Mondovino's wry humor and grim view of the globalization of wine reflects the food system discussions we have been having in class. Wine, like so many other agricultural products, finds itself torn between small-scale traditionalism and large-scale industrialism. Why does wine evoke such a passionate response, compared to other food products?The portrayal of Michel Rolland as the jet-setting pied piper of the wine world is both comical and searing. His call to "micro-oxygenate" develops into a slogan in favor of the standardization of the global palate.
Is wine really losing its soul?
--Brent W.
"more interested in the sobering facts of global marketing, economic competition and cultural imperialism." I found the film to be eye opening, it seems that even wine is being turned into a commodity. We seem to take a fast food approach to life and now wine. I agree with the traditional way of doing things. But the advances in technology seem to get the same results faster. Change it seems is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you have the stubborn old winemakers of the world that will not relent to modern ways, there will always be a chance that wine can retain the soul. The documentary pointed out that people are no longer willing wait to get traditionally developed wines, and the ways of people like Michel Rolland is becoming the new trend to deliver "mature" wines faster to the masses. This movie highlights the change in the wine industry what other industries have already succumbed too. Without producers like Hubert de Montille carrying on the traditional ways, this could be another industry that falls to mass production and globalization.
ReplyDeleteDenny M.
Mondovino was a very interesting way to look at mass wine production. Most of the time i was trying to grasp main concepts in the movie but came to realize one over all thing. Each persons winery was striving to be the best and would do what ever it took for that to happen. They had this fancy French guy go around and tell everybody there wine needed micro-oxygenation. Pretty much he went around charging a lot of money to tell people what to do with their wine in order to make it successful. He makes a living on taking traditional wines and making people think they are not good enough to stand up to the world market so people compete on a global scale to stay in the race of wine sales. I think what he does could be a good thing but since wine is becoming so huge around the world people need to overproduce their wine to keep up. And in order to make sure it appeals to everybody they may lose some of the authentic qualities it originally had and start to taste like the main stream wines that are out there. I think mass wine production could be a good thing as long as the quality and care of small wineries are not lost.
ReplyDelete-Josh R
"But in wine, as in movies, things are not so black (or do I mean red?) and white."
ReplyDeleteThis movie was very eye-opening. It gave us viewers the points of views of the traditional wine producers and more modern wine producers. It shows how some growers are using technology so that they can produce their wines at a faster rate and traditional producers aren't happy.
"[Mr. Nossiter's] editing style is less ingratiating, though, as her repeats the same points over and over and stacks the deck to suit his political assumptions(Scott, March 23rd 2005)."
ReplyDeleteI felt the same way about the editing of this film. Although there were some things in the movie that were represented rightfully I do not take much stock in the film. I felt the whole way through that it was like another Michael Moore film. Things were taken out of context and at points the filming made the interviews seem uncomfortable to me as a viewer. I'm sure the film has helped to gather more publicity and speculation in to the wine industry, I do not feel that the film on its own was very informative.
Jeff S
Mondovino was a very eye opening film. It looks at both sides of the wine producing spectrum: the small, family owned wineries that produce wines the traditional way, and the large scale multinational wine corporations that utilize modern technologies to "improve" and "enhance" the production of wine and the final product. In my opinion, I believe that both the small producers and the large ones are just in their ways. They are simply producing wines for a certain market and customer. I can see how the small producers would be concerned however, since wine has been produced for centuries throughout the world,and is especially important in Europe. I don't believe that wine is losing its soul, if anything it is gaining more soul, as more and more people are becoming more educated about wine and demanding the quality wines made in the traditional methods. As long as there are people who are enthusiastic about wine, there will always be great, traditionally made wines available for everyone to enjoy.
ReplyDelete"Part of what it is about, after all, is the cultural tension between the new world and the old - between crusty, fatalistic French peasants and smooth-faced, forward-looking Californians."
ReplyDelete-A.O. Scott
I think the film Mondovino does a great job of framing the world market of wine as a battle between the traditional methods of wine production and new age which increasingly involves mass production and the involvement of technologies such as micro-oxynization. The argument being presented relates to whether or not these new methods have had a negative impact on the taste, culture, and therefore the enjoyment of wine. In my opinion, the world is evolving and so are peoples' individual tastes which is a very personal experience after all. So in the end, whether or not a particular wine has been hand picked and treated by traditionalists who have been doing it the same way for centuries, or they have utilized modern advances to assist in their production, if it tastes good drink it.
Trevor C.
Mondovino was a good interpritation of the internal stuggle between the small Italian farmers and the large producers. It talked about the problems that each had individually and it was very personal becuase they followed the owners around and they told the story in their own time. You got to see each farm and grower individually and learn about the pros and cons they all had. They kept the movie interesting by showing some fotage that other films might not have shown. Mondovino was informative and some parts were even funny.
ReplyDelete- Brittany M.
“Wine is more than a beverage. It is, proverbially, the soul of a meal and, in some accounts, the very cornerstone of civilization”
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Film Mondovino I feel that this quote best describes what I feel is happening to the wine industry. There is an ego among wine makers it has gotten away from the art of making wine to the mass production of wine. I felt that the movie showed this best, epically when fallowing Michel Rolland his business is all about making the wine chemically better tasting which basically helps the wine makers to sell more wine. I guess if you are looking to make a profit then this is the way to go which many wine makers have done. But I feel that doing so takes away some of the magic and the art to wine making.
Maria M.
Mondovino was a real eye opener for me. I don't read up on wine as much as I would like so something that gives me both outlooks on the future for wine is a great experience. It's unbeleivable how one man, Michel Rolland, can be a wine consultent for hundreds of vineyards. I feel as if all the wines he has a hand in will come out similiar. The point of wine production, in my eyes, is to be able to express an individual growing process, terrior and skill. And the showing clearly points to the direction of how the wine wolrd is starting to shape up. We are moving away from big, firm wines that age for countless of years that really express the world around it. But this is do to history. France had hundreds of years to be able to really have a clear understanding of how there terrior influences their final product. I'm a traditionalism so I side with the old guys hands down. I strongly beleive that we are turning away from what wine should be about. We have to look past the idealism of mass-production; this is one of the old men's arguements, that the industry now channels there energy on a monopolistic ideal world. Wine should be completely about personal expression. It should take you to the place that it orgininated from. It should have depth, a story and soul.
ReplyDeleteI hope to see a turn away from mass-production wines. A price of a bottle shouldn't increase just because a large corportaion put it under its wing. I want wine to be what it was in the past. Hopefully we can try to develope more depth and appreciation for what wine truely stands for.
-Tim T.
"... the battle being played out in the vineyards-between European (but especially French) particularism and a global consumerism driven by American ideas about marketing and brand awareness..." (A.O. Scott pg 135)
ReplyDeleteMy thought on the film is that it is an eye opener. Many people buy wine not even knowing what is in the bottle and I think those are the people the mass producers target. I said before in week six that California doesn’t have the experience to claim a specific terroir like the French do. California wines were and always have been imitations of European wines. Don’t get me wrong I do appreciate California wine for its uniqueness, but its makers should stay in California and do what they do best there. The NY Times article about Mondovino makes out Californian wine makers to be forward thinking, but I don’t see how trying to buy land next to a century’s old vineyard in France is forward thinking about anything or anyone accept self. If you’re going to do something for yourself why don’t you explore smaller older wine producers around the world and promote their accomplishments? That seems like the most forward thinking and fairest thing to do especially if you are a mass producer. By celebrating a wine’s individuality of style, place, and how it’s made, we can give wine its soul back.
-Michael B
"Wine is dead"
ReplyDeleteMondovino was full of extreme opinions from all over the wine world and had a clear agenda of promoting the opinion summed up by this quote.
The movie does a fairly good job of villanizing the Mondavi family and Michel Rolland, but it is important as a viewer to consider both sides of the story. Just like great wine all things must be in balance and the wine consuming masses need to be able to balance the incredibly important soul of traditionally produced wine with the new world inspired soul of innovation in the wine world. Both of these sides of wine are important and need to be balanced out by a more educated wine consuming public which can decide when it is appropriate to enjoy a classic or when to enjoy soemthing new. As food and wine professionals it is our responsibility to educate the public on this matter.
-Matt H
Mondovino was a very interesting movie. It really helped me get an insight to the world of wine besides its terroir, taste and other things that I have been learning in all my classes so far. It showed the real world scenario of the wine world and the politics that are going on today. The old school wine makers are being challenged by newer commercial wine producers who are competing for the same market. The wine market has now become global, and all wine makers, whether they are from the new world or old world, are all competing in the same market. The older world wine makers are being chased by large scale, lower priced wines such as the ones from California. They are heavily being promoted by opportunists such as Michell Roland who will do anything to make a big buck and control the market's inputs and outputs. Like any other industry, the wine market and future can be compared to industries such as agriculture, where mass produced, lower priced products are challenging Older, smaller scale, artisan producers!
ReplyDelete-Taijash Kakshapati
I was interested by the movie Mondovino, it looked into the ideas and the opinions of the wine makers and the people that sell the wine as well a consume. I think it was made to give people the insight to the way these people think for a few reasons. A lot of the oldest and most prestigious wineries are in Europe mainly France and Italy, so its interesting to see their view on the industry and the motives behind it. Controversy over quality and ratings was a sour subject during the film. I feel like as in any industry based on ratings there are biased people, the fair people, and the people that can be bought but that can be found anywhere. I think its a major discussion point in the film discussing why is it that some wineries always receive the high ratings over others. Its also a who you know industry, one example is that Mondavi buys a winery that was fairly mediocre but then after being bought and ran by such a powerful winery it literally sky rockets the prices overnight. But not all of the movie was about controversy, it also showed how much these winery owners car about their wine and how much making a product they can be proud of really does move then and keeps them living and loving what they do day in and day out.
ReplyDeleteIt is a eye opening video becuase its something that not many people are familiar with and gives you an insight to a very complex industry.
Zach K.
“Wine is more than a beverage. It is, proverbially, the soul of a meal and, in some accounts, the very cornerstone of civilization, which is one of the reasons I prefer beer. Innocent talk of noses and finishes, therefore, has a way of drifting toward headier matters.”
ReplyDeleteThe quote in my opinion sets up for the reader the idea that yes wine may be the soul of the meal…but if our present wines have no soul than the meal is empty. Thus the preference of beer, where many microbrewers all across the country take care to make every last drop of it absolutely perfect, holds more soul at the table than our common globalized wines.
I am no master wine guy, I don’t judge wine by color, body, smell, legs, anything. I have one criterion when drinking wine and that’s either I like the wine, or I don’t. So hearing that wine has lost its soul in the globalization of the market due to people like Mondavi and what not really isn’t my primary concern. If they are producing wines that I like then I’m going to buy them simply because I think they taste good. However my opinion is not all that counts. There are many artisanal wine makers across the world who are able to make wines that they love as well. If they start being pushed out of the market by people who are simply better able to advertise themselves then that really is a problem. Wine that does have soul generally does taste better because you appreciate the hard work and care put into it even if you can’t taste it. And that is something that would be terrible to lose. Still, I do prefer beer anyway.
Jameson F
"But in wine, as in movies, things are not so black (or do I mean red?) and white." -Scott, A.O.. "Amid the Globalization of Wine, a Plea for Its Individuality and Expression of History, The New York Times, pg. 135.
ReplyDeleteThis quote represents the reading because it is made clear that wine production can be done in many ways. Each way has its own benefits and upsides. But also each way has many things that can be viewed as wrong. When watching the movie Mondovino, i was able to see that each person talking in the movie had their own way of doing things, and each of them believed that they were doing the best. To each person everyone else is wrong. This quote about wine not being black and white is a perfect example. There is no right or wrong way to make wine. It comes down to particular preference. What works for one person might not work for another or they just don't like the product that get produced that way.
I agree with the author. Everything comes down to personal preference. If people prefer to drink really expensive wines then that is their choice. If people prefer to drink boxed wine, then that is their choice. In thinking this it leads me to believe that there is no right way to do things when making wine, it just comes down to preference and what works for one person. I found it very interesting that this writer did a piece about wine when he flat out said he prefers beer. I am going to have to agree with that as well.
Arthur P.
I think that this movie was very informative about the wine industry spectrum. They focused on the two aspects of the wine world, one being the world of mass producing companies or the small family owned companies. Each of these companies has different ways of producing their wine. For instance the mass producing companies use big barrels and big presses to extract the juice from the grapes, but the small producers most press the grapes by their own feet (example of the man stomping the grapes). These companies also argue alot about their wine and which one is better. The Mondavi's stated that they were trying to mass produces wine in France but they kicked them out because they were scared of the Mondavis making good wine but the French will say the complete opposite and that the Mondavis were breaking rules in the sence that they didn't have the right zoning rights and thats why they kicked them out. The Mondavis also used examples like their former employees in France and those former employees will say the same thing that the Mondavis will say. Overall it was a very interesting movie but very confusing at the same time, I would definetly recomend it to a wine person though.
ReplyDeleteAlex C.
I think Mondovino did a great job at explaining terroir vs. industry, which showed a these great 800 year old wineries still owned by the family and history and then there were the wines that were trying to make mass appeal and compete to be the best. Both the local vinters and the industrial vinters were trying to have the best flavor, but the local vinters really captured the soul of wine, while the industrial vinters were trying to "get those dollars" and be cool. I found it extremely interesting, but I can't help myself for rooting for the local vinters, the underdogs of wine in Languedoc, and either way it seemed that both sides had extremely happy lives and were living the way that they wanted to live, it was just at extreme ends that they found themselves.
ReplyDeleteRob B
Mondovino took a deep look into the battles that can insue in the wine world. It broke it down into two sides, the classic winemakers who adhear to strit rules, and the new age people who are looking for the next big thing in wine. Arguments can be made on both sides as far as who is right and who is wrong, but I find it most interesting to see the passion that is still existing on both sides. Whether you prefer one type of wine or the other shouldn't matter as much as the passion that is put into making the wine. When you take a market that now has two somewhat competing sides, both of which are extremely passionate, I can only see a good outcome
ReplyDeleteJoe C.
"Part of what it is about, after all, is the cultural tension between the new world and the old"
ReplyDeleteMondovino's portrayal of the "french particularism" and their rather obvious distaine for globalization, and commodinization of their sacred beverage was a very controversial and enlightening film. The new world: Michael Rolland a man who it fathoms me to believe can really make a living fooling people the way he does is a con man to the core. He is exactly what the old world: Guibert, for instance would not, and cannot stand for. Guibert s out look on wine as "being dead" is his rhetorical motto bashing those like Rolland the "killers". California was portrayed in a very unpleasant light in this movie. The need for increased imports and exports with the greedy proveyer like the Movdavi family behind the dealings and undertone’s of political arguments made the production and selling of wine an interesting drama, and movie.
Gabrielle C.