Skip to main content

Well, you’ve got to be pretty brave to take a ride in a pumpkin.

King Richard

(SPOILERS) Raves over a biopic should always be taken with a pinch of salt, so it ought to be little surprise that the initial raptures greeting King Richard have lost momentum. In part, this simply reflects public indifference upon its release, but it also testifies to a creatively moribund genre. Every so often, a biopic in whichever field – sports, music, business – breaks the standard mould and justifies the genre’s existence. More generally, they follow a determinedly literal course – whilst simultaneously playing fast and loose with the facts – one that leads to an approach of shapeless, sprawling, unfocussed, potted “lifelights”. Even when a chunk, rather than the whole journey, is depicted, it tends to be the same in capsule form. King Richard is closer to the latter, dealing with Richard Williams’ coaching and brokering of his famous daughters’ tennis careers from their ages of 11-14, or thereabouts; unfortunately, the results are as indulgent and undisciplined as they would have been tackling his/their entire careers.

There’s a question, of course, as to whether making this all about Richard was the best move at all. It might not have mattered either way, in terms of public relations, since Richard’s rep and the sisters’ volatility has won them as much criticism as veneration (if not more), but there’s at least something extra to dig into with the actual athletes. Unsurprisingly then, while there’s significant screen time for Serena (Demi Singleton) and particularly Venus (Saniyya Sidney), this is all about Will Smith and his Oscar-bid star turn as Richard.

As soft-pedalled as the portrait is – it was made with the Williams family’s approval, and no doubt tasty contributions to their kitty – there’s little chance you’ll come away viewing him as some kind of hero. Indeed, any epilogue information about Richard’s achievements via his daughters’ achievements has to be bound to the premise that prowess and fame and money are everything, and that they are, inherently, better people thanks to his efforts. And surely, however the sisters may profess to feel about their careers, no one – certainly not the makers – is going to claim Richard’s intention, per the Cinderella scene, that they should be humble, no matter how people treat them, paid off. Not when even John McEnroe called them sore losers with bad attitudes.

I won’t claim to have followed the sisters’ careers closely or have more than a passing interest in tennis, so as far as King Richard’s accuracy is concerned, I have no strong beef. I tend to the view – with the caveat that I allow myself exceptions based on personal preferences or bugbears – that fidelity to the record shouldn’t interfere with making a good movie, and the two can even be at complete loggerheads. Assuming you can trust the record in the first place.

So I’m not too concerned the movie is making out Richard was scrimping and saving more than he was (he had his own security company in Compton with more than fifty employees). Nor that it fails to admit living in Compton was other than a lifestyle choice (he attested it would toughen them up). Or the claim that his training methods always put them first, to the extent of keeping them out of junior tournaments, as he was entirely concerned with their welfare… and yet, he bussed in schoolkids to shout abuse at his practising daughters. Apparently, even Compton gang members blanched at his relentless, workhorse treatment of Venus and Serena.

All those omissions may let him off the hook, yet the occasions where you side with Richard, even with Smith pulling the easy-charm act, are few and far between. He just will not shut up when seasoned coaches are trying to teach his daughters. He serially disregards his wife (Aunjanue Ellis) when it comes to decisions (“You made a fool out of me!” she yells). She’s given a much-needed kitchen-reckoning scene where she tells him a few home truths (“Unlike you, I don’t need the world to tell me I’m great”). Which obviously has no effect. We also wonder how his other children fare, and more still “All your other kids” (he’s been described by one of his abandoned children as a wandering sperm donor). Given flamboyant showman Rick Macci (Jon Bernthal) acedes to Richard’s demands of bringing the entire family along to the girls’ Florida training, he is then understandably unimpressed to discover the rules have changed (“We’re not playing no more tournaments”). Although, it’s clearly Macci seeing the long-term revenues that leads to him acquiescing. Basically, though, Richard comes across as an asshole.

If there’s nothing very noteworthy about Zach Baylin’s screenplay (his first produced), neither is Reinaldo Marcus Green’s direction especially persuasive. That may be what you want from this kind of fare – the director to get out of the way – but it adds to the sense King Richard is a somewhat pedestrian promo effort that had no business being two-and-a-half hours long. Nothing here justified a movie more than a hundred minutes. Kris Bowers’ score is also undemanding, turning up the aspirational quirk.

The initial talk of King Richard as a prime awards contender is no longer what it was, although it seems Smith is still on the table for a Best Actor nom. We’re two decades on from his Ali glory days, and his perf is fine, but nothing to get worked up over (equally, the suggestion it’s a Stepin Fetchit approximation is a tad unfair). Whether he would welcome the attention an Academy spotlight might shine is another matter. Not so much because of his rumoured closeted lifestyle, which has, after all, been percolating for decades, but rather the hotter-button issue of his also-rumoured, less-than-jabbed-up status (that it didn’t come up with the Golden Globes is likely because the Globes have been symbolically, if not actually, cancelled themselves).

Rumour and intrigue are ripe for such a picture, perhaps. There’s a sense with the Williams story that it’s asking you to believe it because it’s so unbelievable. Take it at face value, because it’s flaunting just how unlikely the circumstances are. And since this is just sports – rather than global politics or sanctioned plandemics, we’re talking common-or-garden entertainment – there’s no reason to think it shouldn’t just be an extraordinary story.

As Kevin Dunn’s Vic Braden attests early on, “It’s like asking somebody to believe that you’ve got the next two Mozarts living in your house” (there’s a suggestion that no way was Mozart the prodigy he was made out to be, if there actually was a “Mozart”, which is neither he nor there with regard to Amadeus, a genuinely masterful “biopic”). What are the chances someone who claims “I wrote me a 78-page plan for their whole career before they was even born” and “I’m in the champion-raising business” would go on to do precisely that? Times two. Maybe Richard has his own handlers. It’s perhaps no wonder claims both sisters are actually transgender sports stars circulate (is it a coincidence Richard kept them from the public eye during puberty?) Of course, the life of the amateur transvestigator is a fraught one, much like Haley Joel Osment’s “I see dead people”.

At one point, Will professes “This world ain’t never had no respect for Richard Williams, but they going to respect you all”. Which is untrue; from the point I realised who he was, I had the utmost respect for his work on Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Casino Royale and The Pink Panther Strikes Again. Amongst others. If King Richard was trying to float respect due for all parties, it singularly fails to in its remit. I don’t believe it’s seriously asking us to question the value of the girls’ success, but the net result is that we do. Is Richard’s achievement commendable? Would they be better without the stresses and fame? Did they really have a choice, having been indoctrinated with success? King Richard’s coronation is iffy at best.

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.

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.

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.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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

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

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…