Sie folgt Lucy und Desi, die sich einer Krise gegenübersehen, die ihre Karriere beenden könnte, und einer anderen, die ihre Ehe beenden könnte.Sie folgt Lucy und Desi, die sich einer Krise gegenübersehen, die ihre Karriere beenden könnte, und einer anderen, die ihre Ehe beenden könnte.Sie folgt Lucy und Desi, die sich einer Krise gegenübersehen, die ihre Karriere beenden könnte, und einer anderen, die ihre Ehe beenden könnte.
- Für 3 Oscars nominiert
- 13 Gewinne & 61 Nominierungen insgesamt
Zusammenfassung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
If this movie wins Oscars, it will be the "Shakepeare In Love" of 2022. I know it and the 119 people who upvoted my review (before it disappeared) know it. So why does it keep disappearing, IMDB?
Bad casting is the least of the problems in this Sorkin polemic on the 1950s. But it is the bad casting where I will start.
First, it isn't "ageism" to be so distracted with an actress's bad plastic surgery that a show becomes unpleasantly jarring. Kidman is so frozen that all she can do is stare into the camera when she makes a point. No matter how well Kidman mimics Ball's husky voice, she looks like a doll wearing a mask. It's okay when she's playing Lucille Ball in a serious script read, but it completely falls apart when she plays Lucille Ricardo. Kidman's own features are so robotically flat, that she looks like she's an animated drawing mimicking a human mimicking a the world's most famous comedienne.
To the other miscasting issue, Javier is an older, masculine Spaniard who lacks the litheness and charm of the boyish Desi Arnaz. The scenes of him doing a very bad imitation of Cuban English with Desi as a young man are as jarring to the Spanish ear as the idea of Jackie Gleason suddenly appearing as sexy young Paul Newman in a remake of "HUD." (He can't even sing "BABALU" for Cuban Pete's sake!!!!!)
Third, Sorkin's standard "rata tat tat" dialogue performed by two people who are both uncomfortable with their accents makes the chatter between Lucy and Desi at times unbearable. It's stilted and uncomfortable. It's also full of exposition, which is the hallmark of very lazy writing. These two people were trailblazers, but they were real people. That Sorkin wants to use them as a metaphor might work, if he would stop beating us over the head with what he wants us to know. He should just let the story, which is remarkable, tell itself.
Last, yes. I know Lucie Arnaz did a video defending the casting and Sorkin. And i might take that the endorsement Sorkin's fans want it to be, if she had disclosed in that video that Arnaz and her brother were principal investors in the film. Kidman may have "crawled up in" Lucie's mother's head, but Lucie paid her to be there.
Who wasn't miscast? Nina Arianda shines as Vivian Vance and J. K. Simmons becomes drunk Bill Frawley. Linda Lavin owns the screen as the aged Madelyn Pugh. They make me really want to love this film, but I don't.
Do you love Lucy? Watch the many "Lucy" series and then read the many biographies written about the two actors. You won't have to waste your time with Sorkin's ego trip, and you might learn something.
Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz deserve better than being Aaron Sorkin's object lesson. I wanted a movie about real people, not a sideways lecture from wannabe professor Sorkin.
Over the years I have picked up the occasional tid bits of information about them, but never really went looking. I was eager to watch this movie, and admittedly did learn a lot.
What was missing for me, was the emotional attachment that I was very surprised I did not feel towards the movie characters considering the fond feelings and memories I have towards the original people.
I felt like Nicole Kidman just lacked something that Lucille Ball had.
I dont know if it was her acting as much as it was a screenplay that didn't quite reach the depth of, or really capture, the obviously intense time during that particular week of their lives. The movie did show a few flashbacks to give the audience a chance to connect and understand the characters more deeply but for me it did not do that. It only left me feeling more disengaged. Both of them, I am positive, had interesting and incredible lives, just by the lone fact of the time period they lived in. Everyone who lived during that time has a shared understanding that we , as later generations just dont get. The sreenplay fails to fully make the audience FEEL what that timeframe in our history felt like, and todays generations cant really emotionally connect without understanding THAT first. For me, That was the first step backwards. Without Kidman bringing to life, Lucy, I was emotionally absent.
As usual, I am in the minority again about my opinion of the actor Bardem. I actually think he did better than Kidman in bringing his character to life. In fact, it was both male actors (Bardem as Desi and Simmons playing Fred) that blew the 2 main female leads, (kidman as Lucy and Arianda as Ethel)out of the water.
It was an okay movie. A little stiff, a little unemotional. And it did make me really crave for someone to step up and write a great mini series about Desi and Lucy. Because I dont think you have a chance of capturing them in a 2 hour movie.
And of course, maybe hire an unknown yet exceptional actress to play Lucy. There are plenty to choose from.
It's become clear that Sorkin scripts create for great performances and despite my issues with the film overall it does succeed in that area. When I looked into real life clips of Lucille Ball I couldn't believe how well Nicole Kidman pulled of her cadence and mannerisms. It doesn't feel as though she's trying to impersonate Ball rather that she's trying to give of an impression of her while putting her own spin on it. I thought she pulled off the comedic scenes really well and the more dramatic scenes excellently without it ever feeling jarring. I also really like Bardem's performance here, he has great chemistry with Kidman and I really felt that he pulled of all aspects of Desi Arnaz really well. I've never really seen him give a performance like this before and I'd loved to see him play more characters like this in future. Since the film is ultimately about these two characters the supporting characters don't really get given much but I would say the cast as a whole all did the best job they could with what little they had.
I think the film does also have a good sense of humour to it. All the funny lines and gags feel as though they come directly from the 50's sitcoms that the script is clearly trying to mimic and it's pulled off really well. I think my favourite aspect of Being The Ricardos is its examination into of the production of I Love Lucy. It's really fascinating to see the work that went into these episodes down to the smallest detail and I think anyone whose interested in film from any era will get a kick out of that part of this movie. I liked the technique of switching to black and white for the scenes set within the sitcom and it was one of the few things that made the film feel more alive than it otherwise was.
To my utter surprise the biggest thing holding back this film was Aaron Sorkin himself, as both a writer and a director. I think he's transitioned into directing his own dialogue very well and I honestly think he was snubbed of a Best Director nomination at the Oscars last year. I think his work as a director has been unfairly maligned by many but I just didn't think there was anything special about his work behind the camera in this film. It's not that it's poorly helmed just that there wasn't really any energy to it. In fact, my biggest issue here is that lack of energy overall. Despite centring around comedians I didn't think there was any life to this script whatsoever and it felt far too self serious for its own good. The script makes a point of saying how much a threat Lucille Ball faces during this week of production but I never once felt that on screen. It just felt as though I was being told to care rather than actually being given any reason to. I also don't think that dialogue was up to Sorkin's usually standard. A common critique of his work is that his dialogue can sound overwritten and I have to say this film is the first time I've agreed. Too often it felt like words that were written rather than genuine conversations between people and I don't think I could quote a single line after only having seen it a day ago.
I suppose my biggest disappointment with Being The Ricardos is that it just didn't make me feel anything. I never once felt engaged and I didn't think any of the tension or personal stakes that Sorkin was trying to set up came across successfully on screen. Kidman and Bardem are great and it's not without its interesting aspects but there's just very little that's impressive about this film. Even those Sorkin films I don't like as much I still return to every once in a while but I couldn't ever see myself watching this again. Having said all that though 1 weak script in an otherwise completely impressive 30 year career is not a bad average to have and I'll still be excited for whatever his next project ends up being whether he directs it himself or not.
6.3/10 - C+ (Middling)
I suspect there are two different audiences and levels of appreciation for this movie - those who grew up watching "I Love Lucy" and those who didn't. My wife and I are the former, I was 12 when the show ended its run, I have a very clear memory of the TV show, a little from original shows and more from watching reruns. In the hit show, Lucille Ball as Lucy was a bit dimwitted.
In real life Ball was nothing like that. She was bright and driven and often attended too little to the feelings of others. She had high standards for episodes, while her husband Desi was the businessman behind it all. Together they formed quite a team and "I Love Lucy" was one of the most successful entertainment enterprises ever.
This movie focuses on a particular week during which they geared up for that week's episode, but also were hit with headlines that implicated Ball as a member of the Communist Party. Plus Lucille found out she was pregnant with her second child. When the episode was about to be filmed for the week there was a call from J Edgar Hoover to Desi, shared with the live audience, but that was creative license, in real life it didn't happen. The movie also shows some of the formative years, as far back as the 1940s, and the events that shaped her career direction.
Kidman and Bardem are wonderful in their roles and the whole movie is a superb glimpse into what "I Love Lucy" was all about, especially all the things we DIDN'T see during the telecasts. I viewed it again a few weeks later and enjoyed it even more because I had a clearer image of what all was going on. I will likely view it a few more times, it is that good.
Also worthwhile looking up is a 2020 documentary "Finding Lucy", 83 minutes long, now easily available for free viewing on the internet. I watched it also and it helps appreciate the movie even more. After she and Desi were divorced she bought out his share of Desilu studios. She became the boss, she made the tough decisions. To her credit it was during her watch that two groundbreaking TV series were approved - 'Mission: Impossible" and "Star Trek." I'd say she was overall a pretty successful lady in show business. I love Lucy.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesPrior to filming, Lucie Arnaz (daughter of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz) had told writer/director Aaron Sorkin that it was okay to make Lucille stubborn and headstrong in the movie, as this was how she was in real life. After seeing the movie, Arnaz released a video on her YouTube Channel on 17 October 2021, in which she called the movie "freaking amazing." She complimented Sorkin for making a great movie that really captured the time period and had wonderful casting. She also said that Nicole Kidman "became my mother's soul." She also said that Javier Bardem didn't look like her dad but, "he has everything that dad had. He has his wit, his charms, his dimples, his musicality."
- PatzerThe movie portrays Lucy's contract at RKO being dropped after her performance in The Big Street (1942) and has RKO's head of production state that at 39 years old she should try radio. In reality Lucy was only 31 when "The Big Street" was released in 1942. Her contract was not dropped by RKO, but rather bought out by MGM, who was impressed by her performance. While working for MGM, Lucy became a redhead. She remained under contract to them until 1946. Additionally, Lucy did not seek out radio until 1948 while concurrently working in movies as a freelance actress.
- Zitate
Lucille Ball: I am the biggest asset in the portfolio of the Columbia Broadcasting System. The biggest asset in the portfolio of Philip Morris Tobacco, Westinghouse. I get paid a fortune to do exactly what I love doing. I work side by side with my husband, who's genuinely impressed by me. And all I have to do to keep it is kill every week for 36 weeks in a row. And then do it again the next year.
- VerbindungenFeatured in The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: Javier Bardem/Gang of Youths (2021)
- SoundtracksShe Could Shake the Maracas
Written by Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers
Produced by Michael Andrew
Performed by Javier Bardem with The Michael Andrew Orchestra
Top-Auswahl
- How long is Being the Ricardos?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Todo sobre los Ricardo
- Drehorte
- RMS Queen Mary - 1126 Queens Highway, Long Beach, Kalifornien, USA(Ricky's club interior)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit2 Stunden 11 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1