MovieChat Forums > Being the Ricardos (2021) Discussion > Why is it so ugly to look at?

Why is it so ugly to look at?

posted 2 years ago by [deleted]
13 replies | jump to latest

One of the worst looking movies I've ever seen for a professional production. Lighting and cinematography were so murky and dark, it was difficult to make out people's faces--not for a scene here and there but throughout the movie. There was the usual manipulation with the color grading, muting colors to suggest the story takes place almost 70 years ago. Jeff Chenoweth is nominally responsible as cinematographer, but I will give full credit to Aaron Sorkin for this nauseating visual experience. Having worked with David Fincher before, Sorkin appears as if he were trying to mimic Fincher's famously dark camerawork and color scheme but ends up botching the effort. The movie was lousy too.

[–] Mustang (5258) 2 years ago

I only lasted about 5-10 mins but I agree. It looked terrible and the faux interviews they spliced in our me off. Factor in Kidman and it's a total loss.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I actually watched it for Nicole! I've seen her in a ton of bad movies but she usually finds some way to redeem herself and prove she's a true thespian. She does fine. But that murky cinematography and terrible screenplay from the usually clever Sorkin made watching "Being the Ricardos" a bit like watching the Hindenberg go up in flames. "Oh, the humanity!"

[–] bistritapcv (1670) 2 years ago

So that wasn't really Jess Oppenheimer? I know he died in 1988 but it could have been old footage.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

That was actor John Rubinstein playing the older Jess Oppenheimer in the "documentary" segments, taking over the role from Tony Hale who I felt was badly used in "Being the Ricardos".

[–] CreosoteXmp37 (291) 2 years ago

I liked the movie overall, but the first 5 or 6 minutes had me irritated/bored.

The "cold open" of from the neck down Lucy and Desi arguing, the faux interviews alluding to the investigation, which I thought was a complete and unnecessary distraction, or a lame McGuffin.

After that first few minutes, I began to take more interest.

[–] liscarkat (16907) 2 years ago

"There was the usual manipulation with the color grading to mute colors and make them look of the period"

Color movies "of the period" actually had more vibrant, saturated colors than those of today. The colors in them were not muted.

[–] Mustang (5258) 2 years ago

Agreed. Older colour films usually have an other worldly quality to them. So much more vibrant than reality.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Right you are. I've seen enough classic MGM musicals from the 50s to know what the aesthetic was of that era. I think what I meant to say was muting the color was used on "Being the Ricardos" as a visual trope to suggest the story takes place in the past.

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

If BTR wanted to make the colors match the period, why would they mute them?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I haven't seen the film yet but what you describe reminds me very much of the cinematography in David Fincher's "Mank" which I didn't like at all because it was too dark and unappealing, and you couldn't make out the actors' faces.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You're not making me want to watch "Mank"

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16420) 2 years ago

I hate it when the color palette is dark for no reason.

[–] liscarkat (16907) 2 years ago

I'm old enough to remember the 1950s, and it's true--there was only dim lighting, even outside from the sun, and there weren't bright colors like there are today. Overall things were slightly brownish. It's only in the last two or three decades that the full spectrum of colors has evolved.