A young critic calls Brunello di Montalcino wines from the southern area, from Sesta to Sant’Angelo in Colle, “anachronistic,” accusing them of being too alcoholic and full-bodied. But wine, like art, should be interpreted, not bent to the taste of the moment. Daniele Cernilli reflects on the value of territory and the true function of wine criticism.
I thought, mistakenly, that I had heard enough about the world of wine. Instead, recently, at a dinner party, a young critic called the Brunellos of the Sesta and Sant’Angelo in Colle areas “anachronistic” – in his opinion too heavy, alcoholic and far from his understanding of “Sangiovese.”
Then he named names: Banfi, Argiano, Col d’Orcia, Giacomo Neri’s Tenuta Nuova, Camigliano. In other words, the Brunellos of the southern area of Montalcino, those that make body, power and a deeply “territorial” and “Mediterranean” character their most authentic and typical expression. Logical, I might add.
According to our young critic, however, “the good” and the “preferable” in Montalcino would be elsewhere. Even in Sesta, he says, there are producers who relate much more appreciatively and “in line” with his tastes-Giodo above all. Now, Charles Ferrini is a formidable winemaker, and we have been friends, really friends, for at least 40 years. I appreciate his wines very much and I know his path well. I may not be enthusiastic about his 2020 (Brunello, of course), which we awarded anyway, but the 2016, 2019 and 2021 to come are simply terrific wines: they respect the origin and represent the vintage.
The 2020 is excellent, but it does not seem like a wine “from there.” It is liked, however, by some young critics who make it a kind of icon. And then he tends to underestimate Banfi, Col d’Orcia, Argiano, Camigliano and Tenuta Nuova ’16, ’19 and ’21, Flattening the judgment to one’s personal taste, without really trying to interpret.
It is as if he is saying, “If I like it, it is good and contemporary.” Most importantly, it is not “anachronistic,” because the “modern going of time”-in his words-goes elsewhere. So much for origins, territories and traditions.
My old friend Umberto Contarello, who participated in the screenplay for The Great Beauty by Paolo Sorrentino (a film that won an Oscar), and who knows a thing or two about criticism – undergoing it – has always told me that he dislikes very little those critics, in this case film critics, who would like to teach screenwriters and directors what they should do to make a film that they can like to them.
Much better, he says, are those who try to interpret artistic intention That is the basis of a work. That is useful criticism for the audience.
In the history of wine criticism, the only one who managed to represent his or her personal taste and then give consistent scores was Robert Parker. Unique and one-of-a-kind.
I don’t think I need to add anything else. Word to the wise.
