Words of Wine

NOTE: The editors of Wines & Vines magazine, which I'm fond of, graciously published my rebuttal to an article entitled "Rolland's Mark on Virginia" that appeared in their March issue. This article is a slightly longer version of that rebuttal. Should you care? Maybe - because if you really like wine, well, this one guy might be having a major influence on what you "like," and you may not even know it.


Now, most people who are new to wine haven't heard of Michel Rolland and won't be interested in the controversy that swirls around him. But for those of us who are "immersed" in wine, everywhere we turn there's another article about Rolland putting his personal mark on wines from every continent. Much of the coverage is fawning, and perhaps bordering on idolatry...and I guess that's to be expected in the wine world, where winemakers and winery founders are the equivalent of rock stars. But other coverage is, shall we say, less fawning, and a lot of folks who make wine rather than just drink it may feel that the criticism is perhaps even understated.

Rolland is 59-year old Frenchman known as "the flying winemaker". Essentially, he jets around the world hurling pearls of advice even while spitting red wine, smoking Galouises and making bon mots in company of smiling admirers and obsequious acolytes. Now some of the negative coverage mentioned by Dave McIntyre in the March 2007 issue of Wines & Vines, "Rolland's Mark on Virginia," is doubtless based on professional jealousy, tinged with latent anti-French sentiment that seems to pervade the US these days, and which I find groundless and absurd.

Having said that, Monsieur Rolland's work suggests a deeper look - one that McIntyre avoids. And McIntyre is simply wrong when he says that Rolland is controversial because of 2004's Mondevino; that was a documentary, and relatively few people saw it. It's not the film but what it suggests - with some evidence - that's stirring things up: as the wine business "globalizes" like information technology, some diversity in winemaking may be going out the window.

McIntyre is not alone avoiding tough questions: a June 2006 article from Wine Spectator said "He (Rolland) is not a proponent of micro-oxygenation as some suggest, and never has been." Yet a scant 10 minutes into Mondevino, we see Rolland holding court at the prestigious Chateau Le Gay in Pomerol, telling (not suggesting) owner Francois Boursaud to do just that. He says he's doing it just to "make the wine better." And at that moment, when the filmmaker notes that not everyone shares Rolland's ideas about what makes a wine better, he responds "Yeah, it's called diversity. That's why there are so many bad wines." There's a strong message there: what's better is what Rolland says is better. And you'd "better" listen.

The Wines & Vines piece is interesting in that even while Kluge Estate Winery owner Patricia Kluge disputes that Rolland makes the same wine everywhere, the article seems not to be about what she, or winemaker Charles Gendot, or CEO William Moses wants, but more about what Monsieur Rolland wants: "For the long term, Rolland's goal at Kluge Estate is to unlock the potential of the Carter Mountain soil."

His goal? Have they none for their property and their wines?

To be sure, Rolland's insight and expertness are real, and earned. I'd love to have his palate, his knowledge of grapegrowing and his years of experience. And hell, he's rich, lives in Bordeaux, and makes a living tasting wines, walking the vineyards, and gently barking "suggestions" to the royalty of the wine world. What's not to admire about all of that? - Louis XIV should have been so lucky.

But it's also fair to ask: Can anyone who touches 100 wineries and countless wines every year avoid - even if he tries - putting a very personal, singular stamp on what otherwise might be very different expressions of the grape?