by Nicholas Robinson

Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and Julie Powell (Amy Adams) – both of whom wrote memoirs – find their lives intertwined. Though separated by time and space, both women are at loose ends… until they discover that with the right combination of passion, fearlessness and butter, anything is possible. – IMDB.com

I had quite low expectations about this movie because both of my brothers said they didn’t like it and that it was bad.  In fact, I planned to not watch it because of that.  However, when it got a nomination for best picture, I gave it a second glance and watched it.  It was actually quite good.

The story was well done.  The way they intertwined the stories of Julia Child and Julie Powell made it seem like it was the same challenges faced by two different people and two completely different times and I found it very creative.  It also helps show that nobody, not even the ones you think are, are perfect.  What I really liked about the script was that the entire journey that Julie Powell went through and all the bumps in the road put a unique spin on journey movies.  I say this because in a journey movie, a person or group of people normally take a physical journey and always hit snags along the way and want to give up, but there is at least one person in the group or just a random person encourages them to go on and finish and that’s what I saw in this movie for both Julie and Julia.  For both Julie and Julia, it was their husbands (Chris Messina and Stanley Tucci respectively) who urged them on to finish and both women finished their journey with success and satisfaction.

The acting was exceptional in this movie.   Meryl Streep did a wonderful impression of Julia Child.  I am too young to know how she actually sounded, but my parents tell me that that’s exactly how she sounded.  At first, her voice was quite annoying, but after a while I got used to it and actually couldn’t wait to hear more of it.  Amy Adams was also very good as Julie Powell.  She made me believe, every minute, that what she was supposed to be feeling, she actually was.

Although I love Stanley Tucci in most of his movies, here he was still good but more average than good.  Even though he had a relatively small role, he could have brought out a little more emotion than he did.  Chris Messina was on the other end, he was average, leading towards bad.  However, you do get a feeling that he is trying to play his part and that’s what makes him average.  A good performance or great performance is where someone is very believable and they don’t look like they’re trying to be believable because if you look like you are trying it can be distracting when you have someone who looks like they’re doing it effortlessly right beside them for the entire movie.

Where this movie falls down though is the direction.  The direction felt like it was straight out of a textbook.  The shots were very simple and boring.  The movie felt like it could use some more interesting shots instead of just placing the camera one place and shooting the scene and repeating that with different placements of the camera and just cutting where need be.

Overall, it is a fun film to watch and will give you some laughs, but I would say it only deserves a rental from you’re local video store.

IMDB says 7.4/10

Rotten Tomatoes says 75%

I say 7.0/10

Information overload is a central knowledge management challenge. The challenge of knowing what to pay attention to has been tried to solve through corporate guidelines. Companies have also worked on information processes to mine nuggets worth the attention of knowledge workers. Neither of these approaches has really helped.

What we have found out is that our attention is a result of the filters we use. These filters can be a mix of habits, company processes or tools. But increasingly these filters are social. They are the people we recognize as experts. Our most valuable guides to useful bits of insight are trusted people who are ahead of us, people whose activities we can follow in real-time to help us advance. Internet social media platforms like Facebook are in the same bandwagon as they are transforming from profile pages to activity streams as Chris Messina and Jyri Engeström have pointed out. Although the updates in Facebook are often of less informational value; People we follow are the most important filters of information and means of focusing our attention.

Leading is not position based but recognition based

There can hardly be a follower without a leader. A lot of management research has focused on leadership attributes of an individual in the hierarchical and non-contextual organization. Leading – following in the traditional corporate sense has seen the leader/manager making people to follow him through motivation and rewards. The leader/manager also decided who the followers should be. Leading – following seen as a relation, not as attributes of individuals, follows a very different dynamic. Leading in this new sense is not position based, but recognition based.

People, the followers, decide who to follow. The leader is someone people trust to be at the forefront in the area, the context, that is temporally meaningful for them. People recognize as the leader someone who inspires and enables them in the present. The difference to traditional management is also that because of the diversity of contexts people always link to, there can never be just one “boss”. Thus, an individual always has many leaders as a default state. You might even claim that from the point of view taken here, it is highly problematic if a person only has one leader.

We are now in the very beginning in trying to understand leadership/management in the new contextual, temporal framework. The relational processes of leading – following should be seen as temporal, responsive activity streams, not only on the Internet but also inside companies. They are manifested as the internal Twitter feeds, internal Facebook updates and blog posts from the people you associate with.

Communication patterns are restricting or enabling

Knowledge work is not about acquiring facts or consuming information. It is about associations. Links are more important than information. Knowing in the brain is a set of neural connections that correspond with our patterns of communication. We don’t only connect with people; we link with places and topics/contexts. The challenge is to see all filters and linkages as communication patterns that are either keeping us stuck or opening up new possibilities. We need new skills of dynamically connecting to people, topics and places through efficient tagging. This is a growing challenge for our tools. Social media tools have developed tremendously on the publishing side. Next developments need to take place on the filtering side.

Following is at best a process of learning through observing and simulating desired practice. It is about growing links and filtering links at the same time. Leading is practicing one’s work in an open transparent way and being reflective. Leading is thus helping people link to information and filter information. Leading is writing about work and truly engaging in the community.

Dir. Nora Ephron
(2009, PG-13, 123 min)
★ ★ ½

My food metaphors are rusty, but I’ll give it a shot. Julie & Julia is sweet. Too sweet. It’s apple pie dipped in honey, drizzled in caramel, and injected with high fructose corn syrup. What it needs is a touch of the tart, salty, or savory. Written and directed by sugar specialist Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve Got Mail), with an extra dollop of cutesy meringue by composer Alexandre Desplat, it makes Chocolat look like No Country for Old Men.

It misses two important opportunities. Telling the true stories of blogger Julie Powell (Amy Adams) and her culinary inspiration Julia Child (Meryl Streep), it takes place both in post-9/11 New York City and post-World War II France, yet the only hint we get of either tragedy is a brief early scene where government desk jockey Powell fields complaints from the families of World Trade Center victims, but that functions more as exposition than to add any depth to the narrative.

Why sideline the cultural context, when it could have added richness? One of my favorite films of last year, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, also starring Amy Adams, achieved its bittersweet beauty by layering screwball farce over the sober backdrop of Britain’s entry into World War II. The laughs meant more because we knew how much was really at stake.

The modern-day Julie Powell scenes are the more problematic. Adams, who I think hung the moon in most of her films, isn’t used well by Ephron, who plays up the actress’s chirpy brightness instead of playing against it (as Enchanted did with its modern irony) or adding texture to it (as did Junebug and Miss Pettigrew). Even when Julie has a self-described “meltdown” over a failed meal, the film always insists on her doggone adorableness.

She has a husband (Chris Messina) who supports her graciously during her attempt to cook every recipe from Julia Child’s book Mastering the Art of French Cooking (and he should be gracious, since he gets to eat the results). Eventually they have a big fight, but there’s no buildup to it and little follow-through, as if the film is merely filling its quota of dramatic tension.

The Julia Child scenes are better. Meryl Streep brings vivacity and joy to the woman, who didn’t learn to cook until she moved to France with her husband Paul (Stanley Tucci) on business for the US State Department. There are brief moments that suggest the good movie that might have been made just about her. She married her husband at 34 and never had children; a scene of her receiving a pregnancy announcement is a fine piece of acting by her and Tucci. Julia demonstrates left-leaning political views that conflict with her father’s, and under Sen. Joe McCarthy’s reign of terror Paul comes under investigation. These story details are presented offhand, as afterthoughts, and I wanted more.

Great attention is lavished upon great food that looks so delicious I want not only to eat it, but to cook it too. The movie, however, needed better seasoning.

Away We Go (2009)
★★★★ / ★★★★

This movie came as a surprise to me because I remember wanting to watch it in theaters (I wanted to see John Krasinski because I love him on “The Office”) but decided against doing so because I thought it was just going to be another one of those quirky small indie comedies that’s all style and no substance. How quickly I was proven wrong because the story was actually quite poignant. Krasinski and Maya Rudolph decided to travel across the country to find the perfect place to live for their child who was about to be born in three months. Along their travels, we got to see their friends and family members, all very different and all very, very colorful (to say the least). I loved Allison Janney as the mother who had no filter especially when she negative things to say about her children and husband (Jim Gaffigan). Even though she did make me laugh out loud (literally–every time she talked, she was so blunt and umcompromising), there was something about that particular family that was very sad in its core. The disdain and possibly even hatred was reflected in the facial expressions of the children and the husband. I also enjoyed the new age parents played by Maggie Gyllenhaal and Josh Hamilton. At first I thought they were just quirky but by the end of the visit, I thought they were borderline crazy. Gyllenhaal was absolutely perfect in her role despite her limited screen time. Lastly, I loved the visit with Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey because it showed that families that were really happy on the outside may not necessarily be happy on the inside. That third visit was very realistic and really painful as we got to the truths regarding the characters and the solace that they choose to embrace despite certain hurdles they couldn’t quite jump over. The emotional content of this movie really took me by surprise because it had a certain insight which made me realize that I have a lot more maturing to look forward to. There was that brilliant scene when Krasinski and Lynskey were considering if they were “fuck-ups” prior to their cross-country trip and by the end they realized that they actually had it pretty good. I thought that was a very good message because we often wallow on our own insecurities, when, in reality, others have it so much worse. “Away We Go,” directed by Sam Mendes, is more than worth a hundred minutes because not only did it make me smile and laugh, it made me think and feel hopeful for the future.

...and now young lobster...you WILL die...

PG-13

Amy Adams, Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina

Julie: What do you think it means if you don’t like your friends?
Sarah: It’s completely normal.
Eric: Men like their friends…
Sarah: We’re not talking about men!  Who’s talking about men??

Julie (Adams) decides to cook every recipe in Julia Child’s first cook book within 1 year.  Plus, she’s going to blog all about it.  Meanwhile, we see Julia Child as she first learns to cook in Paris, and then as she struggles to get her first book published.

Let me start by saying that I’m not that into food or cooking.  If something takes more than 15 to 20 minutes to prepare, it’s usual not worth it, that’s what I say.  I thought that attitude might hinder my enjoyment of a movie all about cooking and food, but I was wrong.  Instead, I found it all to be quite enjoyable.

It helps that I’m an Amy Adams fan and that Meryl Streep is charming even when she’s using a voice that would start grating on my nerves around the midway point.  Plus, even though the film has that Nora Ephron sense of non-reality throughout it, there’s still a sense of believability to everything.  It never gets too Hollywood.  You’re expecting them to throw in a finale where Julie gets rich, moves into a mansion, and becomes best friends with Julia, but that didn’t happen in the real life story, which thankfully means it doesn’t happen here.

The only real problem I’ll point out, besides Julia’s voice, is that in the middle there are a few scenes that seem extraneous and tend to slow the movie down.  It’s over 2 hours long, and I think a few of those scenes, like the sister’s wedding, could have been eliminated without taking anything away from the movie.  This probably contributed to me enjoying Julie’s story line more.  Although, I’m sure the fact that she’s setting up a blog, wondering if anybody will ever read it, and then rejoicing over her first comment had something to do with it too.  I could identify with some of those feelings.

A funny script, entertaining performances, and nice cinematography.  These are the key ingredients necessary to cook up a fine movie.  And with that, I’m sure I’ve become the 500th reviewer to make such a food related joke about this movie.  And for that…I am sincerely sorry.

Bon appetit!  (Really, I’m sorry, I mean it.)

Apparently it’s hard to bone a duck.  (That’s what she said!)  (Huh?)

10 – 1.6 for a few lulls/extraneous scenes in the middle section of the movie – .4 for Julia’s voice wearing on my nerves = 8.0

Away We Go is the newest movie by Sam Mendes, written by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida starring John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney, Jim Gaffigan, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey.

Plot:
Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) are a happy couple, even if they have financial difficulties and rather crappy jobs. When they discover that Verona is pregnant and that Burt’s parents (Catherine O’Hara and Jeff Daniels) are moving away, they decide to start life anew and go on a (road) trip through the US, visiting friends and relatives to decide where that new life should happen.

Away We Go is another one of those movies where somebody somewhere decided that it is not fit for marketing. Oh, and what a bad choice again. It’s a wonderful, funny and heart-warming movie with a great soundtrack that I can only recommend. Over and over again.

Again, I think I know why this movie didn’t get any publicity: it starts with oral sex and not oral sex performed by a woman but on a woman and not oral sex to titillate but oral sex to make you laugh. And a film like that can never fly in the US. And when a film doesn’t fly in the US, it sure as hell won’t fly in Europe because that’s just the way things go. [Does that sound bitter?]

Anyway, this opening probably tells you everything you need to know about the movie. It’s a little over the top. It’s a little whimsical. But it’s so very charming. And it doesn’t take itself too seriously.

They have a great performance cast and they use them perfectly. Burt and Verona’s quest for belonging is not only shaped by the people they meet but also by their parenting skills. So we get the distanced, constantly drunk, snob mum (Allison Janney), the esoteric, anti-authoritarian, over-interpreting mum (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and the family that seems perfect but actually isn’t so much (Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey).

Yes, the supporting characters are clichés but that’s just the point: They stand for ideas. Ideas Burt and Verona want to try out before making their own thing out of them. So it didn’t really bother me.

Oh, and the soundtrack by Alexi Murdoch is absolutely beautiful.

Summarising, an indie comedy in the best sense of the word and not a film that you should leave out.

I had hoped to actually post this before Cleaving’s December 1 publication date as I have friends in high places (…sorta…) and got an early copy of Julie Powell’s second book…and wanted to rub it in your collective faces a little bit. (But in the nicest way possible.)

But, alas, it is now December 5, and for all you know, I could have spent the last four days feverishly reading it and composing dark lies.

But *that*, I suppose, is sort of beside the point.

–

I had *heard* Cleaving got bad reviews…and I understand why. I hadn’t actually read any of the critics until I sat down to write *this.* But as I was reading the book, I definitely thought, “People are not going to like this…”

And because of the kinship I felt with Julie in Julie and Julia (and that I still felt — albeit to a lesser degree — in Cleaving), I’m going to go out on a limb and play a little devil’s advocate here. Which is not to say I liked the entire book. I initially thought it was hard to get into — the text really just goes back and forth between Knives/Meat and Marriage Falling Apart/Affair over and over again. Neither topic is really pleasant to encounter…(especially for those of us who saw Chris Messina valiantly play the role of Eric in this summer’s movie…)

But first I’ll tackle the meat: I’m hardly a vegetarian (those vegan blog posts last year were really just a buddy at HuffPo hooking an unemployed girl up…), but, put lightly, some of those butchering passages were really hard to read. (It was sort of like when I was watching something on TV with my parents about bison that mysteriously died in a national park..and it turned out that they were already sick…and because of the cold weather, they got trapped in some sort of gassy something-or-rather out on the plains…so, it was unfortunate, but they would have died anyway. And the national parks guys proved this by cracking open one of the bones and showing this really gooey bone marrow…and my mother and I saw it and immediately exclaimed, “EWW!” and my dad just said, “What? It’s bone marrow.”) So…Point #1: I may eat steak, but that doesn’t make it easy to read about how a cow *becomes* steak. Which maybe means I *should* be a vegetarian…but that’s a topic for another post.

Point #2: After such phenomenal success with her first book, I sort of have to give Powell props for not following a similar pattern and writing the same thing again, but with Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume Two. I would imagine the temptation would totally be there with something that has already been established as a successful model…*especially* when that model has been turned into a Nora Ephron movie and you KNOW that plenty of people will buy the second book on name recognition alone.

I think London’s Sunday Times put it best, actually, in this review that asked how Powell could possibly top herself after Julie and Julia…and then answers itself: “The answer is, of course, that she couldn’t. But she has had a jolly good stab at it — literally.”

I like that — “a jolly good stab.” We should all be so lucky…

But…it *is* gross. And disconcerting. And, as noted, I basically agreed with everyone who didn’t like it…until D — the man with whom she is having the torrid affair that threatens her marriage — disappears. That was the moment Julie became a sympathetic character to me…and I started to identify with her more and more…and even recognized some of my own behavioral patterns in the things she does for him…even though she knows she’ll never hear from him. This may officially make me a crazy person, but…1. Who among you didn’t think that anyway? And…2. I totally understand that compulsion…and that desire to maintain a connection with someone no longer in your life. Small case in point: There is perhaps no one (aside from myself) who loved my cat more than the Bartender. And so, for example, when I finally got the cat fixed and the vet told me that he was the most well-endowed feline she had ever neutered, I *knew* the Bartender would appreciate the story…perhaps more than anyone else. And so I emailed him about it…even though I knew he wouldn’t respond. I guess part of me is stubborn enough and/or hopeful enough that somewhere out there, he read my message and it made him happy and he remembered that we had good times together. (But when I read Christine Muhlke’s review in the NYT, I felt really bad about myself. I can’t help but feel she’s calling me pathetic, too: “Powell’s not kidding about the ‘obsession’ part: she pathetically texts and e-mails into the ether for almost a year, then fleshes her longing into a book that doesn’t spare the reader a single full-frontal flashback.” [For the record though, I spared y'all plenty of full-frontal flashbacks. So count your blessings.])

However, when I told my friend J that I sort of got Julie’s sadness about D, she said, “But you don’t have a husband!!” which is a fair point. And, Julie, as much as I’d like to defend you (you’re the one, after all, who gave me hope that it *is* possible to be at a point in life in which you feel absolutely nothing is going right, but you can still suck it up and make positive changes and turn everything around…), I gotta say that it *is* hard to have real, total, complete sympathy for you knowing that you have Eric at home. And, sure, he goes out and has his own affair, too…but…I found myself asking, “Why not just get a divorce?” repeatedly. And, sure, he’s been a part of your life for a super-long time and you know each other so well that you’re basically the same person and you always know what the other one is thinking…which is why you can’t hide the affair from him in the first place, but also why you can’t bear to part with him, and…well…I don’t know. It just sort of gets to a point where it seems like a tough decision needs to be made…but nobody is willing to make it and it kinda feels like you guys are making your own beds. Either get divorced or don’t, but, for the love of god, stop complaining about the uncertainty. (Which, ultimately, she does.) (And all of this, “But I love/know him more than I love/know myself…”-business sort of makes me think of the fourth book in the Twilight series and that half-vampire baby that resulted from Bella and Edward’s union. UGH. But, again, another post for another day.)

Point #3 is that when you write something like this, you have to be honest. (Or at least that’s what Dale Maharidge taught me…) And, sure, some of Cleaving is a little saucy and/or, you know, what kids these days (or kids from days of yore) might call TMI…but, at the same time, I also think it’s kind of brave. She wrote about a topic that clearly does not paint her in a positive light…but she doesn’t gloss over any of it. She sort of offers herself up — flaws and all. And that takes guts. And to touch on Point #2 again briefly, all the saucy stuff takes her further out of her Julie and Julia Comfort Zone…and I gotta give her props for being brave enough to do that, too. (But, then again, I don’t know how much of it was actually flexing writing muscles and how much of it was, “See?? I can write naughty words! And lots of ‘em!”)

I also think confidence plays a big role in all of this…and it is where, again, I feel a certain kinship with Ms. Powell. I was just at a little J-school classmate reunion-y thing, in fact, when I was talking about making slow progress on my book and one of my classmates grabbed me by the arms and shook me a little and said, “You’re so talented! Do you know that? You have to know that and acknowledge it and understand that someday you’re going to do great things!” and it was sort of like, “Yes! Sure. Okay!”

I like the way the NYT put the confidence issue best: Muhlke writes that D’s enduring power over Julie exists, in part, because his presence in her life “instills the confidence that being played by Amy Adams in the movie apparently did not.” And…I don’t know. But I get that, too. And, heck, I can only assume money is no object for her now and I don’t really see anything wrong with looking around and saying, “Hey! I have a lot of freedom!” and then trying butchering on for size and going to Argentina, Ukraine and Tanzania…in order to clear her head or spark something within her or simply to delay the inevitable. Obviously she’s still a person trying to figure out who she is and what makes her tick…and I’m not sure we should all be so quick to judge. She has an amazing opportunity sans financial pressures to actually figure out all that stuff on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs…that a lot of people never get to do. I have no idea what I’d do with myself if I didn’t have to worry about paying rent or bills or anything (aside from blogging for all of you, natch). While visiting my parents for Thanksgiving, I went to a thrift shop with my mother and found a giant silver clock that was lined with velvet and contained a hologram of the Last Supper and some fake flowers. And it was just the most amazing clock ever…but there was a slight imperfection in the velvet lining…so I bought some additional fake flowers and glued them on the inside and then I decided I might as well touch up the silver paint while I was at it, too…and I pretty much had the time of my life. So…perhaps I would fix up old clocks. But would I really be fulfilled by that forever and ever? I have no idea. (See? Creating a fulfilling life for oneself is a toughie.)

Bottom line: I think there’s a lot of be said about pursuing your passion no matter what. And I hate to get up on a feminist soapbox, but…I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable to point out that women face this tinge of selfishness when they want to do something purely for themselves that men never do. A man can pursue whatever career/passions he wants and he can still be a model family man. But a woman who puts her career and/or other passions at the forefront at the expense of family and/or children isn’t such a sympathetic figure. And that’s not really fair. (I am tempted to ask the “What if Julie was a man?”-question and bring up powerful men and *their* affairs and follow *that* thread for awhile…but I think Access Hollywood quite thoroughly beat me to that punch last week.)

And, I mean, I totally understand Julie’s excitement in having her own apartment. (Did Virginia Woolf not write that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”?) I’m really not good at sharing spaces. In fact, I think my own apartment may be the ONE thing I’ve done right in my life to date. So…yet another thing that makes me get Julie. If only Eric didn’t exist at all, she might be one of my favorite people ever…(or perhaps I should say, “The idea of her…” I just Googled and found an interivew on YumSugar and realized that she *is*, in fact, a real person and thought, “Yikes! What if she reads this?” Which she won’t…but, still…)

My final plus: It’s hard to travel on your own. Heck, I have trouble eating or going to movies by myself. (That’s one of the good things about working from home — I can go see movies in the middle of the day in the middle of the week and absolutely no one is in the theater…) So — even though I agree with the reviewers that her post-apprenticeship jaunts around the world *do* seem to have been tacked on without a firm idea about how they contribute to the book as a whole — I also think it’s really great she was brave enough to fly all over the world on her own.

The NYT felt otherwise — “She travels to Argentina, Ukraine and Tanzania, a 100-page exercise in self-indulgent writing, in which she dwells on how attractive the locals find her and how much Malbec, Cognac or goat’s blood she can drink…” — but, I mean, c’mon. What is memoir (or foodoir) if not an exercise in self-indulgence?

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

Theatrical Release:Aug 7, 2009

Meryl Streep is Julia Child and Amy Adams is Julie Powell in writer-director Nora Ephron’s adaptation of two bestselling memoirs: Powell’s Julie & Julia and My Life in France, by Julia Child with… Meryl Streep is Julia Child and Amy Adams is Julie Powell in writer-director Nora Ephron’s adaptation of two bestselling memoirs: Powell’s Julie & Julia and My Life in France, by Julia Child with Alex Prud’homme.

Based on two true stories, Julie & Julia intertwines the lives of two women who, though separated by time and space, are both at loose ends…until they discover that with the right combination of passion, fearlessness and butter, anything is possible.

Son and I are jetlagged as hell in our Bev Hills hotel room. We are on the 11th floor overlooking downtown L.A. and the Hollywood Hills. So nice. But we are pretty much sleepwalking. Ordered up two extra pillows and a club sandwich. The club sandwich was really crap and only cost us $25  for what was essentially two slices of bread, some chicken cold-cuts, a slice of tomatoe and some mayo. Oh well, can’t pay the prices stay outta the hood I guess. I saw the movie UP on the plane, and I thought it was adorable.  I also saw Julie & Julia.  Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci are out of this world. They are as delicious as any of the dishes that are prepared. Amy Adams is hard to dislike, but Chris Messina is the most annoying fuck on screen. He eats like a pig and looks like a ten year old. He is so dull and god knows how he got this job. Maybe because he is so dull. I also watched a little of Dorian Grey with Colin Firth. It’s unwatchable and god only knows why people keep remaking this story. Anyway, I now smell of the Four Seasons. I am in their robe and covered in their house deoderant and feeling comfy and almost famous. Just wish we could stay awake.  Had one sighting at Heathrow – Lily Cole.

Julie & Julia is Nora Ephron’s latest movie starring Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci and Chris Messina.

Plot:
Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is working in an office, but her real passion in life is cooking. So, one day, she decides to cook her way through Julia Child’s (Meryl Streep) French cookbook and blog about it, not anticipating the changes this will make to herself and her life.
Interwoven into Julie’s story, we see how Julia Child’s gets to write the book and how hard she had to work for it.

Julie & Julia is good, solid entertainment: Nothing too deep, nice sense of humour and good performances. Makes for a very enjoyable evening.

Julie & Julia did not knock me out of my socks or surprise me but it is one of those comforting movies where you know exactly what to expect – and you get it.

The story itself is sweet and most people leave the movie with the desire to get cooking (I, on the other hand, only got hungry). It unfurls in the way you expect it to, the only thing that might come a bit as a surprise is that [SPOILER] the two Js never get to meet after all and that Julia doesn’t seem to approve of what Julie’s doing. [/SPOILER] But I guess that’s because it’s based on a true story. Or on Two True Stories.

The performances were good. I like Amy Adams and it was nice to see her act at least sometimes (instead of just looking pretty and naive with her big blue eyes, which seems to be a summary of most of her roles). Meryl Streep was, of course, delightful (damn you, Meryl Streep, because of you I might actually watch It’s Complicated).

But I also have to point out that Julie as well as Julia seem to have found the only perfect guys in the world. Both their husbands – played by Chis Messina and Stanley Tucci, respectively – were absolutely wonderful.

I don’t know what else to tell you than that this could very well become one of my regular comfort movies and that if you want light, fun entertainment, you’re going to be perfectly alright here.

Sceneggiato e diretto da Nora Ephron, sulla base dell’ autobiografia di Julia Child My life in France e del romanzo di Julie Powell che dà il titolo al film, Julie & Julia si svolge su due piani paralleli, in un arco temporale differente, intrecciando i destini comuni di due donne diverse.
1949, Parigi: Julia Child ( Meryl Streep) è giunta in Francia dall’ America insieme al marito Paul ( Stanley Tucci), diplomatico, un uomo che la comprende ed asseconda ogni suo desiderio, spingendola, viste la sua voglia di dedicarsi a qualcosa che la possa realizzare e la sua passione per il cibo, ad iscriversi a una scuola di cucina. E così Julia frequenta un corso di Cordon Blue, diviene particolarmente brava, insegnante lei stessa insieme ad alcune amiche, arrivando a scrivere un libro di ricette francesi che viene pubblicato in America. Tornata in patria, approda in tv, divenendo sia con il libro che con il programma televisivo, l’icona di tutte quelle casalinghe (e casalinghi) che non si rassegnano agli autoctoni scempi culinari.
2002, Queens, New York : la giovane Julie Powell (Amy Adams), si è appena trasferita con il marito Eric (Chris Messina), in uno squallido appartamento sopra una pizzeria, lavora come telefonista in un call center, ma è insoddisfatta, sente che la sua vita, le sue aspirazioni (la mancata pubblicazione di un libro alle spalle) le stanno sfuggendo di mano, per cui, spinta dal marito, darà sfogo alla sua passione per la cucina, affrontando una sfida con sé stessa: entro il termine perentorio di un anno si cimenterà con le 254 ricette scritte da Julia Child nel suo famoso best-seller Mastering the art of French cooking, documentandone preparativi e risultati sul suo blog.
Tra ansia ed incomprensioni di coppia, lotte con pentole e cibo in uno sgangherato cucinino, anche per Julie arriverà il momento del successo, con la pubblicazione di un libro.
Se la sceneggiatura e la regia sono prive di slanci particolari, straordinaria è la performance della Streep, tanto che più che ad un’ integrazione tra le due storie, sembra di assistere a due film differenti:l’attrice dà la giusta caratterizzazione al personaggio senza eccedere nella caricatura, lascia da parte il suo fascino per apparire goffa, over-size, con una pettinatura demodè, indossando ridicoli cappellini, con una voce chioccia e gridolini di giubilo ben resi dal doppiaggio italiano. Oltre le spontanee risate, riesce anche a rappresentare la rivoluzione attuata da Julia, trasformare la cucina, vista all’epoca come uno dei “doveri” della donna, in qualcosa di creativo ed edonistico, spensierato e liberatorio (splendida la sequenza dello show in tv in cui deve rivoltare il contenuto di una tortiera e questo casca giù: lo rimette dentro, sghignazzando: “tanto siamo sole in cucina, non ci vede nessuno”).Quando invece la vicenda si incentra sulle vicende di Julie-Amy Adams, il confronto appare impietoso, per quanto la sua recitazione sia sicuramente valida (con qualche eccesso di mossette ed occhioni sgranati), così come paragonare le due figure maschili, l’intenso Stanley Tucci e lo scialbo Chris Messina. In termini culinari, una commedia sufficientemente gustosa, con i giusti ingredienti, ben allestita e presentata, alla quale Meryl Streep riesce a dare la giusta consistenza e sapidità.

Julie & Julia is set in the late 40s/early 50s as Julia Child (Meryl Streep), the American woman who became a household name due to her bestselling book Mastering the Art of French Cooking and had her TV show, fulfils a desire to take cooking lessons while living in Paris. The film is also set in New York in the 2000s, as Julie Powell (Amy Adams) starts a blog where she will chronicle her attempts to cook all 524 of Julia’s recipes in one year. It moves back and forth between the two storylines, showing how these women are connected by their love of cooking. They are also both married to very patient and loving husbands; Stanley Tucci plays Paul Child and Chris Messina plays Julie’s husband Eric.

This is a really warm and charming film. All of the performances are strong – they really make this film. Meryl Streep steals the show as usual, but Tucci is good as her husband and Adams makes Julie, a somewhat self-centred character, sympathetic and likeable. Julia Child is the kind of woman you would either love or hate in real life. She has so much spirit, but she is also full-on. I loved her in this, probably because Streep is so empathetic. There is an undercurrent of sadness that Julia and Paul don’t have any children. Julie and her husband are refreshingly ordinary, they just look so normal. As I’ve said, Julie is a bit self-obsessed, but it’s a bit understandable when we see her friends. They are extremely self-centred, and a blog is Julie’s chance to be heard. Despite seeming self-centred, she is actually very empathetic and gets genuinely emotional about the people that call her at work every day. Julie needs to feel validated; we recognise this desire in ourselves, and thus we understand her faults.

The problem with the film is that you never really connect with the characters. That sounds like I’m going back on everything I said, but let me explain. I was interested in the characters and their storylines, but I never felt that the stakes were very high. It never felt like they were going to fail, thus taking away a lot of potential drama. This film could potentially be quite forgettable.

Overall Julie & Julia is an enjoyable film that is elevated by fine production and great acting. Women of all ages and older men will like this movie.

My Rating:

[disclaimer: this post is related to my work as CEO of Glubble]

OpenID

Yesterday was a big day for Glubble, a private social network for (extended) families including small children. We introduced the ability to register and log in to Glubble with existing accounts from other services using OpenID.

The continuous battle for the consumer has led to a wilderness of services fighting to lock in the identity (data) of the user. Services require the user to register with e-mail addresses and passwords, forcing all of us to maintain multiple identities across services. Once in, its hard to get out again.

Ideally I would like to see services appear that have only one purpose, to protect your identity on the web. It’s like a bank which only serves you and your identity and doesn’t have any other commercial activities (like advertisement based business models for example). It ensures that you are in control of your identity. Your identity, and related to that the ability to control your privacy,  is probably the most valuable thing on the web and we tend to give it away easily for some fool’s gold. It’s nearly impossible to create a marketplace for identity providers, mostly because there is no business model that can create such a market. We don’t understand nor care its important, and currently we aren’t willing to pay for it.

The next best thing besides neutral identity providers is OpenID. OpenID allows consumers to re-use an existing (and trusted) identity. If you already have an account with Google, or Facebook, or whatever, OpenID let’s you re-use that account to register and log into new services. After speaking with Chris Messina, OpenID advocate, we decided to implement OpenID for Glubble. I believe we now may be the first service for families on the web supporting OpenID.

The benefits for the consumer are huge. A nearly 1-click registration and log in process replaces the need to remember yet another e-mail address and password combination. We’ve gone live with it yesterday, and although it is premature to discuss statistics, I can say now that already 50% of new users are registering with one of the OpenID options we currently provide! I expect this nr to increase when we add more providers in the coming days.  If you want to, you can give it a try here.

At Glubble we are committed to putting the user in control. Providing an OpenID registration and log in is the first step. We will continue to add more controls that empowers the Glubble user to take control of his identity and privacy. We ‘re doing this the hard way (everything on Glubble is private by default, and we let the user decide what he wants to share publicly). But in the end we feel it will help the consumer to become more aware of the need to be in control of identity and privacy.

OpenID is the first step, and we are very happy with it

Vicky

Vicky (Rebecca Hall):  é uma jovem centrada, prática e decidica. Sabe o que quer da vida e não se deixa influenciar.

Cristina (Scarlett Johansson): é uma artista impulsiva que vive sabendo apenas o que não quer da vida.

Barcelona: é o cenário ideal para uma viagem de verão dessas duas amigas americanas. Vicky vai para a Espanha estudar a cultura catalã, tema de seu mestrado, e Cristina vai acompanhar a amiga.

Cristina

Uma noite Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), certa noite convida as duas para passarem um fim de semana em Oviedo. E é a partir daí que a história nos mostra que as pessoas mais convictas podem ser postas em cheque e as mais alienadas podem encontrar um sentido para a sua existência.

Vicky está prestes a se casar com Doug (Chris Messina), que decide passar o verão com a noiva em Barcelona.

Juan Antonio é um pintor divorciado que viveu um conturbado casamento com sua ex-mulher Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz) uma mulher aparentemente desequilibrada, mas que põe todo o sentido na trama com sua teoria sobre o amor e o romance.

De maneira extraordinária e sutil, Woddy Allen põe em cima da mesa os relacionamentos e os sentimentos das pessoas. O que é fidelidade? O que é, de fato, traição? O que é se entregar? O que éter um relacionamento aberto? O que é um amor de verão? O que é a felicidade? E o que é a vontade que dá de ver todos os personagens se libertarem de suas amarras e se entregarem à paixão?!!

Como na vida real, nem só de uma boa fotografia e um jogo de luz perfeitamente estudados vive uma história de amor. E nem com a quantidade de vinho que eles tomam durante o filme as coisas acontecem como seriam em um típico blockbuster. Vale a pena conferir e, se você tem uma quedinha por vinho, é melhor ter uma garrafa e uma taça à mão… Agora, se o seu casamento ou namoro não estiver lá essas coisas, melhor esperar um pouco mais para assistir.

Ficha Técnica:
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)
Ano de lançamento: 2008
Direção: Woody Allen
Elenco:
Vicky – Rebecca Hall
Cristina – Scarlett Johansson
Juan Antonio Gonzalo  – Javier Bardem
Maria Elena – Penélope Cruz
Doug – Chris Messina
Narrador – Christopher Evan Welch

Gux

Quem estiver a fim de pegar fila e enfrentar uma sala lotada deve ver Julie & Julia na Mostra Internacional de Cinema.

É muito fácil gostar desse filme:

1 - Ele tem a Nora Ephron e o seu gosto impecável – da escolha do cast à trilha sonora, passando pela fotografia e os detalhes de cada cena.

2 – Tem a Meryl Streep. Exagerada e caricata, mas ainda assim, Meryl Streep.

A primeira vez que eu ouvi falar de Julie&Julia foi quando estava preparando um post sobre a Meryl (veja aqui).

Como esperava, ela não decepcionou. Mais: ela engoliu os outros atores. Nas palavras do USA Today, Streep plays Julia Child to perfection. She nails Child’s distinctive vocal cadence, loping gait, awkward gestures and, above all, her voluble enthusiasm. Streep’s turn as the sprightly TV chef is not only a wondrous impersonation but an intelligent and respectful portrayal.

 Como você pode imaginar, eu tenho uma cena predileta, 

mas o filme merece mesmo uma indicação é por Melhor Ideia. Este é o terceiro e principal motivo para ver Julie & Julia. 

Veja bem: o filme não faça jus ao livro de Julie Powell.  O roteiro é bom, a Amy Adams é fofa e talentosa, mas o Projeto Julie/Julia é muito maior e melhor do que o descrito ali. É envolvente, simples e fantástico.

É a ideia que eu queria ter tido. Eu queria ter escrito vários trechos daquele livro. Eu também me vi em várias daquelas cenas [tá, eu confesso que não gosto de gatos e não tenho um marido como o Eric (que, ao contrário do comentário da Teté Ribeiro, não tem NADA de chato), mas posso ter um acesso de chiliques como os dela fácil, fácil].

Eu entendo quando a Julie diz que o simples ato de escrever (…) torna os fatos importantes ou pelo menos incomparáveis e sinto a mesma emoção perigosa e confessional quando decido descortinar os fatos mais interessantes da minha vida bem como minhas ideias para o mundo.

O mais importante, porém, é que tanto o livro quanto o filme despertam o estômago e a vontade de fazer mudanças.

PS1: Quer saber quão brilhante é a Meryl Streep? Veja esse vídeo da verdadeira Julia Child.

 PS2: Não entendeu nada? Veja o trailer:

PS3: Os fãs de Glee podem conferir uma Sue bem diferente. Jane Lynch faz a irmã de Julia Child.

PS4: A Julia Powell lança, em dezembro, um novo livro: Cleaving: A Story of Marriage, Meat and Obsession. Segundo NY Times, a obra deve abordar a infidelidade (pasmem!) da autora.

 PS5: Quer aprender a fazer o Boeuf Bourguignon de Julia Child? O No Soup for You ensina.  

 ”Bon appétit!”

So far, 2009 is shaping up to be a decent year for movies, I think. There’s already been some great films released, and Oscar season is getting started. I recently watched I Love You, Man and Away We Go, which had been two of my most anticipated movies from earlier in the year. Both we great, and it got me thinking that 2009 seems to have been an exceptionally good year for comedies. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen as many dramas, but so far seven out of my top ten favourite movies of the year are comedies. Of course, not every comedy was good. For every Away We Go there’s a Confessions of a Shopaholic. But I’ve seen some fantastic comedies with some very strong performances. I thought I’d share some of my favourite comedic performances of the year. Since I think comedies are always criminally underrepresented in the awards season, I’ll give my two cents on who I think is deserving of nominations, and who actually has a chance. I might update this list as awards season gets closer, and as I see more movies from 2009.

Oh, and since I only seem to get comments on the posts where I encourage them, be sure to leave comments on which choices you agree/disagree with, and your own opinions on your favourite comedies of 2009!

Meryl Streep – Julie & Julia
Meryl Streep can do no wrong (well, except maybe Mamma Mia…), and she’s given some great comedic performances this decade (Adaptation and The Devil Wears Prada both gave her Oscar nominations). Her performance as legendary chef Julia Child was delightful (though the movie as a whole was just decent). She had the voice, the body language, and the spirit down pat.

Award Season Prospects: This is the only performance on the list that’s guaranteed to get an Oscar nomination, and she just might win the whole thing.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt – (500) Days of Summer

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of my favourite young actors, and I was excited to see him return to his comedy roots after all of the heavy movies he’s made this decade. His comedic timing is brilliant, and at times, he’s pretty hilarious here. This is not a typical romantic comedy, and Levitt elevates his performance so far beyond the usual acting in those types of movies. It’s a subtle performance, but the genuine warmth and feeling that he brings to this role is unusual.

Award Season Prospects: Based on what I’ve seen this year, I think he’s worthy of an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. But that category is always overstuffed, so I’d be shocked if he got one. A Golden Globe nomination is possible, but sadly, still a bit of a stretch.

Maya Rudolph – Away We Go

Most people know her from her great comedic work on Saturday Night Live, and I was really surprised by how good Maya Rudolph was in Sam Mendes’ Away We Go. It’s considered a comedy, but there are a lot of scenes (especially in the latter half of the film) that are entirely dramatic. My mom said she found the film depressing, but I disagree. And I think a lot of that has to do with Rudolph’s vibrant performance. Her character is pregnant, and both worried and excited for the future. I thought Rudolph gave a very genuinely likeable and optimistic performance.

Award Season Prospects: I think a Golden Globe nomination is possible.

Amy Adams – Sunshine Cleaning

With two Oscar nominations already under her belt, obviously Amy Adams is a fantastic actress. She’s got a great screen presence in every movie that she’s in, and Sunshine Cleaning is no exception. It’s a comedy, but there isn’t a ton of laugh-out-loud kind of laughs. It’s just not that kind of movie. But Adams does a great job with the subtle humour, and the human drama that the role calls for. She was good in Julie and Julia as well, but this is the more interesting role and performance.

Award Season Prospects: Sunshine Cleaning was under the radar, and got somewhat mixed reviews (though I loved it). I think that Adams is worthy of a Golden Globe nomination, but it may or may not happen.

Emily Blunt – Sunshine Cleaning

Starting off as the more comedic character in Sunshine Cleaning, Emily Blunt played the mix between comedy and drama perfectly. Something about her screen presence is magnetic. Blunt had a few scenes that really showed off her acting skills (everyone talks about the “tressling” scene), as well as a bunch that allowed her to be sarcastic and curmudgeonly, which she does very well. She’s great in those roles that blur the line between humour and drama (The Devil Wears Prada, The Jane Austen Book Club)

Award Season Prospects: I’m not sure if her performance qualifies as lead or supporting, but I’m not sure if her chances are great, either way. I’d love to see her get some kind of nomination for her work here, though.

Zach Galifianakis – The Hangover

Oh, God. I can’t even think of this performance without giggling a little. There were so many hilarious moments in The Hangover courtesy of Mr. Galifianakis. I like Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms a lot, too, but this guy stole the show. If you’ve seen the movie, you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t seen the movie and don’t know much about Galifiankis, I’m sure you’re a bit puzzled by all the fuss. To which I say, go see The Hangover.

Award Season Prospects: Hey, remember when Robert Downey Jr. got an Oscar nomination for wearing blackface last year?

Jesse Eisenberg – Adventureland

Oddly, this is only the second ugliest t-shirt that appears on this list. Anyways, some people call Jesse Eisenberg the poor-man’s Michael Cera. But I think that he’s some alternate version of Michael Cera who is capable of conveying genuine emotion. Don’t get me wrong. I love Michael Cera, but I was really impressed by the earnest, sweet performance that Eisenberg gave here. He’s still funny and awkward, but there was just something very real about his performance, like he wasn’t constantly worried about being clever and funny.

Award Season Prospects: Not great. It’s not the kind of performance that usually gets recognized, sadly.

Paul Rudd – I Love You, Man
I’ve been a fan of Paul Rudd for a while now. I first noticed him on Friends, and then I went back and loved him in Clueless. So after a string of iffy movies and supporting roles, I was glad to see him starting to get the leads in major comedies. Role Models was a lot of fun, and he topped it with this year’s I Love You, Man. He is so incredibly awkward (“Slappa da Beeaaaass!”) as Peter, a man with no male friends, but so charming, too. There’s something about Paul Rudd that you just want to root for.

Award Season Prospects: Hilarious performance, but just not award-worthy.

Chris Messina – Away We Go

Alright, so it’s a really small role and not even an especially comedic performance, but I just wanted to talk about how impressed I was by Chris Messina in Away We Go. The movie is split into different parts, and when Burt and Verona travel to Montreal, they meet up with Messina’s character, who Burt went to college with. He has a great monologue, and Messina delivers it perfectly. His character starts off as seeming like a laid-back guy, but as we learn more about his and his wife’s circumstances, his character takes an unexpected turn. It’s a really understated performance, but that whole section in Montreal was my favourite part of the movie, partly thanks to Messina’s performance.

 Award Season Prospects: Not a chance.

Zac Efron – 17 Again

I’m probably not helping my case by choosing a photo from the most shamelessly pandering scene in the whole movie. But whatever, I thought Zac Efron actually did a good job. He proved on SNL that he has comedic talent (I loved the “I AM YOUR MOTHER!!!” sketch. Anyone who can keep a straight face through that earns my respect). I’m not a fan of the whole High School Musical franchise (though there was an unintentionally awesome scene in the third movie where Efron breaks into the school at night and basketballs start raining down upon him. ANYWAYS.), but I thought he made this otherwise iffy movie a lot funnier (well, him and Thomas Lennon).

 Award Season Prospects: Ha.

Comedies from 2009 That Look God-awful, and I Vow Never to Watch:

1. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
2. Bride Wars
3. The Pink Panther 2
4. Dance Flick
5. Miss March
6. I Love You, Beth Cooper
7. All About Steve
8. Duplicity
9. My Life in Ruins
10. Imagine That
11. Post Grad
12. The Ugly Truth

Comedies from 2009 of Interest That I Still Need to See:
Big Fan

The Brothers Bloom

Bruno

Extract

Funny People

The Informant!

It’s Complicated (upcoming)

Pirate Radio (upcoming)

A Serious Man

Taking Woodstock

Up in the Air (upcoming)

Whip It!

World’s Greatest Dad

Zombieland

In America ha sbancato i botteghini ed è stato molto apprezzato dalla critica (“Julie & Julia is one of the gentlest, most charming American movies of the past decade” scrive il The New Yorker).

In Italia i giudizi sono stati più variegati: si va da “una divertente commedia scevra del sentimentalismo trito e ritrito che inzuppa di melensaggine tante pellicole hollywoodiane di più recente produzione” (Angela Cinicolo) a “pur essendo confezionato con la doverosa cura, il film si prolunga per due ore in maniera a tratti stentata” (Adriano Ercolani), da “una commedia dai tempi comici perfetti” (Stefano Cocci) a “il film non riesce a mantenersi costante” (Valerio Sammarco).

Tutti concordano però nel celebrare l’ennesima prodigiosa prova della grande Meryl:

“quando è in scena la Meryl Streep, strepitosa nei panni della Child, tutto diventa molto divertente; mentre, a dispetto del fatto che Amy Adams è una buona attrice, quella di Julia resta una figura ben poco interessante. E non si vede l’ora che torni Meryl, magnifica in coppia con il marito Stanley Tucci” (La Stampa), “…non se ne può più che riappaia la Streep, più grande degli altri, coi suoi ridicoli cappellini e le grida di giubilo che non si sa quale nostra attrice riuscirà a doppiare. Streep è meravigliosa quando, rinunciando a tutto il suo fascino, appare matronale, goffa, con una vecchia pettinatura, simile quasi a un travestito…” (Repubblica), “…è indubbio che Meryl Streep abbia compiuto un’impresa geniale nel riciclarsi come attrice comica, o meglio come icona di un certo tipo di cinema passato, serio, che si diverte a smentire la propria immagine passando al lazzo istrionico…” (Comingsoon), “una Meryl Streep,come sempre, straordinaria” (Cinematografo.it), “…la scena è inevitabilmente rubata dal fare curioso e una voce da ‘usignolo’ della Streep” (35mm), “l’ennesima straordinaria performance della divina Meryl Streep, ineguagliabile” (Movieplayer). Per comprendere appieno tale entusiasmo occorrerebbe vedere il film in lingua originale e sentire così la voce (notoriamente camaleontica) di Meryl: grande è dire poco. Basta confrontare i due trailer del film, quello americano e quello italiano. La bravissima Maria Pia Di Meo (doppiatrice storica di Meryl Streep) compie un evidente tour de force nel tentativo di rendere nella nostra lingua la performance originale ma il risultato non è del tutto riuscito: alla lunga fastidioso, monotono, stancante ripetitivo.

Julie & Julia nel complesso delude le aspettative. Poteva essere un piccolo gioiello: storia originale, grandi attori, una regista che sa il fatto suo… Ma non funziona. Troppo lungo e con scarso ritmo, il film ha il grave difetto di non amalgamare le due vicende narrate (da una parte abbiamo, alla fine degli anni 40, Julia Child che, moglie di un diplomatico di stanza a Parigi, si trasforma nella “cuoca d’America”, colei che permise “agli americani senza servitù” di assaporare il gusto della cucina francese; dall’altra la trentenne Julie Powell, aspirante scrittrice, che nel 2000 decide di realizzare tutte le 524 ricette presenti su “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” di Julia Child e riportare su un blog appositamente creato ogni dettaglio della sua esperienza). I parallelismi non mancano ma ognuna vive per proprio conto: l’impressione è di assistere a due lavori malamente intrecciati tra loro e che si disturbano a vicenda.

La cosa migliore è naturalmente il cast. Meryl Streep è semplicemente favolosa, Amy Adams (già apprezzata ne Il Dubbio) è deliziosa (benché a molti critici italiani non sia piaciuta). Grande come sempre Stanley Tucci. Alquanto scialbo (ma probabilmente per colpa dell’inconsistenza del personaggio) Chris Messina.

Si esce dalla sala quasi arrabbiati per la splendida occasione sprecata. Sulla carta una commedia frizzante e leggera, nella realtà un lavoro scarsamente coinvolgente e che diverte poco. Peccato.

scheda

sito ufficiale

sito italiano

servizio di LUCA SVIZZERETTO

(tratto da Nuovo Oggi di venerdì 23 ottobre 2009) – Ieri fuoco e fiamme per l’ultima grande giornata prima della due giorni che vedrà la consegna dei premi minori e maggiori e la proiezione di gala dei film vincitori.
Tre eventi di cui parlare e da sottolineare. I fratelli Coen con ‘A Serius Man’, Meryl Streep con ‘Julie & Julia’ e l’evento più atteso dai teenager avvero il red carpet e la presentazione (20 minuti di scene) di ‘New Moon’, secondo capitolo della saga di ‘Twilight’.
Il film dei Coen ironizza su una certa categoria della società statunitense e lo fa in modo assolutamente graffiante. Difficile quindi ridere a crepapelle, si ride a denti stretti e se non è così allora il sospetto è quello che la pellicola non sia stata ben capita. Cosa possibile visto che il tutto è piuttosto difficile da interpretare fino in fondo e non è certo il lavoro più lineare dei registi premio Oscar.
Un film “decisamente americano”, che racconta la storia di un ebreo in una cittadina del Mid Wed e dove anche parte dei personaggi sono “attori locali”, hanno ammesso i fratelli Joel e Ethan riguardo alla loro opera fuori concorso. “Il film è girato nel posto dove siamo cresciuti – ha spiegato Ethan Coen all’Auditorium – ma nella storia non c’è nulla di personale, di autobiografico. Il luogo è stato il punto di partenza, tutto il resto è finzione”. Protagonista del film è Larry Gopnik, interpretato da Michael Stuhlbarg, anche lui presente alla conferenza stampa, nei panni di un professore di fisica in un’università del Mid West che, alla ricerca di perduto equilibrio, chiede consiglio a tre diversi rabbini. “Michael è cresciuto in California e vive a New York”, ha detto Joel Coen, “ma mio padre era del Mid West, quindi chissà”, ha scherzato l’attore.
“Volevamo fare un film su personaggi ebrei, – ha detto Joel Coen – in un contesto specifico, in un’epoca specifica”. “Noi siamo ebrei – ha aggiunto Ethan Coen – e questa è una parte enorme della nostra identità ed ha un’influenza enorme su quello che facciamo. Forse chissà, in questa identità c’è anche un certo pessimismo”. Nel film si racconta la sensibilità ebraica del Mid West, hanno ripetuto più volte i fratelli Coen.
“Quella di Woody Allen – ha aggiunto Joel – è invece una sensibilità ebraica tipicamente newyorchese, diversa da quella di questo film”. “Se Antonioni fosse cresciuto a Minneapolis, chissà, – ha detto Ethan Coen – le cose sarebbero andate diversamente”. “Non so se il film descrive il vuoto della società americana”.
Se “A serious Man” sia una commedia o meno? Per Ethan Coen “è semplicemente una storia”.
Molto più divertente, limpido ed apprezzabile è invece la pellicola che vede protagonista la mitica Meryl Streep. Peccato solo che non si sia trattato di un’anteprima ma che in realtà in Inghilterra, ad esempio, è già nei cinema da diverse settimane.
Una pura celebrazione del gusto per la vita. Meryl Streep seduce la folta platea di giornalisti condensando il cuore del suo nuovo film “Julie & Julia”, che racconta due vite parallele ai fornelli, quello della famosa tv chef Julia Child negli anni ‘50 e l’attuale emula con tanto di blog: “Quello che conta è l’amore il sesso e cibo e’ la gemma che brilla in questo film, il messaggio che si nasconde. Il potere soldi carriera sono elementi che mettono in ombra le cose che contano nella vita”. Simpatica e brillante, strappa applausi ad ogni risposta, è un’emozione solo a vederla nella sua calma serafica e nella signorilità piena di charme con cui sopporta problemi tecnici di traduzioni (tra cuffiette che non funzionano). Ogni volta che si parla delle sue interpretazioni, si ricorre a complimenti superlativi: “Ovviamente ringrazio moltissimo, mia mamma mi ha insegnato le buone maniere. Tutti questi riconoscimenti e superlativi non incidono più di tanto perché io conosco i miei difetti e debolezze. E’ proprio la fragilità umana che mi interessa esplorare come attrice, ciò che non e’ perfetto. Sono sempre alla ricerca di qualcosa che mostra fragilità e difetti” Ha conosciuta la vera Julia Chiald? “No, mai incontrata purtroppo. Ma ho avuto uno scambio con lei per posta perché nel 1989 ero attiva nel movimento dello slow food cercavo di promuovere il concetto di mangiare bene e sano. Si chiamava Mothers and Others. La contattammo ma fu scorbutica, non ci diede nessun sostegno, poi e’ diventata più aperta, si era lasciata influenzare da persone che lei rispettava”. Lei cucina: “Tutte le sere, sono brava, magari non sempre tutte le sere”. Ma quali sono gli ingredienti per una vita fortunata tra lavoro e privato? “Primo ingrediente, un buon marito. Io l’ho trovato 31 anni fa. Poi, energia resistenza e grande capacità organizzativa”. E rivela “Con questo film volevo rendere omaggio a mia madre, aveva la stessa età, era della stessa epoca, aveva la stessa gioia di vivere. Quando entrava in una stanza la illuminava, era bravissima a comunicare il suo entusiasmo. Il film è stata per me l’opportunità di interpretare una donna esistita veramente ma tenendo presente una donna che ammiravo, un’opportunità di interpretare una donna che sceglie di guardare alle cose belle della vita”.  Sul caso Polanski: “Mi spiace che si trovi in carcere”.
Sta al gioco anche con le domande più bizzarre, se la frase clou della diva chef “tutti possono disossare un’anatra” poteva ispirarsi al motto di papa Woytila, e lei replica: “sono d’accordo col papa e con Julia sull’anatra, bisogna provarci con tutte se stesse. Una delle opportunita’”. Sul premio Nobel a Obama, commenta: “Sono d’accordo col Nobel a Obama per cuo’ che lui ha promesso, forse non gli abbiamo dato tempo per mantenerle ma e’ sulla buona strada. Lui ha conseguito qualcosa di sostanziale nel cucire amicizie importanti nel mondo”. Quando dichiara di evere 60 anni, fioccano gli applausi in sala, e se tempo fa una diva di Hollywood rimasta anonima ha pubblicato una lettera su un noto giornale in cui chiedeva alla figlia di non fare l’attrice elencando tutte le spiacevoli e negative situazioni, lei commenta: “Non potrei mai scrivere una lettera cosi, la mia e’ stata una vita fortunatissima, nella nostra professione ci sono carriere diverse. C’e’ chi incarna il glamour io non mi sono mai concentrata su questo, ma sul mio essere attrice. E come attrice potevo fare un uomo una donna una vecchia signora grassotta, e ho sempre pensato a me come fatta d’argilla da plasmare. Adesso l’attenzione asfissiante ad essere magre e bellissime. Sotto questa pressione si perde la capacita’ di fare bene l’attrice. Sono felice ma anche preoccupata per le mie figlie attrici, quando arrivano le critiche criticano te e il tuo modo d’essere. Ma e’ una professione eccezionale e sono grata per tutto cio’ che questa professione mi ha permesso di esprimere”. Se un giornalista ricorda l’emozione di quando bambino vide Il Cacciatore, lei risponde: “Sono sorpresa che sua madre le abbia lasciato vedere il Cacciatore quando era piccolo, non si fa”. Si ispira a qualcuno: “Ho tratto ispirazioni da tante, rubo ancora, anche dalle attrici con cui lavoro. Meglio rubare agli uomini cosi’ non se ne accorgono”. Invidia?: “Si per Jessica Lange, che ottenne la parte in Sweet dreams”. All’Oscar ci pensa?: “Per me e’ interessante pensare al lavoro più che ai premi. Ho vinto il mio ultimo Oscar 25 anni fa, e sono onorata quando ricevo nomination, sono gi attori a votare. E’ bello che siano i colleghi a valutare. Poi il voto dipende dall’Academy”. Ha un regista preferito? “Non ho un regista preferito non ho neanche un colore preferito o un cibo, mi piace tutto. Forse con alcuni registi non mi sono divertita tanto, ma sono viziata, ho lavorato con i migliori”. Pensa alla regia un giorno? “Alcuni registi direbbero che gia’ l’ho fatto o ci ho provato. Ho opinioni su tutto e parlo anche di cose che non mi riguardano. I grandi mi permettono di collaborare tantissimo”. Con chi vorrebbe lavorare? “Vorrei che Martin Scorsese avesse interesse per un personaggio femminile per una volta, ma non so se ci sara’ tempo”. E se le si ricorda il gala di attori che la celebrarono anni fa, dice: “E’ stata una delle più straordinarie esperienze della vita, volevo morire. Sono passati cinque anni, una serata straordinaria, avevo il cuore gonfio dalla gioia non pensavo di sopravvivere. Era all’American Institute. Quest’anno dovro’ celebrare Bob De Niro per il più importante premio che un artista puo’ ricevere, saro’ io a presentargli questo premio e sto mettendo a punto il discorso, siamo grandi amici”.
Infine un invasione di giovani e giovanissimi per il red carpet di parte del cast di ‘New Moon’, presenti Jamie Campbell Bower, Charlie Bewley, Cameron Bright e la sceneggiatrice Melissa Rosenberg. Il gruppo ha presentato alcune scene del film in anteprima assoluta prima alla stampa ed a seguire al pubblico. Per quel poco quindi che si è visto il prodotto finale sembra migliore di ciò che ‘Twilight’ ci aveva offerto. Se il primo artisticamente era un prodotto deludente, commercialmente vincente comunque, questo seguito potrebbe offrire una nuova prospettiva anche ai più negativi. Fatto sta che sarà vincente sul piano economico anche questo, vista la mole di ragazzine urlanti in cerca di un atografo e visto che è già in fase di realizzazione il terzo episodio, quello che potrebbe concludere la serie televisiva come ci ha spiegato la Rosenberg.
Con ‘New Monn’ il Roma Film Fest si prepara alle molte premiazioni che avranno luogo già da questa mattina e staremo a vedere se il nostro pronostico si avvicinerà alla realtà. Con ‘Up in the air’ (Reitman, Clooney), trionfante per il pubblico e ‘L’uomo che verrà’, di Giorgio Diritti, sul podio più alto per la giuria.

Henry Ebel, ashamed of his goggle-eyed father and driven, frustrated mother and their humble uniform store, attends Columbia College just 40 blocks south of their Washington Heights apartment but prefers to pretend they don’t exist.  Henry is not the only German Jewish émigré at Columbia, but he acquires an Anglophile demeanor, a wardrobe of cardigans and tennis sweaters, and spends holidays and weekends with friends’ families.  When dating my mother, he doesn’t make family introductions. It isn’t until Henry graduates with high honors and departs for Cambridge University on a prestigious Kellett Fellowship that Anna and Richard Ebel invite my mother out to lunch.  My mother, overcome with nervousness and exhorted by her mother to never cost other people money, orders only coffee.  “You’re a cheap date,” my grandfather says to her, hurting her feelings and leaving a scar.

My mother joins my father at Cambridge and they are married there in 1959, both 21 years old.  They return to the States a few years later, and, after considerable and tense negotiations, a nervous trip is made to Bloomfield, New Jersey, where my grandparents have since moved to the Troy Towers, a brick apartment complex surrounded by trim landscaping.  Henry dons his best wool suit in a chocolate brown.  He has been utterly out of touch with his parents, and returns to them a married man.  When Anna lays eyes on her son, the first thing she does is stretch out her arm to cleanly snip a loose thread from his lapel with her manicured fingernails.

When my parents are divorced, the custody agreement simmers.  “Your father and your grandmother’s relationship was strained,” my mother says, “but they both had a unique ability to create an environment of looming threat.  I was frightened that they would take you away.”

“Did you consult a family court attorney?  A hottie in a shag haircut, perhaps?  Now that would’ve been a promising husband number two.”

“I don’t think so.  I don’t remember.  I was frightened.”

“You were disempowered.”

“Yes.  Disempowered and scared out of my mind.”

“So did Anna disown me because you wouldn’t grant her partial custody?”

“Maybe, but it wasn’t like that.  There wasn’t a moment.  It just…happened, I think.  After the divorce, I don’t remember ever seeing Anna again.  She wasn’t a doting grandmother, you know.  She wasn’t the sort to take a child to the park or anything like that.”

“But were there arguments about money?”  My brother Adam tells me that when he was growing up, Henry regularly railed against his mother’s money manipulations.  It’s a classic, isn’t it, the confusion of money with love.  Would’ve been different, figuring out how to pay for college, if my grandmother had gone the other way. Lavishing me with riches as a way into my life instead of withholding them as punishment.  Not that there were riches, exactly, I mean, I don’t think there were riches.  My grandmother was the sole heir to some sort of moderate fortune left by a bachelor uncle, but also he wasn’t Vincent Astor.

“I don’t remember any arguments, per se,” my mother says.  “I remember that she once took you to FAO Schwarz to get you whatever you wanted, and when you asked for a stuffed animal she wouldn’t let you have one.  I remember you were terribly upset about that.”

(For more on the Whole FAO Schwarz Debacle, see No.4: False Translations.  Spoiler alert!  My grandmother buys me my first typewriter.)

But what I am looking for is a dramatic proclamation.  The flourish of a feather pen and its life-altering scratches across parchment.  Or a Dickensian slam of a rubber stamp as a last will and testament lands in the beleaguered clerk’s in-box.  Even a thuggy Italian attorney cornering my young mother in a Grand Union parking lot: that could work.  Something that remotely resembles the seeming melodrama of being cut off.  So let’s see what we can do here.

In the Stephen Daldry-directed screen adaptation of Fatherland, screenplay rewritten by both Michael Cunningham and Nora Ephron, yet I share credit, two scenes satisfyingly depict my dramatic disinheritance.

The first scene is set in a spotless upholstered living room in Troy Towers, an exterior shot of which reveals a circular driveway dotted with circa 1970 Buicks and Oldsmobiles in shades of Tiffany blue and pistachio.  Anna Ebel, (Lorraine Bracco in an impeccably fitted champagne blonde wig), has summoned my mother (Maggie Gyllenhaal) to a conference.  “I understand your intention is to divorce my son,” Anna accuses matter-of-factly, setting a coffee service down on the kidney-shaped coffee table as Maggie perches nervously in a tweed mini-dress jumper at the edge of the avocado sectional and a toddler Kathy, played by sedated twins from Tarzana, dutifully piles blocks in the corner.  Anna pours coffee, serves almond cake, and presents my mother with a Faustian opportunity.  “You’re not what one would describe as a confident mother, my darling,” Anna begins in her clipped accent, “and so I’m sure you will agree it is best, best for the child, if I remain involved, financially and otherwise.”

The next scene takes place in the dusty, downtown Manhattan office of a well-meaning but fidgety family court attorney (Chris Messina in a loosened knit tie doing his best young Dustin Hoffman), as the results of my mother’s refusal to grant Anna custodial rights are revealed: I have been written out of a sizeable family trust, if my mother would please sign on the dotted line.

“But I think Anna used to send me birthday cards, didn’t she?” I ask my mother.  We are side by side on the sofa of her Brooklyn Heights apartment.

“Wait,” says my mother, raising her hand to her mouth.  “I think I’ve just remembered something.”

“Oh yeah?”

“Checks.  I think she sent you checks in those cards.”

“I don’t remember those.”

“That’s because I sent them back.”

In the movie, Chris Messina wakes up on Maggie Gyllenhaal’s couch.  She’s sleeping curled around him. Groggily rubbing at his face, he sits, looking around the bohemian clutter of this Teaneck, New Jersey living room, has a half-hearted glance at the latest New York Review of Books, when he spots a pair of penetrating eyes staring at him.  A toddler girl in footsie pajamas.

“Hey,” he says, gentle and curious, wondering where his pants are.

“You’re not my Daddy,” the child replies.

Away We Go is a touching, funny, and nearly perfect comedy about a young couple expecting their first child and trying to sort out their place in the world. Unfortunately, it’s interrupted at frequent intervals by annoying cartoon comedy routines detailing the lives of families in the US and Canada, whom the main characters encounter as tryouts to determine what kind of parents they want to be … Read the rest of my review at Culturazzi.org