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.
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.