Julie and Julia

Julie and Julia (Nora Ephron, 2009) includes a sequence—as featured in the trailer—in which Julie (Amy Adams) must boil a potful of live lobsters as part of her mission to cook her way through all 536 recipes in her idol Julia Child’s book Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Julie has qualms about this from the seafood shop all the way home; we see her gulping apprehensively while eyeing the shifting bag of live lobsters in the back seat. She even writes about her ethical dilemma in the blog she has been using to post on her progress with the French Cooking project to an increasing number of avid followers.

At home, in the kitchen, her husband Eric (Chris Messina) playfully dances around her singing “lobster killer” in a high-pitched voice (while the Talking Heads’ “Psychokiller” is heard in the background). Julie contemplates following Julia’s advice to stab the lobsters in the head prior to boiling, but just can’t get herself to do it. Finally she takes heart, scoops up the three crustaceans, dumps them in the bubbling pot one by one, then slams down the lid. A smile slowly spreads across her face when she realizes she’s done it… but then one of the lobsters in his death throws manages to pop up the lid—and Julie flees the room, shrieking hysterically. Luckily, Eric is there to take over, deftly reassembling the lobster death spa as he mutters, “Sorry boys—there’s a new sheriff in town.”

The scene is played for laughs—not exactly an original concept; after all, Woody Allen’s Annie Hall (1977) famously features a comedic live-lobster-boiling scene. Only here, the protagonist couple’s mutual incompetence in accomplishing the feat is arguably something that brings them closer together. Ephron’s film is a little more on the reactionary side, presenting Julie’s momentary second thoughts as a sign of feminine weakness.

More than that, Eric’s actions are presented as evidence of his “saintliness” in contrast to Julie’s “bitchiness” and general self-involvement. (Coincidentally, we find out in a conversation between Julie and her closest female friend [Mary Lynn Rajskub] that essentially all women are bitches—except for Julia Child. And unlike Julia, Julie becomes worthy of her saintly husband only after realizing the extent of her shortcomings and publicly apologizing for them in her blog.) Overcoming her foolish squeamishness is something Julie must achieve in order to pave the way to self-actualization; Eric understands this even before she herself does. And his coming to her rescue in such a manly way thus fulfills a part of her mission that would otherwise be left unfulfilled.

But perhaps the most important thing to take home from the lobster-boiling sequence—in a film praised by moviegoers in large part for its tantalizing food pornography—is that culinary professionalism and foodie interests trump compassion 100% of the time. The ensuing feast Julie prepares for her friends is after all one of her greatest gastronomic accomplishments, and once everyone is sitting at the table, moaning over the deliciousness of the lobster carcasses, all is once again right with the world.

Cute Overload

“It’s like crack”—this is a fairly typical phrase used to describe Cute Overload, the most popular of a slew of web resources that publish pictures of cute animals on a daily or semi-daily basis. (The cute animal trend also includes Adorablog, I Can Has Cheezburger?, and Kitten War, just to name a few—though there is also a burgeoning anti-cute movement: see, for example, http://uglyoverload.blogspot.com). In a similar vein the term “cute porn” is bandied about as a testament to the blog’s addictive nature and the obsessive behavior it seems to trigger. Maybe there really is some physiological component to this phenomenon (a cute-induced serotonin rush perhaps?)—whatever the reason, the blog averages an astounding 40,000 hits per day, according to its Wikipedia entry.

For a blog presumably catering to animal lovers (and that’s certainly the audience many of its advertisers appear to be targeting), proponents of animal rights and vegetarianism aren’t exactly welcomed with open arms. Commenters who express some concern over the safety of an animal pictured—labeled “nuffs” in the site’s extensive proprietary terminology (see the CO glossary)—are often belittled or bullied in response, branded “braindead,” “dummies,” “freaks,” “left-wing nutjob,” etc.. Even in the case of images where at least the potential for peril or distress seems quite apparent (e.g., a turtle bumping repeatedly against the wall of her plastic container, a chick squished in a dog’s mouth), comments pointing this out will invariably be met with ridicule. As a result some would-be dissenters adopt a preemptively apologetic stance (“I'm not some PETA idiot or some anima [sic] rights extremist or anything...
But that 2nd picture is a bit disturbing” [see http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/2006/09/love_pain.html]).



Even the moderator (“Theo”) will occasionally jump in to interject sarcastic or (more rarely) hostile comments. Actual censorship of discussions occurs for the most part only when strong views on animal welfare with accompanying information or calls to action are expressed. (For example, a comment in a farm-animal thread linking to the Wikipedia definition of forced molting—a common factory-farming practice in which laying hens are starved in order to increase egg production—was deleted by the moderator, leaving future readers with the impression that an inaccurate statement given earlier [“chickens are never underfed, but rather they are overfed”] was in fact correct. Another thread on raccoon dogs, animals used in fur production, contains multiple examples of censored and edited comments.)

The moderator has explained he feels this type of discussion does not belong on Cute Overload, and certainly there may be more suitable forums (also, obviously, controlling the content of a blog is the owners’ prerogative). But why the extreme polarization around these issues on an ostensibly “pro-animal” site, and why the blatant disavowal of animal welfare concerns by the CO team and many of its most avid and vocal followers? (As one grateful regular responded to the censorship in the fur comment thread referenced above: “Thanks Theo. I'm sick to my stomach.”) It’s as if by aggressively intervening to prevent certain facts from being articulated, these facts can somehow be suppressed out of existence. Presumably this collective state of denial stems from a strong escapist impulse, the desire to create a virtual community in which an animal displaying the conventional markers of cuteness can be fawned over without restraint and without consideration of circumstance.

So here is a case of individuals being displayed in a spectacular manner for the viewer’s gratification, presented without a backstory and divorced from context; his/her position in the world, interests, and subjectivity entirely disregarded (in fact, the less we know about these things the better, as this knowledge tends to work against our enjoyment of the display). If this sounds at all familiar, maybe that’s because it echoes the criticism leveled by some of the second-wave feminists against the objectification of women in pornography. In this light, the porn analogy takes on a whole new meaning…! perhaps a darker undercurrent lurks beneath the flying hamster wallpaper and the redonkulus misspellingks at Cute Overload...