Blog #117 – On the Basis of Sex
So we got to see the movie about Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first case in her long battle against sex discrimination in federal court, Moritz v. Commissioners of the IRS. I hope you liked it. I enjoyed it, and thought that it did a good job of accurately portraying the justice’s determination, hopes, and fears as she moved from the academic legal world into the real legal world (interestingly enough, the screenplay was written by Ginsburg’s nephew). According to the New York Times movie review, the only thing the movie got wrong, according to RBG herself, was when she was at a loss for words in front of the judges at the end of the movie.
But with regards to other historical accuracy questions, the movie actually gets a lot right. RBG had actually read three different early drafts of the film written by her nephew, and it was also run by the real Jane Ginsburg, a Columbia law professor. RBG’s only requirements of the film were to “get the law right, and get Marty right.” The film’s portrayal of her helpful, supportive husband, Marty Ginsburg, is accurate as well. He really did get cancer while at Harvard and recovered, and Ruth helped him by attending classes and typing up his reports. Marty Ginsburg was also one of the top tax lawyers in the country, and it was him that brought the Moritz case to Ruth’s attention. One added scene, the moot court at the Ginsburg’s apartment with Mel Wulf, Pauli Murray, and Ruth’s old professor, was not real, nor was the suggestion by Murray that Ruth split up her time with Marty. The last minute edits by Ruth’s secretary, substituting the word “gender” for “sex”, was also accurate. One additional scene, the part where she freezes up and cedes her time to the rebuttal, was also invented. There was no rebuttal, nor a freeze-up, like stated earlier. The portrayal of Mel Wulf, her colleague at the ACLU, however was not accurate. He didn’t treat her the way that it was portrayed in the film nor was he reluctant to tackle additional cases that addressed sexism in the law. Also, Wulf didn’t ask her to write the Reed v. Reed brief nor refuse to let her present it to the Supreme Court, RBG volunteered to do both: write the brief and defend it in court. Also, the scene below where Ruth and Jane meet pioneering lawyer Dorothy Kenyon didn’t happen, but that scene, in addition to the one with Civil Rights activist Pauli Murray, according to the filmmakers was a way of showing that the feminist legal revolution did not begin with RBG but that she was continuing their work. However, RBG didn’t feel that the fictional elements of the film detracted from the overall story: “This film is part fact, part imaginative—but what’s wonderful about it is that the imaginative parts fit in with the story so well,” Ginsburg told NPR’s Nina Totenberg following the New York screening.
Questions to answer (PICK 4 OF 6 TO ANSWER):
- How is Marty Ginsburg the “perfect” or ideal husband to RBG? Give specific examples of their relationship.
- Provide at least three sexist slights or dismissals from the many men in the movie, from Ginsburg’s time at Harvard to searching for a legal job to tackling and arguing the case before the Denver Circuit Court. How would you have handled these slights or dismissals over something that you couldn’t control (in this case, RBG being a woman)? Explain why.
- Does it matter that this movie was directed by a woman? Why or why not?
- How does Jane, Ginsburg’s teenage daughter (and for that matter, Ginsburg’s female law students), capture the spirit of the 1960s and early 70s (and in essence, shows a different kind of feminism than her mother represents)?
- What are the potential dangers or pitfalls of heroically portraying a living, breathing person such as Ginsburg in a movie like this? Explain.
- Explain how this movie epitomizes this quote from the movie (as its theme): “The Court ought not be affected by the weather of the day, but will be by the climate of the era.”
400 words total. Due by Monday, February 4 by class.
Websites consulted:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/on-the-basis-of-sex-accuracy-rbg-biopic-fact-fiction.html
1. Marty Ginsburg shows the ideal husband to Ruth through his love and support for her. He encourages her throughout the movie to follow her dreams and get the career that she wants. At the beginning of the movie, he helps her calm her nerves about going to the party thrown by the Harvard professor. He gives her tips on how to speak in front of the judges when they were practicing the trial, and he wanted her to have all time with the judges instead of only half. Throughout the movie, Martin shows his love and devotion for Ruth and her dreams.
3. It does matter that this movie was directed by a woman. It shows that since the 1960s and 70s America has changed much of the laws and views constraining women working outside of the household. Also as a woman, the director can sympathize with Ruth and see her side of the story. For example, if the movie was directed by a man he would not be able to stand in the place of Ruth and feel what she would have felt. He would not have been able to direct that feeling either. It is important to see that this movie was directed by a woman.
4. Jane captures the changing spirit in the 1960s. She shows this spirit when she corrects the men who were calling her and her mother and when she took the initiative to call the taxi and did not wait for her mom. The other girls are also eager to learn about laws and growing feminism as they show the start of change and lifestyle happening in during this era. However, Ruth is focused on fighting for their rights and change instead of really living the lifestyle of freedom like Jane and her students. As Ruth fights for feminist rights the others are living it in the ways they can.
5. In a movie like this, the person that the story is about is shown as heroic and flawless. They are displayed more of as fiction than non-fiction because of the heroic mask over the story. In these movies events are often changed to make the movie better, moments created to make a scene more entertaining, or events that make someone out to be the bad guy. When things like this happen, it clouds the viewers thinking toward the actual person that the movie is about.
3. I think that it does matter that the movie was directed by a Women. The entire plot was focused around a women fighting for women’s rights, and while a man could have asked for tips and how to do it, having a women direct the film makes a lot more sense. A women would be able to capture the point of the movie better, by a lot or a little, but besides that there would be no reason a man would direct it if women directors existed that wanted to. Even if they were less experienced, they would end up telling a man how it would feel to be a women anyways. 4. Ruth Ginsburg fights for women’s rights through the law. She fought against sexist laws and changed them through the court and the “legal” way. Jane, however, wanted to fight sexism through protests. I think that the women in Ruth’s class portrayed the young hipsters who called for social change very well, although I was not alive in that time. Ruth went to a law school to help change the laws, but most people don’t, so they protest and support people they do believe in to change. 5. The dangers of portraying a living person are that they will see it, and can judge it. It is good that Ruth got to have a say in the movie and the movie was probably more accurate because of it, but making some people in the movie villains if they weren’t in their actual life could harm people’s reputations. I think the actress played Ruth well, but the real Ruth could have easily not liked a part and felt like it wasn’t truthful. It would also have been sad for her to see someone play her husband because of his death. 6. I think this quote means that the court should have no bias when things happen randomly, but should acknowledge and change when the “climate”, or culture changes in an area or country. An example could be if a jury was deciding a drunk driving incident where no one died, but the day prior a random drunk driver actually killed someone. I think that the movie uses this to respect the court, but makes sure that it realizes that laws last hundreds of years without changing, but the culture and standards around them does. No matter what the law says word for word, it can be changed if everyone agrees that something ought to be.
The American Revolution started out of the British government’s need for money because of the Seven Years’ War. As a result, the British taxed the Colonies and the Colonies were upset that they had no say in whether they were taxed or not. There was disputed territory in the Ohio Valley between the French and the British. The British declared war on the French and thus was a costly venture that put the British in a lot of debt. After the Seven Years’ War, the British became a lot more present and controlling of the Colonies. In order to pay off the war they taxed the Colonists. They imposed such acts as The Sugar Act, which is a tax on sugar and molasses, and it was also a lot stricter on smuggling. Because of the increased strictness on smuggling, when a British customs agent would find a smuggler, they would take their ship and sell all the products and the customs agent who found the ship would get ⅓ of the profits from the ship. This, combined with the fact that the agents were left unchecked, lead to a lot of false claims of smuggling. The Currency Act was an act that forced the Colonists to use gold and silver, which inflamed an economic crisis. When they changed to gold and silver, the Colonists paper money was not worth anything. The Quartering Act was the act that said that the Colonists had to feed and house the British troops. Part of the problem with this is that the British did not want to pay the Colonists for the food that they were giving to the British army. The British imposed the Stamp Act which was a tax on all paper products. This was the first tax that was imposed solely to raise money and not regulate commerce. This made the Colonists worried that the British would not stop imposing taxes on them and there was nothing they could do about it. The Tea Act was imposed in 1773 by the British. The act made it so that the East India Trading Company had a monopoly on American tea imports. This was bad for the Colonies because they preferred Dutch tea. All of this was very bad. The primary reason for the start of the American Revolution was the economic pressures that British put on the Colonists. These pressures highlighted that there was a philosophical difference between the British and the Colonies; the Colonies believed that they had the right to make their own decisions.