Skip to main content

The dinner scene is inarguably better.

Being the Ricardos

(SPOILERS) Being the Ricardos would still be a structurally sloppy, unearned biopic from Aaron Sorkin had Nicole Kidman heeded the backlash against her casting and quit, but it might also have lucked-in with someone better suited to inhabiting Lucille Ball’s persona (Debra Messing has been suggested). As it is, there’s an empty husk at the heart of the movie, not helped any by the terrifying polish Kidman’s given to her already plastic-enhanced face; it makes her look more like Judge Reinhold – or something Bruce Campbell’s Surgeon General of Beverly Hills spat out – than Ball.

To my ear, she approximates the Ball voice reasonably well, but I’m not sure where this idea Kidman has comic chops developed (To Die For, I’m guessing; if so, she’s since presented a compelling case against with the likes of The Stepford Wives and Bewitched). There needs to be some degree of warmth and vitality if you’re even going to think of bringing Lucille Ball to life (and generally, I’d suggest it’s asking for a kicking, trying to imitate a comedian or comedienne).

Kidman has none of that. Where she tends to score is in cool, icy, brittle parts (you may have guessed, I’m not a great fan). Her stardom has been fairly persistent, despite never proving herself a box-office draw, and her popularity with critics has been likewise unassailable. Nothing seems to have dented her (see her controversial dad, her controversial ex-husband, her controversial facial adjustments). Certainly, whatever she’s got is enough for the Globes to throw her an awards bone.

In fairness, I’m unconvinced Javier Bardem really works either, unless you want his hapless Desi Arnaz imbued with the air of one about to take his co-stars out with a bolt gun. That’s fine for the moment when he’s threatening Tony Hale’s showrunner Jess Oppenheimer. Not so fitting as the swoon-worthy band leader or hapless comedy husband. As a consequence, nearly everything focussing on one-on-one scenes between the couple, their tempestuous marriage, pregnancy or flashbacks, flounders.

Fortunately, there’s also the behind-the-scenes, production story. I have no particular interest in I Love Lucy or Ball and Arnaz – I didn’t grow up in a country where it was constantly on air – but Sorkin knows the fraught process of putting together a hit TV show, and the movie intermittently comes alive when the writers and producers are the focus. The aforementioned Hale is on great form, as is his Arrested Development co-star and Brad bezzie Alia Shawkat as writing staffer Madelyn Pugh (Shawkat gets many of the best lines, and is a master of the deadpan putdown). Sorkin attempts an added layer of fiddling by punctuating the action with reminiscences from their older selves, except they’re also played by actors (including Ronny Cox).

JK Simmons and Nina Arianda are also strong as the Arnazs’ co-stars, both having the advantage of being seasoned comedy performers and so a natural fit for the material. That said, they’re not going to make hay replaying famous comedy sequences from the show; even the intentional naffness of WandaVision is funnier than anything Kidman and Bardem can muster.

Sorkin has compressed the key elements of his plot into the space of a tumultuous week, so juggling a narrative tension between a story breaking about Lucille’s alleged commie affiliations, Dezi cheating on her, and the writing of her pregnancy into the show. None of this is very elegant, particularly with the large, often arid chunks devoted to flashbacks in which the fifty-plus thesps attempt to play thirty (or even twenty)-plus versions of their characters. A couple of these stand out, such as RKO axing Ball’s contract (this is largely baloney, as it was amicable and she was 31, not 39).

He also attempts to conjure some kind of magical Miss Marple or A Beautiful Mind creative genius in the comedienne, cutting through any problematic funny business to see the gleaming answer. Frankly, whether or not there’s any truth to such a skillset, it plays rather ridiculously. But Sorkin’s always one for the awkwardly emotive or inspirational, such as having Simmons’s William Frawley asking Desi about his Cuban experiences (“I get plenty scared”), or the final announcement regarding the charge against Lucy, to rapturous crowd response, as Hoover comes on the line to confirm her innocence (this is odd too, not only because Hoover did no such thing, but because using him to validate her ought to be the sort of thing Sorkin, dyed-in-wool liberal that he is, would run a mile from).

I shouldn’t think Being the Ricardos is going to appeal to I Love Lucy fans, as Kidman’s walking uncanny valley can only besmirch her memory. And it certainly has no broader appeal to anyone outside the States, with zero knowledge or interest in the subject matter. Which rather leaves the awards circuit. So yes, it won’t be a surprise if Kidman’s less-than-fantastic, plastic mug shows up everywhere when the Oscar nominations are announced.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi