JULIE & JULIA (Nora Ephron 2009)

[Chris Knipp]

Nora Ephron: JULIE & JULIA (2009)

Review by Chris Knipp

Better at the first blush than the long follow-through

The only trouble with the otherwise charming and very well acted new Nora Epron movie, 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. This is several great performances, but only half of a great movie.

This happens because of two gimmicks, neither of which seems particularly brilliant. Julie Powell, an ambitious and frustrated woman in Queens who wanted to escape her job and become a writer, in the year 2002 devised the gimmick of preparing all the 500-some recipes of Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking in 365 days and describing the process in a blog. And now Ms. Ephron has devised her own gimmick of splicing scenes from the book made from this blog together with scenes from Julie Child's book, My Life in France, which takes place mostly in the late Forties and Fifties. The cookbook came out in 1961, and at the end there's a scene set then when the book comes in the mail to the Childs' house in America. Ms. Ephron takes a questionable step in choosing to toggle back and forth between scenes in the life of Julia child -- an American icon with a revolutionary effect on American sophistication about food, whose life in post-war France was glamorous and amusing -- and the drab outer borough strivings of Julie Powell. Though Amy Adams, who plays Powell, is cute and appealing and even subtle, her scenes can hardly hope to compete with the ones celebrating Meryl Streep's joyous, irrepressible version of Julia Child.

Chris Messina, who plays Julie Powell's husband Eric, again is appealing -- both stories concern good marriages with understanding husbands who nurtured their wives' difficult paths to fame and success -- but he can hardly compete with the likes of Staney Tucci as Paul Child, Julia's husband. Tucci and Streep are a already a team, though there could hardly be more of a contrast between their roles this time and their earlier triumph in The Devil Wears Prada, in which Meryl plays the ice queen fashion mag maven and Stanley plays her very gay right-hand man.

Julia Child is a character full of joie de vivre, an enthusiast fazed by nothing and nobody. It must be admitted that, force of nature though Streep's Julia is, and delightful though it is to watch the scenes in which she wrestles with the mean Paris Cordon Bleu woman director Madame Brassart (played by former French Vogue editor Joan Juliet Buck), or delights in restaurant food, or gets sexy with her husband, or bones a goose or flops an omelette, the fascination of evil is such that Streep's Miranda Priestly is even more fun to watch in Prada. Guilty pleasures are the best and nice characters finish last.

There is a failure in Ephron's pleasing but bland writing here too. Her protagonist might have had a bracing dash of wickedness in her. There are obvious hints -- even in the end of the film itself -- that the real Julia child could have snits or be pretty darn mean, for all her ebullience. When Julie's blog gets publicized, Julia disapproves of the whole project, as if to say that the important half of this movie has no use for the other half. In her dramatization of the Forties-Fifties-Sixties Julia Child (the later periods quickly rushed through) Ephron doesn't dare show us that -- though successfully pumping up the comedy when Julia's even taller sister Dorothy (Jane Lynch) comes for a visit and quickly finds a husband.

Nor does Ephron dare show all the depths and shallows of Ms. Powell's year-long struggle with an increasingly impatient husband and a heartbreaking job with the Lower Manhattan Development. We know from the screen version that Julie burned her Bœuf bourguignon and lost some aspic. But out of 524 recipes in 365 days, more must have gone wrong than that.

The value of this film remains the very real though partial one that Streep is wonderful to watch. So is Tucci, so reassuring, like a well-tailored suit. Streep's Julia towers (the original was 6'2"), a large, robust woman with a lusty chuckle, and she has a "flutey" voice that stays high but has a hearty lower note in her famous, almost threatening way of exclaiming "Bon appétit!" The way she sang that out at the end of her hugely successful cooking TV show, The French Chef (which Ephron and Streep also recreate) seemed silly but irresistible. The woman had such fun! She loved life. Streep's impersonation isn't meant to be an exact one, but you buy it. Her character comes to life, even if the film depicts her by playing only on a few bubbly notes.

The best times in the film are the early ones, when Paul and Julia first arrive in France in November of 1948, because he's been posted to Paris in a State Department job (they met while jointly serving in the OSS in China). The film nicely captures that magic moment when they savor sole meunière swimming in butter in a restaurant in Rouen, and she tells Paul to taste it and he just says, "I know. I know." In retrospect, these moments, and Julia's cooking triumphs, seem frustratingly few, as the film goes on to schematically work through her struggles to put together a French cookbook for Americans in collaboration with Simone Beck (Linda Emond) and the lazy Louisette Bertholle (Helen Carey). Movies, especially the kind that constantly interrupt themselves, are better at showing us the first blush than the long follow-through. But Julia child, who was more serious and less exclamatory than Streep's appealing impersonation reveals, was not only a great enthusiast but a methodical and determined person, with the patience and the reverence for quality that any practitioner of the art of French cuisine must have.

[cinemabon]

I'm sorry Chris but I disagree with your premise that the film is lopsided. I found the two stories very congruous. To me, the film is mostly about writing (although certainly cooking is forefront)... in the case of Julia Child, she longed to pursue something that took being childless off her mind. After she pursued a number of failed hobbies, she happened on cooking. As a side light, the idea of a cook book finally evolved. The same can be said of newlywed Julie Powell. She also seemed bored with her dull life compared to her rich friends who had such interesting lives. She eventually discovers that she, too, excells in cooking. Like Julia, Julie loves to cook. The idea of writing a blog is so today, versus using carbon and onion paper (as Julia points out is natural for her time.) The two stories run in parallel courses. We see both women develop their writing prowess along with their cooking ability. The impact of writing affects not only the person but the lives around them, especially the spouses.

I found "Julie and Julia" to be adult, funny, witty, smart, hip, and able to bridge two distant generations under a common gastronomic adoration. The pity is that these kindred souls never met. Child died before the two could meet. I believe the two lead actresses are up to task for each in her time. While Streep is outstanding in the period piece, Amy Adams is equally intriguing in having to deal with an uncouth husband who crams food into his mouth and controlling friends who force her to eat Cobb salad. This gives rise to different forms of humor, one with a more traditional punch (as when Meryl grabs the two boiling pastries and Amy must poach an egg). It is unfair to compare the acting ability of Amy Adams to veteran Streep. Ms. Streep has more Oscar nominations than any actress in Academy history. To compare her to any other actress does an injustice to both. Streep is Streep. We've come to expect such a high standard from her, it would be difficult for someone else to compete at that level. In this case, Amy Adams doesn't need to. She fits into her time, and does so quite well.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film on so many levels... as a writer, as a cook, and a fan of Julia Child, this film represents the best picture of 2009 (thus far), if what you seek is an adult film that is fun, intelligent, well-acted, and extremely interesting for two hours without the use of CGI crammed down our throats.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it at many levels too, and the two sides are thoroughly congruous. Obviously Julie Powell's story would not exist if it were not for Julia Child's. But they're still lopsided, and many have made this comment. It's not the least bit original with me to say so. It''s pretty much what every single review of the movie says. Again, I had fun at the movie. I agree with you that it's "adult, funny, witty, smart, hip, and able to bridge two distant generations under a common gastronomic adoration." But it's also Nora Ephron, which is to say it's middle-brow entertainment, and not terribly deep. But fun, of course. I used to watch Julia Child -- not that I would dream of attempting her recipes, but because I loved her personality. I don't know what you mean when you say Julie died before the two could meet. It's made clear in the movie that she is displeased by what Julie has done, feels that Julie is not taking her cookbook sufficienttly seriusly, and Julie says ruefully that she knows now that she will never meet her. Did you miss that? It's not a question of Julia's dying before they could meet. She was alive, but didn't want to meet her. And I can never agree that a little blogger in the early 2000's can balance the other half of a movie about the sparkling world of 40's and 50's France and this incredible woman, Julia Child, who changed everything in American cooking. If you really insist, I will cite some of the reviews that agree with this sense of imbalance, while still, like you and me, finding this a charming and entertaining movie. I already gave two examples, the reviews by Michael Phillips and A. E. Scott in the "At the Movies' thread. Another is the Voice's (http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-08-04/film/in-praise-of-the-julia-half-of-julie-julia/) by Robert Wolonsky, whose title is simply "In Praise of the Julia Half of Julie & Julia." He begins:
'It was the best of movies. It was the worst of movies. Which is to say: There's half of a great movie in Julie & Julia.. ." Go ahead and dissgree with this. But don't think you're disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with most of the movie reviewers, not me.

[Chris Knipp]

From the NYTimes review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/movies/07julie.html?ref=movies) b A.O. Scott:
The unevenness of "Julie and Julia" is nobody’s fault, really. It arises from an inherent flaw in the film’s premise. Julie is an insecure, enterprising young woman who found a gimmick and scored a book contract. Julia is a figure of such imposing cultural stature that her pots and pans are displayed at the Smithsonian. The fact that Ms. Ephron, like Julie herself, is well aware of this gap does not prevent the film from falling into it. All the filmmaker’s artful whisking can’t quite achieve the light, fluffy emulsion she is trying for.

[cinemabon]

You are correct when you say I am disagreeing with you. I did not write my criticism to respond to the world's critics but to yours. Simply stating "that's what everyone else is saying," is to undercut your own stand. We're here to discuss your opinion, not theirs.

Personally, I would have enjoyed a completely one sided film of just Meryl Streep. She could have carried the entire film as Julia Child. However, that is not the film here. I believe what some people are seeing as lopsided is trying to compare the two parts of the film with equal weight. As I've stated, they are not equal. However, I believe they are sufficiently different in a way that gives the film balance. I believe "older" audiences and critics will tend to side with the Julia figure and younger audiences will tend to side with the Julie character.

Added note: A. O. Scott actually liked the film. Ebert hated it. Ironically, A. O. Scott ( with co-host Michael Phillips) is taking over Ebert's spot on the television critical show "At the movies," originally started by Siskel and Ebert.

[Chris Knipp]

Ironically, A. O. Scott ( with co-host Michael Phillips) is taking over Ebert's spot on the television critical show "At the movies," originally started by Siskel and Ebert. Yes, and that has already just been noted in a thread on this site, which was what I meant when I said above:
I already gave two examples, the reviews by Michael Phillips and A. E. Scott in the "At the Movies' thread. This"At the Movies" thread you will find near this one in the General Film Forum currently started by Johann and it's titled "At the Movies: REAL film discussion is back?" (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2624) I gave links on Johann's "At the Movies" thread to the reviews of JULIE & JULIA by A.O. Scott and Michael Philips so people could compare their review-writing styles, and I chose from their latest reviews, which were of this movie.

I don't think it's that much worth noting that A.O. Scott liked JULIE & JULIA (I didn't know Ebert didn't, though). He does not differ from me, or a lot of other critics, in that respect. We all like the film, but we just like the Julia part more and see an imbalance that makes the film (unfortunately) flawed despite its interesting content and entertaining performances. I don't think there's really much of a debate here. You probably would't even have taken a difference of opinion with me as your starting point if I had not emphasized imbalance as my starting point but had de-emphasized that observation and planted it further down in my review. I chose instead to emphasize it, because it's really what a lot of people take away from the film, even though they enjoy both parts -- but almost always enjoy the Julia part more. If I was more provocative than some of the reviewers in how I stated this point, so much the etter for starting our discussion.

Will young people identify with Julie and older ones with Julia? Yes, perhaps. But this argument only suggests Ephron is crassly attempting to increase box office by appealing to two demographics; it's not a defense of the screenplay.
I believe what some people are seeing as lopsided is trying to compare the two parts of the film with equal weight. As I've stated, they are not equal. However, I believe they are sufficiently different in a way that gives the film balance. I can't make sense of this. If a film has two parts and they're not of equal weight, that's lopsided, isn't it? And being "sufficiently different" does not mean balanced. You have done everything but say you agree with me. Of course you didn't write "to respond to the world's critics" because you had not consulted what the reviews say. But the fact that this point about imbalance is so widely made -- and not just by reviewers, also by other people I saw the movie with -- surely that must make you think. And even you grant that "would have enjoyed a completely one sided film of just Meryl Streep. She could have carried the entire film as Julia Child.." So I don't think there's much discussion. And this is only one point. However it may explain why, despite the excellent acting, and the superb performance by Meryl Streep, the Metactitic rating of JULIE & JULIA is still an only so-so 65. I don't think you've proven me wrong.

And I have already said I agree with your many other favorable points about the film.

[oscar jubis]

I wish I had seen this film yesterday instead of THE COVE and SERAPHINE so I can participate in this discussion. For now, all I can do is explain why I cannot participate until next Saturday. I will only venture to say that without a character with whom a young audience can identify this film could not be released in the summer.

[Chris Knipp]

Everyone is more interested in the Julia segments than the Julie ones, and that was known ahead of time by anyone who observed the trailer. Everyone acknowledges that Streep owns the movie, but Adams may get younger people into the theater.

I did not write my review to analyze box office promotion strategies. Always good to have some discussion though.

Julie is not a teenage girl but a young working woman. But anyway, this is a good date movie for all ages: definitely teenagers were at the matinee and a surprising number of people for Berkeley on a Friday afternoon at a usually not first-run theater.

[Chris Knipp]

Robert Doughterty of Associated Content writes (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2034049/julie_and_julia_reviews_mainly_hungry.html?cat=40)
Julie and Julia reviews are basically reviewing two movies, and Julie and Julia reviews are mostly just raving about one. Julie and Julia reviews love the Julia part, mainly because of who is starring in it. But the Julie and Julia reviews are less fond of the Julie part, dropping the positive review total down a bit. Julie and Juliareviews are basically the same as those for most any movie starring Meryl Streep - in which Steep is worshiped while the rest of her movie struggles to keep up.

I don't mean to keep quoting these but every time I look up something I fall upon another expression of the universal opinion. Scott argues that Streep does NOT overwhelm the character though, and I don't think she "steals" the movie as this review suggests. Nor are the Julia (and Paul) segments of interest mainly because of Streep but good in themselves generally. Ms. Child herself was a scene-stealer, of course. It's worth noting that the sexy moments are between Paul and Julie, not Julie and Eric.

[Chris Knipp]

I changed a word in the first sentence of my review so it creates a less dramatically negative impression. Now it reads "The only trouble" instead of "The whole trouble." It means the same thing, for me here, but sounds better.

[tabuno]

I liked what Cinemabon had to say about JULIA AND JULIE because Nora Ephron, a female director, was able to apparently connect well with the female audience in it comes to the rating of this movie on IMDb compared with men. The contrast in time periods was something I hadn't directly acknowledged when I reflected on this movie, but the parallel structure was an element now that I think about it, helped this movie along and made it fascinating to experience. I too experienced the balance in this movie and while I had reservations about "gimmick," the challening cinematic technique used in this movie as two separate movies connected by food and how one person's story enabled another person to find some success is a testament to making a difference in another person's life which as a human is perhaps the greatest achievement of all which this movie aptly presents.

While I won't go as far as to say it's my best movie of 2009 so far, it is among my top movies of the year.

One of Chris Knipps implications is curiously odd to me if I've interpreted it correctly - that to be a great performance a character must have more "evil" to be respectable, like Meryl Streep's character in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA. I find that some how strange to me. The brilliance in JULIA AND JULIE isn't about the "evil" in any body in this movie but in its ability to present two women who presevere and overcome obstacles on the way to true-life successes.

[cinemabon]

I suppose what I was trying to say Chris, is that a film can have two different things of equal value. If you put platinum and diamonds on a balance scale and make their weight equal, the scale is not lopsided. However, each is different yet valuable in its own way. Such was my thought on "Julie and Julia." I felt that each woman dealt with their circumstances in a way that endeared their performance to that audience. The fact that a critic found most reviewers liking one part of the film over the other demonstrates the bias of critics.

[Chris Knipp]

Or does it demonstrate something basic about the film that everybody sees? There is no harm in acknowledging that it's a good film, with that limitation. It's more interesting to talk about other things, the impoirtance of Julia Child, the role of television in American culture, changes in the post-war period, the power of blogs, the romance of fine dining. But I had to focus on this because I am reviewing films. As a film, JULIE & JULIA has that obvious problem. Dozens and probably hundreds of writers have noted it. There is no bias of critics involved in that.

[cinemabon]

Hundred of writers have been known to be wrong about a subject. Take segregation for example... or women's rights, gay rights, Native American rights...

Hundreds, nay thousands or even millions of people can be wrong about something. Espousing that they are saying it does not make it right. You of all people should know that.

[Chris Knipp]

So you are in a righteous, disadvantaged, and abused group: those who think Julie Powell, the ambitious blogger, as important as Julia Child, the woman who changed Ameridan attitudes toward cooking. In those cases you list above, many were right on the other side. Is that true here? It seems like a different situation. And not a question of there being prejudice or a wish to repress involved.

[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 (http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/11280008/used/Delmonico%20Cook%20Book) , 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 (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2629) 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 (http://forums.metacritic.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/373100112/m/463105412?r=712103932#712103932).

[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.

[Chris Knipp]

I can see that in the context of movies available currently in Releigh, JULIE & JULIA stands out as civilized adult entertainment. I don't know if you were able to see TWO LOVERS, GOOBYE, SOLO, or THE LIMITS OF CONTROL I would recommend catching these on DVD. Why avoid Netflix or the like? That's the way to make up for release limitations in your area. You can currently see PONYO, PUBLIC ENEMIES, STAR TREK, THE HURT LOCKER, DRAG ME TO HELL, THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1, 2, 3, and YEAR ONE. These are all NYTimes-recommended films, and several of them I'd consider must-sees and we've discussed them at length on this site, namely PUBLIC ENEMIES and THE HURT LOCKER. And there are others, ADVENTURELAND and SIN NOMBRE, to name a couple.

In the theater in Cary, NC you can also see AFGHAN STAR and THE COVE, also recommended.

You should get to see some great movies as the Oscar candidate releases time is coming shortly. Let's hope so anyway. Some of the best available for the year might be foreign, and some might be at that one theater that shows them.

[oscar jubis]

Cinemabon, if you want to limit yourself to multiplex fare, it is your prerogative. And not everybody can drive 30 minutes to a film. Then again, shouldn't people who love movies support the one screen in town giving them alternatives? I think it is particularly sad when Americans don't support our talented, low-budget, independent filmmakers. Is it too hard to drive to NCSU on Sep 10-12 to catch my candidate for best American movie of the year, one made by a native North Carolinian and shot entirety in the State?
I keep bitching about distributors showing certain films ONLY in NY (and sometimes LA), but if the smart, educated, open-minded people from Raleigh or Albuquerque are only interested in what plays at the multiplex, then I better stop bitching about distributors because all the people want is what Hollywood feeds them.

[cinemabon]

My post wasn't meant to be a "bitch" more an observation. I would love to see the independent films at our one "cultured" cinema and throw as many of my patrons dollars as possible in that direction. However, it is located about seven miles up Glenwood, close to downtown and only open at night (when my wife works - we have a one car family.... tmi?). So on the nights when she doesn't work (which is one night a week), the last place she wants to visit is the independent theater. She's my country music, NASCAR lovin, steak and ribs girl with the skinny waist and a closet Dixie democrat (I know, still too much information!)

My point being, when I was in college, we had three independent theaters within three blocks of each other, which made it great to see "human interest" pictures. During this period I watched nearly everything by European filmmakers such as Fellini, Bergman, Goddard, etc., and those of Kurosawa (whom I also love).

The cineplex across the street is my last link to my early love, cinema. Thanks to your posts (everyone's), I can cling to some vestiges of my past through intellectual exchanges and knowledge of current offerings, although I must limit my criticism to commercial films. No bitch, just a fact in my case.

Relating all of that to "Julie and Julia" I found that of the commercial offerings presented this year, this film seemed to exhibt the qualities I found most admirable in terms of quality.

[Chris Knipp]

Since you must defer to your wife's taste, it's a good thing you have the outlet of this site. I'd still recommend Netflix, or is there a reason that's impossible?

[oscar jubis]

The bitching I referred to is my own, directed at US distributors who think only New Yorkers care about certain movies. I didn't mean to say you were doing any "bitching". And I appreciate your presence here to discuss any movie you watch. I hope there are enough people in smaller cities to keep the single screen/ non chain theaters in business. I work at one such place currently and it's not easy. I also hope there is enough of an audience out there for American films made outside Hollywood. These artists deserve our support.

[Chris Knipp]

I appreciate your presence here highly, cinemabon and did not see you as bitching. Life has its limitations. Oscar,did not know you were working in a small theater, that's great. There are very few of those even in the Bay Area. There are a lot of Landmark theaters in the East Bay, which show a lot of the art house fare. In SF only the Roxie Film Center is truly independent.

[oscar jubis]

I've been working at UM's Cosford Cinema for about 3 months (and also for a buck over minimum wage). It's a 240-seat space. It's me and ace projectionist Mike, who has a white Marx beard and a long ponytail and excels at playing just the right old trailer, classic cartoon or short to fit the long feature. Of course, no snacks are sold. So none of that noisy, popcorn munching and sticky floors. Odd for a university: the crowd tends towards the upper age range. French, Spanish and Jewish-interest and Gay-interest films do particularly well here. A civilized place and a very well-behaved, polite audience. IN THE LOOP was extremely successful this weekend. Near sell outs for every show.
In Miami, we are reversing the trend. A new "art House" is being built in downtown Coral Gables, across the street from a large, independent bookstore. And another one, run by the local community college, has expanded their hours of operation.

[cinemabon]

I love the sound of your theater. I have known many great small and independent theaters in my day. One of the best was in Columbus, Ohio called Marzetti's Studio 35, where the owners converted one third of the house into a bar surround by glass windows. You could drink beer, eat popcorn, and watch Ida Lupino get roughed up by Humphrey Bogart. You could buy chocolate chip cookies or fudge brownies wrapped in plastic made by Mrs. Marzetti herself. Yes, her husband was the salad dressing king.

Many, many years ago, I managed the Sherman in Sherman Oaks, California (which has since burned down). We had carbon-arc projectors with union projectionists who used to come in and polish the mirrors every night before the double feature. They used the old system of timed 10 minute reels based on timing marks in the upper right hand corner of the screen that flashed when one projector was started and when to make the switch to the other.

Our series, "Great women in cinema" was completely sold out with such luminaries attending as Carrie Fisher, Bette Midler, William Katt, Nancy Allen, Mark Hamill and many others who stopped by to see original prints of films, such as "Some like it hot" or "Shanghai Express." The Sherman boasted real Bon-bons, the bit sized ice cream dipped in dark chocolate. We always popped our popcorn fresh at the start of each evening. The marquee ran a double bill for $2.00 that usually related to the other picture. I had to run prints over the mountain range every single day from Sherman Oaks to Westwood's UCLA archives and back to obtain 35mm prints of movies.

The background and histories of small, independent, and even the old movie palaces in certain cities can be traced at the following website:

http://cinematreasures.org/

You will find references to the Sherman there along with many other great movie places like the Vagabond Theater, no longer in existence.

[Chris Knipp]

'COSFORD CINEMA (http://com.miami.edu/cosford/) KICKS OFF FIRST ANNUAL SUMMER SERIES WITH "PUSHING THE LIMIT: KOREAN NEW WAVE CINEMA"'
And Tony Manero (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=20717#post20717) -- rough, strong stuff.

Are you still doing therapy?

[Chris Knipp]

I've got to admit I prefer cinemas that do not serve snacks, especially not popcorn however fresh, rare though that is in this country; I appreciate the Cosford not having them. In Paris where the audiences are more polite and silent anyway, there is hardly any consumption of snacks, even though they are sold.

Two new deluxe art houses started in Baltimore when I was a kid, I forget the name of the other but the nicer one was the Playhouse. They served free coffee and had art exhibitions in the lobby. I saw some of the classic Janus releases of that period there.

In NYC I spend a lot of my time at Film Forum, Quad Cinema, Cinema Village, the relatively new IFC Center, and lately the BAMcinematek in Brooklyn and Anthology Film Archives.

Of course the Film Society of Lincoln Center is the keystone of my New York movie exerpiences, being the HQ for the NYFF and Film Comment Selects and New Directors/New Films, etc., shown at the Walter Reade Theater and now at the new Aice Tully Hall.

When I was very young, the Museum of Art Film Library was very important but it no longer seems to play the key role. And the rep houses on the upper West Side like the New Yorker are now gone.

In California, Pauline Kael ran a rep house in Berkeley in the Sixties with her then husband. It was called the Fine Arts. It still existed when I first came out here. It is now an apartment house. Small art houses are always going under, if there is a wave of start-ups of new ones, that is a very positive sign -- maybe like locovore food and farmers' markets? Berkeley has lost at least three art houses since I've been here, possibly five.

The commercial art house movie scene is good in the Bay Area, particularly with all the Landmark Theaters, multiple ones in San Francisco and Berkeley and down the Peninsula. The Rafael Film Center is also good, in Marin County. And the Roxie Film Center, which I mentioned above, has added another auditorium next door and runs the most truly unique presentations in the area. It's there that I saw Bloomfield's BATTLE FOR HADITHA. Not seen many other places in the country.

When I was a graduate student at UC Berkeley Tom Luddy used to show old films in Dwinelle Hall on campus under the auspices of the F.W. Murnau Film Society. When he would get up to talk about the film before the screening I would be most impressed by his expertise. Later he came into his own as the first director of Pacific Film Archive and now he directs the Telluride Film Festival. I think he was involved when Jean-Luc Godard came to Berkeley and was interviewed in French with English translations at a big table also in Dwinelle Hall. It was just like something in one of his films.

While I'm reminiscing, I will mention that an influence on me when I was a student at Amherst College and a fraternity brother was Richard Wechsler, who used to go to NYC on weekends and have his own "mini film festival" as he called it. Later he went to Hollywood and became the producer of Five Easy Pieces. Wechsler has taught film courses for years and is known as a consultant, producer, and writer.

[oscar jubis]

http://americanclassicimages.com/Default.aspx?tabid=141&txtSearch=CATAdvancedSearch1%2c35%2c3%2c-1&catpageindex=18&catpagesize=25&ProductID=31932
This is a view of Marzetti's when I was a student at OSU in 1982. Now it's under new ownership, called Studio 35 and the programming is not that interesting anymore. The best theater in Columbus was on High Street, across the street from campus, and showed two different films every day. Funny I don't remember what it was called.

Really great to read both of your posts, guys.

Chris, I am still associated with a group private practice but barely have time to see more than a client or two per week. Early next year, I will get back into mental health full-time, although perhaps I'll take a job with an institution so I can have a steady income.

[Chris Knipp]

Marzetti's looks conventional at first but then you notice the triangular marquee and the circular columnar ticket booth and the trhust of the Marchetti's sign above, which are very nifty indeed.

Sounds like a good idea for the work. You seem to have arranged things nicely to allow your detour into the film world.

A footnote to my mention of Tom Luddy (whom I don't know but I guy I know is friends with) is this interview (http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/07/44/tom-luddy-godard.html) with him in Senses of Cinema about his long-time relationship with Jean-Luc Godard. The man has some tales to tell, and this gives a picture of Godard's interactions with American film people, including Woody Allen, Norman Mailer, even Molly Ringwald, whose name evokes the sad early death of John Hughes, which I'm sorry nobody has mentioned here. But only PMW and I seem to care much about Eighties youth movies. The NYTimes had some good articles last week, the best (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/opinion/12ringwald.html) of them by Molly herself.

[cinemabon]

Oscar, I can't believe we just missed each other as I was in the film program at OSU in the late 1970's! High Street was a wild scene back then. I had so much fun when I was there. I lived in a huge house with seven other guys on 14th St, just off campus.

Chris, its so funny you mentioned John Hughes. I was writing a story about Hughes in my head a few minutes ago, as I was originally from an area close to Chicago and had most of my friends from there (many remember shooting the scene on State Street from "Ferris Beuller...")

We'll see what I can post. I'm still trying to get my next book to market. I got it back from the editors two weeks ago and having friends give me feedback before I send it to the publishers in late September. This will be a sequel to the first book.

Oscar, are you thinking of Landmark's Gateway? That wasn't there when I went to school. If it was, it was in completely different shape. The revival theater I recall was on the corner or near the corner of Lane and High. We used to go there for the midnight movies, especially John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" where they passed out barf bags stamped with a pink flamingo before the film started. The marijuana smoke was so thick, you could hardly see the screen.

[oscar jubis]

I lived on 15th Avenue (15th street before the nomenclature change) about three and a half blocks East of N. High Street from Sep. 1981 to Sep. 1983. That's when I returned to Miami.
I don't remember the name of the theater but like you say it was located on N. High Street across from OSU campus and just south of Lane Avenue. I would watch about 8-10 movies per week there. The programming was extremely adventurous. No surprise that you watched Pink Flamingos there. I remember watching Caligula there, which I hated. When I went back to Columbus in the mid-90s, this repertory theater was gone.
I had a wonderful two years living in Columbus. Wish we had met then.