In a surprising turn of events at Monday's Duplicity premiere in New York, Julia Roberts found herself on the receiving end of harsh criticism from Fox News critic Roger Friedman.
Known for his fair reviews and pieces, Friedman recounted an encounter with Roberts that left him taken aback.
As Roberts made her way down the red carpet, engaging with reporters and fulfilling her professional obligations, her demeanor took a drastic shift when she approached Friedman.
In his own words, he described her as “rude, downright nasty, and dismissive,” leaving those present stunned by her unexpected behavior.
One can only imagine the impact of such accusations on Julia Roberts, a renowned actress.
However, it's essential to consider if there might have been a reason behind her actions.
According to Friedman, this is how the situation unfolded:
Do entertainment journalists have an obligation to write positive reviews about movie stars?
Do these stars even bother reading their own press?
Are they too enveloped in their own world, relying solely on publicists to inform them about current events?
It seems unlikely that Julia Roberts, now a mother of three, has the time to keep up with everything, including columns like mine.
At the premiere of her latest thriller, “Duplicity,” Roberts did not hesitate to ignore my presence completely.
She displayed rudeness and hostility, even going so far as to cut in between me and director Tony Gilroy.
Her behavior was both unexpected and chilling.
When asked about the incident, her publicist, Marcy Engelman, claimed that Roberts was upset because I broke an embargo on her play and wrote negative things about her.
Furthermore, a prominent agent at the event confirmed that Julia had expressed her displeasure, saying, “That's the man who writes bad things about me.”
But even if this were true, does it excuse such discourteous behavior in public?
That's certainly something to ponder.
Interestingly, another producer and longtime friend of Roberts approached me later, affirming that she remembered my scathing review.
“I know you did,” she declared.
So what had Friedman done to incur Julia Roberts' wrath?
Apparently, in her mind, he had written something unfavorable about her performance in the play “Three Days of Rain” back in April 2006.
It is remarkable how long memories can be.
But what exactly did Friedman say to warrant such strong reactions from America's Sweetheart?
For the record, just a week before opening on Broadway, Roberts faced negative buzz in local newspapers regarding her appearance and acting abilities.
Curious to see for himself, Friedman attended a performance and wrote the following: “Regarding Julia: She was very good on Saturday afternoon.
We heard her clearly in the last row.
She has a strong stage presence, which will likely improve as she warms up for opening night.
She skillfully balances humor and charm with somber conviction.
Her delivery of lines is flawless, and it's impossible to take your eyes off her.
She injects life into her character with genuine Roberts sarcasm, which is most welcome.
In the second act, she combines her best performances from ‘Steel Magnolias' and ‘Ready to Wear,' among others.”
“Contrary to gossip, she does not look thin, gaunt, or unhappy.
On the contrary, she exudes energy and received a standing ovation from our enthusiastic audience.
So there.
As one usher observed, she is already exceptional, and come opening night, she'll be even more phenomenal.”
“So let's put those claws away and get ready.
Granted, she may not be Cherry Jones or Phylicia Rashad just yet, but as a movie star, she outshines anyone and is bound to make headlines on April 20.”
“My guess is that this will open doors for her to alternate between plays and movies, which can only be a positive thing.”
This episode perfectly exemplifies the saying “no good deed goes unpunished.”
Most reviewers, in fact, did not share Friedman's positive view of Roberts' performance.
The regular theater critics tore her apart.
The day after opening night, Friedman followed up with: “If anything, she seemed more at ease on stage this time around, significantly improving her performance.
It will be interesting to see her at the end of the run in June…
Whenever Roberts returns to Broadway, which she undoubtedly will, I hope it's in a romantic comedy or farce that showcases her true talents.”
It's important to note that Roberts took a brave step by venturing into Broadway.
Unfortunately, the material may not have suited her.
Ultimately, this situation is reminiscent of the struggles many Hollywood stars face when transitioning to the demanding world of Broadway without first honing their craft.
Sometimes, as Katie Holmes did in “All My Sons” last year, it's better to take on a supporting role.
Regardless, one would not expect that my review of Roberts' performance justified the scene that unfolded at last night's party.
The encounter was both unpleasant and intended to be devastating.
Those close to Roberts claimed, “That's what she was told.”
And that's even worse – to think that most conversations in Hollywood begin with the words, “I heard you wrote something negative about (blank).”
Perhaps it's time to seek better sources of information.
My advice to Julia: find a new publicist and a reliable clipping service.
If Julia Roberts possesses any sense of decency, she should consider sending Friedman a gesture of goodwill, such as a gift basket.
Even if she genuinely believed that he had written terrible things about her, and her team reinforced this notion, it still does not excuse her behavior.
If she did not want to engage with someone who had criticized her, she had the option to simply avoid him.
There was no need to act so rudely.
After over two decades in the industry, it's possible that Julia Roberts is simply having an off day.
