Film Review Bottle Shock (2001)
If you’re finding this email in your inbox on your computer, phone or tablet then we have made a vital connection. That’s a weird way of saying thank you. Let’s try it again, thank you for subscribing to the newsletter!!
The following movie review is an accompaniment to an article I submitted to E&R Wine Shop’s “Throughout the Land” Magazine (online edition). Maybe if I publish this first, it’ll get them to accept it.
Bottle Shock (2001 or 2008)
Cast: Alan Rickman, Denis Farina, Bill Pullman, Freddy Rodriguez, Rachel Taylor, Chris Pine and Others (I forgot to watch the credits).
Directed by: Randall Miller
In years since it’s release the movie “Bottle Shock” has received a less than glowing response. One well known critic wrote of it, “ [“Bottle Shock”] is a poorly written and executed production that will remain in the dustbin of history. It’s rampant disregard for actual events is only matched by its casual and abundant chauvinism.” That may be and most definitely is true. “Bottle Shock” is a troubled film. In no way am I excusing Ross Schwartz, Randy Savin and Randall Miller for writing what will be held up as a cultural disaster. I merely want to ask a few questions. Who was “Bottle Shock” made for? Might it be possible that we’ve been asking too much of it? Is it possible our tastes have evolved to the point of no return? Even though these are rhetorical questions, I think the answers are as follow.
Who was Bottle Shock made for?
I’m not speaking about a demographic when I ask for whom was this film made. Bottle Shock was made for, like the rest of the films about wine, the two glass deep new wine drinker. S/he just watched Sideways last week and wants to watch another wine film. The choices are limited. “Somm” offers too much, of everything. “Barolo Boy’s” is another documentary and so are the rest really. What’s left? “A Good Year” with Russell Crow and “Wine Country” with Amy Poehler. “Wine Country” and “A Good Year are better choices, but for the time being let’s just assume that our fictional protagonist doesn’t have access to Netflix or HBO. What I’m trying to say is that Bottle Shock is a known quantity and will continue to watched by people that have recently begun their wine journey. Although the watcher cringes from beginning to end, Bottle Shock entertains.
Might it be possible that we’re asking too much of Bottle Shock?
I was expecting to say “yes” and have a cheeky well thought out and verbalized answer but I don’t think we are actually asking enough. Bill Pullman’s portrayal of Jim Barrett throughout the film borders on the legally actionable. If Jim isn’t beating his adult son (in a boxing ring but that’s not a great excuse) or using a refractometer wrong, he’s putting his fist through a cabinet or lying on the floor of his barrel room among open bottles of Chardonnay in a drunken fog ranting about the brown, but perfect made, wine. This characterization perpetuates a stereotype of the unhinged boomer winemaker. This stereotype that is one hundred percent correct. I mean they all wear vests because craziness has blown out the sleeves. If Pullman hadn’t been so maudlin about his acting, I would have bought it.
Now that I’ve used too much ink on Jim Barrett, I’ll quickly run down the rest of the cast of characters. Bo Barrett, Gustavo Brambila and Sam Fulton. Bo, son of Jim and an unknown woman, is your typical hippie fail-son. Okay, sure, we usually encounter Bo in the cellar, or working in the vineyard but at night and during his free time he socializes with friends and surfs. Weather Bo is relaxing or toiling in the earth he is continuously pressuring Sam, his female harvest intern for sex or sexual intimacy. It’s clear that he was written by people trying to sound smart that may not be all that smart. While protecting his friend Gustavo Bo delivers my favorite line of the movie :
But he also doesn't wanna be addressed with disparaging colloquial expressions...that imply some sort of genetic or cultural inferiority... or that are simply used out of some form of inappropriate ethnocentrism.
Enough about Bo, lets move on to Gustavo. When the writers put all the good lines into a hat Mr. Brambila must have picked out all the good ones. After Jim fires Gustavo for making wine on his own time Gustavo says:
You people. You think you can just... buy your way into this. Take a few lessons. Grow some grapes. Make some good wine. You cannot do it that way. You have to have it in your blood. You have to grow up with the soil underneath your nails... and the smell of the grape in the air that you breathe. The cultivation of the vine is an art form. The refinement of its juice is a religion... that requires pain...and desire and sacrifice
In response to this sanctimonious and what the writers thought was award wining writing, Jim replies, in a tone mixed between a burp and yep, “Amen.” It’s a shame that we didn’t get to see more scenes of Gustavo drinking wine and people telling him how the wine changed their lives.
Now I’m going to have to skip to Allan and Dennis. I don’t have the strength to tackle the structural and moral deficiency contained within the character of Sam.
Our beloved Allan, taken from us too, too soon. You may remember him from the film, “Beckett on Film” (2001) where he played, Man in the play, “Play.” The role of “Man” is complicated and stunning to watch, which is a complete foil to the role of Stephen Superior. I wanted, desperately, for Alan to be the shining light of Bottle Shock, but, that slot was filled by the affable and amendable Dennis Farina. As he had done in forty one other films, Dennis lifts dialogue from the theoretical written word into the clouds of comedy.
Alan and Dennis were the stand out performances and in this case the casting was immaculate, beyond reproach. Even if Dennis’ character didn’t exist and Allan doesn’t look like Stephen Spurier, great casting. I’ll let you decide how the casting of of M. Aubert de Villiane went (the picture on the right is superimposed):
