Maynard James
Keenan, a former singer in the band Tool, is the central character in the
documentary Blood into Wine. The
documentary explores Maynard's transition from rocker to wine maker, examining
his hardships along the way. Maynard and his business partner, Eric Glomski,
made a bold decision and set up their vineyard in Arizona, a state that is not
known for winemaking. The film follows the two wine makers, one amateur, one a
seasoned veteran through their journey of setting up their own vineyard, a process
that takes years of determination and hard work.
Maynard was a
rock singer before he turned to wine making, and while I have not listened to
any of his music, from the documentary, I can gather that it was dark and
borderline disturbing. When society thinks about that kind of crowd, it
definitely has different connotations than a wine-drinking group. Wine drinkers
are stereotypically sophisticated, wealthy, educated and posh. Pretty much the
very opposite of those who get tattoos and listen to creepy music and wear all
black. Maynard completely broke through this barrier that society has put up
around wine drinking and making. The testimonials from his fans also suggest
that the two groups are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure how Maynard's wine
is priced, but I would like to think that it is in a way where his fans are
able to purchase his wine, and learn about wine like he did.
Embarrassingly
for me, when this documentary began I didn't realize that producing wine in
Arizona was such a wild idea. If Virginia can produce wine, I just assumed that
most states could. It took me a few minutes to put it together that mine making
in the desert of Arizona was completely unorthodox. From my understanding, the
warmer and dryer climates were the best for wine making, but as I have since
realized, maybe the desert is too warm and too dry.
The Arizona
setting is very important in this documentary. First, it allowed the filmmakers
to give the documentary a western theme, with lots of skulls and desert-y
aspects to it. This theme really matched the dry and straightforward
personality of Maynard, pulling the film all together. The location of the
vineyard in Arizona also provided a great opportunity for some compare and
contrast segments. Clearly, California is a powerhouse wine producer, and it is
relatively close to Arizona. In the film, Arizona is somewhat depicted at the
underdog, and the "good guy," while California is viewed as a villain
or bully. Towards the end of the documentary, the filmmakers have wine experts
first discuss the idea of wine coming from Arizona and then (blindly) taste
wines from both states. It is to the audience's delight that many of them like
the wine that Maynard is producing, perhaps even more than a few of the
California wines.
My favorite
part of this documentary was learning about how Maynard started his vineyard.
There are so many unforeseen costs and random expenses; I don’t know how normal
people start up vineyards! There were a ton of obstacles in his way, like the
animals that were eating his sangiovese grapes and, of course the climate. It
was inspiring to see him stick with it and produce a bottle of wine that he was
proud of.
I have learned
in this class that there is an almost impossible amount of information out
there about wine, grapes, and the wine making process. I had no idea that there
was so much that went into the wine and that so many flavors could be produced
by changing techniques this way or that. For someone like Maynard, who knew
little to nothing about wine making to then risk so much capital and time to
get into this business is pretty impressive. What I liked about Maynard when
watching this film was that he doesn’t really seem to want to go in the
traditional route. California vineyards are portrayed in the movie as having
dozens of kinds of grapes on their property. But when they were discussing what
kinds of wines come out, they were pretty generic and traditional wines.
Maynard appears to want to really experiment and work with the grapes, to
produce something that he really thinks people will enjoy. I thought that was
pretty cool. Who cares if it's a little unorthodox as long as it tastes good?
I did not like
the scenes in this film where Maynard is with the two hosts of the show in the
studio. It was overdone and instead of being funny, was basically just rude.
They were really insulting towards his wine, which could have been funny if it
was another guest on the show. But Maynard's dry personality and, to be blunt,
lack of sense of humor did not go with this charade. This was too much for me,
and it ruined the film a little bit for me, since this scene is how the film
ended. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth. However, I would recommend this
film to a wine audience. Not because it was profound or elegant or even that
informative. It was raw and real and emphasized that wine is not an exclusive
product or social circle. Anyone
can love wine and anyone with the right determination can learn to make wine. I
think it could be eye opening for people who are really into wine to learn that
other not as well known places can make good wine, and the people who want to
learn the wine business and learn about wine tasting are not always the
stereotypical socialite.
