Why pay $10 for Julie & Julia just to suffer gratuitous insults? *UPDATED*

Last night, I went with a friend to see Julie & Julia, a movie that abruptly lost me exactly halfway through.  Although it’s a movie that has all the trappings of a good chick-flick, with enough beautifully photographed food to appeal to male foodies too, it contains some calculated insults that should drive all conservatives away from the theater without leaving any money behind.

The story line is an interesting one.  The Julia of the title is Julia Child, played with rambunctious energy by Meryl Streep, who must have watched every minute of Julia Child footage ever filmed.   Over the course of the movie, we see her from her rapturous arrival in France in 1949 through to the moment she finally gets her first cook book published.  Her romantic marriage, her Cordon Bleu experiences, her agonizingly long writing effort, her husband’s brush with McCarthyism, and the various postings she and her State Department husband had throughout Europe all get attention.

The Julie of the title, played in too-cute-for-words style by Amy Adams, is a secretary in a New York government office dealing, in August 2002, with the aftereffects of 9/11.  She’s frustrated by the fact that her friends, who are bitches without virtue, are enormously successful, while she, at 29, has failed to become a famous writer.  Cooking is her only solace.  When one of the hated friends starts a blog, Julie decides she can do one too.  Her blog gimmick is that she will cook 524 Julia Child recipes over the course of a single year.  Her blog takes off, and we watch her triumphs and frustrations as she deals with lobster slaughter, aspic, and burned stew.  Her husband, an endlessly good humored and supportive man, gets into a snit once, rightfully calling her a completely self-obsessed neurotic, but he comes around.

Although based upon two books — Julie Powell’s Julie and Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously and Julia Child’s My Life in France — Nora Ephron, who wrote the script, is the movie’s dominant voice.  This is a good thing because Nora Ephron is a very funny and elegant writer.  She manages to balance quips and pathos and bathos like a true professional.  She also manages to blend rather seamlessly two entirely different books, the first a traditional memoir of a rather unusual life in the 1950s, and the second a bio-blog by a woman who comes across as a self-involved twit.

The acting is also excellent.  Meryl Streep completely inhabits the Julia Child character.  From the first minute we see her striding across the screen in platform shoes that have her towering over everybody, she seems to be Julia Child reincarnated.  There’s never a slip or a hint of “actorliness. ” She is Julia Child.  And she is as close to Julia Child as I ever hope to come.  While Child’s ebullience and optimism are, at first, charming, they eventually become completely exhausting.  The constant whooping and shrieking and clumping wear a person down.

Amy Adams, too, does a great job.  If anyone can make a whining, neurotic, self-centered character charming and likable, it’s Adams.  It says an awful lot about the character that, despite Adams’ cute blinks and little smiles, I still came away wanting to smack Julie — and that was despite a certain amount of sympathy for the character.  After all, I myself am an obsessed blogger, and it’s not pretty.  Which is my point — I wouldn’t want to see a movie about me, and eventually I got sick and tired of the charmless, driven Julie too.

Where the movie shines is in its representations of food and 1950s Paris.  Although my tastes are simple, and the notion of a stuffed duck wrapped in pastry has me grabbing for the Tums (and grabbing for the Tums is a running joke in the movie), it’s still a feast for the eyes to watch Julie and Julia take lovely, butter-rich food out of the oven or off the stovetop.  I didn’t actually leave the movie feeling hungry, but I did leave feeling gastronomically satisfied.  The 1950s set pieces are lovely too.  Every detail of the time and place is lovingly recreated, something I appreciated.  I’ve never forgiven the Dr. Zhivago filmmakers for making an epic movie about the Russian Revolution, all the while keeping Julie Christie in her 1960s-style hair and make-up, so I’m grateful for movies that take the time and make the effort to get it right.

So far, it’s a lukewarm review, right?  Good writing, good sets, good food, good acting, utterly irritating characters.  Normally, I would say, go see it for yourself and see whether, unlike me, you like the characters and manage to be charmed by the whole movie.  But I’m not going to say that.  I’m going to recommend very strongly that, if you’re a conservative, you ignore the movie entirely.

I started getting uncomfortable when Julia Child and her husband used the fact that Julia’s Pasadena-based father was visiting to do a little McCarthy and Republican bashing.  Still, it’s pretty much de rigueur in movies that involve the 1950s for filmmakers to show their liberal bona fides by bashing McCarthy.  We’ve known since the 60s that Hollywood will never accept that old Joe was right, and the government did have a ridiculous number of communists and communist sympathizers anxious to do harm to the United States.  In Hollywood-land, only the excesses of McCarthyism (and there were indeed such excesses) live on in collective memory.  I therefore stayed with the movie despite this pro forma McCarthy indictment.

Where the movie lost me was during a scene in the modern era.  Its genesis is the fact that Julie, whose blog is taking off, is expecting a famous food publisher for dinner.  The night before the planned dinner she had made Julia’s Boeuf Bourguignon — and then burned it. The next day, she calls in sick to work so that she could remake the time consuming dish.  She carefully (and falsely) blogs that she is sick and then blogs later that, miraculously, she is well again, so as to lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative.

On her return to work the next day, she discovers that her boss has read this false blog entry, and is offended that she’d referred to work and that she’d obviously lied about her health.  Then (and I’m quoting from memory here), this bit of dialogue emerges from the bosses mouth:  “You’re lucky I’m a nice guy.  If I were a Republican, you’d be fired.  But I’m not (or I’m trying not to be) a schmuck.”  (Half the Marin audience laughed.)

I was offended.  I have no idea whether the line originated in Julie Powell’s blog or her book, or if it came from Nora Ephron’s own fertile, Democratic brain.  I really don’t care where it started.  All I know is that, as a conservative, I was offended when a completely gratuitous and very crude insult suddenly popped out of a character’s mouth.  It didn’t advance the movie.  It had no relationship to the plot.  It was just thrown in to assuage some writer’s or filmmaker’s bone-deep need to be offensive to half the country.  After that, I pretty much tuned out the rest of the movie, staying only because my friend was enjoying it.

Bottom line:  Why pay $10 to see a movie that includes gratuitous insults that have no purpose other than to show the movie-maker’s own ugly biases?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

UPDATE:  Welcome, Big Hollywood readers.  I’d be delighted if you stayed a few minutes and looked around.  And as the Beverly Hillbillies said, “Y’all come back now.”

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. Charles Martel says

    Book, my instinct for finding the silver lining lies in this line: “Half the Marin audience laughed.”

    Which means the other half didn’t.

    Maybe there’s more than four conservatives at a time to be found these days in any randomly picked Marin parking lot—or movie theater?

  2. kali says

    Michael Jordan was supposed to have said, when asked if he would [endorse a Dem candidate or run as one, can't remember] that “Republicans buy shoes too.”

    I wish more people remembered that, but in their minds, they’re not expressing a political opinion but a cultural fact.

    Or maybe it’s all a deliberate conspiracy to poison the Republican brand. Either way, I’m not buying. And even though I have a great fondness for Julia Child–the quote that sticks in my mind is “Don’t be afraid of butter!”–I’m giving this one a miss.

  3. Indigo Red says

    I thought the movie delightful and laughed from start to finish. Streep was magnificent and was the embodiment of Julia Child. She has a wonderful way of disappearring from the stage while the character remains fully alive.

    However, I was also jolted by two scenes. The movie was essentially profanity free, then from out of nowhere comes “F*** ‘em!” This gratuitous and seeming obligatory use of profanity lent absolutely nothing to the story. It did, in fact, remove me from the from the story reminding me I was in a movie theater, suspension of belief suspended not knowing what to do next.

    The second scene was the “…if I were a Republican, you’d be fired…” crack. Totally unnecessary and again I was removed from the story. That’s too bad. Now I must think hard to remember the truly delightful and touching moments of which there were many.

  4. SADIE says

    Sorry, Book. Had I known you were going to see the movie I would have given you a warning on the verbal sniping. I had read a review that alerted the reader, which automatically kept me from seeing the film.

    Next on my list is Tarantino’s film: Inglorious Basterds. If someone here has seen the film and thinks that I will have to run to the nearest dojo parking lot – I am all ears.

  5. roylofquist says

    My aunt Ruth was a friend of Julia Child. Long story – she also knew Will Rogers and Wiley Post. I heard some stories, but they shall remain untold. I would only point out that it was recently revealed that Julia Child had worked for the O.S.S., the predecessor of the CIA.

  6. Leah says

    We were guests of some very nice people at the Hollywood Bowl last night. Diana Krall, who would have been entertaining. But halfway through she spoke glowingly of being it the White House. Fine, that is something to brag about. but then she said, this president is such a warm man, hugs everyone, unlike the previous occupant.
    That is when she lost me. Gratuitous Bush bashing. Our hosts were mortified as well.
    thanks for the heads up, think I”ll be skipping this one.
    BTW, movies are close to $12 in Southern Ca.

  7. SADIE says

    It’s the creepin’ – crawlin’ insidiousness permeating film, music, advertising.

    It’s feels like N.Korea or China (posters, pictures everywhere) Iraq (before the statues were brought down).
    Like some political vortex sucking us in, even if want no part of it – constant indoctrination, trying to wear down the weakest.

    Leah, your hosts should ask for their money back and tell the promoter that they bought tickets for a music venue not a political rally.
    Of course, the response most of us would hear is, Hey…you got a two-fer. Music and political bashing.

  8. Mike Devx says

    They took G.I. Joe, a quintessentially American Army hero, and turned him into a U.N. soldier in an elite U.N. outfit. Now, I’m not against U.N. movies, but you don’t get to do that to G.I. Joe. So I skipped it.

    Gratuitious insults to Republicans – unless it’s to make the point that Republican Congressmen, like all of them, are corrupt – are likewise intolerable to me. Hollywood industry in particular attacks Republicans to attack conservatives. So Julie and Julia is out.

    I’m waiting for word on the Red Dawn remake. Perhaps they’ll honor the original material, perhaps not. I’ve heard rumblings that the script contains information that states that America is to blame for the invasion of their land. (Just like they want to say 9-11 is our fault, natch!) If that’s true, or if there is any other liberal hogwash in there, I’ll skip it.

    I’d like to note that no one here in Book’s comments has chimed in to agree with me that was was done in the Jim Carrey movie “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” was the most grotesque of Hollywood perversions, turning the loving Christian community of Whoville into a depraved community; making the Grinch essentially the instrument of deliverance from their errant ways. That is a message 180 degrees opposite from the original source story and the (wonderful) Christmas special. None of these other Hollywood perversions comes close to what was done to the Grinch movie, in my opinion. I’m still outraged by that one. And to think that the widow of Dr. Seuss approved the go-ahead on the movie.

  9. says

    Well…….I’m going to disagree – agreeably, I hope.

    First, I noticed both of the insults to conservatives, AND the bad language. Dealing with the language first, it was part of a wonderful scene where Julia’s husband is supporting her in the most caring and tender way possible. Her cookbook isn’t being appreciated by the publishers, and she is feeling worthless about it — he listens, he expresses sympathy, and he’s just lovely…..and then he blurts out what any MAN would be thinking about anyone making his wife feel so terrible — “F**k ‘em!” I recoiled — but I loved it!! It fit the scene…and the man, perfectly, in my opinion.

    As to the insults, I suspect that the boss’ comments about Republicans are pretty typical of what the typical D.C. bureaucratic mini-czar would say, don’t you? I mean, how many people like Clarence Thomas are in charge of even small departments within large governmental organizations in Washington these days? Yes, it was a gratuitous slap at the “political other”, but isn’t that a pretty fair portrayal of reality in 2002….or today? I hated it, but it’s the reality that I hate much worse – the movie can’t harm anyone, but the bias inherent in the “permanent government” is harming all of us. Let’s get exercised about THAT, not its portrayal on the silver screen! They’re doing us a favor, folks — shoving it in the face of every center-right movie-goer in the land….and there are LOTS of us out here. We need to know what they think of us — it can fuel our determination to make changes….REAL changes. How about starting in 2010?

    The McCarthy stuff was as BW represents it – and I had pretty much the same take she did. I WISH that Hollywood told the truth about the ’50s, but I’m not holding my breath.

    What I LOVED about Julie and Julia, and the reason I’m telling all my friends and relatives to go and see it, was the positive portrayal of marriage…..loving, imperfect, “real”…..especially Julie’s. The “modern”characters each act badly at times, but they realize it and make amends and get back together and do better. They’re truly committed in a way that young people need to see…and self-centered as Julie is (and she REALLY is – but I act a bit like that [ignoring 'most everything in my focus on the immediate] when things get tough at work, so I was cutting her some slack), she “gets it” pretty quickly, and she deletes a mention of the fight from her blog, and really does reach out to her husband when he shows up. “Please be back” just hit me in the solar plexus — she didn’t have to say that, but it communicated everything!

    Sorry to go on and on — but I really disagree strongly with BW.
    GO and SEE this movie…..here in TN, we both took in the matinee for a total of $12.00, by the way! No one HAS to stay in California! :-)

  10. says

    Earl, you are absolutely right about the fact that the movie has a soft spot for marriage. That’s a good thing in this day and age, and I liked that same quality very much in the Zac Efron movie “17 Again.”

    However, I also find that it’s a woman’s movie in that, with the modern Julie character, it says that you can be utterly self-centered and demanding, as long as you cry prettily and express remorse when the chips are down. That Julia’s husband would love her makes sense. Although I found the shrieks and whoops irritating, her lust for life was clearly an attraction. With the Julie character, I just didn’t get it — and maybe that’s because I’m a gal and saw only another in a series of neurotic women. I’m good friends with a lot of neurotic women — heck, I am a neurotic woman — and there’s a fine line between charming and unlovable.

  11. Gringo says

    Leah paraphrasing Diana Krall:
    this president is such a warm man, hugs everyone, unlike the previous occupant.

    A gratuitous and inaccurate slam. Note Bush hug in Google Images, which shows a photo that has been on Gateway Pundit’s home page. While we are at it, here is a Google Images search for Bush carnival Germany.

    I see Obama as a cold fish, especially in comparison to Dubya. If he hugs, it is hug that was calculated in advance.

    Roy, we would love to hear some of your aunt’s stories, but I can see why you would withhold the information.

    I haven’t been to a movie theatre in 6-7 years. I wouldn’t want to enrich Hollow-wood. A DVD set of 50 old movies for $10-$20 is good enough for me.

  12. BrianE says

    I installed a home theater a couple of years ago and haven’t gone to a movie since then. An 8′ screen is nearly as immersive and the popcorn is cheaper.

    Off topic, but someone asked about Inglorious Basterds. I would never rent a Tarentino movie (I couldn’t sit through Kill Bill), but here is an interesting take on the politics of the movie:

    I would have respected Tarantino more had he made a film about real Jews who desperately fought to defend themselves against the Nazis, such as the Polish Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who were memorialized in Leon Uris’s Mila 18, rather than a film about murderous imaginary ones…
    His new movie is nothing more than revenge porn for Hollywood Jews and it’s only going to underline whatever feelings of psychological inadequacy they have for the general failure of European Jewry to defend itself during the 1940s. It also serves to underline the idea that a Jewish-American is not a true American, for what American soldier behaved like the bestial Jews of the movie even in the less-civilized battles of the Pacific theatre? There has been no shortage of actual Jewish heroism during the Arab-Israeli Wars, so pretending that nonexistent Jews murdered nonexistent Nazis 65 years ago isn’t going to make up for the fact that with a few noble exceptions, they died like sheep, not wolves. As it stands, this “Jewish revenge fantasy” is only going to feed into global anti-semitism, particularly in the Middle East. I have no doubt that we’ll soon be hearing Gaza and the West Bank being portrayed as similar “Jewish revenge”.

    Day is usually contrarian, somehow the idea of Jews bringing home “100 scalps”, even of Nazi’s…I mean, what could go wrong?

  13. says

    I’ve learned to do what fake liberals do. Compartmentalize, isolate, and simply forget key moments that had just happened while sustaining an emotional state of being not much different from the original square 1.

    It’s the same for authors as it is for scriptwriters and actors.

    The political history of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie matters, of course, if only because while I have a high level of suspension of disbelief for illusion, I am also intensely interested in piercing that veil.

    And much of this has almost nothing to do with asking what a movie means or intends to communicate. Much as it was pointless to me to label the Dark Knight as a conservative or non-conservative movie. The creative process should not be taken as a whole nor should its veracity be taken at the generalized top level. Parts of it can be true in relation to real life, but perhaps not the whole of the parts. The vice a versa is also true. A movie may be a true and honest goal, but it could get a lot of its details wrong in relation to real life. In WWII, they made a movie about Wake Island, concluding that all the Marines there fought to the death. But that’s not what happened. The reinforcements did not arrive because the Navy commanders turned back by declaring the island a lost cause, even while the Marines were successfully defending it. The order to surrender also came about because the Marine commanders were not in communication with the Marine forces still providing resistance.

    Of course, this was at the start of the war and things like Bataan and what not was not yet known. I’m pretty sure by now, in this war of ours, many people in the combat services of the US military, including US Marines, knows what it means if you surrender or are captured by the enemy. There’s no point in giving up, you see, if you don’t get any benefit from it.

    There are elements to all movies that ring true, given a particular context. But since movies are supposed to be self-contained artwork (though they aren’t as much in comparison to novels) it’s easy to see something out of context. A contradiction that results from the movie’s plot or a contradiction you notice because while it makes logical sense from the movie creator’s view, it does not make logical sense from your own view.

    Much of the aspect of figuring out the impact of a movie is to decipher exactly what reactions from the audience parts of the movie will trigger. The Dark Knight was something uncommon in that it triggered certain external views of both conservatives and fake liberals on policy issues. The Joker was Socialism and the Left’s nihilism to some, and it was an example of Ozzie’s philosophy to me. To others, of course, some things were a representation of Bush or the evils of the Patriot Act.

    Propaganda is supposed to control and isolate people’s reactions to a work of propaganda. Works of art, however, tend to be a bit more random in that you aren’t guaranteed to feel what the artist wants you to feel. There are different interpretations and good propaganda only has the original intended reactions in mind. There’s no spontaneity.

    I think some of this had to do with me watching jihadist and Nazi propaganda. There comes a point when you just block off all the negative reactions you think you have or the ones you actually do have, and focus on the positives. There are 4 potential reactions to propaganda, based upon a 2 by 2 matrix. There’s the part in you that disagrees with the truth of the assertion in the work, separated in two versions depending upon whether you like how the assertion was made or whether you dislike how it was made.

    Bookworm’s reaction to the Republican comment is an example of the untrue/negative slot. She believes it is untrue and she reacted negatively. But there are 3 others available.

    Strictly speaking, those torch lit mass movements of people on the Leni Riefenstalh works were made to glorify the Volk and the State through mass choreographed community organizations. However, even though it was the swastika pictured, I couldn’t help but be impressed by the coordination and disciple it took to pull off:including the aesthetic appeal. It’s something similar to the sheep laser show somebody put on a youtube, through a camera in the air looking over a dark landscape full of sheep with glow lights on them, which are then moved into positions of artistic worth by dogs and what not.

    Bill Whittle made an Afterburn episode on Iconography. This shares similarities.

    and then he blurts out what any MAN would be thinking about anyone making his wife feel so terrible

    It isn’t typical alpha male behavior, though.

    It isn’t generally a mark of good leadership to stoke up people’s antipathies by pointing them more towards lashing back at a foreign group than furthering one’s mutual interests. If there comes a time to make war or take the offensive, then leadership comes into play but only through significant and technical detailed plans. There’s no rhetoric for effect, absent any real action. There would be exhortations to battle because that’s what the leader plans to happen as a way to resolve certain fundamental issues that could not be resolved through discussion or education.

    The people that have to make a verbal puffing up of themselves in order to look more aggressively larger than they are, are not planning any real expeditions. Words are cheap when all that is intended is a bluff.

    The thing about humanity is that normally people have all kinds of petty conflicts and ulterior motives that get in the way of organized effort: aka teamwork. The role of any leader is to set people’s attitudes straight, by reducing inter-personal tension, reinforcing people’s desire to contribute to the group as well as their rational self-interest in doing so (by ensuring fair rewards and just punishments). The role of a leader is not to stoke up petty differences, racial hatred, class warfare, or redistribution of wealth through government coercion, threats, force, and martial law. If there is an enemy to the state or to the family/marriage, the threat of such enemies should be plainly spoken of, with the requisite solution proposals forwarded soon afterwards.

    However, when people don’t want positions of leadership and have a conflict they wish to somehow avoid or get rid of, they start bluffing and attempting to communicate something like “I’m against them because you’re against them” or “we’re fired up to fight, to speak truth to power”.

    Men, on average, are supposed to think of realistic solutions to problems. Not the same as the empathy and chat sessions that work amongst all female groups of gatherers. The hunters have a concrete goal and a concrete way to get to that goal. There’s no need to speak much, beyond the specifics of the problem at hand. Women, however, have a normal evolutionary need to talk and to emphasize certain common points of view. It’s how they bond, much as how men bond through fighting or working on a common project that creates trust.

    On the issue of the blog, there’s no point talking about bad things happening to the other women. What’s wrong is that the husband’s woman is in a reactive stance that is constantly playing catch up to role models that she herself despises. People should not follow leadership examples that they despise, since they start to also despise themselves the closer they get to their intended goal. This is OCD.

    It doesn’t make much sense that if you want to one up other women that you are going to compete with them doing something like a blog. That’s normally hunter behavioral patterns, not gatherer behavioral patterns. It’s very competitive, and not particularly social or cooperative. It’d be better to simply do something that they can’t or won’t do, and do it well. Thereby you satisfy a personal niche that exemplifies your individual contribution and talents.

    By whatever fate of experience and genetics, some people are better at some things than others.

    hated it, but it’s the reality that I hate much worse – the movie can’t harm anyone, but the bias inherent in the “permanent government” is harming all of us.

    People interpret what they see based from their previous experiences. Once a movie becomes part of their experiences, what they learn afterwards uses that as a template and foundation to make decisions and judgments. Thus the movie can be considered to ‘not harm anyone’ only in the sense that learning how to use a firearm doesn’t harm someone. Until it does.

    It’s a contingency, not a certainty. It’s not a matter of ‘can’t harm’, it is a matter of ‘when it will’.

    The matter of the movie triggering people’s perceptions about the government is also a contingency. Except in this case the contingency is whether they will feel negative or positive about the experience, and also whether they will believe government in one context is worse than government in another context.

    With one configuration you could get a Democrat liking Democrat corruption but hating Republican corruption on the basis that Republicans are better at corruption because they don’t get caught and Democrats do (as the papers prove often). In another configuration, you could have an Independent hating government, but government of both parties, while at the same time using Leftist logic about the Patriot Act (which is to say, hating only one side of government power). Or you could have a Republican that thinks of czars.

    People’s reactions are always manifestly different based upon not just their life experiences but also their particular mood at a certain point. The data points are there for their eyes and ears to receive, but they may not make the connections if they weren’t doing the preparatory thinking on the issues. Some people don’t on a movie, after all.

  14. SADIE says

    BrianE – that would be me who asked about Inglorious Basterds. I found the interview with Tarantino interesting.


    As it stands, this “Jewish revenge fantasy” is only going to feed into global anti-semitism, particularly in the Middle East. I have no doubt that we’ll soon be hearing Gaza and the West Bank being portrayed as similar “Jewish revenge”.

    Your wait is over and it’s Sweden, who has swiped at Israel and this is before the release of the film. Anti-semitism has existed long before film, TV crews and books.


  15. says

    You don’t even have to pay 10 bucks, just rent it. Gattaca, Book. You’ll like it.

    Serenity and Firefly, to mention them again since you haven’t posted about them and I would suspect you would had you seen them.

  16. says

    Was it the thought of an all powerful and Big Brother government looking at your genome that scared you? Something you couldn’t control, no matter how smart or non-smart you were. Something you couldn’t control about your children, since they could have been born before genetic manipulation techniques came about.

    The treatment of humanity as machine cogs, to be discarded if their ‘specs’ are right, is a particularly Totalitarian and Leftist fantasy I believe.

    But did that movie change your political views any? Or had you not made the connections yet.

  17. says

    When I saw it, it wasn’t very scary. It would have been had I been in a similar situation having to deal with such deception. The mental stress of doing that and also performing would be very great.

    What I got from the movie was the triumph of the human spirit over such baseless things as ‘blood’ and ‘dynasty’.

  18. Cyn says

    I read the book when I started culinary school.  I HATED it!  There is much Republican-bashing all throughout.  My school had an event with a screening and I did not participate.  I refused to see the movie.  I don’t want Julie to gain a dime.  She is not even a little bit likeable in the book.  She says whatever she thinks and half of what she thinks starts with an “F”.  I have heard that they toned down the hating in the movie.  I don’t care.  I also heard that Julia was not impressed with Julie, either!

  19. says

    Rereading my comment, my intro could have been more interesting. 
    This was the period in which I had almost finished categorizing and controlling the internal boiling hate against you know who.


  1. Watcher’s Council nominations…

    This week’s submissions for the Watcher’s Council: * Bookworm Room – Why pay $10 for Julie & Julia just to suffer gratuitous insults * Soccer Dad – Kindness to the cruel * The Colossus of Rhodey – How Obama …

  2. Submitted 08/27/09…

    This week’s Watcher’s council nominations are up along with fine commentary by the Watcher himself. Why pay $10 for Julie & Julia just to suffer gratuitous insults – Bookworm Room finds the movie tolerable except for one unnecessary line – which …

  3. Watcher’s Council Results…

    Well, here are the most recent results, containing some of the most notable pieces of commentary on the internet. Congratulations to the winners and the nominees. Council Submissions First place with 2 points! – Joshuapundit – Obama Vs CIA: New……

  4. Council speak 09/03/09…

    The council has spoken. Last week’s winning council entry was Joshuapundit’s Obama Vs CIA: New WH Interrogation Unit Created As Panetta Threatens To Resign, a look into the secret war against the CIA. The runner up was Bookworm Room’s Why pay $10 fo…

Leave a Reply