JULIE & JULIA (Nora Ephron 2009)

[tabuno]

Finally the IMDb ratings have settled down and the gender difference has narrowed somewhat, but the rating has increased since the movie came out - it's up to now 7.8. Nevertheless there's a measurable difference with females more positive in their rating. I would be interested reading about any differences in reviews of this movie based on the gender of the movie critic. Unfortunately, I don't have time to conduct such a study, but I'm wondering if part of the movie review problem is based on sexism or not. My presumption would be that male movie critics look at this movie more rationally and technically while female movie critics might review the movie from a more emotional, feeling basis. Males might judge this movie on its consistency in presentation between the two stories incorporated into this movie while females might reflect on how each story made them feel and how the characters and storyline felt as opposed to contrast both of them together.

[oscar jubis]

Your theory is not without interest. It appears that females rate this film a bit higher than male viewers. But I couldn't find evidence that the reviews by female critics are appreciatively different than reviews by male ones. Hope to catch this on Saturday if I have time for the a.m. show. My shift at the Cosford is 1 to 10 p.m. and we're not showing J&J.

[Chris Knipp]

A simpler way to say this is that it's a chick flick. But a good chick flick is also a good date movie, and this one is. It's also true that men like to cook and the most famous cooks are men. Gay men do not fit into these demographic categories. As a gay man I don't look at a 'chick flick' in the obvious male way but surely sophisticated straight men mostly don't either. I have perused a number of reviews but have not noticed that men have a lower opinion of Julie & Julia it than women. An experienced film critic learns how to judge a movie on its inherent merits regardless of the audience it may appear to be made for. In Julie & Julie, as I've noted, there are two important men and two good marriages central to both halves of the split narrative. Without Paul's assignment he and Julia would not have even lived in France, and Julie Powell would hardly have made it through a year of cooking complicated French recipes wihout her husband to cook for, her husband who be patient and supportive, as Paul was to Julia too. So it's a positive movie about men and women as well as a movie about the empowerment of aspiring writers who happen to be women, and both of whose lives revolve around Juiia Child and her Mastering the Art of French Cooking. If the movie has a positive effect, it will be to get people back to consulting and tring those recipes, which had a lot to do with American's increased sophistication about cuisine since the Fifties. How ironic that during this same period, Americans have also become horribly fat and gorged on cheap, unhealthy fast food!

[cinemabon]

Ironic as well that Julie Powell pointed out how she had gained weight following Child's recipies. French cooking notoriously uses abundant amounts of goose fat, butter, cream, and other sources of saturated fat to add "value" (as the French say) to their dishes. At least, this was the style of French cooking from the classical Cordon Bleu school, a style no longer taught.

Even Julia Child noted in her later work that sophisticated cooking has changed in the last fifty years. The emphasis on animal fats has changed over to vegetable sources (oils and margarines). Look at chefs like Mario and Emeril, who have ballooned in size as we've watched them in past decade. The newer chefs have a leaner look and use ingredients with far less saturated fat.

I started my interest in French cooking many years ago, when my aunt and uncle returned from living in France for fourteen years after WWII. The year was 1959, and my uncle made chicken livers basted in a heavy cream sauce. I can still recall the taste - unbelievable. It was also the first time I tasted wine. While he ultimately became a wine merchant, I never did acquire a taste for the stuff (although I tried many, many times). Staying at their home was always an adventure, as they cooked like Child without ever having read her book. In the 1980's, I toured America with a friend of mine who spoke fluent French (my French is terrible). We dined at some wonderful French restaurants and ate very well. However, this was during the period when some in France began to rebell against the traditional style of cooking. Mostly it depended on your region... Lyon versus Marseilles and so on.

I could relate to "Julie and Julia" as a writer, as a gourmand, and as a married person. I did not need to have a feminine side. I did not reach into my emotional side. I found many points of interest that related to my life and history. I like the film. I'm sorry some did not. In my mind, the film is the best movie I've seen this year... the quality of the photography, the sound, the direction, the acting, and the writing tell me so. I know quality when I see it and when I taste it. I liked the taste of "Julie and Julia."

[Chris Knipp]

Nice that you got in on French cooking almost around the time Julia's book came out. Too bad you missed out on wine, though. Ideally good French food requires the accompaniment of good French wine. I think it was in the Eighties that "la nouvelle cuisine" or "cuisine minceur" (slimming cuisine) came in in France. But anyway generally I think the French have not eaten too much and are not fat. You will never see a stylish woman in Paris who is not thin. They have pastries only occasionally. Nonetheless the reduction (in the more common, not the cooking, sense) of creme and butter content in French food is an obvious healthy develoopment. I have a cookbook that belonged to my mother about the cooking and menus of FILLIPINI OF DELMONICO'S , a New York restuarant of the Victorian era, that shows the fabulously excessive meals the the wealthy consumed in the 1880's.

Of course you do not have to have a feminine side to relate to fine cooking, fine wine, and this film. As I said, men are the best cooks. That has to mean they read cookbooks. And so if they are Americans with a sense of modern culinary history they must be interested in Julia Child and MASTERING THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING.

I like the film too. You have to understand that my criticisms are determined by my need to examine it as a film. This doesn't mean that the content in it, or a good part of that, don't give me pleasure and interest me. It's very much worth seeing and one one of the summer's more adult pictures, and one that brought me together with a group of good friend to see it, but it is not the most exciting or best of the summer. See the INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS thread for that.

[tabuno]

As less than a food expert and more focused on the humanity of movies, I probably have a stronger affiliation on the interaction of characters in movies than on the more topical contents of the movie itself when I experience films. Thus, some of my top preferences for films have included strong relational themes (that also implies the emotional component revealed the films). Hopefully such a perspective examines a universal backdrop to many movies, though hopefully, I don't overlook the technical components of film-making.

So with these two movies while I enjoyed the food element, I noticed the humanity of the couples in this movie even more. My link to my August 5, 2009 post concerning relational movies:
Relational Movie Post.

[oscar jubis]

I finally watched J&J today and I'm sorry to say the film failed to evoke a strong opinion or feeling from me. I don't feel, as Chris and some critics do, that the Julia half is significantly better than the Julie half. I just think this opinion originates from the fact that Julia is the more readily likable of the two women and the one who actually accomplished something of importance. It doesn't hurt that post-War Paris is a lot more charming and photogenic than post-9/11 Queens. Actually, the Julie half has the advantage that there is some conflict in her marriage to muster some dramatic frisson. However, the Julia half get some pathos from her husband becoming a victim of McCarthyism.

Overall, I found little to get excited about. Obviously cinemabon feels otherwise given that he considers it the best movie of the year thus far. I never felt I was watching a film that is extraordinary in any way. Just a pleasantly well-made, mildly interesting one. As far as "foodie films" go, I'd rather watch BABETTE'S FEAST, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, or TAMPOPO. However, both Streep and Adams give appealing performances and I'm glad I watched their second film together.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with all of your points; and one or two critics have mentioned BABETTE'S FEAST and a couple other food films more worthy of being remembered.

I don't believe I ever said the JULIA half is "significantly better than" the JULIE half.

The only trouble with . . .Julie & Julia, is that it's totally lopsided. There's one half that we'd love to have much more of, and another we could quite easily do without.

I never said "better." I meant that it is stronger, more appealing, for the same reasons you give here -- that JULIA is a stronger personality and a more important person and France in the Fifties and Sixties is a more appealing background. Your comment that the JULIE c onflict with the husband adds interest fits in with mine that good people (and perfect marriages)_ are less interesting than wicked or problematic ones like the mean Miranda Priestly in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA. Not that the latter is a better film in itself. The famous opening line of ANNA KARENINA: Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Nora Ephron is a mediocre middlebrow director. However this is an enjoyable film and I would expect you to mention that the scenes with JULIA are delightful. In a summer of the usual blockbusters and some real downers like COLD SOULS or DISTRICT 9, here is something upbeat and civilized. But not brilliant and challenging, no.

[oscar jubis]

I don't believe I ever said the JULIA half is "significantly better than" the JULIE half. I never said "better." I meant that it is stronger, more appealing, for the same reasons you give here
I'm sorry I misrepresented your point of view.

However this is an enjoyable film and I would expect you to mention that the scenes with JULIA are delightful.
I really liked the two scenes that include Jane Lynch, who plays Dorothy, Julia's sister. I got bored with scenes involving "the three musketeers" and the issue of who's going to get credit for the book that never got published. Some scenes with JULIE are not quite delightful but rather interesting because of the tension between Adams' natural appeal and her character's less than admirable qualities.

Here is something upbeat and civilized. But not brilliant and challenging, no.
Right.

[tabuno]

When Chris states that the Julia half of the movie is "strong, more appealing" but doesn't mean "better" I find little to agree with such a notion that "more appealing" doesn't mean "better." It's fascinating that Chris would make such a strong distinction when one of Chris' preferences for likely "more appealing" characters likely requires being "wicked or problematic" over being a good person. These fine distinctions, more appealing, better, wicked over good person are at one point simplistic judgments that overlook the more layered and subtle possibilities of quality film-making and at the same time creating an artificial significant difference over what seem to be the same generalized category of good or bad movies that in essence describe the same definition of good or bad, better or worse.

Like with LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003), one doesn't necessarily need a problematic or wicked personality to experience a meaningful or deeply moving movie. Personally, what's important in a movie is its ability to relate to some life connection, be it fantasy (problematic or wicked) or reality (which may only require an association with a personal experience that doesn't necessarily depict wickedness or problematic person). I believe sometimes that "good people" make the best characters. Too often America seems obsessed with deranged, Hannibal-like characters to give our movie experiences the ultimate high. Sometimes like with Buddhist tenets, watching a sun rise can be as awesome as the creation of the universe.

[Chris Knipp]

Oscar:I wouldn't say you misrepresented my point of view. It may not have been clear. I was just clarifying for myself as much as for you.

Everybody loves the Jane Lynch sequence. I saw that and thought I should have said more about it. But it didn't stick with me that much. That's not a criticism of it or Jane Lynch though. Evidently she is a fine comic actress. I take your point about getting "bored with scenes involving 'the three musketeers' and the issue of who's going to get credit for the book that never got published." That was indeed an unduly lengthy footnote and the time could have been better used. On the other hand, if you see this as a film about writing, it does present an important aspect, the slow process of arriving at a text. But it sure interrupted the bubbly-ness. The fact that Louisette Bertholle didn't really contribute and had to be edged out could have been covered in less time.

[Chris Knipp]

tabuno:These fine distinctions, more appealing, better, wicked over good person are at one point simplistic judgments that overlook the more layered and subtle possibilities of quality film-making and at the same time creating an artificial significant difference over what seem to be the same generalized category of good or bad movies that in essence describe the same definition of good or bad, better or worse.

I don't know exactly what all this means, but I have to take issue with being called "simplistic" when I am simply writing in the shorthand of forum posts. My quotation from Tolstoy's famous opening line "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," points to an idea that is universally acknowledged (granting that in forums nobody universally acknowledges anything, or admits to doing so): that trouble is more interesting as a subject than serenity and goodness and happiness. Of course the actual working-out of details in a story, play, poem, or fillm are complex and nuanced.

"More appealing" doesn't mean artistically better. The fact that the JULIA segment makes more of an impression doesn't mean that it's "better" artistically than the JULIE segment.

I did not say that to be "appealing" a character must be "wicked." Of course not.
JULIA CHILD is enormously "appealing," and from most reports, she was also a good person. Wicked people are not necessarily "appealing" at all. Satan in Paradise Lost isn't "appealing." But he's an enormously interesting character. It's hard to make angels as interesting in a story or a film. So I find Miranda Priestly more interesting than Julia Child, comparing Meryl Streep's two recent performances. That's all I'm saying.

[tabuno]

Chris is probably one of the most involved and well-versed in films as anybody I've come across on the Web. How he finds the time to discuss almost literally every film that has come out is beyond me. But sometimes, by having to cover so much territory, his commentary can be stretched into shorter and both more signficant or less significant observations. This discussion about problematic and happy families made realize that perhaps too often movies and our culture have promoted the standard of the negativity to the point that it has become a part of our lexicon of more "appealing" movies. We enjoy the challenge of overcoming the negative instead of being able to bask in the "simplicity" of being - Koyaanisqatsi (1983) - that sublimally suggested an imbalance of life instead of having to dissect it with hard edges and loud performances and narrative. What might be more amazing is a director who can take the normal, mundane of real life and turn it into something entertaining and captivating. Like with comedy, such accomplishments are often overlooked as opposed to the more highly dramatic performances which in some ways require less effort or talent.

As for "appealing" and "better" movies, having observed the popularity of movies that seem to appeal to audience while perhaps lacking in technical and directorial finesse seems to confirm Chris' distinction between appealing movies (those that attract and captivate an larger audience) and those "better" movies that fail to attract and appeal to people but which have been technically superior in composition, performances, script, and effort. What appeals to people doesn't necessary result from the quality of the movie, it seems Chris is saying.

One of the intriguing dramatic storylines in this movie for me was the efforts of publishing Julia's book and like THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, book publishing in the context of food preparation only heightened the visceral thrill of experiencing movie with more depth and value as the book in some ways, in both stories Julia and Julie became a backbone of the movie.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for your kind remarks.

I think I'm in the middle ground on this. I don't seek out dark or negative movies nor do I think they best represent life or are the best ones.

What might be more amazing is a director who can take the normal, mundane of real life and turn it into something entertaining and captivating. Like with comedy, such accomplishments are often overlooked as opposed to the more highly dramatic performances which in some ways require less effort or talent.

You're absolutely right there. However, taking "he normal, mundane of real life and turn it into something entertaining and captivating" doesn't necessarily mean making a happy story. Sometimes, sometimes not.

Moreover, I repeat the Tolstoy "happy families...unhappy families" distinction. Storytellelrs usually begin with a problem. The Iliad: the anger of Achilles. The Odyssey: Odysseus is lost, far from home. Sties and films thus can rarely bask in "the simplicity of being"; that is not very often good material for literature or cinema.

But on the other hand, comedy and lighthearted or easy or calm stories like those in the films of Renoir or Rohmer can make wonderful movies. I certainly enjoyed JULIE & JULIA. I just can't personally consider it as one of the best films of the year, that's all.

What appeals to people doesn't necessary result from the quality of the movie, it seems Chris is saying.

Well, I don't know about that. On the one hand, the fact that a movie is popular certainly is no guarantee of its merit. But I would hope that the public can sometimes respond with enthusiasm to a great movie, and it clearly does. Just not every time.

[cinemabon]

The reason I chose this film (as opposed to "foreign" entries which are not widely distributed in America, but might be better films) for being the "best picture of the year" to date, is because the overall quality of the film is vastly superior to the wham-bam, whiz-bang, CGI offerings that have crowded the marketplace. This is a simple film, of how an awkward woman finds her place in the world and excells to where she becomes a household name. I find nothing ordinary or mundane about that.

The story of the other woman, while full of conflict with the husband and counterpoint to her wealthy friends, is a comic balance to the first woman. Both love food, yes, but both are rather awkward in a humorous way that appeals to the same quality we find in all of us. I can tell you personally, that when I started to "cook" for my family, we ate terrible meals. I had an imagination that only extended as far as Kraft macaroni and cheese. I threw out a box yesterday that was three years old in my pantry. That was the last time I used "boxed" mac and cheese. I make practically everything from scratch and love to shop at our local farmer's market. Cooking is as much art as painting or poetry.

Raleigh is far from the madding crowd. We have one, yes one theater in town that shows "foreign or independent" films. Chapel Hill (home of UNC) has two. That is about thirty minutes away. However, we have a 16 screen megaplex basically across the street. Therefore, I am not connected to my college roots any longer and must rely on commercial releases for my film entertainment (I'm not into Netflix... sorry). As far as I can recall, "Julie and Julia" pushes previous releases from this year's list off the table into the verticle file. I'm certain Oscar will set me straight.