The documentary compares old ways vs. new ones, but what astonished me was how openly everyone acknowledged the fact that many wines are now being produced essentially to appeal to one person: influential critic Robert Parker. He acknowledges it, his friend and collaborator Michel Rolland acknowledges it, the wine producers acknowledge it ... it's just how it is. That doesn't appear to be in dispute.
Although the director's point of view is present, the bad guys truly hang themselves with their own words. Parker comes across as a complete boor: the very definition of an ugly American ... he's an abrasive, pompous New England intellectual.
I definitely dislike the idea of standardization in wine. I like both Old World styles and New World styles. The earthiness of a wine that reflects its terroir can be good, and fruit forward can be good. To me, each is different, and has its own merits.
I am very sympathetic to the new wine drinker. Everyone who drinks wine is new to it at some point or another, and shopping in a wine store can be intimidating early on if you don't have a guide. Wine magazines frequently recommend that new drinkers find a store with a wine expert that they trust, but I've always thought this was dreadful advice ... not in principle -- the idea is great. However, the reality is problematic because how do you know? Even if the wine staff seems knowledgeable, how do you know that their palates will match your own preferences (and sometimes you don't know yourself what those are)? You don't. Not until you've spent some money to find out, and I think many new drinkers are hesitant to spend money on things they may not like. How can you blame them? Side note: I think the recommendation to attend as many wine tastings as you can is much better advice in terms of cost-benefit analysis, with the stipulation that you should never feel obligated to buy something that you don't like.
So, in this early phase of learning, many people turn to "shelf talkers" -- the little bits of paper that shout "89 from Wine Spectator!" "93 from Robert Parker!" They see that big number, and figure it must be good, despite the fact that an elevated price often accompanies that coveted score. While I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using these as guides early on, I also think they're a bit like floaties for a child learning to swim: they'll get you in a fairly safe part of the pool and keep you afloat, but you don't want to depend on them forever. What bothers me is that a lot of people stay stuck at this stage of development, and they essentially become puppets of the major wine media because of that. They never explore the deeper end of the pool.
I don't presume to know all there is to know about wine. Nobody in the world does: there's always more to learn, a new vintage to try ... the product is constantly changing. Despite the fact that I've been drinking wine for years and have been blessed with an oenophile father, I'm simply a hobbyist. I haven't taken it to the next step, like my co-worker's husband who has completed the first of a series of tests to become a Master of Wine (he's a professional sommelier), or like quandry, who has stepped right into wine as a career. I readily admit that I still know nothing in many respects (I'm game to find out, though!). However, I do know how to research. I do know how to ask questions, and I do know the typical progression of people's palates when it comes to early-to-intermediate consumption. (It's rather similar to drinking scotch.)
To get back to the movie ... Mondovino is too long. I realize that it was originally a multi-part series cobbled together into a movie, but I think it still needed a more stringent editor. I also doubt that someone who isn't already familiar with the wine scene and some of its major players would enjoy it. Nevertheless, it contained a lot of interesting information and perspectives from a variety of sources. I learned a good bit, and it corroborated some things that I'd already thought of on my own.
One thing that it verified about all these young wines that we're drinking now is how much of it is about profit. Why wait for a wine to age ten years when you can turn it around in two or three? It's surely more profitable for big producers to move that volume. I've been very frustrated by much of the chardonnay coming out of California in the past five years. In my New World chardonnay, I do like a little "oak tea" as one person in the documentary comments. I think it has its place. I don't want all my wine to taste like that. However, pro-oak or anti-oak, at least oaked wines have been allowed to age a little bit.I cannot abide all this highly acidic grapefruit juice that's been coming out of California lately. "Oh, that acidity is food-friendly!" the marketers exclaim. Perhaps, but your producers are also able to push it to market a lot faster, too, and there's no question in my mind that money is the real driving factor.
While I don't think you can make a case that greed is completely compromising the wine industry, it's certainly a factor in the homogenization of wine styles, and that's really what Mondovino is about.