Ever since final casting for Being The Ricardos was announced, I’ve had a hard time connecting Nicole Kidman to Lucille Ball. To be fair, I can’t see original choice Cate Blanchet (delays forced her to drop out) nor Debra Messing (who campaigned for the role) either.
The director and producers clearly worried about this as well. The film opens on just the feet of Lucille Ball (Kidman) and Desi Arnez (Javier Bardem) as they engage in a verbal fight followed by a roll in the hay. I suppose it was their way of easing into a story about one of the most famous couples of the past Century.
Hang on though. The good news is that Kidman nails both TV’s physical comedienne Lucy (in radio show and sitcom recreations) and businesswoman Lucille (the brassy businesswoman). Bardem, although Spanish, nails the essence of America’s most famous Cuban as well.
Writer/director Aaron Sorkin (Chicago Seven, Social Network, West Wing) has created a story surrounding the I Love Lucy stars during one week on set during McCarthyism 1953. A week when radio personality Walter Winchell dropped a bombshell about Ball’s membership in the Communist Party. In the film, it is also the week the Ricardos were fighting about marital infidelity and announcing their pregnancy and intent to show it on TV, which was scandalous at the time.
In reality, these items happened years apart, but the film uses the single-week framing device to build frenetic energy in line with fast pacing of Sorkinese dialogue.
A lot of this works. Especially with the actors. Including J.K. Simmons in a spot-on take of William Frawley, who played Fred in the sitcom.
But a lot of tricks don’t work. Such as a clumsy opening sequence featuring single-camera interviews of actors portraying film crew members. One is even played, jarringly, by Linda Lavin (TV sitcom’s Alice). The film also contains multiple flashbacks (ugh) and some distracting digital de-aging of the stars that come across more like deepfakes, the creepy kind. One advantage to NOT seeing this on the big screen.
Hang on though. The good news is that Kidman nails both TV’s physical comedienne Lucy (in radio show and sitcom recreations) and businesswoman Lucille (the brassy businesswoman). Bardem, although Spanish, nails the essence of America’s most famous Cuban as well.
Writer/director Aaron Sorkin (Chicago Seven, Social Network, West Wing) has created a story surrounding the I Love Lucy stars during one week on set during McCarthyism 1953. A week when radio personality Walter Winchell dropped a bombshell about Ball’s membership in the Communist Party. In the film, it is also the week the Ricardos were fighting about marital infidelity and announcing their pregnancy and intent to show it on TV, which was scandalous at the time.
In reality, these items happened years apart, but the film uses the single-week framing device to build frenetic energy in line with fast pacing of Sorkinese dialogue.
A lot of this works. Especially with the actors. Including J.K. Simmons in a spot-on take of William Frawley, who played Fred in the sitcom.
But a lot of tricks don’t work. Such as a clumsy opening sequence featuring single-camera interviews of actors portraying film crew members. One is even played, jarringly, by Linda Lavin (TV sitcom’s Alice). The film also contains multiple flashbacks (ugh) and some distracting digital de-aging of the stars that come across more like deepfakes, the creepy kind. One advantage to NOT seeing this on the big screen.
All this mess was created to try to make a reimagination come together There may be a rewarding story about Lucy and Desi, but this isn’t it. And it’s not very entertaining.
In a nutshell: It's OK. Nothing to love either. A reimagining that is superior to any TV-biopic, but hardly satisfies at a cinematic level.
Award-potential: Never count Sorkin out for one of five Original Screenplay Oscar slots, or Kidman, Bardem and Simmons for acting slots, but I don’t expect the film to show up anywhere else, including Hair and Makeup.
Where to watch: In theaters and streaming on Amazon Prime.
The Ten Buck Review: Not worth ten bucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment