Mondovino, 2004
Jonathan Nossiter

• Jonathan Nossiter uses the battle for the soul of wine as a metaphor for how "crypto-fascism" in the new "globalized" world order is destroying small-scale enterprises.. This is aided by a rampant complicity between the big companies and its' (so called) critics, in this case, wine producers and (so called) wine journalists. (Similar to the collusion that exists between film and film critics, politicians and political journalists, etc.)
• Not infrequently, the poet is greater than the object of his verse. Nossiter's absorbing documentary is in sharp contrast to the influential wine critics who assign numeric scores, while advising the very same vineyards on how to confirm to their 100-dollar-a-bottle "new oak" palates.
• This seemingly innocuous "homogenization of taste" is really a form of fascism where subversion of terroir is really a subversion of individual expression -- and affects (and reflects) both how we live today and what of ourself we pass onto the future...when our unique and defining imperfections (the very imperfections that make human beings human) are destroyed by economic greed.

Notes from Who is killing the great wines of Europe ? - Jonathan Nossiter on Mondovino by Mark Peranson (CinemaScope, Spring 2005) :

• "I'd like to send every filmmaker on a three-month stint working for a good winemaker with a sense of terroir...I'm deeply moved by the Burgundian notion of terroir as expressed by Hubert de Montille, which is that you express your personality in everything you do, in any activity, from a dry cleaner to a filmmaker. The Burgundian argument is that individuality is a given, stop fretting about what you're personally bringing to something, think instead about what you are able to bring out from something else..."
• "What I'm most interested in cinema is what I'm most interested in wine, which is what I'm most interested in people: the veins of imperfection that create idiosyncrasy and individuality. To me this is the highest form of beauty...And I think that in cinema we live in a world in which the way films are shot ... is becoming extremely plasticized, standardized ...The camera movement in Mondovino is never a premeditated aesthetic gesture. I hope that it becomes aesthetic because of human needs: the camera moves in relation to what I felt was being felt and being exchanged, and the moves were spontaneous. Organic. And I think that, by and large, a sensitive audience generally can feel when a camera is moving gratuitously, and for aesthetic effect, and for the glory of director's ego, and when it's moving out of human and dramatic necessity...it's filmed with a kind of ebullience, vitality, and playfulness, and that's how I felt making it and cutting it...Whatever technical imperfections, which are constant, are transformed by the vitality of the camera's curious eye and the vitality of its life within the frame."
• "With Robert and Michael Mondavi, that was absolutely formal interview, demanded by them, and I tried to frame it exactly like an interview, which I hope would take away from the interview aspect. And i think it did."
• "Whether you're talking about a wine, a book, or a human being, the moment we say we all agree on what faults are and how to eliminate them is the moment we have completely capitulated to fascism."
• "Making a film of any kind is a Sisyphean enterprise. Unless you feel deeply moved, and at some point unless you're in love."
• "I see documentaries as the tension between two people in any given scene (the director and the co-director - the person in front of you) - which is why for me Michael Moore is not interesting because I don't feel the other [co-]director present, there's only some big guy with a sledgehammer. Obviously, I'm using the camera to my advantage, the cards are stacked in my favour. When it's like that, the worst thing to do both ethically and aesthetically is to play a heavy hand. ...I showed some moments he [Rolland] wouldn't allow me to see, because that is part of the tension. And in his scenes, he is the screenwriter. As the editor and director, I don't literally interpret the screenplay, otherwise I wouldn't be a director. Any screenplay that is interpreted directly by its director is a dead film by nature."
• "If I'd done a film about the pharmaceutical industry, politics, or something that matters, I would never have got any sense of the human dimension....Precisely because wine is so irrelevant, ... I simply had access to everyone, and everyone was off their guard, even with their masses of press attaches."
• "The Mondavis, or Bush, or Parker live with a mixture of belief and layers of cynicism that they won't acknowledge at any conscious level. They live in a culture that allows them to believe in their delusions. This is personal jet-lag - the French have a word for it, decalage, which means "displaced", but it's an internal displacement."