Michel Rolland strikes back at Jonathan Nossiter

WINE TALK
1

Rolland tries to counter Nossiter’s portrayal of him as a nasty ogre by saying that Nossiter “will never work in the wine world again”

2

Rolland. Makes me proud to have stopped buying French wine.

3

I particularly enjoyed the first comment at the end of the article…

4

+1 Chris, too funny!

5

You’re just pissed that he didn’t give you credit for something you have been saying for years:

“I’m saying something no one has ever said before, which is [that] there are a lot of hypocrites in Bordeaux."

I honestly don’t understand all the venom

6

Did you read all the way to the bottom, a “special” TEN HOUR version will be shown, count me in!

7

You can get it on DVD. I highly recommend it to anyone who liked the movie, or to anyone who hated the movie, considering they seemed to have gotten so much pleasure out of bashing it and this will give them more material to work with.

8

Nossiter is a filmmaker. So Rolland’s threat that he will never work in the wine world again is just empty rhetoric. Nossiter’s film, which is entertaining but not much more, took out after Rolland with a vengeance. It is hardly surprising that Rolland now barks back. I suppose if you want to rubberneck, go ahead. But really, nothing of interest is happening here. Rolland’s wines still are what they are. So is Nossiter’s film.

9

I have not seen the film. I’ve heard it was a hatchet job in terms of editing, etc. to depict Rolland (and Parker too, IIRC) as the bad guys. Whether what I’ve heard about the film is accurate or not, it does seem to me that the topic of modern international winemaking styles versus traditional, terroir-distinctive styles is an important one, a topic each of us should have opinions about.

10

Oh yeah…that makes so much sense.

11

You need to see the 10-hour version, which is what was originally intended (it was to be a tv series, but Nossiter couldn’t sell it as such). The regular film doesn’t make sense to anyone who isn’t a total wine geek; the 10-hour version does, I think. FWIW, the people Nossiter interviews whom I know come off as I know them.

12

As the article mentions right off the bat, the movie came out eight years ago. Yawn city. The ten-hour version will likely be FDA-approved as an anesthetic.

13

Thanks for your endorsement Paul. It’s important to me.

14

I look forward to reading Rolland’s book for a number of reasons, one of which is I’m eager to know if there is real meat to the accusations that Nossiter was deceptive and dishonest.

15

The ten-hour version will likely be FDA-approved as an anesthetic.

[rofl.gif]

16

I have watched the whole frigging mini-series, and I conclude that many of the criticisms of Nossiter, his leftist sociopolitical agendas, his desperation to get out of the shadow of his more-famous, more-gifted father, his sometimes playing fast and loose with the facts or molding them like Play-Doh, are true. What cannot possibly be true is that Mondovino was a hatchet job on Rolland, pompous ass extraordinaire. In the longer version, Rolland repeatedly sticks his foot in his mouth and fails to explain his greed-driven alchemy with the camera rolling uninterrupted. No missing minutes a la the White House tapes. No editing to make Rolland say exactly what Nossiter would have him say. No, Rolland and his bosom buddy Parker were both nailed dead to rights, even if others may have been shown in a somewhat false light, favorably or unfavorably. I think that Parker was a little shocked to discover that he and his great friend were both self-absorbed bullshitters with little real skill. As a consequence, Parker is rabidly plugging Rolland’s book and laying waste to Nossiter anew over on “that” board. This while, on another thread there, Alan Chan hasconclusively demonstrated that Parker deliberately lied about Jim Budd’s cooperation in Campogate. Not a man whose book reviews, tasting notes or ethical manifesto I will be taking seriously. And despite the curiosity factor, there are too many good books on wine out there to waste money on French pulp (or should I say “must”!) fiction and further enrich a PR man who fancies himself a scientist…

17

Whether or not Rolland deserved to get skewered, I found Nossiter’s original film to be childish, insulting and downright annoying. Now admittedly, I was much more in the Parker Fan Club when I saw this several years ago. I especially recall the Staglins getting skewered in downright cruel and petty fashion.

18

Thanks for the link. I will read Rolland’s book at some point. I really liked Nossiters book. I kept falling asleep during the movie. It would take me a year to get thru a ten hour version. It was very boring.

As for Rolland, the people I have spoken with who hire him or work with him speak very highly of him. They pay him a lot of money and feel that he is worth it. That’s a pretty high compliment.

19

I do not so love the work that I would recommend that you go back and watch it again, now that it has been demonstrated conclusively that Parker lied to his own flock about the Jim Budd business, but the self-righteous ass with the farting bulldogs that one finds in Mondovino continues to paint an even less flattering picture of himself these days. That does not make Rolland guilty by association, of course, but making money pimping wine is a tricky business, as everyone from Parker to Miller to Campo to Suckling to Rolland to Turley to Rudy to Hardy, etc., etc., etc., have shown us…

20

He delivers, right? His wines get very high Parker points, which ultimately it seems, is largely what matters to many in the business of selling wine.