'Mondovino' - Anyone seen it?

WINE TALK
41

I recently re-watched the series - which I guess is one reason why I’m keen to talk about it - and I again re-watched “Crossing the Rubicon”, the first episode of this particular portion involving the Antinoris, before responding to your earlier comments tonight. Which is to say I’m very much endeavoring not to connect dots that aren’t there, but rather accurately transcribe what’s on the screen. When I quoted someone, I quoted that person directly and precisely. When I related what the episode contained, I related it as accurately as I could. Rob, I really kinda think you might not dislike Mondovino so much - you might even find something worthwhile in it - if you analyzed the thing itself rather than your misconceptions of it.

Recall that you started out by saying your problem was that “the film neglects to mention that the original owner Frescobaldi is the one who elected to make a Bordeaux Blend at Tenuta Dell’Ornellaia”. I corrected you to say that Mondovino properly identifies Lodovico Antinori as the original owner of Ornellaia, but you know no big deal. Then you said, oh well anyway Nossiter didn’t reveal that Ornellaia was an internationally styled wine before its purchase by Mondavi such as to make Ludovico out as the victim and Mondavi the philistine. I corrected you again to say that Mondovino chronicles in great detail Lodovico’s founding of Ornellia, and his specific intent - with the assistance of Michel Rolland - to create an internationally styled wine “that could be understood by everyone”. You continued to insist the Nossiter nonetheless dishonestly portrays Ludovico as a victim and “gets in bed with him” when in fact Nossiter portrays him - and there other Florentine nobility including Piero, Madame Frescobaldi, and the various enablers and hangers on, including the Ferragamos and Suckling - as all faintly ridiculous, petty, self-delusional, absorbed in their own grandeur. At any rate, not humble salt of the earths like that old dude from Sardinia or venerable luminaries like Aubert de Villaine who Nossiter sets up as his heroes.

So when you cite other logical and factual inconsistencies, I have to wonder how many were manufactured in your own mind, and how many are actually in the film. Honestly, Rob, your accuracy rate thus far has been fairly low! neener

(Full disclosure: turns out I misremembered stuff too. I swear I recalled Suckling smarmily sucking up to Salvatore Jr at the Ferragamo estate. Whew, not so! Rather, James’ affect struck me this time as one of full-blown condescension to him and his wine - Il Bollo or something a/k/a a wine worth a mere 90 Suckling points sneeringly bestowed and only because junior let him crash at the palazzo.)


Bonus Robert Parker quote from this episode commending the use of barrique to all (just before tasting a '99 Tignanello that was redolent of “vanilla, coconut, smoke, espresso”): “The French can defend their oak better than their terroir.”

42

I’m talking about the film.

I agree that many of the people Nossiter tries to portray as protagonists end up looking ridiculous when all of the relevant facts and hypocrisies are considered. I just disagree with you when you claim this was the film maker’s intent. I think you are supplying the intent in order to try to make sense of the film, but if the film maker intended what you claim he intended, I feel the film makes even less sense. I appreciate your efforts to try to restore some sense to the film by presenting what you’ve presented but for me the film does not present the same picture you’re painting by cherry picking scattered shreds from a scattershot film and stitching them together with logic supplied by you instead of the film maker.

If Nossiter wanted to make an honest film, I think he’d have gone about it far differently.

In my opinion, if he’d wanted to tackle the subject of losing Old World terroir, tailoring Italian wine to meet international tastes for the purpose of pleasing certain critics, gaining favorable reviews and cashing in at the expense of authenticity, there’s a very interesting story to tell. It would have to do with Super Tuscans for sure, but then Ludovico would have to be handled far differently and Mondavi would have nothing to do with it. His purchase had nothing to do with internationalizing the wine at Ornellaia. It would also have to do with adding international grapes such as Cabernet, Syrah, and Merlot to Old World Sangiovese. It would talk about wine makers trading in traditional Slavonian Oak Botti for French Oak barriques and roto-fermenters in Piedmont. For me, it would require him to make a far different film.

In any case, I think we agree on the wine related issues, but we definitely saw two different films. I’ll just finish by agreeing to disagree with regard to the film. I appreciate your efforts, but the film did not work for me.

43

Just a PSA for those who’ve never seen the full series who might have interest - it’s on Amazon Video and free if you’re a Prime member. I saw the film years ago and know about who the players are, the knocks on Nossiter and his POV, etc and I have to say, if you know the appropriate grains of salt to take it with, it’s kind of a hoot to revisit so far (I’m in episode 1 only). So many characters, the camera/filmmaker included, and it’s still thought-provoking whatever your viewpoint. And if you look at the series that way, not as something to tell you what to think or feel on the topic, but as a catalyst for your own exploration of the topics, I think it’s actually quite worthwhile. It’s also pretty interesting to watch with a little distance of time and knowing where we are today.

44

Very well said, Alan

45

Thanks for the heads up! I actually have not seen it…but now know what I’ll be watching tonight after we put the kids down.

…while drinking some wine of course.

46

Carsick is one thing you can come away with …

Salute !!!