to drink? Why, it’s blended into swill by Robert Skalli, who is the biggest negociant in the region and it’s sold all over the world, often as bottom shelf stuff. EXACTLY what they said Mondavi was going to do. Except in Mondavi’s case, it’s more likely that he would have upgraded the region’s wines.
Guibert was probably more nervous about losing what he thought was his pre-eminent position in the region than anything else. He is well-off and a big fish in a small pond. His wine will never sell for what a worse wine from Burgundy or Bordeaux will sell for and he’s not the visionary that Mondavi was when it comes to wine, so sure he’d be opposed to someone more celebrated moving into the area. What he didn’t realize was that the Mondavi family was so dysfunctional that it would have self-destructed before it did any damage to France. Of course, that doesn’t help him with the community - they’re making an ocean of shit wine in the Languedoc and the blue-collar French guys who used to drink it are now able to get better drinks elsewhere, so the region is suffering. Best thing to do is blame Americans.
As far as the Staglins go - he was a nuclear engineer and went to Stanford business school for an MBA, worked at the Dept of Defense, then went into finance. During all that time, he was also studying wine and winemaking. He’s not a dummy and his wines are really good, albeit overpriced. And BTW, they’ve raised millions of dollars to help study and combat schizophrenia. Of course, I’m sure the noble and wise Aimé Guibert has done much more. And who’s picking his grapes?
John - the 10 hour version is worse! More of the same.
To comment on the posts talking about Languedoc wines quality and “nothing there”:
Languedoc is actually one of the most successful region in France at the moment, and that’s because it’s one of the most exciting also. A bunch of great wines are coming out of the shadow and I’d bet that you’ll hear much more from them in the US in the coming years (maybe once Rhône wines reached certain level of prices).
In Aniane, you have the Grange des Pères, which is for me the best wine of the region. It’s very difficult to find these wines at a reasonable price (2011s are 50€ at the domaine, never less than 75€ in shops and usually more 90-95€). Not sure how available they are in the US. I’m sure most of people here have heard of them. If you haven’t had them yet, try one with 5+ years and get back here to comment.
La Terrasse d’Elise has relocated in Aniane from St Jean de Fos, and is a terrific domaine. If you can just try Le Pradel (100% cinsault), it’s amazing. Great, great QPR.
Another one I love is le Mas de la Séranne, also a great QPR and very friendly people.
I could go on and on for a while. There has been a switch in quality since end of the '90s and I really think people should look more into it. With prices in Rhône soaring, I’d be willing to bet that Languedoc will be the next region in line to get high praise on its QPR.
Dave, it doesn’t concern me that a work of art or journalism or something slighter has a specific POV, favors that POV, argues and highlights facts, opinions and circumstances in support of that POV. I understand you (Chris, others) don’t share that opinion. I can only say good luck finding some ideal form of objectivity - in my experience it doesn’t exist. So I’m inclined to favoring an adversarial approach as in western jurisprudence, where all sides advocate their positions as strongly as they can. Certainly Parker does this and had a fairly big pulpit and bullhorn to champion his POV. And very effectively I suspect most would acknowledge!
As one who doesn’t share the Parker POV, I’m roused by the passionate defense of the other side by Neal. It is, perhaps, more a reflection of our respective POVs that lead me to find Parker’s pronouncements to be so much gasbaggery, while Neal’s strike me as sweet music. And, full disclosure, I drink a shit ton of wines in his portfolio!
That said, the creepy (I would suggest ominous) shots of the younger Mondavi (I’m fairly sure you’re speaking about Michael) rather brilliantly illuminate the turmoil within the family and foreshadow the loss of their empire … lost, again I think most would agree, as a result of playing with the very fire, that is, globalizing capitalism, which Nossiter, Neal, et al., decry as antithetical to the preservation of great wine traditions.
There was a much publicized book on the Mondavi saga that addresses this, and again I think it supports Nossiter’s position (and perhaps also his “creepy”, ominous shots of the Mondavi brood - specifically Michael I think). I’m sure you may know much about it, but let me do a quick google for some of the high points …
Ok, the book is titled “The House of Mondavi: The Rise and Fall of an American Wine Dynasty”. Here are some snippets from reviews by Eric Asimov and Robert Howe (CNN Business), and I think you might agree that the forces which brought down the Mondavi house are the very ones which Nossiter, et al., cite as antithetical to the preservation of great wine traditions:
"CALL it Greek tragedy or Shakespearean drama, Biblical strife, Freudian acting out or even soap opera. You wouldn’t be exaggerating, and you wouldn’t be wrong. [“The House of Mondavi”] tells how a company that seemed to be takeover-proof was pried, finger by finger, from the grasp of the Mondavi family and sold from under them. The Mondavi saga is a purely American story of ambition unleashed by democracy, layered with sanctimony and hypocrisy.
In the early 1990s the free-spending Mondavis took the company public, with a two-tier stock plan ensuring control by the family, if it voted together. This echo of Cesare’s admonition to Robert and Peter seemed unnecessary at the time; the Mondavis were riding high. But overexpansion proved fatal.
Michael wanted to emphasize mass-market and lower-priced brands, while Timothy thought the focus should ever be on the Mondavis’ finest wines. Meanwhile, Robert would cruelly and publicly put down his sons. Aside from the confusion caused by so many wines at so many levels that bore the Mondavi name, the company made a series of bad investments.
Their wines, too, seemed to be suffering. While most of the company’s money was made selling mass-market wines, its best cabernets were considered to be among Napa’s elite and were an important source of pride to the family. But as the new century began, critics like Robert M. Parker Jr. and James Laube lambasted the elite Mondavi wines. Styles had changed, and the critics preferred the riper cabernets of cult producers like Screaming Eagle, while Mondavi clung to a leaner, Bordeaux-like cabernet style. The criticism seemed to leave the Mondavis befuddled. They defended the wines, but also hired the consultant Michel Rolland, whose style was closer to Mr. Parker’s preferences.
Robert, by now in his 80’s, had withdrawn from day-to-day management and with, with his second wife, Margrit Biever, devoted himself to philanthropy … The problem was that the gifts were supported by Mondavi stock, which was by then plunging. With Robert facing insolvency and the humiliating prospect of being unable to make good on his promises, he lashed out at his sons, and they at each other. Using Robert’s troubles as a wedge, and playing the siblings against each other, the Mondavi board forced the family to hand over power to them.
"Though Robert had long sworn to keep the company independent, in 1993, beset by financial pressures, he agreed to roll the dice and go public. Some say he believed he could still somehow maintain control, but secretly they anticipated the worst.
Mike Grgich, who made wines for Robert before founding the elite Grgich Hills label, was there at the end–though it was so muted, he didn’t even realize it. On Nov. 3, Grgich arrived at Robert’s home for lunch. “We wanted to give some support,” recalls Grgich, who had heard rumors that the company was in trouble. But Robert appeared to need no hand-holding. “He said, ‘Let’s talk about happy things.’ I didn’t see in his face that it had affected him. Always positive.” With a perplexed shrug, Grgich adds, “I had no idea the board had already made its decision.”
The next morning, Robert Mondavi Corp. announced that it had been sold for more than $1.3 billion to Constellation Brands, an international conglomerate whose first large-scale success had been Wild Irish Rose, a fortified wine for drinkers who wanted to get hammered in a hurry.
For years, consolidation has been commonplace in the capital-intensive wine business, and the Mondavi family decided in 1993 to take its business public. So in truth, it had long relinquished the reins to the dictates of the Street. Still, a sense of mourning has darkened Napa Valley. The buyout closes the book on a pioneering era, whose fearless trailblazer, at age 91, can look back on it all with pride but also with a measure of remorse.
Michael insists that if family members had banded together, they could have realigned the board early last year and either saved the company or at least put the Oakville estate back in family hands. Tim (who still works as a consultant to the Oakville estate) and his sister Marcia would not act, Michael says, because they feared spooking Wall Street analysts. If the Street thought the family was getting too involved, the stock price might dip, and if it fell too low, his father–who had donated so generously to so many charities–would go bust.
In essence, those close to the family say, Robert had failed to manage the transfer of leadership to the next generation. Suffering from an acute loss of hearing, he had also resigned from the board. So last fall, when it came time to debate the fate of the company, Robert and Michael were absent and Tim and Marcia sat on the sidelines. The family had no voice. Then the company was gone.
It’s hard to cry sour grapes when the founding family pockets almost $400 million. At the same time, Robert Mondavi genuinely seemed to measure success not by the bottom line but by the quality of his wines and the respect they and his family garnered. So, by his standards, the sale would seem to be the result of a tragic miscalculation.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}