Reviews

I was eight years old when this film came out. I never got to see it then but had a comic book version which I read over and over again: I loved the story, the characters, the illustrations. So, I thought that after 50 years I should finally check out the film. I was sorely disappointed. The acting (Judy Garland, Robert Goulet, Red Buttons, Hermione Gingold, etc.) is excellent but although the orchestral background music is nice, the lyrics to the songs are embarrassingly banal. And while the drawings are fine, the animation is really poor. It reminds one of the static (limited animation) Hanna-Barbera technique. A story like this, with a star-studded cast, deserved much more than this. I think an interesting project would be to retain the soundtrack and the drawings, but bring the latter to life with modern animation techniques. One wants to experience the breadth and depth of Paris, the mystery of the felines crawling through sewers, down alleyways and over housetops, the thrill of a ship sailing rough seas to the Arctic. As it is now, it's all flat.

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.

I used to enjoy watching this film on TV as a teenager back in the late 60s. Not having seen it since then, I bought the DVD a couple of years ago to see if it still held up to my memories.

When I first started watching, I cringed at all these 18th-century "Frenchmen" speaking with twangy American accents. But, after about 5 minutes, you get used to it and enjoy the fun. What one realizes, after all, is that ANY historical film is not telling you so much about the period in which it is set as it is telling you about the period in which it was made. And, so, Scaramouche captures the self-confidence, the unashamed glamor, the bravura of the U.S. after World War II. This is a costume-drama at its best. Stewart Granger, Eleanor Parker, Janet Leigh, Mel Ferrer are all perfectly cast.

A great movie is loved for its memorable "moments"—and Scaramouche is full of them: the "revelation scene," the Marquis pinned to the wall, André and Leonore's poignant farewell, etc.

The film owes much of its success to the superb score by Victor Young. He manages to capture the spirit of the 18th century, but in a "Hollywood" guise. He provides delightful humor in the various commedia dell'arte skits but reaches Romantic heights with his soaring strings in the revelation scene. Victor Young was known for his gift in composing beautiful tunes. This gift is particularly evident in Scaramouche.

I've always thought this would be a good film to show problem kids in a group home: the film presents great values of friendship, loyalty, love and self-sacrifice (among a group of convicts) and the possibility of "redemption" through these values. The story is melodramatic (bordering on operatic!) but, if you accept the old-fashioned style of movie-making, it really works. As with all classic films, this is one you can watch over and over for the aesthetics as well as for the story. The acting is fine. The ONLY thing in the film that doesn't hold up, in my opinion, is the scene through the jungle with Frank Sinatra carrying the blind girl on his back: it looks a bit comical to a modern viewer.