WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.720 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. We're here to 00:00:01.720 --> 00:00:03.859 take a whole stack of sources, the biographical, 00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:06.419 the critical, the financial, and really just 00:00:06.419 --> 00:00:08.240 pull out the essential knowledge for you. Giving 00:00:08.240 --> 00:00:10.779 you that shortcut to understanding these truly 00:00:10.779 --> 00:00:14.720 consequential figures. And today, we are unpacking 00:00:14.720 --> 00:00:16.679 a smile that basically defined a generation, 00:00:16.859 --> 00:00:20.179 but also a bank account that just completely 00:00:20.179 --> 00:00:22.239 shattered a ceiling. Right. We're talking about 00:00:22.239 --> 00:00:24.940 Julia Roberts. Mm -hmm. Because beneath that, 00:00:24.940 --> 00:00:27.120 you know, approachable America's sweetheart image 00:00:27.120 --> 00:00:31.829 lies one of Hollywood's most... well, most astute 00:00:31.829 --> 00:00:34.759 financial pioneers. That absolutely frames what 00:00:34.759 --> 00:00:36.679 we're doing today. Our mission for this deep 00:00:36.679 --> 00:00:39.240 dive is to analyze how Roberts went from being, 00:00:39.280 --> 00:00:42.039 you know, a talented, acclaimed newcomer to Hollywood's 00:00:42.039 --> 00:00:45.500 first major female titan. A titan. Commanding 00:00:45.500 --> 00:00:47.979 salaries that were before her just reserved for 00:00:47.979 --> 00:00:50.140 male actors. So we're looking at this really 00:00:50.140 --> 00:00:52.859 complex career evolution. We're examining her 00:00:52.859 --> 00:00:54.439 critical perception, which is, you know, it's 00:00:54.439 --> 00:00:57.100 often hotly debated. And we're weaving in some 00:00:57.100 --> 00:00:59.560 surprising personal background details, things 00:00:59.560 --> 00:01:01.479 that are usually hidden beneath that massive 00:01:01.479 --> 00:01:03.909 public persona. And our sources for this, I mean, 00:01:03.929 --> 00:01:05.849 they give us this incredible overview. It spans 00:01:05.849 --> 00:01:08.590 her whole life, basically from her birth in 1967 00:01:08.590 --> 00:01:11.349 all the way up through her projects in 2025. 00:01:12.030 --> 00:01:14.010 So this is not just a greatest hits montage. 00:01:14.349 --> 00:01:16.370 No, not at all. This is a serious exploration 00:01:16.370 --> 00:01:20.010 of market leverage. Real power. Precisely. And 00:01:20.010 --> 00:01:22.109 we're going to start not with a box office figure, 00:01:22.170 --> 00:01:24.650 but with a piece of history that is so unexpected. 00:01:25.370 --> 00:01:27.989 it kind of recontextualizes her entire origin 00:01:27.989 --> 00:01:30.290 story. Right. Because we all think of Roberts 00:01:30.290 --> 00:01:33.370 as this, you know, glamorous, universally recognized 00:01:33.370 --> 00:01:37.670 Hollywood institution. But her earliest roots, 00:01:37.870 --> 00:01:41.030 they're deeply tied to the social justice movement 00:01:41.030 --> 00:01:43.129 in the American South. Which brings us to section 00:01:43.129 --> 00:01:45.849 one, the unexpected roots and early ascent. We're 00:01:45.849 --> 00:01:49.390 talking 1967 to 1989. Back to the very beginning. 00:01:49.689 --> 00:01:52.269 Julia Fiona Roberts was born on October 28th, 00:01:52.269 --> 00:01:56.079 1967 in Atlanta, Georgia. And her parents, Betty 00:01:56.079 --> 00:01:58.200 Luberdamus and Walter Grady Roberts, they were 00:01:58.200 --> 00:02:00.840 just, I mean, they were deeply ingrained in the 00:02:00.840 --> 00:02:02.480 local performing arts scene. They were actors 00:02:02.480 --> 00:02:04.760 themselves, right? Actors and playwrights, yeah. 00:02:04.980 --> 00:02:07.519 They even co -founded the Atlanta Actors and 00:02:07.519 --> 00:02:09.979 Writers Workshop. Now, from all our sources, 00:02:10.219 --> 00:02:12.680 they were struggling financially, which is, you 00:02:12.680 --> 00:02:14.520 know, it's pretty common for people in regional 00:02:14.520 --> 00:02:16.879 theater. Sure. But Walter Roberts had established 00:02:16.879 --> 00:02:19.139 something that was... I mean, for the time and 00:02:19.139 --> 00:02:21.900 place, it was profoundly radical. He ran the 00:02:21.900 --> 00:02:24.719 only racially integrated theater troupe in the 00:02:24.719 --> 00:02:27.900 entire region. OK, wait, hold on. The only one 00:02:27.900 --> 00:02:33.259 in Atlanta in the late 60s. The only one. That's 00:02:33.259 --> 00:02:35.520 not just a theater company. That that's a statement. 00:02:35.539 --> 00:02:38.479 That means he was taking a huge. personal and 00:02:38.479 --> 00:02:41.719 definitely financial risk to challenge the segregation 00:02:41.719 --> 00:02:44.819 of the time. He absolutely was. And that commitment 00:02:44.819 --> 00:02:47.300 to integration is where the story gets. Well, 00:02:47.319 --> 00:02:49.560 it gets truly incredible because the Roberts 00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:51.620 family, despite their artistic success, they 00:02:51.620 --> 00:02:53.740 couldn't pay the hospital bill when Julia was 00:02:53.740 --> 00:02:56.060 born. They were just cash poor. Completely. So 00:02:56.060 --> 00:02:58.240 who steps in? I feel like this is the big reveal. 00:02:58.379 --> 00:03:01.580 Coretta Scott King. Wow. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 00:03:01.580 --> 00:03:04.719 widow. She stepped in and personally paid the 00:03:04.719 --> 00:03:07.500 hospital bill for Julia's birth. Why? What was 00:03:07.500 --> 00:03:10.139 the connection? She did it in gratitude. It was 00:03:10.139 --> 00:03:13.180 because Walter Roberts ran this integrated acting 00:03:13.180 --> 00:03:16.000 school and the King children, including Yolanda, 00:03:16.159 --> 00:03:19.120 actually attended his school. That is the ultimate 00:03:19.120 --> 00:03:22.759 aha moment. It just provides this instant, profound 00:03:22.759 --> 00:03:25.500 depth to her story. It really does. Because when 00:03:25.500 --> 00:03:29.139 you look at Roberts' later career, I mean, her 00:03:29.139 --> 00:03:32.020 choice to champion the role of Erin Brockovich, 00:03:32.219 --> 00:03:35.199 this working class environmental justice advocate, 00:03:35.460 --> 00:03:39.189 it's... It's impossible not to see a line connecting 00:03:39.189 --> 00:03:41.530 her back to this environment, this social consciousness. 00:03:42.159 --> 00:03:44.159 It immediately grounds her narrative. It moves 00:03:44.159 --> 00:03:46.740 her so far away from that cliche of, you know, 00:03:46.740 --> 00:03:49.740 a star discovered in a Hollywood diner. She comes 00:03:49.740 --> 00:03:52.180 from this unique, creative and socially committed 00:03:52.180 --> 00:03:54.340 family. She was raised Catholic, which is an 00:03:54.340 --> 00:03:55.860 interesting detail, though we have to remember 00:03:55.860 --> 00:03:58.900 her later conversion to Hinduism. Yeah. We'll 00:03:58.900 --> 00:04:00.319 definitely get into that spiritual evolution 00:04:00.319 --> 00:04:02.740 later on. And that creative environment, it really 00:04:02.740 --> 00:04:05.719 established the foundation for what would become 00:04:05.719 --> 00:04:08.780 this like massive showbiz dynasty. It's a whole 00:04:08.780 --> 00:04:11.240 family affair. Her older brother, Eric Roberts, 00:04:11.479 --> 00:04:14.159 he's a veteran actor. They were estranged for 00:04:14.159 --> 00:04:16.699 years, but the sources say they reconciled around 00:04:16.699 --> 00:04:19.980 2004. Right. And her sister. Her older sister, 00:04:20.259 --> 00:04:23.139 Lisa Roberts Gillen, is also an actress and later 00:04:23.139 --> 00:04:26.000 became a producer with Julia. And then, of course, 00:04:26.060 --> 00:04:28.860 her niece, Emma Roberts, is a successful star 00:04:28.860 --> 00:04:31.120 in her own right. So it really is the family 00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:33.939 business through and through. Though we do have 00:04:33.939 --> 00:04:36.379 to acknowledge the tragic side of it. Her younger 00:04:36.379 --> 00:04:39.420 half -sister, Nancy Motes, struggled with addiction 00:04:39.420 --> 00:04:43.360 and sadly passed away in 2014. And that private 00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:46.000 struggle, it just stands in such sharp contrast 00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:48.720 to the universally bright public image Julia 00:04:48.720 --> 00:04:51.500 always maintained. What's so fascinating to me, 00:04:51.519 --> 00:04:53.160 though, is that even being surrounded by all 00:04:53.160 --> 00:04:55.939 these actors, her own goals were completely different 00:04:55.939 --> 00:04:58.519 at first. Oh, completely. She wasn't an immediate 00:04:58.519 --> 00:05:00.730 theater kid. So what did she want to be? As a 00:05:00.730 --> 00:05:02.949 child, Roberts actually wanted to be a veterinarian. 00:05:03.149 --> 00:05:06.629 She was focused on animals, science. She even 00:05:06.629 --> 00:05:09.069 played the clarinet in her school band. It feeds 00:05:09.069 --> 00:05:11.290 into this narrative that she wasn't, you know, 00:05:11.290 --> 00:05:13.689 hungry for the spotlight. She almost just stumbled 00:05:13.689 --> 00:05:16.629 into it. And that natural lack of desperation 00:05:16.629 --> 00:05:19.189 for fame is maybe what made her so compelling 00:05:19.189 --> 00:05:21.569 when she finally did make the move. After high 00:05:21.569 --> 00:05:24.980 school. To New York. Exactly. She left Smyrna, 00:05:25.060 --> 00:05:27.899 Georgia, moved north, signed with the Click Modeling 00:05:27.899 --> 00:05:30.439 Agency while she was taking acting classes, just 00:05:30.439 --> 00:05:32.879 doing that quintessential New York hustle. And 00:05:32.879 --> 00:05:36.050 that hustle led to some very early... but very 00:05:36.050 --> 00:05:39.470 dramatic screen appearances. Her first television 00:05:39.470 --> 00:05:42.370 appearance, this was in 1987, was particularly 00:05:42.370 --> 00:05:45.410 dark. She played a juvenile rape victim in the 00:05:45.410 --> 00:05:47.649 series Crime Story. Heavy stuff for a debut. 00:05:47.910 --> 00:05:49.970 Very. That was followed by her big screen debut 00:05:49.970 --> 00:05:52.850 in a dramedy called Satisfaction in 88, which 00:05:52.850 --> 00:05:55.769 was about an all -female rock band. But the real 00:05:55.769 --> 00:05:57.430 professional spark, the thing that got people 00:05:57.430 --> 00:05:59.889 talking, that arrived pretty quickly with Mystic 00:05:59.889 --> 00:06:02.829 Pizza. Mystic Pizza in 1988 was absolutely pivotal. 00:06:03.089 --> 00:06:05.040 She played Daisy Arojo, a Portuguese... She's 00:06:05.040 --> 00:06:07.620 American teenage waitress. The film wasn't a 00:06:07.620 --> 00:06:09.879 blockbuster, not by any means, but it was a critical 00:06:09.879 --> 00:06:12.579 launching pad. And critics immediately saw that 00:06:12.579 --> 00:06:15.879 raw charisma. Roger Ebert's praise in particular 00:06:15.879 --> 00:06:19.319 was so prophetic. He was completely effusive. 00:06:19.480 --> 00:06:22.399 He called her a major beauty with a fierce energy. 00:06:22.620 --> 00:06:25.079 And he predicted that Mystic Pizza might one 00:06:25.079 --> 00:06:27.720 day be known mostly for showcasing future stars. 00:06:27.759 --> 00:06:30.819 And he specifically highlighted Roberts. So it 00:06:30.819 --> 00:06:33.589 wasn't just praise for her looks. He saw the 00:06:33.589 --> 00:06:36.750 energy. Exactly. It was recognition of this undeniable 00:06:36.750 --> 00:06:39.110 visceral energy on screen that you just couldn't 00:06:39.110 --> 00:06:41.730 ignore. And that undeniable energy just. Yeah. 00:06:41.810 --> 00:06:44.350 It accelerated everything. Yeah. The very next 00:06:44.350 --> 00:06:48.550 year, 1989, she lands Deal Magnolias, an emotional 00:06:48.550 --> 00:06:52.269 powerhouse, huge ensemble film. But the story 00:06:52.269 --> 00:06:55.540 behind that casting, it suggests. it was not 00:06:55.540 --> 00:06:57.560 a guaranteed role for her. Not at all. The filmmakers 00:06:57.560 --> 00:06:59.480 were initially looking at more established names, 00:06:59.660 --> 00:07:01.699 people like Laura Dern and Winona Ryder for the 00:07:01.699 --> 00:07:03.500 role of Shelby, the young bride with diabetes. 00:07:03.939 --> 00:07:05.779 So how did she get in the door? It was the casting 00:07:05.779 --> 00:07:07.639 director who just really pushed for Roberts, 00:07:07.720 --> 00:07:09.839 who was still filming Mystic Pizza at the time. 00:07:09.980 --> 00:07:12.300 And the narrative we have says that when she 00:07:12.300 --> 00:07:14.399 finally got in the room, she just completely 00:07:14.399 --> 00:07:17.220 won them over. The screenwriter, Robert Harling, 00:07:17.339 --> 00:07:20.100 he recalled the moment. He said when she walked 00:07:20.100 --> 00:07:23.480 in, that smile lit everything up and I said, 00:07:23.480 --> 00:07:26.529 that's my sister. She just embodied the southern 00:07:26.529 --> 00:07:29.170 charm and the vulnerability that character needed. 00:07:29.389 --> 00:07:32.689 But the set itself, it sounds like it was not 00:07:32.689 --> 00:07:34.769 a comfortable experience for her as a newcomer. 00:07:34.850 --> 00:07:38.189 The director, Herbert Ross, was apparently pretty 00:07:38.189 --> 00:07:40.750 demanding. The sources say it was a trial by 00:07:40.750 --> 00:07:44.310 fire. Sally Field, one of the veterans on set, 00:07:44.589 --> 00:07:47.370 she later admitted that Ross went after Julia 00:07:47.370 --> 00:07:49.889 with a vengeance. Oh, why? Just because she was 00:07:49.889 --> 00:07:52.189 new? Because she was relatively inexperienced 00:07:52.189 --> 00:07:54.689 and it was her first truly high profile picture. 00:07:54.930 --> 00:07:57.029 She had to develop a thick skin and a lot of 00:07:57.029 --> 00:07:59.930 professional resilience really fast amidst some 00:07:59.930 --> 00:08:02.290 serious onset pressure. That's such a crucial, 00:08:02.329 --> 00:08:04.230 crucible moment. You're facing intense scrutiny 00:08:04.230 --> 00:08:06.490 from a tough director, but you still had to deliver 00:08:06.490 --> 00:08:08.089 a performance that connects with people. And 00:08:08.089 --> 00:08:10.550 she did. The outcome was phenomenal. The film 00:08:10.550 --> 00:08:13.170 was a smash hit and it earned her her first major 00:08:13.170 --> 00:08:15.819 accolades. The Oscar nomination. An Academy Award 00:08:15.819 --> 00:08:18.360 nomination for Best Supporting Actress and her 00:08:18.360 --> 00:08:21.339 first Golden Globe Award win. She finished the 00:08:21.339 --> 00:08:23.860 1980s not as a model or a waitress, but as an 00:08:23.860 --> 00:08:26.560 Oscar nominated actress. That trajectory is just 00:08:26.560 --> 00:08:29.120 incredibly fast. She goes from this integrated 00:08:29.120 --> 00:08:32.500 theater family in Georgia to a major Hollywood 00:08:32.500 --> 00:08:35.440 award contender in what, two years? It's a phenomenal 00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:38.159 foundation. But the role that defined her legacy 00:08:38.159 --> 00:08:41.669 and more importantly, her financial power. That 00:08:41.669 --> 00:08:43.529 was just around the corner. Which transitions 00:08:43.529 --> 00:08:45.909 us right into the most financially transformative 00:08:45.909 --> 00:08:48.309 decade of her career. Let's do it. Section two, 00:08:48.450 --> 00:08:51.110 the queen of the rom -com and financial powerhouse 00:08:51.110 --> 00:08:54.730 from 1990 to 1999. You have to start with the 00:08:54.730 --> 00:08:57.049 cultural bomb that was Pretty Woman. Pretty Woman 00:08:57.049 --> 00:09:01.309 in 1990. Roberts opposite Richard Gere. This 00:09:01.309 --> 00:09:03.710 film just cemented her as a leading lady. It's 00:09:03.710 --> 00:09:06.570 this modernized Cinderella tale. So iconic today, 00:09:06.710 --> 00:09:09.409 but it's critical to remember its messy origins. 00:09:09.629 --> 00:09:12.350 Oh, very messy. You mentioned the list of actresses 00:09:12.350 --> 00:09:14.809 who turned it down. Michelle Pfeiffer, Meg Ryan, 00:09:14.950 --> 00:09:17.149 Molly Ringwald. I mean, why would they all say 00:09:17.149 --> 00:09:19.690 no to what became such a career -defining role? 00:09:20.169 --> 00:09:22.789 Because the initial script was dark, really dark. 00:09:22.909 --> 00:09:25.490 It was called 3000, which was a reference to 00:09:25.490 --> 00:09:27.970 the price of her services as a prostitute. Not 00:09:27.970 --> 00:09:30.509 exactly a feel -good title. No. It was a gritty, 00:09:30.529 --> 00:09:33.509 cautionary tale about drug use, prostitution, 00:09:33.730 --> 00:09:37.509 and it had a tragic ending. It was not the sparkling 00:09:37.509 --> 00:09:39.970 romance we all know. So she signed on when it 00:09:39.970 --> 00:09:42.590 was still that dark version. She did. She signed 00:09:42.590 --> 00:09:44.950 on when it was with the original studio, Vestron 00:09:44.950 --> 00:09:47.710 Pictures, which then went bankrupt. So Disney's 00:09:47.710 --> 00:09:50.700 Touchstone Pictures swoops in and they... What, 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:52.860 they just fundamentally sanitized it? Exactly. 00:09:52.860 --> 00:09:55.259 They turned it into the Pygmalion fantasy. All 00:09:55.259 --> 00:09:57.580 those A -list actresses likely turned down the 00:09:57.580 --> 00:10:00.559 original, much darker concept. Roberts just ended 00:10:00.559 --> 00:10:02.580 up being the right person at the right time to 00:10:02.580 --> 00:10:05.139 embody the assertive yet charming version of 00:10:05.139 --> 00:10:07.980 Vivian Ward that Hollywood wanted. She redefined 00:10:07.980 --> 00:10:10.320 what that role could be. She brought this vulnerability, 00:10:10.500 --> 00:10:14.000 but also a refusal to be a victim. She did. And 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:16.379 what she was paid for that versus what the film 00:10:16.379 --> 00:10:19.220 returned is the first clear, glaring piece of 00:10:19.220 --> 00:10:21.070 evidence. for the financial leverage she would 00:10:21.070 --> 00:10:22.929 eventually command. Okay, so what was the number? 00:10:23.129 --> 00:10:26.269 She was paid $300 ,000 for the part. And the 00:10:26.269 --> 00:10:29.889 film made? The final global box office was $463 00:10:29.889 --> 00:10:34.909 .4 million. Wow. I mean, that is a mind -boggling 00:10:34.909 --> 00:10:37.169 return on investment for the studio. It's astronomical. 00:10:37.570 --> 00:10:39.950 And beyond that, it holds the record for the 00:10:39.950 --> 00:10:42.549 highest number of ticket sales in the U .S. ever 00:10:42.549 --> 00:10:46.889 for a romantic comedy. That film proved definitively 00:10:46.889 --> 00:10:49.679 that Julia Roberts was a commercial engine. And 00:10:49.679 --> 00:10:52.080 that engine immediately earned her the accolades 00:10:52.080 --> 00:10:55.059 to match. Her second Oscar nomination, this time 00:10:55.059 --> 00:10:57.460 for Best Actress, and a second Golden Globe win. 00:10:57.799 --> 00:11:00.220 Culturally, she was a phenomenon. That red dress 00:11:00.220 --> 00:11:02.399 she wore to the opera, it's instantly recognizable. 00:11:02.620 --> 00:11:04.620 It's routinely cited as one of the most famous 00:11:04.620 --> 00:11:07.519 gowns in cinema history. She went from acclaimed 00:11:07.519 --> 00:11:11.840 newcomer to global movie star. And the term America's 00:11:11.840 --> 00:11:15.110 sweetheart just started to stick. Almost immediately. 00:11:15.370 --> 00:11:17.750 Right after that massive success, Roberts tried 00:11:17.750 --> 00:11:20.049 to navigate the early 90s by exploring different 00:11:20.049 --> 00:11:22.129 genres. She showed she didn't want to get locked 00:11:22.129 --> 00:11:24.169 in that rom -com box. So she tested the waters 00:11:24.169 --> 00:11:26.330 and more. Psychological and supernatural stuff. 00:11:26.870 --> 00:11:31.210 Exactly. In 1990, she had Flatliners, a supernatural 00:11:31.210 --> 00:11:34.549 thriller. It had a very polarized critical reception 00:11:34.549 --> 00:11:37.350 at the time, but it's since found a life as a 00:11:37.350 --> 00:11:40.350 cult film. And then 1991 was just a relentless 00:11:40.350 --> 00:11:43.409 year for her. three major releases and those 00:11:43.409 --> 00:11:46.570 three were huge hits commercially speaking first 00:11:47.309 --> 00:11:49.110 The domestic thriller Sleeping with the Enemy. 00:11:49.269 --> 00:11:51.669 It capitalized on her vulnerability and star 00:11:51.669 --> 00:11:54.590 power, and it grossed $175 million globally. 00:11:54.830 --> 00:11:57.230 And then Hook. Second, she took on a supporting 00:11:57.230 --> 00:11:59.850 role in Steven Spielberg's Hook as Tinkerbell. 00:12:00.129 --> 00:12:03.309 That pulled in over $300 million worldwide. And 00:12:03.309 --> 00:12:05.970 the third. The romance drama Dying Young, which 00:12:05.970 --> 00:12:08.990 added another $82 .3 million to the tally. So 00:12:08.990 --> 00:12:11.070 even if the critics were entirely kind to her 00:12:11.070 --> 00:12:14.269 1991 movies, the box office numbers just proved 00:12:14.269 --> 00:12:15.889 that people were buying tickets because her name 00:12:15.889 --> 00:12:17.950 was on the marquee. She was star -proof. Didn't 00:12:17.950 --> 00:12:19.629 matter what the reviews said. Her star power 00:12:19.629 --> 00:12:22.289 was functioning as a guarantee. But then, she 00:12:22.289 --> 00:12:24.250 made a really surprising move. She took a two 00:12:24.250 --> 00:12:26.590 -year hiatus from the screen. She only made a 00:12:26.590 --> 00:12:29.210 brief cameo in Robert Altman's brilliant industry 00:12:29.210 --> 00:12:32.850 satire, The Player, in 1992. A two -year break 00:12:32.850 --> 00:12:35.950 at the absolute peak of her early fame is. It's 00:12:35.950 --> 00:12:38.899 radical. Why did the media and the public react 00:12:38.899 --> 00:12:41.059 so strongly to that? Because it wasn't just a 00:12:41.059 --> 00:12:43.940 break. It was a defiant act. She was reclaiming 00:12:43.940 --> 00:12:46.360 her private life, which had become incredibly 00:12:46.360 --> 00:12:49.700 sensationalized, especially around her engagement 00:12:49.700 --> 00:12:52.259 and breakup with Kiefer Sutherland. The media 00:12:52.259 --> 00:12:54.980 went into a frenzy. Oh, completely. People magazine 00:12:54.980 --> 00:12:58.720 ran that infamous 1993 cover story asking, what 00:12:58.720 --> 00:13:01.860 happened to Julia Roberts? That cover. just speaks 00:13:01.860 --> 00:13:04.279 volumes about the possessiveness the public felt 00:13:04.279 --> 00:13:07.080 over their sweetheart. It absolutely does. The 00:13:07.080 --> 00:13:09.500 sources suggest this period allowed her to reset, 00:13:09.720 --> 00:13:12.100 recalibrate her priorities, and fundamentally 00:13:12.100 --> 00:13:14.559 prove that she controlled her own narrative, 00:13:14.600 --> 00:13:17.799 not the media machine. So her comeback was very 00:13:17.799 --> 00:13:20.139 carefully planned. Meticulously. She returned 00:13:20.139 --> 00:13:22.980 in 1993 opposite Denzel Washington in the John 00:13:22.980 --> 00:13:25.500 Grisham adaptation, The Pelican Brief. And pairing 00:13:25.500 --> 00:13:27.840 her with Washington, a serious actor also known 00:13:27.840 --> 00:13:30.179 for commercial success, that signaled she was 00:13:30.179 --> 00:13:32.419 ready for high -stakes drama and, you know, still 00:13:32.419 --> 00:13:34.899 big box office. And it worked. The film was a 00:13:34.899 --> 00:13:39.000 huge success, grossing $195 .2 million worldwide. 00:13:39.740 --> 00:13:42.360 Her star power wasn't just undiminished. It was 00:13:42.360 --> 00:13:44.840 reinforced by her ability to walk away and come 00:13:44.840 --> 00:13:47.220 back on her own terms. The mid-'90s had a few 00:13:47.220 --> 00:13:49.320 mixed returns. I love Trouble, Pritta Porter. 00:13:49.580 --> 00:13:52.500 But the late-'90s is when she truly cemented 00:13:52.500 --> 00:13:55.269 her title. as the undisputed queen of the romantic 00:13:55.269 --> 00:13:58.169 comedy. This was the crucial second act of her 00:13:58.169 --> 00:14:00.610 commercial dominance. My Best Friend's Wedding 00:14:00.610 --> 00:14:04.590 in 1997 didn't just revive the genre, it redefined 00:14:04.590 --> 00:14:06.549 it. Critics hailed it as one of the best romantic 00:14:06.549 --> 00:14:08.710 comedies ever made, partly because it was so 00:14:08.710 --> 00:14:11.049 sophisticated, so subversive. And the subversion 00:14:11.049 --> 00:14:13.830 being that her character, Julianne, she doesn't 00:14:13.830 --> 00:14:15.529 actually end up with the guy she's chasing. She 00:14:15.529 --> 00:14:17.909 loses gracefully. It broke the formula. Exactly. 00:14:17.929 --> 00:14:22.700 And it earned $299 .3 million globally. That 00:14:22.700 --> 00:14:24.620 film showed that Roberts could anchor a film 00:14:24.620 --> 00:14:26.820 that challenged romantic conventions while still 00:14:26.820 --> 00:14:29.460 delivering massive commercial returns. She balanced 00:14:29.460 --> 00:14:31.500 that success by crossing back into thrillers 00:14:31.500 --> 00:14:34.100 that same year with Mel Gibson in Conspiracy 00:14:34.100 --> 00:14:37.620 Theory. Which grossed a respectable 137 million. 00:14:38.139 --> 00:14:40.480 The key takeaway is she maintained her critical 00:14:40.480 --> 00:14:44.000 respect even in genre films. One critic specifically 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:46.679 praised her acting in that film, noting that 00:14:46.679 --> 00:14:49.340 even when the plot got complex, Roberts still 00:14:49.340 --> 00:14:51.820 managed to do some fine acting. And the decade 00:14:51.820 --> 00:14:54.340 finished with these back -to -back mega hits 00:14:54.340 --> 00:14:57.399 that just solidified her global monarchy. First, 00:14:57.600 --> 00:15:00.960 Nodding Hill in 1999 opposite Hugh Grant. That 00:15:00.960 --> 00:15:05.259 film grossed an astounding $363 million worldwide. 00:15:05.740 --> 00:15:16.990 Wow. It displaced four... She had literally become 00:15:16.990 --> 00:15:18.909 the gold standard for the genre. And then the 00:15:18.909 --> 00:15:20.809 reunion with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride later 00:15:20.809 --> 00:15:22.789 that year, despite being critically mixed, it 00:15:22.789 --> 00:15:25.750 was just pure financial power, pulled in $309 00:15:25.750 --> 00:15:28.889 .4 million globally. Her filmography up to 2000 00:15:28.889 --> 00:15:31.389 is just this machine gun of consistent, massive 00:15:31.389 --> 00:15:33.470 commercial hits. And just to show her versatility, 00:15:33.549 --> 00:15:35.629 she squeezed in two memorable TV guest spots. 00:15:36.679 --> 00:15:39.960 in 1996, which was huge, and a guest role on 00:15:39.960 --> 00:15:43.220 Law & Order in 1999. That Law & Order role even 00:15:43.220 --> 00:15:46.039 earned her a primetime Emmy nomination. She was 00:15:46.039 --> 00:15:48.919 maximizing her exposure across all platforms. 00:15:49.120 --> 00:15:51.559 Which brings us to the moment she didn't just 00:15:51.559 --> 00:15:53.500 maximize her marketability. She fundamentally 00:15:53.500 --> 00:15:56.159 changed the structural economics of the entire 00:15:56.159 --> 00:15:59.399 Hollywood studio system. Exactly. Section three, 00:15:59.620 --> 00:16:02.240 peak financial power and the shift to critical 00:16:02.240 --> 00:16:05.299 drama starting in 2000. This is the pivotal moment. 00:16:05.690 --> 00:16:07.809 This is what lets us call her a financial pioneer. 00:16:08.029 --> 00:16:10.590 All that consistent, massive commercial success 00:16:10.590 --> 00:16:13.950 of the 90s, it culminated in unparalleled negotiating 00:16:13.950 --> 00:16:16.370 power. And she decided to use that power not 00:16:16.370 --> 00:16:19.169 for another rom -com, but for a biographical 00:16:19.169 --> 00:16:22.470 drama. A huge strategic move. She became the 00:16:22.470 --> 00:16:24.850 first actress in history to be paid $20 million 00:16:24.850 --> 00:16:27.470 for a film when she took on the titular role 00:16:27.470 --> 00:16:29.830 in Erin Brockovich in 2000. Let's unpack that 00:16:29.830 --> 00:16:33.370 number because... Just saying $20 million doesn't 00:16:33.370 --> 00:16:35.210 really convey the magnitude of that industry 00:16:35.210 --> 00:16:37.730 shift. It doesn't. That salary figure was previously 00:16:37.730 --> 00:16:40.070 a benchmark reserved exclusively for the biggest 00:16:40.070 --> 00:16:43.110 male superstars, the Tom Cruises, the Tom Hankses. 00:16:43.370 --> 00:16:46.450 The thinking was always that men guarantee foreign 00:16:46.450 --> 00:16:49.389 box office returns and male audiences, and women 00:16:49.389 --> 00:16:52.740 can't. Exactly. The assumption, which was rooted 00:16:52.740 --> 00:16:55.720 in a very sexist financial model, was that films 00:16:55.720 --> 00:16:58.460 led by women were niche. They were targeted only 00:16:58.460 --> 00:17:00.820 at female audiences, which limited their earning 00:17:00.820 --> 00:17:04.799 potential, especially overseas. They used those 00:17:04.799 --> 00:17:07.920 $400 million hits from the 90s to argue that 00:17:07.920 --> 00:17:09.880 her name was the equivalent of a Cruise or a 00:17:09.880 --> 00:17:12.420 Hanks, regardless of the film's genre. They did. 00:17:12.599 --> 00:17:15.140 And so when she signed that $20 million contract 00:17:15.140 --> 00:17:18.039 for Erin Brockovich, she didn't just get a raise, 00:17:18.119 --> 00:17:20.940 she forced the studios to accept a new reality. 00:17:21.359 --> 00:17:24.880 A female star could and should command the same 00:17:24.880 --> 00:17:27.539 market value as a male star. It was a monumental 00:17:27.539 --> 00:17:29.700 shift. It just shattered the financial ceiling. 00:17:30.009 --> 00:17:32.329 And critically, Erin Brockovich proved her worth 00:17:32.329 --> 00:17:35.109 artistically. Her portrayal of the real -life 00:17:35.109 --> 00:17:37.750 environmental activist was a triumph. It won 00:17:37.750 --> 00:17:40.559 her everything. The Academy Award for Best Actress, 00:17:40.619 --> 00:17:44.140 a BAFTA, a Golden Globe, a Screen Actors Guild 00:17:44.140 --> 00:17:46.839 Award. She delivered world -class, award -winning 00:17:46.839 --> 00:17:49.339 work at a record -breaking salary. Her industry 00:17:49.339 --> 00:17:51.599 power wasn't just recognized internally either. 00:17:51.700 --> 00:17:54.420 It was formally stamped by the trade publications. 00:17:54.680 --> 00:17:57.079 Right. In 2000, she became the first actress 00:17:57.079 --> 00:17:59.299 ever to be included on The Hollywood Reporter's 00:17:59.299 --> 00:18:01.759 prestigious list of the 50 most influential women 00:18:01.759 --> 00:18:05.140 in show business. She ranked third. Right up 00:18:05.140 --> 00:18:07.859 there with studio heads and executives. And by 00:18:07.859 --> 00:18:10.339 this point, the collective gross of her films 00:18:10.339 --> 00:18:14.480 was already over $3 .9 billion worldwide. She 00:18:14.480 --> 00:18:17.019 was Hollywood royalty, but with the added distinction 00:18:17.019 --> 00:18:19.240 of being the first woman to hold that kind of 00:18:19.240 --> 00:18:21.500 financial leverage. And she didn't just hit the 00:18:21.500 --> 00:18:24.660 $20 million mark once. She kept pushing. That's 00:18:24.660 --> 00:18:27.400 right. She later got an even higher salary, or 00:18:27.400 --> 00:18:30.259 reported $25 million for her role in Mona Lisa 00:18:30.259 --> 00:18:33.460 Smile in 2003. She was on the Hollywood Reporter's 00:18:33.460 --> 00:18:35.779 list of the 10 highest paid actresses every single 00:18:35.779 --> 00:18:38.920 year from 2002 to 2005. So for that entire window, 00:18:39.119 --> 00:18:41.900 she was the undisputed commercial queen. And 00:18:41.900 --> 00:18:44.099 $20 million became the new aspiration for every 00:18:44.099 --> 00:18:46.420 female star that followed. After achieving that 00:18:46.420 --> 00:18:48.819 financial dominance, she began a decade of exploration, 00:18:49.279 --> 00:18:52.220 balancing high -profile ensembles, more character 00:18:52.220 --> 00:18:55.000 -driven films, almost like taking a victory lap. 00:18:55.400 --> 00:18:57.640 You see her consciously using her star power 00:18:57.640 --> 00:19:01.339 to elevate projects or just enjoy working with 00:19:01.339 --> 00:19:04.559 her peers. Like The Mexican in 2001 with Brad 00:19:04.559 --> 00:19:06.440 Pitt. That's a great example. It was marketed 00:19:06.440 --> 00:19:09.680 as this huge blockbuster star pairing. But ironically, 00:19:10.039 --> 00:19:12.400 Roberts and Pitt shared very little screen time 00:19:12.400 --> 00:19:14.619 together. The script was originally conceived 00:19:14.619 --> 00:19:17.339 as a smaller indie film. But their salaries guaranteed 00:19:17.339 --> 00:19:20.220 it a mainstream release. Exactly. And that same 00:19:20.220 --> 00:19:22.480 year, she jumped into the ensemble heist film 00:19:22.480 --> 00:19:24.759 Ocean's Eleven. Which was a massive success. 00:19:25.289 --> 00:19:27.910 Fifth highest grossing film of 2001, pulling 00:19:27.910 --> 00:19:31.329 in $450 million worldwide. And the sequel, Ocean's 00:19:31.329 --> 00:19:34.029 Twelve in 2004, contained that wonderfully meta 00:19:34.029 --> 00:19:36.190 sequence that could only exist because of her 00:19:36.190 --> 00:19:38.109 fame. The one where her character, Tess Ocean, 00:19:38.329 --> 00:19:41.609 literally impersonates the real life Julia Roberts. 00:19:41.869 --> 00:19:44.450 It's a moment of just unparalleled self -awareness. 00:19:44.470 --> 00:19:46.390 The writers were essentially saying her celebrity 00:19:46.390 --> 00:19:49.309 persona is so recognizable and so powerful it 00:19:49.309 --> 00:19:51.630 can function as a plot device. That's the difference 00:19:51.630 --> 00:19:53.490 between being a star and being a phenomenon. 00:19:53.710 --> 00:19:55.940 It really is. And during this time, we also see 00:19:55.940 --> 00:19:58.880 her embracing voice work. She lent her voice 00:19:58.880 --> 00:20:01.539 to animation in The Ant Bully and the beloved 00:20:01.539 --> 00:20:04.460 children's classic Charlotte's Web, both in 2006. 00:20:04.859 --> 00:20:07.779 And she continued to show her clout in more serious 00:20:07.779 --> 00:20:10.319 dramatic spaces with Charlie Wilson's War in 00:20:10.319 --> 00:20:14.440 2007, earning her a sixth Golden Globe nomination. 00:20:14.839 --> 00:20:17.319 Acting alongside heavyweights. But the ultimate 00:20:17.319 --> 00:20:20.859 sign of pure star power? The contract that proves 00:20:20.859 --> 00:20:23.420 you are selling presence rather than performance? 00:20:24.319 --> 00:20:26.980 That has to be the cameo paycheck. The Valentine's 00:20:26.980 --> 00:20:29.680 Day contract from 2010 is legendary in Hollywood 00:20:29.680 --> 00:20:32.099 finance circles. What was it? She received $3 00:20:32.099 --> 00:20:35.000 million for her role, a role that totaled only 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:37.480 six minutes of screen time. So if you do the 00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:40.720 math, that's roughly half a million dollars per 00:20:40.720 --> 00:20:42.660 minute of screen time. It's astonishing. That 00:20:42.660 --> 00:20:45.220 contract essentially says having Julia Roberts' 00:20:45.400 --> 00:20:47.700 face on the poster, even for a few minutes, is 00:20:47.700 --> 00:20:50.220 worth this enormous sum. because her marketability 00:20:50.220 --> 00:20:52.920 guarantees a certain level of ticket sales. It 00:20:52.920 --> 00:20:55.539 just illustrates the incredible value of her 00:20:55.539 --> 00:20:58.319 presence alone. And that same year, she starred 00:20:58.319 --> 00:21:01.259 in Eat, Pray, Love, which was a commercial success. 00:21:01.720 --> 00:21:04.839 It had the highest box office debut for her and 00:21:04.839 --> 00:21:07.460 a top -billed role since America's Sweethearts 00:21:07.460 --> 00:21:10.680 back in 2001. But not all of her explorations 00:21:10.680 --> 00:21:13.109 were met with adoration. The sources suggest 00:21:13.109 --> 00:21:15.630 a major turning point came with her attempts 00:21:15.630 --> 00:21:18.069 to pivot toward more serious dramatic roles, 00:21:18.269 --> 00:21:22.049 particularly her foray onto the stage. Her Broadway 00:21:22.049 --> 00:21:25.490 debut. In 2006 in a play called Three Days of 00:21:25.490 --> 00:21:28.509 Rain, it was a fascinating case study in celebrity 00:21:28.509 --> 00:21:31.869 versus craft. Commercially, it was a huge success, 00:21:32.190 --> 00:21:34.789 grossed nearly a million dollars in ticket sales 00:21:34.789 --> 00:21:37.329 in its first week. People came just to see her. 00:21:37.490 --> 00:21:40.410 But critically. The response was brutal. It was 00:21:40.410 --> 00:21:42.750 savage. Ben Brantley of the New York Times found 00:21:42.750 --> 00:21:44.789 her performance fraught with self -consciousness. 00:21:44.809 --> 00:21:47.069 He said she was only glancingly acquainted with 00:21:47.069 --> 00:21:49.069 the character she was playing. So the general 00:21:49.069 --> 00:21:52.329 consensus was that her enormous persona just 00:21:52.329 --> 00:21:54.670 overwhelmed the intimacy and technical demands 00:21:54.670 --> 00:21:56.869 of the stage. That's a great question for analysis. 00:21:57.150 --> 00:21:59.750 Was it a technical failure or was her celebrity 00:21:59.750 --> 00:22:02.430 simply too large for the stage? It raises that 00:22:02.430 --> 00:22:04.609 crucial question about the star versus actress 00:22:04.609 --> 00:22:08.500 debate we should get into. On screen, the camera 00:22:08.500 --> 00:22:11.680 focuses on her charisma, on the smile. But on 00:22:11.680 --> 00:22:13.920 stage, the audience is looking for technical 00:22:13.920 --> 00:22:16.559 transformation, and the celebrity became a distraction. 00:22:17.059 --> 00:22:19.720 For a star so used to universal adoration, that 00:22:19.720 --> 00:22:21.559 must have been a tough, humbling experience. 00:22:22.140 --> 00:22:24.400 But rather than retreat, she seemed to learn 00:22:24.400 --> 00:22:26.480 from it and just double down on high stakes, 00:22:26.700 --> 00:22:29.039 critically challenging drama back on the screen. 00:22:29.369 --> 00:22:32.430 Absolutely. The true pivot to complex character 00:22:32.430 --> 00:22:35.430 work came with August. Osage County in 2013, 00:22:35.890 --> 00:22:38.650 co -starring Meryl Streep, the ultimate dramatic 00:22:38.650 --> 00:22:41.269 powerhouse. And her performance as Barbara Weston 00:22:41.269 --> 00:22:43.809 was fierce and brittle. It earned her tons of 00:22:43.809 --> 00:22:46.289 nominations. Including her fourth Academy Award 00:22:46.289 --> 00:22:48.950 nomination, this time for Best Supporting Actress. 00:22:48.950 --> 00:22:51.349 It was a clear demonstration that she was capable 00:22:51.349 --> 00:22:53.349 of delivering the dramatic depth and internal 00:22:53.349 --> 00:22:55.710 complexity that her Broadway critics had questioned. 00:22:55.970 --> 00:22:59.000 So let's move to section four. artistry, public 00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:02.539 image, and industry advocacy. Because this section 00:23:02.539 --> 00:23:04.880 really gets at the core paradox of her career. 00:23:05.200 --> 00:23:08.099 How did she maintain that America's sweetheart 00:23:08.099 --> 00:23:11.140 label while also becoming the industry's most 00:23:11.140 --> 00:23:14.279 fearsome financial negotiator? The label America's 00:23:14.279 --> 00:23:17.000 Sweetheart stuck for decades. Vogue linked it 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:19.279 directly to her ability to portray these relatable 00:23:19.279 --> 00:23:22.519 girl next door characters, often vulnerable working 00:23:22.519 --> 00:23:24.500 class women who pulled themselves up by their 00:23:24.500 --> 00:23:27.539 bootstraps. She embodied this blend of approachability 00:23:27.539 --> 00:23:30.019 and classic Hollywood glamour. But there has 00:23:30.019 --> 00:23:32.759 been this consistent. ongoing critical debate 00:23:32.759 --> 00:23:35.680 about whether she is a truly great actress or 00:23:35.680 --> 00:23:38.039 merely an incomparable movie star. And this is 00:23:38.039 --> 00:23:39.759 where we have to delve into the nuance of the 00:23:39.759 --> 00:23:42.200 critique. It's a very real distinction in cinephile 00:23:42.200 --> 00:23:44.660 circles. The critic David Edelstein noted that 00:23:44.660 --> 00:23:46.720 while she's universally acknowledged as a movie 00:23:46.720 --> 00:23:48.700 star, meaning someone whose name sells tickets 00:23:48.700 --> 00:23:51.680 critics, endlessly debate the extent of her technical 00:23:51.680 --> 00:23:54.039 acting abilities. The argument being that she 00:23:54.039 --> 00:23:57.099 often just plays Julia Roberts on screen. That 00:23:57.099 --> 00:23:59.779 she brings her powerful magnetic persona to every 00:23:59.779 --> 00:24:02.259 role rather than transforming herself into a 00:24:02.259 --> 00:24:05.700 character. That's the core critique, yes. Critics 00:24:05.700 --> 00:24:08.059 have observed that she rarely strays far from 00:24:08.059 --> 00:24:10.980 that persona of a simple girl of limited means 00:24:10.980 --> 00:24:14.380 and unlimited heart. One even suggested she has 00:24:14.380 --> 00:24:16.500 never really been required to act because her 00:24:16.500 --> 00:24:18.779 charm is so overwhelming it just dictates the 00:24:18.779 --> 00:24:21.559 entire emotional tone of the film. I wonder if 00:24:21.559 --> 00:24:24.109 that critique is fair, though. Or if it's a reaction 00:24:24.109 --> 00:24:26.950 to the sheer magnetism of her celebrity. Are 00:24:26.950 --> 00:24:28.650 they judging her against the wrong standards? 00:24:28.970 --> 00:24:31.710 The roles she chose, especially those 90s rom 00:24:31.710 --> 00:24:34.029 -coms, they didn't require transformative physical 00:24:34.029 --> 00:24:36.980 acting. They required charisma. And that's the 00:24:36.980 --> 00:24:39.880 defense. Director Mike Nichols offered a strong 00:24:39.880 --> 00:24:42.599 rebuttal to that criticism. He argued that her 00:24:42.599 --> 00:24:45.000 striking beauty sometimes overshadowed her acting 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:47.640 intelligence. He suggested audiences were so 00:24:47.640 --> 00:24:50.319 captivated by the star quality that they missed 00:24:50.319 --> 00:24:52.480 the subtle intelligence in her performance choices. 00:24:52.839 --> 00:24:55.160 And Roberts herself has always been very pragmatic, 00:24:55.299 --> 00:24:57.859 almost dismissive about the mystical side of 00:24:57.859 --> 00:25:00.880 acting. Famously so. She stated plainly that 00:25:00.880 --> 00:25:03.660 she doesn't use acting techniques and finds actors 00:25:03.660 --> 00:25:06.640 talking about acting boring. For her, it seems 00:25:06.640 --> 00:25:09.359 to be this intuitive, character -driven process, 00:25:09.720 --> 00:25:12.539 relying on her inherent understanding of human 00:25:12.539 --> 00:25:15.420 connection rather than, you know, methodical 00:25:15.420 --> 00:25:18.079 preparation. And that grounded, no -nonsense 00:25:18.079 --> 00:25:20.619 attitude is precisely what made her so relatable 00:25:20.619 --> 00:25:23.680 as America's sweetheart. Exactly. But regardless 00:25:23.680 --> 00:25:25.880 of the debate on her artistry, her influence 00:25:25.880 --> 00:25:29.190 on Hollywood's bottom line is indisputable. as 00:25:29.190 --> 00:25:31.970 a financial pioneer is the single most significant 00:25:31.970 --> 00:25:34.829 element of her legacy. It really can't be overstated. 00:25:34.930 --> 00:25:37.430 She's recognized as a pioneer in pushing for 00:25:37.430 --> 00:25:40.349 gender pay equity. By commanding that $20 million 00:25:40.349 --> 00:25:43.690 salary for Erin Brockovich, she reset the standard. 00:25:44.119 --> 00:25:46.240 Which leads us directly back to that persistent 00:25:46.240 --> 00:25:48.660 rumor that she was difficult to work with early 00:25:48.660 --> 00:25:51.119 in her career. The sources offer a fascinating 00:25:51.119 --> 00:25:53.819 clarification that recontextualizes her professional 00:25:53.819 --> 00:25:56.200 strategy. Okay, what did she say? Roberts addressed 00:25:56.200 --> 00:25:58.859 this media speculation head -on in a recent interview. 00:25:59.079 --> 00:26:01.539 She clarified that early in her career, she consciously 00:26:01.539 --> 00:26:04.200 avoided appearing overly friendly on film sets. 00:26:04.519 --> 00:26:07.440 And why was that? It wasn't because she was moody. 00:26:07.500 --> 00:26:10.259 It was a deliberate professional mechanism. It 00:26:10.259 --> 00:26:12.559 was designed to create boundaries and avoid being 00:26:12.559 --> 00:26:15.240 taken advantage of, especially in a male -dominated 00:26:15.240 --> 00:26:18.339 industry where young female stars often struggle 00:26:18.339 --> 00:26:21.240 to maintain control. That reframes the entire 00:26:21.240 --> 00:26:24.579 narrative. What the media interpreted as edginess 00:26:24.579 --> 00:26:28.400 or difficulty was actually a calculated protective 00:26:28.400 --> 00:26:30.759 career management strategy aimed at maintaining 00:26:30.759 --> 00:26:33.599 professionalism, focus and crucially leverage 00:26:33.599 --> 00:26:36.599 during tough negotiations. It shows incredible 00:26:36.599 --> 00:26:38.900 foresight. She was protecting her professional 00:26:38.900 --> 00:26:41.799 value in an arena where women were structurally 00:26:41.799 --> 00:26:44.990 undervalued and that financial leverage. allowed 00:26:44.990 --> 00:26:48.390 her to change the industry. In 2002, she became 00:26:48.390 --> 00:26:50.630 the first woman ever to be ranked the most bankable 00:26:50.630 --> 00:26:53.670 star in Hollywood based on an industry poll tying 00:26:53.670 --> 00:26:56.509 with male actors. Her agent in the 90s explicitly 00:26:56.509 --> 00:26:58.890 credited Roberts with helping convince studios 00:26:58.890 --> 00:27:01.390 that women could lead a film and guarantee an 00:27:01.390 --> 00:27:03.650 opening weekend just as successfully as men. 00:27:03.950 --> 00:27:06.130 By the turn of the millennium, women's films 00:27:06.130 --> 00:27:08.470 were legitimized in the blockbuster space because 00:27:08.470 --> 00:27:10.640 she had proven the return on investment. And 00:27:10.640 --> 00:27:12.779 looking at her more recent work, she made a very 00:27:12.779 --> 00:27:15.660 conscious, strategic choice to move away from 00:27:15.660 --> 00:27:18.130 the genre that built her fortune. Since Eat, 00:27:18.150 --> 00:27:20.609 Pray, Love in 2010, Roberts has largely moved 00:27:20.609 --> 00:27:22.769 away from front and center romantic comedies. 00:27:22.890 --> 00:27:25.289 She's gravitated toward more dramatic, character 00:27:25.289 --> 00:27:27.930 -driven projects, often in ensemble or supporting 00:27:27.930 --> 00:27:30.369 roles. She attributes this shift to personal 00:27:30.369 --> 00:27:33.490 growth and a desire to balance work with family 00:27:33.490 --> 00:27:36.730 life. She said she's extremely selective, often 00:27:36.730 --> 00:27:38.829 waiting to see what opportunities arise rather 00:27:38.829 --> 00:27:40.930 than actively pursuing them. And she played a 00:27:40.930 --> 00:27:43.829 huge role in legitimizing prestige television 00:27:43.829 --> 00:27:46.809 for A -list movie stars, a move that was re - 00:27:46.829 --> 00:27:49.650 rare a decade ago. It was a seismic shift. In 00:27:49.650 --> 00:27:52.250 2014, she starred in the HBO film The Normal 00:27:52.250 --> 00:27:54.789 Heart as Dr. Emma Bruckner and earned an Emmy 00:27:54.789 --> 00:27:57.390 nomination. Vanity Fair noted she hummed with 00:27:57.390 --> 00:28:00.269 a sort of righteous Erin Brockovichian anger 00:28:00.269 --> 00:28:03.119 in the role. Suggesting she found this new dramatic 00:28:03.119 --> 00:28:05.640 niche playing complex, fiercely intelligent, 00:28:05.859 --> 00:28:08.519 brittle women. Her first regular television role 00:28:08.519 --> 00:28:10.700 followed in the streaming series Homecoming in 00:28:10.700 --> 00:28:13.859 2018, which was a huge critical triumph. That 00:28:13.859 --> 00:28:16.519 move solidified the idea that the best, most 00:28:16.519 --> 00:28:18.940 complex roles weren't limited to the big screen 00:28:18.940 --> 00:28:21.460 anymore. It paved the way for countless movie 00:28:21.460 --> 00:28:23.680 stars to follow her lead onto streaming platforms. 00:28:23.940 --> 00:28:26.519 And her recent film resurgence has included major 00:28:26.519 --> 00:28:28.849 commercial and critical hits as well. Wonder, 00:28:28.950 --> 00:28:31.549 from 2017, where she played the mother of a young 00:28:31.549 --> 00:28:34.190 boy with a rare genetic disorder, was one of 00:28:34.190 --> 00:28:37.509 her most widely seen films, grossing over $300 00:28:37.509 --> 00:28:40.750 million worldwide. She also tackled high -profile 00:28:40.750 --> 00:28:42.970 historical roles. Portraying Martha Mitchell 00:28:42.970 --> 00:28:45.869 in the political thriller series Gaslit in 2022 00:28:45.869 --> 00:28:48.869 and starring in the 2023 apocalyptic thriller 00:28:48.869 --> 00:28:51.369 Leave the World Behind, which was notably produced 00:28:51.369 --> 00:28:53.829 by Barack and Michelle Obama's company Higher 00:28:53.829 --> 00:28:56.250 Ground Productions. Okay, so we've seen the calculated 00:28:56.250 --> 00:28:58.869 professional strategy. and the financial legacy. 00:28:59.130 --> 00:29:01.910 Now, let's shift gears and explore the private 00:29:01.910 --> 00:29:04.250 foundation that supports these highly selective 00:29:04.250 --> 00:29:07.210 career choices. Section five, personal life, 00:29:07.329 --> 00:29:10.450 beliefs, and business ventures. The sources reveal 00:29:10.450 --> 00:29:12.650 this fascinating blend of traditional celebrity 00:29:12.650 --> 00:29:16.390 life and deep introspective privacy. We can start 00:29:16.390 --> 00:29:18.950 with some truly surprising ancestry revelations 00:29:18.950 --> 00:29:21.259 that only came to light recently. This came out 00:29:21.259 --> 00:29:24.140 during that 2023 episode of Finding Your Roots. 00:29:24.200 --> 00:29:26.700 Right. Through DNA and genealogical research, 00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:29.920 Roberts discovered that her biological paternal 00:29:29.920 --> 00:29:32.900 great -great -grandfather's surname was actually 00:29:32.900 --> 00:29:36.319 Mischel, not Roberts. So the famous name she 00:29:36.319 --> 00:29:38.759 carried throughout her career might have originated 00:29:38.759 --> 00:29:41.519 from a maternal line or some other historical 00:29:41.519 --> 00:29:44.180 circumstance, not the paternal one she assumed. 00:29:44.650 --> 00:29:47.309 it's a huge identity shift at this point in her 00:29:47.309 --> 00:29:50.529 life and coupled with that she had a deeply personal 00:29:50.529 --> 00:29:53.009 confrontation with a painful part of american 00:29:53.009 --> 00:29:55.630 history the fact that her ancestors owned slaves 00:29:55.630 --> 00:29:58.549 correct she learned that during the show how 00:29:58.549 --> 00:30:00.990 did she respond to that difficult discovery her 00:30:00.990 --> 00:30:03.109 quoted response was exceptionally thoughtful 00:30:03.109 --> 00:30:05.890 and mature she said you can't turn your back 00:30:05.890 --> 00:30:08.329 on history even when you become a part of it 00:30:08.329 --> 00:30:10.109 in a way that doesn't align with your personal 00:30:10.109 --> 00:30:12.920 compass It speaks to her conscious grappling 00:30:12.920 --> 00:30:15.240 with the complexities of her Southern heritage, 00:30:15.460 --> 00:30:18.119 and it connects right back to the social conscience 00:30:18.119 --> 00:30:20.579 of her parents' integrated theater troupe. And 00:30:20.579 --> 00:30:22.900 as a fun note, she's also a distant cousin of 00:30:22.900 --> 00:30:25.380 actor Edward Norton. Hollywood lineage finds 00:30:25.380 --> 00:30:27.829 a way to link everyone, eventually. It seems 00:30:27.829 --> 00:30:30.490 so. Her personal life, particularly her early 00:30:30.490 --> 00:30:33.309 dating history, was high profile, a staple of 00:30:33.309 --> 00:30:36.049 the tabloid press in the late 80s and early 90s. 00:30:36.069 --> 00:30:38.609 She was romantically involved with Jason Patrick, 00:30:38.869 --> 00:30:42.150 Liam Neeson, Dylan McDermott, Matthew Perry. 00:30:42.410 --> 00:30:44.849 But the relationship that really grabbed headlines 00:30:44.849 --> 00:30:47.799 was her engagement to Kiefer Sutherland. They 00:30:47.799 --> 00:30:49.940 were one of Hollywood's most talked about couples. 00:30:50.180 --> 00:30:52.599 They were engaged, but they mutually broke up 00:30:52.599 --> 00:30:55.059 shortly before their scheduled wedding in June 00:30:55.059 --> 00:30:58.660 1991. The press, of course, exaggerated the timeline, 00:30:58.880 --> 00:31:01.059 claiming she left him days before, which just 00:31:01.059 --> 00:31:03.680 fueled her desire for privacy. Her first marriage 00:31:03.680 --> 00:31:06.119 was also a media sensation. She married country 00:31:06.119 --> 00:31:08.980 singer Lyle Lovett in 1993, but the marriage 00:31:08.980 --> 00:31:10.900 was short -lived. They divorced two years later 00:31:10.900 --> 00:31:13.779 in 95. And she met her current husband, Daniel 00:31:13.779 --> 00:31:16.339 Moder, on a film set. On the set of The Mexican 00:31:16.339 --> 00:31:18.910 in 2000. She was dating Benjamin Bradd at the 00:31:18.910 --> 00:31:22.170 time, and Moder was married. After Moder finalized 00:31:22.170 --> 00:31:24.390 his divorce, he and Roberts married in a famously 00:31:24.390 --> 00:31:27.509 quiet, relaxed ceremony at her ranch in Taos, 00:31:27.509 --> 00:31:30.839 New Mexico, on July 4, 2002. Their commitment 00:31:30.839 --> 00:31:34.000 to a private, non -Hollywood life seems to be 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:36.299 a key element of their long marriage. Absolutely. 00:31:36.519 --> 00:31:39.319 They have three children, twins born in 2004 00:31:39.319 --> 00:31:42.980 and another son in 2007. And this family commitment 00:31:42.980 --> 00:31:45.460 connects directly to her later in life religious 00:31:45.460 --> 00:31:48.779 beliefs. Tell us about her conversion to Hinduism. 00:31:49.559 --> 00:31:52.440 In 2010, Roberts revealed she converted to Hinduism, 00:31:52.460 --> 00:31:55.400 stating it was for spiritual satisfaction. She's 00:31:55.400 --> 00:31:58.400 a devotee of the guru Neem Karoli Baba, or Maharaji. 00:31:58.559 --> 00:32:00.960 She said a picture of him drew her to the religion. 00:32:01.180 --> 00:32:03.539 And this commitment is evident in her family 00:32:03.539 --> 00:32:06.059 life. Very much so. Her children were given Hindu 00:32:06.059 --> 00:32:08.759 names back in 2009, Lakshmi for her daughter 00:32:08.759 --> 00:32:12.180 Hazel, Ganesh for her son Phineas, and Krishna 00:32:12.180 --> 00:32:14.940 Balram for her son Henry. That's a profound commitment. 00:32:15.180 --> 00:32:17.859 It suggests her current career selectivity isn't 00:32:17.859 --> 00:32:19.940 just about finding good roles, but about ensuring 00:32:19.940 --> 00:32:22.319 her work aligns with her spiritual and family 00:32:22.319 --> 00:32:25.119 priorities. It gives her career choices a ballast 00:32:25.119 --> 00:32:27.779 that many other celebrities lack. She's not chasing 00:32:27.779 --> 00:32:30.500 fame or money. She's chasing fulfillment. And 00:32:30.500 --> 00:32:32.799 switching gears to her business side. She's not 00:32:32.799 --> 00:32:35.240 just an actress. She's an active executive producer 00:32:35.240 --> 00:32:38.140 through her own company. She runs Red Home Films. 00:32:38.140 --> 00:32:40.980 And here's that fantastic self -referential detail. 00:32:41.849 --> 00:32:44.109 Reddome is actually Mauder, her husband's last 00:32:44.109 --> 00:32:46.630 name, spelled backwards. Which tells you immediately 00:32:46.630 --> 00:32:48.890 that the business is deeply integrated with her 00:32:48.890 --> 00:32:51.730 family life and partnership. Exactly. She founded 00:32:51.730 --> 00:32:54.380 it with her sister, Lisa Roberts Gillen. And 00:32:54.380 --> 00:32:57.299 through Red Em, she's executive produced many 00:32:57.299 --> 00:32:59.579 projects she starred in, like Homecoming and 00:32:59.579 --> 00:33:01.759 Eat, Pray, Love. And also the American Girl franchise. 00:33:02.119 --> 00:33:04.940 Crucially, yes. They executive produced the first 00:33:04.940 --> 00:33:07.259 four films of the American Girl franchise between 00:33:07.259 --> 00:33:10.539 2004 and 2008, which shows her interest in commercially 00:33:10.539 --> 00:33:13.700 successful projects focused on young female audiences. 00:33:14.259 --> 00:33:16.819 She's also leveraged her incredible global image 00:33:16.819 --> 00:33:19.200 into long -term endorsements that provide incredible 00:33:19.200 --> 00:33:22.000 financial stability, freeing her from the need 00:33:22.000 --> 00:33:24.059 to chase film paychecks. Her most significant 00:33:24.059 --> 00:33:26.819 long -term deal is as the global ambassador for 00:33:26.819 --> 00:33:30.359 Lancome, a partnership she started in 2009. She 00:33:30.359 --> 00:33:33.160 even signed a massive $50 million extension in 00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:36.559 2010. That long -term, high -value endorsement 00:33:36.559 --> 00:33:39.039 strategy became the standard for how female stars 00:33:39.039 --> 00:33:41.160 hedge against the instability of film revenue, 00:33:41.400 --> 00:33:43.920 allowing them to remain highly selective. She 00:33:43.920 --> 00:33:46.420 also works with Chopard, having been named their 00:33:46.420 --> 00:33:50.039 global brand ambassador in 2023. And beyond business, 00:33:50.299 --> 00:33:52.700 she's used her global reach for high profile 00:33:52.700 --> 00:33:55.180 philanthropy. She's contributed significantly 00:33:55.180 --> 00:33:58.420 to UNICEF for decades. Her six day visit to Haiti 00:33:58.420 --> 00:34:02.579 in 1995 was a huge high profile event. UNICEF 00:34:02.579 --> 00:34:05.359 officials expected it to trigger a massive outburst 00:34:05.359 --> 00:34:07.839 of donations. She's also been a spokeswoman for 00:34:07.839 --> 00:34:12.019 Earth Biofuels. Yes, in 2006. And in 2014, she 00:34:12.019 --> 00:34:14.090 was the voice of Mother Nature for the Conservation 00:34:14.090 --> 00:34:17.150 International Campaign on Climate Change, using 00:34:17.150 --> 00:34:19.829 her iconic voice for global environmental advocacy. 00:34:20.250 --> 00:34:22.650 Finally, we have to mention a famous personal 00:34:22.650 --> 00:34:25.230 quirk that was so well known, it actually made 00:34:25.230 --> 00:34:27.530 it into her professional work. The barefoot habit. 00:34:27.829 --> 00:34:30.190 Roberts has a noted preference for going barefoot 00:34:30.190 --> 00:34:33.210 at public events, film festivals, and famously 00:34:33.210 --> 00:34:35.829 at her wedding to Lyle Lovett. It's part of that 00:34:35.829 --> 00:34:38.349 grounded anti -glamour sensibility that makes 00:34:38.349 --> 00:34:40.480 her America's sweetheart. And this habit was 00:34:40.480 --> 00:34:42.460 actually written into the script for her role 00:34:42.460 --> 00:34:45.300 as Tinkerbell in Steven Spielberg's Hook. It's 00:34:45.300 --> 00:34:47.559 the perfect blend of the approachable persona 00:34:47.559 --> 00:34:50.260 meeting the blockbuster reality. And a quick 00:34:50.260 --> 00:34:52.920 summary of her accolades just reminds us of her 00:34:52.920 --> 00:34:55.599 sheer influence and durability. She is tremendously 00:34:55.599 --> 00:34:59.280 decorated. An Academy Award, a BAFTA, three Golden 00:34:59.280 --> 00:35:02.079 Globes for Steel Magnolias, Pretty Woman, and 00:35:02.079 --> 00:35:05.199 Erin Brockovich. And the People magazine record. 00:35:05.849 --> 00:35:08.090 Perhaps the ultimate measure of her consistent, 00:35:08.250 --> 00:35:11.250 deep -seated public popularity. Being named People 00:35:11.250 --> 00:35:13.849 Magazine's World's Most Beautiful Woman a record 00:35:13.849 --> 00:35:17.469 five times. And just recently, in 2025, she was 00:35:17.469 --> 00:35:19.590 honored as a Knight of the Order of Arts and 00:35:19.590 --> 00:35:21.909 Letters by the French Minister of Culture. A 00:35:21.909 --> 00:35:24.050 significant international recognition for her 00:35:24.050 --> 00:35:26.820 contribution to cinematic arts. Absolutely. So 00:35:26.820 --> 00:35:29.099 we've taken the full journey from her surprising 00:35:29.099 --> 00:35:32.380 roots financed by Coretta Scott King to the cultural 00:35:32.380 --> 00:35:34.699 explosion of Pretty Woman through her financial 00:35:34.699 --> 00:35:38.079 ceiling shattering $20 million payday and her 00:35:38.079 --> 00:35:40.800 conscious pivot away from massive rom -coms into 00:35:40.800 --> 00:35:43.860 complex drama and prestige TV. The synthesis 00:35:43.860 --> 00:35:47.139 is clear. Julia Roberts mastered the duality 00:35:47.139 --> 00:35:50.280 of fame like few others. She cultivated and maintained 00:35:50.280 --> 00:35:53.780 an image, the relatable, nonthreatening America's 00:35:53.780 --> 00:35:56.579 sweetheart that gave her undeniable commercial 00:35:56.579 --> 00:35:59.619 power. And then she strategically leveraged that 00:35:59.619 --> 00:36:02.750 power. negotiating salaries parallel to her male 00:36:02.750 --> 00:36:05.510 counterparts, thus fundamentally shifting the 00:36:05.510 --> 00:36:08.550 economics of female stardom in Hollywood. She 00:36:08.550 --> 00:36:10.730 demonstrated without question that a woman's 00:36:10.730 --> 00:36:13.070 name alone could guarantee a blockbuster opening 00:36:13.070 --> 00:36:15.750 and was worthy of a blockbuster paycheck. It's 00:36:15.750 --> 00:36:18.409 an incredible legacy of power used intelligently 00:36:18.409 --> 00:36:21.130 and strategically to control not just her career, 00:36:21.250 --> 00:36:23.449 but the whole conversation around compensation 00:36:23.449 --> 00:36:26.820 for women in film. Which leaves us with one final 00:36:26.820 --> 00:36:28.760 provocative thought for you, the listener, to 00:36:28.760 --> 00:36:31.099 mull over. Okay. Roberts achieved her financial 00:36:31.099 --> 00:36:33.539 freedom by mastering the commercial system, particularly 00:36:33.539 --> 00:36:37.099 the blockbuster rom -com genre. Now she chooses 00:36:37.099 --> 00:36:39.599 projects based on complexity, interest, and the 00:36:39.599 --> 00:36:41.800 convenience of maintaining a separation between 00:36:41.800 --> 00:36:44.300 her work and her private life. She intentionally 00:36:44.300 --> 00:36:47.119 stepped away from relying on those defining bankable 00:36:47.119 --> 00:36:49.780 star blockbusters. This raises a fascinating 00:36:49.780 --> 00:36:52.440 question about the next generation. Given that 00:36:52.440 --> 00:36:55.300 financial freedom, What legacy does her intentional 00:36:55.300 --> 00:36:58.539 selectivity leave for younger actresses? Stars 00:36:58.539 --> 00:37:02.019 like Zendaya or Margot Robbie still have to fight 00:37:02.019 --> 00:37:04.880 tooth and nail for those massive, commercially 00:37:04.880 --> 00:37:07.500 successful blockbusters that Roberts legitimized, 00:37:07.559 --> 00:37:10.900 just to prove their equivalent bankability. So 00:37:10.900 --> 00:37:13.099 has Roberts' eventual move away from the commercial 00:37:13.099 --> 00:37:16.139 spotlight post -2010 inadvertently made it harder 00:37:16.139 --> 00:37:18.280 for the next generation of women to achieve that 00:37:18.280 --> 00:37:20.840 same structural financial parity since they can 00:37:20.840 --> 00:37:23.119 no longer simply point to her example of consecutive 00:37:23.119 --> 00:37:25.199 commercial hits? It forces us to ask whether 00:37:25.199 --> 00:37:27.340 bankability is a permanent status or something 00:37:27.340 --> 00:37:29.280 that needs to be constantly re -earned by every 00:37:29.280 --> 00:37:31.739 generation of female stars. Something to think 00:37:31.739 --> 00:37:33.760 about the next time you see her or don't see 00:37:33.760 --> 00:37:36.360 her in a major film. Join us next time for another 00:37:36.360 --> 00:37:36.840 deep dive.