Controversy over power and wine

"Quite frankly, anyone who thinks Jonathan Nossiter is famous and has standing in the wine world seriously needs some perspective as to what constitutes fame and what the wine world is. Whatever you think Nossiter's fame is - there is no reason, given his tactics and venom, that we should give him any more." Mark Squires thus closed a very long - and engaging - thread on his own bulletin board. After first moving it from the prominent "wine talk" to "social hall" section, to avoid giving Nossiter publicity for his new book, Taste & Power, which was the basis for the thread. The author also made the controversial documentary Mondovino - which created a huge stir in the world of wine. Mark Squires' way of dealing with this issue begs the question: if Nossiter is so unimportant, why worry about him so much? Seems more like the enormous elephant on the table people are trying hard to ignore. In my opinion, Nossiter has touched a cord in this world of wine. Yes, he is partisan. But has some interesting things to say about wine. There is a passage in the book where he muses positively over red Burgundy, far less often inky black and concentrated when compared to, say, Australian Shiraz or even some Right Bank Bordeaux, and thus - he says - harder to pin down when it comes to what he calls negatively uniform taste favoring the rich, over extracted wines supposedly 'imposed' upon the innocent public at large by Established Critical Opinion. Perhaps showing more of that "light-in-film-being-like-acidity- in-wine" aspect: a cool metaphor mentioned in another passage. Broad brushes? Simple ideas? Perhaps, but the rather massive discussion he sets off here and elsewhere is, to me, healthy. Because we talk about wine and discuss things - sometimes attacking, sometimes defending ideas. And Burgundy IS one place where no one critic really dominates... I am certainly going to read his book when I return to France in mid November 2007, and post a commentary in these pages. But much of what I know so far - and had published in THIS DECANTER.COM ARTICLE (which set off the thread in Squires' bulletin board) - is based on copious excerpts published HERE (in French) as well as on a telephone interview with his editor. Nossiter holds interestingly metaphysical and - to me - perhaps overly idealistic - ideas on wine, which seems his shtick. What can you expect from a guy responsible for such an interesting movie as Signs & Wonders? Still, I have reservations about his approach to all things wine, a rather dire approach in fact. Sure, wines can be absurdly overpriced at restaurants, but that has often been the case. Pretentious Michelin restaurants? Is that a scoop? One can find TONS of nice restaurants all over the world with wine friendly people, where sommeliers and others guide people with open minds - open to all kinds of wines. The world is not so black, I think! Even the French grandes surfaces, massive impersonal supermarkets with discount wines which he condemns - hey, I have gotten some great deals on Bordeaux there, not just crappy wines... take 2001 Rieussec for just 45 euros a bottle - 75ers that is! And certainly we should all taste as much wine to develop our own individual palates. That is something that no critic - whether Robert Parker or Jancis Robinson - would dispute, I think (and hope). If everyone knew lots about wine, then we would have far less need for critics... and point scores. But human nature is such that we like critics. We like to hear what, say, Roger Ebert has in mind about a film, for example - at least I do. We do not always trust a seller to tell us about what he sells, so what one may perceive as an unbiased critic is better... And the more critics, the better. One can compare viewpoints or find someone who tends to agree with our own palate. I suppose Robert Parker has a following on his website, for example... Of course, I am NOT particularly fond of people who only buy point scores, like sheep, but I admit to having done so myself, and obviously pay attention to what established critics have to say about wine - because there may just be a good reason behind their success. Robert Parker very much deserves his success - he is a great wine critic, period. Indeed, point scores and user friendly evaluations - stars on Decanter to take another example - they exist for a reason, often a valid one because said critic has said credentials for said public.   But Nossiter - a sommelier (note wine qualification here) and filmmaker (please do check out Signs and Wonders, a very good film) with an evident passion for wine - surely has a voice that matters. It reminds me a bit of a history class in grad school: reading all kinds of sources to get a clear picture of a subject. Just as in Mondovino, you may disagree with a source, but it is a source and carries some weight. Indeed, one person interviewed in the movie - Marie Louise Schyler of Pichon Longueville, during the film at Kirwan - told me she was annoyed about his editing, that he did not give her the full context of their conversation and she felt trapped. And yet: she praised the film overall because it provoked discussion. Text by Panos Kakaviatos BACK TO MAIN PAGE