Director Jonathan Nossiterıs excellent film, Mondovino, fits neatly into the new wave of popular documentaries and reveals a hidden culture.
The culture
in question is the wine business and the film unmasks the intrigue,
politics, casual racism and skulduggery involved, as well as globalisation
of wine and its consequences. So after just over two hours, viewers will
emerge feeling ridiculously well-informed about viniculture and its main
players.
US-born Nossiter already has three feature films under his belt (Signs &
Wonders, Sunday and Resident Alien) and as a trained sommelier, has also
made wine lists for top New York restaurants.
Mondovino was the featured documentary at this yearıs London Film Festival
and is released on December 10th 2004. Helen M Jerome quizzed Nossiter over
a bottle (of sparkling water, sadly) to find out more about the director's
revealing, non-judgemental and innovative feature.
"I wasnıt trying to make an encyclopaedic, definitive film about the world
of wine," says Nossiter. "It's not a film about wine even. I wasnıt trying
to prove a point, I didn't really care, I was interested in human
experience."
Helen M Jerome: How did you visualise the structure of the film?
Jonathan Nossiter: "I didnıt. Iım always trying to fight against it.
Obviously I worked in the wine trade for a long time and I have feelings and
ideas about it, but I was very open and didn't know where the film was going
when I first started out. Like a detective, I tried to follow the clues that
would lead me from one person to another. That's one of the principles.
When you write a script you have to have a narrative which has a certain
kind of structure, but whatıs most interesting for me when I'm shooting, is
to try and break that structure without betraying the film. It's the only
way of trying to capture something.
It's something I've learned from working with great actors, like Charlotte
Rampling and David Suchet, to construct a coherent framework within which
they can work emotionally and psychologically, but then theyıre always
looking to break your preconception, to release something within that that
is true.
The great thing about a non-scripted film like this, with non-actors, is
that I donıt have to make that first step to fight against the structure, I
can allow the structure to emerge from the experience."
With such a loose, fluid idea of what the film was, how did you manage
to get it financed?
"Every film is impossible to make and is a miracle. Thatıs true of
Hollywood films too. There's no rational reason why anyone should give
anyone else money to make a film. It is a fundamentally irrational act. In
the case of this film, because I'd made a bunch of other films, and these
people have seen them, we got a tiny bit of money at first and I thought Iıd
make a tiny little film over maybe two months. Shooting and cutting it
together.
Then it became more interesting than I thought and I got another little
chunk of money and started to become slightly obsessed by it. And it took
off from there. But the film was made for very little money and was meant to
be something interstitial between two features. It never occurred to me that
it would take three years of my life, being my next feature. That was a
surprise."
You must have had a lot of material to edit after filming for so long?
"I had 500 hours of footage at the end and it's not a record to be
proud of. Definitely don't try that at home! I had to do the editing myself
to understand the material and since it's in five languages. Obviously I had
clear memories from the shoot. The narrative of the film was making itself
known while I was shooting, so I wasnıt blind when I sat down.
It took me three or four months just to log the first third of the footage
before I could even start to cut. Then I got impatient and started cutting
before I'd finished the rest of it. Then I divided my time between cutting
and logging for the next year. I had a tremendous assistant, but you have to
look at the footage yourself to know. It's a very peculiar, solitary
activity, but I love that.
I love the cut and thrust and action of shooting a film, it's very
non-intellectual, very instinctive, and that's a tremendous pleasure. But
after you're exhausted by that itıs a huge boon to be quiet and alone and
meditative in the cutting room.
I donıt understand directors who donıt want to at least co-edit their own
films: a) it's when you start to construct the language, and b) it provides
a depth of reflection about whatıs been shot."
You know the subject well, but there must have still been things that
shocked you.
"Thankfully almost everything. It's a film I made in the spirit of
delight. I've never had so much fun making a film. I hope I never make a
film again without that sense of pleasure."
You seem to speak to all the main players in the wine industry in the
film. How did you get such amazing access?
"To some extent, because itıs a world that I know, I have certain
contacts and friendships from the inside that helped. To another extent it's
simply that wine makes people gregarious. Wine's just a nice thing, a
pleasure. Most people who deal with wine like to speak, theyıre social
people, itıs a social activity.
And once you get a couple of the heavy hitters from the hermetically-sealed
world of wine [including the world's leading wine consultant Michel Rolland,
Christie's wine director Michael Broadbent, and the worldıs most influential
wine critic Robert Parker], itıs hard for other people to refuse. It's a
combination of these things."
Was it more of a hindrance or a help to know so much about the business?
"I had enough knowledge of the terrain to be able to navigate though, but
not so much that I was weighted down by knowledge. I love wine and have
always been intrigued by it and itıs been an essential part of my life. Iıd
worked in the wine trade for a long time, but I donıt pretend to be a wine
expert.
And I brought two friends along who knew nothing about wine. It was a crew
of three, me and Uruguayan filmmaker Juan Pittaluga and photographer,
Stephanie Pommez. The presence of two talented, intelligent, sensitive
friends who knew zero about wine helped to focus the film for people who
couldnıt give a damn about wine and knew nothing about wine. This is
absolutely the point of the film.
One thing I canıt stand about wine is all the snobbery. And the way wine is
used as a social weapon. I find it loathsome."
You also show some of the racial prejudice in various parts of the wine
world.
"Every culture expresses racial insensitivity in some way. In America
we'd like to think weıre democratic and egalitarian and it's a classless
society. And obviously it's one of the great myths. There are tremendous
racial freedoms in America that donıt exist elsewhere. The presence of a
strong black middle class is testament to a certain openness, but then
American society is guilty of tremendous racial insensitivity in other
areas.
The culture of wine will always reveal fundamental truths about the culture
at large."
What about Robert Parker's idea of creating a level playing field for wine?
"It's a false notion of egalitarianism. To make everything taste the same
is not democratic. It's not egalitarian, I think it's the imposition of a
totalitarian view. Every human being merits respect, every human being is
different. The left has been as guilty as the right of bringing uniformity
and sterilisation. Hence the presence of George W Bush in America is as much
a product of the culture of the left in the US as it is the culture of the
right.
This notion that everything is equal and everything should be equal is the
most anti-democratic bullshit that I can think of. Democracy is not everyone
the same. Everyone has the same rights, everyone has the same right to be
respected, but everyone is different. There should be tolerance of
diversity. But I think the wine world is also under threat of being
blandified and homogenised."
You also compare wine to humans.
"Wine is the only thing on earth that resembles people in their infinite
variety and complexity. I think, like people, it's now under threat of being
swallowed up by an Aldous Huxleyan homogenisation. We're under threat of
being Prozac-ed into collective submission."
One of your interviewees (Aniane winemaker Aime Guibert) says that wine
is dead.
"Heıs quite pessimistic. Of course, I don't agree. The presence of so
many vital and courageous people in the wine world is testament to its
tremendous vitality. There's never been so much good wine that exists in the
world. So much wine expressive of individual character. But I think its
availability is becoming increasingly suspect. Like in cinema, politics,
journalism, there's increasing control of distribution."
There are a number of uncomfortable revelations in the film. Have you
had any threats?
"Yes, I've received quite a few threats. For legal reasons I'm not
allowed to say. But unexpected sources. It's one of the pitfalls and joys of
making a documentary."
Whatıs the future for wine making?
"I'm an optimist, so as long as people are willing to do these things for
reasons of personal conviction and essentially as acts of love, which making
wine is on some level. And as long as people do that, wine will survive."
DVDs reviewed by the editor are watched on a Panasonic TXW32R4 32" widescreen TV
connected to either a Creative Dxr2 DVD-ROM player or Microsoft Xbox and
played through a Sony STR-DB930 amplifier.
PC games reviewed by the editor are on:
Since Nov 2005: Intel Pentium D 830 3.0Ghz, 1Gb RAM, 128Mb nVidia GeForce 6700XL, Windows XP
Since Aug 2003: Intel Pentium 4 2.66Ghz, 512Mb RAM, 128Mb GeForce4 MX440 graphics, Windows XP
Since May 2003: Intel Pentium 4 2.6Ghz, 512Mb RAM, 128Mb ATI Radeon 9600TX graphics, Windows XP
Since Jun 2002: Intel Pentium III 600Mhz, 384Mb RAM, Windows 98 SE, 64Mb ATI Radeon 8500LE
Since May 2000: Intel Pentium III 600Mhz, 384Mb RAM, Windows 98 SE, Voodoo 3 3000 AGP
Director Jonathan Nossiterıs excellent film, Mondovino, fits neatly into the new wave of popular documentaries and reveals a hidden culture.