Showing posts with label Cailee Spaeny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cailee Spaeny. Show all posts

Monday, February 11, 2019

On the Basis of Sex (2018)

You wouldn’t think of a Supreme Court Justice as being popular.  Sure, they may get some news coverage during the confirmation hearings, but that’s generally it.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have gotten a lot of attention in the movies lately.  There was a documentary about her last year.  She got a mention in Deadpool 2.  She even had a cameo of sorts in The Lego Movie 2.

Before she was on the Supreme Court, she was a lawyer.  Before she was a lawyer, she was a law student in a class of almost all men.  She had to face the challenges one might expect.  The dean of Harvard Law, Erwin Griswold, thought she was wasting a space that could have gone to a man.  Once she graduated, she was offered all manner of excuses as to why she shouldn’t be hired.  So, she’s relegated to teaching about law rather than practicing it.

At least she has a supportive husband.  No, seriously.  Marty Ginsburg brings her a case wherein Charles Moritz was denied a $296 deduction related to caring for his elderly mother.  The reason?  He’s a man who has never been married.  Had he been a woman or a widower, he would have gotten the deduction, no problem.

Some might say that it’s not worth fighting.  Even Moritz needs a little convincing.  ($296 in the early 1970s would probably translate to about $1800-$2000 in today’s money.)  To Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it’s about the principle.  Moritz was denied a deduction on the basis of sex.  That’s not right.  Winning this case would set a precedent for other, similar cases.  No pressure.  Right?

Well, the other thing she has going for her is actual skill.  She doesn’t have the experience, but her husband is willing to help her.  She also has another lawyer helping her, which makes for a strong team.  We get the fumbles and setbacks and everything.  In the end, the good guys win and Mr. Moritz gets his deduction.

The movie does a good job of showcasing Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I think this has to do with balancing her with the supporting characters.  If you focus too much on the main character, it can become too intense.  If you try to work in too many additional characters, it can become a circus.  Instead, the movie focuses on the story and how Ginsburg had to work that much harder because she was a woman.  (She not only did her own coursework at Harvard, but helped with Marty’s when he was sick.)

I’ve often wondered if the sexism was really that bad.  In this case, I’m inclined to think so.  I know that lines are put in for the sake of storytelling, but there was a time when women weren’t welcome in law.  When Griswald has a dinner for women, he almost seems aware of the sexism.  He asks the women why they would want to take a man’s place.  It should come as no surprise that she eventually transferred to Columbia.

It’s hard to believe that something like this went on except that it still does.  (How can you graduate first in your class and still not be able to find a job in your field?)  I’d say that maybe husbands and boyfriends would be dragged to see the movie except that it does have a popular and powerful main character.

It also does a good job of illustrating the disparity.  When you’re the beneficiary of discrimination, it’s easy to justify it and put it out of mind.  It’s easy to say, “Oh, yeah.  The wives would be jealous,” when you’re saying it to someone who has no recourse.  There is a scene with a cat call, but the movie does do more than that.  I don’t think this is a movie you should feel like you were dragged to.



Friday, October 26, 2018

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

All things considered, I’m not sure what to make of the movie.  The movie starts with a man entering a hotel room and hiding a duffle bag beneath the floorboards.  (Even this one act is difficult, as he has to rearrange the furniture and move it all back when he’s done.)  We don’t know what’s in the bag yet, but it must be important.  After he finishes it all, he answers a knock at the door and is promptly shot.

Ten years later, several guests arrive at that same hotel.  Father Daniel Flynn and Darlene Sweet are the first two we meet.  Laramie Seymour Sullivan is next.  Them, Emily Summerspring.  Then there’s the clerk, Miles Miller.  He does this little routine about the hotel being on the California-Nevada border.  (For some reason, the California side costs a dollar more.)

Each of the characters has a past and most aren’t what they seem to be.  If you’ve seen the coming attractions, you know that the priest isn’t really a priest.  Even if they’re honest, they all have something to hide.  Even Miles has a past he’d like to forget.

The movie seems to be a study in contrast.  You have the hotel on the border of shady Nevada and sunny California.  Each character has a face they present and a past that they hide.  Even using Darlene Sweet and Daniel Flynn as the first two characters seems to be a choice in that he has the most to hide whereas she’s the only registered guest that never tries to hide her name.

The movie is enjoyable, but not perfect.  While watching the movie, I wasn’t really distracted by anything.  However, it was one of those movies that I started wondering about after I left the theater.  It’s not that any one aspect was lacking.  It was more that the movie never really seemed to come together.  None of the characters really seem to progress throughout the movie.

There aren’t any characters that I really hated or liked, and I find that I usually need someone to like or hate.  I can see that each character has at least one redeeming quality and at least one regret, but the movie doesn’t quite seem to make it work.  It seems like everything about the movie has to be a dichotomies.  (Some are more obvious than others.)

This is a movie you could be forgiven for not seeing in the theaters.  If you’re going to watch it, I’d recommend waiting for it to come out on DVD.