Meryl Streep’s Julia

There is a Julia Child celebration/explosion happening in the foodie blog community that you wouldn’t really know unless you dwelled in that world. There, it doesn’t matter if the movie is good or not. What matters is how accurate it is when it comes to the icon that is Julia Child. Nora Ephron visited the Smithsonian, where Julia Child’s kitchen is on display, and now two notable PBS chefs talk about Julia. First up, Jacques Pepin talks about how Julia Child “loosened him up.” If you’ve never seen the Julia and Jacques episodes on PBS you are missing out. Here is Jacques Pepin on Meryl:

When I first saw a clip of Julie & Julia, at the James Beard Awards in New York City a couple of months ago, I didn’t think I was going to like the movie. For someone to portray Julia, she has to do her voice, and that usually ends up a clich√©, and this is what I thought when I heard Meryl Streep‚Äôs voice in the preview.

But when I finally saw the full movie a couple of weeks ago, in four or five minutes I forgot about the voice and watched Meryl be Julia, a terrific Julia. I do not think anyone else could have done it as well. The period covered in the movie was a very specific part of Julia’s life of course, when she was in Paris and she was writing the Mastering the Art of French Cooking manuscript, which I subsequently read in Helen‚Äôs apartment.

Then Sarah Moulton, also a chef who worked closely with Child, talks up five things Meryl got right, and what she didn’t get right:

The Voice: Meryl Streep really nails Julia’s voice. Julia would get caught up in her words, almost inhaling them, so they didn’t come out very easily. She would belabor breathing while she talked—she was a heavy breather—and then trip over her r’s. Every word of hers had more going for it than something spit out by somebody else. The only part of Julia’s distinctive voice, which Streep missed is the energy that was behind it. I think Streep talked just a tad too slowly, especially in the television clips. Julia was very deliberate in what she said and what she did, but I felt as if a tiny bit of zest was missing in Streep’s performance.

The Movement: Julia had this gawky awkwardness, which Streep picks up. She was tall, and she moved the way she talked: weirdly. It was as if all her joints weren’t screwed in right, which Streep does a good job of capturing. Julia had this big, gangly schoolgirl demeanor which never disappeared despite decades of television and public appearances. Even the outfits were right, although probably a little bit fancier than the real Julia sported at the time.

The Attitude: There’s a scene in the film when Julia is being put down by the dour female director of the Cordon Bleu where Julia was taking classes in Paris. Julia has just sit down to take her final exam and the director comments, “I don’t know why you want to do this, you are a terrible cook, but if you cook for Americans, they won’t know the difference.” Julia’s response in the film? She sticks out her tongue as the director walks out the door. The real Julia might have given the finger. She was so spontaneous, and yes, at times, a little crude. If somebody pissed her off, she might shout, “Balls!” When we were at her house in Cambridge madly cooking up a big meal for company, she would turn to one of us and say, “Aren’t we having fun?” Still, the movie takes her very seriously. People loved Julia, but they sort of saw her as a ham. Here, she’s portrayed as she was: a talented determined woman who constantly pushed her projects forward.

The Passion: I’ve talked to quite a few people in the past week who were shocked to see Julia and her husband Paul get into bed and start kissing each other. But they were madly in love and not afraid to show it. While other people sent out Christmas cards to their friends, Paul and Julia sent out Valentine‚Äôs Day cards, some of which were quite risqu√© like the photo of the two of them in a bubble bath that they showed in the movie. Paul was shorter than Julia, but he was also very manly; that he was shorter didn‚Äôt make a difference. Stanley Tucci captures both Paul‚Äôs elegance and that manly strength. Theirs was the Pygmalion story. Julia was great raw material, but Paul really inspired her to blossom. She wanted to enter his world, which was so much more cultured than hers had been. She wanted to cook for him and in the process she fell in love with cooking. That passion comes through in the movie, too.

The Food: Julia quickly became very proficient in the kitchen and although she would never call herself a chef, her skills were up to any pro’s. Streep’s portrayal is just right whether she is boning a duck or making an omelet. There’s a shot of Julia whacking away at a piece of pastry with a rolling pin (which is what you do when you first take in out of the fridge and it is cold) that felt very reminiscent. Streep also nailed how Julia ate. She was such a thoughtful eater. There’s an epiphanic moment in the beginning of the film when Julia takes her first bite of sole meuniere. She can’t believe how good it is. You can just imagine what is going on in her head. Julia Child could not separate chewing from thinking.

We’ll never see the likes of Julia Child again, I’m afraid.¬† To read more about Julia Child, check out Dorrie Greenspan’s Tales of Julia Part One. And you should also check out David Poland’s video review of the movie. I might be crazy thinking this, but if he did an ongoing cooking/movie review series it could be really good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk5yCpFlJis[/youtube]