Hi! I'm new here.

I've been advised (on rec.arts.past.movies, where I posted it
first,) to post this here, where I "would probably get a
very different response."

So, here goes:

This film was discussed [many times on various newsgroups].

The thing is, I only recently saw the film on TV, and am now
reading "My Life in France".

I rather liked the "Julie" actress Amy Adams, I think she's
sweet. I loathed the way Meryl Streep played Julia Child -
not knowing anything about Child, I still thought Streep
ridiculous.

In an interview, Streep admits she based her interpretation
more on an impersonation played by an actor in drag on
"Saturday Night Live" than on any film footage of Julia
Child - with the exception of one TV cookery scene where
she imitates Child like a parrot.

I was astounded that Streep - who usually does such intense
research - went around booming and billowing like a drag
queen, and all because Child was 6 foot 3 /1m90 tall and
no Barbie doll. Today I watched J&J dubbed into French, and
it was even worse - the French actress dubbing Streep spoke
as if completely drunk.

The idea that a girl can become famous by writing a blog is
no longer true; maybe back then when no-body did it, but
now there are more blogs than blades of grass in a meadow,
and nobody reads them. The idea of cooking one's way
through a cookbook and writing about it is amusing, however,
and the fact that Julie Powell framed her cooking anecdotes
with material from her personal life is normal, for a writer.
(Okay, haven't read HER book yet!)

As for "My Life in France" by J.C. - I love it. She mentions
peach trees in the mist - I leap out of the bus, rush
into a store and buy a can of peaches, and boy, did they
taste good.

She mentions leaping out of bed at 6.30, and later on drinking
coffee with a croissant - I rush into a store and buy a
croissant, and boy did it taste good with my coffee next
day. (Forget the leaping out of bed at 6.30, though!)

She mentions boeuf bourgignon - I rush into a store, buy
some meat, cut it into cubes, cook it with onions and
veg and sauce - not bourgignon, but, boy, did it taste
good.

And of course, Julia Child liked cats.
And, as you can see here, so do I:
http://roundtablespage.tvheaven.com/photo.html

So while I disliked Streep in J&J, it introduced me
to Julia Child, for which I am grateful.

Although I doubt I'm ever going to use "3/4 of a pound
of butter" for a sauce.

Just as I don't use "4 eggs and 2 egg yokes"
(and 2 more if you make your own pastry) for Rachel
Khoo's version of Quiche Lorraine. Rachel Khoo, by the
way, had the smallest restaurant in Paris, consisting
of two tables in her one-room apartment, which reminded
me of T. Roosevelt's saying "Do what you can, where
you are, with what you have":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI52eJR1dRU

Melanie

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:59:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Hi! I'm new here.

Stick to your day job.

Your movie review is not only dull and out of step with all the major
film critics, but factually erroneous in several instances. Your
conclusions are unsound..

You have little knowledge of cooking, either, so what are you selling?

Boron

On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> Your movie review is [...] out of step with all the major
> film critics.....

I'd say that's a plus!

> conclusions are unsound..

I thought they were opinions.

> You have little knowledge of cooking, either, so what are you selling?

Harsh.

nb

On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> You have little knowledge of cooking, either, so what are you selling?

She's not selling bile, so you shouldn't fear she'll cut into your business.

On 28 Nov 2012 15:51:12 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> Your movie review is [...] out of step with all the major
>> film critics.....
>
>I'd say that's a plus!

You obviously do not read the same film criticism as I do. I tend tow
disregard the epinions and Rotten Tomatoes sort in favor of The New
Yorker or NY Times, myself. Why is the opinion of a trained film
critic of less value that a damnable fool posting on Usenet.


>> conclusions are unsound..
>
>I thought they were opinions.

Like horses' asses - they abound. In this case, they were also
preceded by some semblance of thought process. I use that latter term
lightly

>> You have little knowledge of cooking, either, so what are you selling?
>
>Harsh.
>
Not at all. It is an idiotic intro to a group. It's overly long,
contains errors, is ill-conceived and concluded, and indicates an
vast ignorance of the specific cooking topics brought up.

Not that I generally expect any better around here these days.

Boron

On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> You obviously do not read the same film criticism as I do.

I typically don't read film critics at all. Used to, but decided my
opinion is the only one I value.

> Why is the opinion of a trained film
> critic of less value that a damnable fool posting on Usenet.

It's in the "trained" (?) critic's best interest to give good marks to
most films. They are being paid for their opinion and no one wants to
hear a critic pan more films than not. I'd make a terrible critic, as
I think 98% of the movies made in the last 10 yrs totally suck and
have no qualms about saying so. I wouldn't do good in the film review
biz. BTW, what IS a "trained" film critic?

>>I thought they were opinions.

> Like horses' asses - they abound. In this case, they were also
> preceded by some semblance of thought process. I use that latter term
> lightly

I still don't get yer point. It was her opinion. That's all that is
offered around here. And much like yours, that's all it's worth.

> Not that I generally expect any better around here these days.

I don't recall anyone putting a gun to your head, though I'm sure the
thought has occured to more than a couple members.

nb

On 2012-11-29 01:01:48 +0000, notbob quoted:

> ...what IS a "trained" film critic?

I took a course in Film Criticism while at NTSU (now UNT).

I've been trained. You've been warned.

On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> Not that I generally expect any better around here these days.

O my! The riff raff here of late has become appalling!

blotclot babbled:

> It's in the "trained" (?) critic's best interest to give good marks to
> most films. They are being paid for their opinion and no one wants to
> hear a critic pan more films than not.

Breathtaking, that's what you are.

One little point for you to chew on: Critics are not employed by
filmmakers or studios or theater operators. Can you guess who does pay
them? If that doesn't make your head explode, try figuring out what
the interest of critics' employers really are.


Also, as far as Ms Streep's performance, what was so bad about it? I
think she underplayed it, but that may have been because Julia was
actually a bit on the irascible side.

On Thursday, 29 November 2012 02:01:48 UTC+1, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-11-28, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You obviously do not read the same film criticism as I do.
>
>
>
> I typically don't read film critics at all. Used to, but decided my
>
> opinion is the only one I value.
>
>
>
> > Why is the opinion of a trained film
>
> > critic of less value that a damnable fool posting on Usenet.
>
>
>
> It's in the "trained" (?) critic's best interest to give good marks to
>
> most films. They are being paid for their opinion and no one wants to
>
> hear a critic pan more films than not. I'd make a terrible critic, as
>
> I think 98% of the movies made in the last 10 yrs totally suck and
>
> have no qualms about saying so. I wouldn't do good in the film review
>
> biz. BTW, what IS a "trained" film critic?
>
>
>
> >>I thought they were opinions.
>
>
>
> > Like horses' asses - they abound. In this case, they were also
>
> > preceded by some semblance of thought process. I use that latter term
>
> > lightly
>
>
>
> I still don't get yer point. It was her opinion. That's all that is
>
> offered around here. And much like yours, that's all it's worth.
>
>
>
> > Not that I generally expect any better around here these days.
>
>
>
> I don't recall anyone putting a gun to your head, though I'm sure the
>
> thought has occured to more than a couple members.
>
>
>
> nb

(Laughing as I read this thread)
Wow! This is actually a lot of fun! Not since I posted
the - I admit, rather provocative - thread
"Why do gardners hate cats" at uk.rec.gardening did I
actually get roasted (by some) on a newsgroup.

I've been posting on humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
since 2001, thus I've been through the acid bath, walked
on the hot coals and fought the good fight, so Moron
Elgar's withering comments won't dry up the sap in MY
stems.

Film critics - my brother teaches film at two local
universities, and is writing his 3rd book on films
- may be right, but I am a member of the public/ the
audience, and my opinion is just as good as the next
man, and thankfully, unlike Boris Elgar (how's the
composing going on?) I don't live under a dictator,
so am free to form my own opinion. Specially when I
have to pay for a cinema ticket or for the TV programme
shown.

Both my day job and my creative work have nothing
to do with cooking or film criticism, btw.

I just watched the film, then watched bits and pieces
of the real Julia Child on YouTube, and saw two
different people, two different characterizations,
and wondered who the hell Streep was pretending to
be.

This impression was confirmed by the (first few)
chapters of My Life In France. And, being a
communicative person, I said so in public.
Oooh, naughty me. Whatever will I do next.

(Stick around here maybe? Who knows. An unfortunate
trait of my personality is that when everyone is
nicey-nice I tend to get bored, and when people want
me outahere, I tend to stick around.)

Melanie

On 2012-11-28, > wrote:
> Hi! I'm new here.
>
> I've been advised (on rec.arts.past.movies, where I posted it
> first,) to post this here, where I "would probably get a
> very different response."

Not really. There are as many jerks here as in rapm.

I wasn't impressed with the movie, either. The performances were
barely good enough to comment on, let alone recall. I do remember
thinking the Julie character a bit pathetic, having to use another's
accomplishments to further her own non-existent one's. As for Creep,
it's jes too easy to caricature J. Childs, to the point where it's
almost impossible not to. I figure Creep read the script and thought
to herself, "I'm between oscar nominations, what the Hell!"

nb

On 2012-11-28 12:59:33 +0000, said:

> Hi! I'm new here.
>
> I've been advised (on rec.arts.past.movies, where I posted it
> first,) to post this here, where I "would probably get a
> very different response."

I should also have warned you at the same time that judicious neglect
of some in the newsgroup is critical. I don't recommend it except with
a fully equipped newsreader with killfile options. ggroups may not be
your best option.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:59:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Hi! I'm new here.
>
>I've been advised (on rec.arts.past.movies, where I posted it
>first,) to post this here, where I "would probably get a
>very different response."
>
>So, here goes:
>
>This film was discussed [many times on various newsgroups].
>
>The thing is, I only recently saw the film on TV, and am now
>reading "My Life in France".
>
>I rather liked the "Julie" actress Amy Adams, I think she's
>sweet. I loathed the way Meryl Streep played Julia Child -
>not knowing anything about Child, I still thought Streep
>ridiculous.
>
>In an interview, Streep admits she based her interpretation
>more on an impersonation played by an actor in drag on
>"Saturday Night Live" than on any film footage of Julia
>Child - with the exception of one TV cookery scene where
>she imitates Child like a parrot.
>
>I was astounded that Streep - who usually does such intense
>research - went around booming and billowing like a drag
>queen, and all because Child was 6 foot 3 /1m90 tall and
>no Barbie doll. Today I watched J&J dubbed into French, and
>it was even worse - the French actress dubbing Streep spoke
>as if completely drunk.
>
>The idea that a girl can become famous by writing a blog is
>no longer true; maybe back then when no-body did it, but
>now there are more blogs than blades of grass in a meadow,
>and nobody reads them. The idea of cooking one's way
>through a cookbook and writing about it is amusing, however,
>and the fact that Julie Powell framed her cooking anecdotes
>with material from her personal life is normal, for a writer.
>(Okay, haven't read HER book yet!)
>
>As for "My Life in France" by J.C. - I love it. She mentions
>peach trees in the mist - I leap out of the bus, rush
>into a store and buy a can of peaches, and boy, did they
>taste good.
>
>She mentions leaping out of bed at 6.30, and later on drinking
>coffee with a croissant - I rush into a store and buy a
>croissant, and boy did it taste good with my coffee next
>day. (Forget the leaping out of bed at 6.30, though!)
>
>She mentions boeuf bourgignon - I rush into a store, buy
>some meat, cut it into cubes, cook it with onions and
>veg and sauce - not bourgignon, but, boy, did it taste
>good.
>
>And of course, Julia Child liked cats.
>And, as you can see here, so do I:
>http://roundtablespage.tvheaven.com/photo.html
>
>So while I disliked Streep in J&J, it introduced me
>to Julia Child, for which I am grateful.
>
>Although I doubt I'm ever going to use "3/4 of a pound
>of butter" for a sauce.


I tend to agree with you - you make some good points.
Despite that, I basically enjoyed the movie, even though I found
Streep to be a bit over the top.

You should seriously consider checking out Mastering
the Art of French Cooking Vols 1&2 - I've found they're the only
cookbooks that I ever need to refer to.

BTW... time to lose your fear of saturated fats

On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 20:38:15 UTC+1, Jeßus wrote:
>
>>
> You should seriously consider checking out Mastering
>
> the Art of French Cooking Vols 1&2 - I've found they're the only
>
> cookbooks that I ever need to refer to.

Okay, will do!


> BTW... time to lose your fear of saturated fats

Oh no, I love butter. My husband uses margarine because
he can spread it more easily, but margarine apparently
has (Quote) "26 ingredients in common with wall paint,
and when you leave a container of margarine open,
no bacteria will grow on it, nor will any flies
go near it." Plus, it contains salt, so is not good
for my blood pressure.
I just don't want to overdo the cream-butter-fat-egg
thing.
Also, I've made great quiche with only 3 eggs instead
of "4 and 2 yokes" as Rachel Khoo says, so why use more?

I mean, who really sticks to a recipe word for word?
I suppose one should, but does one?

Melanie

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:11:52 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 20:38:15 UTC+1, Jeßus wrote:
>>
>>>
>> You should seriously consider checking out Mastering
>>
>> the Art of French Cooking Vols 1&2 - I've found they're the only
>>
>> cookbooks that I ever need to refer to.
>
>Okay, will do!
>
>
>> BTW... time to lose your fear of saturated fats
>
>Oh no, I love butter. My husband uses margarine because
>he can spread it more easily, but margarine apparently
>has (Quote) "26 ingredients in common with wall paint,
>and when you leave a container of margarine open,
>no bacteria will grow on it, nor will any flies
>go near it." Plus, it contains salt, so is not good
>for my blood pressure.

No margarine in this house, I can tell you that!
Full cream butter and nothing else, thanks...

>I just don't want to overdo the cream-butter-fat-egg
>thing.
>Also, I've made great quiche with only 3 eggs instead
>of "4 and 2 yokes" as Rachel Khoo says, so why use more?

Indeed, if it works then it works.

>I mean, who really sticks to a recipe word for word?
>I suppose one should, but does one?

I could probably count on one hand when I've stuck to a recipe
verbatim.