As French fades in importance as an international language, my knowledge of that Romanic language serves me less well than it might have when I first started studying it. To be sure, I can still read French literature in the original. And haven’t had to rely on translations of some of the scholarship relevant to my dissertation. But, last night, it came in handy when I watched Nora Ephron‘s Julie & Julia, her new flick starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams–and not to understand any of the dialogue or read any of the signs.
Knowing the language, however, I could better appreciate how wonderfully atrocious was Julia Child’s (Streep) French. Every time she tried to speech the one-time langauge of literature, art and love, I laughed perhaps louder than anyone else in the auditorium. Streep was clearly having a ball showing that despite Child’s mastery of French cuisine, she could never really master the French language.
Streep’s performance was the best thing about a largely haphazard movie. The blending between the two stories, that of Child learning to cook and becoming the celebrated chef and of Julie Powell’s (Adams) gaining her fame in blogging about her experiences cooking 524 of Child’s recipes in 365 days did not really flow. Indeed, the movie (like most contemporary comedies) seemed a series of vignettes grouped around a common theme.
Amy Adams made the best of a a clunkily written part with scenes set in 2002-03 New York that don’t seem to represent exchanges that could occur between actual human beings, saved those living in the imaginary realm of feminist writers. None of the men had lives or personalities outside of their relationship to the leading women. We didn’t even know that Powell’s husband Eric (Chris Messina) had a job until he walked out on her (for reasons that just didn’t seem believable.) In short, the tension between Julie and Eric seemed contrived. And their reconciliation fake.
Stanley Tucci‘s Paul Child seems similarly devoid of personal life or human passions. And since it was his being posted to American embassy in Paris (he was some kind of diplomat) that led Child to discover the art of French cooking, you’d think they might have explored that a little more.
And then there was a gratuitous slap against Republicans, apparently de rigeur in Hollywood movies. (And no, this wasn’t the McCarthy stuff.) Such barbs against Republicans for the sake of having a barb against Republicans shows what we conservatives are up against in contemporary culture. It’s just seen as retrograde to be a Republican.
Now that I’ve harped on the movie’s flaws–and there were many–let me say that despite its disjointed, haphazard nature, it was well worth the cost of the ticket, if primarily for Streep’s performance. She is absolutely delicious as Julia Child. Clearly, she had fun with the part. And she’s really quite funny. I expect her to receive another Oscar nomination.
Now, perhaps, I’m being a little harsh on the movie. It was afterall, an über-chick flick. The audience seemed overwhelmingly female, with the only straight men there accompanied by wives of girlfriends, men clearly expecting something in return for treating their significant others to this feminine indulgence.
UPDATE: Over at Anti-Republican Culture, Howard Towt details the anti-Republican scenes, offering, “But they are there, and they are purposeful.” Read the whole thing.
Will you be buying a copy of Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking? You should add it to your existing library of books.
Just what I need–another book!
🙂
You absolutely need another book. Everybody is always in need of another book. 🙂
When I first heard about it, I was concerned about how Streep was going to pull it off. Judging from the ads, she seems to play Julia well.
Which is why Joel and I went to a local live theater production last night and not to that movie.
I’ll see it latter this week with girlfriends.
TGC, Meryl does indeed play Julia well, quite well.
Leah, you truly are an understanding wife. I’m sure Joel appreciates this more than he will acknowledge. And you’ll probably enjoy it more seeing it with girlfriends.
I can barely speak French, but I did have a French professor in college who, even I could recognize had a terribly American-sounding accent. I wonder if I’d be able to notice anything unusual in this film. (I imagine I will wait for it to appear on Netflix, though.)
Just got back from seeing “Julie and Julia” and immediately googled “politics in Julie and Julia.” Politics is what ruined what could have been a very delightful film. And I did enjoy 99% of the movie, however, the gratuitous, holier than thou use of politics was unexplainable (except, perhaps the McCarthy parts, but the movie failed to put that into proper historical context; Hollywood likes to have two or three McCarthy movies a year and this is certainly filling that quota). The drive home from the theater was not a happy reflection of great scenes, but instead was a grumpy “how come politics invaded this movie.” Streep was wonderful and will probably get an Oscar, but I agree, the men were utterly neglected. And if Julie hated her job so much, why didn’t she just get a new job? Or at least transfer to another government agency, since she was already in the government system (no, I didn’t read the book. I wanted to, but now I don’t because of the passive aggressive politics shown in this movie. Petty, I know…) In sum, yes, it was a good movie, but yet another example of the growing cultural and political division that is occurring in this country.
Speaking as an amateur chef and a watcher of “Julia Child” since the 1970s, thanks for a great review! I’ll wait until it gets to either Netflix or Dish On Demand.
Bon appetit! 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Lucky me met Julia Child once and I have an autographed copy of Cooking at Home. I also had a photograph of the two of us taken at the moment I told her she taught me how to cook and I was still throwing stuff on the floor! Her head was thrown back in a roar of laughter. Alas the photograph disappeared during the move after ex and I split some years ago.
Hmmm. If Meryl Streep does win an Oscar for this role, it will be the first instance of 2 women each getting an Oscar for a role in a different movie with the same title. Vanessa Redgrave won a supporting actress award for her turn in 1977’s Julia (a victory notorious for her infamous “Zionist hoodlums” speech at the ceremony).
Look at the bright side… at least it’s not “G.I. Joe”. God, that was horrible. The CGI looks more fake than the special effects from “The Lost Saucer”! Channing Tatum, cute as he may be, pouts through the whole movie. That is the extent of his acting range. Granted, he does have GREAT blow-job lips, but still, that only works if you think you have a chance of getting a blow-job. How bad is this movie…. ice sinks. It stinks.
pouts through the whole movie.
I could watch Josh Hartnett do that.
#10 – I also have an autographed copy of Julia’s “Cooking with Master Chefs” book that Mom got me at Christmas 1994. Besides Julia’s autograph, I also have an autograph from Houston chef Robert Del Grande. (He was a hottie back in the day!)
PS – Mark, don’t worry about the spillage from sauteeing. It takes practice not to make it all go over the stove.
Anyone want to trade recipes? 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I thought Meryl deserved an Oscar for Mamma Mia! I still don’t want her to win as many Oscars as Katherine Hepburn, though, who I think is the greatest actress ever.
#15 – Are you serious? She can’t carry a tune in a bucket!
Streep has been at her best in period pieces, specifically World War II or therabouts. She still has me crying in “Sophie’s Choice,” as well as her portrayal in “Holocaust.”
But I agree somewhat with Hepburn. Though for my money, Bette Davis is the consummate actress. (Helen Mirren a close second.)
Regards,
Peter H.
How odd–an argument about Bette Davis vs. Katherine Hepburn on a gay discussion board.
Philadelphia Story vs. All About Eve, anyone?