Somm

Some good wine comment among the testosterone-fuelled wine bravado of sommelier candidates. It seems the only quality these candidates feel they need is to talk fast and with confidence - rule is just name any flavour that comes to your mind. So the aim is to convince the customer in the restaurant that you know exactly what you're talking about. And of course we know that the customer is always satisfied if they have been convinced by a sommelier that the wine they are having is wonderful and well worth the price. Consumer psychology 101.

Greetings again from the darkness. Alexander Payne's 2004 hit Sideways made wine tasting and discussion a fun thing to do with friends, and U.S. wine tours exploded. In the movie, Miles (Paul Giamatti) is quite knowledgeable and opinionated on wine. However, comparing Miles to the real life characters in the Somm documentary is like comparing the boys of The Sandlot to major leaguers ... it's not even close!

Filmmaker Jason Wise follows four guys as they prepare for the nearly impossible to pass Master Sommelier exam. The certification has been around for 40 plus years, and less than 200 applicants have actually passed. We get to know the four who are studying so diligently by watching them interact and even talk to the camera. The competitive nature is on full display through the trash-talking and emotions that are evident through each disagreement. Mostly we witness the enormous stress that comes from working so hard for a single shot ... the best comparison I can make is that of an Olympic athlete preparing for their single event.

We also meet Fred Dame, the Godfather of U.S. Master Sommelier. He trains through intimidation and seems to carry the burden of exclusivity in every interaction. Yeah, he's kind of jerk. As are the four vying for the certification. It seems one must be self-absorbed and borderline ego-maniacal to build the knowledge and fine tune the palate necessary to have a shot.

The exam is broken into 3 parts: Blind wine tasting, Theory, and Service. The wine tasting segments are most fun to watch as we quickly learn there is a skill, a science and some luck involved. Through a sniff and a sip, they must be able to identify the type of wine, the subtle flavors, the age of the wine, the country of origin, the specific region, and even the level of winery. The theory section involves knowing wine history from all over the globe. This is accomplished through endless hours of reading and flash card drills. The Service portion gets the short straw here, but we do get a taste of the outlandish nature of a game whose point seems to be humiliating the participant.

To add another touch of legend, we do get some insight from Bo Barrett, the legendary California wine maker profiled in the movie Bottle Shock. Mostly though, we learn that this most prestigious designation can only be obtained through an elitist Obsessive-Compulsive approach that kills all sense of acceptable societal manner. For most of us, enjoying a glass of wine with friends is reward enough ... for you others, best of luck learning the 3000 grape varietals in Italy alone.

I love wine. I like to think I know wine. But I also know I do not know all that much. There's too much to know. When I go to the places where these guys work, I trust them to help me get things right. That's what they do, its beautiful and it is absolutely an art.

These guys chasing the MS designation...THEY know a LOT about wines. More than any one else in the world. Seriously. They have to, just to be invited, even if they don't pass the test. Its brutal.

If you have sat for the Bar or the CFA or something similar, then the tale told here will ring very true. Its the same sort of obsessive all consuming effort required to get prepared.

The film gets very close to conveying what it takes and the methods used to even get to the testing table. And the Fraternity of the participants is absolutely one of the greatest messages that comes out. Its competitive but not in the 'I win you lose' sense. If you can raise yourself to the highest level of expertise in the world then you have a chance of passing. These guys are great.

There's a couple of slow moments but overall this keeps moving by portraying the toll on relationships and the character of all concerned.

Now I cannot judge whether a non-wine person would find it as emotionally immersive as someone that knows just what the hell they are talking about. The fluency and speed of interaction may all pass as a blur that gets boring after the tenth time, I dunno. But for me and the others in the theater, we were rooting for the contestants and making choices of winners and losers. Undoubtedly at some point I will look up at the Somm and it will be one of the guys in this movie.

If you want to know the outcome, you'll have to go cuz I ain't spoiling it here!

This documentary film is about several guys who are pursuing their certification as Master Sommoliers. While this sounds terrifically boring, it really isn't for many reasons. First, it's an incredibly difficult thing to actually achieve and very few folks on this planet are this knowledgeable, tenacious and talented to earn this. Second, the film makers manage to spin this all in an interesting way that makes you actually care about these oenophiles and their seemingly insane quest to be the best of the best. By the end of the film, my daughter and I actually found ourselves pulling for some of the participants and rooting for them...and in one case, rooting against them. All in all, an exciting film about what might sound like a very dull topic.

Double-blind tastings have as much relevance to real, hands- on restaurant work as the Zodiac does to Astronomy.

What you have, rather, is a trade-show paper- chase that's been cooked up by the pretentiously self-qualified to scam money from the slightly less agile.

Suffice it to mention, moreover, that the 'masters' title has absolutely nothing to do with certification from an accredited college or university.

Real masters, from academia, are given by juries of PhD's to acknowledge mastery over a subject of which they, as individuals, have made a contribution to knowledge. Therefore, I challenge any judge of said 'court' to present qualifications that would demonstrate any contribution on their part. to the knowledge of wine.

'Proper' cigar service, perhaps, expressed as their own opinion of propriety? 'Proper' chilling of whites--ostensibly with far greater reference to Oscar Wilde than Van der Walls? Or how about yet another uselessly digressive, non-chemical explanation of 'tannins'?

Lastly, of course, the use of 'Court' speaks volumes about their collective idiocy. How do they support their right to hold court, or to judge, as it were? Where, pray tell, is there a public textbook that's made available for scrutiny much as, say, physics, chemistry, history, or whatever that's taught over at Dustbunny U?

Without reference to said text that's available for all to see, this self-entitled 'court' ranks nothing higher than podunk inquisitional circa AD1200--or rather a Humpty-Dumpty manifesto that states that things mean exactly what I say they mean at the time that I say it".

So much for restaurant 'professionalism': next, perhaps, chiropractics?

Bill Harris