Robert Parker's Power - Mondovino (2004) Discussion

[–] podunko 19 years ago

How has walmart become the ugly behemoth it is? mcdonalds? It is BECAUSE of our free capitalist society that these things occur. It's about man's inherent penchant towards greed. It's about marketing! It's about the need for people/businesspersons/politicians not interested in more, more, and more. Good luck.

reply

[–] sjp010 19 years ago

It's a good question. First and foremonst, Parker is a great wine taster -- he is very consistent and reliable and this is how he ammassed such a loyal following. Secondly, he is a fully independent consumer advocate which you cannot say for wine spectator and many other publications. Thirdly, his authoritative writing style and 100-point scoring system make his reviews very attractive to and quickly understood by the American consumer. And lastly, it is a snowball effect caused by American's need to keep up with the Joneses and always have the "best" of what they're buying.

Another interesting question: what happens to this market when he retires? It'll probably happen soon... it is a tough lifestyle he lives and he isn't young anymore.

Now a question for you, I had very well formed opinions about Parker before I saw Mondovino and the movie didn't change them much at all. I was wondering what people who didn't know as much about him going into the movie thought about him. Was he portrayed well? Do you see him as a major proponent of, participant in, or beneficiary of the global wine market portrayed in the movie?

Thanks.

reply

[–] SurrenderToto 19 years ago

sjp - To comment on your "another interesting question," this is what I meant by capitalist societies with free presses. Understanding your explanation about Robert Parker (thank you, and the film should have made all these things known), but why is he THE ONE? Take any other ratable activity or commodity; e.g., film, cars, investments, hospitals, auctions, etc. There is competition among the raters. When a monopoly exists, that's when things get out of hand. What other wine critics need to do is adapt to changing conditions (the new global and American-dominated market) and either compete against him or find different markets. By your explanation, because of the very large American market and Parker's very in-demand and "marketable" service, he attracts a large consumer following. I see a parallel in American-made big-budget, mass appeal movies. Because there is a world-wide market/demand for this product, because they are well-done of this kind, and because of the marketing budgets and distribution lines, they overwhelm "local" product. Now you and I, of well-developed and discerning "taste" in both wines and movies, understand the difference between the big-budget, mass global appeal vs. the local, specific and ultimately more satisfying product. But we also know which ones make more money.

There will always be products for the well-cultivated and well-informed, in every sense. But the markets for them will always be smaller than for the larger, less cultivated segments of the market.

As for Parker's portrayal, if Jonathan Nossiter's technique is to show you people as they are and in their own words, then Robert Parker surely hung himself by inviting Nossiter into his home, letting him follow him around and by speaking ad lib. His palate may be well-educated, but he didn't do himself any favors in the culture and intelligence departments. And he surely didn't come across as anything approaching an "independent advocate for consumers" by his participation in the big wine producer's send-off of the new wine. What did come across was his enjoyment of his success and being part of the big scene. So no, he didn't seem very independent to me. Critics, by and large, should be unseen and at times rather cranky. Perhaps he's the Roger Ebert of winedom --usually on target, but very much in touch with and flowing with the larger currents of agreement on what is "good" and what is "bad."

reply

[–] sjp010 19 years ago

Why is Parker "the one" critic... again I think there's a lot of factors at work. Maybe the most important: the characteristics that separate a "good" wine from a "great" wine are to a large extent, in my opinion, matters of personal taste. And to develop these personal tastes, you need to drink a lot of wine (at least I did, and my personal tastes are still developing). Most people buying wine have not drunk enough wine to develop personal tastes where they can convince themselves that this wine is a "good" wine while this one over here is "great." They need someone else to tell them which is which, and Parker fills that niche with his authoritative prose and 100 point system.

This is unique among the commodities you list... everyone drives a lot so everyone can get into a car and drive it a little and have a strong opinion. Someone who's never seen a movie before can watch one and tell you pretty strongly whether they liked it or not. Not so with wine -- the first time I tasted a dry wine I thought it was nasty, and I had no clue whether it was a quality product or not.

But that doesn't really answer your question. I think he is THE one because of this mysteriousness about wine, coupled with his longevity and reliability. If I'm Joe Consumer and I want to get a $50 bottle of wine for my bosses party and I don't know anything about wine, who do I trust: the guy at the store selling me the wine, the new glossy wine magazine with lots of advertisements from wine producers, or the independent reviewer who has been practicing his craft for 25+ years. I think the same kind of thing happens with supposed wine lovers as well -- because wine is so mysterious, even an experienced but amateur wine lover can lack confidence in his/her own tastes without a 95+ point score from the most well-regarded reviewer in the world. In extreme cases, people act as though they're collecting 95+ point scores, not wine.

As far as independence... I should probably qualify that with, "in comparison to other reviewers." He started the Wine Advocate (his newsletter) with something like $3000 his mother gave him, and has never accepted a penny of advertisement -- it's all subscriber-funded. You're right -- nowadays he probably makes a pretty penny on the speaking circuit so his independence is not water-tight.

reply

[–] sjp010 19 years ago

Also, one more thing: I should share my opinion of Parker. You may have guessed already I have a lot of respect for him and I do. I also think he did an enormous service to the wine world, starting in the 1970's and early 1980s. He discussed it in Mondovino: he played a big role in a new trend of holding wine producers accountabe. If he thought a high-priced wine from a prestigious property was not up to snuff, he did not pull any punches in his reviews. He didn't have to because he was fully independent. If he thought a wine was undervalued, he told readers so, to their benefit. The result has been an overall improvement in wine quality throughout the world over the past 20 years. I don't think anyone -- Nossiter included -- could argue against this point, and Parker has played a significant role in this trend.

But I do think things have swung too far -- as depicted very well in Mondovino. Like I said, "good" vs. "great" has to do with personal tastes. So Parker's personal taste for huge wines, coupled with his incredible influence on wine prices, have created a monster. It really does seem at times that this is a market for Robert Parker Scores, with the fermented grape juice in the bottle being a distant afterthought.

But can you really blame Parker? As far as I know he's still just writing reviews and telling everyone what he thinks is good and what isn't. And as far as I know he isn't getting fantastically rich off of it like Michel Rolland and Wine Spectator are.

reply

[–] SurrenderToto 19 years ago

sjp - Thanks for your all the information and insight. It would take someone as knowledgeable and with a history of winetasting like yourself to contribute so fruitfully (oops! a spontaneous pun) to a discussion on the movie's merits.

One last clarification/confession: My comment above ". . . of well-developed and discerning "taste" in both wine . . ." was tongue in cheek. I only wish I had the funds to indulge in an exploration of the world of wine.

reply

[–] joeswanberg 19 years ago

Wasn't there a specific example in the film though, of the one wine which was purchased by the California company, and suddenly it got a much higher rating from Parker and the price shot up from one year to the next?

I wish I could remember the names of the wines and companies better, but it started with the letter "O" and the husband who worked with his wife in the wine shop implied that something fishy was going on, because it used to be a mediocre wine, until the California company purchased it, and suddenly it was rated something like 95 and the price was 110 Euros.

In the film, this implied that perhaps Parker wasn't so squeaky clean and independent.

reply

[–] mark-152 19 years ago

Ornellaia.

reply

[–] sjp010 19 years ago

I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't it Wine Spectator's reviews and "Wine of the Year" status that jacked the price up on Ornellaia? Again, I could be remembering incorrectly.

Even if it was Parker, I don't think that proves he's on the take. The movie shows that Parker clearly likes Rolland's style, and you can't blame him for liking what he likes. So if Ornellaia changes ownership and hires a winemaker that plays to Parker's tastes, they could easily get a high score and then up the price. That's the great thing about Parker -- he's very predictable! Hire a winemaker or consultant whose style he likes and you can make a fortune! I think that is the important point of Mondovino, and the market as a whole is to blame, not specifically Robert Parker.

reply

[–] mauffrey 19 years ago

I worked as a wine consultant for years in Canada for a major distributor of old world wines, including the Ruffino portfolio and Moet et Chandon among others. I've travalled all over Europe and spent time studying privately from wine makers in Bordeaux and champagne in Eparnee. I had never really heard of Robert Parker until the film and I'm not surprised because I've stayed as far away from American influenced wine magazines and literature. Robert Parker, seemed to me...........to be someone as he says himself, from a small American town and was introduced to wine while studying law. He doesn't make his claim to fame as being someone well educated in wine, rather as being someone who is quite simple with a desire to bring simplicity to the American palate. He appealed/appeals to the masses of "wanna be's". The ratings are biased and found in American literature?! Because the US is a major power broker capitalistically....................the American consumer counts and has influenced wine production globally. This was one of the messages I found most humorous about this film. It almost seemed like a Micheal Moore documentary to me..........which I really appreciated. I loved this film by the way and became re-inspired to take my time while selecting my wine purchases. The soul in this film was beautifully expressed through the old french wine maker..............Robert Parker and Michel Roland seemed ridiculous to me and I thought that was the intention?!

M

reply

[–] jonbg 18 years ago

M

As a wine writer, I for one can't believe you were a 'wine consultant' and had never heard of Parker - Are you serious? And it's interesting you bought all the nonsense from the old french winemaker - which is why the French wine industry is on its knees.

Rolland and Parker have commited the sin of knowing their markets, and guess what? That's why they're successful. The fact is the French don't drink anything like as much as many of its export markets and Rolland has recognised this to the fury of small-time, insular anachronists in the French wine industry.

The wine drinking market is largely ignorant and lazy when it comes to searching out different wines, and the French make it impossible to be loved. The likes of Rolland and Mondavi, the Australians (no fans of Parker) South Africans and so on mermely exploited the stubborness of the French. How ironic that Bordeaux growers have recently appointed Rolland's daughter to head up the marketing of Bordeaux to the outside world!

The Michael Moore parallel I don't see at all. Moore isn't a documentary maker. He's a polemicist at best and a manipulator of the truth - a pseudo socialist who knows how to make a buck out of the stupid. Mondovino in no way mirrors Moore's travesties, it has no commentary and documents rather than sets up. As for Rolland, I've met him and he makes no apologies for what he does. Yes his mark is on wines from all around the world, and yes they're all pretty similar styles. But he sells, and Parker does what he does because he is the best taster in the world who happens to be fixated on Bordeaux and the Rhone.

And it's Epernay by the way....

reply

[–] frederickelliot 18 years ago

Is Parker that influencial outside of America? Does he affect what the European and Asian markets want? I'd be interested to know because this movie seemed to see America as the primary market for wine, and as such, inflicting its 'boorish taste' (which was the inference) on everyone else. Not being a wine drinker, I can't comment on whether that is true.

I thought Parker was reasonable, not as pretentious as he might have been considering he's in a very prominant position. He was no where near as awful as that Rolland was portrayed. His advice seemed to consist solely of advising to people to Micro Oxygenate everything. Surely its not that simplistic?

The French growers seemed like landed aristocracy to me. Elite, well educated, sophisticated but out of touch. I guess if they do not adapt, its the guillotine fo their businesses which will be sad.

reply

[–] maderak 18 years ago

When I first saw your question, I thought the answer was a trivial "Yes." But, after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Parker's scores are referenced by the British, but they have their own set of very influencial critics (like Michael Broadbent), and notorious preferences in wine. I think its actually the British critics that most of the Europeans listen to. Michael Broadbent is universally respected, something Parker can't claim. The French don't really care, I think. the Italian don't especially care either. And as said above, the Australians are notoriously independent. Possibly in Japan, which is a significant wine market, Parker carries influence. Now, I will tell you that whether or not he is respected throughout the world, his opinions and preferences are extensively discussed everywhere.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] willyg243 17 years ago

read chapter 1, the propaganda model, of chomsky's book, manufacturing consent. It should provide some insite as to how and why media is controlled by very few.

reply

[–] tpvos-1 17 years ago

"Class" is clearly one of the theme's of the movie, even if there's no clear or consistent narrative being offered about class. (We see several shots of the workers in the wineries; e.g., there's the shot of an old man slowly descending a ladder, the maid interrupting the interview, the pickers being sent back to re-pick grapes. The list could go on.)

For Americans, and perhaps others, wine is such a symbol of class and our own class insecurities. I wish this would have been explored more fully in the film. If anyone has insights about the role of class in the globalization of wine, I for one would like to hear what you have to say.

FYI, Don't bother with Chomsky's book if the intent is to find an answer to the question about Parker's power. In fact, Chomsky's book becomes less and less convincing each time I read it.

reply

[–] amcalabrese 17 years ago

jonbg--

I generally agree but would like to add something. The main problem with the French winemakers is that with the exception of the great Champagne houses, they generally do not try to adapt to changes in taste and technology. Wine in the US was once the province of the wealthy elite (who drank the fine French wines) and the poor immigrant families (such as my parents, whose taste in wine was limited to rough, unfinish reds their parents remembered from Naples).

Today, wine is more of a mass market appeal. What I like in wine (my tastes tend to run widely from mellow chiantis to spicy Zins to slight sweet maderias) is different from my wife (who likes dry prino gris) or other family members (who like either sweet white zins or buttery chardonays or the old *beep* reds). The US, Australian, Spanish, Italian Chilean, and Argentine winemakers have all adapted and come out with new varieties to meet these changes. For the US, with a weak wine tradition and weak wine laws, it was easy. Yet Italy and Spain managed to do it even in the face of old traditions and stringent wine laws (hence the popularity of "Super Tuscans" and Riojas).

The French winemakers, on the other hand, seem to believe that innovation is bad. Bordeaux wines remain classified based on what the wine sold for in 1855. This has been building since at least the early 1970s -- look at the French reaction to the Paris wine tasting.

The Champagne houses have been immune to this because they has a tradition of innovation.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sneakymaus 16 years ago

He has power because people believe he does. He's just a guy who is very good at telling you what he likes and why and he does it consistently in an authoritative tone. He has no special powers or credentials. Many people find this comforting and they follow him like some sort of guru. Americans, especially, believe that anyone with ANY kind of "official" sounding background are automatically "right" about everything in their field.

While I do trust his reviews and scores in the area of big reds (because his taste and my own are similar in that area) I have some serious problems with his inability to review non-big reds fairly. Anything that doesn't suit his particular taste preference is automatically given a lower score, even if it's a spectacular representation of a specific terroir and varietal. People think that just because he doesn't care for lighter style reds (think Burgundian) that they're not good wines, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

I think he does a great injustice to any red other than Bordeaux style simply because he doesn't review the wine on it's own merits. He judges it only according to his PERSONAL preference, not based on any kind of objective criteria.

There are a couple of red varietals that I simply don't care for, personally, but that doesn't stop me from being able to fairly judge the quality of fruit, the winemaker's skill and the representation of the grape and its terrior. I wish Robert Parker would do the same, especially regarding such wines as Oregon Pinot Noir. He consistently gives some of the finest pinot noir in the world crappy scores, just because he doesn't care for lighter style reds. No other reason, and that's a shame.

If you want good reviews, seek out Jancice Robinson. She gives consistently fair assessments of a wide range of varietals and styles, even those she personally doesn't like. She'll tell you she hates sauvignon blanc, but she is still able to tell you how to find a superbly crafted one, if that's your thing.

reply