'Mondovino' - Anyone seen it?

WINE TALK
21

Did you read the book? I did BTW and it had very little to say about what was antithetical to the preservation of great wine traditions.

Within the family there was great disagreement regarding many things - how much they should focus on the Woodbridge brand of cheaper wine, whether they should let that brand live on its own and play down the connection to the Mondavi name, how to maintain and/or improve the quality of the high end wine, how to expand the entire drinking universe of wine, how to work with and improve offerings from different regions in the world, etc.

Robert had committed millions to philanthropies and was on the verge of being unable to meet his commitments, which was one of the main reasons for selling the company. He didn’t instigate his neighbors into bombing the competition however.

Alain - you are entirely correct in that the Languedoc, or I guess it’s the Sud these days, is an exciting place right now. In fact, if I were to start a winery, it would be there. I’ve been there a number of times and when I hear people talk about the high prices of French wine, point out that it’s hard to beat France for producing wines of exceptional quality at extremely reasonable prices. The Languedoc, the Loire, and Beaujolais are perfect examples.

The producers of swill in France have been hurt by the emergence of cheaper and better wine from elsewhere and by the reluctance of the French to drink poor-quality wine, but there are many producers who have taken the approach championed by Mondavi and others, particularly in places like Beaujolais - i.e. just focus on making the best wine they can with what they have. As a result, it is easier to find a great bottle for $15 from the south of France than it is from the USA.

No disrespect to the Languedoc or its potential, and we’re not overlooking the fact that the EU has paid growers to grub up vines and turn their juice into brandy, which wouldn’t have happened if those producers were putting out first-growth quality stuff. It’s just that the film took an extremely biased viewpoint and did quite an injustice to some people while attempting to make others appear heroic, whereas the reality was if anything, the other way around. In addition, the “globalization” that is castigated is exactly what has built the French wine industry since the Middle Ages. More recently, that industry as a whole benefited enormously from the explosion of wine interest in the US starting in the 1970s and one person who had more to do with that than anyone was Mondavi.

Instead of at least acknowledging that, the film talks about how the producers in the south will be harmed by the emergence of competition. But most of their wine wasn’t exported to the US anyway, so they need to blame their fellow citizens for not drinking more.

Where the film completely failed IMO was in its attempt to make Hubert de Montille and his family somehow sympathetic. I tried but was completely unable to find anything engaging about that utterly charmless family, at least as far as they were portrayed in the film. If that’s the best they can do, heaven help them. However, given Nossiter’s clumsy approach to pretty much everything else, I can only imagine that they’re far more engaging than he made them. The old man at least had some wit, but on the whole, if the volatile and passionate Mondavis represent evil and that dour, bitter family represents all that is good with wine, I’m all for evil! Cheers.

22

Richard, there’s a simple way of letting the viewer know what they’re in for when viewing a documentary. One
states the hypothesis, central issue etc. out in the open at the outset. I will grant to you that far too many new documentaries don’t follow that route and objectivity has fallen by the wayside within both Hollywood and journalism cultures.

I would suggest one of the problems with our society today is this “adversarial approach” you speak of, because both sides are now shouting over each others heads, resulting in nobody listening. When the shouting doesn’t work subversive approaches to obtaining goals becomes the norm, which we’re seeing in spades right now in this country. Because this is such a political piece the dividing line is clear (liberal vs. conservative, traditionalist vs. globalist).

Regarding Parker… I think he has his place, just like WS or any other critic. I neither agree nor disagree with Parker’s opinions, they are after all just opinions. In my opinion rating systems are inexact science and must be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, my palate is evolving as the knowledge increases and I’m exposed to more juice.

Regarding Old vs. New World wines - I’m less concerned about where the wine comes from and more focused that it meets the criteria I’ve currently established for what I believe makes a good wine, knowing full well this profile will change over time.

23

Greg, i think you misread the film if you think the point of the Montille portions was simply to make them “sympathetic”. Again, I’m unsure how much of the 10hr-plus series made it into the film, but I see the Montille saga as a mirror to the Mondavi one. Just as Robert pitted his sons against one another and publicly criticized them, so did Hubert who at one point derisively refers to Etienne - who is basically managing the estate and wine-making at this point - as a “banker”. The tension between the two of them is palpable and uneasy. On the other hand, he dotes on Alix who’s palate he champions over Etienne’s, basically annointing her over Etienne as his true legacy. But at that time Alix was working for Boisset, an enormous conglomerate not unlike the one that the board sold the Mondavi winery to after ousting the Mondavis themselves. You see the mental gymnastics Hubert undergoes to rationalize all this.

And it’s another theme of the series (and Nossiter’s less successful book, btw): the difficult passage of wine legacies from generation to generation.

A good article in the San Diego Reader covers this aspect, specifically the tension and dissonance within the Montille clan:

_“Patrick Nossiter’s treatment of the Mondavis, and of the relations between family and wine in general, is one of my favorite things about his wine-biz documentary Mondovino. It seems clear that Nossiter’s heart lies with family, with local small businesses as opposed to multinational corporations. It’s easy to imagine him snickering as he films a sharp-suited Young Turk, sitting in a boardroom and talking about how family plays an important role in the business of a huge French negotiant like Boisset. You can almost hear him think, “Important to the marketing department, maybe.”

One of Boisset’s winemakers is Alix, the daughter of Burgundian wine producer Hubert de Montille. “Wine is the antidote to barbarism,” says Hubert. But when you hear him go off on the imperialism of American taste and the deleterious branding of even French wine (as opposed to the celebration of terroir, the French sense of place), you have to wonder if he still believes the gates are holding. Even within his own family, complications are creeping in. Hubert’s heart is clearly with Alix, who tells him that she’s quitting her job at Boisset because they’ve asked her to sign off on some wines she didn’t make and because they plan to sell her wine under different labels. She’s fighting the branding. But it’s Hubert’s son Etienne who has taken over the family operation, and we get a telling shot of him making nice to the photographer from Wine Spectator, followed by a full-page photograph in the magazine’s story on Burgundy. The branding has begun.”

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/nov/03/family-business-still-business/_

I’d suggest you’re reading is an over-simplification of what I find to be an expansive, nuanced film filled with the contradictions and inner turmoil of its subjects. To suggest that Nossiter’s point is merely to make the Montilles sympathetic is a trivialization, much as the suggestion that his handling of the Mondavi saga was merely a hatchet job. But, again, the film edit may well leave out much of the shadings and nuances of the much longer series.

As for your contention that the unfortunate end of the Mondavi saga - as reported by many sources including the book cited above - has nothing to do with the globalizing capitalism that is Nossiter’s primary bête noir, let me try to be more clear as to why I think it is: once you’re reduced to appealing first and foremost to your investors, the Wall Street analysts, and the palates of Parker and Laube, you’re no longer in the business of making good wine. You’re in the business of meeting quarterly expectations, turning a profit for your investors, and putting aside your own vision and taste in favor of that which moves the retail market. So one must condescend to that market and their respective tastemakers by consulting the likes of Rolland and Enologix. Even if that means making wines that pere Mondavi did not personally like.

And that’s how the market corrupts great wine-making traditions.

24

Dave, I was responding to Greg when you posted and I certainly agree with much that you say. I certainly don’t agree with all of Nossiter’s choices or opinions - though clearly they are more aligned with my own compared to, say, Parker’s or WS’s - but I do contend that the 10hr series (if not the film) is not the superficial hit job of someone like Michael Moore. I think it’s among the very few wine related productions I’ve seen that is truly fascinating, in depth and expansive.

Even aside from the various sagas it threads throughout, there is for me the sheer joy of seeing someone like Aubert de Villaine holding court among the vines of the DRC, or Etienne attempting to ward off a full blown labor action in the middle of harvest, or Michel Lafarge recounting their attempts to preserve the family wine legacy under the NAZI occupation. I just find these folks fascinating.

If there’s another film/series that goes as deep and far and provokes as much discussion, I’d love a recommendation!

25

I’m in agreement with this film maker that these are serious issues, but this film is completely misleading, dishonest and disingenuous, which is too bad.

IMO, there isn’t a single point made in the film that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

Case in point; One episode centers Mondavi’s purchase of Tenuta Dell’Ornellaia. The central thesis of the film is that point chasing rich folks buy up artisanal Old World terroir and then hire consultants like Rolland to help them make anonymous, internationally styled wine.

I believe the thesis has a lot of value.

However, Tenuta Dell’Ornellaia is the wrong story to support this thesis and only by obscuring and confusing the facts can it possibly be used as it is in the film.

What the film neglects to mention is that original owner is the one who elected to make a Bordeaux Blend at Tenuta Dell’Ornellaia. Frescobaldi is the one who hired Michel Rolland to help make his wines. Ornellaia was getting favorable ratings from Parker before Mondavi’s purchase. The film fails to show us any particular change that was made in the wine making after Mondavi’s purchase.

Point after point made in this film dissolves similarly when the slightest bit of factual information is considered. Ultimately and unfortunately, this is a film that only has appeal to those who are really interested in fine wine, but the film can only appeal to those who are sympathetic enough with the film maker’s point of view to willingly ignore the disingenuousness.

26

The original owner of Ornellaia was Lodovico Antinori, not Frescobaldi. Which is kind of an important detail.

As for the actual conflict that the series presents between the feuding Antinoris and Frescobaldis, brought to a head with an assist from the Mondavis, I refer you to the San Diego Reader story as I’m kinda weary of my own prose at this point!

San Diego Reader
Entanglements are what the Mondavis got when they went to Italy. After they were rebuffed in the Languedoc, they decided to work with local partners in their international ventures. They scouted around and chose the Frescobaldis. They did not choose the Antinoris. Nossiter gives us a fine shot of two chapels in a Florentine church – one bearing the name Frescobaldi, one Antinori. This might not have come to anything, except that, when Lodovico Antinori got into a tight spot financially and went public with his celebrated Ornellaia winery, Mondavi bought a controlling interest. Then Mondavi sold 50 percent to Frescobaldi. “We think the Mondavis planned this,” says Lodovico. “I never would have sold if they had told me.”

And suddenly, consulting winemaker to the stars Michel Rolland was facing a conflict. He had worked with Lodovico, helped to make Ornellaia what it was. (What was it? A wine that broke the traditional code, using Cabernet in a region formerly reserved for Sangiovese.) But now there was tension between Lodovico and Mondavi, and Mondavi was a big client. Now, Lodovico was off to beg Rolland to help him on a new project. “It would be a big betrayal if he doesn’t accept,” says Lodovico. Then again, Rolland isn’t family.

27

Couldn’t agree more with your comments outlined in bold above. In spite of the flaws I have outlined, there were moments such as the one’s you mentioned that I enjoyed. Honestly, I have no issues with the French being passionate about their wine and protecting their interests. Nationalism is far more prevalent around the world than most Americans realize. I do get put off by some who thrive off of anti-Americanism. I’ve lived in Europe and spent a good deal of time in France. It’s a beautiful country with a lot to offer, however their attitudes towards American’s (generally speaking) are not nearly as generous and inviting as the Italians, which is a bit of a slap in the face given how much we’ve sacrificed on their behalf.

28

I hear you, Dave! I also much prefer Italy and Italians to the French … who ‘frankly’ seem to have lost their way culturally recently (not really speaking to the French wine tradition here which endures).

But that present goodwill between Americans and Italians can be easily strained when the more powerful exerts control. Italy doesn’t have that history as a nation/collective culture that France does, but it does exist regionally. Like, say, in Tuscany. And resentment can emerge.

Which is what I really think the Fresco/Anti/Mondavi story is mostly about. What the SD Reader doesn’t cite is that there was a joint venture already existing between the Mondavi corporation and the Frescobaldi family to produce the international styled wine called Luce. The Frescobaldi family’s great rival going back centuries is the Antinori family (not merely a wine rivalry, but a rivalry for overall significance in the Florentine constellation).

So when the Antinoris found themselves in financial straits, the Mondavis convinced Lodovico to sell Ornellaia to them. And then Mondavi immediately sells a 50% share to their great rivals, the Frescobaldis.

This was seen as an horrific affront. The loss of face, honor, and the sense that he’d been swindled by a rapacious American corporation with no respect or feeling for the traditional Italian way is what motivates Antinori’s scorn. The Mondavi corp succeeded here unlike in Aniane by changing its tactics by using locals to help pursue it’s interests and keeping its real intentions quiet. It was a success in corporate terms, another global brand/market conquest, but would appear to run directly counter to the core principles of an Italian son of immigrants who had always championed family.

And the irony is only magnified by the knowledge that Robert Mondavi himself would soon lose his family legacy via similar machinations.

29

Took me a while to get thru it. I kept falling asleep. Quite boring IMO. I can’t imagine sitting thru it if I were a non-geek. I liked Nossiters book much better.

30

The important detail that’s missing from the film and your defense of it is any shred of evidence that the consultant, choice of grapes, or wine making changed after Mondavi’s purchase. It was an internationally styled wine made with Rolland’s consultation and favorably reviewed by Parker before Mondavi’s purchase. Antinori’s lament may be sad and I might feel sorry for him, but the facts remain the same. My sympathy isn’t enough to overcome the disingenuousness inherent in the film.

31

Of course, if Antinori doesn’t lament the sale, he’s of no use to the film. I find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy for him. No one forced him to sell. The other problem, when you look at the facts, is that if the film maker wanted to keep any semblance of logical consistency, Antinori, who brought in Rolland to make an internationally styled wine and garnered favorable reviews from Rolland’s buddy Parker, then sold to a huge American company, ought to be one of the villains of the film. Logic and facts go completely out the window and Antinori only becomes a protagonist because Antinori is willing to go on camera and whine, trying to remake himself in the process.

32

I completely agree with your reaction that none of these parties are sympathetic. I mean, I suppose one might feel a bit for poor Lodovico, but not because Nossiter makes him out to be the victim.

As you might recall, as the two noble Tuscan patriarchies are hashing out every tiny slight in their centuries old grievances with one another - with a few asides in defense of their fathers’ fascism - the Social Forum is staging a series of “no global” protests in Florence. If Nossiter’s sympathies lie with anyone, it’s surely them and not the bickering Italian nobles or rapacious American investors.

Further, as you note, to the extent that Ornellaia is a “corrupted” wine, it’s already so. Per Lodovico, Rolland had already “perfected it”. And, like you also say, Parker liked it before the Mondavi’s bought it and then partnered with the Frescobaldis. However, you might not recall that Lodovico whines that the same year it was purchased by Mondavi it was named the #1 wine in the world by Wine Spectator. I don’t know if that’s true, again it’s just another of Lodovico’s many grievances: “No need to say more. It speaks for itself.”

So, there’s no need for you to overcome any disingenuousness to sympathize with Lodovico, as your sympathy isn’t even being requested on his behalf! A pox on all their houses is the author’s position.

(And, again, what great irony that the Mondavi family would soon be ousted by the board and Robert’s legacy sold-off to Constellation Brands as a result of a financial situation not unlike that which befell Lodovico.)

33

The problem remains that Ludovico Antinori and his grief, feigned or otherwise, has nothing to do with the theme of the film. Presenting Ludovico Antinori as a sympathetic character in light of the film’s theme is disingenuous. Indicating that the sale of Orrnellaia to Mondavi supports the theme about how Old World terroir is being corrupted by hiring consultants like Rolland to make internationally styled wine in order to gain favor and income from Parker points while failing to mention that Ornellaia fell into this category before the sale and Ludovico was behind it in the first place is disingenuous. Given the film’s theme, Ludovico and Nossiter are strange bedfellows. When you include these facts, the film makes no sense. This is just one example. For me, the entire film dissolves piece by piece as each segment is exposed to the slightest bit of light. To me, it’s too bad because I am sympathetic to the film’s concerns.

34

I’d suggest you’re reading is an over-simplification of what I find to be an expansive, nuanced film filled with the contradictions and inner turmoil of its subjects.

Richard - I do believe that we saw different films. In the film I saw, there was nothing at all that was nuanced. It was as ham-fisted as anything by Michael Moore without the occasional flashes of humor that Moore can still come up with.

As far as the San Diego Reader, I have no clue what that writer was talking about. For example:

“But it’s Hubert’s son Etienne who has taken over the family operation, and we get a telling shot of him making nice to the photographer from Wine Spectator, followed by a full-page photograph in the magazine’s story on Burgundy. The branding has begun.”

Would he rather have the guy act like a jerk to the WS? Or simply refuse to talk to the WS at all? That would accomplish exactly what? Seems to me those folks want to sell their wine, unless I’m entirely mistaken and they want to keep every last drop for themselves.

As far as the “branding” theme goes, WTF can he possibly be referring to? Isn’t branding precisely what France has done since, oh, say around the 1200s? And if not that far back, when wine was referred to in England simply as French, Spanish, Claret, etc., perhaps since the 1600s when Samuel Pepys wrote about that most particular wine called Ho Bryan? And what exactly is the point of First, Second, Third Growths, except to create “brands”? Or the classifications that people cling to so passionately in Burgundy? And what was happening to the wine and wine business of Burgundy in the 1800s and up until around the 1970s, when the American market became interested and many of those folks started to sell their wine in the global marketplace for ever-increasing sums? “Branding” has been the point of French wine for many many years.

Nationalism is far more prevalent around the world than most Americans realize. I do get put off by some who thrive off of anti-Americanism.

That is true and unfortunate, but one can look past it if there’s enough substance to warrant doing so. I know many dozens of people in France who aren’t like that and I also feel affection for some in spite of the fact that they are.

As far as the Antinoris go, I agree there’s little to sympathize with. We have 2 privileged brothers who have been rivals for years. Ludovico liked living off his inheritance so he asked to be bought out by his brother, who he left to run the family business.

So what did Piero do? He sold part of his operation to Whitbread, a British conglomerate like Constellation in the US.

Of course, when their cousin made Sassacaia, both brothers wanted to make a wine like that. So Ludovico hired who to select some lands for vineyards and to make wine for him?

André Tchelistcheff, from Napa.

Running a business requires cash flow and work, rather than living like a playboy so who did he turn to for money? Again someone from Napa, someone who had dedicated his life to promoting wine, and who, BTW, was self-made. His brother meantime, was investing in Napa and Washington and elsewhere, just like the Mondavi family.

Too bad Ludovico has seller’s remorse and too bad the various Italian families have egos.

For me, the one guy in the entire movie who is kind of sympathetic is the fellow from Sardinia.

35

Again, I don’t think he was presented sympathetically. Ridiculously, maybe. Pathetically tallying grievances committed by those Frescobaldi feccia, certainly. His pettiness and heedlessness contrasted unfavorably against the Social Forum anti-globalization protesters, no doubt about that. Given some rope to defend daddy’s Fascism, yup, that too. Last seen whining that the Wine Spectator never said his Ornellaia was the #1 wine in the world, but now that Mondavi owns it…

But sympathetically? I suppose any broken figure is a sympathetic one, but I don’t think Nossiter spares much for Antinori.

And, again, Antinori adamantly makes the point that Michel Rolland had already “perfected” his Ornellaia before the sale to Mondavi. Hence his consternation that the Wine Spectator didn’t recognize it as greatest in the world until Mondavi owned it. His point being that it’s the same damn wine. And upon the obviousness of this unfairness “No need to say more. It speaks for itself.”

Another of Nossiter’s themes is that globalizing capitalism is a corruptive force to the wine making traditions he champions. Not only to the wine itself, but to the families it touches. We see this most clearly with the Mondavis, but we also see it less tragically in the Montille clan (Etienne “the banker” who’s running the estate and doing photo-shoots with Wine Spectator vs. Alix “the true heir” who just happens to currently be working for the Boisset conglomerate). We see it in how the more elegant Mondavi wines that Robert loved - but which Parker and Laube did not - are de-emphasized within the company’s portfolio in favor of those that earned a bigger return for the investors. And ultimately we see that it not only in the way Robert’s beloved new world clarets are deemed dead weight, but in the way the whole Mondavi family is rendered a liability. Expelled by the Board of Directors, legacy sold off to Constellation Brands. A pathetic end, very much not unlike Lodovico’s.

Can you tell I don’t agree with your interpretation? [scratch.gif]

36

Greg, I do think most participants in Mondovino are allowed their various shadings, nuances, and contradictions, at least the most important subjects - wouldn’t you agree this is true with the Mondavis and Montilles? Lodovico and Piero? - but, yes, Nossiter’s editorialization is often as subtle as a donkey festooned with Christmas lights. The theme park music that kicks in when we land in Napa is not what one might consider especially nuanced.

Your points about branding are good ones, and clearly those modern Montilles aren’t above consorting with the global hype machine!

37

As I think about our often diverging opinions on Mondovino, I have to ask myself again how much is lost in the film edit? I’ve seen it once, many years back, but the 10 episode series released on DVD - which I own (now OOP apparently) - is really all I know of this work today.

Here’s an episode guide that might indicate a bit of what’s missing from the film cut: Reign of Terroir - High Tech Winemaking

For example, the saga of the Antinoris, Frescobaldis, and Mondavis - with brief cuts to other participants threaded throughout - is told over two 1-hr episodes. I can’t help but think that a re-edit of the whole series down to feature length would come off as comparatively glib and superficial. Or maybe the full series would just give you that much more to hate on!

38

“His point being that it’s the same damn wine.”

Right. So, if it is an example of the kind of wine Nossiter is decrying in his film, it was an example before the sale to Mondavi.

Your defense of the film seems to be that Nossiter had some other theme in mind when he included the segment with Ludovico railing about Mondavi.

If that’s the case, then I suppose one could defend every disingenuous misleading segment similarly. To buy this, I’d have to believe Nossiter had no particular theme in mind, but simply found talking heads, aimed a camera at them, let them talk and included them in the movie simply because he had the footage.

The film’s point of view is far too obvious to believe any such thing.

But, I do agree that when facts are applied, there is very little, thematically, to hold the film together and the point of the film dissolves, which is why the film makes no sense to me.

I just believe Nossiter isn’t concerned with facts and hopes you’ll get so worked up hating you’ll pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain.

I was all dressed up to do some high quality hating, but I feel like too many inconvenient facts got in the way and it was a wasted opportunity.

I remain concerned about the issues raised but cannot recommend the film.

39

Rob, I get the feeling I won’t make much of a dent in your impressions, but let me give it a go!

Telling the story of Lodovico Antinori is telling the story of Ornellaia, which is the very embodiment of the genre “international wine”. Not the very first such wine, of course, but among the founding members of the club, and arguably its most successful, most lauded member. It’s as good a subject as any to serve as a model for that style of wine-making. You know, the nowhereness and inauthenticity of a wine created and perfected by Lodovico and Michel specifically to appeal to the globalized taste of the world markets “accepted internationally, that could be understand by everyone”. All in rather stark contrast to that sweet old dude from Sardinia and that sweet old dame who makes wine in memory of her dead husband.

And far from hiding the ball as to Lodovico’s patrimony as you earlier suggested, Nossiter traces it in great detail as Lodovico realizes his dream. His break from Piero. His striving for greatness in the wilds of Bolgheri. His adherence to California as his model rather than Chianti. His insistence that Ornellaia reflects his personal vision and taste, rather unlike its predecessor, Piero’s Tignanello. His consultations and friendship with Michel Rolland, and his contention that perfecting Ornellaia for the world markets was Rolland’s most satisfying accomplishment. His obsession with being recognized, especially by the Wine Spectator, and his almost pathological need for validation. Etc.

We also get a chance to visit with James Suckling at the Ferragamo estate who handily recounts how Lodovico made a wine that people actually wanted to drink, unlike that “acidic swill” that only the “locals” like (his lip curling on “locals”). James also pronounces the number of points he’s bestowed upon any stray bottle in the vicinity, and generally lords his eminence over everyone, including his host, Salvatore Jr. (whose own wine James was only 90pts on as James helpfully reminds everyone). I can’t help but notice how Nossiter only employs broad, monosyllabic, cornball yokelisms when reacting to Suckling. Hehe.

So, the story of Ornellaia is part and parcel of the story Nossiter’s trying to tell. The rise of California and its impact internationally. The rise of the global market thirsting for a particular sort of wine. The rise of the jet-setting wine consultant. The rise of the SuperTuscan. With the story of Ornellaia we have one of the primary illustrations of the international, globalized wine that Nossiter includes. I honestly wonder if you’re being intentionally obtuse in not getting why this particular tale is told.

And the cherry on the cake? The Mondavi connection, and as Nossiter would have it, the international market exacting its price. Overextended, Lodovico is forced to sell Ornellaia to Mondavi, which immediately sells a 50% share to treacherous Frescobaldi - as though prearranged! And Mondavi and Frescobaldi are partners in wine again with a new well-branded, well-established commodity a/k/a that which was formerly Lodovico’s best loved child and greatest personal validation. With timing so suspicious it could only be corrupt (to Lodovico, at least), the Wine Spectator proclaims Ornellaia the greatest wine in the world. Suckling exults. The markets respond. Lodovico sulks. And we have come full-circle with Mondavi. Unlike in commie Aniane, here it is acquisition accomplished! But then, and then… Robert Mondavi finds himself similarly overextended and is himself preyed upon by the very same forces, ousted by his board, his legacy sold out from under him to Constellation Brands. Whether you agree with Nossiter’s basic contention, you have to admit, there’s rather a lot of irony to go around.

40

I just think you’re connecting dots the film maker does not. The dots you connect and the inferences you make would make sense if only the film maker were making an honest film. Because then the story would present Ludovico as the villain and a perfect example of the kind of wine the film decries. But, he doesn’t. He portrays Ludovico as a victim and Mondavi, who had nothing to do with creating the Bordeaux blend with Rolland’s consultation as the perpetrator. I fail to see how Mondavi is the perpetrator in keeping with the film’s theme. To make Mondavi the perpetrator, Nossiter has to throw all values to the wind to get in bed with Ludovico - only because Ludovico has an irrelevant complaint against someone Nossiter doesn’t like for reasons having nothing to go with the wine being made at Ornellaia. At that point, the film is more akin to propaganda than entertainment.

I appreciate your comments, i just think the logical and factual inconsistencies were too much for me.

I don’t think you have any antidote for that.