everyone received the same treatment under the law.Long may she serve!

year ahead of her. When Martin gets a job in New York City, she goes to her law school dean Erwin Griswold a pillar of the legal establishment played here by Sam Waterston. Progressive in many ways Griswold did in fact get the first women admitted to Harvard Law. But he did believe women ought to know their place at home and in the courtroom. Jack McCoy, Waterston is not in this film.Simply because of her sex she could not get a slew of jobs that husband Martin would have gotten easily. She had her own dometic crisis as well when Martin played by Armie Hammer came down with cancer. She was thrust into the role of breadwinner as well as homemaker. And the bread at times was only crumbs.With that kind of attitude and disdain shown her Ginzburg says this has to all change and that women have to achieve real equality. Oddly enough it's the case of a man played by Chris Mulkey who was denied an income tax deduction for hiring a home attendant for his mother and was forced to stay home and tend to her. Mulkey is a bachelor and he did not want mom going to some substandard nursing home. On the basis of a man challenging gender roles Ginzburg made her first mark.Felicity Jones of Great Britain played Ruth Bader Ginzburg a girl from Brooklyn. Not only Brooklyn, but my part of Brooklyn as I read she attended James Madison High School which was two blocks from where I lived. Nice Jewish girls from Brooklyn make their mark whether its Barbra Streisand in music or Ruth Bader Ginzburg in the law. There's such passion in her performance I can't believe that Jones will be ignored in the Oscar sweepstakes..Another who should not be ignored is Cailee Spaeny the young actress who plays daughter Jane Ginzburg. At first glance she looks like your average teen girl of the times. But this young lady has read Gloria Steinem and believes in direct action far more than Mom does. Her scene with Mom with those construction workers is a classic. Hope Spaeny gets some recognition in the Supporting Actress category, she really nails it in her role.Good gray Sam Waterston as pillar of the legal establishment was one kind of foe. But there is the climax scene at the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals an actor Jack Raynor shows how deeply sinister opposition to change could be. One thing the New Right has always been good at is recognizing threats to its perceived view of society. Recently one of their religious right legal organizations lobbied against including LGBTQ people in anti-lynching bill in Congress. They reasoned that if you simply made it wrong to kill people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity they might actually ask society to treat them with dignity and respect, legally, economically, and socially.Raynor with that smug arrogance that the religious right has says that the foundations of society as they see it will be torn asunder if Ginzburg's client wins this case. Felicity Jones who has been told to stick to facts and precedents and keep her passion in check gets up and just demolishes Raynor. With passion in check, Jones impresses those Appellate Judges with the facts but the restrained passion is there. She sure impressed me.Hope they'll be some Oscar consideration for Jones, for Hammer and for Spaeny. Most of all in that field of 10 for On The Basis Of Sex.

history doesn't bend itself, and that the only way to achieve your goals, especially gasp equality, is to keep pushing. And we thought the acting was first-rate, and loved the physical mismatch of the tiny Jones and towering Hammer.

quick and modern than the way RBG sounds in the recordings of her trials. RBG sounds more like a kind old elementary teacher who really knows what she was talking about. Jones sounded more like an annoyed young grad student in her delivery.The film highlights one trial which I'm almost positive wasn't RBG's first trial as a lawyer. Or her first win to promote laws to end sex discrimination. But the film presents it as if it is her first.The film never shows the court deciding that she won her case. It is shown in text, which isn't enough if you ask me. Also I didn't like that they seemed to prop up RBG by making her husband troublesome when dealing with questions in the trial. They show the husband provide great answers to those situations earlier in the film when they were preparing for the trial. This was a case where his character became inconsistent for the sake of overall narration. Rather than because his actions happened.Overall I think the story was fine. And most of my complaints are very small. I don't have a gripe with them consolidating the story to her first victory for a trail on the basis of sex. That's the kind of thing biopics regularly do for the sake of the medium. I don't mind where they started the story either. I like the historical references they make to all the failed attempts to end gender discrimination laws over 100 years.I generally liked the way they depicted RBG's husband and family. Apart from perhaps feeling they should have shown her husband happy to survive and pass the checkpoints in surviving his cancer.If you haven't seen RBG or The Basis of Sex, I recommend seeing this one first.