A Year in Champagne

I've been to the area. Maybe having a place for the ghosts of the dead soldiers to sit and drink and eat , would be a nice gesture. A symbolic memorial and honoring for the soldiers that lost their lives. The memorial is not a place for them to gather and relax. Something they could not do while they fought. We have other mock dinners for the dead in other places..., might change the weather issues. Appease the soldiers..., I learned a lot about this ancient craft of wine and champagne culture. Makes me want to learn more. Even live the life. With so much history, there should be more government funding...., maybe they government can pay for a wine bar for the fallen soldiers. Someone can keep it clean and comfy...

Subtitles are particularly crappy in this snail-paced look at Champagne. (Example: the "liqueur d'expedition" is NOT "liquor" but sweet wine.) For all the time spent ballooning over the vineyards and watching machinery turn, there's no single coherent explanation of what Champagne actually is, why there's a need to remove sediment after the second fermentation, etc etc etc.

And what's Martine Saunier doing here? She imports one of the central characters into the US but not a peep from her about how Americans perceive Champagne.

Writer-director David Kennard is also responsible for the equally dreary "Year in Burgundy."

(Flash Review)

The intent was to describe a full year, all four seasons, of growing grapes to make Champagne in the northern region of Champagne, France. An uneven amount of the focus was on how hard the cool climate is on the grapes. How much nurturing is needed and how frequently a harvest is fruitless; literally. There were the ubiquitous historic cellar shots with oodles of aging bottles. But nary a 4 minutes spent on why and how Champagne is different from wine; process or the artistic spin growers apply. There was some decent background and behind the scenes insights but maybe it just wasn't picturesque enough or informative enough and the key objective for me was that I was not enticed to go out and buy a bottle. As I had been after watching the two SOMM documentaries. SOMM: Into the Bottle is a much more informative and gets the figurative juices flowing.

I knew the basics for how they made champagne--the region of France, the three grape varieties they use and the process by which they removed sediment from the bottles. But this is only talked about in detail at the very end of the film. What's before that is a look at the life of the champagne producers from several different houses--and how incredibly obsessive-compulsive they all are. This is NOT a process for folks who aren't obsessive....and the rules, rules, rules are often seemingly arbitrary. But all this make for a nice little film. Combining this story with lovely classical music, nice narration and rate glimpses at the families who live, breath, drink and think champagne all make a lovely film--one best savored by those who love this heavenly drink.

Not easy to work all three of those elements into a documentary, and this one does. I agree with another reviewer that it's all about expectations. Be prepared to go beyond the esthetics and romance of the beverage and region, and learn the details, agony and ecstasy of the method that makes authentic champagne so unique amongst all other wines, especially the sparkling varieties. Having previously visited the Champaign region which included a detailed explanation of the process, I still learned a lot watching this film, not the least of which is a reminder that life is more fun with champaign.

Cheers!