Being the Ricardos (2021, R)

*Premise spoilers, but this is a biopic, so technically it’s just history.*

While I’d say this is my least favorite of the biopic movies I’ve seen so far this Oscar season, I still enjoyed it. As with Spencer, it probably helps that I don’t have a bunch amount of knowledge of/affection for the subjects, and so I watched the film more as a story than as an accurate (or not) portrayal of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

In 1952, one week’s taping of I Love Lucy is plagued by numerous outside complications. A newspaper has just published a story about Desi’s philandering, a radio host has just accused Lucy of being a Communist, and the show’s producers are horrified at Lucy and Desi’s plan to incorporate Lucy’s real-life pregnancy into the show. With all that swirling around them, the show must still go on.

Like last year’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, this is an Aaron Sorkin project, more weighted to the entertainment-industry side of his wheelhouse than the political side, although politics still plays a role here. Between the Red Scare, “decency” censorship issues, and Lucy and Desi’s respective places as major stars in a time when women and Cuban Americans didn’t often have much power in Hollywood, there’s a lot more going on than the behind-the-scenes professional/personal drama of filming a sitcom episode.

The film mostly takes the one-pivotal-event approach to biopics, but the movie is peppered with flashbacks depicting the earlier years of Lucy and Desi’s relationship and careers, plus there’s a framing device of the show’s writers and executives being interviewed decades later about the events of the film. It comes across a little like the film is throwing every narrative structure at the wall to see what sticks, and the result can be kind of jumbled. By and large, I much prefer the main storyline of the chaotic, scandal-ridden week of taping and think the film could’ve been stronger by focusing on that. Again, I don’t know much about the real history here, but a cursory Googling tells me that, while all of these events happened during the filming of the show, the “one scandalous week from hell” of all three happening at once was a Sorkin invention.

What I really like about the film is some of the ins and outs of filming this hit show, particularly in the depiction of Lucy and Desi’s relationship. The movie does a good job demonstrating why they fell for each other alongside why their marriage ultimately won’t work out. Where the two of them really sing, though, is as partners. I love the way the film captures how both of them are exceptionally good at what they do, not just as performers but from a practical/business standpoint as well. They know they’re making a fun, silly sitcom, but they need the jokes to be grounded in reality and nitpick the writers over lazy gags. Lucy is meticulous about blocking the physical comedy routines and won’t allow a rehearsal scene to be deemed “good enough” before it’s right. Meanwhile, Desi knows how to work everyone from the writers to the executives to the live studio audience, alternately using charm, savvy, and bravado to get the results he wants. And they both make an excellent team, supporting each other professionally—in one of the flashbacks, Lucy is prepared to walk away from her lucrative sitcom deal if Desi isn’t cast as her husband, and in the 1952 section, Desi seamlessly backs up a scene pitch from Lucy, 100% aligned with her without stepping in to fight her battles. I love that, and it really shows that, even if they weren’t well-suited to be married, what they had together was something special.

Before the film came out, I know much was made about Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem being poor physical matches for the people they were playing. Typically with biopics, I’m less interested in how much an actor looks/sounds like their subject and more about how they perform the emotions of the story, but I’ll admit that my lack of intimate familiarity with I Love Lucy makes it easier for me to do that and I understand those who take issue with it; if someone made a Buster Keaton biopic, I’m sure I’d be more of a stickler. And on the physical side, I do get the criticism that Kidman doesn’t match Lucy’s expressiveness, which was a major part of her comedy. Even though this movie is primarily about Lucille Ball and not Lucy Ricardo, that does stick out in the scenes where Lucy is in character. Similarly, I understand the criticisms that Javier Bardem as Desi continues the ongoing trend of actors from Spain being Latino characters.

So, without a clear idea of what an accurate Lucille Ball or Desi Arnaz impression looks like, I’m left with the story, and I think Kidman and Bardem both acquit themselves well there. They play really well off of each other, and I like they way both of them show how Lucy and Desi can command a room. I’m a little more mixed on whether their Leading Actor/Actress nominations are warranted—I’ll have to see where they land when I do my Personal Nominations post later next month.

Rounding out the I Love Lucy cast are Nina Arianda as Vivian Vance and J.K. Simmons as William Frawley. They’re both entertaining and make the most of their scenes, although, with Simmons taking the film’s third acting nomination, I again wonder if it’s really a performance that needed an Oscar nod. I always enjoy Simmons, but is what he does in this movie really one of the top five supporting-actor performances of the year? Some other familiar faces in the supporting cast. Clark Gregg, a.k.a. Agent Coulson, appears as one of the studio higher-ups, and we get an awesome Arrested Development reunion with Tony Hale appearing as executive producer Jess Oppenheimer and Alia Shawkat as writer Madelyn Pugh. Aside from the sheer fun of seeing Hale and Shawkat together onscreen again, both of them turn in really nice work.

Warnings

Language, mild sexual content, drinking/smoking, and thematic elements.

Spencer (2021, R)

Just one nomination for today’s Oscar movie, a Best Leading Actress nod for Kristen Stewart. While The Eyes of Tammy Faye takes the approach of covering a wide swathe of the subject’s life, this one lasers in on a very specific time/event, although it freely admits to telling its own story within the historical context. It’s a little bit The Crown meets Black Swan, which is interesting to say the least.

At the end of 1991, the royal family gathers for their annual Christmas weekend in the country. While everyone around her is well-practiced at the endless posing and rote traditions, Diana, Princess of Wales, chafes under the stifling expectations of her role. Heavy with the knowledge of her husband’s infidelity and battling disordered eating amid sumptuous holiday feasts, Diana struggles to keep her head above water in the fishbowl of the country home.

Honestly, I knew very little of Diana while she was alive, as I was only 10 when she died. I’ve of course learned more about her since then, but I don’t have the same affection as the many who cherished her and were wrecked by her needless death. As such, people with greater attachment to Diana could say more of the accuracy of the performance or how closely the details of the story ring to what we knew of her, and they would likely have stronger opinions for or against the film based on their own feelings about the woman.

For me, I liked it a lot. I thought it was a very interesting character study of a woman desperate to keep some semblance of herself in an environment that’s trying to take everything that she is. Whether it’s having to eat a lavish meal in front of everyone, confiding in servants who then report her admissions to the regimental steward in charge of the house, or wearing the pearls Charles gave her for Christmas when she knows he gave Camilla an identical pair, Diana is forever on the brink, alternately trying to hold it together and wondering what she’s even holding it together for.

The film bills itself as “a fable based on a true tragedy,” which gives it plenty of license in its presentation. It’s rather gun shy about depicting much of Her Royal Highness and her immediate family—other than one scene with the queen and a couple with Charles, most of Diana’s interactions are either with the servants or her children—but it vividly imagines how all this pomp, circumstance, and Keep Calm and Carry On grinds away at Diana’s mental health. More than once, a character gently chides Diana for being paranoid and then almost instantly reminds her that “everyone hears everything” in this house, and she increasingly thinks she spots the specter of the queen whose displeased husband beheaded her (after accusing her of cheating when, as Diana is quick to remind us, he was the one who cheated.)

I like that it’s austere and morose and a little trippy, and that it’s deeply sad. For all that “poor little rich girl” can be a trope, this is an excellent remember that being a fairytale princess would, in many ways, be a complete nightmare, and I’ll admit to thinking a lot about Meghan as I watched the film. In light of its heaviness, though, I greatly appreciate Diana’s moments of relief, largely the minutes she steals to spend time with her sons. While these scenes aren’t immune to the sadness that pervades the film—it’s wrenching to see young William beg Diana to put on a brave face and play the role she’s been assigned—they also display a lot of warmth, and Diana’s most genuine smiles come when she’s playing with the boys.

Again, I’m not well-versed enough in the royals to tell you how much Kristen Stewart seems like Diana here. Just based on the nature of the story, I’m assuming the movie is showing sides of Diana that she wouldn’t have been apt to display in public, so the point might be somewhat moot anyway. At any rate, I like the tug and pull between Diana’s smooth poshness and her flagging ability to keep from “cracking up.” Stewart slips fluidly from the real-life cringeworthy encounters into the disorienting flashes of fantasy, and she definitely succeeds in making me feel for Diana in a “trapped in her gilded cage” kind of way. The film also features Sally Hawkins and Timothy Spall (who I’ll probably always remember best as Peter Pettigrew from Harry Potter,) and I want to give a shoutout to Jack Nielen and Freddie Spry, who are both endearing and delightful as Will and Harry.

Warnings

Language, brief sexual references, disturbing imagery, and strong thematic elements (including eating disorders and self-harm.)

News Satire Roundup: February 20th

Sunday, February 20

·        Recap of the Week – Canadian trucker protests

o   John pointed out that the nearly month-long protest in Ottawa seems like overkill for railing against vaccine requirements for Canadian truckers, given that two Canadian trucking associations have disavowed the protests and 90% of truckers are vaccinated.

o   In looking at some of the leaders of the protest movement, John discussed that one of them is in a band and, naturally, had to share footage – “I will say this: it is hard to think of a song more thematically appropriate to her cause than ‘Get Down with the Sickness,’ except for maybe ‘My Heart Will Go On,’ in that it’s both Canadian and also inextricably linked with completely-avoidable tragedy.”

o   Another leader of the protest has expressed views that have nothing to do with vaccines, such as white supremacist rhetoric – “Let’s just acknowledge, ‘strongest bloodline’ is a remarkably-bold claim from a man who looks like someone is slowly poisoning Guy Fieri.”

·        And Now This – ABC 3 Morning News

o   This was a montage of the “existential despair” of the 4 a.m. news team – my favorite bit was one anchor’s sad soliloquy about the old motorcycle jacket in his attic.

·        Main Story – Critical Race Theory

o   Perfect response to someone’s screamed remark at a school board meeting – “Hold on, America can’t be racist because of Obama?? I don’t know if you remember the 2008 election, but things got pretty racist back then. People kept saying he was born in Kenya, people said he was a secret Muslim, and then a few years later, we elected that people president.”

o   Of course, many of the people vehemently against critical race theory don’t actually know what it is, as Tucker Carlson himself admitted on air – “Wow. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a person confidently complain about something just seconds after admitting they don’t know shit about it.”

o   Kimberlé Crenshaw, who created the legal framework of study for real critical race theory, explained that it’s not about “blaming” white people for being white, but instead about examining how racist laws and policies in America’s past continue to affect Americans today, learning from this past “so we can become that country that we say we are.”

o   Teachers themselves pointed out that some teachers using misguided methods to teach about race do happen, and it shouldn’t mean banning all teachers from teaching anything about race – “Exactly! Teachers are human and can make mistakes. Frankly, I’m surprised they don’t make more! They wake up insanely early and spend all day getting low-key roasted by teenagers for an amount of money best described as ‘completely harrowing.’ The very fact that any student in America knows what a covalent bond is is a fucking miracle, and every adult involved deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor!”

o   But even though the boogieman created over “CRT” is all smoke and mirrors, John pointed out that it’s having real effects on schools and students – “The thing is, even a manufactured panic is a panic.”

o   Great line – “Here’s the thing: you can ban all the books you want, you can try and legislate it away, but as any Black woman on The Bachelor can tell you, talking about race is unavoidable.”

o   We looked at some “interesting” remarks from a woman immediately following her insistence that racism isn’t a problem in her town – “Wow. When you respond to someone mentioning young Black men would like to be treated better with automatically envisioning them dressed terribly and acting disrespectfully while being arrested by the police, you are telling on yourself, Patty. You are snitching on your very soul!”

o   As usual, we had a good mic-drop ending – “For generations and generations, we have been telling kids fairytales about race in this country, and maybe it’s time we stop doing that. Because all it’s done so far is get us to the point that we’re at right now, with full-grown adults insisting America can’t be racist because we elected Obama twice, that racism will go away if we just don’t mention it, and that Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech wasn’t an aspiration we have yet to fulfill but some kind of magic spell that ended prejudice then and there.”