Depictions of Julie & Julia Years Apart Show Their Differences

Back in 2002, Julie Powell began a year-long quest to cook every one of the dishes detailed and discussed in Julia Child's famed Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Powell recorded her project on a blog that generated so much interest that Amanda Hesser wrote about it, and Powell, in a 2003 article for the New York Times.

This project, six years since its completion, is the focus of this summer's Julie & Julia, starring Amy Adams and Meryl Streep in the title roles. Prior to attending an advanced screening of the film last week, I was somewhat familiar with Powell's project. Still, because I wasn't a regular reader of the Julie/Julia Project blog, I didn't fully appreciate the toll that this project took on Powell or the emotional triumph she experienced throughout the tiring ordeal.

After seeing the movie, I decided to read what was written about Powell back when she was still actively engaged in her project. What I found was an equally accurate portrayal of Powell's mission, but with some notable differences. These differences can be attributed to one of a number of possibilities: Elapsed time in effect changed the focus of the story; the filmmaker (Nora Ephron) decided to go an alternate way than Hesser did; or a newspaper article, while descriptive, demands and delivers a different set of emotions and information than a feature-length movie can.

While comparing the two stories and their narrative choices, I found it fascinating to see the way each tell the story. It's not an issue of preferring one ahead of the other, but more a pursuit to discover how a newspaper account of an event or an effort compares to what's presented on screen. The two share a number of similarities, as you'd expect. Powell is equally likable and thoughtful in each account, as her stream-of-consciousness extends beyond her blog and into her home. Neither let the tumultuous costs of this project sidetrack Powell's effort; it's a hurdle she must leap.

These are the main spots where their stories deviate:

1. Hesser notes that the two women "do not have much in common." The film version, however, makes a point of showing that these women have a great deal in common with one another, especially in the way that the women seek out culinary arts to help give their lives more meaning. This cross-generational bond proves pivotal for Powell whose growth amid the year stems from the inspiration that she finds in Child's words. It's evident that Child speaks to her through more than just her cooking tutorial.

2. Hesser's article, no doubt written for foodies, goes into greater detail about the list of dishes that Powell cooks. Also, part of the newspaper story outlines when Powell grocery shops and finds the time in her schedule to manage this mission. Although these are important aspects to the story -- as people may wonder how someone with a full-time job could even accomplish this project -- the movie mostly leaves on the back burner any questions related to Powell's routine and activity. This is possibly an indication that moviegoers may think less practically and individually than Times readers might, and are more willing to commit to a story without worrying about intricate components. They are served just the meat and potatoes.

3. Powell's tastes changed during the process, Hesser explains. The movie, more concerned with Powell's growth as a person and handling of her life crisis, glosses over the impact that sampling new dishes has on Powell. Similarly, the movie only reveals in passing that Powell gains weight over the course of the year. For Hesser, these produced effects are essential to convey how Powell changed over the course of the year. The movie, on the other hand, tends to emphasize much more the effects that this project had on her marriage and in her other interpersonal relationships.

Looking at the ways that journalists and screen writers the same material offers a glimpse into the ways they examine and craft what they deem the essence of the story. Hesser hoped to make Powell significantly recognizable so that readers would relate to her and her mission. Perhaps they even started similar projects of their own. She's very much in control of her project, her kitchen and her life.

On the other hand, Ephron's film version depicts Powell as more of a mess, forced to endure a series of ups and downs. The movie ends with Powell emerging from her year intact, an admirable accomplishment. You have to wonder, though, how she made it through the next year of her life.