Review: ‘Julie & Julia’–Traditional Filmmaking With Traditional Values
by Carl KozlowskiIt’s rare enough these days to see a movie in which one story is well-told, much less two stories. It’s even more rare when a filmmaker is able to balance two completely different plotlines and make both equally enjoyable and compelling. Yet with her new film “Julie & Julia,” writer-director Nora Ephron (“Sleepless in Seattle,” “You’ve Got Mail”) pulls off such feats so impressively that the movie could possibly wind up with an Oscar nomination at the end of the year now that the Academy has expanded the awards to ten nominations and will likely finally include a couple of comedies each year.
“Julie & Julia” follows the amusingly parallel lives of chef Julia Child (played by Meryl Streep), who achieved worldwide fame while revolutionizing the art of cooking starting in the ‘50s, and Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a young New York City woman searching for identity in 2002. Powell longs to be a successful writer like her friends and yet is trapped processing insurance claims from victims of the World Trade Center attacks.
Yet two things keep Powell happy: her loving and supportive husband, played by Chris Messina, and her passion for cooking. When she hears her friends talking about launching blogs, her husband convinces her to launch her own blog about cooking. Julie rises to the challenge by deciding to cook every recipe in Julia’s landmark tome “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” within a year – meaning she’ll have to cook 524 exquisite recipes in 365 days and live to blog about it daily.
As she embarks on this culinary quest, Julie learns more about Julia’s own personal life and her parallel loving marriage to her diplomat husband Paul (Stanley Tucci). Julie also gains confidence even as the strain of finishing her goal adds occasional strain to her marriage.
“Julie & Julia” deftly moves between the past and the present in a true screenwriting feat that draws one parallel after another between the two women separated by both an ocean and five decades of life experience. Ephron’s dialogue is crisp and fits both time periods to a T, while its depiction of two happy marriages in which no one’s secretly gay or committing adultery must set a Hollywood record for the modern era.
The film’s traditional moral values (not only is this a movie you could take Grandma to, she’ll likely wind up taking you) carry over into its traditional filmmaking qualities with sterling performances from the four lead actors (Streep could get a Supporting Actress nom, while this could lead to star-making roles for the previously little-known Messina). The exquisite cinematography by Stephen Goldblatt makes dozens of dishes spring to vivid life on the screen, and is sure to leave viewers craving a hearty meal after they leave the theater.
“Julie & Julia” isn’t hip or edgy, but viewers of all ages will appreciate a solid and sterling main course of a film over the quickly forgotten appetizers offered by the much weaker fare to be found in this summer’s multiplexes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
40 Comments
So the gratuitous Republican bashing, apropos of nothing, didn't bother you?
best stuff i have ever cooked still comes from a julie child cookbook. she was all that and a rosemary oven-roasted chicken.
I just have a hard time with Meryl Streep after seeing her drunk at the golden globes bashing Bush a few years back. She is talented, but you know what, I haven't watched her in years and somehow have managed to keep from being depressed.
Well, Hollywood being Hollywood, they had to add the gratuitous Republican bashing to get it past the censors.
Happy to hear Chris Messina got a Break a damn good Actor and more important a damn Good Guy. All the Best Brother.
I think it's hilarious that the way Ephrom got around making a movie about blogging in the year 2009 — seven or eight years after 'blogging's heyday — while still keeping it "hip" and "trendy" was to set the movie in 2002. Maybe in the year 2015 when Ephrom finally hears about Twitter, she'll make a movie about that, and set it in 2008.
Ephron not Ephrom, sorry. Keys are too close together on this Victorian-era web-box.
It's not my cup of tea, but I just read a syndicated review in the local paper and the guy liked the Julia Child parts but didn't like the Powell parts. He said Child knew about Powell and didn't like what she was doing, and probably wouldn't be pleased to be closely tied to her like this movie will now cause. The most noteworthy part of the review was when the guy talked about how Child used her talent and persistence to make her mark in the world, and it's a shame to put Powell–a frustrated navel-gazer–on the same level with Child.
Like I said, they didn't have me at Ephrom, and it's really not my subject matter of choice. I didn't even know about the Republican bashing, but it's pretty sad. They could make a movie about soap box racers and have to throw in some Republican bashing. It's a sickness.
I'm looking forward to this movie. Not because I'm a fan of Streep, (not particularly), but because I'm a huge fan of Child's, (with whom I share a birthday).
She was a fascinating lady.
What was the Republican bashing in the film?
Just came back from the movie and overall really enjoyed it (my wife is a major foodie). Went to a 10:30 am showing (got to get those discounts) and the theatre was fairly full (AMC Promenade). Nice round of applause at the end.
The "Julia didn't like what Julie was doing" stinger at the end didn't make much sense as Julie is portrayed as being very respectful of the chef throughout and is sincerely mentored by Julia's life and accomplishment. Also, there's nothing in the movie to show that Child would ever act the way the Santa Barbara journalist said she did. This is not resolved so we don't know if it actually happened or was just a rumor (who believes a journalist, anyway?).
There were a few scenes that served no purpose and should have been cut: why introduce Child's sister (the ubiquitous Jane Lynch) and the Joy of Cooking's Irma Rombauer (the equally ubiquitous Frances Sternhagen)? That's about five minutes that adding nothing. Worse was the red herring about McCarthyism. Would an investigation of Paul Child's (Stanley Tucci) questionable activities be the reason the Childs finally return to the US? Uh, no. It leads nowhere. But it does show that McCarthy was all powerful and cast a long dark shadow that reached civil servants toiling away in Paris (help me, Hollywood really thinks like this). These go-nowhere political nutshells take up about another ten minutes.
Would I take my Grandma? No. It's basically a family film until they (my goodness, the married people love each other!) drop S and F bombs for absolutely no good reason but to up the rating. And if Grandma was a Republican, she would wonder why her party was being trashed.
So, not a bad film (some of the photography was poorly lit and grainy), worth the $6 matinee price. If you're a foodie and like Child's (and hey, why not, Julie Powell), then you'll like most of it. Just park your inner Aristotle at the door.
Um, the reason it was set in 2002 was because that's when it happened. The lady with the blog actually exists, and in 2002, she did set out to cook all of Julia Childs's recipies. She ended up writing a book about it, which is what the film was based on.
Apparently, they overemphasize the fact that Julia's diplomat husband got hauled before Senator McCarthy at one point.
Streep doesn't hide the fact that she's a liberal, but she actually comes from a huge conservative family. I think, more than the average Hollywood person she respects both sides' opinions. Plus she's one of our finest actresses and an all around really good person and humanitarian. (everyone who's met her in and outside the business adores her.)
and I don't hide the fact I don't watch her movies, it's all good. I don't hate her, I'd just rather support other artists who don't feel the need to subject Republicans who might like to watch what is supposed to be an entertainment awards show to a diatribe about how much President Bush sucked. She has never given me a dime, so why not return the favor.
I simply cannot tolerate Meryl Streep's pinched face presence and the oozing out of her pretentiousness no matter how how she tries to hide it.
P.S. Pauly, the reason she appears adored is that it is no secret she keeps company generally with only those that adore her. Shallow if you ask me.
Too many people seem to not know or have forgotten the Alar scandal that Ms. Streep willingly spearheaded.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/meryl_stre...
I have not given support to anything she's been involved with since.
Too many people seem to not know or have forgotten the Alar scandal that Ms. Streep willingly spearheaded.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/meryl_stre...
I have not given support to anything she's been involved with since.
I find the bashing matters less to me when I comfort myself with the fact that I did not give the makers of the movie one red cent. If I want to see a movie, I get it from the library.
Meryl Streep is a strange bird. You were expecting a right wing embrace followed by a wet kiss? That is what the library stacks are for.
She taught me to make lovely croissants and tear inducing crusty breads.
I thought the same thing about the article. The Republican bashing does bother me and I don't want to reward hollywood for their propaganda by spending money on this movie.
Well thank Christ, there's no gay characters. I'd hate to be inconvenienced seeing characters that weren't exactly like myself.
"Julie" lies and calls in sick — Her boss finds out about it and the next day tells her that, if he were a Republican, he would fire her. No one in the full theater laughed and many were discussing the "out of place" line as we left the theater at the end of the movie.
Ah, drat! I was really excited about seeing this movie and had called my eldest daughter who is a real foodie to go with me when it debuted. I'm sickened to learn Hollywood couldn't leave out the politics.
Of course, I kind of had a clue after looking at the real Julie's blog. The "F" word is prominent throughout her writing, so I guess I'm not so surprised after all.
So… the "bashing" is a supporting character jokingly using "Republican" as a shorthand for "sterner boss?"
[...] could possibly wind up with an Oscar nomination at the end of the year now that the Academy has click for more var _wh = ((document.location.protocol==’https:’) ? “https://sec1.woopra.com” : [...]
I took a quick look at the book the movie is based on. At the end of the book Powell mentions that her brother spent 2004 campaigning for John Kerry in New Mexico. Beyond that, I don't know if the book mentions politics one way or the other.
Nice attempt at trying to minimize it but it wasn't said in a joking tone and the boss was competely serious when he said it. "Julie" appeared to understand that she was lucky that her "stern" boss wasn't an evil Republican as she would have been fired as Republican's have no heart. It was bashing, pure and simple. I am not easily offended, but this scene was gratutitous at best and completely out of place. Typical Hollywood Groupthink. . . .. As a business owner who has taken substantial pay cuts to keep my employees fully employed with busy work during these difficult times, I was offended.
Ah, I'm going to see this. It looks good.
Hollywood homosexuals and pedestrian homosexuals are quite a different breed. The one celebrates and pontificates the virtues of his or her perversion, the other understands the nature of their inner struggle and the necessity of divine redemption in light of all sin. Unfortunately it appears the only homosexuals Hollywood wants you to see are the kind without a conscience toward their sin. Hell, even petty thieves are characterized with some form of internal conflict. But then we still have to look at old Ms. Pinchface Streep!
In spite of the scattered F and S words and the pointless GOP bashing, my daughters and I loved this movie. Yes, Julie Powell is a whiny navel-gazer, but that's a pretty good description of that entire generation. Streep is practically engulfed in her performance as Julia Child, and I really did forget I was watching Streep. She became Julia in this movie. There were numerous laugh-out-loud moments for the nearly SRO crowd at the theater and very enthusiastic applause at the end. It was fun, sweet (minus the above caveats), and a great tribute to the glorious Julia Child.
I have to take issue with the "two stories well told" conclusion of Mr. Kozlowski. The only story worth seeing and well-told was the Julia Child story and that was primarily due to Ms. Streep. I know she's an idiot politically, but she's hysterical and wonderful as Julia Child – compulsively watchable. The Child stuff was a fun piece of fluff. But, it had structure – Child's unlikely apprenticeship and success at the Cordon Bleu and then the long road to writing her cookbook. Child comes across as this, frankly, ugly duckling who nevertheless loved life and – primarily because of her enthusiasm and generosity managed to have a wonderful, fulfilling life. What a concept!
The Julie Powell segments, although she too has a goal of cooking and then writing the blog, never had anything like the same sense of purpose. There are a few upsets with the meal preparation, (big surprise there) but no real obstacles and no sense of purpose or accomplishment. In the one fight between Powell and her husband it's not clear what has set it off & it's solved within about 3 minutes of screen time – one blog post by Ms. Powell.
This is the fault of the script. However, even if the script for the Powell part had been wonderful, I think Child would have absolutely overshadowed the Powell story. Part of it is Powell is just not that interesting. The other part is that Streep's Child sucks all the oxygen out of the picture. I wish it had been a movie only about Julia Child.
Streep is nominated for Supporting Actress (ahem, Female Actor) – are you kidding? If she's nominated, it will be for the lead role.
Also, only one of Julie's friends is a writer. The other is a real estate developer.
I do recommend this film as an enjoyable bit of fluff – for those who can relegate Ms. Streep's politicsd to the trash can where they belongg.
Just saw the movie. I was entertained for about the first hour and then got bored. The bits on anti-McCarthy and Republican bashing were total cheap shots. Streep was great as Child but the Powell stuff was just so-so. I recommend seeing it as a rental.
I don't like Julia Child demeaned in this pop culture trash.
I loved it, despite the (totally unnecessary) anti-McCarthy-isms and Republican bashing. Delete those and the movie would be a pure joy.
Btw, I don't watch awards shows just so I can enjoy the actors' movies.
…
[...] Sadat, the eldest daughter of the former president of Egypt, against the makers … Review: 'Julie & Julia'–Traditional Filmmaking With Traditional ValuesI was really excited about seeing this movie and had called my eldest daughter who is a real foodie [...]
I was enjoying the until the proverbial Hollywood Republican-bashing reared it's ugly head, as it often does through this medium. It was so obviously just thrown in there as a dig (not to flavor the writing, no pun intended), and perhaps to contribute to the social engineering of America. It was irrelevant and offensive and turned me off to the movie, the actors and the writer. In fact, half the country is Republican, so what are they trying to do – turn off half their audience? I lost my respect for Nora, who through this movie, has shown her "appetite" for bowing down to the Hollywood elite…
Her boss didn't say that if he were a Republican, he'd fire her. What he said was, "A Republican would fire you. I'm not a schmuck". The intention was clear: All Republicans are schmucks who would have fired her. This comment says more about the writer than it does about Republicans. I wonder, who is the real schmuck?
[...] Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood [...]
I wish I hadn't spent $ seeing this since it did bash a political party, which I find divisive for our troubled country right now. Streep's characterization of JC was strong but greatly undermined by Powell's weak depiction. Here is something we can all celebrate though (: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
You must be logged in to post a comment.