Movies didn't used to be an event, they used to be a religion.
Maybe if you're young you can understand when I say that movies used to be streaming television, something we all watched and talked about that at its best tested limits and made us think.
But movies aren't like that anymore.
Used to be you had to go to the movies to be part of the culture, part of the discussion, when we talked with those nearby as opposed to those far away via a device. This was the paradigm all the way up through the early aughts, when we all looked around and said the movies sucked and stayed home.
But in the late sixties, even into the nineties, you wanted to go to the movies, for the experience. You wanted to be challenged, you wanted your mind stretched, there was constant innovation, remember that movie "Memento," which unfolded in reverse? That came out in 2000, when all reasonable movies were labeled "art movies" and opened in specialized theatres. And those theatres still exist, but it's impossible to keep up, there's a plethora of product, and if it's worth anything you can stream it soon anyway.
You see we were all completists. You didn't go to one movie a year, probably not even one movie a month! You wanted to view everything worth seeing. And that included failed attempts as well as classics, like "Being the Ricardos."
The reviews are middling. One writer said Aaron Sorkin knew nothing about not only comedy, but women.
But on Tuesday it became available for free streaming (we all have a Prime account or access to one, right?) on Amazon.
But I still didn't want to see it. I mean I remember Lucy. Can't say that I love her, not that I hate her, but she was always there. Not only in first run, but reruns, she was available every day, frequently at multiple times a day. You knew what she'd deliver. And no one said they never wanted a hit of that.
And she didn't look like Nicole Kidman. Then again, even Nicole Kidman doesn't look like Nicole Kidman anymore. Have you seen "Dead Calm," her Australian breakthrough? It's better than almost all of today's studio films, I recommend it. But you might not recognize Kidman. She's got flaming red hair and freckles, she's not a Hollywood babe, but a too cute for you girl from high school. You knew people like this. An adjustment or two shy of perfection, who might give you the time of day but would never date you. But then Nicole Kidman had so much plastic surgery she no longer even looks like herself, here, check it out:
bit.ly/3HbC0mx And I liked Nicole Kidman, even in the movie where she connected with Tom Cruise, "Days of Thunder." But ultimately she left Cruise and became a better actress, but less believable. To the point where she's today's Meryl Streep, a great actress but you see her acting, it's always her, not the person she's playing. So my expectations were low, I was ready to wince, but Nicole Kidman is fantastic in "Being the Ricardos," she carries the whole movie, at times you even think she's Lucille Ball, especially in the black and white footage from the television show.
"Being the Ricardos" is hokey from the beginning, from the nearly superfluous wraparounds, behind the scenes people looking back from decades hence. Actually, that's my major complaint with the film, the endless exposition. In a ten hour streaming series all the facts would come out, but here Sorkin keeps having actors tell their story when in real life they wouldn't. It's not only unnatural, at times it's uncomfortable.
But the only reason I agreed to watch "Being the Ricardos" was because of Sorkin. But this is not "The Social Network," never mind "Sports Night," Sorkin misses, but he's shooting high, like almost no one else, so his failures are worth seeing, ergo my point above, the religion of movies, you have to see them all to get a feeling for the medium, to be educated, to be able to talk intelligently about them, and believe me we did. Judith Crist had movie weekends. We even had Siskel & Ebert. Now we've got Comic-Con.
So the cast is actually better than the movie. Javier Bardem is good, close to Desi Arnaz, but not quite there, you don't suspend disbelief like you occasionally do with Kidman. But J.K. Simmons starts off chewing the scenery and then becomes phenomenal, when he gets into it with Lucy/Kidman.
And it's always great to see Nina Arianda, who carried the last few seasons of "Goliath." And Alia Shawkat, who was brilliant in "Transparent" and never got rid of her freckles.
The problem is the story. We've seen enough House Un-American Activities films. The Commie-naming doesn't deliver the tension Sorkin wants it to, we aren't invested in Lucy's career, if for no other reason that we know it lasted for decades thereafter.
As for the relationship between Lucy and Ricky...it's done pretty well, but I wish that had been the sole focus, that's the movie right there, we all want to know more, at least those interested in this movie, because back in the day so much of the truth never came out.
So the story is there, but there's too much detritus around it. Well, not detritus, it just seems like multiple movies are happening at once.
There's the film about the making of a TV sitcom, a behind the scenes look.
There's the film about Lucy's genius/difficulty.
There's the film about the power of the sponsors and the network, their fear of even getting close to a third rail that we passed decades ago. This is what killed network TV, fear. The networks thought they were showing us ourselves on screen, but we had to go to movies for that, and ultimately HBO.
And then there are throwaway references to women's rights. Yes, Sorkin is trying to include everything from the era, and it hurts the ultimate film.
And the film jumps back and forth in time. You think you're following it, but at times you're not quite sure.
As for the cinematography... The truth is the past looked just like the present, but in Hollywood they change the tone, make it richer, not quite sepia, this is supposed to add gravitas. And it's pretty well done, but in truth I'd like to see the story from the exact viewpoint of the era.
So having gotten that out of the way, there's Lucy's arc. Second tier actress who gets involved with Desi and triumphs. The ditzy redhead who in real life was anything but. This is a movie unto itself, I actually wish they'd gone deeper. Was Lucy a control freak, the queen of OCD, or a genius needing to get it exactly right, was she the reason the show was so successful or did the elements alone, the four main characters, push it over the top?
And Fred, played by the aforementioned J.K. Simmons. Was he an irascible drunk or an experienced seer... Here he's both, and it's not quite believable.
And what was it like for Ethel to be second banana, this is touched upon, but it's just one more element in the stew that becomes overwhelming and too much to consume.
So, Sorkin doesn't really have a feel for Lucy and Desi. What I mean is he's made a movie, and it's watchable and good, but it's not quite the movie we want to see. We want much more than one week. We want the show and its stars more in context, just not references to "Lucy" being number one. And the backstory of the creation of Desilu. And we want the heavies to be more three-dimensional, less cardboard. Although the head of the network, the guy who green lights the show, he seems somewhat real.
You see there's a lot in this film.
And yes, there's tons of dialogue, but except for the endless exposition, it doesn't seem unnatural.
It's a Sorkin picture, but Sorkin does gravitas, not comedy. And although there is gravitas in Lucille Ball's story, her main calling card is comedy, and there's not enough from her in this film, and there's not enough of it overall in this film.
But at least Sorkin is trying. Or shall we say at least Amazon (and Netflix!) are laying down cash, allowing auteurs to test the limits, do what they do. And the great thing is in these projects story trumps image, like it always has in television. Today people revere these blockbuster film directors who make a movie look good, whiz-bang, it's just that the characters and the story have no soul.
Finally, when they reference the Lucy/Desi divorce at the end, which is almost superfluous, done with such heaviness you almost laugh, you are shocked when you see it happened back in 1960... That was SIXTY YEARS AGO!
Let me put this in perspective... This would be like asking baby boomers to be interested in the stories of the 1910s, and we were most definitely not. We were interested in the thirties, the forties, Bette Davis and W.C. Fields, but if you've seen a flick from the early part of the twentieth century you probably saw it in film class, not at the public theatre.
So...
We've got images, moving, of the past. But does that mean they remain, have traction? Is Lucy forever?
I don't know. She's a staple of boomer life, but do young kids even care? Kind of like the Marx Brothers. In high school and college we saw all their movies, knew all the characters, did the routines. I've never heard a Millennial or a Gen-Z'er talk about the Marx Brothers. Who are still great, but the edge is in the dialogue, nearly hidden, whereas today almost everything is in your face.
So how accurate is "Being the Ricardos"?
Well, we know Desi and Lucy got divorced, but the rest, who knows?
Which means we would have been better off with a documentary, or something closer to a biopic. But this attempt...it misses the mark, but it still delivers a lot, like a movie of yore, you're not at a distance, you're engrossed. You're pulled in. It's nearly intellectual without advertising itself as such. You'll think about it after it's done. Which is something you don't get with the superhero comic book movies of today.
Then again, comic books were never considered great literature. They were always for kids. Sure, there were some developmentally retarded men who still read of them, but for the rest of us they were a phase, like "Winky Dink." Funny world we live in, the issues are serious and that which is universal is so dumb. Why do we have to always play to the lowest common denominator? Can the soul of America be lifted, its intelligence, its curiosity? That's what films used to do, and that's what "Being the Ricardos" does too, which makes it worth seeing. There.
--
Visit the archive:
lefsetz.com/wordpress/ --
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart:
ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj -Apple:
apple.co/2ndmpvp --
www.twitter.com/lefsetz --
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1 If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters,
Unsubscribe To change your email address
this link
