Wine Film Review #1 - Corked

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.