this is animal cruelty 🫠

Julie & Julia

As I was watching this film something bothered me. I began to suspect that it was because neither of the protagonists was appealing; here were two self-absorbed women, obsessed with their pet projects and supported by bland, indulgent husbands. Now literature is full of unappealing characters, but, in good literature, the author takes on the responsibility to deal with these characters' issues and make sense of them. That doesn't happen in Julie & Julia. We just watch the protagonists go through their motions and, I guess, we're supposed to applaud them. In the case of Julia Child, I think this is the result of the way she was presented in the screenplay—and this was an injustice to her. In the case of Julie Powell, I think the self-absorption is real and, judging from her actual blog, actually worse in real life. She is a woman who sought to gain notoriety by staging a clever stunt. Well, she achieved her aim, but I'm left wondering: "So what?" That's not the kind of person whose life I want to spend two hours contemplating. Should we make a film about the person who came up with the idea of a "Pet Rock"? In this film there was no character development, no depth in either the characters or the situations. I had heard of the marvels of Meryl Streep's portrayal of Julia Child. The problem was that it was all a caricature: at every moment you find yourself saying "Oh, that was clever how she captured this or that mannerism" or "Oh, she's wearing large shoes to capture Julia Child's mass." People say that the sign of a failed film score is when it draws attention to itself. I feel the same way about acting: when you find yourself noticing the cleverness of the actors rather than living the part with the character they're portraying, then I think they've failed. I felt vindicated for my negative feelings towards this film when, in the course of it, the real Julia Child expressed disapproval of Powell's stunt. Judith Jones, Julia Child's editor, stated: "Flinging around four-letter words when cooking, isn't attractive, to me or Julia. She didn't want to endorse it. What came through on the blog was somebody who was doing it almost for the sake of a stunt. She would never really describe the end results, how delicious it was, and what she learned. Julia didn't like what she called 'the flimsies.' She didn't suffer fools, if you know what I mean." (quoted at Wikipedia) "Flimsy" is a good way to describe this screenplay: it has no substance. What an injustice to Julia Child! If she disapproved of Powell's blog, one can only imagine what she would have thought of this film.

If you like movies about the life and times of hair stylists or nail manicurists or body masseurs or other types that create careers catering to the self-indulgent, then this movie is for you. Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins but you would never know that from watching this inane movie. The portrayal of Julia Childs can best be described in one word - inane. Ms. Childs is portrayed as being little more than a giggling, frumpish, frivolous woman with mannerisms that are so annoying as to cause one to wonder why anyone would have wanted to spend any time with her, not to mention want to sleep with her in the same bed. If the movie had just stayed with the "Julie" character it may have been at least watchable, but Meryl Streep's performance is a joke. It has to be her worst performance in a movie. Her gross overacting reduces the person of Julia Childs to that of a comic caricature, and frankly there is very little that one can find amusing about Julia Child's life, especially her focus on food. Was Julia Childs really a carefree spirit as the movie suggests? Ugh! Who cares? And what is worse, part of this movie is set in France, 1949, four years after the end of World War Two and frankly who cares about post war France? If you are a fan of Julia Childs, go buy one of her cook books and cook away, but to watch a movie about her, that's another story, and not an interesting one.

Film intercuts story of Julia Child in the 40s writing her first cookbook with Julie, a present-day New Yorker writing a blog in which she cooks each dish from a Child cookbook over a year. The Julia Child scenes themselves are excellent. Terrific evocation of the France of the era, and some wonderful scenes. The modern-day Julie scenes, however, are difficult to watch. Julie is a character without, as far as I can see, any particularly redeeming or even interesting characteristics. She is selfish, dishonest, and whiny. Other than fetishes for profanity and self-pity, it's not clear to me what's interesting about her. Had the Julie scenes been cut out entirely, the movie would have been better; had they been replaced by scenes with Julia Child, it would have been an excellent film.

OK, folks...if you like a couple of hours listening to sucking and gurgling sounds (and that's just the scenes of Julia Childs and Julie Powell sucking face with their husbands), then you'll love this movie. I mean, please...must we? Did the sound people put tiny microphones INSIDE the mouths of the actors? If that's not bad enough, director Ephron felt she had to include as many scenes as possible with people talking with their mouths full of food, licking fingers, etc. and with every sound effect that comes with such charming actions fully amplified, so we could appreciate every nuance of greasy, lip-smacking mastication. It sounds as if foley artists covered microphones with mashed potatoes and chicken fat and then had somebody chew on them while they recorded. Anyway, just make sure you're not eating something yourself while watching this or you may want to hurl. Funny how a movie that is intended to communicate the joy of cooking can cause such a total loss of appetite. Point two. My guess is that Ephron felt her favorite cutesy actress, Meg Ryan, was too old for the part of Julie, so Amy Adams was cast instead. I can imagine what went on during filming... Ephron: "OK, Cut! Amy, let's do that scene again. Only remember, you're suppose to do it exactly like Meg Ryan would have if she were playing the part!" Amy Adams: "I thought I was playing this Julie Powell chick." Ephron: "No, you're playing Meg Ryan being in a Nora Ephron film. Look, do you want a paycheck or not?" Oh, and sorry Meryl. The entire time I was sitting through this my mind kept telling me, "That's Meryl Streep trying very hard to come off as Julia Childs." So, take away the gross-you-out sound effects, the "I don't really give a damn what happens to these characters" story lines, Meg Ryan impersonation, and what do you have left? Well, for those who like bashing anything that is not liberal enough for Hollywood's taste, there's a line where Julie Powell's boss says "If I was a Republican you'd be fired." Wow, I'll bet it took Ephron days before she could came up with that perfectly hilarious and witty line to satisfy her political bitterness! This movie is completely lacking in any compelling, interesting or charming ingredients. Yes, an excellent recipe for a waste of time.

The moment that Julie flops on her bed, lamenting "Julia hates me!" is the only moment that made me credit writer/director Ephron with some small degree of insight and artistry, because in that moment Ephron acknowledges that Julie deserves no admiration for her kitchen marathon. Throughout the movie, it's obvious that the supremely accomplished Julia Child would never have respected Julie Powell for turning the former's masterpiece into the latter's superficial stunt. Streep is superb as Julia Child, playing her as she gloriously was, larger than life and full of vigor, making believable her passion for food and for cooking. Amy Adams is fine, too, but Julie is a thankless role. The most obvious problem: Only a fool would cook 524 recipes in 365 days, let alone 524 French haute cuisine dishes from a two- volume tome that, incidentally, isn't a simple cookbook. And by the way, Julie the fool would also have to be (1) wealthy enough to afford the rich and meaty ingredients and the well-equipped kitchen that the 524 recipes call for, and (2) willing to eat leftover boeuf Bourguignon or lamb stuffed with kidneys for breakfast or lunch. But let's just accept that Julie is a determined fool (and a wealthier one than she pretended). What I could not accept in Ephron's formulaic film or in Powell's original project is the fact that Julie never actually learns how to cook, or even seems to want to learn-- yet she miraculously succeeds in nearly every recipe the first time! She cooks by rote, more like an assembly-line worker at an auto plant than a creative chef. Hardly admirable, or believable.

The whole picture is weak - unbelievably weak. For starters, casting Stanley Tucci as Paul was puzzling. He came across as a sensitive guy - not someone who would be married to a woman who is portrayed as an idiot. Meryl Streep plays Julia Child as a buffoon - a cartoon of the real person. Ever looking like she can't focus her eyes, giggling, and making inane remarks as if in a drunken stupor. Dan Akroyd's skit which was hilarious on SNL in comparison to Streep's performance is more thoughtful and less offensive. The only scene which was believable and well done, was where Julia receives the letter from her sister. It was so weird: Paul is normal; Julia is an idiot, and Julie and her husband are bland, bland, bland. It's unbelievable that a woman as bland as Julie would devote so much time and effort to cooking. Julia Child must be turning over in her grave. Shame on Nora Ephron! The true star of the movie was the butter.

I have an idea for a zombie sequel with Julia Child. It goes like this: After Meryl Streep receives an Oscar for her ridiculous and insulting performance in the movie Julie & Julia, real Julia Childs rises from the grave as a zombie, with one mission: "must eat brains of Meryl Streep and Nora Ephron". So she breaks into the mansion of Nora Ehron, and realizes that Nora has no brain after all. Starving and frustrated, she captures Meryl Streep, and sautés her brain in fine sauce. She realizes that she has to publish new book: "Cooking Brains of Rich & Famous - Mainly Empty Calories". So she proceeds to collect brains of 99% of Hollywood, and develops recipes that will bring her the biggest fame known to mankind so far. It is important to emphasize that this is a non-violent movie where nobody dies, because all Julia's victims still continue functioning in their lives without brains, and nobody can tell difference. Bon Appétit!

Ephron and Streep have much to answer for. They turn Julia Child into a twittering, blithering idiot, the kind of irritating flibbertigibbet that makes you want to reach for a baseball bat and take a wild swing. Ephron is clearly not just sleepless in Seattle, but equally clueless in the kitchen. She has no feel for food, no sense of the indescribable joy of a great dish. Her screenplay is flat, the film's staging is sophomoric and the dialog inane. Where Chocolat brought us the sensuality of a patisserie, and Ratatouille celebrated the act of transforming ingredients into food -- an appeal to all the senses -- this film dumbs it down to some uber-Neanderthal level. The characters are unidimensional. Streep quacks like D. Duck. The ladies' relationships with their husbands make no sense. Ephron can't even get a kiss right -- the actors sound like suction cups. And just when you think it can't possibly get worse, there's Streep again, squeaking like wet rubber, lolling her head drunkenly and rolling her eyes. That's not acting. That's just stupid. The film insults your intelligence, tests your patience and desecrates food. And, by the way, Ms Ephron, it's not "boof bourguignon", it's "boeuf". Pronounced *berf*. You're better off spending the running time of the film over at epicurious.com.