Nicole Kidman crushes her haters with amazing ‘Being the Ricardos’ turn
NY Post By Johnny Oleksinski
December 7, 2021
Let’s put an end to all of the kvetching and moronic social media backlash about Nicole Kidman being cast as Lucille Ball in the new movie “Being the Ricardos.” You were wrong, guys. The actress is sensational in the part — and is doing the finest work of her career.
She nails the off-camera Lucy in her prime: the acidic tongue, her dream of a normal suburban home life, disdain for mediocrity and especially the unparalleled power she wielded as a woman in showbiz in the 1950s. Cross Lucy at your peril.
And it’s that trait — not a prosthetic nose or a vocal impression — that’s most transformative about the sterling performance. When have we ever been afraid of and intimidated by Nicole Kidman?
Ball, a fascinating subject, is also ideal fodder for writer-director Aaron Sorkin, whose movies often delve into the minds of complex geniuses such as Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and underground poker figure Molly Bloom.
Unlike those colder characters, we really do love Lucy, and there is a warmth to “Being the Ricardos” that most of his previous biopics lack.
We’re gripped by her offscreen marital and career struggles. It’s deeply relatable when she questions her husband Desi Arnaz’s (Javier Bardem) fidelity and infuriating when a studio exec tells her she’s not hot enough for the screen and suggests radio instead. Ball, not one to be kept down, then turns that desperate voice gig into the most iconic sitcom of all time.
Sorkin’s also got some ‘splaining to do. His writing deftly and powerfully expresses how much of a comedy master Ball was behind the scenes.
His script imagines how she would, say, single-handedly solve the famous stomping-in-the-grapes bit that isn’t clicking in the writers’ room. Everyone (Alia Shawkat plays one writer) bickers around her, Ball goes into a trance and calmly says, “I drop an earring.”
The film is not a traditional biopic in the sense of us seeing her as a little girl or witnessing her early days on Broadway. We don’t. Aside from a few flashbacks, it’s set during one tricky week in 1952 as Ball’s life and career dangled over the side of a cliff.
She was about to be outed as a Communist Party member by a major newspaper (she said it was a dumb choice she made almost 20 years earlier to satisfy her grandfather) and a magazine claimed her husband, business partner and co-star, Arnaz (Bardem), was cheating on her.
That’s a disaster for America’s sweetheart and the face of the country’s most popular TV show. She knows that her livelihood and reputation are riding on Friday’s episode. It can’t be merely good — it must be perfect.
Lest you think “Ricardos” is all drama and no fun, don’t worry — the movie also succeeds as a terrific comedy.
Take this exchange between Lucy and William Frawley (J.K. Simmons), the actor who played Fred Mertz, when he wants to take her out for a morning cocktail.
“It’s 10 a.m.!” she says.
“Well, it’s always 10:15 somewhere,” replies Simmons, dry as the Sahara. Sorkin has written a million zingers just as good.
As he tells it, Ball surrounded herself with collaborators as witty as herself: Arnaz, Frawley and Vivian Vance (Nina Arianda), a sharp former dancer who is furious that she’s playing Ethel Mertz, a woman married to a man who could be her grandpa. Sorkin’s quartet needed to click, or else his film wouldn’t work. They do, and then some.
I’ve always had my reservations about Sorkin as a director. His scripts tend to be better than his final products. Those druthers started to fade with the moving “Trial of the Chicago 7” and are now completely gone after “Being the Ricardos.” His vision of ‘50s TV production is spot-on — nostalgic, quick, boozy, but without the glamour of Hollywood movie-making.
After its theatrical run, “Being the Ricardos” will land on Amazon Prime Video Dec. 21. It’s the best way to have a Ball for the holidays.