On the Basis of Sex
04/03/19 Filed in: Cinema
Once again we have a film that follows actual events, this time the early life of the indomitable Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who takes on the patriarchal legal system in America after being rebuffed when she tries to enter the legal profession, despite excelling in her studies at both Harvard and Columbia.
Felicity Jones gives us a very credible Ginsburg while Armie Hammer plays her supportive husband, Marty. They are both at Harvard and this amplifies the unfairness of the system, since while Marty is good, Ruth, by his own definition, is head and shoulders above him in ability. He immediately secures a position after his studies, while Ruth, after many failed interviews, takes a post as professor at a Law School. Her young students are treated to an erudite exposition regarding legal bias against women, and this being Vietnam era America, she isn't short of enthusiastic support for her cause.
The chance to change things comes when her now tax lawyer husband throws her a brief that, somewhat ironically, involves clear bias in the tax legislation against a man. She decides to use this as a platform to argue against the assumptions in law that certain jobs are the prerogative of either men or women, but not both. It's a chancy endeavour, given the wealth of legal precedent that she's seeking to overturn. But such precedent was made in different times, and America is now a vastly different country in respect to female employment and the expectations of women.
It's a tough battle, not helped by Ruth's lack of courtroom experience. So, after a less than impressive rehearsal in front of three friends, acting as the justices, she agrees that Marty should share the representation in court, with Marty launching the arguments because of his greater experience. But Marty gets bogged down by the three justices, at least two of whom clearly finding the case somewhat of a distraction. Ruth tries to rescue the situation, but her nerves and lack of courtroom experience prove to be a major disadvantage. With only minutes remaining of their allotted representation time, Marty rises to help out, but Ruth stops him with a firm grip on his arm. She takes the stand once more, and picking up on an ill-chosen remark from the lawyer for the Tax Authorities, launches into an impassioned and highly informed recap of the history of women's legal rights.
And as they say, the rest is history.
There is, of course, more to this film than the story of a court case. There is a family back home, with all that entails. And there is the early scare when Marty is diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, causing Ruth to take his lectures as well as her own. A truly remarkable woman who is still making her mark in the Supreme Court.
It's a tough battle, not helped by Ruth's lack of courtroom experience. So, after a less than impressive rehearsal in front of three friends, acting as the justices, she agrees that Marty should share the representation in court, with Marty launching the arguments because of his greater experience. But Marty gets bogged down by the three justices, at least two of whom clearly finding the case somewhat of a distraction. Ruth tries to rescue the situation, but her nerves and lack of courtroom experience prove to be a major disadvantage. With only minutes remaining of their allotted representation time, Marty rises to help out, but Ruth stops him with a firm grip on his arm. She takes the stand once more, and picking up on an ill-chosen remark from the lawyer for the Tax Authorities, launches into an impassioned and highly informed recap of the history of women's legal rights.
And as they say, the rest is history.
There is, of course, more to this film than the story of a court case. There is a family back home, with all that entails. And there is the early scare when Marty is diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, causing Ruth to take his lectures as well as her own. A truly remarkable woman who is still making her mark in the Supreme Court.