COMM 380:  Media Criticism

   

Churchill’s famous quote, “History is written by the victors” can be aptly applied to the story told in the film King Richard. The film tells the story of the famous tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams but focuses centrally on their father, Richard, his plan for success for his daughters as tennis stars, and his own stubborn resolve to see his plan carried out as he intends. But the benefit of hindsight influences how the story is presented and any sense of doubt that the script tries to lay onto the audience about Richard’s drive and his plan is undermined. The result leaves the viewer unsure how to feel about Richard, as every negative aspect of his character and his plan for his daughters is followed by the self-imposed question, “Well, if his plan ultimately succeeded, was he wrong?” This is coupled with the film’s indecisiveness on how Richard should be presented, either as a hero infallible in his methods and thinking, or as a flawed, relatable human and father trying to do what is best for his daughters and making errors along the way. The result is that the film King Richard fails to present its title character in a consistent perspective, and it leaves audiences unsure of how to feel about Richard by the end.

 

Richard’s Image: Flawed Human or Unerring Hero      

To be clear, there are some films that can leave an audience unsure about a character, but that is usually done intentionally, hoping to send the audience on their way after the film with something to ponder. This is not the case with King Richard, where instead it seems like there is a lack of commitment on how to present the character of Richard Williams. Additionally, with his daughters Venus and Serena as executive producers for the film, it is plausible there was hesitancy to paint Richard’s image too negatively. One glaring example of this is when Richard’s wife, Brandi, confronts him about his many faults. She brings up flaws of Richard the audience was unaware of before this point, such as fathering children with other women. But this stunning revelation and others are quickly spoken and moved on from, focusing instead on Brandi’s point about Richard’s blind stubbornness. This is just one example from the film where there is a hint of a larger story behind Richard and who he is, but it is one the audience does not get to see.

​

Glossing over such negative aspects of Richard’s character is done in a way that the weight of his flaws never fully lands with the audience. As Odie Henderson (2021) puts it in his review of the film for Rogerebert.com, “Richard Williams does some infuriating things here, but the movie never once indicates he was ever wrong.” There is always a baked-in likability to Richard, which is helped along by the natural humor and charisma of Will Smith who plays him. Smith’s dramatic acting is one part of this film that cannot be easily criticized, and when it is time to display a weak moment for Richard, Smith leaves the audience feeling the emotion of the moment. But just the same, for the moments where Richard is being his ornery, obstinate self, the audience cannot help but smile at the numerous quips and cheeky comments, and instantly forgive Richard for his ways. This only subverts those earlier moments of weakness shown by Richard, and always there helping the audience along that path of forgiveness and nodding along to his objectively improbable predictions is the audience’s omnipresent knowledge of Venus and Serena’s ultimate success.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story Familiarity Creates Bias

 

Scriptwriter and audience knowledge of a historical story is no new problem with how films’ stories are laid out. Many historical films (sports films especially) tell a story the audience is often familiar with in some manner. For writers, common pitfalls include painting characters in a better light or manipulating details of past events to fit a movie narrative, (Schultz, 2014). It is easy to spot how the drama and tension of King Richard are undercut by self-aware story beats. As an example. the opening sequence of the film itself is Richard presenting his objectively farfetched plan to rich, white tennis players at a tennis club, seeking to garner supporters. While the scene is essential for setting the tone for the film, it cannot be ignored how it carries an air of arrogance, as if to say, “how did they not realize they were missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime.” With some simple self-reflection, one can at the minimum consider how they too would not likely accept that deal, and yet, the film makes anyone who seems to not trust Richard or his plan as nonsensical or worse, racist and bigoted. Derek Smith (2021) writing for Slant magazine states, “You could set your clock by the scenes in which people who, with good reason, stood up to Richard, or told him that he was going about things the wrong way, are mocked.”

​

The ending of the film is another instance where the story seems to veer away from telling a story about a complicated character and instead focuses on connecting the dots for the audience to their established foreknowledge. The story shifts in a strange way to be more about Venus than Richard, and Richard feels more like the side character in his own story, similar to any other dad in a sports film who is watching their child strive to win. After Venus’s loss, both Richard and Brandi come to comfort Venus, and Richard pronounces his pride in his daughter for going the distance in a cliché “hold your head high” speech. But this speech, nor the scene following where a crowd cheers for Venus despite her loss, does not seem to wrap up the film showing us what the title character, Richard, learned or overcame through his journey. Following that final scene, the audience reads an epilogue rather than watching it unfold. The text scrawl only furthers the agenda of painting Richard as some prophetic hero, lauding how it was his coaching and plan that resulted in the success, with no mention of a lesson learned or the errors of his plan and its implementation along the way.

​

A Missed Opportunity        

​

What is most disappointing about the conflicting representations of Richard is that the potential was there for a biopic that gave us a character audiences could make up their own minds about. With the filmmaking of Richard the title character, it would have made for a better film if the story had centered more on him, highlighting both positive and negative aspects of him without inherent bias or the obvious calls forward to the success of his daughters. What is more Richard’s story could have been an encouraging tale about a black father who, despite his own weaknesses and flaws, achieved something amazing and gave his daughters amazing opportunities. The film itself acknowledges that Richard’s other daughters were gifted and brilliant in their own rights, and it almost detracts from Richard’s accomplishments to focus merely on what Venus and Serena achieved. The impact of stories about fathers and their efforts to raise their children are continuously adapting and growing in today’s cultural climate (Gotto, Oechsle, & Müller, 2012) and Richard’s story of parenthood is one worth telling without the lens of future success tinting his actions in a positive light.

​

The film is not without some genuine seeming moments for Richard where a believable anecdote is displayed, such as a scene where he makes his daughters sit down to watch Cinderella in order to teach them a lesson about humility. Such a scene lacked preachiness or contrived circumstances, and it felt like an unpolished look into how Richard was as a father and how he wanted his daughters to grow up. More scenes like this, or crafting scenes to feel more genuine, would have left the audience free to analyze Richard for themselves. What is more, the power of scenes and their message is strengthened when they feel natural and unedited, not forced. With multiple scenes in King Richard addressing the important issues of racism and discrimination, the impact on audiences can sometimes be reduced if the film tries to force the topic into a moment when it wasn’t necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

​

King Richard is far from a flop and is worth watching to see the story behind Venus, Serena, and their father and what they were able to accomplish. However, a viewer should be prepared for the sympathetic rebranding of Richard and his personality and do their best to differentiate any meddling from the filmmakers in how Richard’s actions and words are received. Additionally, audiences would do well to keep in mind the stark reality that the characters lived in, without the reassurances they as the audience have knowing how Venus and Serena’s futures turn out. For this film to have had this glaring flaw is truly a shame, as the film had a great story to tell, fantastic acting, numerous moral lessons, and a complex character to dissect.

 

 

Reference Page

​

Gotto, L., Oechsle, M., & Müller, U. (2012). Dad’s diversity: father figures in Hollywood films since the 1980s. In S. Hess (Ed.), Fatherhood in Late Modernity: Cultural Images, Social Practices, Structural Frames (1st ed., pp. 113–126). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvddzvgg.8

 

Green, R. M. (Director). (November 19, 2021). King Richard [Film]. Westbrook Studios.

 

Henderson, O. (2021). King Richard movie review & film summary. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/king-richard-movie-review-2021

 

Schultz, J. (2014). The Truth about Historical Sport Films. Journal of Sport History, 41(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.5406/jsporthistory.41.1.29

 

Smith, D. (2021) King Richard review: a transparent attempt at image rehabilitation. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/king-richard-review-will-smith/