Review of Julie & Julia (2009) by Paul S — 17 Mar 2011

Julia and Julie combines the efforts of two books, one the memoirs of Julia Child's experiences in Paris (with other bits included from her pen-pal writings), the other a self serving book penned by a woman who comes up with the gimmick of blogging about her efforts to produce all the 500 plus recipes in Julia Child's groundbreaking cookbook in one year.

The concept is interesting enough, and through the first half of the film it is certainly entertaining, as you get to meet Julie (a solid, if perhaps too sweet performance by Amy Adams), a bright woman of 29 who (as the film drills into your head constantly) has problems completing a project (like a half finished novel that she gave up on after receiving a single rejection letter).

On the flip side you are introduced to a force of nature - a former civil servant who is now married to another civil servant posted in Paris. This whirlwind who seems to savor every moment of life frankly could not have been portrayed by anyone other than the incomparable Meryl Streep. To say that she nailed the role, down to all the mannerisms and that one of a kind voice, is an understatement.

The film moves back and forth, from Julia to Julie, showing a generational gap with a bit of feminism thrown in for good measure. I suppose that screenwriter and director Nora Ephron was intending to show that both these women were of the same silk - but it certainly didn't play that way. Julia's story of bringing French Cuisine to the American kitchen is simply her desire to do SOMETHING. Fortunate enough to be supported by her husband she is shown, in a series of humorous vignettes, to be searching for something to do to fill her days. Having had an appreciation for good food, she discovers her passion for cooking and presenting it as well - and has the brass to enroll in the professional chef's class at the famed Cordon Bleu school. Her competitive drive kicks in and the rest is history (of course with a few bumps along the way).

Julie, however, is portrayed as a very bright woman filled with self-doubt, who stumbles upon a nifty gimmick and then challenges herself to stay the course, becoming so obsessed that she all but forsakes her relationship with her husband. This is the generational gap I was referring to. On one hand, you have a woman supported by her husband's job, who is given the opportunity to pursue her "hobby", while on the other you have a working woman, broadsided by the feminist expectations that have molded her into a self centered "all about me" girl. I found this juxtaposition interesting for a time, and, along with the tales being told, it held my interest throughout most of the film.

I say "most of the film" because as it progresses the film losses momentum. The Child's story becomes more of a biopic, with several totally unnecessary scenes (Julia's sister's wedding comes to mind), while the Julie story begins to become simply tiresome and predictable. As both stories begin to meander, it gave me ample time to contemplate the overriding incongruity of the Julie story. Here is a young couple, living in small apartment above a pizza parlor, and yet able to come up with the coin to produce 1.5 recipes per day for an entire year. Never mind that Julie works full time and seldom gets home before 6 or 7 pm each night - and that most of the Child's recipes take a great deal of time to prepare and cook - I guess midnight meals are not a problem for modern day New Yorkers? And never mind that a great deal of the ingredients needed for these recipes won't be found at the corner bodega. And certainly never mind that Julie somehow is able to work all day, cook all night, find time to shop for ingredients, and still has time to write a blog - guess New York has 40 hour days.

It also struck me that Child's great book is a testimony for the time in which it was written (the 50's). At that point most women did not inhabit the work force, so had ample time to prepare these scrumptious meals for their working hubby. My marital unit and I both enjoy cooking, but save the Child book for weekends, when we have time to execute the recipes.

In a final note, I found Stanley Tucci to be totally wasted as Child's husband. He does nothing more than smile her way with affection - a kind of feminist and myopic view that became more off-putting as the film progressed, reducing Tucci to reactionary "gee whiz" statements.

My final diagnosis: a solid 6, simply based on Streep's portrayal and a few humorous moments that take place in the first half of the film. The film goes on way too long and becomes cornered by it's own conventions, though I don't feel that these conventions made it necessary to have included any of the scenes that occurred after Julia left Paris - nor half of the refusal scenes portrayed as she tried to get her book published. This all took the Child story, which was funny and fascinating for the first half, and sunk it into a run of the mill biography. At least the film had the smarts to include the wonderful Child parody by Dan Akroyd on the old Saturday Night Live - those early days were magical. I should also mention that the film has some god aweful sound editing - the voice dubbing is almost japanese voice over terrible.