Julie and Julia - Recommended viewing for bloggers

[Julie Lomoe]

I finally saw Julie and Julia, the Nora Ephron film based on Julie Powell's book about her efforts to cook all the recipes in Julia Child's magnum opus in 365 days and to blog about it. I'd give it four out of five stars - entertaining and engaging, and Meryl Streep is great as Julia. Cooking's of limited interest to me, though the film did make me ravenously hungry. Don't see it at 5pm!

I especially liked the treatment of my namesake's blogging efforts, and how they brought her fame and fortune. The film showed her fielding multiple queries from agents and editors, but it never did reveal how much money she made. On the othr hand, it went into wrenching detail about Julia Childs' efforts to get published, and how thrilled she was about an advance of $150.00. Yes, you read that right - one hundred and fifty dollars.

Julie Lomoe's Musings Mysterioso

[I. J. Parker]

And cookbooks sell well!

[Gary C. King]

I, too, enjoyed the film and probably would rate it four out of five stars. Meryl Streep was certainly the essence of the real Julia Child, and for me the Paris scenes (particularly when switching back and forth between New York and Paris brought out comparisons of the two cities--deliberate to show the differences?) certainly enhanced the film. The biggest bone I have to pick with the movie was the almost immediate 65 telephone messages left by editors, agents, movie and television film companies for Julie after the article appeared about her in the NY Times--to me, this seemed a bit unbelievable. Five to ten phone calls I could have believed, but 65? But I walked away satisfied and happy after the movie ended, a rare occurrence for me nowadays. The movie is a bit slow, and won't be for everyone, but it does get my two thumbs up (even though there's no crime to speak of unless one wanted to discuss the goings-on of Senator Joseph McCarthy).

[p. b. smith]

But in fact, she DID receive those 65 calls; that's how she got a book deal, a movie deal and all those newspaper and magazine articles, and all those TV guest shots. Like vultures circling carrion, editors, agents, TV producers magically appear to pull off a strip off Julie's flesh after she had done the heavy lifting and made herself famous. They knew whatever they published that Julie put her name on would have "X" number of built-in customers waiting to buy it. Likewise with TV and movies; if you already have buzz, they want a piece of you because they know your project is as close to being a sure thing they could get, at least when it comes to making money.

I wish some of those vultures would find a reason to circle me. I think most of us do.

[Thomas Grant Bruso]

My partner is a bigger fan of Julia Child than I am, but I must say: I walked away after the movie feeling good. Meryl Streep is Julia Child; nobody else, in my eyes, could have pulled off what she did. She was a perfect cast for the role. Paul and I laughed out loud several times. It was a joy and well worth the admission. I liked the "onion scene", and Streep played it cool. Hilarious.

I also liked watching Julie write her blog, test each and every recipe, and try to juggle her relationship. I must say, her husband is easy on the eyes. The scenes with the two of them were fun as well. Go see it.

I must comment on something Gary said about crime in movies: Violence and gore seem to be a selling ingredient today (maybe that's how it has always been in entertainment, and reality). This movie is limited (unless you count the SNL skit or, like Gary mentioned, the goings-on with Senator McCarthy. My point: it is a shame that so many wonderful TV series and movies never seem to amount to anything (profiting at the box office) because of little or no gore/crime. Drama even. Most audiences seem to want to violence, blood, gore, crime, to be entertained. A scary thought, it is. A few of my favorite TV series, for instance, have been canceled because of low ratings and the public's infatuation with violence: "Samantha Who" and "Eli Stone," to name a couple. Maybe this idea belongs in another thread, but I felt it mirrored the discussion here.

[Julie Lomoe]

Thanks for your comments, everyone. I'm still wondering how Julie got so many visitors to her blog before the NY Times and others became interested. Hoping her book explains more about that.

[Beth Groundwater]

Thanks for bringing up yet another interesting reason to see the movie--to see how two different people obtained publishing success in two different ways--than the cooking angle. I'll definitely have to try to see it!