On the Basis of Sex

Dir: Mimi Leder

2018

***

Political biographies are usually reserved for Presidents and Dictators, so it is nice to see one that is focused on an inspirational person who would ordinarily be overlooked. What is also refreshing, is that said politician (not really a politician but rather Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is still alive and active at the time of the film’s release. While much of her life is either missed out or simplified, for no other reason than run time, the audience can take extra reassurance of an authentic story, thanks to the fact that the script was written by Daniel Stiepleman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nephew. The film begins when Ruth Bader Ginsburg (played by Felicity Jones) is a first-year student at Harvard Law School. When her husband Martin (Armie Hammer), a second-year student, falls ill with cancer, she attends both her classes and his, taking notes and transcribing lectures while caring for Martin and their infant daughter Jane. Two years later Martin, his cancer in remission, is hired by a firm in New York. Ruth petitions Harvard Law School Dean Griswold to allow her to finish her Harvard law degree with classes at Columbia Law School in New York, but he insists on following Harvard University policies at the time and denies her request, so she transfers to Columbia. In spite of graduating at the top of her class, she is unable to find a position with a law firm because none of the firms she applies to want to hire a woman. Instead, she takes a job as a professor at Rutgers Law School, teaching "Sex Discrimination and the Law". Fast-forward to 1970, Martin brings Moritz v. Commissioner, a tax law case, to Ruth's attention. Charles Moritz is a man from Denver who had to hire a nurse to help him care for his aging mother so he could continue to work. Moritz was denied a tax deduction for the nursing care because at the time Section 214 of the Internal Revenue Code specifically limited the deduction to "a woman, a widower or divorcée, or a husband whose wife is incapacitated or institutionalized". The court ruled that Moritz, a man who had never married, did not qualify for the deduction. Ruth sees in this case an opportunity to begin to challenge the many laws enacted over the years that assume that men will work to provide for the family, and women will stay home and take care of the husband and children. She believes that if she could set a precedent ruling that a man was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of sex, that precedent could be cited in cases challenging laws that discriminate against women and she believes that an appellate court composed entirely of male judges would find it easier to identify with a male appellant. Ruth meets with Mel Wulf of the ACLU to try to enlist their help, but he turns her down. She also meets with activist and civil rights advocate Dorothy Kenyon (played with gusto by Kathy Bates), who is cold to the idea at first but later meets with Wulf in his office and convinces him to sign on. Ruth then flies to Denver to meet with Moritz, who agrees to let the Ginsburgs and ACLU represent him pro bono after Ruth convinces him that millions of people could potentially benefit. The Ginsburgs and Wulf file an appeal of Moritz's denial with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Department of Justice Attorney James H. Bozarth asks to be the lead counsel for the defense. He does a computer search to find all of the sections of the US Code that deal with gender. His defense will contend that, if section 214 is ruled unconstitutional, that will open the door to challenge all of America's gender-based laws. Ruth, having no courtroom experience, does poorly in a moot court, and Wulf convinces her to let Martin lead off arguing the tax law, with Ruth following up with equal protection arguments. The government offers Moritz a settlement of one dollar. Ruth makes a counter-proposal: the government will pay Moritz the sum he claimed as a deduction and make a declaration that he did nothing wrong, and also enter into the record that the gender-based portion of section 214 is unconstitutional. The government declines this proposal because of the constitutionality element. At the oral argument in the Court of Appeals, Martin takes more of their side's allotted time than he had intended. Ruth is nervous but makes several key points and reserves four minutes of her time for rebuttal. Bozarth frames his side's argument as defending the American way of life, implying that the Ginsburgs and ACLU want "radical social change" and maybe Moritz "just doesn't want to pay his taxes". In her rebuttal, Ruth is much more confident. She states that societal roles that existed one hundred years ago, or even twenty years ago, no longer apply. She does not ask the court to change society, but to keep the law up with social change that has already taken place. To a judge's objection that the Constitution does not contain the word "woman", she responds vigorously that neither does it contain the word "freedom". Outside the courthouse, judgment being reserved, Wulf, Moritz and the Ginsburgs celebrate that, win or lose, Ruth has finally found her voice as a lawyer. Titles over the closing scene indicate that the Court of Appeals found unanimously in Moritz's favour. Ruth went on to co-found the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU, which struck down many of the gender-based laws Bozarth identified, and in 1993 the Senate voted 96 to 3 for her to become an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The final scene shows the real-life Ginsburg walking up the steps of the Supreme Court building. The film highlights the rewards of hard work, determination and support. If this were a fictional story Ginsburg’s husband would no doubt be against his wife’s ambition but the script quite rightly acknowledges Martin Ginsburg’s support that was less common in the era. The film is really brought to life by Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer, two actors at the top of their game and the two people anyone would want to portray them in a film. I can’t say I was that enamored by Mimi Leder’s direction though. I do wonder why she was seen as an appropriate director, considering she’s really only done sub-standard action and wishy-washy drama. I’m sure it is because she worked on L.A. Law back in the day and not just because she was the only female director available at the time. Don’t get me wrong, I get why the studio would have wanted a female director but really, shouldn’t the point be that it should go to the best person for the job. I can think of loads of directors, male and female, who would have been better suited, although it is adequate. It works thanks to the great performances and the fact that the script focuses only on the important facts of the case and Ginsburg’s career. Hopefully it’ll start a trend of other like-minded biographies of people who deserve more recognition of their achievements for others.