Julie & Julia: Grade B

B
Julie & Julia (2009)

Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina; Co-writer and director Nora Ephron.

Streep is Julia Child, the famous cookbook author and prominent television chef over several decades. In postwar Paris she is drifting without purpose to be with her diplomatic attaché husband (Tucci). She takes the Cordon Bleu course, and after many years of effort manages to get her book published, the iconic Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The television show hardly features in the movie.

This is not a very interesting story but Meryl Streep is mesmerizing. Her impersonation of Child is perfect, not just the falsetto voice, but the gait, gestures, attitudes, diction: all perfect. Channeling counts as acting, and even if you don’t know Julia Child, you would find the character interesting and its expression masterful. However, as a biography, there isn’t much content there. It’s all about the acting.

Meanwhile, Adams is Julie Powell, a depressed young cubicle worker in modern New York, living in a flat over a pizza place in Queens. Like Child’s character in Paris of 60 years ago, she takes up cooking just for something to do, and she decides, for no obvious reason, to cook every recipe in Child’s book within a year, and blog about that experience. She does that, with predictable tribulations. The scene of putting live lobsters into boiling water is unashamedly lifted right from Annie Hall, and most of the other cooking, serving, and eating scenes are equally unimaginative. This character is not very interesting and neither is her story. However, Amy Adams is brilliant, even within this restricted role. As with Streep, even though you don’t care about her character, you do care about her superb acting.

So those two stories alternate in time slices and that’s it. Julia and Julie never meet, but they both accomplish their goals. As a piece of storytelling, you are left with the thought, “Who cares?” But the acting by the principals makes the film worthwhile. The cinematography is also above average – extremely sensual pictures of food. The movie will make you hungry for sure. The directing is expert but pointed at sentimentality over psychological or narrative substance, which for my taste, is a defect.

The Future of Food (2004): Grade C

C
The Future of Food (2004)
Writer-Director Deborah Koons.

This obviously heartfelt documentary shows how large agricultural companies like Monsanto are force-feeding unlabelled, genetically modified food down our throats. They create special seeds through genetic engineering, patent them, then sue the socks off of any farmer who has any crops with their genetic signature, no matter if those seeds came onto the farm in the wind or by bird droppings. The agribusinesses own the farmer’s crops and it is against the law for the farmers to re-plant their own seeds once their fields are contaminated with GMO seeds. The film also documents government collusion in this takeover of American farming by giant seed and chemical companies, by stacking executive agencies like the EPA and the judiciary with “business-friendly” leaders. This sad story is well-told, but it is not a new story. Shows like this have been on TV for a long time (PBS at least). There is little or no new information here. The film is well-photographed, with good production values, but like a PBS-NOVA presentation, which it emulates, the material quickly becomes repetitive and boring. A feeble call to action is presented at the end: eat organic and buy local. Would that help? Maybe if you are rich. Organic produce usually costs at least double and often is of inferior quality. Maybe it is worth it though, to prevent Monsanto from taking over the world. But this documentary never does gen up a really rallying cry. It is strictly an “ain’t it awful?” presentation. Yeah, it’s awful, tragically awful, but Americans don’t seem to care. Maybe more call to action would have leavened the heavy fact-based presentation to better effect.