Review: ‘Julie & Julia’

524 recipes.  365 days.  123 minutes.  A 3 out of 5 star movie.  Those are just some of the numbers that pertain to ‘Julie & Julia,’ Nora Ephron’s biopic/dramedy that has way of entertaining in fits and starts.

Presented in back-and-forth fashion, the film tells two true stories.  One pertains to Julia Child, played by Meryl Streep, and her husband, Paul, played by Stanley Tucci.  Paul works for the US embassy, and, as soon as the couple arrives in Paris, he and his wife take to the culture, particularly the food.  It’s the ’40s and ’50s, and Julia has yet to become the famed chef.  This half of the film centers on her working on her first book, an encyclopedia-sized book of recipes that would eventually become Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

Intercut with this is the story of Julie Powell, played by Amy Adams.  Julie is a frustrated secretary living in 2002 New York City.  She likens herself to an author, though she has not published anything, yet.  Once her husband, played by Chris Messina, introduces her to the world of online blogging, Julie decides she is going to take Julia’s book.  In one year, she plans to have created every recipse in the book.  Writing about it on the internet helps Julie find her own level of success.

Much like one of Julia Childs’ recipes, the ingredients for a first-rate film are all there.  The cast is exquisite.  Ephron’s writing, though she hasn’t had a critical hit in quite a long time, does justice to each narrative.  It moves between the two stories effortlessly, giving just enough time with one that you begin to wonder what is going on with the other.

Of course, this level of smooth transition between the two would be even greater had the same level of care in direction and the details for one story been given to the other.  The Julia Child section of the film is dynamically entertaining.  Streep embodies the character, perfecting the voice and the mannerisms of the great chef, so that you begin to forget what the real Julia Child looked like.  Ephron emerses her audience in Julia’s world, a world of fine cuisine and the imminent threat of McCarthyism.  Don’t worry, though.  The politics the film conveys are definite, but they are never overbearing or seem force-fed.  At least, not in this half of the movie.

There’s a loss of joy in the way Ephron directs the Julie Powell storyline.  Some of this is quite deliberate.  Ephron creates a bright, livelier than life feeling in the Julia Child segments, and you begin to wonder if this is her vision of what actually happened or is this all going on in Julie’s head.  By the end of the film, you begin to wonder if the Julia Child half of the film is Julie’s romanticized vision of what Julia and Paul Child’s life must have been like.  However, there are other aspects, other directional choices that just makes the audience feel like Ephron’s heart wasn’t in it to tell Julie Powell’s story the best way she knew how.  Each up and down in Julie’s path to getting through all 524 recipes comes with a forced hand, a mandatory second act of obstacles and unavoidable detours.

The men in each woman’s life are also given the same level of care the rest of their respective stories are given.  Great for Stanley Tucci.  Not so great for Chris Messina.  Tucci, who always delivers a resounding performance, is excellent here.  His character is immensely likeable, but Tucci brings the character to life, giving just enough decibels that he never overpowers Streep.  How could anyone steal a scene from Streep?  However, you almost feel as if Tucci could if given the chance, but he knows not only what his own character needs.  He knows exactly what is needed for the entirety of each scene.  Ephron gives short change care to Messina’s Eric Powell.  As Julie’s spouse and supporter in her year-long task, we aren’t really given much to work with.  We know he works in the city, and he likes to eat.  That’s about it, and Messina doesn’t seem to want to do anything that makes up stand up and take notice.  Unfortunately, we are forced to watch Messina eat, and that’s tasking at best.

The ups of Julia Child’s story and the downs of Julie Powell’s story are not 100%.  There are moments in the period segments of the film that seem to drag a bit.  The amount of time given to Julia’s sister visiting Paris and her eventual marriage was unnecessary.  Julia is working on the book with two, French women, played by Linda Emond and Helen Carey.  The screen time given to two of them considering ousting the third from the project grows redundant and unessential.

Likewise, there are moments in Julie Powell’s story that keeps it from being a total wash.  One cannot deny how talented Amy Adams is as an actress.  She never reaches out and takes hold of the part, but, for the most part, she plays the part as best as it probably could have been played.  A scene involving Julie having to kill lobsters is quite entertaining, and Ephron’s decision to have Talking Heads’ “Psycho Killer” playing on the soundtrack is inspired.  For better or for worse, the most entertaining segment of the Julie half of the film comes when she and her husband are watching Dan Aykroyd’s impression of Julia Child on an episode of SNL.  It’s a shame that this half of the film didn’t have more to offer, but you have to give Ephron credit for including this skit at all.

For all of its ups and downs, however, Ephron is capable of creating chemistry between the two actresses.  I won’t say whether Streep or Adams ever actually share any screen time.  That would be getting into spoiler territory.  However, you know that, even if they do have scenes together, they are very limited.  The chemistry comes when the actresses are in completely separate scenes, divided by 50 years or more.  This is to Ephron’s credit, but it is also to the credit of Streep and Adams.

At one point, after Julie has created Julia’s recipe for Beef Bourginon.  Her husband, clueless as he is to the skills of fine culinary, begins sprinkling salt on it.  “Is it bland?” asks Julie.  “Not now,” he replies.  Perhaps if Ephron would have sprinkled some spice into Julie’s world, this half of ‘Julie & Julia’ would not have been such a frustration on the film as a whole.  There is plenty of story in Julia Child’s life that a full feature could have been made.  In fact, you begin to wonder why no one has ever taken the task to put her life to film before.  Unfortunately, the other half of ‘Julie & Julia’ never quite lives up to it.  Much like Julie Powell working her way through the works of someone else, her half of this story seems to be deriving any level of enjoyment off of the half that follows Julia.  The entire film is left half-alive, and you cannot help but think how much more interesting ‘Julie & Julia’ had been had it only been called ‘Julia.’