Being the Ricardos

As TV's "I Love Lucy" reaches 20 million households a week in the US in the early 1950s, it's star, Lucille Ball, is fighting Communist affiliation rumors started by columnist Walter Winchell; she's also fighting with husband and co-star Desi Arnaz about his lack of marital attention and is about to reveal to the television audience that both she and her TV-counterpart, Lucy Ricardo, are "expecting". Although this handsomely-produced portrait of the legendary actress is an entertaining one, there are a myriad of timeline issues and anachronisms within the film which "I Love Lucy" purists are bound to be troubled by. There's also a hurdle in buying Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz (Bardem has Desi's Cuban-accented voice--and his flirtatious charms--down, but he's too old for the role). Kidman fares better as Lucy, proving her naysayers wrong and giving a wry, tough, courageous performance. Lucy's off-camera relationship with Vivian Vance (played by Nina Arianda) is curiously edgy despite reports throughout the years these two were the best of friends; meanwhile, codger William Frawley (J. K. Simmons) is shown to be irascible yet cogent and sharp in place of the heavy drinker Arnaz went out on a limb to have cast. I didn't care for the documentary-like framing device of the show's creators discussing the series in the present day (there's enough flashbacks and flash-forwards happening here); however, when writer-director Aaron Sorkin gets down to business, he delivers some terrifically tasty behind-the-scenes action. **1/2 from ****

I have been a fan of the "I LOVE LUCY" show since I was a kid in the 70's, watching the re runs.

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.

Either I know more about Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo than their children do, or their children, being investors in this film, didn't care what Aaron Sorkin wrote.

Of course, there is such a thing as dramatic license - okay. However, this went above and beyond. I will cite a few things here, but by no means ALL:

Ricky and Lucy didn't meet the way as shown in the film. Lucille showed up at a rehearsal to say hello to the director of whatever movie Ricky was doing, and she was a mess from her previous film, all as shown. When she came back another time, Ricky didn't realize it was the same woman. When he did, he said, "That's a hunk of woman!"

Immediately before the filming of episode 68 ("The Girls Go Into Business") of I Love Lucy (which did not include fixing Fred up with a woman), Desi Arnaz, instead of his usual audience warm-up, told the audience about Lucille and her grandfather. Reusing the line he had first given to Hedda Hopper in an interview, he quipped:

"The only thing red about Lucy is her hair, and even that is not legitimate."

Lucille Ball was 31 when she made the Big Street at RKO, not 39. RKO had suspended her when she refused to be billed fourth in a film. Her good reviews for The Big Street brought a better offer from MGM.

What was the deal with mentioning Judy Holliday? Holliday wasn't around, even on Broadway, until the mid-40s and didn't make a splash in film until circa 1949. She was no rival to Lucille Ball.

Jean Arthur and Barbara Stanwyck were sought for The Big Street; Runyon insisted on Ball.

Aaron Sorkin's script is a muddled mess, combining the Communist scare and little Ricky's birth, which happened in two different years. The result for me anyway is that they both got lost amid Lucy's staging of one scene in the show, which was episode 22, not 37.

Also, in real life, Lucille Ball was referred to as Lucille, not Lucy.

Regarding the performances, I thought Nicole Kidman had the voice and personality down flat. As far as her face being frozen, I'm not sure that much makeup was necessary. Bardem looks nothing like Arnaz, so why the pressure to have Kidman look exactly like Lucy? She had the hair, the eyes, the voice, the essence. A little less makeup would have been fine.

I know people say she was miscast because they wanted a lookalike. Debra Messing would have been fine for the "I Love Lucy" part but she is not the actress that Kidman is. Bardem was excellent. J. K. Simmons and Nina Arianda were fabulous as Fred and Ethel. Actually the whole cast was excellent and totally wasted.

I genuinely can't think of a more successful writer in the last 30 years than Aaron Sorkin. For nearly 3 decades now he's consistently written engaging and entertaining scripts that often surround subject matters that don't initially come across as cinematic. Even the films of his I don't quite like as much as others (e.g. Steve Jobs or The American President) are still elevated by their razor sharp, witty dialogue. I also think he's proven himself to be a very capable director as I've loved both Molly's Game and The Trial of The Chicago 7. Unfortunately though not only do I think Being The Ricardos is the worst film he's directed so far, I think it's easily the worst script he's ever written. That's not to say that the writing fails entirely but I just don't think it manages to tell this potentially interesting story in an engaging way.

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 loved the series and I appreciate the fine work of Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem. The accuracy can be only a detail in this chronicle of the US TV shows history and, I admitt , I do not know very much about the life of the main characters. But I am satisfied by the ball of stories used by director Aaron Sorkin for creating a realistic portrait of a period. This is the basic virtue of this film - to give a large picture of a time , in its precise details and rich significances. The bad detail - the horrible make up of Nicole Kidman , giving impression of plastic face. Like many biopics , a hommage to an epoque. Intense effort, good acting, nice reconstruction of series scenes and a decent manner to reflect the story of a not just ordinary couple.