Julia Robert’s Smile Shouldn’t Be an Issue

What is it with Kenneth Turan and his obsession with Julia Roberts’ smile? As an actor and a resident film buff who reads lots of film criticism, I found his review of Julia Roberts’ performance in “Conspiracy Theory” to be utterly juvenile (“Star Turns, in Theory,” Aug. 8).

Not long ago, I recall an article written by Turan about Roberts and her unwillingness to smile in her movies (“Give Us Something to Smile About,” Aug. 6, 1995). Is this the kind of topic that constitutes serious film criticism today?

For some time now, Turan has expressed serious displeasure with Roberts’ choices as an actress and this has shadowed his reviews of her films since “Pretty Woman.” Regardless of what one thinks of Roberts as an actress, I find these reviews to be totally lacking in intelligent film criticism and unfair to the actor. Turan is not Roberts’ agent, and his ideas of what she should be doing as an actor are irrelevant to a film critique. He should be critiquing the actual performance.

Turan writes, “The actress rations her smile as parsimoniously as Ebenezer Scrooge.” Reducing Roberts’ acting ability to a smile is not only ridiculous but downright sexist. Rarely do I see an article about Tom Cruise not flashing his pearly whites.

Just because “My Best Friend’s Wedding “ topped $100 million recently, does this mean Roberts should be locked into roles that only require her to smile and be a “Pretty Woman”? I guarantee you that that would get just as tiring as “her determination to play as many dour and troubled characters” as Turan suggests. By keeping an actor from branching out, even if they falter, you’re doing a disservice to them as artists and to those of us who take film seriously. It makes me not want to smile either.

DAVID TRUDELL

Los Angeles