Dear Liz,
I would never challenge any journalist’s review of an artists work. A
review is an opinion. But the last paragraph of your commentary on Barbra
today states several generalities about her in a very categorical manner..
in a way that purports to be fact and which, in fact, could not be further
from the facts. All the assumptions are simply dead wrong.

A reminder.. you said “As an actress, Barbra’s demand for control also
impedes what is, essentially, a terrific native talent. She won’t give
herself over to a director and stay out of the editing room. She won’t
trust.”

During this past year of concert preparation, Woody Allen called Barbra to
star in a film for him, but time wouldn’t allow. She would, I assure you,
have loved to do it, would love to have worked with him and for reasons
absolutely antithetical to your widely read guess about who she is. Barbra
would have loved to work with a director who requires the actor to give up
control completely. Woody doesn’t allow actors to even see dailies, which
would have been fine with her. As she told me once, nobody can know what
it takes to direct a film until you have directed one. It’s a very
difficult job, and she would welcome having someone else carry that
responsibility.

She has always said that as an actress she believed in serving the
director’s vision. That’s why strong directors like Sydney Pollack and
William Wyler have loved working with her and remain close friends.

Your comments create for your readers a reality that has nothing to do with
the truth.. of how she works with directors, of what she plans to do in the
coming years. As a matter of fact, she is very excited that she is in
talks with Claude LeLouche who wants her to star in his next film. In
fact, contrary to your negative assumption, he has told me that he is
thrilled with the prospect of working with an actress who has herself
directed.

Sincerely,

Martin Erlichman