According to an LA Times piece, Can Julia Roberts Come Back on Her Own Terms? the person who benefited most from Julia Roberts taking several years off to have and raise her kids is Sandra Bullock who got some of the key roles that Roberts passed on. Meaning The Proposal and The Blind Side.
My first thought is that maybe Roberts knew that neither of those roles were for her. Having seen both films they seem tailor made for Bullock’s type of talent.
But really what the article is saying is, Julia you took some time off and now you’re going to have to pay your dues all over again because we really don’t love you as much as we did. And by the way your first movie back (Duplicity) was a flop so now it’s going to be even harder for you.
I think we have to be careful how we talk about this situation. Clive Owen, Roberts’ co-star in Duplicity had three flops last year (The International and The Boys are Back), and he doesn’t get the Julia Roberts treatment. Granted, he was never a big a star as Roberts. I’ve also been thinking about Harrison Ford who has a new film coming out tomorrow Extraordinary Measures that looks like some kind of medical thriller. He’s been a bit out of the loop lately i.e. Crossing Over (which I don’t even know if it was released in theatres), and if he hadn’t made an Indiana Jones movie a couple of years ago his career would be in the toilet. But nobody ever talks about him being able to come back on his own terms (which I’ve heard are pretty much about money.)
It has been documented ad nauseum that women who get off the career track in many different businesses have a harder time getting back into the game in terms of money and prestige. Hollywood is even more problematic with neanderthals still believing that a woman can’t (or shouldn’t) direct a film if she has kids to raise because they will be a distraction. And for female actors it’s incredibly hard because they have such a short shelf life to begin with, and taking out a couple of years to have a family while it seems perfectly logical and reasonable the message is that it could really potentially damage your future. Of course nobody talks about the lack of scripts for women as to why many actresses aren’t working. Women get punished for having families. Men have kids and the conversation of their career never, ever revolves around their family unless they inject it.
Maybe Julia Roberts should have waited to come back with Eat, Pray, Love which I think will be a monstrous movie this summer. Who knows? But while we want her to make another Pretty Woman type film or even a Notting Hill, she is not interested in that.
“I can’t play those parts anymore,” she said. “It just doesn’t work for me at 41, with three kids and happily married.”
Good for her. I think that if she finds something that will connect with audiences and not just critics like D, she’ll be right back on top. I know I am pulling for her.
Can Julia Roberts Come Back on Her Own Terms? (LA Times)
so much for Hollywood’s so called “liberal” atmosphere. Yeah right.
Though I agree with your piece, I do have to add I’ve seen a lot of posters lately with movies starring men (Harrison Ford, Ethan Hawke, etc) and wondered where the hell they’ve been for the past few years or more. I think there’s also been a saturation in the market of the “sure thing.” The newer stars studios know will bring in the cash, no matter what kind of crappy movie vehicle they are driving.
Wow…Is this ever true! I have experienced this myself a few times over, since I have taken time off to have 3 kids. After 21 years in the biz, I am making what I made 15 years ago and have to take “tests” to see if I can do the job. It really is true, and common knowledge that when you become a mom you are no longer part of the main talent pool. And yet, we are the most loyal, steady, grateful employees. This is not just entertainment though. It is a society issue. Parenthood and family are not valued in our society. Only money is.
Totally agree about punishment of Julia but also, agree Eat, Pray, Love will be her comeback. And it was her choice– right? She said she wanted to take some time off and raise kids. Though she made that choice in a limited framework of choices– actresses seem to be expected to take time off their careers in their primes to reproduce and mother, or they get overanalyzed as freaks for “failing” to do so (Jennifer Aniston). I think the underlying issue is that a huge part of being a good dad is being a breadwinner; for mom, the pereception is totally opposite– you’re supposed to nurture. Maybe I’m only dolizing them, but Brad and angelina seem to have a pretty good balance, taking turns working, taking turns being full time parent, though Brad is about 12 years old than Angelina.
A lot of assumptions here: first of all, why pit childless actresses and professionals against those who have children?
It’s a tired argument to look at your kids and say “but for you, I’d be a CEO, a super success, etc….” And having a kid is responsible for all the discrimination you get. Therefore, let’s pit Bullock against Roberts because it is a sensational topic for more clicks. Jesus….oh, Jesus didn’t have kids either, I bet there were a few priests with families saying “if only…”
I’ve seen a couple of blips on this meme of Bullock having success, and it’s all too quickly gone to pitting her against Roberts. I have to say, Bullock’s success was not naturally Roberts’ to have. I cannot see Roberts making the choice of parts that Bullock made, frankly. And it glosses over the items in Bullock’s personal life: deaths Bullock has experienced, her stuggle with step kids. As if, this is pitting the honorable mothers against women “with no personal life.”
I’m not surprised to see this on the blogs and news feeds of the usual suspects, but here, I am.
Yes, hollywood is about heat. Didn’t we just cover Meryl to death – she had many kids. Angelina has a bunch of kids. And so forth. Corporate american could give a shit about balance of anyone’s life.
But don’t go there to play the old story of heavenly undervalued motherhood against the career of “woman without a personal life who just needs to told what wonder thing parenthood is.” It’s a lie and it’s a low bar to plant.
Sandra Bullock is not usurping Roberts’ career– she’s been doing exactly what she’s always been doing! It ain’t like we can only pay attention to one woman at a time.
By that quote, is Roberts saying that she can’t be in a romantic comedy again because she’s married with kids in real life? Yeah, that’s why it’s called ACTING. I thought that sounded really condescending to the women who *are* making those films, like they can have the movies because their personal lives are so empty.
Kate it seems Julia just meant the type of roles that people associate her with like Pretty Woman and Notting Hill don’t work anymore because she’s a lot more mature. The girl-ish America’s Sweetheart meme doesn’t work so much anymore when you’re 40+. I think it’s a good decision to move onto other types of roles. Then again, Sandra Bullock had also written off romantic comedies until she read The Proposal–which if I remember correctly–she said originally her role was written as a man and she had them switch it.
I don’t know call me crazy but I didn’t see anything wrong with the original article. Yes there’s gender bias but it’s gotten this much attention IMO not because she’s a woman but because she is a huge star that by choice put her career on hold and is now coming back to an extent. Whether it would be Julia Roberts or Will Smith, I think both would have gotten some level of attention for coming back.
And personally I hate the comparisons between Bullock and Roberts, like they are interchangable. Personally I have never felt this way watching them act.
Julia will be back, bigger and better than ever. The above comment about Meryl Streep is well put. Nevertheless, I don’t understand what happened with “Duplicity”. I thought that was a very smart and entertaining film. Or why Roberts is to blame. She was great. Was the marketing just bad, or what?
Please, when the title of the blog entry is “The Punishment for Having Kids”….and the premise is that Julia could’ve should’ve had Sandra’s success and if she’s not then – cue graphic – that is – “The Punishment for Having Kids.”
Again…Sandra has her own life. And what all success she had was NOT due to Julia sittin’ it out and hers by default.
Tell, me, was that titlet to stir up passion and clicks…you know, that traditional mommy vs. childless woman meme?
Maybe a little media buzz so you can get a gig as a talking head about the subject?
Oh, and by the way, Julia Roberts is in a romantic comedy to be released in February called Valentine’s Day.
What the eff is the deal with this sort of crap on Women and Hollywood?
i am the fan of her ,i think she is a excellent women,
and now she has three chilren and happy marries,best wish for her and her familu.
mbt
emu boots
mbt
I disagree.
Sandra is OLDER than Julia and has a family of her own.
Julia turned down The Proposal AND The Blind Side as she wanted them to pay her more money. She was offered both movies first.
That is what people in Hollywood are talking about. People pass on roles on the time.
Julia saying she 41 and married to explain why she passed on projects is kind of a joke. She passed because they wouldn’t meet her quote. Sandra said yes.
She’s not being “punished” for having kids.
I think that I need to clarify my thoughts for this post.
I did not mean to pit Julia Roberts against Sandra Bullock.
It is not a post that encourages women not have kids. Sandra Bullock may not have given birth, but she is a mom through her marriage so this is not about her having an easier time getting jobs because she doesn’t have a family. She has a family.
Sandra Bullock didn’t make a movie for 2 years because the scripts sucked. When she made The Proposal there was never a conversation about her returning on her own terms.
What I was trying to say in the piece was that there is a tone, not only in the LA Times piece, but in talking about Julia Roberts career just seems to put it in a context I am not comfortable with.
Hope that clarifies.
I’m disappointed in the L.A. times for propagating ignorant sexist BS and wish you and others like you were in those papers and magazines.
I’ve never been a big Roberts fan (I’ve liked her in 1 or 2 movies) but, Owen and Roberts weren’t the problem with Duplicity, the script was. What I appreciated was her wrinkles being shown on the screen.
I’m also not a huge fan of Harrison Ford, again I’ve liked him in a few films. I wonder how often people see his films for the old old old man and the young actress coupling that seems to not want to go away?
I wonder if anyone will publish articles about how those horrid films FLOP over and over again because there are women (the older men’s original fans) who are sick enough of that to not join their male partners at that movie. I’ve heard women across the country, from L.A. to the suburbs of Mich. complain about the old man and daughter aged hook ups onscreen.
No offense to the women in real life who have chosen partners that are older than them, but, in film, it’s just ridiculous that it is not the exception and that it isn’t even mentioned that the couple are decades apart in age….and those poor actresses….
I loved Duplicity too – such a smart movie and Julia and Clive were both terrific in it. I can’t understand why it wasn’t a hit but I agree with Maggie that Julia will be back, bigger than ever.
Maybe Julia’s career will arc similar to Jodie Foster’s, Helen Mirren’s or Meryl Streep’s. Or maybe she will produce more projects with women directors and screenwriters.
Or maybe she will produce projects for TV.
I get your point that the article seems to be taking her to task for daring to have a life and a career but I think Julia Roberts is poised to remain powerhouse within the industry, no matter what.
She seems to me a woman fully in command of her life, professionally and personally.
Dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on.
Waitaminnit — the buzz I’ve read on Ford’s the same on Roberts — both actors want the same quote for work they got when they were bigger. It’s pure economics — neither consents to being humbled financially, lest they start slipping into character actor status.
For them both — as it’s ever been since Miss Bette Davis went on internal strike due to lousy parts — it’s pure star maintenance. They (unlike Ms. Bullock, who only lucked out with THE BLIND SIDE after years of shitty films) have a goal that’s more than money; it’s maintaining an image that they can’t get back, once it goes away.