Nossiter's "Liquid Memory"

Nossiter explains in the book that the film shouldn't be seen as a documentary, but rather as a movie, with the protagonists being real people. The story line and tensions were "created" (or enhanced?) in the editing room.
The documentary is the 10 part series.
If that's true, then the difference between he and Moore is that Moore claims to be a documentarian. The techniques seem similar, though.
 
originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:
The story line and tensions were "created" (or enhanced?) in the editing room.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The problem, see, is that the people in the movie weren't actors, but actual real-life citizens who had strictly no idea of what Mr. Nossiter's electronic scissors were going to do to them in that editing room. So it was neither a "(fiction) movie" not a "documentary", but an electronic hatchet job.
 
Whom do people feel was treated unfairly in the movie? What deleted scenes have you seen that show that the material in the film was presented in a misleading light?
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Whom do people feel was treated unfairly in the movie? What deleted scenes have you seen that show that the material in the film was presented in a misleading light?
Click to expand...
I have never been as sympathetic to Robert Parker as I was walking out of Mondovino. C'mon--farting dogs made the cut? Pix of Reagan--maybe relevant, but really not quite on point for me.

I haven't seen the long version, but people I respect say it came off as much more balanced.

Off topic, I was seasick leaving Mondovino. Made me sympathetic for the crew and passengers of the Minnow.

Did you know the shipwrecked Minnow was named for an FCC commissioner named Minow who had given a famous speech a couple of years before the show on the subject of network TV as a wasteland? True story.
 
Agree, SFJoe, with the vomity hand-held.

As about Parker, highly affable in the film. And dog motif, more than dubious. OK, let's call a spade a spade: rather off, that dog crapola.

Keith, you should watch the 10-parter. It's got more stuff, which is good. 'Cause the feature film is something or other of a hatchet job. (I do like the soundtrack, though. But only because I am A Hipster.)

In the longer version, we have more than bourgeois Bordelais looking uncomfortable and rustic Roussillon inhabitants looking worthy. It gets to delve, a bit.

Oh, I condense.

I'll watch it all again and give you a Levi Daltonian screed to raise hackles all 'round, how about?
 
I can't wait to see the full miniseries - not out in English yet but is apparently coming soon. The one part of it I saw as a special feature on the Mondovino DVD I actually thought was better than the movie.

And I thought that both Parker and his dogs came off as likable folks in the movie...
 
I thought Parker came off just fine. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the real message of the movie is that all the good guys have dogs. And flatulence is endearing, isn't it?
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Whom do people feel was treated unfairly in the movie? What deleted scenes have you seen that show that the material in the film was presented in a misleading light?
Click to expand...

M. Rolland seems to be the chief antagonist of the film, and comes off quite poorly. The Mondavis probably run a close second.
Mr. Parker is "indicted" by several, but in contrast to Rolland and the Mondavis, comes off as pretty likeable. About the most dangerous thing he discusses is the politics of wine critiquing (something to note for those who despair of Nossiter's blending of wine appreciation and politics.... Mr. P. was doing this long before Nossiter came along).

I imagine that if M. Rolland had a chance to review a draft of the film he would have requested that some footage be provided to allow for a rebuttal.
I am not sure which of his comments were edited out, and how far they would have gone in presenting a less skewed picture of the man. I find it hard to fathom how such a media savvy person, one who really owes much of his success to an artful use of the press, could have said some of the things he said.

I agree with others that the overt politics of the film were a tiresome mishmash of fleeting cheapshots (pics of Reagan, the invocation of Henry Kissinger's name) and gratuitous add-ons of little value (discussing WWII era political stances taken by people in the wine trade).
And, of course, the annoying jerkiness of the camera shots (the most obvious piece of artifice in the whole movie, from what I could see) were extremely irritating.

But I enjoyed seeing the various people talk candidly and passionately about themselves and others.
And I don't see a connection to Moore beyond the fact that they are both doumentarians with a strong opinion about the subject matter at hand who use their films to promote their opinions.
 
Sometimes I feel like I've been living in a parallel universe. This is one of those times. I never thought of Mondovino as anything but comedy. I've seen the damn thing at least four times, and you can't tell me that Michel Rolland didn't know he was being set up to play the villain. So he gave Lassiter the villain he wanted. He's hilarious!

Parker's performance is classic. By the third time he says "As an American..." you just want to slap him. I cannot believe that Lassiter somehow cut out the scenes of Big Bob being self-deprecating, or even appealingly modest. If Rolland is the villain, Parker is the uncontrollable sociopath.

And James Suckling...wow. He doesn't have the slightest inkling of how corrupt he actually is.

The low point of the film, for me, is the heartwarming story of the de Montille family. Lassiter wanted to make old Hubert the Buddy Ebson of Burgundy, and the result is just dopey. On the other hand, Alix de Montille is probably the Meursault producer with whom I'd most like to have fierce, incandescent sex.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

P.S.: Regarding Steinberger's review of Lassiter's book: I'd just like to point out that I am totally cool with the concept of trumpeting the sophistication of my own palate and to scorn those who don't share my sensibilities.
 
IMO the rants and even the more modest negative comments re Mondovino and now the book [or more precisely re Nossiter the man and his values] seem more likely to be mirrors of the reviewers personalities and value systems than anything else. The same of course would apply with this although I am firmly in the I found merit in both camp.

However the certainty expressed by some concerning Nossiters motives and intentions verges on the Divine, particularly when Nossiter has provided quite detailed statements about what actually happened. Of course he has an axe to grind and self-justification may also play a part but at least he was there and inhabits his own mind.

There are more insights and intuitive judgement applied to Nossiters work than I can recall from students wrestling with the meaning and imagery in Ingmar Bergmans films e.g. Wild Strawberries although some of the commentary [primarily elsewhere] invests Nossiter with a malevolence and threat that is hardly credible.

Steinbergers piece is well written but is IMO as big a polemic as Nossiters and frankly almost as ridiculous an exaggeration as his rant about Sauvignon Blanc - solipsism, self-regard, and preening indeed. I think the final paragraph of the Wine Mules last post would be a pretty nice [in the best sense of the word] comment if applied to the Sauvignon Blanc article.

As I mentioned earlier the NYT review by Jim Holt was more balanced and less certain IMO and, when I think about it, so was the 2008 review of the original French version Le Gout et le Pouvoir by Richard Hesse. I have been able to enjoy the film and the book without allowing my reservations and occasional irritations [such as attacks on personal favourites] to require an exercise in philosophy or, more particularly, a heavy critique of Nossiters motives and value system.

OTOH I did wonder whether the Lassiter for Nossiter morphology has some coded significance. Just kidding Wine Mule I do that all the time.
 
Excuse me for interrupting, but I have to say "Nigel Groundwater" is a really cool name. Is it real or for Internet use only?
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
Excuse me for interrupting, but I have to say "Nigel Groundwater" is a really cool name. Is it real or for Internet use only?
Click to expand...

Yes, kind of like Putnam Weekly or Yule Kim or Mule Dog or whoever that new politburo-approved new sock-puppet is (I thought those were 'banned', but I guess it depends on WHO YOU KNOW).
 
Dogs aside, the book is sadly charmless, and not sure exactly what the screed is about. I have a hard time with a wine writer who swears by real wines and invokes as Godly the names of Lafont and Coche Dury. And is so out of the loop he talks of Romain Lignier as if he were still alive and didn't know of his unfortunate, untimely and tragic death. That mistake is one that makes me feel better about all of the many typos in my own book.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
Excuse me for interrupting, but I have to say "Nigel Groundwater" is a really cool name. Is it real or for Internet use only?
Click to expand...

Yes, kind of like Putnam Weekly or Yule Kim or Mule Dog or whoever that new politburo-approved new sock-puppet is (I thought those were 'banned', but I guess it depends on WHO YOU KNOW).
Click to expand...

I strenuously object to that characterization.

I'm a marionette.
 
originally posted by Alice F.:
Dogs aside, the book is sadly charmless
Click to expand...

You can say that again. I can usually sail through a book that size in an evening (when its good), but I still haven't mustered the energy to finish this one. Those last pesky pages...no suspense...who cares how it ends...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top