When you were a girl, you were beautiful, you had a sharp mind. And now you seem mean. . Will it hurt if you smile? Mel Woolf
These words are based on the age-old emotional service women men. We actually get angry when we feel like someone is violating our boundaries. And anger is an important and necessary emotion. It informs us of injustice and gives us strength to fight back.
That's why it's so important to me that this picture is angry. Anger drives you to action.
My favorite storyline of this movie is the relationship between Ruth and Jane. It can be seen not only as a mother-daughter relationship, but also as an older and younger generation of feminists.
This connection is very valuable to the political movement. The younger generation needs experience and knowledge, and the older generation may lack perseverance and strength to continue the struggle.
I would like to highlight Ruth’s participation in this film. It's touching.
As an ordinary viewer, I really liked it. I do not regret the time spent.
Good acting! It seemed a little protracted, but in the end the plot caught on. Another film adaptation on the theme of women’s rights in the mid-20th century.
Careful, this review was written by a girl. An emotional, unscrupulous feminist is the target audience for this film and Hollywood in its current trends and with “subpoenas.”
But frankly, from the very beginning of the film, we see a promising, young, ambitious girl who believes that hard work and effort really play a big role. However, at first it becomes clear - this is a "male" world, where women are treated not so much with neglect as with condescension. Throughout the picture, we see how this very world is rapidly breaking the main character, wiping out all her hopes and ambitions. Her dreams of a good education were shattered by the conviction of the dean of the faculty, the desire to get a prestigious job - about the stereotypes of employers. Time after time, she meets unspoken, but firmly entrenched in society obstacles. It is thanks to them that we see how a promising, intelligent, educated woman silently and persistently spends years of her life on what, as it seems to society, is more suitable for her.
It is noteworthy, but in the picture there was not a word about hatred of men, on the contrary, it often shows that people simply do not know how to live differently. They know that the distribution of roles has historically developed, that this is how our ancestors lived, this is how our parents lived, this is how many people live. If you look closely, you can see women who support this attitude in their address. In particular, the wife of the dean of the law school does not understand what the problem is and what the crazy girl is trying to achieve in court.
However, what is unreasonably accepted by everyone does not always mean right. Generations are changing, our children are beginning to ask questions that come down to ‘how nature decided’, they are demanding arguments and demanding justice. Thanks to her daughter, the main character understands that she has a voice, that it is time to finally change the current order of things. That she can no longer move herself, silently accept everything that she hears every day, that she meets on the streets.
Many times we see this woman stepping in to give up everything. In the latter scenes, she succumbs to public pressure and admits that she caused turmoil in the family's life. She apologizes to her daughter and blames herself for having such a heavy burden on their shoulders. The heroine understands that she could continue to tolerate this inequality in silence, but she is afraid to understand that her daughter may become a victim of social order. She does not want her child to face what she had to endure.
And even as she sits in a court that by definition should be impartial, she encounters stereotypes of judges who question her knowledge and ask trivial questions with undisguised condescension.
This picture does not blame anyone, does not whitewash anyone. There are beautiful men and there are women who do not understand. The people in this film are just a reflection of their generation - their formation, that very mentality built up over the years. They are representatives of their era.
I cannot deny that the film as a whole came out quite crumpled - it is not so easy to cover the biography of an individual, and the social structure, and judicial practice in a couple of hours. It would be even more difficult to describe every case in Ruth Ginsburg’s practice. However, the film clearly conveys the main message of this film: historical stereotypes, whatever they may be, are not always correct and fair. At times, society needs change.
The film is based on the biography of a real woman.
She went to Harvard for law a year later than her husband.
Here she answers the dean of the faculty about the purpose of admission for questioning with bias - it is better to understand what the husband does.
Apparently, at that time, women could use this privilege only for a higher purpose. Otherwise, it is unworthy to be in one of the 9 seats allocated for women.
But Ruth is worthy. When a husband gets sick, she learns for herself and for him, and also takes care of the children.
Of course, she's a great partner. And glad that her husband appreciated her efforts, and when Ruth needed the support of the already strong and confident lawyer, he defended the right to represent the case on behalf of the company, although everyone discouraged him.
And the thing is, Ruth spent her whole life in theory defending women's rights. The world was changing, but it was in the shadows. And then came the case, which everyone refused. But it proved the inequality not only of women, but also of men. In a man’s world, only this argument could influence judges.
This card was worth playing at least for the sake of not seeming useless in the chair of a university teacher.
But the process itself, by the way, is very poorly shown. There are no legal tricks, there is no such pleasure when lawyers find the right way out of this situation.
The actress who played Ruth was rather inexpressive. It was as if she couldn’t be so determined that she could stand it all up and grow so beautifully in her career. I think a lot of this lack of expression depended on the director and his handlers, with whom he could show us this personality much more deeply. I'm sure there's this unseen depth there.
In any case, this film is good to watch and show to explain the origins of feminism and the March 8 holiday in Russia.
For expressive properties, I greatly reduce the score. But the story is worthy.
Is it hard to be a woman in this world? How does it feel to be second-hand at all times? Who discovered distant galaxies, first flew into space, discovered the laws of gravity, etc., etc.? Men! They are everywhere in a woman’s life. You can't hide from them.
The woman is given the role of an assistant to a man, even an assistant to men in general: brothers, father, husband, children, colleagues. If you’re a woman, you have a set of demands and you just can’t live and work the way men do – it used to be. Women were not allowed to hold certain positions, including legal ones. Nope. There were no laws explicitly prohibiting women from occupying certain positions, but they simply seemed not to be noticed when hiring and were not even given in principle the opportunity to study some professions, both for religious reasons and for the patriarchal characteristics of society.
The film touches on many themes, both almost feminist, and the role of men in a woman’s life – who and when becomes a support.
If you just look at the film, it came out confused, as it tried to absorb many time periods, capturing in fact directly and indirectly different stages of the development of women’s rights. There is even mention of gender discrimination in legal practice and local laws. The film was objective, not subjective, but it was supposed to capture the life of only one woman. Or not?!
Or is it a movie about breaking down the entire legal system of gender discrimination? Instructions for action! Viva la France, revulsion - rising from my genes. You're revolutionizing! Oh, do not feed me bread, but only give me a match with the flame of a new idea and the firewood of old dogmas to set on fire.
So, light the fuse at the bomb of the old foundations and wait for everything to blow!
Ba-Bahh!
The Little Bad One Against the Constitutional Court
With the number of high-profile events that occur in a unit of time today, it seems that the speed of life has increased many times and from 1970, when the main events of the picture occur, to the year of its release are separated not half a century, but much more. Plus, any changes to the gender equality laws should have negated all such themes in fiction. Why are women still fighting for their rights?
In 1956, Ruth Ginsburg, a wife and young mother, became one of nine female students admitted to Harvard Law School. Not all teachers enthusiastically meet young ladies in their classes. The main character, time after time, has to prove with diligence and hard work that she deserves the privilege of being in such a legendary place. But even excellent grades and recommendations don't help her get a job as a lawyer after training, and Mrs. Ginsburg becomes a teacher who specializes in gender discrimination. And in 1970, she first got the opportunity to appear in court as a lawyer, creating the first precedent on the way to equality of men and women before the law.
Positioned as a biopic for traditional key components: the main character is a real historical personality, attention to the episodes of life that formed the personality, the transformation of the hero in time, summing up the results at the end of the picture - the picture does not cope with its genre task very well. The main character throughout the impressive screen time remains correctly flat. There is no doubt about her knowledge, professionalism, competence, perseverance and fairness of views: no one disputes this aspect of life associated with training and career, which accompanied a number of difficulties. And the emotions experienced by her in connection with the peculiarities of the society of that time: anger, anger and some disappointment are absolutely natural and understandable to all who faced a biased attitude towards themselves on one or another occasion without taking into account real qualities and abilities, and objectively do not look hysterical from scratch or “madness of the uterus”, especially given in principle the reserve of the heroine. However, these stingy emotions, as well as quarrels with her daughter, are not enough for the figure of Ruth Ginsburg to acquire volume: her personal life outlines a faithful reliable wife and a strict but fair mother in large strokes. It turns out to be a kind of exemplary excellent student who is about to bronze for the honorary board from her correctness, although there is no doubt about the fidelity of her views and principles. Some unpleasant impression of her figure is especially contrasted against the background of her own husband, who is charm, charisma and kindness. It is difficult to determine where the problem is. Maybe the actors don’t give out the right depth of emotion, and the chemistry between them is not of the right quality. Or perhaps there is simply not enough scenes of personal weakness or vulnerability to fully reveal such an outstanding personality: instead of a real living person, it turns out simply a monument with which it is difficult to identify yourself and, accordingly, problems arise with empathy for it.
Much better this story works on the issues of the key event of the whole film – the court hearing, which raises a really universal for different times the topic of changing the world and the need in this regard to change the law. For the clarity of changing the world in the film is best served by the distinctive features of fashion of different eras: the late 50s with thin waists, lush skirts and multi-layered combinations against the 70s with a daring mini, tight jeans, a variety of hairstyles and large accessories. Another tool for demonstrating the passage of time and the changes that have taken place are scenes with extras: business silent and always rushing on the machine people are replaced by protesters shouting slogans, who simply can stand, hindering someone else’s movement to attract attention. Students also change in the classroom: higher education ceases to be the privilege of the heirs of wealthy families and outstanding athletes in white ironed shirts and tailor-made suits, it becomes available regardless of origin, and discussions on the issues discussed are much more heated. External changes in society and reality are much easier to notice than internal ones, but neither can be denied. Laws simply do not keep up with these changes, for example, regarding the same artificial intelligence. But discrimination on one or another basis still remains an urgent issue, because the existence of laws, unfortunately, does not guarantee their observance.
Recommended: for video materials for lessons about outstanding women.
Dangerous: for a romantic evening in a traditional heterosexual cisgender couple.
7 out of 10
I read in negative reviews, they say that the tape does not pay tribute to the real contribution of Ruth to changing the legal system, the role of women in society, etc., that it is boring and drawn-out, full of everyday details and tells little about what a legend this woman has become. Hmm. Strange - who is interested, just open the wiki list of her achievements and read, if you want ' read the whole list, please!' In addition - which is important! - Ginsburg herself after watching the film spoke very warmly about the actors' play, there were no statements on her part about "Artistic Fiction" & #39; although at the beginning of the tape it is indicated that the film was made on the basis of real events, and not on their basis. A small, but weighty correction - how many scandals could have been avoided by Mikhalkov if he had done the same with his twisted 'Movement up' which all Russian media dubbed 'On real events'.
Here, in any case, there is no special distortion of reality, which is pleasant.
And doubly - that the film focuses on the husband's love for his wife, his desire to help her realize his dream. Understanding that some women need a little more to be happy than ' would be nice near' - such and change the world.
I liked how many doors were slammed in front of her nose, but she didn’t give up.
In short, film is a motivator. Template - because beautifully shot and look boring, but ... not outstanding. Such a typical well-made passing film. Not deep, but authentic and pleasing to the eye. Well, useful - as an example of the life of an outstanding person who, despite everyone, fulfilled his dream. However, something in it is not enough to hook, to dilute emotions. There are beautifully conveyed facts, but no feelings.
A beautiful and exciting film, with a beautiful stylistic aesthetic. Up to 10 he lacks something, but 8 he deserves, had a good time at the evening viewing.
It feels like there’s just an idea for a movie and not the movie itself. No interesting plot, no drama. I think I would like to mention a nice cast. These are just moments from the life of a real woman, but life is not always interesting to watch: just the artistic part was missing.
'On the Basis of Sex' or in our localization 'Sex '
First of all, I would like to say hello to those who made the translation of this masterpiece, your brain works by gender, and from the word Paul - the lower flooring, on which they walk. I hope that someday our country will pass a law that will put you all to hell for intentionally distorting information.
Ruth Ginsburg is a truly great woman who, through hard work and suffering, achieved her position, “ad astra per aspera” passing through thorns to the stars.
But as shown in this wretched, disgusting underfilm. The film was clearly made to make money on the wave of hype, amid the idiocy with the third wave of feminism. The truth about Ruth Ginsburg, apart from mentioning that there was such a thing, there is no more, the formation of a personality for the heroine will not show how the heroine overcomes life difficulties, they will not show us, no, only what we need, while all this is fertilized with idiocy from the heads of feminists.
It will not be shown how Ruth Ginsburg wrote the brief to the Reed v. Reed case, in which the Supreme Court extended the equal protection provision, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to women, which was truly a watershed in the rights of women in the United States, which later became a precedent in the case:
Frontiero v. Richardson on status making it harder for a female soldier to receive an increased allowance for her husband compared to a male soldier seeking a similar allowance for his wife.
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, where a widower who was denied survivor benefits under Social Security, under which Social Security allowed widows but not widowers to receive childcare benefits. Where Ruth Ginsburg argued that the statute discriminated against men without giving them the same protection as women.
“Craig v. Boren” on equalizing the age to drink alcohol, regardless of the sex.
“Duren v. Missouri” where Ruth Ginsburg demanded that women be required to participate in jury trials, without the possibility of voluntary participation as it was previously for women, arguing that participation in a jury trial is the duty of any citizen, regardless of gender.
And here is the propaganda of stupidity, aimed at feminism in the form in which it is, namely, meaningless cries of inequality without clear arguments, ways to solve problems, if any.
They turned Ruth Ginzburg into a first-class lawyer, a beautiful mother, a loving wife, into a brainless hysterical Anita Sargsyan of 2019.
In the plot of the film there are such idiotic holes, blunders, and outright nonsense that it is pointless to ask questions to the writer or director at all, since there is a very high chance that they do not understand human speech at all. Throughout the film will poke us in the face with the idea of what men are creatures and scum, regardless of logic, and only because they are men.
It would be possible to cite extracts of dialogues from the film, which clearly show how poor and talentless this video is, but I will refrain, after watching through the force, I want to quickly forget about it and wash off, I do not advise fans of autobiographical cinema to watch it, there is no autobiography at all.
This review won't be ordinary! It will not be about the plot of the film and not about its morality, not about the acting or the scenery. It will be about everything that is left in the background.
I once read in a book how good movies can program us to do something bad. So, for example, the famous ' Titanic' has a beautiful love story in the foreground, and a terrible subtext in the second. Look for yourself: the rich bathe in luxury and die of boredom, and the poor swim with their luggage, but have fun; the rich push children to take a seat in the boat, and the poor hero give their places to others. To sum up, we are programmed to be poor cool, but rich - so.
Now back to our movie. What's in the background? This is the story of a loving and harmonious family. A successful husband, a successful wife. Smart. Beautiful. With children, family comfort and support.
A man is confident enough to praise his wife. And his wife is so loving that she pulled him out with '. Children show their character, but rather in a positive way. With such support, each of them is ready for feats, ready to change the world! That's an example! There are very few such films.
It's an interesting story about changing the world, women's struggle for equality, just in the spirit of that time. But in this part there is a lot of familiar and borrowed from other paintings.
10 out of 10
I definitely recommend it as a great family movie!
2018 was a year of changes and raising issues for society, one of which was the issue of inequality between men and women in the social sphere. The film “Genesis” based on a real story, came out just by the way, its theme is again relevant as ever and proves that you can fight and lose for a hundred years, but this is not a reason not to try to change something in this world.
In some world, the film is made in the spirit of all biographies (and I really like all kinds of biopics). We follow Mrs. Ginsburg from her arrival at Harvard until her fateful moment (the annotation is wrong, because the film is not about how Ruth Ginsburg aspires to become the supreme judge, but about how a brave woman strives to change the law for the benefit of not only women but also men).
In the film, a star cast shines: starting from the main role performer Felicity Jones and ending with a very funny mustache Justin Teru. An excellent lawyer tandem developed between Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer, and the brief appearance of Katie Bates, despite its brevity, was very memorable.
The film itself is very bright and quite aesthetic, you completely forget about time watching the events on the screen.
Not everything in the film is folded in shelves. Mention of the illness of her husband with a sharp transition to two years ahead, overplay and the absence of a factor of tension (which oh how was lacking in the finale!) because of which the whole action of the film had a little less effect than it could leave.
In general, “By Gender” is a beautiful biopic about a brave woman not afraid to change the law and not giving her heart to work.
"According to gender" is a typical (but not template) representative of the favorite American genre of biopic about the life of an outstanding person. It is made according to all the canons of the genre, with an obligatory conflict and its subsequent overcoming, with some changes in events in favor of a greater drama of the plot, as well as with an indispensable demonstration of the real prototype at the end of the film. The central plot of the film is the story of Ruth Ginsburg (performed by Felicity Jones) - a lawyer and human rights activist, and later a judge of the US Supreme Court, who chose the fight against gender inequality as a matter of her life. The first half of the film goes through all the significant events in the formation of Ginsburg: studying at the university, overcoming family adversity for a couple with her husband (performed by Armie Hammer), job search. A large number of events in the limited screen time created the impression of clumsiness, it was noticeable that the creators wanted to devote more time to the second half of the film, dedicated directly to the key trial.
The film left a double impression after watching. On the one hand, this film quite organically fits into the trend of feminization of the Hollywood film industry. It is also interesting that the director of the film, Mimi Leder, at one time was one of the first female graduates of the American Film Institute, which indicates a personal attitude to the message of the film. On the other hand, the confusion of the narrative and some degree of typicality do not allow us to attribute this film to the bright and remarkable. The acting came out smooth, not causing complaints, Felicity Jones quite coped with the role, although in some places lost against the background Justin Theroux (the film is a childhood friend of Ginsburg and an employee of the American Civil Liberties Union).
The film is based on the biography of American lawyer Ruth Vader Ginsberg. The story follows the beginning of her career at the Harvard School and her first sex discrimination case.
The problems of the United States are not the problems of the whole world. After watching such films, one really comes to realize why feminism in the Western world exists as it exists. I was amazed that the authors did not try to covertly declare the feminist faraway slogans that we see every day through social media across the West. I looked at this story, rather as a path and a career, a woman who had a dream or a goal that she wanted to pursue because she wanted to make her own choices and choose. Probably, any person starting his career will be able to empathize.
Remarkable artwork (as always... perhaps some kind of trend in English-language cinema), which really creates a sense of time through certain details (posters, buildings, graphics), and scenes of recurring locations (the Ginsberg house, the Root class auditorium, the office, etc.), giving the viewer to get used to America of the 60s, and then the 70s, as far as timekeeping allows. And (including in camera work) the majestic buildings of American ships.
The high-profile cast, Felicity Jones, Armie Hammer, Justin Theroux, Chris Malkey, Sam Waterstone, multiply the pluses. The variety of characters does not fall under the cliché and framework of films of the category of “professional formation”. Felicity Jones presents Ruth more as a living hero than the Hollywood version of the leader of the “barricades”, but definitely his own (which I can not name the minuses), since in the ridge of the film there is a chance to hear the speech of Ginsburg herself.
Sometimes I was confused by the sound in the film, but at the same time, a big plus that it seems there was no game genre, trying to convey and play on the era with the help of the soundtrack.
The film is quite specific with all legal phrases and sometimes coded statements, but that sets it apart from success and justice films or biographies.
Ruth Ginsburg (played by Felicity Jones) is dedicated to equal rights for men and women. At the beginning of the film (this is 1956) Ruth is treated with disdain, manly. How did a woman get into Harvard Law? Ruth Ginsburg is a leader, she is an excellent student in her course. I also liked the phrase, “It is not the weather that should influence the court, but the climate of the era.” Everything changes in the 1970s. A new generation begins to fight for their rights, to stop the war in Vietnam. Yes, the 1970s changed the world. Actress Felicity Jones brilliantly played a woman who tolerates chauvinistic and sexist phrases in her address. Her self-control will change the entire legal world of the United States.
Gender inequality is that women cannot work overtime. Ruth Ginsburg says, “A Harvard student is a leader.” In the 1970s, there was a public opinion that the existing order should be changed. I also enjoyed playing Ruth's daughter, Jane Ginsburg (played by Kaylie Spani). It shows beautifully how new ideals in the 1970s transformed the world of youth. This court drama is brilliant, it reveals women, loving family, the generation of the 1970s. The film shows the problem of the United States that there are many unconstitutional laws in America.
Ruth Ginsburg says, “Change consciousness first, then change the laws.” The 1970s are a new generation demanding new rights. Women in the 1970s greatly changed the legal climate in America and the laws of the United States. “Argument is the soul of every law” is the slogan of all U.S. lawyers.
The 1970s is a new era that requires new laws. Felicity Jones played Ruth, who is very lively in her era (especially the 1970s). Directed by Mimi Leder, the 1950s and 1970s were brilliantly portrayed (and this difference is felt in Ruth Ginsburg’s eyes).
8 out of 10
I don’t even know why I enjoy watching stories on a legal topic (A few good guys, Erin Brockovich, Lincoln for a lawyer, and many others). Do you want to believe that there are really fair things in a corrupt world? Or some internal dynamic throughout the film. Don't know. But this film story is another worthy in my piggy bank – a real story, real people, good actors, a logical and slightly tense presentation, a combination of legal process and the ordinary life of the main characters. There is no doubt that it is a good visual.
I like Felicity, impresses the charming Armie Hammer. And in my opinion, they got a very warm and real tandem. Actors who managed to show the family on the screen. Just what it should be for me. Perfect relationship. Proof that you can be a loving and beloved woman, wife, mother and build a career, realize. It just matters what partner you have. And how close you are to him. And this movie is just great showed such a connection.
The topic is gender equality, the law for all, without regard to gender, and we still care. Again, in the film, all this without excessive pathos and the wrong accent. Not the struggle for women's equality, not warring feminism, but gender rights, of both sexes. And Ruth is absolutely a woman, not a crackpot lawyer. And Felicity Jones was able to show it.
Well, Armi is incredibly charming, it goes through the screen, it is organic and real. And again, the perfect partner!
Good, high-quality, interesting movie. For a careful view, not burdened by the excesses of the legal process, even an unsavvy viewer will not be bored!
8 out of 10
On Sunday, she went to the stunning and mesmerizing film “By Gender”, which tells about the fate of a US Supreme Court judge and her fight for gender equality between men and women.
Many will say that the tape is feminist in nature or created for women who are obsessed with this topic. But that view is completely wrong. The picture was created to show both men and modern women what problems the older generation faced 60 years ago, when it seemed that almost the entire population, in this case of America, had equal rights.
The film begins with the moment the main character Rud Ginsburg enters the law school of one of the best universities in America - Harvard. Her course became special because the rector of a higher education institution secured places for women, but there were nine of them. In relation to a huge course, such a small number cannot be considered an achievement and the right of women to education. Standing out from the crowd of men, a woman at the faculty becomes the object of ridicule, humiliation and skepticism of teachers - in their opinion, girls occupy training places and take away opportunities from more motivated men. List restrictions can be endless: in the building of the faculty there is no women's toilet, you can not take academic leave, it is impossible to find a firm for permanent work, etc.
But Rud Ginsburg isn't used to giving up. Realizing the incorrectness of the drafting of laws that distinguish people by gender, she decides to make cardinal changes in the US legal system, and this requires only one precedent that will change the life of the future generation once and for all.
The picture is very interesting is the process of preparation for trial, as well as competent and clear arrangement of arguments. No matter how the process of preparation is thought out, without faith in one’s own business, one cannot convince anyone else with his ideas. Only burning eyes, a sense of justice and confidence in what you are doing will help break any obstacles.
Of course, I want to say about the wonderful actress who played the role of Rud Ginsburg – Felicity Jones. She perfectly got used to the role: in her eyes there is a fire that manifests itself in the actions; it feels like the actress misses all the events that occurred in the life of the real Rud Ginsburg. Just for a second it is worth believing that such a fragile woman has changed almost her entire life.
In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that this film impressed me very much. I would like to wish that more pictures were shot that would remind us of important values in life and about people who are striving for radical changes for the generation that lives now. Unfortunately, why such tapes are not popular. It is a pity that people are looking for entertainment, watching stupid comedies or fantasy, forgetting about real life.
10 out of 10