Wednesday, December 29, 2021

BEING THE RICARDOS -- my review

I love Aaron Sorkin’s writing.  I wish I could do what he does.  When he is on his game I’m amazed someone can write that well and that deep that fast.  It almost seems like the brilliance is effortless.  What an extraordinary gift. 

But there’s one thing I can do that Sorkin apparently can’t and that is write comedy.  I’m certainly not saying it’s a better skill, just different.  But I think it drives Sorkin crazy.  (Not because of me specifically but all comedy writers.)   It’s the one club he can’t join.   Why it bothers him, I do not know.  His skill garners Oscars.  Mine —  $.02 residual checks.  

But it obviously does.  There’s a pattern.  We’ve seen it in STUDIO 60; we see it in BEING THE RICARDOS.  Comedy writers are always portrayed as talentless hacks that get the shit beaten out of them by smarter, better producers or actors.   Even in THE WEST WING, a show I adored, the president’s staff were enlisted to write jokes for the president because his assigned comedy writers were not funny. 

Sorkin takes every opportunity to belittle the writers.  At one point “Bill Frawley” says something amusing and writer Madelyn Pugh points out it was funnier than anything her partner, Bob Carroll has written.  Ouch!  And they're a team.  Why was that necessary?   It seems that any flashes of humor, from anyone in this movie, is put downs.  

Not being a member of the club, Sorkin has a somewhat distorted view of the sitcom process.  In his conception, as seen in both STUDIO 60 and certainly in BEING THE RICARDOS, the production of a comedy show is an utterly joyless endeavor.   Now, that’s not to suggest it’s a 24/7 party — it’s not.  It’s hard work, long hours, and lots of analysis as to what’s funny and what could make it funnier.  

But there’s also lots of laughter.  Even on bad shows.  You laugh every day.  You’re not doing O’Neill.  Are there actors who hate each other?  Yep.  Are there stars who make things unpleasant for everyone on the set?  You betcha.  But I want to tell you — the worse it is on the stage, the funnier it is up in the room.  The humor may be vicious as we blow off steam, but there are belly laughs.  When was the last time you had a belly laugh in your job?  

Now in the case of I LOVE LUCY, I was privileged to know two of the writers (not shown in the movie) — Bob Schiller & Bob Weiskopf.  They wrote on the show for years.  I heard plenty of Lucy stories.  I was envious of their experience.  I sure wouldn’t be if the process was as dreary as this film suggests. 

In BEING THE RICARDOS, only Lucy knows what’s funny.  Not the writers, not the milquetoast director, not the other actors, not the network.   Just Lucy.   And she operates in a tactless emasculating manner.   Sorkin tries to show that she was under a lot of pressure to justify this behavior, and it’s hard to justify when all the crises were lumped into one week that never happened.  It was a creative convention.  And I don’t fault him for that.  That’s just good storytelling — consolidate events to make one manageable narrative.  Sorkin takes a lot of creative license and liberty with the facts in all of his biopics (no one said "firewalls" in 1952 - they were invented 35 years later).  And I know it's a tricky dance.  The alternative is generally boring linear stories.  The trouble comes when you're dealing with real life individuals.  Juggling events or combining events to create a story is fine when the events themselves are truly depicted.  There are a few times in this film where that is not the case.  The ending, for example, never happened and is absurd. 

But getting back to the process, good sitcoms are collaborative.  I LOVE LUCY wasn’t just good; it was great.  Are there stars that have no respect for writers and run roughshod over them?   Hello Roseanne.  Hello Cybil.  Hello Bret.  And what happens?  The writers leave.  Actually they run.  But that wasn't the case here.  Shortly before her death Lucy did a commentary about I LOVE LUCY.  This is what she actually said: 

"Many times when we would review at the beginning of the season, they would say Viv and I ad-libbed our way through some mediocre writing.  They have since found out that that was ridiculous. They know how great our writers are because hundreds of people have copied from them. I have such respect for those kids, my writers I call ‘the kids,’ Bob and Madelyn.”

So that bothered me.  But I’m in the industry.  If you’re not in the industry, you might not be bothered by it at all.  There’s a lot to like in this film.  Javier Bardem stole the picture for my money. “I Love Desi.”  J.K. Simmons gave him a run for his money as Fred.  Nina Arianda was fantastic as Ethel.   As for Nicole Kidman, she's a gifted actress who gave it her all, but how do you cast someone who can't move her face to play Lucille Ball, who thrived on her many comic expressions?  There was nothing about Kidman's performance that even suggested this was a funny lady, much less the all-time queen of TV comedy. She got the voice down, and I appreciate that she tried to make the character real and not just an impersonation, but I'm sorry, if you're playing Lucy, moving your face is as signature as red hair.

Again, the pluses: For Sorkin fans like me, his signature whip-smart dialogue was all there.  Some great lines and speeches.  And these characters don’t all sound alike (although it would be fun if they did… if they all sounded like Desi).  

I guess I just felt a little hurt by the film.  As a proud comedy writer I felt lumped in with the writers who were portrayed as hack footstools.  Is that how Aaron Sorkin sees me?  It stings a little because I think the absolute world of him.   

Note:  If you're interested in the subject, I did a whole deep dive into the history of I LOVE LUCY on my podcast.  You can find that episode here. 

76 comments :

Don Kemp said...

We plan on streaming this movie some time before New Year's. I get that real life events are often conflated to advance the storytelling, but I think in this instance it might really bother me, especially since so many people know all about them and have for a long time. I consider myself somewhat informed about I Love Lucy. I'm no Bart Andrews, but I've re-read his stuff numerous times along with Desi's A Book, bios of Vivian Vance, Jess Oppenheimer's book and other books about the show, especially Coyne Sanders and his partner. More than enough happened in the Arnazes' life to mash up a lot of it into one week. I'm somewhat surprised Lucie Arnaz signed off on some of this, especially what should amount to small dialog changes like "showrunner", "firewall", etc, not to mention the elongated license Sorkin apparently takes with actual events. I hope once I watch this I'm wrong, but what this all suggests to me is no one still has produced the definitive movie about Lucy and Desi.

Tim G said...

Thanks for your perspective, Ken. Been looking forward to your review. I bailed before the first half hour was through. Agree with your assessment of Bardem's Desi Arnaz. But it is really hard to believe that the behind-the-scenes world of I Love Lucy was Sorkinesque (they speak as if they are being written for instead of how people actually speak). Too writerly in a way at odds with the writing quality of the original show. I always found Sorkin to be distancing rather than inviting and this (at least first half hour) didn't do anything to change that impression.

Craig Gustafson said...

"(no one said "firewalls" in 1952 - they were invented 35 years later)"
And Jess Oppenheimer was the "show runner?" Probably not in that era. Just "producer."

Desi did address the audience concerning the allegation, so I assume that when you describe the ending as absurd, you're targeting the phone call from J. Edgar Hoover. Which hammers home your point - in order to perpetrate that Hoover bullshit, Sorkin left out the best thing Desi said that night, because it was *funny*: "The only thing red about Lucy is her hair, and even that is not legitimate." And yes, if I had to watch the first four "West Wing" seasons on a loop for the rest of my life, I wouldn't shoot myself, but Jesus...

You neglected to say "The Goddess Nina Arianda." But maybe that's just me. She was amazing in "Venus in Fur" on Broadway and as Ida Laurel in "Stan and Ollie." J.K. Simmons is looking at an Emmy nomination, I think.

You're dead on about Nicole Kidman, as well as the disrespect for comedy writing. Sidetracking: It's why I stopped watching "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel." The acting is great, the stories are good, and there's Tony Shalhoub, for godsake. But I couldn't stand her onstage moments. Midge isn't funny. Rachel Brosnahan is probably capable of delivering, but nothing they write for her is funny. It's all "observational humor," minus the humor. She just states observations and a water vacuum is needed for all the onscreen audience members peeing their pants. Because in a series about a woman struggling to be a comedian, her act is the least important aspect, right? Feh.

I'm currently taking Aaron Sorkin's class on MasterClass.com. He's a good, quirky teacher. But I'm there to study structure, characterization, dialogue. I'm not there for the comedy.

DADreger said...

A Friday question...

Any truth to what I've been reading recently that John Madden was the inspiration for Coach on Cheers? Also that he was actually offered the role but turned it down because he had concerns that if the series failed he would be associated with a loser, but also had concerns that if the series was a success he would no longer be able to do other jobs he really liked?

Thanks.

Bettina said...

Hi Ken, Don't feel hurt, it is a movie ... what do they call it? Artistic license :)

Bob Bergen said...

I liked the film a lot. Granted, I'm not a writer. Chances are if someone were to make a film about cartoon vo or the making of the original Looney Tunes and the film portrayed players in a way I knew wasn't true to character or the process, I might take it personally as well. I say might because rarely, if ever, am I offended by anything, so I cannot say for sure.

I loved the look and feel of the film. Like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, the costumes, sets and props, etc., just immersed the audience in the era. You could smell the cigarette smoke and Brylcreem. I thought the performances were stellar, including Kidman. She did a great job with both Lucille and Lucy, portraying them authentically as two separate characters. If I had one gripe it was her make-up when playing Lucy. She needed thicker eye lashes and that signature above the lip line darker lipstick. That's just me being picky.

I didn't mind that Sorkin took liberty with the timeline(s). No bio pic in the history of film has been 100% accurate or authentic, from Young Mr. Lincoln to Schindler's List. These films are based on true events, not to be seen as educational or documentary films.

My bottom line, I found the film to be one of the most entertaining of the year. I make it a habit to not talk smack about other people's art publicly, so I will keep those negatives to myself. But I do recommend Being the Ricardos.

marka said...

Friday question.

A director question. When you had an actor in their first role on a filmed show did you ever talk to them early in the week to give them advice, or clue them in to what was happening, or anything like that? Seems like the first time might be overwhelming, even if your only line was, "here's your soup, gentlemen."

Mike Barer said...

I'll vouch for your podcast on I love Lucy. It was outstanding and I'm not even a big Lucy fan.

D. McEwan said...

Lucy in the 1941 flashbacks is absolutely obsessed with Judy Holiday eclipsing her as a movie star. Judy had made ONE movie by then, and it was an uncredited tiny nothing role. She didn't make a movie where she got screen credit until 1944, and she did not become a movie star until 1949. And they have Lucy HARP on Judy, mentioning her bitterly over and over. You'd think she'd have harsher words for Joan Davis, who is never mentioned.

They try to build some suspense: will the Red Scare derail Lucy's career the way we know it didn't? Will the sponsor (William Morris tobacco products. Desi died of lung cancer) refuse to let Lucy be pregnant on the show the way we know they allowed it? Will Lucy end her marriage 7 years earlier than when we know she did? You'd have to have lived in a cave to find any suspense in this movie. (I kept waiting for a scene near the end where Desi pays off whomever he hired to pretend to be J. Edgar Hoover on the phone. But no, we're supposed to believe that that was the real Hoover. I'm not comfortable with a movie that allows the revolting monstrosity that was J. Edgar Hoover to "save the day.")

In one scene we see the "hack" director (Why did Lucy allow directors she didn't like or respect to do the show?) stage a dinner scene where he has Fred and Ethel seated on the downstage side of the table, where the audience and cameras can only see their backs. I said aloud to my cats, "They should be seated on the upstage side of the table where the cameras and the audience can friggin' see them." The cats agreed. You'd have to be a raw amateur to make that mistake.

And he only makes it so that Lucy can see it's wrong and fix it --- two days of fictional time, and forty minutes of screen time later. It takes "Lucy" TWO DAYS to notice that error, and NO ONE ELSE NOTICES IT AT ALL! It's like an art museum curator suddenly noticing, three days after opening, that maybe the reason no one is enjoying looking at the paintings is because they never thought to TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!!

(I remember Lohman & Barkley once giving as a household hint the tip, "When hanging pictures on the wall, hang them so the side with the painting on it is away from the wall." Al then said, "I bet that's why no ever compliments my original Picasso.")

One treat for me was recognizing Rick Batella, who goes professionally as "Don Ricardo" these days, as Vivian Vance's costumer, getting caught by Lucy giving "Ethel" a too-glamorous gown to wear in a scene. Rick's "Have I stepped in it?" look as he wonders if Lucy will fire him (She doesn't) was hilarious, and, speaking as someone who met Lucy and was a guest in her home when taping (ACTUALLY "Taping") an interview with her for radio, that's pretty much the look one gave after saying ANYTHING to Lucille Ball.

Anyway, it was nice to see Rick in it because, exactly 30 years ago, I was directing him in our improvised stage soap opera NO LIFE TO LIVE. Rick was so good and so funny in our show, that after we killed off his character, we had him come back as his character's identical twin brother so we could keep him in the cast. A couple decades back, Rick played "Manuel" in the third attempt to make an American version of Fawlty Towers.

Mike Doran said...

Reimagining.

That's the word the people who do shows these days use when they take something everybody knows and loves, and change everything about it to suit their own notions.
Usually, it's fictional characters who get this nonsense done to them (last year's HBO Perry Mason is a prime example), but most "docu-dramas" fall into this same crevice.
My own textbook example has always been Quiz Show, which was an outright fictionalization of the Twenty-One scandal, with many of the same anachronisms and timeslips.
This Ricardos thing seems to be in the same territory, which is a signal to me to skip it ...
... but ...
OK, first chance I get to see it for nothing, I might just give it a look - but I'm not holding out any great hopes ...

Gail said...

I was on staff of “Alice” for 4 years when Madelyn and Bob were executive producers. Madelyn always referred to the writers as “the kids”. She drove the writer’s room- Bob liked to sit with a riding crop at his desk and snap it when he didn’t like a joke that was pitched. My fondest memories of Madelyn were our Friday lunches in the Warner’s commissary when she would tell me stories about Lucy and Desi. She told me she and Bob would go over to Farmers Market to get ideas for the show. In particular, the candy on the conveyor belt was sparked from one of their visits.

Breadbaker said...

I watched the trailer and don't think I'll watch the movie. I had the same reaction as you to Kidman, in that her face didn't move. Just watched a much older Lucy on Password on Buzzr TV, where she was herself, and although that's not Lucy Ricardo, Lucille Ball had a very expressive face. It was so jarring to see Kidman sounding right but looking wrong.

normadesmond said...

An immovable face cannot portray a rubber one.

Chris Cluess said...

He spent a week observing our team at MadTV as he prepared Studio 60. That week was a live show with 7 or 8 sketches done in front of an audience, as well as rolled in "film pieces". He spent the week observing a very funny show. His eyes stared straight down his nose at us and our labors. When the week was over he apparently had
learned nothing.

maxdebryn said...

I am really looking forward to your take on The Super Bob Einstein documentary on HBO.

Bob Einstein's bit with brother Albert Brooks in MODERN ROMANCE ("you gonna run broke" ?) never fails to make me laugh out loud. Mark Evanier had already recommended the documentary.

Ralph C. said...

I won’t be watching this biopic.

Michael said...

Having no desire to see the movie, I gather from Ken's review that it doesn't convey that Desi was really the creative genius behind-the-scenes--not to diminish the writers, the other production people, or Lucy. But Desi wasn't just a funny-sounding bandleader.

About Sorkin's depiction: He did Sportsnight. Maybe he had an unhappy experience? I also wonder: Did he ever watch The Dick Van Dyke Show, which was based on what Carl Reiner saw and participated in while working with Sid Caesar (speaking of geniuses)?

Gary said...

Great review, Ken. I saw the movie and generally liked it, but I too was disappointed in the way writers Pugh & Carroll were depicted. And I thought Javier Bardem's accent was a little hard to understand at times.

Also, when Desi addressed the audience about the Lucy/communism accusations, what he actually said was much better and funnier that what was written for the movie.

Finally, when they showed the cast rehearsing actual I LOVE LUCY scenes, the actors were playing it much too broadly. Yes, the actual show was broadly done to begin with, but it was never that showy and exaggerated!

ventucky said...

I was bored to tears. Bardem had no Desi charm, was not pretty like Desi, and 20 years too old. Obviously the movie begged for Debra Messing. As for firewalls, maybe it was not a term, but my house was built in the 1880's. I have a massive brick wall separating my kitchen from the rest of the house. it was fire protection when kitchens cooked with actual fire. The word that bugged me was someone actually said "gaslighting" in the modern context.

John Schrank said...

Well, "gaslighting" comes from a play called Gas Light that was written in 1938, adapted into another play called Angel Street which was a big Broadway hit, and was made into a movie called Gas Light with Ingrid Bergman in 1944. So the term has been around longer than you might think

Mitch said...

I wonder what Sorkin thinks of bloggers.

I enjoyed Studio 60. Was no laugh track

Astroboy said...

Re: Firewall. Since the part of an automobile that separates (and protects) the passenger compartment from the engine bay has always been known as the 'firewall', it's possible it might have been used in the context it was in the show.

blinky said...

Do you think the producers were unaware of an actress named Debra Messing?
You know, that actress that is essentially Lucille Ball's doppelgänger. She actually has red hair and a face that can contort. And comic timing. And she is funny. AND WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT. I am surprised they didn't get Meryl Streep to do Lucy.
Stupid suits!

Mike Bloodworth said...

I have never been a fan of Aaron Sorkin. And this review does absolutely nothing to change that.
M.B.

Bum said...

John Schrank said...
Well, "gaslighting" comes from a play called Gas Light that was written in 1938, adapted into another play called Angel Street which was a big Broadway hit, and was made into a movie called Gas Light with Ingrid Bergman in 1944. So the term has been around longer than you might think

We know all of that, Cliff, but that still doesn't mean that "gaslighting" was commonly used as a verb in the 1950's. It wasn't. Nor was "showrunner".

Leighton said...

I loved the film. Also, was a bit puzzled by the portrayal of the writers. This movie isn't a "bio-pic."

In terms of "terms"...would "showrunner" have been used at that time? I never heard the word used until the 2000s.

Bob Gassel said...


The film is for Sorkin fans, most of whom love it, not Lucy fans, most whom don't.

Regarding the call for Debra Messing, the part was Lucille Ball, not Lucy Ricardo...two totally different characters.

Regarding your critique of Kidman's performance, I've never seen Lucy out-of-character (interviews, award shows, game show appearances) where she showed even the remotest hint of being a funny person. Kidman captured her wonderfully.

Brian said...

I'm also a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing, so I'm disappointed to hear that they dissed writers in this film. The I Love Lucy writing was fantastic and groundbreaking. Stores closed with signs in the windows saying "We love Lucy too". What other shows have had that kind of affect? I'll still "Being the Ricardo's", but I'm not in a hurry to get around too it.

Mitch said...

Lucy wasn't the nicest person, she was banned from American Airlines for the way she treated flight attendants.

Goes to show you, we can't all be Tom Hanks.

TLB said...

Being the Ricardos is filled with small errors, only and insider would know, such as Frawley taking Lucy out for a drink on a rainy night and supposedly walking to Boardners (a bar and restaurant near Musso/Frank, off Hollywood Blvd.) , when they would have gone to Nicodell, Melrose, next door to the studio, were Frawley usually hung out when not shooting. He was forbidden to drink, by contract when I Love Lucy was in production.

VincentS said...

I think your analysis of Aaron Sorkin is spot-on, Ken. As a dramatic writer myself (and you know I'm a dramatic writer since you've read some of my comedy writing lol) I know how envious we are of comedy writers and I'm SO sick of people assuming actors are responsible for what comes out of their mouths. Of the AFI list of top 100 movie lines SIX were ad-libs.

Jeff Boice said...

Thanks for the review. I had read Mark Evanier's review (he didn't like it either) earlier so between the two of you I know I won't miss anything by not seeing it.

Kevin from VA said...

Aaron Sorkin wrote the screenplay for "Charlie Wilson's War", which at least for me, had some very funny scenes (especially those with Philip Seymour Hoffman) and had Sorkin's usual sharp dialogue, so there is that.

As for J.K. Simmons as William Frawley/Fred Mertz, he's so good in everything, even his Farmers Insurance commercials. He absolutely killed it in "Burn After Reading" as the CIA Superior who ends the film. Just a terrific ending!

Ellen G. said...

Hey, Ken, thanks for putting into words what I was feeling. The tone was so over the top serious, not at all my experience of 20 years in writers'rooms. I think it's interesting that all the stars you named that writers run from are women.

Dave said...

I wish I could share your high opinion of Sorkin’s writing. I find him a repetitious, humorless hack with no sense of characterization and a gift for writing dialogue that sounds like it should be smart, but isn’t.

Darwin's Ghost said...

Here's a clip of Christopher Nolan talking about his admiration for comedy creators and saying comedy is something he'd be too scared to do.

https://youtu.be/3UiRt3wDXz0

flurb said...

I'm with Bob Bergen. The two leads a bit long in the tooth, but once I accepted it - and Nicole's plastic surgery - I had a fine time.

I have a playwright friend who complains about Sorkin's supposedly unrealistic "written" dialogue. I find it hilarious when she does, because she talks just like a Sorkin character when doing it!

D. McEwan said...

OK, it's PHILLIP Morris cigarettes, not WILLIAM Morris cigarettes. Oops. I've been around show business too long. Sorry.

JonCow said...

Watched "Being the Ricardos" and was not overly impressed. Rather I remembered a BBC Radio series (5 episodes) called "Lucy Loves Desi - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Sitcom" available here: https://archive.org/details/LLDAFTHOTWTAS It was written by Gregg Oppenheimer, son of ILL Executive Producer Jess Oppenheimer.

My one takeaway: neither Javier Bardem nor Wilmer Valderrama could capture the charm of Desi Arnez.

Gene Pinder said...

I'm sorry, but I found the entire experience dreadful, from the dark tone to the story line, casting and even the writing. Not believable for one minute. What a waste of time, money and talent.

Johnny Walker said...

Is Sorkin a self-hating writer? I sometimes think he is. Something for him and his therapist to explore. I think his writing is consistently entertaining, and it makes me laugh, but it's true that he stops short of full-on belly laugh.

Note: "Firewall" was a construction term before computing co-opted it (and it's used in engines, too). It dates back until at least the 1850s. Computer security just borrowed it.

Lucy Webb said...

I agree with you 100%.

Rich said...

I read an interview with Bob Schiller just the other night. He said whenever anybody tells him they just saw a "Lucy" with his name in the credits, he always asks for a dime, because he didn't get any residuals off those shows.

Neither did Lucy or Desi, actually. When I LOVE LUCY ended, Ball and Arnaz sold the series outright to CBS for five million dollars, which was considered a brilliant business move at the time. Needless to say, CBS has made its money back on the show many, many times over. Ball said in later years that they figured the reruns would be good for five, maybe ten years. They never anticipated the show going on and on the way it has.

My kids watch it and fall in the floor laughing. They don't know who William Holden was, and they've never heard of a restaurant called the Brown Derby and have no idea why it was a big deal to eat there, but they still laugh like hell at Lucy's desperately unsuccessful efforts to remain calm, cool and collected while Holden stares at her.

Hilary said...

I love I Love Lucy and have since I was a very small kiddo. And Nicole Kidman is brilliant. But... no. We hung in for 45 minutes and than I was done. Kudos to you for watching the entire thing. It was soooo dark and not funny at all. Plus, as you know, the events depicted did happen, but not in the space of one week. Good lord. I understand that Sorkin felt he needed to do that to build the story but it didn't work for me.

Unknown said...

I love this article, Ken. But may I request, please don’t use the term “emasculating”. There is nothing Lucille Ball could do, that doesn’t involve using a big knife, that would be “emasculating”. It is an inherently sexist concept. Thank you.

Donald said...

Despite Lucie Arnaz’s initial statement that the film was “freaking amazing,” she hasn’t been so unequivocal recently, and admitted she and Desi Jr. were okay with certain things but didn’t agree with all of Sorkin’s decisions. In particular, she lobbied to have the scene of Lucy being fired from RKO removed, because that never happened.

The creative liberties taken in this film were so extreme they make the earlier TV movies look like documentaries in comparison.

JS said...

I watched this the other night. I disagree about the actor who played Desi - I thought he was terrible. He didn't have any of the charisma or mannerisms of Desi Arnaz. This is why, if I were an actor, I'd never take on the role of a famous person. You will never keep everyone happy,

They also downplayed the feud between Vance and Frawley. She said things got so bad she was in therapy. It ended abruptly. I made it through until the end which is more than I can say for a lot of movies lately. I'll give it that.

Rich Johnson said...

Love it, but one word in one early sentence still bugs me: “we tape on Friday.” I a show featuring the guy who invented the three-camera FILM technique to get around the fact that videotape hadn’t get been invented? That’s still tough to swallow a week later.

Jim, Cheers Fan said...

Your depiction of the writers' room being funnier if the writers don't like the cast makes me think of the The Comeback, a show I thought was almost good and I kept watching thinking it would make it, and the pay-off in the last episode made it worth the wait.


I also wonder: Did he ever watch The Dick Van Dyke Show, which was based on what Carl Reiner saw and participated in while working with Sid Caesar (speaking of geniuses)?

I heard there's a lost episode where Sally hangs Buddy out the window and threatens to drop him

Necco said...

There is quite a bit of bitterness in this comments section. WHO are you?

Rob Mattheu said...

I have two Friday questions for you from watching MASH on Hulu. (It's great to see episodes uncut after years of watching them get shorter and shorter in syndication.).

First: I have been reading the IMDB trivia and obsessives have noted on more than one occasion that things that don't happen until later in the season are mentioned or shown before they happen. Examples: Patent 4077's invention of a tool is mentioned earlier in season 6, and a painting of Alan Alda shows up before we see Potter painting it.

Obviously this comes from airing episodes out of order, but I'm curious who made the decision to air episodes out of order and why? Was it because an episode got preempted and moved, rather than reshuffle a schedule? Or was it because nobody imagined people would be binge watching shows dozens of times and noting every inconsistency?

Second: I noticed Radar seems to have disappeared for much of season 6 without a mention of where he is, and Klinger magically replacing him. I'm assuming it was a contractual thing for Gary Burghoff, but I'm wondering if it was a conscious decision not to mention his whereabouts or ignore the fact he's conspicuously absent.

It's been awhile since I watched the show, and being a bit older (I was barely in double digits when it ended) I have really come to love the supporting cast a lot more.

Kevin FitzMaurice said...

I understand that Lucille Ball didn't really assume creative control until her subsequent series "The Lucy Show" and "Here's Lucy."

"That's when they put the 'S' at the end of my last name," Ms. Ball supposedly said in a quote once related by Carol Burnett.

I have little regard for biopics--they are breeding grounds for distortion and misinformation, resulting from either a desire to make the stories more interesting or just plain lazy attempts at research.

Two examples:

In "Frost/Nixon," the former president is shown hospitalized the day in Sept. 1974 that Gerald Ford pardoned him. In fact, Nixon was on a golf course in California. (Nixon did a battle a potentially life-threatening case of phlebitis a short time later.)

In the film version of "Jersey Boys," Frankie Valli's recording of "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You" is portrayed as a comeback attempt after the death of Valli's daughter.

In real life, "Can't Take..." was a hit for Valli in 1967, more than a dozen years before he lost his daughter to drug addiction.

JessyS said...

The one thing I remember about the I Love Lucy production is that Lucy always credited her writers for everything. Yes, Lucy and her co-stars took the material and performed it to perfection, but for the first four seasons, it was just the three of them toiling in the writer's room on the material that eventually made it to air. And then for Aaron Sorkin to come out and tell us that Lucy was the brains behind the operation, while marginalizing the writers, is a disservice to everybody in the industry. Without Desi, the sitcom as it exists today, would be something different with most shows being put together like MASH instead of Cheers.

Liggie said...

A review I read of the “Studio 60” DVD set said that the comedy sketches on the show-within-a-show weren’t funny … and that may have been the point. I’ve only seen two sketches; the first was a George W. Bush impersonation that opened the pilot, the second was “Dr. Nic”, which imagined Nicolas Cage hosting a “Dr. Phil”- style show. From those sketches, it’s a plausible argument. The Dubya impersonation was so uninspired, it caused a producer to lose his cool, and “Dr. Nic” seemed to represent an idea that sounded good but was tough to pull off. (Notably, the actor playing “Nicolas Cage” was a pre-“Big Bang Theory” Simon Helberg.)

There is a glimmer of hope for Hollywood writers: Rachel McAdams has been with a screenwriter for several years, and they have a young family. There’s got to be at least one other sexy Hollywood actress besides her that’s willing to date a writer.

John Schrank said...

Bum... you are right about "gaslighting" as a verb. That is surely more recent. I have not yet seen the movie, but reviews quoting lines about them "taping" the show bothered me. They could have used "shooting" instead. Because I am certain there were people working on the project who knew more about the history of television production, I imagine that no one was willing to give any kind of notes to The Great Aaron Sorkin

Don Kemp said...

Minor quibble- Bill Frawley wasn't forbidden to drink while the show was in production. Before the series began, as recounted in Arnaz's book, they met at Nickodell's to hammer out a basic agreement. Desi knew Bill liked to drink, so he said the first time it affects his performance or he's late for work, Arnaz would work around him that day. The second time basically the same thing. The third time Frawley was gone and not just gone, but Arnaz would see to it Frawley never worked in Hollywood again. Frawley immediately agreed. They never had a problem with Frawley's attendance or work the entire run of the series. However, it IS true Frawley and Vance just about hated each other. Frawley called her a fat bitch and Vance's vanity was hurt because he was cast as her husband.

The other thing that I would second or third is Ball's lifelong acknowledgement of her writers. From the beginning of I Love Lucy, she always said they were what made her funny. Never, ever did she relegate them to second class or backseat status. That's just a well known fact found in many books, interviews, conversations, etc. Sorkin deliberately distorting or misrepresenting that is simply wrong on so many levels and takes away from his credibility.

MikeKPa. said...

I know Lucie Arnaz was upset that Cate Blanchett dropped out. Might have been a much better movie. My biggest beef was how Bob Carroll Jr. was portrayed. Watching interviews of him and Madelyn Pugh it seemed like they have a very good writing relationship and that there were very few rewrites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4falE-WVQY

Jonathan Stark said...

Ken, I never thought about it until I read this but yeah, you never felt the writers were respected by Lucy, Ricky, or each other. I worked with (for) one of the meanest actors on the planet and the worse things were on the stage the more the writers rallied around each other. Maybe Aaron doesn't understand the collaborative process as he is a lone writer who assumes he knows how a group of talented people create comedy. Together. It's a process that you can't really explain - but whatever insults are flung about are only to get the room laughing and thus back in the space to do the job. Thanks for this and thanks for never forgetting your roots.

Matt said...

Some things I’ve noticed about Aaron Sorkin’s writing:

Many of his characters are super-highly-educated, and will never let you forget it:

“I have a Law degree from Harvard. I was accepted three different times to Yale before the 9th grade. I studied at Oxford. So what makes you think I don’t know that sour cream on my Taco makes it a supreme instead of a regular? Where did you go to school, Brown?”

Many of his characters display an unusually detailed knowledge of theatre and musical (Gilbert and Sullivan mostly) theatre.

A recent example comes from “Being The Ricardos”:

FRAWLEY
No, not--I couldn’t care any less about Donald’s feelings if I tried hard. He’s a hack but we’ll overcome that because, frankly, we’re not doing Uncle Vanya.

...and...

VIVIAN
Don’t you usually do that while we’re rehearsing?

FRAWLEY
I’d love to see more of that Moss Hart wit on the show.

From “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip”

Tom (Jeter)
This is pure Strindberg

Matt (Albee)
August Strindberg?

Tom
This is straight out of “The Father”, scariest play I ever read.

And not for nothing (see what I did there) Matt Albee? Edward Albee anyone? It goes on, but that’s ok. So do I:

Many of his female characters have those 1970s sorority WASPish names:

Delores, Janice, Dana, Nancy, Maggie, Sloan, Margaret, Tamara, Rebecca, etc.

All of this is not a criticism. It just stuff I’ve noticed. Including how any character who identifies as a staunch Republican hates all things Republicans and loves all things Democrats.

Only in SorkinLand!

Jonathan Stark said...

Ken, I never thought about it until I read this but yeah, you never felt the writers were respected by Lucy, Ricky, or each other. I worked with (for) one of the meanest actors on the planet and the worse things were on the stage the more the writers rallied around each other. Maybe Aaron doesn't understand the collaborative process as he is a lone writer who assumes he knows how a group of talented people create comedy. Together. It's a process that you can't really explain - but whatever insults are flung about are only to get the room laughing and thus back in the space to do the job. Thanks for this and thanks for never forgetting your roots.

Kim T. Bené said...

My great aunt was Lucy’s best friend in school, moved to NYC with her and they were best friends their entire lives. She described Lucy as “One tough broad.”, a hard worker who always knew exactly what she wanted and “Not very funny at all… but often sarcastic.” I suspect Nicole’s portrayal of Lucy off-camera was pretty much on target. Desi seemed to get a lot of credit for his brains and quick thinking 💭 and overall my wife and I enjoyed it as a very un-literal and entertaining take on an interesting subject.

Melodie, Petaluma said...

I am not of the opinion that Sorkin is ALWAYS brilliant. I had to stop watching West Wing because nobody, NOBODY speaks in such clever speech patterns. John says something clever then Mary follows with something sharper and cleverer, then Sam says the MOST clever thing and... you get the picture ! Ugh ! Most peoples talk is as dull as dishwater and that is why there are highly paid comedy writers and writers in general. A sometimes admirer of Sorkin.

Mark said...

Ball and Arnaz were ALWAYS very complimentary of their writers. You can see a wonderful clip of the 1953 Emmy Awards on Youtube where they give lots of credit to the writers.

If Ball knew so much about good writing, then why were her later series so bad? Desi was actually the one who worked with the writers, and coaxed them into doing rewrites if the scripts weren’t up to snuff. Bob Schiller and Bob Weiskopf have stated this. And once Desi sold out to Lucy, Schiller, Weiskopf, Bob Carroll and Madelyn Pugh Davis all were gone from Desilu within two years. And The Lucy Show declined precipitously.

I stopped watching the film after 30 minutes. Maybe it’s a great movie, but there’s a lot of fiction in it. The I Love Lucy set, according to the movie, was miserable. And that doesn’t jibe with the accounts I’ve read of people crying when the Arnazes announced their divorce, because they loved working at that studio so much and feared for its future. When I saw the characters of Carroll and Davis sniping at each other, I was done. Everything I’ve read about them always said what a great relationship they had. Madelyn Davis was a true TV pioneer - not many women were writing for TV - let alone sitcoms. To portray her as someone who was always undercutting her partner and making nasty remarks about him did her a disservice.

D. McEwan said...

"Mitch said...
I enjoyed Studio 60. Was no laugh track
"

Nothing to laugh at. Actually, there was a laff track, but it was bored and unamused also, so it didn't laff.

Unknown said...

I didn't like it.

BGVA said...

I remember when Studio 60 premiered, people expected that to be the next big thing while 30 Rock would flop. Of course the exact opposite happened, and the latter (IMO) became one of the funniest shows of the 21st Century.

As for S60, I watched the first few episodes and silently cheered during Judd Hirsch's Howard Beale-esque rant. Then the show just became too insider-y for me with references only someone with TV experience would get...I say this as someone who worked in TV for several years. I wanted to get into The Newsroom but I can only take but so much of Aaron Sorkin's pretentious and snappy dialogue. I second the comment that said most people are not that quick on their toes.

I hadn't heard too many good reviews about this movie so I wasn't planning to watch anyway. But based on Ken's review, I couldn't help but think it follows the modern formula where men are incompetent idiots. I'm surprised Lucie would greenlight that part.

D. McEwan said...

"Unknown said...
I didn't like it."


I'm inspired by your courage, Unknown." I didn't like it either.

I did not mention my annoyance with the cinematography. The whole movie is dark. Not "dark" as in about murder and atrocities. "Dark" as in no one lit anything. Everything seemed backlit. Were they afraid that if they put a light on Nicole, people would notice that her face is dead?

Wendy M. Grossman said...

Matt: it's very common for people who've gone to Ivy League schools and/or top private schools to know G&S very well. Those schools are always doing G&S productions. So I find that plausible.

I can imagine few things I want to see less than Aaron Sorkin's take on Lucille Ball, especially when then played by the frozen one, Nicole Kidman.

wg

Wanda S said...

Saw it. Nicole was awful. Bardem was bad,but not as bad as her. Everybody else was fine. Now it's time to leave these people alone.Or will it just continue,as with the seemingly 1000s of Marilyn Monroe bio pics and psuedodocumentaries?

Spike de Beauvoir said...

In interviews the past few months promoting the film, Sorkin made a few comments that were jarring and didn't bode well for his take on Lucy and Desi. He said the bios and published tributes to the show were all "bad books," implying that they were just PR for upholding the show's reputation; also that Desi Arnaz resented Lucy's success because it eclipsed his own. The latter statement seems really suspect given what we know of Arnaz's adroit handling of the show's success. The shadow of Desi's alcoholic decline could have been explored as a factor in the dissolution of their marriage (it was really shocking to see how drunk he was while performing in later Lucy specials and the In-Laws). But in spite of their domestic turmoil he seemed to consistently boost and promote Lucy. And I think he doesn't get enough credit for his own comedic performance. It was clever to make him the hardass and buzzkill character as the show went.on to give Lucy and the Mertzes more impetus for their childish stunts.

Madelyn Pugh and Bob Carroll were treasured and respected by Lucy and her tributes to them seem sincere. Pugh and Carroll were such a lively team who worked together for over 50 years. In her memoir Davis mentions how they continued working together post-Lucy when she remarried and lived with an expanded family in a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Indiana. Carroll would swan in from LA or Europe and stay at a nearby motel so they could work. He was there so often that he was beloved by hotel staff and they announced each arrival with a "welcome Bob Carroll" greeting on the marquis (there's a picture of it in Pugh's book).

From the NYT obit for Carroll:

Often interviewed about the Golden Age of television, Mr. Carroll was forthright about the changes in the medium since then:

“I’m not too sure about these reality shows,” he told The Daily News of Los Angeles in 2001. “They take 16 contestants, 100 crew, tons of equipment, go to Borneo — and all we had to do was say, ‘Ethel, if Ricky finds out I bought this hat, he’ll kill me.’”

Don Kemp said...

"D. McEwan said...

I did not mention my annoyance with the cinematography. The whole movie is dark. Not "dark" as in about murder and atrocities. "Dark" as in no one lit anything. Everything seemed backlit. Were they afraid that if they put a light on Nicole, people would notice that her face is dead?"

The irony about the cinematography is Desi Arnaz went to great lengths to enlist Karl Freund to be I Love Lucy's cinematographer. He was "credited for the show's lustrous black and white cinematography, but more important, Freund designed the "flat lighting" system for shooting sitcoms that is still in use today. This system covers the set in light, thus eliminating shadows and allowing the use of three moving cameras without having to modify the lighting between shots" (Wikipedia).

More importantly though, Lucy was already 40 when the show first aired and "traditional lighting" did her no favors in terms of maintaining a youthful appearance. Yet another failure, whatever the reason, in achieving any kind of technical historical accuracy for this film.

Greg Ehrbar said...

This comment is not about the film itself but about the marketing. Coincidentally, West Side Story is a concurrent ambitious throwback, also with a prestigious director and creative staff.

An effective marketing campaign requires sharp insight and tight coordination of all the elements. Not just the ads and trailers, but the talking points among those who go out on the press junkets. Don't think for a minute that what they say is not in some way discussed with everyone who speaks in public about these multi-million-dollar projects. They want them to succeed.

However, they are still locked in the marketing matrix of the eighties and nineties, as is a lot of corporate thinking while the world is changing. You can't miss it, the world is changing. How people perceive and make purchase decisions is changing. How people evaluate things is changing.

The mistake I see in both Being the Ricardos and West Side Story is not necessarily with the movies themselves but in the negative approach to the communications decided upon to sell them to the audiences they think are going to buy tickets, stream them, or, most importantly spread word of mouth on the internet. The world is changing.

I have mentioned before how Jon Favreau said his version of The Jungle Book was not intended to REPLACE or be BETTER THAN Walt Disney's original. He talked about how he studied not only the 1967 film but research what he called the "big five" (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi) and studied the story notes to get a handle on the way they told stories. He did not slam the creative people nor the earlier film, yet he did create one that was more "for a new audience" that was a huge hit. This was "very smart, Maria, very smart."

Positive marketing, celebrating the originals and what they did for the world, such as they are, even with their shortcomings, welcomes rather than antagonizes. It makes one eager to see the film rather than afraid to make a comparison. Why compare West Side Storys or whether Kidman is a good Lucy, or whatever? But when you immediately create bullet points about the negatives, that is what you are going to get back in sensitive times. It is not rocket science.

It's also smart because it's going to reach the "relevant, younger audience" that the studios want so much. They don't seem to realize how accessible the originals are for some reason. West Side Story was everywhere this year. I Love Lucy is always easy to find in one way or another. And there are great books about Lucy and Desi--use those books as leverage, use all the material as leverage. It's an asset, not a liability if you put it in the proper perspective.

Lucille Ball's biggest competition in the sixties and seventies was herself, in reruns every day. Yet she was smart enough to compliment her writers, credit Desi, and generally speak well of I Love Lucy, not to tell the fans who fell in love with the show that made her a TV legend that they should dump it and by the way, they are probably kind of lacking if they still like it. Who would want to watch her later if she implied that?

Positives, celebration, uplifts. The negatives are clearly not working, or there would be more nice things (not all of course) being said in general.

I have experienced both kind of campaigns. The ones that got the message were wildly successful and the product went through the roof. Some bad campaigns hurt good products and damage control and/or rebranding was necessary.

Wendy M. Grossman said...

Ken wrote: >>I guess I just felt a little hurt by the film. As a proud comedy writer I felt lumped in with the writers who were portrayed as hack footstools. Is that how Aaron Sorkin sees me? It stings a little because I think the absolute world of him. >>

In other words, Sorkin, one of a handful of writers with his level of success, was "punching down" - mocking people less successful and less richly rewarded than he is. I'm not surprised it stings.

wg

Edward said...

“Hollywood Byline” January 14, 1950
Lucille Ball 50 minute unedited radio interview by Lloyd Sloane (Hollywood Citizen News), Bob Thomas (A.P.), Darr Smith (Los Angeles Daily News) and Frances Moor (Photoplay) — shortly after her TV debut with Desi on the Ed Wynn show.

https://otrrlibrary.org/OTRRLib/Library%20Files/H%20Series/Hollywood%20Byline/Hollywood%20Byline%2050-01-14%20(04)%20Guest%20-%20Lucille%20Ball.mp3

girldriverusa said...

Great points in this blog post. I have been thinking about the idea of being cast as Lucy. It strikes me as a one offer I would turn down. There are certain people who are so vivid that it is nigh impossible to replicate them. Turn the offer down! We don't know the offstage Lucy and we're not really interested in her. We love the Lucy we saw on TV. That's it. And I think also, as much as I admire Kidman as an actor, she seems miscast. But then, as I mentioned, whomever would be cast would be miscast.

brian t said...

If you know Sorkin's reps, how about asking him to be on the podcast to explain all this?