He Said/She Said
Julia Roberts: America's Sweetheart or Threat to Society?

This originally appeared at the Online Film Critics Society in September 1999, back when Joe Barlow and I were both members. The article seems to have disappeared since the OFCS joined forces with Rotten Tomatoes.

No question, Julia Roberts is one of the biggest stars to hit the silver screen in Hollywood history. What's to love about her? Joe Barlow and MaryAnn Johanson take a close look.

It's no secret that Julia Roberts has been a Hollywood brand name ever since she exploded into the public's mass consciousness with 1990's PRETTY WOMAN. And with over 25 films to her credit (and three more scheduled for release in the year 2000), she shows no signs of abdicating her title of "America's Most Beloved Actress" any time soon. The "Julia Roberts" name has developed a reputation in the movie industry -- like Saturn cars, she is dependable and sturdy. Like Microsoft, she dominates her chosen industry. Like McDonald's, she is visible everywhere you look: in commercials, on billboards, and yes, at the movies. ("Did somebody say 'Julia Roberts?' Would you like to supersize your career, ma'am?")
But while I admire and respect Ms. Roberts's work, I'm at something of a loss to explain the "We Love Julia" mentality that has allowed her films to dominate the box-office over the past decade. It's not necessarily her choice of roles (Gwyneth Paltrow won an Oscar for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE only after Roberts turned down the part), nor has she demonstrated a mastery of acting via a truly complex role (unlike, say, Meryl Streep). Nonetheless, even Roberts's less-inspired work has raked in big bucks, while her best films demolish records (NOTTING HILL, MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, and PRETTY WOMAN all rank among the highest-grossing romantic comedies in history). Nor has she developed a reputation for playing thought-provoking, insightful characters: unlike her colleagues Janeane Garofalo and Christina Ricci, she tends to avoid roles that will paint her as anything but an adorable cutie-pie with a heart of gold. Take any Julia Roberts character and throw her into any other Roberts film; you'd be hard-pressed to know the difference.
So why the success and mass adoration, then? What is it about Julia Roberts that keeps audiences (including me!) happily forking over our cash to bask in her screen presence for 90 minutes?
No doubt her looks are at least partly responsible for making her the highest-paid actress in Hollywood. Heck, I'm a guy... for me to deny the fact that Roberts is a stunningly beautiful woman is to deny both my gender and my heterosexuality. (In 1994 I penned a ditty entitled "All I Want For Christmas is Julia Roberts," which earned a small amount of notoriety in my hometown). Roberts's physical assets are undeniable: a warm smile that lights up the screen, and a body that...
On second thought, don't get me started on her body.
But Hollywood is overflowing with beautiful actresses (and a few of them even have talent), so this can't be the only explanation for her remarkable success.
My theory is that Julia Roberts movies are "safe." You can take a date to them. You can take Grandma to them. By sticking to one primary genre, Roberts has proven her ability to deliver the mediocre goods: going into the theater, we know that her acting will be competent, we'll enjoy a laugh or two, there will probably be a feel-good ending, and the movie will have completely vanished from our mind in less than a week. It's a devastating fact of life that most people don't want innovative, unique films; they want formula and clichés, even if they won't admit it. They need to know that everything is going to be okay. And no one has a history of delivering these goods better than Ms. Roberts.
That doesn't take me into account, though. I'm constantly searching for the next "clever" film, the next cinematic opus that will astound me with its originality and brilliance. So why do I see every new Roberts flick?
The thing that personally fascinates me about Julia is the sincerity she projects. In all her films, she radiates enough warmth and sunshine to render even the most wretched movie watchable (HOOK, for example -- a feat made doubly impressive by the fact that her character, Tinkerbell, was not only a mere two inches tall but mute as well). No amount of training can teach that kind of screen presence. This woman was born to be a movie star -- it's in her DNA.
Julia Roberts's characters tend to be almost impossibly charming -- even while playing a high-priced prostitute, she remains the sweet, innocent girl next door. Although she appears to be picking projects designed to keep her safely in the "romantic comedy" genre, she seems comfortable and happy there. As long as she's not looking to establish herself as America's Most Brilliant Actress, I see nothing wrong with that. All she needs to do is stay as lovable and sweet as she already is, and America will keep giving her its dollars... and I'll continue to be first in line.

Okay, I don't hate Julia Roberts. She may be a perfectly nice person. Don't know. Haven't met her.
What I do hate, though, is "Julia Roberts." I hate the prepackaged movie star persona: America's Sweetheart. I hate that "Julia Roberts" is Hollywood's idea of the epitome of modern American womanhood, a supposedly delightful, sprightly standard against which real women are invariably, if subconsciously, compared. I hate that much of the moviegoing audience appears to agree with Hollywood on this, based on Roberts's bankability.
I don't see the charm that other critics and moviegoers, male and female alike, purport to see. I don't see the allure. What I do see, beneath the "Julia Roberts" veneer of spunky independence and liberation, is a frighteningly reactionary depiction of the "ideal" woman as, by turns, irrational, mean-spirited, and subservient to men, a glamour-puss without emotional depth, a career poseur for whom work is disposable when it's convenient for the man she wants.

Most illogical
The irrationality of Roberts's characters really seems to come to the fore when she's paired with Richard Gere. In PRETTY WOMAN, she's a "bargain basement streetwalker" who lucks into a week-long gig with a superrich businessman. As if the wads of money changing hands weren't clue enough, he tells her right up front what he wants: a woman who doesn't make demands, and no "romantic entanglements." And yet she's shocked, shocked, when he proposes making their arrangement permanent by setting her up in an apartment. She takes his money, screws him daily for a week, and then gets mad when he treats her like the whore that she has shown herself to be.
In RUNAWAY BRIDE, Roberts is an immature brat who can't break up with a guy till she's walking down the aisle toward him, which she has done not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. And yet she's surprised and hurt when people treat her like the spoiled child that she demonstrates she is. When newspaper columnist Gere calls her a "maneater" in the national press, she throws a fit. Frankly, I think he went too easy on her.

Guy stuff
I suspect that a huge part of Roberts's appeal to male movie fans is the fact that her characters are often practically guys with boobs and lots of hair: a girl who looks for sex without commitment and can talk cars better than most men (WOMAN); a handyman and hardware geek who wears Bruce Lee t-shirts, has a big, goofy dog, and is into kick-boxing (BRIDE). And her characters treat men the way stereotypical men treat women: as disposable sex toys (Hugh Grant in NOTTING HILL, all her hapless suitors in BRIDE) or prizes to be won (Delmot Mulroney in MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, Richard Gere in WOMAN and BRIDE). This isn't liberation: it's the same boorishness and juvenility that women accuse men, often rightly so, of evincing.
Which leads us to:

The queen of man-ipulation
Nasty? Julia Roberts's characters have nasty down to an art. She does her damnedest to get Delmot Mulroney fired from a job he loves (WEDDING) in an effort to get his fiancée to dump him so he can be all hers. She screws Hugh Grant (HILL), who's hopelessly in love with her, then dumps him, only to show up on his doorstep, unannounced, six months later, when she needs a place to hide out. She breaks-and-enters Richard Gere's personal spaces -- apartment, hotel room -- with alarming regularity (BRIDE), stealing his belongings and swiping his work. To add insult to injury, she not only dumps guys at the altar but keeps their engagement rings (also BRIDE). She teaches a teenage girl how to be a foul-mouthed, lying bitch (STEPMOM). She can turn on a gorgeous, phony smile a mile wide that convincingly hides bad feelings (just about every film she has appeared in). And when she needs to (STEPMOM, HILL), she can tear up her eyes and quiver her lip to play the sweet, vulnerable, innocent girl.

Working for a living?
At first glance, it would appear that Roberts's characters couldn't be criticized on the career front. In WEDDING, she plays a successful restaurant critic. In STEPMOM, she's a "brilliant" photographer. In BRIDE she helps run the family hardware store. In CONSPIRACY THEORY she's a district attorney.
And yet, in most of her films, her character's career is more like a wardrobe accessory than a genuine vocation, convenient to the plot and not a built-in aspect of the character. The fact that she works as a food critic has nothing to do with how she behaves in WEDDING, but it does allow her to have a fabulous gay editor friend in Rupert Everett. She never acts like a lawyer in THEORY, but it does make her a great target for Mel Gibson's paranoid ravings. Her career as a photographer only makes her a punching bag for Susan Sarandon in STEPMOM. For all the supposedly creative types she has played, her characters never behave like any creative people I've ever known -- and I've known lots of them. She's always just a generic career gal, as if what she did for a living had nothing to do with who she was.
There are two instances in which her profession is actually integral to both the film's plot and to her character: WOMAN, in which she nevertheless portrays the most unrealistic hooker ever seen on film: clean, healthy, cute, with unblemished skin and gorgeous hair even though she doesn't eat right and screws anyone who'll pay; and HILL, in which she plays the world's most famous actress -- basically, she plays herself, which works well because the character is so underdeveloped that she seems to have no choice but just to be herself onscreen.
And it's a good thing she's not too into her work, because:

Donna Reed, look out
Career is nothing when compared with the needs of a man in the world of "Julia Roberts." The most egregious example of this is STEPMOM, in which she portrays an allegedly "hip," "fresh," "genius" photographer (there is no evidence of this onscreen -- we're merely told this) dating a high-powered lawyer played by Ed Harris. Though Harris and Roberts are supposed to be in love -- she's living with him -- the only reason we can see that he keeps her around is that she is a useful, convenient babysitter for his children; he shares custody with his ex-wife, played by Sarandon. Roberts brings his kids to her job when necessary (he never does the same); she constantly ferries the kids around, to and from mom's house, school, parties, and other kiddie activities (dad never does); and not only does Harris fail to change his or the kids' schedule when he has to be out of town during their weekend visit, he insults her -- she is truly hurt by this -- by suggesting that she's not capable of taking care of his kids. Roberts's character continually rearranges her life to suit him and his children while he goes on his merry way, because, it seems, his career is much more important that hers. The message here seems to be that not only should a woman dedicate her life selflessly to her own children but also to other people's children, while men need not concern themselves with even their own offspring.
Also of the good-little-woman model is Roberts's infuriating character in BRIDE, who molds herself to her men, to the point of professing the same likes and dislikes as them. Gere's character accuses her of "not having a mind of [her] own," which is true, and tries to get her to think for herself. The ending of the movie is meant to let us know that she is finally creating her own personality independent of the man she's chasing, and yet, when she finally proposes marriage to Gere, does she invent the most creative, most romantic proposal she can think of? No, she parrots his! What's meant to be a new start for her character is merely more of the same subsumption of herself to a man's desires.

A movie-star mystery
Why are moviegoers such huge fans of Roberts? Her characters cheat. They lie. They manipulate. Is this what men want women to be like? She sounds like the embodiment of all the things men complain of -- and so they should -- in women's behavior. Would women want someone like this in a friend?
Does none of her appalling behavior matter because she has a big grin and long red hair?
While I don't think much of Roberts's acting ability, I have to credit her business sense. Whatever she herself thinks of the characters she portrays, she knows she's got a cash cow in them. There aren't many people like me out in the multiplex bitching about her, as her box office obviously demonstrates.

Joe: Enjoyed your essay. Mine's quite a bit shorter, I think... I'm not sure exactly how long. It was as much as I could think to say on the subject. Heh. ;)
MaryAnn: Nicely done, your essay. It's about half the length of mine, but I don't think that's a problem. Are you okay with that?
Joe: Sounds good to me. I don't mind being out-verbosed for a change. Heh.
MaryAnn: You mentioned the fact that Roberts was the first choice for Viola in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. Does that prospect fill you with the same kind of mind-numbing dread that it does me? The thought that we could have lost that fabulously witty, genuinely romantic movie in exchange for a sappy star vehicle for Roberts kinda sickens me. What do you think?
Joe: An interesting query! In all honesty, I'm not sure I have enough evidence to answer the question. I certainly agree that Roberts has never given a performance as richly textured as the one Paltrow delivered in SHAKESPEARE, but that doesn't mean it's beyond her abilities as an actress. Not to take anything at all away from Ms. Paltrow, but the brilliant SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE screenplay had already developed Viola into a living, breathing person before Gwyneth even saw the script. Compare this with the writing in most Julia Roberts vehicles, where characters are given no chance at all to blossom into real, fleshed-out individuals. There's never time -- there's always another cliché to explore, another plot point to advance. All too often, the quality of a film's actors is confused with the quality of its screenplay. I'd love to see what Roberts could do with a truly brilliant script, something which has sadly eluded her thus far.
I will concur that I've seen nothing to make me think Roberts could've played the part as well as Paltrow did. On the other hand, I never would have believed that Jim Carrey could play the wonderfully understated lead role in THE TRUMAN SHOW, or that Brad Pitt could be so brilliant in 12 MONKEYS. Sometimes, casting an actor against type can lead to cinema magic. (Won't someone please give Leslie Neilsen another dramatic role, just for old times' sake? Please?) Here's hoping Julia gets her chance to steal the show one day, too. Quite honestly, had she accepted the part, I think she might have been very interesting in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. I'm very curious to know why she turned it down. (Anyone know, incidentally?)
MaryAnn: I'm not sure if I agree with you on the scripting versus the acting: A decent script is not going to make a decent movie if the actors just can't cut it.
Joe: But likewise, a great actor is unlikely to deliver a stellar performance if given a mediocre screenplay, unless he or she possesses Robin Williams's gift of improvisation and a director willing to let him/her run with the ball.
MaryAnn: And it's Roberts's limited acting abilities combined with her typical screen persona that makes me very glad she did not take the part of Viola. She's way too contemporary, for one thing. Imagine "America's sweetheart" with her big toothy grin in the role of an Elizabethan noblewoman.
Joe: And this, I think, is the crux of our disagreement: you call Roberts a mediocre actress; I call her an unproven one. You may well be right: perhaps Roberts is mediocre, working almost exclusively in the romantic-comedy genre because that's the limit of her talent. But until I see her try a challenging role and totally destroy it, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.
A good actor can transcend typecasting. Woody Harrelson, for example, made the leap from CHEERS to NATURAL BORN KILLERS, something I wouldn't have believed possible based on his previous work.
MaryAnn: Yes, Carrey was surprisingly good in TRUMAN, but that character was rather cartoonish -- it wasn't a huge departure for Carrey. Pitt's character in 12 MONKEYS was diametrically opposed to his usual character, but Viola would have been close enough too Roberts's usual characters -- the gorgeous female lead in a romantic comedy -- that I can't imagine her being able to restrain herself. Who knows? Maybe she knows her own limitations and knew she couldn't do the part...
Joe: That's a definite possibility, and if that's the case, kudos to her for passing on the role and not ruining one of the decade's greatest comedies. On the other hand, it's quite possible she wanted to play the part but could not, due to a scheduling conflict.
Hypothetical question: if neither Paltrow or Roberts had been available for SHAKESPEARE, can you think of anyone who might've made an even better Viola?
MaryAnn: Cate Blanchett.
Joe: An excellent choice!
MaryAnn: So, do you agree with my assessment of the typical Roberts character?
Joe: Oh, definitely. We're in total harmony here.
MaryAnn: Okay, then, since we both agree that she does not typically portray very nice or progressive characters, what accounts for her image as an all-American girl next door? Since you seem to be a fairly big fan of hers, can you shed any light on it?
Joe: Public perception is something that has always befuddled me (Bruce Willis, an action hero? Huh? How the heck did that happen?), and this is no exception. Truth be told, I'm not really sure where my own individual fondness for Ms. Roberts comes from, either. Yes, I think she's very attractive... but so is Cameron Diaz, and I haven't especially liked her movies as a rule (an exception being MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, in which Diaz starred alongside -- surprise! -- Ms. Roberts).
As for the origin of her image as "the girl next door," I would lay the blame squarely on PRETTY WOMAN. Sure, Roberts's portrayal of a prostitute with a heart of gold is hardly typical "girl next door" fare, but in the end, Richard Gere was able to give her character the love and feelings of self-worth that she wanted and needed.
MaryAnn: Do you think so? I don't see that in the film at all. I don't see a "heart of gold" -- I see a childish brat who likes wearing fancy clothes and hanging around with a rich guy.
Joe: Now that I think about it, you may be right. It's actually been a couple of years since I last saw PRETTY WOMAN, so it's quite possible that I'm romanticizing the film in my memory a bit. I don't remember either of the characters as being quite so crass as your description makes them sound, but I recall enough of the story line to at least see where you're coming from.
MaryAnn: Maybe that's it: people romanticize movies that on subsequent viewings they might look at more critically. Or maybe I analyze fluffy movies too much. Much of what Roberts has done is the cinematic equivalent of cotton candy -- pour some water in it, and it melts into a sticky puddle, but most people just eat it and enjoy it for what it is rather than think about it. Me, I hate cotton candy -- in the movies or on a stick.
Back to Gere: I don't think there's a lot of evidence in PRETTY WOMAN that he changed at all, which he would have to have done to be able to really love her. Sure, he's her knight in white limo at the end, but imagine their relationship a year later. He's likely still the same selfish guy he always was. What indication do we have that he'd be any different with Roberts's character than he was with the girlfriend who blows him off over the phone as the movie opens?
Joe: None at all, but I was sidestepping the crassness of Gere's character to focus on Roberts.
[As for the movie's appeal:] In our modern era, where overweight or unattractive persons are eschewed from the silver screen, I think the film's theme resonated with a lot of people: a social outcast who found happiness and acceptance from an understanding mate. Her subsequent work has revisited this plot line numerous times, but I think she did it best in PRETTY WOMAN.
MaryAnn: It's true that unattractive and even averagely attractively people don't appear onscreen in leading roles, but I don't think you can apply this to PRETTY WOMAN. In anything, PW is evidence that looks are all that matters. Look at PW's hotel staff, and Hector Elizondo in particular -- when Roberts looks like the streetwalker she is, they glare at her like she's a bug. But when she's all dolled up in that red dress, look how they all cock their heads in adoration. You can almost hear all of them say, "Awwwwwww." Roberts finds happiness and acceptance once she becomes the "pretty woman." How should us normal mortals be encouraged by this, especially when none of us is likely to snag ourselves a wealthy patron?
Joe: I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to imply that the characters in PRETTY WOMAN weren't physically attractive; indeed, the movie's title makes this quite clear. I was saying that these people, though beautiful, are flawed individuals -- both are selfish, spoiled, and miserable. However, despite all the odds against them, they find love and ride off together into the cinematic sunset. I remember feeling, when I first saw the film, that if those bozos could find love and happiness, then heck, I should have no problem whatsoever. But yeah, I also recall thinking that their relationship had no hope of survival. :)
MaryAnn: So, is it just that Julia Roberts is supposedly gorgeous? (I don't see that either, myself, and for me at least it's not a gender thing: There are female actors I can appreciate merely for their gorgeousness -- Catherine Zeta-Jones comes to mind immediately. I dunno how good an actress she is, but I certainly like looking at her, and I'm not a lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that... :->)
Joe: No, I understand what you mean. (I think Harrison Ford is quite attractive, and I'm not gay either.) :) However, your statement about Catherine Zeta-Jones leads us into a whole new debate: what is "sexy"? I find Zeta-Jones to be attractive as well, but more for the way she carries herself than her actual physical features.
MaryAnn: No, you're right -- "sexy" is not just physical attractiveness, and that's not what makes Zeta-Jones sexy. But it's for precisely that reason that I don't find Roberts sexy. Sexy women in my mind are not just ravishing to look at but strong, independent, intelligent, and grown-up in the best sense of the word. Roberts's characters never embody those characteristics -- she's invariably childish, weak-willed, and mean-spirited.
Joe: I can see your point, but I'd argue the word "invariably." She was anything but weak in CONSPIRACY THEORY, and I don't recall Tinkerbell in HOOK being particularly weak-willed or mean-spirited. It's a small contention, but we should give credit where it's due.
Is "sexy" simply the act of behaving as though you believe you're beautiful? Maybe, but I don't think so-- I watched Rene Russo in the recent remake of THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, and thought her character's over-the-top "sex pot" shtick bordered on embarrassing. On the other hand, my particular view of "attractive" is one that's often at odds with society. I think Janeane Garofalo is one of the most beautiful women I've ever laid eyes on, for instance, a view that's not especially common.
MaryAnn: You'll get no argument from me there. I think Garofalo is to die for, too. And I bet lots of people would agree with us. Our idea of attractive isn't at odds with society -- it's at odds with what Hollywood thinks is sexy.
Joe: I'm applauding that statement mentally, for I think you've hit the nail right on its proverbial little head. To have the lovely Janeane Garofalo playing "the ugly woman" in THE TRUTH ABOUT CATS AND DOGS is a heinous crime, although I must admit I was charmed by the film anyway, largely because of Garofalo's unquenchable spunk. But I'd pick Janeane over Uma Thurman (who fits the stereotypical definition of "beauty queen") any day. Truth be told, I'm getting a little tired of seeing rail-thin supermodels on the movie screen.
MaryAnn: Yeah, I don't get that either, especially when it seems that lots of men don't like really skinny women. Who is casting these women?
Joe: Actors and actresses are far more interesting to me when they seem "real," which is one of the reasons I adore character actors like William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi, and the aforementioned Ms. Garofalo.
You know, that may be the secret of Julia Roberts's appeal right there. She plays quirky characters who possess flaws we can all understand, and she does so in a commercially proven genre that's homogenous enough for the whole family.
Could this be the definition of a superstar?
MaryAnn: Obviously, Roberts's appeal is of the lowest- common- denominator variety. That has to be key to near- universal appeal.
Joe: In all walks of life, yes. I freely admit that I'm occasionally part of the lemming crowd, and I'd follow Julia off the edge of a cliff any day.
MaryAnn: Maybe it's just that ordinary people are buying into Hollywood glamour? I'm totally at a loss to explain her popularity.
Joe: I wish I had a dollar for every time I was at a loss to explain the popularity of something the mainstream loves. (INDEPENDENCE DAY? The Spice Girls?) I'd be a very wealthy person indeed.
MaryAnn: Ain't that the truth.

[home] [archive]
[oscars] [afi100]
[articles] [faq]
[reader mail]
[links]

[cinemarati.org]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com