In the Thomas Carruthers stake of things Being the Ricardo’s had an awful lot going for it; Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem, along with the rest of an ensemble where there really wasn’t one person whom I’m not a fan of. Aaron Sorkin too is a figure whose work, although hit and miss in recent years (in particular in the world of his directing), has led to some of my favourite films of all time and a couple of TV shows I really enjoy. The figures too at the heart of the film are ones I greatly admire, am fond of and have fallen in complete love with in recent years. But fundamentally like all of Sorkin’s films of recent that he has written and directed, all the same mistakes are made once more, but fortunately too all the success are there too, this time also with multiple absolutely incredible performances to boot none of which falling into the realms of mimicry and almost parody that his previous Chicago 7 effort struggled with at times.
Let’s talk Sorkinisms. Maybe it’s just because I’ve listened the terrific TCM biography podcast on Lucille Ball chronicling a whole life beautifully and with great entertainment value, but the typical Sorkin angle of presenting a whole lifetime of events within one day, or here one week, has grown to be one that rather truly infuriates me. It undermines the longevity of Ball’s career and it gives this film a sensationalism that undermines some of its best work, when it comes indeed to presenting the realism of a week’s shooting in that era. Any of the life events that Sorkin forces into one week, whether it be the Red scare, the pregnancy or the adultery would have made for an intriguing film in its own right, or indeed a thrilling segment within a more standard biopic. Sorkin’s sensationalist interpretations of real life events have garnered one of the greatest films of all time (The Social Network), one very underrated gem (Steve Jobs) and then a series beyond that of fair-to-middling standard biopics that feel oh so stale and standard despite the frequent narrative and structural shenanigans Sorkin thrusts and forces into the script to make the illusion of a more experimental film. One does wonder whether or not this film in particular would be better if it did just go for a more realistic presentation of the events, not exactly cradle to grave, but desperately not cradle to grave in a week of filming. But then the dialogue begins, and cracks and snaps back and forth, and thrills and garners laughs, and riles up a viewer with that irresistible screwball sensibility and one realises all over again why Sorkin is still one of our greatest writers. Unfortunately there is no such “but then” when it comes to the directing, we solely remain in a bizzarley bland almost 90’s TV movie aesthetic that never leaves us for even a scene where the direction or cinematography stand out.
But by far the films strongest aspect is the performances. Kidman, despite some reservations from fans and critics alike, has given the absolute perfect Ball for this realistic depiction of her manner, wit, style, class and comedy. Let the record show however, that I personally never thought for a moment that Kidman couldn’t pull it off. The woman is one of our finest living actresses and time after time delivers such a startling and fun variety of complex work that I don’t trust anybody who would bet against her. Fortunately she is also here in the company of more class performers, with Bardem personifying expertly both the dramatic business acumen of Arnaz, whilst also the fiery sex and thrilling showman grandness of his life. Two stunning performances and great complexity and calibre that do indeed make this film far better than perhaps it should have been. Supporting them are a series of standout from performers whom I’ve also liked and here only give us more great work. J.K Simmons, Nina Arianda, Alia Shawkat and Tony Hale all deliver subtle and yet dynamic turns, again perfecting the balance of realism and slight caricature that befits these larger than life figures. All of the performances were great infact, and as was the case more so with Kidman and Bardem, they helped a mediocre film excel to higher levels.
Sorkin has written a 8/10 screenplay, with Sorkinisms that still grate on me but I’m used to, with 10/10 performances, but has however directed overall a 7/10 film. Kidman and Bardem do frequently pull this film up into the highest point scores, aswell as the rest of the incredible cast, however time after time the worst parts of the script and Sorkin’s overall lack of visual flare and craft when it comes to directing leads this film to indeed slump down to that 7/10 spot. One can only extol the performances so much whilst ignoring the repeated issues the film has at its core. Awards Season nominations for performance would not go amiss, and a screenplay nomination may even be a worthy possibility, but that’s about it I’m afraid, unfortunately.
P.S. Every time I hear of the directors initially approached with this material I shudder a little thinking of perhaps how much better a film it could have been. Even hearing David O. Russell, a hugely hit or miss director for me, made me consider the calibre of the possibility. But hearing Fincher... Well, what can I say? Whether it was just rumours and bull... One can only sit with the idea and ponder the possibilities.
P.P.S Can we please stop with the Talking Heads segments in biopics, just completely takes me out and whether they’re weirdly played by actors, or the real people, I have no idea who thinks they are a good idea. Why remind your audience repeatedly that by far the best way to tell many of these stories is instead with a through documentary with real-life interviews and archival footage?
- - Thomas Carruthers
 – Review){kind=link}
0 Comments