This week I watched Corked, a ‘mockumentary’ targeting the
generalizations of the winemaking and wine-drinking industry. Corked is defined, in the beginning of
the film, as “having an unpleasant odor and taste (as from a tainted cork).” The
film takes place in the popular Sonoma County wine country. It follows four
groups of people at drastically different styles of vineyards to exploit the
“wine-country state of mind.”
First, there is the large, family-named,
commercial Moreno Russo Estates vineyard, which is depicted by the pretentious
“Ambassador of Wine,” Donald Smythe. Donald is constantly in a suit and
exaggerates the stereotype of a vineyard owner who knows nothing about the
winemaking process. In contrast, the owner/winemaker of Hannon Winery, Gerry
Hannon, works alone. He refuses to let anyone else near his vineyard and
process. Then, there’s Scott and Gary, the marketing entrepreneurs, running
ScoGar LLP, a company that designs labels, marketing schemes, etc. They are
typical businessmen who know nothing about their product and just look
to find a way to sell it. The last vineyard portrayed is Pena Cellars, from two
perspectives. Eli Tucker has the CEO position passed down to him from his
father and he is the typical young kid who couldn’t care less about tradition
and history and just wants new, hip, and flashy ideas. The other perspective is the
Vineyard Manager, Dane Phillips, who is so proud of his vines and the gadgets
he invents to protect them from wildlife and people.
The documentary is considered a
‘mockumentary’ because of its use of hyperbole to describe these diverse people
who have their own roles in the winemaking culture. These exaggerations play
off common misconceptions of the world of wine. One of the obvious attacks on a
misconception based on wine happens with Donald Smythe, the “Ambassador of
Wine” at Moreno Russo. His character comes off as a guy who is supposed to have
a lot of power in his winery but due to his “internal and mental issues” he is
portrayed as kind of "a little bitch” as some might say. As he describes his
typical evening, he mentions how he drinks a Pinot Grigio and cries himself to
sleep. This is obviously an exaggeration on the misconception that if a guy is
drinking a Pinot Grigio than he is a guy who has no backbone and has serious
emotional issues.
Early on in the film, the subject of
demographics comes up through a brainstorming session at ScoGar LLP. This scene
emphasizes the American state-of-mind in business, which is basically the
tactic to shove everything in your face until you buy it. Scott and Gary are
brainstorming ways of targeting minority groups who don’t typically drink wine,
according to the stereotypes they follow. They call in one of their Hispanic coworkers
who they automatically assume is Mexican and start asking him questions about
what kind of wine “his people” like. He sarcastically and stereotypically
answers that Viognier goes well with spicy and fishy dishes, which is common in
Mexican cuisine. This touches on some legitimate information on food and wine pairing even though it is portrayed in such a satirical manner.
There is a small segment in this film
that portrays a middle-aged couple who are traveling to Sonoma County to visit
vineyards. This part of the film pokes fun at the typical uneducated wine
drinker who books a trip to a vineyard expecting to stomp on grapes and thinks
that picking grapes from the vines will be fun and not hard work. They make
common beginner mistakes at a restaurant like buying a new vintage because
“it’ll be fresher.” Then when they arrive to pick grapes, they realize how
incredibly time consuming and tiring it is to be in the vineyards all day. They
also learn that nobody actually stomps grapes in the production phase. This segment of the film teaches two simple lessons. One on how you should approach ordering wine in a restaurant, from vintage to price and such. The other teaches you a little about the process of harvesting.
Later in the film, Richard Parsons
[closely resembling the name Robert Parker], the all-mighty wine critic, is
introduced. All characters in this film are seeking his approval of their wine.
As for Moreno Russo, Pena and ScoGar, the bigger entities in the film, they
seek his approval for the popularity and publishing, which can lead to big
sales. Hannon just seeks the satisfaction that the most esteemed critic and his golden palate, approves of his wine and work. Unfortunately, the stereotype portrayed is that
Richard Parsons only gives his time to the bigger vineyards and thinks all
small owners are the same; weird and peasant-like. But of course, once he is
forced to try Hannon’s wine, he falls in love with it. While Parsons is giving
out the awards he makes a speech to talk about his golden palate and how "rich
people only deserve to experience good/expensive wines." This plays to the fact
that society thinks that they have to pay a ton of money to enjoy and
experience good wine, when in fact you can find great wines for under $20.
All in all, I really enjoyed this film.
I would recommend a lot of wine drinkers and non-wine drinkers to take an hour
and a half to watch this film. It exploits these misconceptions and stereotypes all
throughout the food & beverage industry, and maybe if people saw a film
like this, they would realize how ridiculous some people sound when they talk
about wine. Though, I do hesitate to recommend absolutely everyone to take the time to
watch the film because I did have quite a bit of knowledge of the wine industry and process before watching. Someone who knows absolutely nothing might have trouble
understanding some of the humor and hyperbole in the film. Otherwise, it was a great watch.
Name: Vega Douro Red Wine
