Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Three things Aaron Sorkin doesn’t understand: Comedy, sitcoms and women

Aaron Sorkin loves watching talented people do what they do best. In his latest film, the biopic “Being the Ricardos,” Lucille Ball (Nicole Kidman) displays what her husband, Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem), calls her “kinesthetic gift.” She envisions the now-famous scene from “I Love Lucy” in which her character, Lucy Ricardo, travels to Italy and stomps in a barrel of wine grapes. Ball realizes that her character needs to lose an earring in the vat for maximum comic impact. This epiphany happens in slow-motion, tense music underneath, accompanied by the abrasive roar of the studio audience laughter. The original scene is fondly remembered because it’s funny. But there’s no trace of humor in this sequence, no lightness of touch. Sorkin’s interest lies in the competence, not the comedy.

Of all the writer-directors to take on the story of Lucille Ball, Aaron Sorkin is both a sensible and a terrible choice. His penchant for professional powerhouse women with messy personal lives means he has been in training to make this movie for decades. (Think of Jessica Chastain’s tough cookie title character in “Molly’s Game” or any woman — younger than 50, that is — in “The Newsroom.”) Simultaneously, his fetishization of this archetype often veers into exploitative territory, as though engineered by that guy friend who shrugs and says, “What can I say? I like ‘em crazy!”

“Being the Ricardos” is not all bad: Kidman and Bardem share legitimate chemistry, while the supporting actors pull off their rapid-fire dialogue even when the script goes sideways. The jaded, sophisticated language, the glamorous Los Angeles architecture, the dramatic lighting — it’s all very film noir. (This might be an homage to Ball’s early roles in films such as “Lured” and “The Dark Corner,” or maybe Sorkin just digs noirs, as do I.) And I’ll admit, despite myself, that most of the emotional beats landed, even the one involving everyone’s favorite deus ex machina … J. Edgar Hoover? Still, there’s something amiss in “Being the Ricardos,” something beyond the familiar critiques of Sorkin: the too-clever-by-halfness, the masculine posturing, the preachy monologuing.

It’s that Sorkin isn’t a fan — of Lucy, of sitcoms, of any comedy that isn’t his own.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43December 21, 2021 7:00 PM

Because the sitcom has domesticity in its DNA — both in the stories it tells and its typical reception context — it is a more female-coded television genre than, say, the western, the game show or the legal procedural. In my forthcoming book, “Their Own Best Creations: Women Writers in Postwar Television,” I look at the female writers and performers such as Ball, Madelyn Pugh (“I Love Lucy”), Gertrude Berg (“The Goldbergs”) and Peg Lynch (“Ethel and Albert”) who adapted the sitcom from radio to television. In this translation, they used the form of the situation comedy to argue for their own professional autonomy and to communicate their value to a growing media industry at midcentury.

As television was finding its voice and its viewership, these writers and actresses asked: Who better to tell stories for and about families than America’s hard-working wives and mothers? With every joke about a girl playing dumb or a housewife seeking an outlet for her creative energies, Pugh and Ball wove themselves, as professional women, into the future of American television. The situation of their shows focused on the daily challenges of running a home and caring for a family, but the comedy showcased for audiences and executives alike what a female perspective had to offer television: relatability, hilarity and heart.

Still, Sorkin told the Hollywood Reporter, “ ‘I Love Lucy’ is not a show that if we took a fresh look at today, we’d think was funny, I don’t think.” It’s a sentiment that echoes the arc of his career, which has found him turning away from — and sometimes scoffing at — the form of the sitcom and the kinds of humor it emphasizes. The New Yorker’s Ian Crouch has described Sorkin’s television debut, “Sports Night,” which ran from 1998 to 2000 on ABC, and which phased out its laugh track by its second season, as a “quasi-sitcom.” With “The West Wing,” in which he gave Allison Janney a pocket full of zingers to sprinkle down the hallways of the White House, he began to show that while he loves the comedy in politics, he has never cared about the politics of comedy. That came through most clearly on “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” his short-lived, defiantly unfunny drama about a late-night comedy-variety program, the failure of which was cast into relief by the triumph of Tina Fey’s actual sitcom, “30 Rock.” (Sorkin made a delightfully self-effacing cameo in the fifth season of “30 Rock,” in which he walks and talks with Fey’s Liz Lemon, warns her to shut up about “Studio 60” and whines that no one pokes him on Facebook. “I’m cool!” he insists.)

For Sorkin, comedy should be fast, sleek and cool. It should taste like a shot of whiskey and feel like getting swiped by an Italian sports car. Mass-market comedy, meanwhile, is an accommodating, effeminate way to assert your worldview. The smart, aspirational heroes of the Sorkin-verse can be witty, acerbic or ironic, but they are never zany or out of control. Even Janney’s wit serves mostly to demonstrate that she can hold her own in the boys’ club of the executive branch. No wonder Sorkin looks down on — or, at least, is baffled by — the broad, slyly feminist slapstick of “I Love Lucy.” And no surprise that he’d rather picture Ball as a worldly femme fatale, droll but not goofy, who “kills” every week (comically speaking) and whose only weakness is, as the noir demands, a man.

by Anonymousreply 1December 14, 2021 6:50 PM

The greatest compliment Sorkin can pay to Ball is that she was better than the material she nurtured, micromanaged and bled for. This explains, in part, the casting of a pensive, porcelain-skinned Kidman and a sexy, charismatic Bardem, neither of whom make for plausible sitcom actors. The fans complaining that Ball should have been played by of Debra Messing of “Will & Grace” miss the point: Messing is too gifted a sitcom actor for a movie that doesn’t respect the form.

In Sorkin’s version of events, Ball’s commitment to sitcom craft indicates that she deserved a career as a “serious actress,” acting in movies written by, presumably, men like him. This is the only conclusion one can draw from his psychologizing account of her career, which turns even her lightest on-screen gestures into plodding signifiers of anger and grief. Ball’s agonizing over the placement of flowers in a dinner party scene, a bit of prop work the character calls the “building blocks of drama,” for example, must be a reaction to her husband’s infidelity. It couldn’t possibly speak to the pursuit of excellence, not on something like “I Love Lucy,” which he refuses to acknowledge as remarkable for its own sake or in its own terms.

Even worse, Sorkin makes his characters do the hit jobs on themselves. “We’re not doing ‘Uncle Vanya,’ ” William “Fred Mertz” Frawley (J.K. Simmons) grumbles, referencing Ball’s perfectionism on set. And in response to a session of bickering between actors at the weekly table read, writer Pugh (Alia Shawkat) turns to her partner, Bob Carroll (Jake Lacy), and quips: “That, right there, was funnier than anything you’ve written so far this year.”

I’ll admit I laughed, but it was at the audacity of the moment: Did Sorkin just brag about his own dialogue in the dialogue? By using Pugh as a mouthpiece, he asserts his own writerly dominance over the team at “I Love Lucy,” certainly over Carroll, even over Pugh herself. Throughout the film, she is marked as the smartest guy (gal) in the room, but I question whether she would appreciate being deemed the nicest house on a crummy block. As with the film’s treatment of Ball, the implication is that she is too good for the feminized media forms she helped create.

“Being the Ricardos” suffers from the heavy hand of Sorkin-the-showrunner. I hear him in Pugh’s lecture on how the show “infantilizes” Ball to garner cheap laughs; in Frawley’s melancholy monologue about how a man dies a little the first time he’s called old; even in Ball’s line to Pugh, “I care about what’s funny. I don’t see myself caring about a woman’s perspective from a new generation. I care about you.” If ever an articulation of Sorkin’s feminism was needed, this is it: He dotes on the strong, messy women he writes, even giving them snappy lines to say, but he doesn’t care enough about their perspectives to stop speaking for and through them.

Aaron Sorkin might not love Lucy, but I do.

By co-opting Ball’s biography this way, Sorkin bolsters his own brand of slick, principled quality drama, foregrounding his own authorial persona at the expense of his subject. In the process, he reveals where his true allegiances lie: with himself.

by Anonymousreply 2December 14, 2021 6:51 PM

[quote]It’s that Sorkin isn’t a fan — of Lucy, of sitcoms, of any comedy that isn’t his own.

Ouch.

by Anonymousreply 3December 14, 2021 6:54 PM

Kidman has such big feet she’d stomp on the grapes for five seconds and the skit is over.

by Anonymousreply 4December 14, 2021 6:57 PM

That review was certainly a word salad of nothing.

by Anonymousreply 5December 14, 2021 6:58 PM

I thought it was thoughtful and well written, Aaron ... I mean, Anonymous /r5

by Anonymousreply 6December 14, 2021 7:06 PM

Awwww, R5, do you need the Parade magazine version?

by Anonymousreply 7December 14, 2021 7:07 PM

I have one thing to say - her weird face was too distracting.

by Anonymousreply 8December 14, 2021 7:09 PM

man Sorkin sounds like a tool, he really did compliment his own dialogue

by Anonymousreply 9December 14, 2021 7:55 PM

Ironic that the reviewer is himself trying hard to be slick and clever.

by Anonymousreply 10December 14, 2021 8:07 PM

Who wrote the review?

by Anonymousreply 11December 14, 2021 8:12 PM

Maybe Sorkin should have looked at his own shitty research. In a scene that takes place around 1942, a poster of Stromboli (1949) adorns the wall. And throughout the movie, references to Judy Holliday being a star who gets preferential casting as far back as the late 30's or early 40's abound. Holliday was not a household name in Hollywood until Adam's Rib (also '49).

Doesn't anyone look at this stuff before they film it?

by Anonymousreply 12December 14, 2021 8:12 PM

I like Aaron Sorkin's writing. I even enjoyed Sunset Strip and The Newsroom. And this I can watch on Amazon Prime beginning December 21. After the miseria of "the moviegoing experience" to see WSS last weekend and another movie not long before, I hope to never go to a theatre again.

by Anonymousreply 13December 14, 2021 8:14 PM

If you're gonna cast 54 year-old Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball, it should be about her career between CRITIC'S CHOICE and YOURS, MINE, AND OURS. Sorkin fucked this up.

by Anonymousreply 14December 14, 2021 8:20 PM

r11 Annie Berke

by Anonymousreply 15December 14, 2021 8:47 PM

What happened when you saw WSS, r13?

by Anonymousreply 16December 14, 2021 11:03 PM

I'm looking forward to hate-watching this now ...

by Anonymousreply 17December 15, 2021 11:37 AM

Am I the only person who thinks this is just an odd subject for a major release? Who would go to a movie theatre to see this?

by Anonymousreply 18December 15, 2021 12:31 PM

r18 Just stop it.

by Anonymousreply 19December 15, 2021 12:36 PM

R19 Just stop what? Asking valid questions? A major release about Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez? in 2021? By Aaron Sorkin and starring Nicole Kidman as Lucy? This is HBO max--at best.

by Anonymousreply 20December 15, 2021 12:49 PM

Not funny today? Funny I spent the entirety of last Sunday marathononing ILL and laughing my ass off. And my fave shows are Seinfeld/Its always Sunny/30 rock etc. Sometimes comedy doesnt have to be super high brow as long as you have comedic genius. I did realize unlike most sitcoms, it got better in the latter years. Lucy trying to get in to Ricky's shows was funny for a couple of seasons but then it got old and honestly, pretty sexist. The last few seasons they actually stopped writing it so much and she was less the butt of the jokes.

Anyway the trailer looked pretty meh so this really isnt going to drive me to watch this. I bet the best thing about it is Bardem, anyway.

by Anonymousreply 21December 15, 2021 12:50 PM

The writer makes a good point—that Sorkin’s film assumes I Love Lucy sucked quality-wise and tries to portray why Lucille Ball was great in spite of that instead of understanding why I Love Lucy was a brilliant comedy, which means he doesn’t understand Lucille Ball enough to write a film about her—but this article reads like an academic paper that would be handed out for a class on film and tv theory, not a piece in a major newspaper.

by Anonymousreply 22December 15, 2021 12:56 PM

R21 I COMPLETELY agree. The show still holds up. In fact, I even like the other Lucy shows. I actually started with "The Lucy Show" then worked my way back because I was kid and wasn't feeling black and white except for the Stooges. I love that old shit. Watched it every morning while getting dressed for school.

It just seems this movie should've been released 20+ years ago. When Sorkin was being worshipped like the Moshiach. I'm still watching it--just not at a theater.

by Anonymousreply 23December 15, 2021 1:02 PM

[quote] And I’ll admit, despite myself, that most of the emotional beats landed, even the one involving everyone’s favorite deus ex machina … J. Edgar Hoover?

Of course, by which she means "despite my own obvious predilection to hate Sorkin"

by Anonymousreply 24December 15, 2021 1:04 PM

Lol. Aaron Sorkin dreams of even coming close to a tiny percentage of I Love Lucy’s gigantic viewership numbers. At its peak, ILL was pulling in 75% of American TV owning households. The show continues to pull in huge numbers in reruns and syndication. Bigger than any of Sorkin’s shows. That’s gotta sting. His “prestige” shows on HBO don’t even come close to a middle of the night running of ILL on TV Land, or wherever. Lucille Ball was and remains a huge star that had a massive impact on Hollywood. Sorkin barely scratches the surface.

by Anonymousreply 25December 15, 2021 1:12 PM

Aaron Sorkin is a hack.

by Anonymousreply 26December 15, 2021 1:16 PM

I Love Lucky!

I Hate Aaron Sorkin!

by Anonymousreply 27December 15, 2021 1:17 PM

Sorkin's writing strength is also his greatest weakness: he has a very strong and distinctive voice.

When you're writing dialogue for different characters with different backgrounds and especially in period pieces, that's not necessarily a good thing. Everybody shouldn't sound like a 60-year-old male writer in the 21st century.

Vivian Vance commenting "I was gonna say!" in the trailer made me cringe.

by Anonymousreply 28December 15, 2021 1:18 PM

I feel like this could have been a more compelling film in several ways.

by Anonymousreply 29December 15, 2021 1:37 PM

Why So many remakes of old shit. Hollywood will never learn from West side story.

by Anonymousreply 30December 15, 2021 1:46 PM

[quote]Vivian Vance commenting "I was gonna say!" in the trailer made me cringe.

Ever since reading an interview where he said that writes much of his dialogue from his stream of consciousness while driving, I can't help but imagine his talking to himself while sitting in traffic on the 101 when I hear lines like that.

by Anonymousreply 31December 15, 2021 2:32 PM

It sounds like the script is the biggest problem

by Anonymousreply 32December 16, 2021 12:52 AM

To add to r32 (and I am officially seeing the movie today or tomorrow, so I will modify my opinion as-needed), I think another problem is that a film like this has to justify its existence somehow, by either telling us the same "I Love Lucy" in a radically different way, or by telling us a new story altogether. From everything I've read, "Being the Ricardos" doesn't do either of those things adequately enough.

by Anonymousreply 33December 16, 2021 9:44 AM

I thought the review made some good points. Sorkin has his talents but he really doesn't understand comedy for the most part. I think the last thing that scrappy Lucy Ball would've wanted would have been seen as some sort of tragic figure. Sorkin is one of those writers who think that condescension is the same as compassion and understanding.

by Anonymousreply 34December 16, 2021 9:58 AM

Edit: Would have been to be seen as some sort of tragic figure

by Anonymousreply 35December 16, 2021 10:00 AM

r33 should read: a film like this has to justify its existence somehow, by either telling us the same "I Love Lucy" STORY in a radically different way

by Anonymousreply 36December 16, 2021 2:48 PM

I had low expectations for this, but holy jeez is it AWFUL. About the only successful thing is Nicole's voice playing Lucille playing Lucy Ricardo. If you close your eyes you can appreciate it as an OK imitation. But you could ask me who Bardem was supposed to be and I wouldn't have guessed Desi Arnaz in my first 50 guesses.

The script is abysmal, preachy, stilted, fake — all the trademarks of the worst of Sorkin.

by Anonymousreply 37December 21, 2021 3:26 AM

Movie is an Amazon Prime movie.

It's getting a small theater release primarily to create some buzz and qualify for Oscar nominations.

by Anonymousreply 38December 21, 2021 4:13 AM

[quote]Sorkin has his talents but he really doesn't understand comedy for the most part.

This would explain why his original Lucy was Cate Blanchett. She doesn't, either.

Sorkin understands and can easily do wit, but his approach to an entire, crafted comedy is a bit like mine to Bach - I listen to it intently focussing on how it works, instead of grasping instinctively how the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. He needs Joe Keenan to sit down and explain it to him, rather than to be investigating it in his work.

by Anonymousreply 39December 21, 2021 5:16 AM

Does anyone want to chime in on Nina Ariandas performance as Vivian? Was it any good?

by Anonymousreply 40December 21, 2021 5:19 AM

r40 I thought she was decent, but the character was written terribly. Zero development or depth, so not a lot to work with.

I started an official thread:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41December 21, 2021 4:20 PM

R35 The movie doesn't show Lucy as a tragic figure. I think the intention is to try to show her as a powerful woman. But Kidman's performance is so one-note and there are so many anachronistic touches the effect is ultimately lost. As usual, Sorkin takes a real life story and pumps it up with his own brand of political correctness. The alleged quality of the performances and the script are nothing but hype.

by Anonymousreply 42December 21, 2021 4:25 PM

Kidman was an awful choice, as she so often is.

by Anonymousreply 43December 21, 2021 7:00 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!