Battle of the Sexes

Although the film’s disposition is already common knowledge to those in the sports community, or who have followed the progression of the feminist movement since the early 1970’s, film making team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (“Little Miss Sunshine”) are able to convey the plight of the fight for sports gender equality in an intriguing, yet emotionless fashion, or what I’d like to call, “Disney sports drama light.”

Emma Stone reunites with Steve Carell to rekindle their remarkably strong on-screen chemistry in a recreation of the infamous 1973 tennis farce famously dubbed the “battle of the sexes.” Twenty-nine-year-old Billy Jean King (Stone) is convinced to accept a publicity stunt challenge by fifty-five-year-old Bobby Riggs (Carell) during a time when women’s sports were relegated to backseat status. The media circus culminated in a predictable and lackluster competition that although viewed by millions, wasn’t anything particularly surprising or revelatory. Don’t get me wrong, what Billy Jean King accomplished in her life inspired Title IX, paved a way for more robust awareness of LGBTQ rights, women’s equality, and so much more during a time when frankly, misogynistic behavior was commonplace and accepted.

There are some tremendous life lessons to be learned from sports, perhaps that’s why I’m so fond of inspirational sports films as a genre. In the case of “Battle of the Sexes” however, the lessons have already been learned, and the film just doesn’t seem particularly compelling.

Tennis as a spectator sport doesn’t quite have the appeal as, well, any other sport, and to the film makers’ credit, the sport itself is minimized in lieu of a more concerted attempt to convey the public sentiment toward athletics at the time. This leads to a severely anticlimactic finale in which there is so little tension that the viewer is ready to fast forward through the athletic event straight to the inevitable narrative caption, which seems written thoughtlessly and provides no insight into the real effects of the events.

It wasn’t a terrible film, however. Emma Stone shows again that she is one of the most talented young actresses in the industry. A severe make under puts her right at home in the 1970’s, and nearly all of her physically attractive qualities are hidden, forcing her to rely on a tense ball of emotional fire in her eyes (behind some hideous glasses) instead of using her typical charm. She plays the role exceptionally well, but it is quite dull and understated by nature. King seemed to be an introvert, hiding her true sexuality and repressing her happiness in deference to the social norms of the day.

Steve Carell is still hard to take seriously in any dramatic role, and he plays Bobby Riggs with an aloof swagger that never truly creates the antagonist the audience deserves. He’s too nice and is likeable from beginning to end, and that severely undercuts the value of the opposition. I have to add, Fred Armisen falls into the same category as Riggs’ nutritionist. It was a distraction to see him with a serious face on the tennis sidelines. Sorry Fred, you’ve just done too much comedy to be taken seriously.

The subject matter is worthy of a biopic, but the combination of 1970’s, tennis, and comedic actors taking on serious roles just kind of ruined it for me. I know there will be some who appreciate the film because they lived through the time, but for me and perhaps the younger generations, there isn’t anything shocking or earth-shattering about the idea of a woman beating a man in tennis. Of course, the match meant so much more than that, but unfortunately the film doesn’t. 5/10.