Nossiter's "Liquid Memory"

[BJ]

originally posted by Bruce G.:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
One of the reasons the handheld footage is so choppy, as I understand it, is that Nossiter often was shooting without the knowledge of his interlocutors. One thing I think some antagonists object to is Nossitor's own lack of candor in filming this way and, allegedly, lack of balance in his editing of the footage.

Ian:

What is the source of these claims? It's the first I've heard that Nossiter used a hidden camera, and I'd think that quite unfair.... given the controversial nature of some of the matters being discussed, the distinction between "off record" and "for the record" would be of great importance.
I have a hard time believing that Nossiter would behave in such a fashion, so would appreciate any input on this.

Cheers,

That was my reaction too but I sort of pooped out. There's just no way, it breaks all sorts of ethics, and plus, even with a small camera, you'd have to be stupid not to get that the camera was pointed at you. But there's just no way.

I'm certain with all the prearrangements etc., people signed disclosure statements etc. And the people with the most handling and/or should have had some amount of media clue sounded the worst anyway.

 

[Ned Hoey]

I have no doubt that those who appeared most clueless were so captivated by the sense of their own wonderfulness that they had no idea how they would come across in the context of the finished work.
These "media savvy" wine celebrities were accustomed to being regarded as brilliant wine luminaries,
I'm sure they did not comprehend or anticipate Nossiter's point of view. Once they figured it out, the resulting controversy was mad scramble of damage control.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:
I have no doubt that those who appeared most clueless were so captivated by the sense of their own wonderfulness that they had no idea how they would come across in the context of the finished work.
These "media savvy" wine celebrities were accustomed to being regarded as brilliant wine luminaries,
I'm sure they did not comprehend or anticipate Nossiter's point of view. Once they figured it out, the resulting controversy was mad scramble of damage control.

I think this is an apt assessment.

How many times was it that anyone was pointing an askance camera view in these people's direction? My guess is zero. They probably thought he would be as adoring as everyone else with a camera before him. The need for protection seems slim when there is no known predator.

That is why there was such an uproar. Perhaps that is a bit lost on this particular audience.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
The need for protection seems slim when there is no known predator.

That is why there was such an uproar. Perhaps that is a bit lost on this particular audience.

Not at all. I grew up watching Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom". (Marlin Perkins was a twit.)

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Bruce G.:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
One of the reasons the handheld footage is so choppy, as I understand it, is that Nossiter often was shooting without the knowledge of his interlocutors. One thing I think some antagonists object to is Nossitor's own lack of candor in filming this way and, allegedly, lack of balance in his editing of the footage.

Ian:

What is the source of these claims? It's the first I've heard that Nossiter used a hidden camera, and I'd think that quite unfair.... given the controversial nature of some of the matters being discussed, the distinction between "off record" and "for the record" would be of great importance.
I have a hard time believing that Nossiter would behave in such a fashion, so would appreciate any input on this.

Cheers,

I couldn't trace back to specific sources; what I've read, heard and seen has amalgamated into an igneous whole. The discussion really raged a while ago, after all. Are any of the shots from below, as if he was holding the camera at waist-level? I haven't watched the movie in at least two years and will try to get to it over Christmas break.

 

[Bwood]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:
I have no doubt that those who appeared most clueless were so captivated by the sense of their own wonderfulness that they had no idea how they would come across in the context of the finished work.
These "media savvy" wine celebrities were accustomed to being regarded as brilliant wine luminaries,
I'm sure they did not comprehend or anticipate Nossiter's point of view. Once they figured it out, the resulting controversy was mad scramble of damage control.

How very true.

I have a true admiration for Michel Rolland's role in Mondovino as "Doc Ox." I thought his performance easily equalled Alfred Molina's in Spidey 2. I kept waiting for the tentacles to pop out from beneath Rolland's suit coat, but they never did. The lack of appearance by the tentacles may have been one of the more subtle points of the film. (Sorry, to retread this comment from the comment I made four years ago about the movie, but as a result of globalising economic trends, I find I have ever more productivity demands and ever less time to think of fresh commentary.)

And if you were James Suckling and saw the movie, wouldn't you had to have gone in for face reconstruction surgery and relocation under a new name and moved to some place where people were sure never to have seen the film before, perhaps a small town close to the one in which where Nigel Groundwater resides. Maybe there's a "60 Minutes Interviewee Weasel Relocation Program" Suckling should have signed up for?

By the way, Nossiter directed the film "Sunday," (late '90's?) which I think is well worth watching. David Suchet is excellent. The movie is visually very nice and, at times, strikingly so.

 

[nigel groundwater]

originally posted by Bwood:

And if you were James Suckling wouldn't you have moved to some place where people were sure never to have seen the film before, perhaps a small town close to the one in which where Nigel Groundwater resides.

Que? Where's that and how would it have helped him?

 

[The Wine Mule]

originally posted by Bwood:

originally posted by Ned Hoey:
I have no doubt that those who appeared most clueless were so captivated by the sense of their own wonderfulness that they had no idea how they would come across in the context of the finished work.
These "media savvy" wine celebrities were accustomed to being regarded as brilliant wine luminaries,
I'm sure they did not comprehend or anticipate Nossiter's point of view. Once they figured it out, the resulting controversy was mad scramble of damage control.

How very true.

I have a true admiration for Michel Rolland's role in Mondovino as "Doc Ox." I thought his performance easily equalled Alfred Molina's in Spidey 2. I kept waiting for the tentacles to pop out from beneath Rolland's suit coat, but they never did. The lack of appearance by the tentacles may have been one of the more subtle points of the film. (Sorry, to retread this comment from the comment I made four years ago about the movie, but as a result of globalising economic trends, I find I have ever more productivity demands and ever less time to think of fresh commentary.)

And if you were James Suckling and saw the movie, wouldn't you had to have gone in for face reconstruction surgery and relocation under a new name and moved to some place where people were sure never to have seen the film before, perhaps a small town close to the one in which where Nigel Groundwater resides. Maybe there's a "60 Minutes Interviewee Weasel Relocation Program" Suckling should have signed up for?

By the way, Nossiter directed the film "Sunday," (late '90's?) which I think is well worth watching. David Suchet is excellent. The movie is visually very nice and, at times, strikingly so.

I, too, am in complete agreement with this assessment. And from now on, M. Rolland will be referred to as "Doc Ox." He was terrific!

See my earlier comment re: Suckling.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

Wrong villain. Personally, I was waiting for the scene where Michel Rolland tries to boil some Smurfs to serve with his "claret."

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

No, but it's interesting to see the lore at the hotel.

 

CDC now has hopefor famous chefs.

 

[Cory Cartwright]

I'm reading through this right now and I have noticed that Nossiter has one of the worst ears for recreating conversations I've yet come across, fiction or non-fiction. I'm not asking Wolfe or Pynchon's re-creations of accent, dialect and cadence, but simply that he make conversation either human or stick to paraphrasing. It's like hilarious Korean babelfish videogame translations in reverse, where instead of taking something intelligible and redering it gibberish, he takes it and makes it hyper-intellectual. everyone in the book speaks in grand sweeping statements in Johnathon Nossiter's own voice. I have needed to check several times whether or not a paragraph included quotation marks to confirm whether or not he thinks people actually talk this way.