Reviews (December/January 2009/2010)
Back to menu
Wine Review
with Helen Savage
I had the privilege recently of visiting the cellars of Champagne Bollinger. I’d also been invited for lunch and as is the happy custom of such great champagne houses, though the meal we drank only their excellent bubbly. I was reminded of the late and much lamented Madame Lily Bollinger, who is supposed to have said, “I drink my champagne when I’m happy and when I’m sad. Sometimes I drink it when I’m alone. When I have company I consider it obligatory. I trifle with it if I’m not hungry and drink it when I am. Otherwise I never touch it – unless I’m thirsty.”
The habit of drinking champagne with food rather than just as an aperitif or celebratory drink is gaining ground. It’s a habit of which I heartily approve. I just wish that I had as ready a supply of champagne as Madame Bollinger - to allow me to experiment with food and fizz partnerships more often. Generous producers who are keen to emphasise that their champagne is real wine have enabled me to come to some preliminary conclusions, one consequence of which is that I have been saving up for some time to enable the Savage household to enjoy champagne as the main liquid accompaniment to our Christmas dinner.
When it comes to this annual feast we are, relatively speaking, traditionalists, which means that the meal must include, if at all possible, turkey and Christmas pudding, preferably in sequence, with, if we feel up to it, a little light starter of smoked salmon and towards the end, a modest cheese course, which may or may not include Stilton, but must feature at least one cheese made in Northumberland. It’s my firm conviction that there is a champagne suitable for each part of the meal. Ideally a Chardonnay (Blanc de Blancs) should swim with the smoked salmon, followed by a rich Pinot Noir–based wine with the turkey, Bollinger’s Special Cuvée (their cheapest wine) would be good, or else a good rosé (rosé champagne is brilliant, by the way, with almost all game). The cheese demands either a fine old vintage champagne or else another Chardonnay-based wine; and a demi sec would slip down a treat with the pud, in a way that very few sweeter desserts wines could possibly match.
OK Helen, get real. Well maybe it’s a bit over the top to suggest four different fine fizzes with a single meal, however special (and you could well enjoy a fifth for an aperitif), so you may well have to settle for just one or maybe two wines and champagne may be out of the question. But don’t rule it out. This year the supermarket offers are crazy. Morrison’s, for example, have slashed their prices so that Moet & Chandon, once £28.88, is on offer at £14.39; Lanson Black Label, 75cl, is down from £26.98 to £13.45; Nicolas Feuillatte has tumbled from £26.98 to £12.99 and glory be, Bolly itself usually £35.99 is £17.95 – as long as stocks last, which I suggest may not be all that long, so get your skates on.
And then some of the other cheapie brands that no-one has ever heard of are now better than they have been for some time – or so I was assured by Charles Philipponnat, who heads one of Champagne’s poshest small houses and was previously Vice-Chairman of Moet, so he should know. The reason is that there is simply too much stock on everyone’s hands and good wines are being off-loaded cheap. So don’t despise that £10 offer.
If champagne is still too pricey for you, choose Cava. Spain’s fizz is often excellent and is stunningly good value when the supermarkets slash its price in parallel with champagne. My wine of the month, for example, is an excellent tipple; but to take Morrison’s again (and the others all have similar offers) Monistrol Cava Brut is down from £11.99 to £4.99, Monistrol Cava Rose from £11.99 to £4.99 and Extra Codorniu Cava has slid from £11.99 to £4.99. Unlike the Bolly or the Moet, stocks should hold up a little longer, enabling you to pick up three different wines (Demi-Sec Cava won’t break the bank) – for around £15.
If you don’t fancy or don’t wish to eat salmon or turkey, it’s worth bearing in mind that champagne partners many vegetables better than almost any other wine. The other day, in Champagne (forgive me swanking) I washed down a delicate dish of leeks in a vinaigrette sauce with a very fine fizz made by Monsieur Philipponnat’s team and it was a marriage made almost in heaven: the sharpness of the sauce made the bubbly seem richer and softer than it was without food. And don’t forget English sparkling wine. Not much of it’s on super special offer this year, but it’s very good indeed.
Wine of the Month:
Freixenet, Cordon Negro Brut.
Rich and fruity fizz from Spain, it both smells and tastes of candied lemon and lime; At its rrp of £7.49 it’s great value, but some shops (including Waitrose) will knock a pound or two off over the next few weeks.
Back to top
Film and Faith
by Luke O sbaldeston
Public Enemies (2009)
Certificate: 15. DVD/Blue-Ray Release UK: 2nd of November 2009.
Length: 140 minutes
Director: Michael Mann.
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Stephen Lang and Don Frye.
Johnny Depp is a draw in cinema, with specific appeal for women of a certain sensibility. This means that although he’s not a high ranker in terms of performance, nor a genuine A list star, he still has enough of a following to launch a film, even one such as this.
Likewise, the director of this film, Michael Mann, is a big name, a critically acclaimed director who seems to trade off two films from his past, notably Manhunter (1986) and Heat (1995), ensuring that he’s still capable of attracting stars to work with him. Those who have seen Heat will notice some similarities with Public Enemies (probably how he pitched it to the studio: “I’m going to remake Heat but set in the 1930’s with real characters.”) Unfortunately, while in Heat you have magnetic film actors Al ‘Shouter’ Pacino and Robert De Niro in the leading roles, in Public Enemies, you have neither.
Michael Mann does not strike you as an actors’ director – that is, he creates an effect more than a reality, and there are some beautiful examples of his ability to do just that in this film, in particular, his use of colour and filter in the scenes where characters hold flares aloft to light their location. It’s wonderful to look at, especially on a good quality screen, but there’s not much in terms of emotional involvement, either from the actors (the camera is often way above them so as to show the scene as from on high) or for the viewers.
What will Johnny Depp fans make of this? Probably not much; if they want to watch their hero, then this is not a terrible film, but it’s not worth viewing more than once. Theologically, the film makes it clear very early on that the central character played by Depp, John Dillinger, is not going to be depicted as either moral or amoral. He just is. This is what he does, and he is not shown in a bad light, even though innocent people die as he and his gang rob banks.
This invidious lack of moral judgement is arguably unhealthier than it may seem. Clearly, Dillinger was a murderous villain; even this film cannot hide that. Yet we are left with the idea that his final words are ones of love for his ‘moll’. Perhaps that is some kind of positive note to end a life with, but it is little more than folk religion for those many people too lazy to think and form a judgment for themselves. The same effect was apparent with the central characters in Heat. There was no judgement, just bullets.
If you like films with lots of bullets in them, then you will love Public Enemies – in fact, it uses so many that it makes Steven Seagal films look realistic. But then, Mann is not trying to create a believable, or even likeable reality, it seems. Nor is he providing much in the way of characters that you care about. It is an empty vessel on show here, and it doth maketh much noise. Style over content only gets you so far.
Do you have an opinion on this film? Email Luke at FrLuke@angelic.com
Back to top