Nossiter's Natural Resistance

originally posted by BJ:
I have never gotten the attacks Nossiter has been subjected to on Mondovino from these quarters. Suddenly everyone gets religion and is shocked by what is pronounced as sly editing. I mean come on, from this crowd? If anything, he just lets the camera roll and lets a bunch of total idiots hang themselves. Hey, a documentarian is coming to film, he seems harmless, let's act totally obnoxious and stupid! He won't include that!

Most of these people have media handlers or at least enough media experience to know better. If a camera is in the room, it better be game on. Unless you don't get that there is a game to put on, in which case you just act as you are, and the truth is expressed.

My opinion is that Nossiter is the single most important person in turning the tide from Censored's thought leadership in the space. For that we should be grateful.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure about the last bit, but I totally agree with the rest. I loved the movie. Those who wailed "out of context!" whenever someone behaved obnoxiously should check out the 10-hour mini-series. All the context you could want is there.
 
The 10 hour version feels more judicious, and is much more satisfying, but I am still uncomfortable with the deception, even if it's for a good cause. In Borat, the deception was just for comedy, the ideological stakes were low. In Mondovino, there is a powerful political message that is compromised by the "sly" procedure, sort of like convicting a guilty party with tainted evidence. Those more schooled in the academy of hard knocks may have less problem with deception, pointing to its ubiquity in real life in shrugging justification. I can't do it, sorry.

But I would agree that Mondovino was the single most effective blow for the cause; most of my reservations come from the fact that its considerable achievements cannot be savored unambiguously.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Those who wailed "out of context!" whenever someone behaved obnoxiously should check out the 10-hour mini-series. All the context you could want is there.
Click to expand...

The long version is a lot of fun.
 
I have no objection to "biased" editing. That's called film making. I don't go to Frederick Wiseman for neutrality. My objection is the same one I have to Michael Moore. It's too hamhanded to be very good. I doubt Nossitor had much effect in turning the tide against Parker. That film could only preach to the choir--and not even to all of its members.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have no objection to "biased" editing. That's called film making. I don't go to Frederick Wiseman for neutrality. My objection is the same one I have to Michael Moore. It's too hamhanded to be very good. I doubt Nossitor had much effect in turning the tide against Parker. That film could only preach to the choir--and not even to all of its members.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that the most important factor turning the tide from RMP to other sources of information was the growth of crowdsourcing and the decline of faith in criticism in general. Sites like Amazon and Yelp helped spell the end of the dominance of received wisdom from respected critics. I also agree with the Michael Moore/Mondovino analogy.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
The 10 hour version feels more judicious, and is much more satisfying, but I am still uncomfortable with the deception, even if it's for a good cause. In Borat, the deception was just for comedy, the ideological stakes were low. In Mondovino, there is a powerful political message that is compromised by the "sly" procedure, sort of like convicting a guilty party with tainted evidence. Those more schooled in the academy of hard knocks may have less problem with deception, pointing to its ubiquity in real life in shrugging justification. I can't do it, sorry.

But I would agree that Mondovino was the single most effective blow for the cause; most of my reservations come from the fact that its considerable achievements cannot be savored unambiguously.
Click to expand...

I really have a hard time with the comparison to Borat (in my opinion one of the breathtakingly funniest moments in human history, though I thought the part filmed in eastern Europe did cross a line). In Borat there was active deception, bordering on illegal (if not actually illegal). What about Mondovino was deceptive? Did I miss something? I understand he was presenting as an aw shucks neophyte, but anyone who's been interviewed (and skewered) by a reporter pro should know that's standard procedure. My reaction watching Mondovino was that there were a number of people who were clueless about how that world works. That's their fault, not Nossiter's.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have no objection to "biased" editing. That's called film making. I don't go to Frederick Wiseman for neutrality. My objection is the same one I have to Michael Moore. It's too hamhanded to be very good. I doubt Nossitor had much effect in turning the tide against Parker. That film could only preach to the choir--and not even to all of its members.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that the most important factor turning the tide from RMP to other sources of information was the growth of crowdsourcing and the decline of faith in criticism in general. Sites like Amazon and Yelp helped spell the end of the dominance of received wisdom from respected critics. I also agree with the Michael Moore/Mondovino analogy.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Totally disagree on both counts - Mondovino generally was widely successful, in large part due to its larger narratives about the decline of culture and globalization. Note I said single most important person, not factor - I have talked to many people in the wine world who really took pause after watching Mondovino and seeing for themselves how superficial and shallow their icons really were.
 
originally posted by BJ:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have no objection to "biased" editing. That's called film making. I don't go to Frederick Wiseman for neutrality. My objection is the same one I have to Michael Moore. It's too hamhanded to be very good. I doubt Nossitor had much effect in turning the tide against Parker. That film could only preach to the choir--and not even to all of its members.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that the most important factor turning the tide from RMP to other sources of information was the growth of crowdsourcing and the decline of faith in criticism in general. Sites like Amazon and Yelp helped spell the end of the dominance of received wisdom from respected critics. I also agree with the Michael Moore/Mondovino analogy.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Totally disagree on both counts - Mondovino generally was widely successful, in large part due to its larger narratives about the decline of culture and globalization. Note I said single most important person, not factor - I have talked to many people in the wine world who really took pause after watching Mondovino and seeing for themselves how superficial and shallow their icons really were.
Click to expand...

It may have had quite an impact within the industry itself, but as a broader message to the general public, it had very limited impact. Total gross box office in the US was $1.75 M according to IMDB, and it was only shown in a limited number of big cities (according to IMDB, it had a maximum exposure of 9 screens on a weekend). Changing attitudes within the industry may have leveraged change in the public perception, however.

Contrast that with the demographic shift that's taken place, with millennials relying far more on the Internet for their information than any written source. Note also that Zagat stopped printing restaurant guides (and was sold to Google).

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top