Julie and Julia

My last entry on this blog was over a year ago, so rather obviously I'm not seeing that many films.

Only about 5% are made for adults -- and most of those don't appeal to me either.

For me, this film could have been reduced to a ten minute show of Meryl Streep impersonating Julia Childs: the high pitched, goofy laugh and the obvious bemusement with a large, ungainly body.

Beyond that -- I despise its premise -- i.e. the quest for self fulfillment via fame and recognition -- i.e. the typical American "Star is born" narrative -- and the consequent marginalization of the actual art with which the star is involved.

Was Julia Childs really a master cook? She never worked as a professional chef (at least in this story) -- and went straight from chef school to teaching and then writing a recipe book.

She's presented as a big hearted, somewhat goofy, happy free spirit --- and that's a personal style that I suppose deserves the emulation that Julie gave it (as if young Julie, the blogger, were watching the Meryl Streep segments of the movie right along with us, instead of just reading a cook book)

But the climactic moment in this film is Julia receiving a copy of her first published book , while Julie getting contract offers for hers . It's not preparing a great meal or mentoring a great student.

And all the other aspects of both Julie and Julia's lives are washed out background -- including their sweet, supportive husbands and annoying parents.

"What am I going to do with my life?" -- the middle aged housewife (Julia) or recent recent college graduate mired in a nowhere job (Julie) might ask.

"Try to get famous" is the answer this movie provides.

Atonement by Joe Wright

We should have walked out on this one -- as soon as we were overwhelmed by it's heavy handed combination of guilt, sexuality, class, and artsiness. But doesn't hope spring eternal ? (and we so badly wanted to have an evenings entertainment -- having waited several months for something like an adult movie to arrive at our local cinema)

(I am now swearing an oath -- to never again buy tickets to a movie set in an upper class mansion with a sexy working class maintenance man who wants to be a doctor)

Nothing made sense -- and isn't that Aristotle's first rule for a good tragedy ?

And -- there was no character development --- i.e. the two lovers were just as unreal as a 12 year old novelist would make them.

Perhaps that's the point of the movie --- that this is a precocious 12 year old's vision of the world -- with horrible sex and horrible death and adults who are incomprehensible -- but who can sit through 120 minutes of that ?


And I can't believe the film got so many positive reviews!

Except for A. O. Scott in the New York Times -- whose opinions I will now be looking for.

He wrote that "The film, after a tantalizing start, sputters to a halt in a welter of grandiose imagery and hurtling montage." -- although I would hardly agree that the stiffling sense of boredom and repressed sexuality in the beginning scenes was all that tantalizing.

I can't believe the film maker really expected his audience to care about the two lovers -- especially whether they would ever get together again ( or even whether they would live or die)

And I can't believe that he cared either -- so there's just something monumentally cynical about the entire project.