It's strange that the same setting where one of the most famous scenes of Notting Hill, one of the most angelic and white films in history, takes place, is also the chosen place for press meetings for Witches Hunt, a film that has been causing a lot of dust and controversy since its presentation in Venice. Remember, in the romantic comedy by Roger Michell released in 1999, it was a luxury London hotel where Julia Roberts (Smyrna, Georgia, 1967) in her role as a movie star and Hugh Grant as an accidental journalist first met. A hotel so similar that it could be said to be identical (the exclusive Claridge's) is the chosen location for interviews last week for Luca Guadagnino's latest film where Roberts plays a Yale professor who, faced with the dilemma of believing a student who accuses her friend and professor of harassment, opts for the least angelic and white decision. Did someone say anti-woke?
Already at its presentation in Venice, the actress had to deal with another accusation, this time of being anti-feminist, during a press conference, and Hollywood's most celebrated and praised smile had no choice but to shine in all its splendor. Roberts smiled a lot and even seemed to swallow. A lot. Strange.
How do you remember that moment? If I ask you now, more than a month later, the same, does your answer change?
I remember that was the first question they asked me, and it caught me completely off guard. Honestly, it hadn't even crossed my mind that the movie could be interpreted in that way. But I admit that since then, that darn question has been with me, and I have continued to think about it. I don't understand being accused of being anti-feminist for anything I do because I am not. Honestly, I believe that the issue lends itself to so many interpretations and depends so much on the culture or language from which it is spoken that it leads to another more relaxed and profound conversation on the subject. But I insist, as I see myself, my place in the world, and my role in this movie, there is nothing anti-feminist...
Either way, beyond the obvious discomfort of an actress who insists on trusting "the intelligence of the audience" ("It's about making the viewer think," she says), controversy has quickly escalated. Last Tuesday, as the first storm of what is to come, columnist Michelle Goldberg from the pages of The New York Times launched a full-on attack on The Witches in an article headlined with a blow to the forehead: "Julia Roberts' new movie reeks of anti-woke resentment." In a moment of dissent repression at universities under the Trump administration, the movie, according to the author, arrives late and only shows the latent resentment that has given rise to the new and very sexist reactionary wave. To support the thesis, after a detailed analysis of the film's plot that includes not one but two false accusations of abuse by women (one is never clear, the other is backed by a full confession: "He was a good man, and I destroyed him with a lie," is heard in the film as a release and regret), the journalist refers to recent statements by one of the producers, Brian Grazer, to The Hollywood Reporter: "This movie shows the damage of that [so-called woke ideology] by addressing false accusations on the Yale campus," said the man. The speaker is a former Biden supporter turned, by his own admission, a Trump voter. Odd.
In the end, the movie poses and refutes the question of whether sisterhood or support among women, which could be considered an obvious self-defensive measure, should always prevail. Otherwise, can a woman, given the circumstances and the world we live in, not believe another woman?
It's a good question, but I think it oversimplifies the relationship that the movie describes between the two women. Many other things happen between my character and Ayo Edebiri's character, so reducing everything to one not believing the other when she reports an assault is not fair... Going back to the previous question, I think it's very feminist to see two women arguing and not agreeing. Not everything is anti-feminism or feminism; there are also gray areas that deserve to be explored.
In Venice, the director himself, Italian Luca Guadagnino, couldn't help but also defend the film. "Feminisms are multiple.
Furthermore, reducing feminism is a journalistic banality that I reject... Is All About Eve, by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, an anti-feminist movie because it shows the struggle between two women?...
Anyone who claims that the film is retrograde regarding feminist achievements is simply saying something very stupid. The film is inherently feminist. It is written by a woman [Nora Garrett] and directed by a homosexual man who loves women very much," he states, not annoyed, but almost, and adds: "If my film truly puts something at stake, it's the power dynamics, a power that is visible and another that is invisible. And these have no gender."
Anyway, Julia Roberts comes to The Witches after starring not long ago in Leave the World Behind, a film directed by Sam Esmail that directly imagined an apocalypse due to a chillingly realistic cyberattack. Let's say the desire to provoke and "make the viewer think" is still there.
Is this desire to stir up controversy part of a pre-established plan?
I wish I were that smart. I think I simply have the luck to come across things that, I suppose, are provocative.
What does provocation mean to Julia Roberts? And what does it mean at this point in your career?
We are in a very interesting moment in audiovisual production. But it comes with its risks. Now, what is done for both cinema and television is called content. I detest that current trend of calling movies content. That's why it's more necessary than ever for our work to provoke something, any kind of conversation, emotion, or reaction. As artists, that's what we aspire to: to work on pieces that endure and that make viewers talk among themselves, that make them feel. I imagine that's what provocative art means.
And where does your legacy, your past of romantic comedies, fit into this reflection? What do you think about the romantic comedy genre disappearing from screens?
I'm not someone who looks too much to the past or is very reflective. I'm more impulsive and always look forward. I'm sure there will come a day when I enjoy reminiscing about the past with my grandchildren and they ask me about Pretty Woman, but for now, that's not the case. Regarding romantic comedies, I will say it's a genre that I love, and I believe it's one of the most challenging to do really well. This is something I've reflected on a lot because I'm constantly asked about it. The curious thing is that I didn't realize at the time the kind of streak I was on. I didn't grasp the great fortune I had with all those exceptional roles I could play. I don't understand why romantic comedies have disappeared. I feel privileged to have done so many and such good ones.
Returning to the beginning, do you think the movie will reignite the conversation about the MeToo movement when it's either taken for granted or, worse, attacked in the current repressive climate?
I trust that the conversation will be much broader. I know the movie has been labeled as a MeToo film, and honestly, I find it to be an oversimplification.
In the midst of the conversation and provocations, Guadagnino himself can't help but intervene and protest. "I am convinced," the director states, "that the film puts into action strategies that may be frivolously seen as provocation, but I always reason and act from cinema as a language. Therefore, I cannot accept that what I consider the language I want to speak, that of cinematic expression, be minimized or altered to avoid appearing provocative. I don't believe in 'thesis films.' When you make a film whose only value is the argument, that work loses its value very quickly. It's like fresh milk, it expires quickly. I aspire to make cinema that withstands the test of time.
Therefore, what interests me are the dynamics that can speak about us... About the particularity of the story I tell, about the particularity of those characters, I want to try to understand if that way I can reach you and everyone, creating within you the desire for a question about yourself. The question I would ask myself watching this film is not about MeToo or cancel culture, which I don't believe in, but: Why do I want to take someone else's place of power? What does being recognized mean to me? And what does it mean for me to want success at all costs? This is an important question one should ask oneself." It's clear. More or less.
It's strange that the same setting where one of the most famous scenes of Notting Hill, one of the most angelic and white movies in history, takes place is also the backdrop for the presentation of the movie that requires more explanations, not all clear, of the year.