Girls on Film: When Women are Wasted
Filed under: Fandom, Columns, Girls on Film
No, this isn't a look into gals who drink mass amounts of booze on film. This is a look into Julia Child. (Although, of course, the chef had a definitive love of libations.) Julie & Julia is finally making its way to theaters on August 7, and as early reviews and responses come in, one thing is certain: Meryl Streep steals the show.
This is no surprise. As loved as Amy Adams is, it's hard to live up to the powerhouse -- especially when Streep has so perfectly embodied a woman most could never hope of mimicking. Every clip that comes out (see a good collection of them here), is practically Child on the screen herself. Streep's got the iconic voice, the spunk, and even -- somehow -- the stature. (Meryl Streep is 5'6", and Child was 6'2".)
Adams, dare I say it, almost seems out of her element -- and not in an "everywoman learning to cook" sort of way. Where her exuberance and charisma usually seeps out of her -- in everything from Drop Dead Gorgeous and Psycho Beach Party to Sunshine Cleaning and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day -- the Julie-centric clips don't hold the same magic.
Perhaps the magic ties together in the full feature, but this just leaves me thinking about those times when wonderful female performances are stuck in films that don't live up to their acting achievements.
I'm not saying that Julie & Julia is a waste. It looks like a fun film, and will surely do decent business. But as The New Yorker has already said, this match is "not a fair fight... When Adams, as Julie, is on the screen, it necessarily means that Streep, as Julia, is not, and you come to resent her for this." Whether audiences come to resent Julie's presence or not, the masses are already falling for Julia.
But this isn't a movie about the chef. It's a fictionalized look into Julie Powell's experiences with Mastering the Art of French Cooking, with a dollop of Child's life on the side. That same New Yorker piece wondered if a biopic would've worked without Julie's contribution. I don't see how or why it wouldn't. Child's magic was having the culinary know-how mixed with spunk that made her adored by the masses, and I think it's quite clear that Child and Streep know how to draw a crowd.
Will we ever reach a time where scene stealers won't have to be "helped" by what's considered to be more mainstream characterizations? This project comes from a book by Julie Powell, so really it all started with her, but the notion that a foodie icon needs a flustered, fall-on-the-floor-and-cry co-star to make it work is insulting.
I just comfort myself with my pipe dream that Streep will bring Child to life again. We've got remakes, reboots, and reboots of remakes. We've got battling pictures based on the same person or moment. So why not pick out Streep's Julia and show more of her life -- not as an anecdote, but a larger, starring story? Julie & Julia could be the teaser to something even more in-depth. ... But I'm not holding my breath.
So, I wonder: Is it a waste when a wonderful female performance shows up as only a slice of a larger whole that doesn't compare? Great slivers of cinema are surely better than nothing, but in a world where it's rare to see unique female characters, grasping for slices of greatness can be rather irksome. No one wants to see a movie where half of the time they're waiting for someone to come on screen.
In the sea of supporting female roles and scene-stealers, which do you wish had taken center stage? Which performances ripped themselves out of the mediocre confines that surrounded them and were the most worthy of starring status?
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-21-2009 @ 12:39AM
alluhrey said...
you are already conditioned to the notion that the film is a waste, when you admit that you haven't seen it at all and are basing your opinion from the impressions of a man who wrote about it in the new yorker. well, that's just plain stupid, if not ignorant...
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 3:22AM
Monika said...
Definitely not a waste of a film, but the waste of a great performance and subject -- in that Streep/Child is only part of the film.
7-21-2009 @ 8:20AM
danny said...
The Elle review linked in this article calls the film an artful interweaving of two tales, Ephron's best, the movie she has been waiting for, one that is as smart as her legendary essays. That said, she also says Streep is the standout, most likely because of the attraction of the Julia character and Streep's mastery of that colorful role, and how joyous her life in France and her marriage plays out on film. Still, it seems the movie's merit is not compromised by this towering performance over the other co-lead. Other reviews have pointed out that both characters are given equal focus. It's not meant to be a straightforward biopic. Let's judge the film when we see it for ourselves.
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 3:22AM
Monika said...
Exactly why I would hope that this could open up the door for a full-on biopic!
7-21-2009 @ 1:26PM
Joe said...
Monika,
I fail to see how any of this is exclusively 'female-oriented'. For instance, it's not as though Streep's part has been pushed to the sidelines for a mediocre male performance or an uninteresting storyline with a male protagonist. Everything you've said is universally applicable to movies in general. Fantastic male performances are often as supporting roles, or 'scene-stealers', but you haven't cried foul of these films. Once again, I feel that your article fails to life up to its original premise and is instead just taking a limited view on a greater fact of cinema to imply some degree of sexism.
If you were to write an article on 'scene-stealers' in general, you'd be quickly informed in the responses that the reason this happens is often because the story being told is such that the supporting character is NOT the focus. And we'd all comment on our favourite scene stealing actors and performances. By limiting your view to just women, you're simply reinforcing any inequalities.
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 1:35PM
Monika said...
Of course it's not exclusively female-oriented. Nothing is, with the exception of bodily processes. The column is about women on film -- it can be about inequalities, or simply, something in cinema to do with women, and in this case, it's a female starring-written-directed-originally written film.
Of course there are male scene-stealers who I'd wish had their own films as well. Off the top of my head, Eric Roberts in Spun would be one.
7-21-2009 @ 8:42AM
Kevin said...
This entire article seems to be an implied, if not overt, swipe at Amy Adams portrayal and how unfortunate it is that she has any time on screen when the entire movie should have been devoted to Streeps Child. What an insulting notion from an author who admits she hasn't seen the movie. The movie comes out in just a few weeks, wait until you have seen it and then say if you felt like Adams performance detracted from the films impact. I'm sure Streep is brilliant (thats about as guaranteed as the sun coming up) but that doesn't mean that Adams time on screen will not add to film and make Streeps scenes more poignant/humorous/inspiring/what have you. After the first paragraph I thought "This is a pretty big swipe at Amy Adams, but I guess now Monika is going to go on to talk about a myriad of movies that had underused supporting characters"...nope, just a few more paragraphs of bashing a movie that isn't out. Very odd.
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 2:04PM
Meredith said...
I don't know ... I have high hopes for Amy Adams. Call me an optimist, but I can't squash the belief she'll hold her own against Meryl Streep. This isn't "The Devil Wears Prada," with Anne Hathaway cowering in Streep's shadow. Adams has a luminescent quality she can't hide -- even in movies like "Talladega Nights." Plus, she's shared the screen with other big-talent actresses (Frances McDormand in "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" comes to mind), and she never fades into the background. Yes, Adams has an undeniable presence, and I think we'll see that in "Julie & Julia."
M. Carter at the Movies
http://mcarteratthemovies.wordpress.com/
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 2:07PM
Monika said...
I hope so! But they're certainly picking the wrong scenes to show that.
While I am wondering where the charisma that often oozes in the briefest clip is, I think how Adams holds up to Streep will have a lot more to do with the way they've written Julie.
7-21-2009 @ 10:01PM
Coburn said...
I understand what you're saying, I guess... but as a die-hard Amy Adams fan, I'm hoping that the movie balances out effectively as a whole. I am also quite a big Meryl Streep fan, and I know that's it's tough for anyone to really hold a candle to her; she is that good!
BUT >>> I can think of one especially good example: Doubt. That movie was phenomenal, and I honestly thought that Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman were just as good as Meryl Streep... a great example of an amazing movie that was built on the phenomenal performances of the actors. I don't think anyone outshone anyone else in that movie.
However, I do understand that Doubt centered around Streep's character... but even when she wasn't onscreen, I didn't find myself waiting for her to show up, as everyone in the film gave incredibly strong performances...
I really have to see Julie & Julia to make a judgment about it, though. I'm hoping for the best!
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 2:28PM
Melissa Silverstein said...
As someone who has seen the film Monika is right on. It seems that Ephron really just loved writing and directing the Julia parts and the Julie parts while good in any other film or context seem flat here. It could have something do with how Julie is portrayed in her queen loft with her dead end job, very little color on her life. Paris with Streep is vibrant and colorful and sooo exciting.
It's not a fair fight and that's what most people are saying.
Having said that, I liked the film a lot and think it is much better than many others and really worth seeing.
PS- I love Ephron's film debut This is My Life starring Julie Kavner.
Reply