A “Sideways” supply response in California winegrapes(thewhyaxis.substack.com)
thewhyaxis.substack.com
A “Sideways” supply response in California winegrapes
https://thewhyaxis.substack.com/p/how-paul-giamatti-broke-the-california
245 comments
This article is a weird bit of serendipity for me as I rewatched this movie over last weekend; having only originally seen Sideways in college nearly 20 years ago. College me didn’t like wine and didn’t even really understand at the time why this movie had such rave reviews.
Now that I’m the age of the characters in the movie I realize that the wine is literally the least important factor in the movie (and also that it’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end.) It’s funny that such a small subplot in a feature film can have a dramatic effect on a major industry like wine making.
Now that I’m the age of the characters in the movie I realize that the wine is literally the least important factor in the movie (and also that it’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end.) It’s funny that such a small subplot in a feature film can have a dramatic effect on a major industry like wine making.
> it’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end.
It is a typically silly fan theory, because if that was the case, there would be no development journey for the character, making the whole story pointless.
Fan theories are often like that: "it's actually all in their head", "its all just a dream". Edgy on the surface, but really negates all the drama and and development of the story.
> the wine is literally the least important factor in the movie
Of course the movie is not "about" wine in the sense of a documentary about wine, but wine is certainly a significant part of the story and the main characters journey.
It is a typically silly fan theory, because if that was the case, there would be no development journey for the character, making the whole story pointless.
Fan theories are often like that: "it's actually all in their head", "its all just a dream". Edgy on the surface, but really negates all the drama and and development of the story.
> the wine is literally the least important factor in the movie
Of course the movie is not "about" wine in the sense of a documentary about wine, but wine is certainly a significant part of the story and the main characters journey.
>Edgy on the surface, but really negates all the drama and and development of the story.
I've noticed that. I suspect it comes from a lack of tragedies in our entertainment, that we try to invent tragic meanings to stories intended as comedies.
I've noticed that. I suspect it comes from a lack of tragedies in our entertainment, that we try to invent tragic meanings to stories intended as comedies.
To get a little darker - I think it runs deeper than that. Yes, comedy and mindless entertainment are popular, but. . .
I think the "it was all a dream" or "it's all in their head" sort of fan theories come from a place of denial. If the story is real (even in a plainly fictional movie setting), and a character shows development, learning, growth, and change over the course of whatever happens - that could have repercussions in my life. It is easy to get into a rut of behavior and to steadfastly avoid thinking about all of the things you can and should change in your life. If entertainment shows me people who actually do change based on a need to change something about themselves to become better people, then I am forced to think about that and consider what that means for my life. That could mean that I actually do need to be more considerate, healthier, or whatever it is. Whereas, if the entire story is fake, or a dream, or whatever, then how I act now is the inevitable conclusion of my life, and there is no changing.
It's easier to just hand-wave away any lessons about human behavior and say that it's imaginary.
I think the "it was all a dream" or "it's all in their head" sort of fan theories come from a place of denial. If the story is real (even in a plainly fictional movie setting), and a character shows development, learning, growth, and change over the course of whatever happens - that could have repercussions in my life. It is easy to get into a rut of behavior and to steadfastly avoid thinking about all of the things you can and should change in your life. If entertainment shows me people who actually do change based on a need to change something about themselves to become better people, then I am forced to think about that and consider what that means for my life. That could mean that I actually do need to be more considerate, healthier, or whatever it is. Whereas, if the entire story is fake, or a dream, or whatever, then how I act now is the inevitable conclusion of my life, and there is no changing.
It's easier to just hand-wave away any lessons about human behavior and say that it's imaginary.
To get a lot lighter:
"It was all a dream," or, "It's all in their head," are easy fan theories to attach to works of fiction because that's what actually happened. The creator of the fiction imagined it in their brain. You can trivially apply it to any fiction without any creativity.
More complicated fan theories rely on the content itself, and thus are going to change from work to work. So people hear "It's all in their head," more.
"It was all a dream," or, "It's all in their head," are easy fan theories to attach to works of fiction because that's what actually happened. The creator of the fiction imagined it in their brain. You can trivially apply it to any fiction without any creativity.
More complicated fan theories rely on the content itself, and thus are going to change from work to work. So people hear "It's all in their head," more.
Interesting, maybe there are two factors at play - In coming to my conclusion I was thinking about a common fan theory that Harry Potter would voluntarily die at the end of the series, which would certainly be a departure from how he was introduced as the 'boy who lived'. But your analysis makes a fair bit of sense in the context of plenty of other fan theories I've come across...
In the classical definition, a tragedy is a story about a person of high standing or good fortune who loses everything and typically dies in the end.
In Sideways, Giamattis character starts out in a really bad place, but through the events of the story ends up in a (slightly) more hopeful place. Having him kill himself in the end instead would not turn the story into a genuine tragedy, since nothing would really be lost. That would just be a pointless story going nowhere.
Hayden Church' character on the other hand do have something to lose, so his story could have been made a tragedy.
In Sideways, Giamattis character starts out in a really bad place, but through the events of the story ends up in a (slightly) more hopeful place. Having him kill himself in the end instead would not turn the story into a genuine tragedy, since nothing would really be lost. That would just be a pointless story going nowhere.
Hayden Church' character on the other hand do have something to lose, so his story could have been made a tragedy.
I forget where I saw the description but I quite enjoy it, an author was breaking down stories into four general groups: In Melodrama, the hero wins. In Tragedy, the dragon wins. In Comedy, the hero and dragon overcome the root of their conflict, and in Farce they dance around each other without resolving anything.
I wasn't familiar with Sideways, but from your description it sounds like I'd call that a comedy being reinterpreted as a farce. Which can be a great story form as well, but maybe it's reached for too often in fan theories because it's the easiest thing to imagine after melodrama.
I wasn't familiar with Sideways, but from your description it sounds like I'd call that a comedy being reinterpreted as a farce. Which can be a great story form as well, but maybe it's reached for too often in fan theories because it's the easiest thing to imagine after melodrama.
Wine is important because Miles is using his love of wine as a cover for his alcoholism. For the first half of the movie Miles is a basket case while Jack seems to have everything together, but as the plot progresses we see Miles gradually starting to come out of his neuroticism and then the light shines hard on Jack's sex addiction. The movie is about the contrasts and dynamics that evolve from their respective journeys.
I am surprised that a lot of people seem to have watched this movie and identified the two main characters as role models they want to emulate, that wasn’t my takeaway at all. My reading was similar to yours.
That's a problem with a lot of people regarding a lot of movies, I've found: people think the Main Character is always the Good Guy and whatever they do is a positive model for life. See: The Wolf of Wall Street.
High Fidelity as well.
They don't evolve at all though. Jack cheats on his wife to be with basically no repercussions and Miles never gets over his ex. It even becomes such an issue with his life he drinks his "crown jewel" wine out of a styrofoam cup because he sees no future.
The comment you're replying to stated the dynamics evolve, and that is true.
In my own reading of the movie, while Jack learns nothing and even earns a reprieve, Miles does evolve -- though painfully and at the very end of the movie. He finally lets go of his ex wife, realizing she's definitely out of reach and committed to a new family now that she's pregnant. He also lets go of his book dream, and also the drinking of his prized bottle signals -- albeit in a humorously depressing manner -- his finally letting go of everything that got him stuck.
In my mind his walking up Maya's stairs is a symbol of a hopeful new beginning. Because this is a dark comedy/drama, it's not immediately obvious everything will work out well, but at least there's hope.
In my own reading of the movie, while Jack learns nothing and even earns a reprieve, Miles does evolve -- though painfully and at the very end of the movie. He finally lets go of his ex wife, realizing she's definitely out of reach and committed to a new family now that she's pregnant. He also lets go of his book dream, and also the drinking of his prized bottle signals -- albeit in a humorously depressing manner -- his finally letting go of everything that got him stuck.
In my mind his walking up Maya's stairs is a symbol of a hopeful new beginning. Because this is a dark comedy/drama, it's not immediately obvious everything will work out well, but at least there's hope.
Paul Giamatti goes into Virginia Madsen's apartment at the end of the movie and we don't know what happens next. How is it implied that he kills himself?
There are numerous hints dropped throughout the movie that he needs to die to fulfill his role in life, and the directing and storytelling is tight enough that it’s all intentional. Specifically the Confederacy of Dunces references, the phone call asking if the main character in Mile’s novel kills himself, and the “ascension” in the final scene where he is walking up a very sunlit staircase surrounded by flowers.
You seem to be paraphrasing what's listed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/7wb8nj/at_the_...
Yeah, there are references to death and suicide in the movie, like there is in most fiction about depression. But there's nothing explicit about Miles's fate, and the film ends on an upbeat note ("Because you were wearing your seatbelt!" Jack says to Miles). I've watched the movie 20x and the stuff you list is very liberal interpretation of some scant events.
Yeah, there are references to death and suicide in the movie, like there is in most fiction about depression. But there's nothing explicit about Miles's fate, and the film ends on an upbeat note ("Because you were wearing your seatbelt!" Jack says to Miles). I've watched the movie 20x and the stuff you list is very liberal interpretation of some scant events.
Doesn't square up with the novel, either --- and Sideways was shot very soon after the novel was published.
There's even a sequel to the novel with the same characters.
I'm calling "shenanigans" on this whole "Miles kills himself" meme.
There's even a sequel to the novel with the same characters.
I'm calling "shenanigans" on this whole "Miles kills himself" meme.
Sure, but only in the way that Jar Jar Binks is a Sith Lord
A massive improvement that would redeem one of the dumbest characters in the series, to the point where you just have to believe it is true?
I think most of the appeal of the theory is that you can call him Darth Darth Binks.
> I realize that the wine is literally the least important factor in the movie
Agreed!
> It’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end
Uh, the film ends in a hopeful note. Virigina Madsen's character states she enjoyed the book, and he goes to seek her out and is about to knock on her door when the screen fades to black. To me, it is implied she opens the door and at least they become friends again, if not a couple.
Agreed!
> It’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end
Uh, the film ends in a hopeful note. Virigina Madsen's character states she enjoyed the book, and he goes to seek her out and is about to knock on her door when the screen fades to black. To me, it is implied she opens the door and at least they become friends again, if not a couple.
I know, I have no clue what that comment is about. If he killed himself I certainly missed that.
The case for Miles killing himself at the end of Sideways seems really weak.
There are two sequels. He didn't kill himself.
[deleted]
What sequels?!
Two novels followed the original. They're both available on Amazon. Both have wine themes as well.
The article features an image from one of them.
No it doesn’t.
> it’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end
I had to check for myself and it really doesn't look that way to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86sA9H1M76k
I had to check for myself and it really doesn't look that way to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86sA9H1M76k
Robert Wilson theorizes that each character in Sideways symbolizes a type of wine.
Miles = Pinot noir (thin-skinned, great potential).
Jack = Cabernet Sauvignon (adaptable, survivor).
Maya = 1961 Cheval Blanc (Miles' prized bottle, actress born 1961).
Stephanie = Cabernet Franc (hollow, flabby, overripe, shallow).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0mO0UhBim4&ab_channel=Rober...
The screenplay suggests that Mia's judgement of him may be a matter of life and death -- but that she accepts him and so he lives:
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.72/p2z.144.myftpuploa...
https://www.scriptreaderpro.com/best-screenplays-to-read/
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.72/p2z.144.myftpuploa...
https://www.scriptreaderpro.com/best-screenplays-to-read/
I greatly enjoyed reading the screenplay. Thanks for linking it.
Miles doesn't kill himself. Well, perhaps at most he does something like that metaphorically -- in that he says goodbye to his old life in the act of drinking that prized bottle alone in the diner.
I wrote this a couple years back on Quora when someone asked "why is Miles celebrating alone in the diner?" Maybe we've all felt something like this at one point.
>> Imagine you’ve been living the last few years with some crazy hope or dream that all the things happening to you are just a fiction and that things are going to turn around. The bottle of wine is a delusional symbol of a life that you’re going to get back — good career, a wife who loves you and wants to have a kid with you. To be opened on the day it all comes true.
Look at Miles’s eyes as his ex-wife tells him she’s expecting a kid with another man. All the hope and fictitious dreaming comes crashing down — that life was a complete delusion, like when you look yourself in a mirror and see, really see, what your life has become and that all the things you’ve been saving that bottle of wine for, just don’t exist.
Not much left to save that bottle for. No one to drink it with and toast over a fancy dinner. Just take it to the grimy local burger joint, drink in sadness to the life events that passed you by, and savor the sublime, once-in-a-lifetime taste of dreams that are dashed on the roadside.
I wrote this a couple years back on Quora when someone asked "why is Miles celebrating alone in the diner?" Maybe we've all felt something like this at one point.
>> Imagine you’ve been living the last few years with some crazy hope or dream that all the things happening to you are just a fiction and that things are going to turn around. The bottle of wine is a delusional symbol of a life that you’re going to get back — good career, a wife who loves you and wants to have a kid with you. To be opened on the day it all comes true.
Look at Miles’s eyes as his ex-wife tells him she’s expecting a kid with another man. All the hope and fictitious dreaming comes crashing down — that life was a complete delusion, like when you look yourself in a mirror and see, really see, what your life has become and that all the things you’ve been saving that bottle of wine for, just don’t exist.
Not much left to save that bottle for. No one to drink it with and toast over a fancy dinner. Just take it to the grimy local burger joint, drink in sadness to the life events that passed you by, and savor the sublime, once-in-a-lifetime taste of dreams that are dashed on the roadside.
I watched this movie a long time ago. But I am 100% sure: No such thing is implied.
[deleted]
There’s def. no such implying at the end
> and also that it’s implied Paul Giamatti’s character kills himself at the end
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
Ow. Spoiler alert.
Don’t worry, it’s not a spoiler. More like irrelevant internet fan theory. I’d enjoy the film free of this taint.
Sideways came out in '04. If you had it ruined for you in 2022, that's on you.
My new metric for whether it’s too soon to discuss something: can you uproot a vineyard, plant new vines, wait 5 years for them to grow and then harvest.
[deleted]
It shows the anxiety people have about wanting to look smart about wine. Just drink what you like. I've always liked Merlot.
What many people miss is that it is not about the grape varietal, but the intersection of varietal and geography. Every famous wine region will produce poor wine from varietals not suited to that region, and varietals are sensitive to the local environment. This is where I think the Europeans get it right. They don't focus on the varietal, they produce a blend from varietals that make sense in the region they are grown, producing a wine with somewhat unique characteristics (modulo production skill).
Merlot can be the basis for excellent wine (see: Petrus). However, I think California generally produces mediocre merlot. California's strengths are Cabernet (Sauvignon and Franc) and Zinfandel. For Pinot Noir, there are a couple spots like the Russian River Valley that do a good job, but Oregon has a stronger claim.
In the US, you kind of need to know what varietals grow well in what regions. In Europe, they typically produce varietal blends that are optimized for the region where they are produced, but which have very different characteristics depending on the region. I prefer the European model of branding on the region rather than the varietal, because the wine experience is more consistent and predictable. You know it will usually be an appropriate varietal for the region in which it is produced. That is not always the case in the US; we seem to grow any varietal anywhere if we think we can sell it.
That said, if you want to look smart about wine without spending a ton of money, the best choice is something from a region relatively few people have heard of, and therefore inexpensive, that nonetheless produces brilliant wine. Sommeliers often appreciate people that can identify those hidden gems on the list because people trying to be flashy don't even recognize them. Of course, you learn this by drinking wine from literally everywhere, and especially places you've never heard of, until you form an opinion. Availability varies widely with geography but in 2021, with the globalization of wine, there is little reason to spend much more than $10-20 bottle (retail, not restaurant) for almost any style if you know your regions and quality is the sole objective (local availability notwithstanding).
But then, I'm just a random wine drinker on the Internet. :-)
Merlot can be the basis for excellent wine (see: Petrus). However, I think California generally produces mediocre merlot. California's strengths are Cabernet (Sauvignon and Franc) and Zinfandel. For Pinot Noir, there are a couple spots like the Russian River Valley that do a good job, but Oregon has a stronger claim.
In the US, you kind of need to know what varietals grow well in what regions. In Europe, they typically produce varietal blends that are optimized for the region where they are produced, but which have very different characteristics depending on the region. I prefer the European model of branding on the region rather than the varietal, because the wine experience is more consistent and predictable. You know it will usually be an appropriate varietal for the region in which it is produced. That is not always the case in the US; we seem to grow any varietal anywhere if we think we can sell it.
That said, if you want to look smart about wine without spending a ton of money, the best choice is something from a region relatively few people have heard of, and therefore inexpensive, that nonetheless produces brilliant wine. Sommeliers often appreciate people that can identify those hidden gems on the list because people trying to be flashy don't even recognize them. Of course, you learn this by drinking wine from literally everywhere, and especially places you've never heard of, until you form an opinion. Availability varies widely with geography but in 2021, with the globalization of wine, there is little reason to spend much more than $10-20 bottle (retail, not restaurant) for almost any style if you know your regions and quality is the sole objective (local availability notwithstanding).
But then, I'm just a random wine drinker on the Internet. :-)
You’re painting with a very broad brush regarding California wine. Some simple numbers:
- Napa & Sonoma counties collectively have 650+ wineries.
- Paso Robles and the extended SLO county (plus Santa Barbara) region have 500+ wineries.
Saying that just the Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc are standouts, the latter of which is rarely at 80+% because it is harder to tame in a bottle, by approximately 1150 wineries that produce all manner of Bourdeaux and Rhone varietals is quite reductive.
Oregon Pinots are good if that’s what you like: earthly, terroir-driven taste. California wines are fruitier, part of this is the fruit and the other is the limited use of whole cluster fermentation.
Washington is emerging as a fantastic wine producing state as well.
So, on balance, there is something for every palate produced by California wineries. Maybe even Washington producers. Oregon wineries are getting into Syrah and the darker reds as well.
I agree with your $10-20 range for a decent bottle of wine (retail). What I’d add to your statement is that you shouldn’t need to buy a bottle not produced in the USA if you live here. The locally made wine compares to international options, especially in the targeted price range ($10-20).
- Napa & Sonoma counties collectively have 650+ wineries.
- Paso Robles and the extended SLO county (plus Santa Barbara) region have 500+ wineries.
Saying that just the Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc are standouts, the latter of which is rarely at 80+% because it is harder to tame in a bottle, by approximately 1150 wineries that produce all manner of Bourdeaux and Rhone varietals is quite reductive.
Oregon Pinots are good if that’s what you like: earthly, terroir-driven taste. California wines are fruitier, part of this is the fruit and the other is the limited use of whole cluster fermentation.
Washington is emerging as a fantastic wine producing state as well.
So, on balance, there is something for every palate produced by California wineries. Maybe even Washington producers. Oregon wineries are getting into Syrah and the darker reds as well.
I agree with your $10-20 range for a decent bottle of wine (retail). What I’d add to your statement is that you shouldn’t need to buy a bottle not produced in the USA if you live here. The locally made wine compares to international options, especially in the targeted price range ($10-20).
In my experience northern California is fruitier. Paso is jammier, though I've not had that many. Santa Barbara area is starting to do some cabs just to north (Happy Canyon) in the hot area. They have less fruity wine the colder you get to the west.
Love the comment! I honestly think California's most interesting wines being produced now are Syrah's. Crazy good stuff there made by the newer generations.
Agreed on Cabernet Sauvignon. Regarding Pinot Noir, there's just nothing in the US that compares to a good Burgundy, some things I think are interesting are Domaine De La Cote in California and Kelley Fox in Oregon though :)
Agreed on Cabernet Sauvignon. Regarding Pinot Noir, there's just nothing in the US that compares to a good Burgundy, some things I think are interesting are Domaine De La Cote in California and Kelley Fox in Oregon though :)
Try wines from Paso when you can. They are available at the sub-25 price point at most places that sell wine (warehouse, grocery, et al), and you might appreciate the GSM and Syrahs from Paso. Same story in Washington; the strong heat in the growing areas leads to great tannic structure and complexity.
Cheers!
Cheers!
I agree, try Pax Syrah if you get a chance, it is the best one I have tasted:
https://www.paxwine.com/
https://www.paxwine.com/
I like Pax, if you can try the Syrah's from Jolie Laide... the Halcon Vineyard one is among the best Syrah I've tried in the US :)
Random funfact: if you are drinking Californian wine, chances you are drinking Hungarian wine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoston_Haraszthy
That said, if you want to look smart about wine without spending a ton of money, the best choice is something from a region relatively few people have heard of, and therefore inexpensive, that nonetheless produces brilliant wine.
How is this possible in the Internet age? I mean, I've always liked Dolcetto d'Alba (I know, Piemonte is a well known region, but not for this wine), but in the 10s, there were a few popular articles talking about how it's such a great pizza & pasta wine, and all of a sudden, bottles were more expensive...
How is this possible in the Internet age? I mean, I've always liked Dolcetto d'Alba (I know, Piemonte is a well known region, but not for this wine), but in the 10s, there were a few popular articles talking about how it's such a great pizza & pasta wine, and all of a sudden, bottles were more expensive...
Wine region popularity is substantially driven by marketing and fashion. The number of regions in the world that produce excellent wines are legion; most people have only heard or experienced the most famous and well-marketed. It is difficult to overstate just how expansive the wine producing world is, and most don't export much because there is no market for wines from non-trendy locales.
I have experienced wines I discovered when they were inexpensive become trendy and therefore expensive. I've always just moved on; you'll never run out of obscure wine-producing regions that produce excellent inexpensive wine. The largest practical limit is distribution, but wine has become much more global.
You will find a lot of good wine in countries you might not expect e.g. white wine in Mexico. Many countries that produce superior wine almost never export, such as Switzerland. There are excellent small appellations even in France with brilliant wine that everyone ignores because few people have ever heard of them, so it costs very little if you can find it. Smaller countries in Europe are always at a disadvantage regardless of their wine quality e.g. Portuguese and Spanish wine are very similar in quality and style but Spanish wine commands the higher price.
There isn't nearly as much information about wine on the Internet as you may hope. Absent a substantial marketing effort, it largely isn't discoverable virtually. Even in cases where countries like Uruguay attempt to market their wines, it has minimal visibility to the wine drinking world.
It is an inefficient market with incentives that don't necessarily ensure the best wines for the money are easy to find.
I have experienced wines I discovered when they were inexpensive become trendy and therefore expensive. I've always just moved on; you'll never run out of obscure wine-producing regions that produce excellent inexpensive wine. The largest practical limit is distribution, but wine has become much more global.
You will find a lot of good wine in countries you might not expect e.g. white wine in Mexico. Many countries that produce superior wine almost never export, such as Switzerland. There are excellent small appellations even in France with brilliant wine that everyone ignores because few people have ever heard of them, so it costs very little if you can find it. Smaller countries in Europe are always at a disadvantage regardless of their wine quality e.g. Portuguese and Spanish wine are very similar in quality and style but Spanish wine commands the higher price.
There isn't nearly as much information about wine on the Internet as you may hope. Absent a substantial marketing effort, it largely isn't discoverable virtually. Even in cases where countries like Uruguay attempt to market their wines, it has minimal visibility to the wine drinking world.
It is an inefficient market with incentives that don't necessarily ensure the best wines for the money are easy to find.
So funny story, a week ago my fiancee had a work trip to Serbia. There she discovered that the country produces sublime wine. Brought back a suitcase full of it and every one of them has been amazing.
Neither of us had heard anything about Serbian wines or that they had any wine production nor that it's really good.
So I'd say there are ton of interesting regions to be discovered.
Neither of us had heard anything about Serbian wines or that they had any wine production nor that it's really good.
So I'd say there are ton of interesting regions to be discovered.
At a past job I went to Serbia several times and the wine was fantastic. I took a pic of a few of the bottles but could never find them responsibly priced in the US.
There are still biases against new world wines. But its really about finding a something you really like from a less known region. Everyone has preferences, so find one that matches yours.
That said its often hard to find those. I like red wines from the regions near Capetown, SA. You can get some of it in big wine stores, but its hard.
That said its often hard to find those. I like red wines from the regions near Capetown, SA. You can get some of it in big wine stores, but its hard.
> For Pinot Noir, there are a couple spots like the Russian River Valley that do a good job, but Oregon has a stronger claim.
What about the Pinots from "Sideways" in Santa Ynez area? Paul Lato, Sea Smoke (maybe played out) to name a couple.
Funny enough I'd been to Lompoc a half a dozen times before I realized it was the region from the movie.
What about the Pinots from "Sideways" in Santa Ynez area? Paul Lato, Sea Smoke (maybe played out) to name a couple.
Funny enough I'd been to Lompoc a half a dozen times before I realized it was the region from the movie.
I've been told that wine making in Temecula (inland SoCal) didn't really take off at first because they were growing varietals typical to France, and the results weren't too good. They eventually switched to varietals more typical of Italy (which better matches the local conditions) and found more success.
Is there a list of what's generally considered the best region for each grape?
Not really, there's some basic information in what is popular - say Sauvignon Blanc in NZ or Zweigelt in Austria, but that doesn't mean these need to be the best regions in terms of taste.
Generally, some grapes do better with sun and warmth, while others (like Pinot Noir or Riesling) do better in moderate climate.
Beyond that, I am not sure if one can trust a simple list. I think this is because region can be very narrowly defined - sometimes "side of this hill, vs. that side". Then, each year also produces different quality.
I think there are certain prototypes per region that you could learn about. But even that is a challenge. So for France, for example, the regions you want to learn don't stack hierarchically in a nice fashion (like you start with 4 broad regions and break them down). But it can be done. In realiy, however, different wines are made in each region (see "region" above) so you are not guaranteed to get something like the prototype, nor can you guarantee that the wines of a given year will be like the prototype at all. Another good example is Italy, which has fewer prototypical examples one might be able to learn. But then, Italy also has a great number of wine makers that do something very different, sometimes something better, so again it doesn't help you find a good wine.
Best bet is to pick a region and really get into it. Like, learning stuff about Bordeaux can keep you busy, but at least you'll have a solid idea. The wrong approach would be to do stuff like say: "oh Bordeaux has Merlot, while Germany has Pinot" which is sort of true in ratios of averages, but individually, and also generally, incredibly wrong.
I personally believe that identifying a good wine in all cases basically requires you to know about the wine maker and the year. I.e. - it's a full time job.
Beyond that, I am not sure if one can trust a simple list. I think this is because region can be very narrowly defined - sometimes "side of this hill, vs. that side". Then, each year also produces different quality.
I think there are certain prototypes per region that you could learn about. But even that is a challenge. So for France, for example, the regions you want to learn don't stack hierarchically in a nice fashion (like you start with 4 broad regions and break them down). But it can be done. In realiy, however, different wines are made in each region (see "region" above) so you are not guaranteed to get something like the prototype, nor can you guarantee that the wines of a given year will be like the prototype at all. Another good example is Italy, which has fewer prototypical examples one might be able to learn. But then, Italy also has a great number of wine makers that do something very different, sometimes something better, so again it doesn't help you find a good wine.
Best bet is to pick a region and really get into it. Like, learning stuff about Bordeaux can keep you busy, but at least you'll have a solid idea. The wrong approach would be to do stuff like say: "oh Bordeaux has Merlot, while Germany has Pinot" which is sort of true in ratios of averages, but individually, and also generally, incredibly wrong.
I personally believe that identifying a good wine in all cases basically requires you to know about the wine maker and the year. I.e. - it's a full time job.
Simplest answer: the best region for a grape is the region from where you like wine made from that grape. :)
Funny, I've always been a pinot noir guy. I never watched the film, but I would've turned 21 roughly five years after this movie came out, and now I can't help but wonder whether my preference for Pinot was influenced by this movie and how it affected the quality and quantity of wines that were available to me as I started drinking it. Would I have preferred Merlot if this movie had never come out or if I was older, and I'd been around when quantities of Merlot were roughly equal to pinot? An interesting counterfactual.
My parents prefer cabernet sauvignon, by the by.
My parents prefer cabernet sauvignon, by the by.
Yeah it's better to be an enthusiast than a connoisseur. I like pretty much all wine that isn't just bargain swill. They're all great in different ways.
He had a 1961 Cheval Blanc, which is not 100% but is a primarily Merlot blend.
The defining feature of Cheval Blanc is the huge amount of Cabernet Franc that goes into the blend, not the Merlot in general... some vintages like the 2011 one have less Merlot than Cabernet Franc. Yes, it's a right bank Bordeaux, but it's by far the most atypical. Petrus for instance is one that I would call primarily a Merlot Right Bank Bordeaux.
source: https://www.chateau-cheval-blanc.com/en/vintages/chateau-che... (you can check other vintages there etc)
source: https://www.chateau-cheval-blanc.com/en/vintages/chateau-che... (you can check other vintages there etc)
Ah yep, thank you for the refresher. It’s been awhile since I’ve thought about this. The point still stands!
I'm not sure it does. Merlot isn't even the primary varietal in that wine.
In the book it was Petrus which is 100% Merlot. They approached the chateau to see if they'd green light the use of Petrus as his unicorn bottle. The chateau refused, and they instead landed on Cheval Blanc.
I've always been left wondering if the "I am not drinking any fucking Merlot" line was a direct result of the snub by Petrus.
I've always been left wondering if the "I am not drinking any fucking Merlot" line was a direct result of the snub by Petrus.
In most years it’s at least 40% of the blend. If you’re saving a wine that’s 40% Merlot and you hate Merlot, that’s on you.
He's drinking a Cheval Blanc in the burger joint at the end, which is a Bordeaux Cab Franc/Merlot blend.
The burger joint was in real life “Orcutt Burgers” in Santa Maria. At the time the movie came out, I often visited a friend who lived a block from there, and we ate there regularly. It was a trip to see the movie with him and instantly recognize the restaurant in that scene.
By now the place has probably changed name or owners. It was a pretty good local flavor burger joint at the time.
By now the place has probably changed name or owners. It was a pretty good local flavor burger joint at the time.
Wow. Good example of how easily context can get lost, even without confirmation bias. Also how important context is to meaning.
I got thrown out of a hoighty-toighty Napa winery once for jokingly asking for a bottle of "Night Train" (note, I only knew it from watching "The Blues Brothers").
I'm a bit surprised that movie had such a large effect, Merlot isn't necessarily a hugely popular wine here but I sometimes prefer it over a Cabernet Sauvignon or a Shiraz since a lot of wine makers here have followed a bit of a trend for "full bodied" (aka sledgehammer) wines from those varieties. It's a bit like the megalitres of India Pale Ale that is virtually undrinkable because the brewers are in a competition to see how much they can destroy the overall flavour with hops.
...so try the Merlot (esp. Australian merlot). It's tasty, affordable and won't leave you feeling like you lost a fight the next day.
I'm a bit surprised that movie had such a large effect, Merlot isn't necessarily a hugely popular wine here but I sometimes prefer it over a Cabernet Sauvignon or a Shiraz since a lot of wine makers here have followed a bit of a trend for "full bodied" (aka sledgehammer) wines from those varieties. It's a bit like the megalitres of India Pale Ale that is virtually undrinkable because the brewers are in a competition to see how much they can destroy the overall flavour with hops.
...so try the Merlot (esp. Australian merlot). It's tasty, affordable and won't leave you feeling like you lost a fight the next day.
I hear you on the beer front, there is so much bad beer especially IPA. I'm starting to stick to the stuff that has consistent quality. I've just had too much horse shit thinking I'm trying something "different".
I realized I'd finally become "that guy" when my mom came to visit and I took her to a pool hall / microbrewery.
She looks at the menu and asks, "Oh, do they have any IPAs? That's what everyone's drinking in {insert hometown}."
"Mom... IPAs are kind of overdone now. There's lots of other, more interesting types of beer."
Waiter arrives. My mother, "Do you have any IPAs you would recommend?"
Waiter replies, "We have some good ones, but if you want my opinion, IPAs are kind of overdone. We have lots of more interesting beers."
She looks at the menu and asks, "Oh, do they have any IPAs? That's what everyone's drinking in {insert hometown}."
"Mom... IPAs are kind of overdone now. There's lots of other, more interesting types of beer."
Waiter arrives. My mother, "Do you have any IPAs you would recommend?"
Waiter replies, "We have some good ones, but if you want my opinion, IPAs are kind of overdone. We have lots of more interesting beers."
I dunno, I've come full circle on IPAs and now drink loads of them. I guess it's just personal preference in the end.
Before quitting alcohol, I also came round on IPAs to the point that it was the only beer I'd drink. But there's also a tendency for many breweries to out-hop each other. That's when it becomes over the top.
Okay yeah they're overdone but I would expect a microbrewery to have something hoppy on tap they could offer.
I went to a lot of trouble to acquire a taste for those evil things you're not getting away with not serving me one at a hipster bar.
I went to a lot of trouble to acquire a taste for those evil things you're not getting away with not serving me one at a hipster bar.
A good IPA is a great beer, but it is hard to get right, so a lot of less talented brewers defer to overloading the hops and trying to make a virtue of it.
The most talented brewers I see, have really talented QA folks standing right behind them helping them make targets for their process and blend things that are out of spec ect.
The smaller breweries will always make something different but their consistency is atrocious most of the time.
The smaller breweries will always make something different but their consistency is atrocious most of the time.
Something hoppy...? Like 'hoppy' : https://en.hoppy-happy.com/products/hoppy/
I've had much better luck drinking IPA's than red wine. Most red wine is too acidic for my taste. And particularly in the PNW, IPA is still where it's at. If you go look at grocery store, they're stocking IPAs more than other kinds of beer here.
That said I've appreciated drinking red wine more after drinking an IPA, as it seems to help me get past the tannins quicker.
That said I've appreciated drinking red wine more after drinking an IPA, as it seems to help me get past the tannins quicker.
> That said I've appreciated drinking red wine more after drinking an IPA
Sort of like the run-up that red wine gives you to a glass of whisky.
Sort of like the run-up that red wine gives you to a glass of whisky.
This is where Merlot is a good choice. Its a more mellow taste usually.
Yeah, I agree. Anything double IPA or above sounds like a marketing gimmick
I wanna drink beer, not tea made with hops
I wanna drink beer, not tea made with hops
A lot of brewers will admit that if your beer doesnt turnout the way you want you a trick is tossing in a ton of hops and making it an IPA. Once you get used to doing that you become a brewery that only makes IPA.
It does seem to have swung back a bit over the last few years though. I find people are looking for, "drinkability" over "hoppyness" but that's obviously anticdata.
It does seem to have swung back a bit over the last few years though. I find people are looking for, "drinkability" over "hoppyness" but that's obviously anticdata.
>A lot of brewers will admit that if your beer doesn't turnout the way you want you a trick is tossing in a ton of hops and making it an IPA. Once you get used to doing that you become a brewery that only makes IPA.
Larger craft breweries really don't have this luxury. They need to have both a means of production laser focused quality and process oriented folks AND a place for rapid research and development.
What is ironic is when a craft brewery starts reaching size where they can afford these types of benefits they are often demonized for various reasons all having to do with the Brand.
Larger craft breweries really don't have this luxury. They need to have both a means of production laser focused quality and process oriented folks AND a place for rapid research and development.
What is ironic is when a craft brewery starts reaching size where they can afford these types of benefits they are often demonized for various reasons all having to do with the Brand.
I'm a bit surprised that movie had such a large effect
I think the other side of this is that Merlot was very popular. Everyone had already tried the Merlot. Merlot was overrepresented, so, there was like a Merlot "bubble" at the time, in part because of reports on the French Paradox [0], and it being the most popular grape in France and a very popular grape in California and the Finger Lakes. More than the film putting down Merlot, it was praising Pinot Noir. So, you have a movie more or less telling wine drinkers there's another wine you can drink besides Merlot...
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
I think the other side of this is that Merlot was very popular. Everyone had already tried the Merlot. Merlot was overrepresented, so, there was like a Merlot "bubble" at the time, in part because of reports on the French Paradox [0], and it being the most popular grape in France and a very popular grape in California and the Finger Lakes. More than the film putting down Merlot, it was praising Pinot Noir. So, you have a movie more or less telling wine drinkers there's another wine you can drink besides Merlot...
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
If you like shiraz but aren't big on the full bodied style try some from Pokolbin. I don't know if it just didn't follow the trend or if environmental factors come in to play but it's generally lighter.
A lot of Americans really only knew about "red" and "white" wines back then (and frankly still do). Red was very often a cheap merlot, while white was a cheap chardonnay. I recall so many (so many!) terrible merlots and chardonnays from that era, that I was entirely put off of both for about a decade. Only recently have I started asking for either of them again, and I've found the quality has definitely improved. On the flip side, a lot of pinots have gotten lousy in the interim.
But drink what you like. Giamatti's character was so troubled in that film, and his advice was definitely questionable.
But drink what you like. Giamatti's character was so troubled in that film, and his advice was definitely questionable.
"A lot of Americans really only knew about "red" and "white" wines back then"
At the release of Sideways, everyone and their brother knew the major wine varieties, and had opinions. Indeed, a major reason the merlot spiel had such an impact with so many is precisely because it was so popular. Many like to be a contrarian, so if something knocks on the popular thing that can have an impact ("who else can't stand Tiktok, right?"). Most of the varieties of merlot were very high quality, and I doubt the overwhelming bulk of wine drinkers could taste any deficiency (many can't even differentiate varieties).
https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b...
That's a much better article about the rise and fall of California merlot, and basically notes that merlot had plateaued by Sideways release, and there's a bit of a cause/correlation mixup happening.
At the release of Sideways, everyone and their brother knew the major wine varieties, and had opinions. Indeed, a major reason the merlot spiel had such an impact with so many is precisely because it was so popular. Many like to be a contrarian, so if something knocks on the popular thing that can have an impact ("who else can't stand Tiktok, right?"). Most of the varieties of merlot were very high quality, and I doubt the overwhelming bulk of wine drinkers could taste any deficiency (many can't even differentiate varieties).
https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b...
That's a much better article about the rise and fall of California merlot, and basically notes that merlot had plateaued by Sideways release, and there's a bit of a cause/correlation mixup happening.
> At the release of Sideways, everyone and their brother knew the major wine varieties, and had opinions.
I think it's probably more accurate to say that everyone felt they were supposed to be familiar with the major wine varieties so all had picked up the terms and desperately clung to a few half-earned opinions because they didn't want to appear unsophisticated. But I think most people didn't actually have particularly strongly held or individually acquired wine preferences. (It's well known that even professionals can often not correctly identify what variety or even what color wine they're drinking.)
This is a social situation that's ripe for a radical opinion swing. Because everyone is trying to look like they know what everyone else knows but there's little "ground truth" (i.e. actual personal opinions) slowing down the change. So when a movie like Sideways comes out with a character who clearly cares deeply about wine and knows a lot and expresses a strong opinion. Well, I guess merlot's not cool anymore.
I think it's probably more accurate to say that everyone felt they were supposed to be familiar with the major wine varieties so all had picked up the terms and desperately clung to a few half-earned opinions because they didn't want to appear unsophisticated. But I think most people didn't actually have particularly strongly held or individually acquired wine preferences. (It's well known that even professionals can often not correctly identify what variety or even what color wine they're drinking.)
This is a social situation that's ripe for a radical opinion swing. Because everyone is trying to look like they know what everyone else knows but there's little "ground truth" (i.e. actual personal opinions) slowing down the change. So when a movie like Sideways comes out with a character who clearly cares deeply about wine and knows a lot and expresses a strong opinion. Well, I guess merlot's not cool anymore.
I agree with you to a point. Infrequent wine drinkers who want a casual option generally prefer a lighter, sweeter or more fruity wine. These people truly didn't like cabernet (too bitter for many), but they wanted to be "with it" and merlot was the hotness, so it became a go to. As the article I linked above mentioned, for these people pinot noir was always a better choice, but the hotness of merlot (at the time pinot was oft considered a dessert wine) made it socially less of a norm. Sideways, and people just generally discovering that there were other options, made it an easier social choice for many, and pinot noir was on fire.
As an aside, while I absolutely agree that most wine snobbiness is absolute horseshit (there is loads of it throughout the discussion in various other threads), that study on wine "experts" who couldn't tell the difference between red and wine is just terrible nonsense. It was some students who were recruited and smelled wines, given the visual cues of color.
As an aside, while I absolutely agree that most wine snobbiness is absolute horseshit (there is loads of it throughout the discussion in various other threads), that study on wine "experts" who couldn't tell the difference between red and wine is just terrible nonsense. It was some students who were recruited and smelled wines, given the visual cues of color.
> that study on wine "experts" who couldn't tell the difference between red and wine is just terrible nonsense. It was some students who were recruited and smelled wines, given the visual cues of color.
It's even less than that. The study showed that if people are primed to think they're drinking red wine, their responses reflect that. If the experiments wanted a controlled study on whether the subjects could tell red and white wine apart, they could have blindfolded them or told them the wines had all been dyed the same colour, and the students would have discriminated between them very accurately.
Anyway, like you I tend to discount the opinion of anyone who misinterprets this study's results in the way that the article does.
It's even less than that. The study showed that if people are primed to think they're drinking red wine, their responses reflect that. If the experiments wanted a controlled study on whether the subjects could tell red and white wine apart, they could have blindfolded them or told them the wines had all been dyed the same colour, and the students would have discriminated between them very accurately.
Anyway, like you I tend to discount the opinion of anyone who misinterprets this study's results in the way that the article does.
People should embrace being unsophisticated. I've gotten really good results by saying something like "Woah, I've never had orange wine before, I'm looking for something kinda dry."
> It's well known that even professionals can often not correctly identify what variety or even what color wine they're drinking.
This is demonstrably false, btw. Either those professionals you are referring to are completely untrained (just being in the wine business doesn’t mean you are an experienced taster) or it’s just complete bullshit.
This is demonstrably false, btw. Either those professionals you are referring to are completely untrained (just being in the wine business doesn’t mean you are an experienced taster) or it’s just complete bullshit.
>At the release of Sideways, everyone and their brother knew the major wine varieties, and had opinions.
Millions of drinking age drinkers in America then and today know nothing about wine. Perhaps I just missed the intentional exaggeration, but "living in bubbles" was a discussion I had with a friend recently and this struck me as that kind of line.
Millions of drinking age drinkers in America then and today know nothing about wine. Perhaps I just missed the intentional exaggeration, but "living in bubbles" was a discussion I had with a friend recently and this struck me as that kind of line.
It's an exaggeration. But among people who actually drink wine -- the subject of this discussion -- I suspect the overwhelming majority understand the varieties, and maybe even have a presumptive preference. People who don't drink wine aren't really pertinent.
I'm a counter-example. I drink wine. I have no idea what anything is. I've never seen Sideways, and don't know what it's about. I can tell the difference between red and white. I don't really get any of the rest of it. I still like to drink wine. Just a glass now and then. Sometimes I pick out a bottle at the store based on the look of the label.
I think it is nice to know some of the different ways to analyze reds and whites. Dry vs. sweet, tannic or not. Reds, how fruity they are and what kind of fruit (cherry, dark/stone fruit or bright and berry). Earthy/funky or smooth and light.
To me, those are things that allow you to elevate your enjoyment of tasting the wine itself. Anything beyond that (knowing region or grape by taste) is turning wine into a hobby, which is fine, but not necessary.
To me, those are things that allow you to elevate your enjoyment of tasting the wine itself. Anything beyond that (knowing region or grape by taste) is turning wine into a hobby, which is fine, but not necessary.
Naah. Maybe - maybe - people who buy wine regularly might know.
But you'll come far enough with general guidelines (older = better, except some years are very good and others... less so) to please guests. Except for the amateur vinologist, but he gets to be happy about showcasing his knowledge.
But you'll come far enough with general guidelines (older = better, except some years are very good and others... less so) to please guests. Except for the amateur vinologist, but he gets to be happy about showcasing his knowledge.
I recently watched Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) for the first time, and there's a laughable exchange where Eddie Murphy says, "I brought red wine", and Angela Bassett says something like, "My favorite!"
American wine palette has come a long way since then
American wine palette has come a long way since then
A long way, indeed. In 2019, even zombies drink chardonnay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbjGwdcGxs
One of the better Columbo episodes, "Any Old Port In A Storm", features Donald Pleasence as a California winery owner with some telling descriptions of American wine culture in the 70s.
> and frankly still do
Oh, come on.
Even budget grocery stores separate their wines by region and grape.
Just about every American who drinks wine has their favorites, even if it just goes as far as something like "I like Malbec because it's less dry."
Oh, come on.
Even budget grocery stores separate their wines by region and grape.
Just about every American who drinks wine has their favorites, even if it just goes as far as something like "I like Malbec because it's less dry."
Sure they do, but does the average consumer understand the difference between the regions and grapes? Probably not. I bet there are even many experienced drinkers who could not identify them in a blind test.
Doesn't research show that even wine experts cannot do that?
It’s complicated. A lot of the research is misreported. The supposed study demonstrating that experts can’t tell the difference between red and white wine says no such thing. But people do love a narrative that takes the wind out of a snob’s sails, so the legend persists.
True experts can distinguish an astonishing number of characteristics of wine in a blind taste. Most people are not experts. The price of wine is also largely decoupled from how much any given person will enjoy it. (However, psychologically, you will probably enjoy a bottle you paid $100 for more than one you paid $20 for.)
Basically: Wine is not all just indistinguishable fermented grape juice, but most stuff written about wine is a combination of bunk and rarified trivia no normal drinker should care about. Drink what makes you happy.
True experts can distinguish an astonishing number of characteristics of wine in a blind taste. Most people are not experts. The price of wine is also largely decoupled from how much any given person will enjoy it. (However, psychologically, you will probably enjoy a bottle you paid $100 for more than one you paid $20 for.)
Basically: Wine is not all just indistinguishable fermented grape juice, but most stuff written about wine is a combination of bunk and rarified trivia no normal drinker should care about. Drink what makes you happy.
Sidenote on wine pricing, heard on the radio: in Europe, the cost of everything but the contents of a bottle of wine is about €2.50 (or a bit higher). That covers the glass, the label, transport, branding of the chateau, etc.
Corollary: the wine in a €4 euro bottle is 3x as expensive as the wine in a €3 bottle €1.50 vs €0.50).
That broadcast was a while ago, so the details might not be exact. But the main point is that after the first (about) 3 euro, you're starting to spend money on the contents. Before, you're literally paying a few pennies for the wine...
Corollary: the wine in a €4 euro bottle is 3x as expensive as the wine in a €3 bottle €1.50 vs €0.50).
That broadcast was a while ago, so the details might not be exact. But the main point is that after the first (about) 3 euro, you're starting to spend money on the contents. Before, you're literally paying a few pennies for the wine...
That's probably true outside of wine-producing regions. In wine-producing regions of Europe, you can get a cheap bottle of wine for €1. It's often decent* quality too.
* well, better than the £5 bottles you get here in the UK
* well, better than the £5 bottles you get here in the UK
There are some variables though. Like the glass bottle, screw top vs. plastic cork vs. real cork, and quality of label printing.
Another feather in the cap of box wine.
In blind tests it's the same for beer. And colas.
They absolutely didn’t shy from the alcoholism. I went with French Merlots for a while after the movie so it wouldn’t look like I was ordering one.
The much bigger impact of Sideways was that it led to a complete transformation of California wine industry. From a mom and pop, ragtag industry with free tasting from the barrel, it is now the epitome of luxury. But Napa, and now Central Coast is getting transformed. 10 years back, there were so many free tasting shops. Now, average tasting fee is $50. Wineries have become architectural splendors, and single varietal reds cost $60 or more. I have recently started going to Paso a lot more, hoping to rediscover the old Napa and Sonoma. But Paso is well on its way to become another luxury destination. The new tasting rooms at Booker and Epoch Vineyards were stunning, and wines start at $70
I'm a big fan of the Finger Lakes region of NYS for this reason -- Napa Valley is just too fancy for me at this point. The Columbia River Valley up in Washington/Oregon is a good compromise between "too fancy" and "too low-brow" in my opinion -- a nice mix of wineries doing all kinds of weird stuff up there.
The Paso airport, which is untowered, routinely has Citation jets in the pattern making traffic calls. Seems it's definitely been luxury for a bit.
I'm more familiar with Santa Ynez and the Pinots from Sideways. The only Paso wine I've had has been Justin, which seems to be a large producer since it's in Costco.
I'm more familiar with Santa Ynez and the Pinots from Sideways. The only Paso wine I've had has been Justin, which seems to be a large producer since it's in Costco.
There were several wineries with free tastings in Sonoma when I went before COVID. And that was during a busy holiday season.
They are actually not allowed to charge a tasting fee. I think they get away with it by charging for the glasses.
Thankfully you can still get a perfectly good bottle of wine for under $10 at TJ’s
I'm always a bit put off by the "experts can't tell the difference between these two things!", in this case red and white wine. On closer inspection one usually finds an element of deception, here the white wine is coloured red and then experts describe it as a red on tasting.
This makes sense from a Bayesian point if view... What are the experts priors? What's more likely? That their nose is off today or someone is trying to decieve them by dying white wine red? I would guess it's the former. There must be a large publication bias is well, "experts can differentiate white from red wine" is hardly going to get much attention.
To make this a fair trial I think you need to blindfold them rather than "trick" them.
This makes sense from a Bayesian point if view... What are the experts priors? What's more likely? That their nose is off today or someone is trying to decieve them by dying white wine red? I would guess it's the former. There must be a large publication bias is well, "experts can differentiate white from red wine" is hardly going to get much attention.
To make this a fair trial I think you need to blindfold them rather than "trick" them.
My pet peeve with all of those studies is who they consider as an expert. It is usually adhoc random group of enology students.
There is great video of guy trying to reconstruct red wine from whites + coloring and serving it to master of wine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN83j5ZOUm0
And there are a lot of other tricks and blind tasting sessions in his channel. This is how expert taster works.
There is great video of guy trying to reconstruct red wine from whites + coloring and serving it to master of wine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN83j5ZOUm0
And there are a lot of other tricks and blind tasting sessions in his channel. This is how expert taster works.
>There is great video of guy trying to reconstruct red wine from whites + coloring and serving it to master of wine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN83j5ZOUm0
Whats the point of a wine? looking at it or tasting it? Dude recognized its colored before even tasting it, or rather strictly without tasting it. Would he be able to do this without looking at it?
Whats the point of a wine? looking at it or tasting it? Dude recognized its colored before even tasting it, or rather strictly without tasting it. Would he be able to do this without looking at it?
Yes, he actually explain that during tasting: when you smell white wine you start to be describing it by white wine vocabulary, when you smell red wine you start using those. The case of being skilled taster is being able to recognize when something is off.
But the looks and the smells are part of the drinking experience as the flavors (unless you just want to get drunk).
I'm pretty sure the exams to become certain levels of somellier involve passing a taste test, and for the highest level it requires picking out very specific info about grapes and vintage. I could believe that a random person off the street wouldn't tell the difference between white and red, but it seems highly implausible that an actual expert couldn't, because in order to even become an expert they'd have to be proficient at a harder task.
[deleted]
The article states that the studies were blind.
What strikes me about that movie now is that it depicts a Napa Valley that doesn’t really exist anymore. It represents the tail end of a time when you could drive around and get tiny, free wine samples at small, uncomplicated places where the restaurant was almost tacked on if it existed at all. Now you go on tightly scheduled bus tours where the samples appear to be $30 each or so. I don’t drink it all and never did (my wife is an aficionado) but there was a lovely air about the less formal version of Napa from that time.
It actually took place in the Santa Ynez valley, not the Napa valley.
Oops, thanks for the correction
The bartender in the movie mentioned a bus tour and the associated difficulties.
After Russ Hanneman yelled "These are not the doors of a billionaire" and raged off in his 4-door Maserati on Silicon Valley while playing Crazy Town music, Maserati Quattroporte sedan sales plunged as well.
To be fair since eighties Maserati was seen as a car for rich people who dont know any better but like the name because it sounds like Ferrari.
There's no evidence of this. Maserati sales are low enough that there is no causative effect for something like mentioned above. Have any stats to back that up?
I always love how on the show Flaked[0], Will Arnett's character lifts Giametti's speech on Pinots and why he loves[1] them down to the word, and there is zero nod to it in the show.
If you didn't know the speech was from Sideways you'd think Arnett's character is deeply eloquent, and if you did happen to see Sideways recently, you see him for the fraud he is.
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4973548/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCS1Gnwbtp0
If you didn't know the speech was from Sideways you'd think Arnett's character is deeply eloquent, and if you did happen to see Sideways recently, you see him for the fraud he is.
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4973548/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCS1Gnwbtp0
It looks a bit like Pinot Noir was already on a pretty clear upswing, could this not just be a correlation with trends in wine in general - dryer, less sweet/bodied reds?
It would be interesting to see a comparison to whites - are Chardonnays and Pinot Gris also on an upward trend?
It would be interesting to see a comparison to whites - are Chardonnays and Pinot Gris also on an upward trend?
It's more plausible to me that the movie was a product of its times rather than the cause of the trend. Maybe there was more interest in wine during that time, and more discussion about the different types. It would explain why a movie centered around wine was developed and became a box office success.
Sideways is about wine roughly as much as Fight Club is about grown men fighting each other in a club.
The book Sideways by Rex Pickett was released in 2004, and obviously written before that.
Presumably the rant against Merlot is in the book, so perhaps it is less likely to just be a product of the times.
Presumably the rant against Merlot is in the book, so perhaps it is less likely to just be a product of the times.
Pretty much any red wine you’d be drinking is 100% dry—there’s no residual sugar left in the bottle after fermentation. If by “sweet” you mean “fruity” the Cab v. Pinot comparison kind of rules that out, since American Merlot sits about halfway between Pinot and Cab in terms of being fruit-forward, as well as with any other descriptors that might classify as “body”, such as alcohol and tannin.
That's not true. A lot of low-end (by which I mean "inexpensive", not "low quality") and some mid-range cabs and Zinfandels are made with a little bit of residual sugar. JAM and Barefoot cabernet are two examples.
I did say “pretty much any red wine you’d be drinking,” which rules out Barefoot (hopefully).
I used to run a wine tasting group. We once did a blind tasting of cabs which included a silver oak on the high end. All twelve of us picked barefoot as our first or second choice and all twelve ranked the silver oak dead last. Granted this was a long time ago but I still like a glass of bf now and then.
Rombauer also makes their reds with a little bit of sugar and I think they are excellent.
Rombauer also makes their reds with a little bit of sugar and I think they are excellent.
I’ll agree with you that Silver Oak rates dead last. But “cheap” wines with residual sugar often outperform other wines in taste tests because the sugar throws the test. It’s hard to compete against the brain’s response to glucose!
Sure, but so what? If it tastes good, what difference does it make why it tastes good?
Here's a master of wine blind tasting many inexpensive wines. He seemed to think Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon was fine. Hated yellow tail though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK_hx5A54EU&t=5m18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK_hx5A54EU&t=5m18s
> Hated yellow tail though.
Not enough sugar ;-)
Not enough sugar ;-)
Well I knew I'd be lobbing a softball attempting to describe wine in any way on a forum full of people spending weekends in Napa, so ...
OK, let's generalize my comment to "common attributes" of wines like Pinot Noir.
OK, let's generalize my comment to "common attributes" of wines like Pinot Noir.
There's plenty of reds with sugar in them. Your typical Italian will have something around 4–7 g per liter in it. First four Italian reds I checked on Alko's (Finnish booze monopoly) website, priced 14–37 €: 2, 12, 11, 3 g/l.
There is still going to be residual sugar. You are going to start killing your yeast from the alcohol concentration in the wine before you run out of sugar. Some red wine is extremely sweet almost like juice.
There are yeasts that can survive in ~20% alcohol solutions. Most red wines are in the 10-15% range, while there might be some residual sugar, the wine is considered “dry” and there won’t be much or any perceived sweetness.
Sweet reds do exist, but almost all of them are fortified to stop fermentation early and leave sugar in the bottle, or just cheap wines with sugar added to appeal to simpler palates.
Sweet reds do exist, but almost all of them are fortified to stop fermentation early and leave sugar in the bottle, or just cheap wines with sugar added to appeal to simpler palates.
Maddox, author of The Best Page in the Universe, wrote about exactly this phenomenon shortly after the movie came out. [1] Warning: It's Maddox, so it's crass.
>In the movie, Giamatti's character is a wine aficionado who drinks Pinot Noir in favor of Merlot, a wine that he despises. Now every idiot who has seen the movie has suddenly become a wine expert, and Pinot sales have shot through the roof. NPR interviewed a guy who said, and I quote: "I used to drink merlot, and after I saw the movie, they say 'don't drink merlot,' so [now] I'm drinking pinot noir... "
[1] http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sideways
>In the movie, Giamatti's character is a wine aficionado who drinks Pinot Noir in favor of Merlot, a wine that he despises. Now every idiot who has seen the movie has suddenly become a wine expert, and Pinot sales have shot through the roof. NPR interviewed a guy who said, and I quote: "I used to drink merlot, and after I saw the movie, they say 'don't drink merlot,' so [now] I'm drinking pinot noir... "
[1] http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sideways
It's somewhat quaint that in 2021 Maddox can still be described as "crass." He sure was at the time of publishing, but the internet has taken a decided turn towards the impolite since then.
Is it not possible that Merlot was already on the way out, and the movie was just portraying an already in progress cultural trend at the time?
AKA correlation does not imply causation
The effect may be even bigger than it looks, because the “control” varietal, Cabernet Sauvignon, is often blended with Merlot, so they are presumably somewhat correlated.
Well, merlot is a blending grape and that’s been wine industry “wisdom” for a long time, the book and movie just taught randos what the experts already believed. People outside of the US largely don’t drink it straight. Americans just glommed onto it because it sounded French. Pinot is quite drinkable as the main/sole grape.
Of course, drink what you like. But the industry was hardly “broken” (If anything Id bet it was accelerated) just altered.
Of course, drink what you like. But the industry was hardly “broken” (If anything Id bet it was accelerated) just altered.
Interesting that there are a lot of comments here about trends in Napa & elsewhere, tastes, what people prefer etc.
Perhaps it was just a funny line with no deeper-wider-meaning or commentary?
Someone so entitled and so obsessed with the details that a "normal" person would not notice - a wine geek or wine nerd if you will - getting worked up about something so totally inconsequential to most people. It is funny.
I could totally imagine a line from some HN-favourite tech satire. "And if they use cherry MX reds in there, we're just going to use cherry MX reds ok? I'm not going to fucking use cherry MX reds!" Substitute keyboard switches for vi/emacs, tabs/spaces, 80 chars/120 chars etc.
Perhaps it was just a funny line with no deeper-wider-meaning or commentary?
Someone so entitled and so obsessed with the details that a "normal" person would not notice - a wine geek or wine nerd if you will - getting worked up about something so totally inconsequential to most people. It is funny.
I could totally imagine a line from some HN-favourite tech satire. "And if they use cherry MX reds in there, we're just going to use cherry MX reds ok? I'm not going to fucking use cherry MX reds!" Substitute keyboard switches for vi/emacs, tabs/spaces, 80 chars/120 chars etc.
[deleted]
Love that graph how art culture and commerce intermix. It is probably likely that merlot was getting a bit last year's style and this only served to accelerate that. As far as I am concerned they are both lovely grapes and saying that merlot is better than pino noir is like saying that green pants are better than red pants. They are different, sure and some might like one over the other, but "better"?
There’s no “better”. There’s a reason why most French and Italian wines don’t even mention the variety anywhere. Sancere, Bordeaux, Chablis, Beaujolais, Prosecco, Chianti,… Most people don’t know what variety are they, coz it’s not important really.
Except it is important, since each of those regions has very strict laws regarding what is and isn’t allowed in the bottle. Sancerre is 100% Sauvignon Blanc, red Bordeaux some blend of six permitted grapes, Cab and Merlot being the primary ones (subregions have laws regarding which subset is allowed), Chablis is 100% Chardonnay, Beaujolais is 100% Gamay, Chianti is at least 70% Sangiovese. Wines from these regions aren’t labeled varietally because they don’t need to be. New World wines don’t have that luxury.
That is not the point. The point is that the grape variety is just one piece of the puzzle. Ordering wine by variety is therefore basically nonsense.
It’s very common that waiter tells you we have Pinot Noir or Merlot, but without telling you at least from where they are, that information is pretty much worthless. And I’m almost sure most people can’t tell the difference anyway.
I’m a lifelong wine lover, even with some education in wine tasting, and the more I know about wine, the less I’m sure I’d be able to tell them apart in blind tasting. It’s more like I roughly know what style of wine I can expect from different countries, and which varieties have good conditions in those countries and which are better avoided.
It’s very common that waiter tells you we have Pinot Noir or Merlot, but without telling you at least from where they are, that information is pretty much worthless. And I’m almost sure most people can’t tell the difference anyway.
I’m a lifelong wine lover, even with some education in wine tasting, and the more I know about wine, the less I’m sure I’d be able to tell them apart in blind tasting. It’s more like I roughly know what style of wine I can expect from different countries, and which varieties have good conditions in those countries and which are better avoided.
I’m a Certified Sommelier and I’m going to have to say agree to disagree. Yes, region is important. But varietal is by far the critical piece when predicting what a wine is going to taste like.
Do some Merlots taste more like Cabs? Sure. Is an experienced wine drinker going to mistake Pinot Noir for Sauvignon Blanc, even if they’re both from Sancerre? No way.
Do some Merlots taste more like Cabs? Sure. Is an experienced wine drinker going to mistake Pinot Noir for Sauvignon Blanc, even if they’re both from Sancerre? No way.
Ok fair points. I think our idea of “experienced wine drinker” might be quite far apart. My guess is that maybe 5% of regular wine drinkers can identify variety from a random sample. I’m definitely not one of them and comfortable admitting that.
There's a difference though between identifying variety from a random sample and knowing what you like. While non-experts often have trouble describing their preferences, they don't have trouble identifying them. A wine drinker with a few years of experience may not be able to tell you why they like Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz, and dislike Pinot Noir. But if you pour them a St. Laurent you shouldn't be surprised when they don't like it.
I agree with the thrust of your argument but do note that rouge sancerre is definitely a thing (and I quite like it).
Sure, and Sancerre Rouge likewise has varietal requirements.
The names do usually require a specific blend of grape varieties, among other things. IMO it's easier to shop this way because a specific blend from a specific region made in a specific way will have a much more consistent flavor profile than just "California Pinot Noir"—even if you get more geographically specific, the European style of labeling is a better indication of what you're gonna taste, so once you learn a few that you like, you know exactly what to look for in the store.
> There’s no “better”.
To nitpick, there are definitely better and worse winemaking grapes—thing is, the bad ones are only grown by necessity, as in the case that the better ones won't grow well due to e.g. weather, so for obvious reasons they only tend to feature in wine from places that aren't known for winemaking.
> There’s no “better”.
To nitpick, there are definitely better and worse winemaking grapes—thing is, the bad ones are only grown by necessity, as in the case that the better ones won't grow well due to e.g. weather, so for obvious reasons they only tend to feature in wine from places that aren't known for winemaking.
> They’re [Merlot vs Pinot] just two different types of grapes, with marginally different flavor profiles
This is completely incorrect as any habitual wine drinker can tell you. Wines made from the two grapes look very different - Pinot is translucent, Merlot has a lot of colour - and taste quite different, though the specifics of the taste difference are dependent on the wine making technique.
This is completely incorrect as any habitual wine drinker can tell you. Wines made from the two grapes look very different - Pinot is translucent, Merlot has a lot of colour - and taste quite different, though the specifics of the taste difference are dependent on the wine making technique.
> Repeated studies have shown that “wine experts,” when administered blind tests, are unable to distinguish between cheap and expensive bottles, or different varieties of the same color wine, or even whether the wine they’re drinking is red or white. In the end it’s all just fermented grape juice.
Wow that’s surprising.
Wow that’s surprising.
It's actually false. Ish. Well, sort of.
There was a famous study that asked its test subjects to describe the wine that they were drinking. There are certain words that are typically associated with red wines and certain words that are typically associated with white wines. They used red dyes to dye white wine red and a different chemical to turn the red wine the color of white wine. The administrators of the study found that the words used to describe the white wines died red aligned more closely with the descriptors used to describe red wines, and the words used to describe the red wines bleached white were more closely aligned with the descriptors used to describe white wines.
Conclusion: wine experts can't tell the different between white wine and red wine. The problem: The "experts" were 18-22 year old college students who had just taken a class on wine tasting. They weren't actually experts, they were just people who had been taught the right words to say to pass the tests. They were taught what words to say. Then you tested to see whether they said them.
There was another famous study where its test subjects were given a sampling of wines, with each wine having a short blurb about it, which included the price of the wine. The prices were fake. They were then asked to rate each wine. The administrators found that the fake price stated on the blurb was correlated with the rating. Conclusion: wine experts can't tell the different between expensive wine and cheap wine. The problem: the only thing you've actually proven is confirmation bias.
Those two studies are quoted a lot. You'll quite often see those two particular quotes, wine experts can't tell the difference between red and white wine, and wine experts can't tell the difference between expensive and cheap wine. You don't see studies that show that wine experts can't tell the difference between merlot and cab franc, or the difference between stainless steel and oak aging on a chardonnay. You don't see those studies because those studies don't exist.
There was a famous study that asked its test subjects to describe the wine that they were drinking. There are certain words that are typically associated with red wines and certain words that are typically associated with white wines. They used red dyes to dye white wine red and a different chemical to turn the red wine the color of white wine. The administrators of the study found that the words used to describe the white wines died red aligned more closely with the descriptors used to describe red wines, and the words used to describe the red wines bleached white were more closely aligned with the descriptors used to describe white wines.
Conclusion: wine experts can't tell the different between white wine and red wine. The problem: The "experts" were 18-22 year old college students who had just taken a class on wine tasting. They weren't actually experts, they were just people who had been taught the right words to say to pass the tests. They were taught what words to say. Then you tested to see whether they said them.
There was another famous study where its test subjects were given a sampling of wines, with each wine having a short blurb about it, which included the price of the wine. The prices were fake. They were then asked to rate each wine. The administrators found that the fake price stated on the blurb was correlated with the rating. Conclusion: wine experts can't tell the different between expensive wine and cheap wine. The problem: the only thing you've actually proven is confirmation bias.
Those two studies are quoted a lot. You'll quite often see those two particular quotes, wine experts can't tell the difference between red and white wine, and wine experts can't tell the difference between expensive and cheap wine. You don't see studies that show that wine experts can't tell the difference between merlot and cab franc, or the difference between stainless steel and oak aging on a chardonnay. You don't see those studies because those studies don't exist.
Well you are not much of an expert if you can't tell a Riesling from a Cote du Rhone. One would be a freshly tasting, dry (i.e. not sweet) German white wine and the other a rather heavy red wine. I'm not an expert by any means but I've consumed plenty of both to be able to tell the difference by hangover alone.
I guess there are a few grape varieties that are used for red and white wines that might pose some more tricky edge cases. E.g. pinot noir (a grape type) white wine is actually made with the same grapes as the red variety. The juice is actually color less; the skin has color. I guess it depends on how you process the grapes on what color wine you end up producing. And they'd obviously share a few of the same flavors because it is the same base ingredients that are used.
I guess there are a few grape varieties that are used for red and white wines that might pose some more tricky edge cases. E.g. pinot noir (a grape type) white wine is actually made with the same grapes as the red variety. The juice is actually color less; the skin has color. I guess it depends on how you process the grapes on what color wine you end up producing. And they'd obviously share a few of the same flavors because it is the same base ingredients that are used.
I know of this movie, but haven’t seen it and I don’t drink wine, but I know that when I’m asked to bring wine that people do not mean merlot from buying it from a Costco or whatever before. Fascinating that a movie I heard of, had such a profound impact on an industry.
> At any rate we’re 17 years out from the movie now, long enough for the pendulum of consumer preference to start swinging the opposite way: Merlot is back on the menu.
Crud. Underpriced Merlot has been the best thing ever for the last decade!
Crud. Underpriced Merlot has been the best thing ever for the last decade!
I find it odd how quickly the planting changes if Sideways is truly the cause. Shouldn't it be more of a lagging indicator?
If your vineyard has cases of unsold merlot at the end of a couple of seasons, you can change pretty quickly.
The graph shows plantings are flat for a couple of years before the vineyards actually started switching, they just weren't planting new merlot grapes.
The graph shows plantings are flat for a couple of years before the vineyards actually started switching, they just weren't planting new merlot grapes.
[deleted]
The study mentioned in the article may be new but the effect was already known in 2009. https://winesvinesanalytics.com/features/article/61265/The-S...
I agree, this movie was a huge hit back in the day and it is still a great watch.
I also think Pinot is superior (both the white or the red variety). Chardonay and Merlo are every day staple, but Pino is just a tad better.
I think once more people tried Pinot (Noir or Grigio), they just stuck with it because it is good.
I also think Pinot is superior (both the white or the red variety). Chardonay and Merlo are every day staple, but Pino is just a tad better.
I think once more people tried Pinot (Noir or Grigio), they just stuck with it because it is good.
Pinot is awful except for higher end bottles. It’s the only grape I can for sure identify a bottle that’s under $30. Merlot, although best in cab blends, can be had at high quality for < $15.
Pinot is just so sensitive and fragile. Merlot is a drinkers wine.
Pinot is just so sensitive and fragile. Merlot is a drinkers wine.
Where are you getting your Pinot Noir from? I routinely buy e.g. Alsatian Pinot Noir for maybe $15 that is very good. With some effort, you might be able to find some hidden gems in Oregon loosely in that price range.
While the US produces excellent wine, Europe usually wins the price/quality battle.
While the US produces excellent wine, Europe usually wins the price/quality battle.
I’ve had it from nearly everywhere from Willamette Valley to Burgundy and I can consistently place the Pinot on first taste. Pinot that happens to around < 30 or 25 just has a bad taste to be. Bitter and burnt tasting.
I’m not some snob who judges wine on price either! I mainly drink cabs that are < 15.
I think Pinot is really hard to grow so we end up with a lot of mediocre stuff. But it has a good enough reputation that the meh stuff still sells at lower price points.
I also prefer bigger reds like cabs. Give me Bordeaux. Easy grape to grow and for the money you get a great wine.
I’m not some snob who judges wine on price either! I mainly drink cabs that are < 15.
I think Pinot is really hard to grow so we end up with a lot of mediocre stuff. But it has a good enough reputation that the meh stuff still sells at lower price points.
I also prefer bigger reds like cabs. Give me Bordeaux. Easy grape to grow and for the money you get a great wine.
You can taste the wildfires in most of the recent west coast pinots.
[deleted]
If anyone here liked the movie (which was great), the book is even better! There are a lot of funny scenes that didnt make it to the movie like when the two characters get shot at by some local hunting wild hogs at night + more sex.
Reminds me of a story from few (5 maybe) years ago when The Economist reported that USA milk producers had to throw X amount (X being in tons) of milk due to a sudden shift of preference to another yogurt type, driven by social networks.
In other news Philip the Bold broke the Burgundy Wine industry.
In 1395.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Bold
In 1395.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Bold
> In 1395, Philip the Bold outlawed cultivation of the Gamay grape in favour of Pinot Noir in an early example of agricultural regulation related to wine quality
That's great! Gamay is my least favourite red grape; it's a very rare Beaujolais that I can stand drinking, it needs to be well made to have enough perfume to be tolerable.
This is fantastic. I remember this movie well and I agree with this data.
I like how the article says the film is about one guy touring wine country. I feel like the author just loathes Thomas Hayden Church and will, at any opportunity, erase him from history.
This is a great example of the incredible power of memes. We would see this gain strength later. For better and for worse.
If you any further evidence that Hollywood is very good at brainwashing people...
If anything, it shows that Hollywood is really bad at brainwashing, since the point of the movie was completely different.
In case there's any doubt: Could advertising possibly work?
Merlot is subpar so no wonder it's been dropping since people discovered better grapes
That’s so sad that people care more about how they’ll look, instead of just drinking whatever they like.
Wine has such a highly publicized social component and reputation for containing depths which are perceptible but inarticulable to non-experts, that I would venture almost no one really knows what they actually like.
I don't know if you've seen the movie, but Giamatti's character does come off as someone you feel really understands when wine is bad, or at least was written by people who do. It's hard to resist that.
Those who have achieved enlightenment just drink what's in front of them, shrug, and say, in the words of Thomas Hayden Church, "tastes okay to me." :)
I don't know if you've seen the movie, but Giamatti's character does come off as someone you feel really understands when wine is bad, or at least was written by people who do. It's hard to resist that.
Those who have achieved enlightenment just drink what's in front of them, shrug, and say, in the words of Thomas Hayden Church, "tastes okay to me." :)
But that's also a metaphor for the two characters and their approaches to romance and/or sex. Church's Jack will take whatever is in front of him, even if it is someone else's bottle. I'm not sure what the wine version of "omnivorous" is ... perhaps "omnivinous." He simply isn't fussy. No, it's more than that, he is sexually obsessive. "You need to get your joint worked on, Miles" is presented as a solution to Miles' relationship woes. "Don't you just want to feel that cozy little box grip down on your johnson?"
Miles, on the other hand, is speaking of himself when he talks about his interest in Pinot Noir: "It's uh, it's thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It's, you know, it's not a survivor like Cabernet, which can just grow anywhere and uh, thrive even when it's neglected. No, Pinot needs constant care and attention. You know? And in fact it can only grow in these really specific, little, tucked away corners of the world. And, and only the most patient and nurturing of growers can do it, really. Only somebody who really takes the time to understand Pinot's potential can then coax it into its fullest expression."
Miles is fussy. He knows he is temperamental and sensitive. "Ripens early" translates to "I may have already peaked with a previous relationship." He is bitterly aware of how much attention he needs in a relationship, and so on. It's a helpless self-awareness, knowing his flaws but being unable to act on them.
Miles, on the other hand, is speaking of himself when he talks about his interest in Pinot Noir: "It's uh, it's thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It's, you know, it's not a survivor like Cabernet, which can just grow anywhere and uh, thrive even when it's neglected. No, Pinot needs constant care and attention. You know? And in fact it can only grow in these really specific, little, tucked away corners of the world. And, and only the most patient and nurturing of growers can do it, really. Only somebody who really takes the time to understand Pinot's potential can then coax it into its fullest expression."
Miles is fussy. He knows he is temperamental and sensitive. "Ripens early" translates to "I may have already peaked with a previous relationship." He is bitterly aware of how much attention he needs in a relationship, and so on. It's a helpless self-awareness, knowing his flaws but being unable to act on them.
Excellent comment!
Image and identification is a major factor in product enjoyment and loyalty. Even more so when talking about alcoholic beverages.
There is a mystique surrounding wine, as if it is a pure product shaped only by nature and the skill of the winemaker. The reality is that it's an engineered product full of adulterants(many natural and historical, but adulterants nevertheless. Think fining agents, acids, etc). Same with spirits. It's an industry that must produce a consistent product from highly variable inputs. Your impression of the bottle and the label also contribute to the brand/image.
People often choose the beverage that helps them identify with a story or project a certain image, not necessarily something that tastes good. Then again that's part of why their doing it. They want to signal. They need a vehicle for it.
There is a mystique surrounding wine, as if it is a pure product shaped only by nature and the skill of the winemaker. The reality is that it's an engineered product full of adulterants(many natural and historical, but adulterants nevertheless. Think fining agents, acids, etc). Same with spirits. It's an industry that must produce a consistent product from highly variable inputs. Your impression of the bottle and the label also contribute to the brand/image.
People often choose the beverage that helps them identify with a story or project a certain image, not necessarily something that tastes good. Then again that's part of why their doing it. They want to signal. They need a vehicle for it.
There was nothing in the article that lead me to believe people stopped drinking merlot because they didn't want to be seen drinking merlot. If anything the, implication is that Paul Giamatti's character convinced them they wouldn't like it.
Does “sad” refer to an emotion? If so, don’t all emotions require a human? Then who feels sad because of or about this purported fact?
Or are you saying, “I don’t like it when people care about how they’ll be seen so much that they can’t do whatever they like.”?
Or are you saying, “I don’t like it when people care about how they’ll be seen so much that they can’t do whatever they like.”?
When someone calls a situation sad, the author is the human experiencing the emotion. It's a pretty common English phrase construction.
In the best cases "it's sad that ..." means "seeing this makes me feel pity for them", and in the worst is used to belittle someone, as in "your behavior is pathetic"
I took the comment as meaning people are worried about what others will think of their choice of wine.
I certainly can not taste the difference between any of them (and so do most others according to the article), but after Sideways there was definitely something in my subconscious that steered me away from ordering a Merlot.
I don’t think it’s sad at all, it’s a fun reminder about how we function.
I don’t think it’s sad at all, it’s a fun reminder about how we function.
[deleted]
Wine is very much a social status. You gift it. You keep a "good" bottle around for company. Stupid, but how the world works.
My wife and I, we just like and prefer the sweet $8 pink sweet barefoot wine. Despite having no guests, we don't touch the 'good stuff.' For no other reason than we don't like it.
My wife and I, we just like and prefer the sweet $8 pink sweet barefoot wine. Despite having no guests, we don't touch the 'good stuff.' For no other reason than we don't like it.
My theory: Alcoholic drinks have the basic problem that they are generally unpalatable to most people, especially the first time you try them. The alcohol industry has a high advertising to sales ratio [1], presumably because they always need to remind people that it is cool and fun to drink hand sanitiser. Thus one movie can easily shift consumer behaviour, because nobody really ‘likes’ merlot or any grape the same way they may like fried chicken or coke (which seem impervious to bad press).
(I am not advocating for prohibition or anything like that by the way. Clearly many people enjoy wine, beer and spirits in moderation, although often this follows ingrained sociocultural norms.)
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/470961/ad-spend-to-sales...
Data for other industries here: http://www.rab.com/research/10014.pdf
(I am not advocating for prohibition or anything like that by the way. Clearly many people enjoy wine, beer and spirits in moderation, although often this follows ingrained sociocultural norms.)
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/470961/ad-spend-to-sales...
Data for other industries here: http://www.rab.com/research/10014.pdf
Firstly, this is a very American view. In wine cultures (France, Italy, Spain, Argentina), children grow up tasting wine from an early age. In beer cultures (Germany, Czechia, Belgium, Holland, England) it's the same for beer. I grew up in the US but my parents let us try everything, have a glass of wine with dinner, with the idea that alcohol shouldn't be some forbidden / exotic thing that you suddenly encounter as a college freshman and binge out on. But I remember being 17 or 18 and my friends having to hold their nose and chug booze really fast because they hated the taste. I found that shocking. FWIW, all those friends love alcohol now - a bit too much, maybe.
A lot of it goes to the fact that bitter, acidic, pungent things are an "acquired taste" in American culture. That's just not true in countries where children grow up with stronger flavors like real unpasteurized cheeses, fermented foods, and offal.
So what you say might be true as far as ad spending influencing the basic, cheese-puff-snorting American, but the premise that alcohol is unpalatable to most people (at least, most people around the world) is a false projection.
My semi-nightly movie time usually involves a bottle of wine (I change up what kind), couple squares of 90% to 100% chocolate, bowl of homemade popcorn, some American Spirit dark rolling tobacco, and a CBD+THC gummy. All those alkaloids roll around your senses like bittersweet heaven.
A lot of it goes to the fact that bitter, acidic, pungent things are an "acquired taste" in American culture. That's just not true in countries where children grow up with stronger flavors like real unpasteurized cheeses, fermented foods, and offal.
So what you say might be true as far as ad spending influencing the basic, cheese-puff-snorting American, but the premise that alcohol is unpalatable to most people (at least, most people around the world) is a false projection.
My semi-nightly movie time usually involves a bottle of wine (I change up what kind), couple squares of 90% to 100% chocolate, bowl of homemade popcorn, some American Spirit dark rolling tobacco, and a CBD+THC gummy. All those alkaloids roll around your senses like bittersweet heaven.
I will have to hard disagree with your theory that we must all need to be constantly reminded it's fun to drink "hand sanitizer", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Alcohol seems quite popular and has been quite popular for literally millenia, no massive advertising campaigns needed. The alcohol industry is highly competitive, and saturating consumers with ads can certainly influence their choice of which alcohol to buy.
And lest you accuse me of being a lightweight, I regularly enjoy in moderation something actually not that far off from hand sanitizer - cask strength whisky, weighing in at 60+% ABV. Because it is undiluted out of the barrel, it provides an incredibly intense flavor and aroma that I do not need to be tricked into liking.
Alcohol seems quite popular and has been quite popular for literally millenia, no massive advertising campaigns needed. The alcohol industry is highly competitive, and saturating consumers with ads can certainly influence their choice of which alcohol to buy.
And lest you accuse me of being a lightweight, I regularly enjoy in moderation something actually not that far off from hand sanitizer - cask strength whisky, weighing in at 60+% ABV. Because it is undiluted out of the barrel, it provides an incredibly intense flavor and aroma that I do not need to be tricked into liking.
Yeah I also enjoy alcohol.
I think it is a bit more complicated than you make out. The popularity for millenia is really when the only competing beverage was water, and even clean water was hard to get until recently. In recent times, soft drinks and juices have usurped the ubiquity of wine at the dinner table in France for example (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21929287).
Out of interest, what did you think about the whisky the very first time you tried it? Do you think it is likely that without all the notions out there about whisky to do with cachet, heritage, masculinity etc that you would have kept drinking it? That is my point. This is all quite aside from your current experience of drinking whisky, which is of course entirely legitimate and enjoyable of itself. I like beer now but the first time I had it I couldn't get one mouthful down.
I think it is a bit more complicated than you make out. The popularity for millenia is really when the only competing beverage was water, and even clean water was hard to get until recently. In recent times, soft drinks and juices have usurped the ubiquity of wine at the dinner table in France for example (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21929287).
Out of interest, what did you think about the whisky the very first time you tried it? Do you think it is likely that without all the notions out there about whisky to do with cachet, heritage, masculinity etc that you would have kept drinking it? That is my point. This is all quite aside from your current experience of drinking whisky, which is of course entirely legitimate and enjoyable of itself. I like beer now but the first time I had it I couldn't get one mouthful down.
> I think it is a bit more complicated than you make out. The popularity for millenia is really when the only competing beverage was water, and even clean water was hard to get until recently.
Oh, come on. People like to get drunk. It's that simple. That "the only competing beverage was water" is some kind of argument ... get real. That's completely ridiculous. People REALLY REALLY like to get drunk. Water is no competition. Has nothing to do with what the drink tastes like.
Oh, come on. People like to get drunk. It's that simple. That "the only competing beverage was water" is some kind of argument ... get real. That's completely ridiculous. People REALLY REALLY like to get drunk. Water is no competition. Has nothing to do with what the drink tastes like.
[deleted]
When you've been off them for a while, coke and fried chicken can be disgusting. Coke is sickly sweet with an unpleasant gaseous mouthfeel, and fried chicken is a greasy dry coating over pure protein. Coca-Cola in particular has a huge marketing budget.
> Repeated studies have shown that “wine experts,” when administered blind tests, are unable to distinguish between cheap and expensive bottles, or different varieties of the same color wine, or even whether the wine they’re drinking is red or white. In the end it’s all just fermented grape juice.
As an American I am angry that they make red wine and white wine, but no blue wine. That damn unpatriotic California wine industry. I will drink Windex instead, and that will show them. It all tastes the same anyway. /g
As an American I am angry that they make red wine and white wine, but no blue wine. That damn unpatriotic California wine industry. I will drink Windex instead, and that will show them. It all tastes the same anyway. /g
Well, there's always blue mad dog.
https://www.md2020wine.com/bottles/
Disclaimer: enjoy responsibly and may god have mercy on your soul.
https://www.md2020wine.com/bottles/
Disclaimer: enjoy responsibly and may god have mercy on your soul.
Unfortunately bumwines [1] (last updated in 2003?) mentions the "new" blue flavor, but doesn't fully review it.
[1] http://www.bumwine.com/
[1] http://www.bumwine.com/
I cannot believe these are produced unironically.
Why not? Some of us want to drink like patriots, red, white and blue :)
They do make blue wine, even in California. For example Blaufränkisch can be found in California too. There are many other varieties called “blue”, many of them also I Cali I guess. And in fact, in my language Pinot Noir is actually not “black” but “blue”.
I would love to buy a light blue wine - make it the same color as the flag and you've got my money!
There're already blue potatoes, so cmon wine industry, please make it happen!
There're already blue potatoes, so cmon wine industry, please make it happen!
[Edit: others were kind enough to remind me that the saved wine is actually Cheval Blanc, a 55-40-5 Cab Franc, Merlot, and Cab Sauv blend. It’s been awhile since I’ve thought out talked about this movie.]