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 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.
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 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.
"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.
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 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.
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.
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.
There's even a sequel to the novel with the same characters.
I'm calling "shenanigans" on this whole "Miles kills himself" meme.
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 had to check for myself and it really doesn't look that way to me.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.72/p2z.144.myftpuploa...
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.
No it isn't.
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. :-)
- 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).
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 :)
Cheers!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My parents prefer cabernet sauvignon, by the by.
source: https://www.chateau-cheval-blanc.com/en/vintages/chateau-che... (you can check other vintages there etc)
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.
By now the place has probably changed name or owners. It was a pretty good local flavor burger joint at the time.
[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.]