'Battle of the Sexes' Isn't a Grand Slam

Battle of the Sexes is a biopic about the 1973 tennis event of the same name, as it was promoted, which was an exhibition match between 29-year-old Billie Jean King (played by Emma Stone) and 55-year-old Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell).  Mixing both real-life and fictional elements, the film tackles the events that led to the event as well as the individual motivations of King and Riggs behind the scenes.

This is actually the second film I’ve seen about the subject matter.  The first one was the 2001 TV film When Billie Beat Bobby starring Holly Hunter and Ron Silver.  I learned everything I know about the match and its context from that movie.  Hence, to me, it weirdly served as somewhat of a benchmark for the “authenticity” of Battle of the Sexes.  Also, I don’t know anything about the real-life King and Riggs, so when referring to them, what comes to my mind is how Hunter and Silver portrayed them.  Thus, I was evaluating Stone and Carell’s performances to how they hold up to the portrayal of Hunter and Silver.

As a film, Battle of the Sexes is fine.  The production value and cinematography are pleasing to the eyes.  And I found Stone and Carell to be quite compelling in their roles.  It’s funny and interesting enough, but considering it’s an Oscar-bait-type film, I was expecting more. This is hardly near the year’s cream of the crop.

As for its theme, well, feminism understandably has a strong presence in this film.  But I thought it was fairly reasonable with its main message, which is this: women are to be respected, and should be rewarded and recognized for what they have duly earned.  However, audiences may draw flawed ideas from it (which the filmmakers may have intended in the first place; this is Hollywood after all).  Let me enumerate and rebut those on top of my head:

• “Bobby Riggs represents all men.”  That is a gross generalization.  Being a man doesn’t automatically make one a chauvinist.
• “Women can be as good as men in anything.”  That isn’t true.  There are simply some things that men can do generally better and that women won’t be able to compete with.  And vice versa.  This isn’t a sexist idea, it’s simply reality.  Men and women simply have different strengths and weaknesses; they’re biologically and psychologically built differently.  And these differences are what make men and women perform complementary roles in the name of the harmonious functioning of society.
• “Women are as good as men in sports.”  Not necessarily true.  Sports is one area where men are generally better.  Again, this is not sexist.  It’s simply a fact.  Remember, Billie Jean King was active in the sport – one of the best, if not the best, that year.  On the other hand, Bobby Riggs was middle-aged and retired.  It’s not like the current number one female tennis player defeated the number one male tennis player.  In fact, King wasn’t even the number one female tennis player that time.  Margaret Court was.  And Riggs was even able to defeat her in a match earlier that year.  Billie Jean King’s win is a feel-good victory against chauvinism.  But it doesn’t necessarily prove that women is better or even as good as men in tennis.

• “Women deserve to be paid with the same money that men receive just because.”  Absolutely not.  The payment that one deserves to get shouldn’t be dependent on his or her sex.  It should be due to the value that he or she brings to the table, or the caliber of his or her work.   If a woman can perform the same nature of work that a man does, and bring into it the same amount of time, effort, efficiency, and quality that he brings into his, then she rightfully deserves the same pay as him.  If she does it better, she rightfully deserves more pay.  And vice versa.  In the film, there’s a clear discrepancy between the prize money for men’s and women’s tennis, when the latter brings in the same amount of money as the former.  I don’t know if this was also the case in real life, but in the context of the film, King and the others’ call for “equal pay” is justifiable.
• “For women to win, men must lose.”  Nope.  It won’t always come in a form of a tennis match.  Indeed, women should be celebrated.  But it doesn’t have to come as a result of demeaning men.  One side losing doesn’t need to be the outcome of a “men vs. women” analysis, but the identification of areas where one can help the other, so that both win in the end.  Yes, I believe that celebrating men and women simultaneously is very much possible, and should be the endgame.