Daniel Steepleman (3:34)

Well, Ruth would say I am a nephew because she's very precise. And there are others. Yes. Martin Ginsburg is my mom's oldest brother. And I first heard the story of this case at Marty's funeral, as he said, when a friend of his got up and gave just a beautiful eulogy about the. Well, it was about Marty's life. But right up to the end of his life, Marty said the most important thing he had ever done was hand Ruth the tax court advantage sheet. That became the only case they argued together because it allowed her to do what she went on to do. And I'm sitting there pretty newly married myself. My wife and I very consciously looked to Ruth and Marty as, this is what a marriage is supposed to look like. Let's build a marriage like theirs. And so when I heard that story, I thought, wow, that would make a great movie. That was my first thought. My second thought was, what kind of asshole am I? I'm sitting at my uncle's funeral mining his life for material that's not like a thing you're supposed to do. I'm sorry, if you're lost, can I have the rights? And so I thought, well, that's too bad. I'll never get to write it. But I couldn't stop thinking about it. And so finally, a year later, I called up Ruth and I said, I have this idea. I'd like your permission if possible. I would love your help. And she said, and I quote, if that's how you think you want to spend your time. And so I did. Eight and a half years later, here we are.

Dahlia Lithwick (4:54)

So I have the mug, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mug. You probably have the mug. I have three T shirts. I have the tote bag, I have the earrings. Most of these are gifted to me. I wonder, in the eight years that you've been kind of crafting this, this has become almost a cult, right? I mean, this has become.

Daniel Steepleman (5:14)

It's a little bit weird because it's like my 85 year old bubby, but everyone wants their Selfies with her.

Dahlia Lithwick (5:19)

Yeah, so. So I guess my question is, when you started this project, that was beginning to happen, but certainly not, you know, she was not the iconic voice of the feminist resistance.

Daniel Steepleman (5:31)

In fact, when I started this project, I said to somebody, I'm thinking about writing a mov about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And they said, well, the problem is nobody knows who Ruth Bader Ginsburg is.

Dahlia Lithwick (5:38)

Oh, well, those days are over.

Daniel Steepleman (5:39)

Yeah, exactly. And so I thought I was writing the movie that was gonna introduce this woman and sort of this approach to creating cultural change to the country, and then the country lapped ahead of me.

Dahlia Lithwick (5:51)

So that's an interesting thing. So you started doing one thing, and now, in a weird way, you're belated into this. Everybody thinks they know who she is, but of course, what they think they know is this kind of baller rapper, you know, gay gangsta. And that is not at all the person I think she is. You think she is. And it's not the person in the movie, which is.

Daniel Steepleman (6:12)

It's just sort of treacherous waters. Right. Because for some people, she's the person you just described. Lest we forget. For some people, she's an incredibly divisive character. And I'll be curious to see how it plays out when the movie comes out next week, because I think some people need her to be that. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the movie is very much just Aunt Ruth, you know, a person with flaws and struggles trying to become the person who is now so idolized.

Dahlia Lithwick (6:43)

So talk a little bit, Daniel, because she did work with you on the script. She did talk to you. This wasn't sort of an unauthorized thing. And she, I think, is kind of ambivalent about the. I think she loves the rock star attention, but I also think she feels that she is a pretty precise, institutional player. And some of this stuff, I think, freaks her out. So what was it like when she looks at the script or you're having conversations about what you're trying to do? Was there a ton of pushback?

Daniel Steepleman (7:14)

It wasn't pushback. Her mantra was always, if you're going to make a portrait of me, make it an accurate portrait. And that was never approached from a place of ego. So I would send her the script. I sent her early drafts, and she would call, and I'd call her up, and she would say, oh, Daniel, I'm in the middle of reading the Affordable Care Act. Can you call me back in 30 minutes? And then I would call her back, and then she'd say, okay, page one and Then she would go through it like a contract. It's like the first sentence of the screenplay is a pair of heels and an ocean of loafers or something like that. And she'd be like, oh, in those days, I used to walk to Harvard, and so I never wore heels. And I'm like, oh, this is how this is gonna go. I see.

Dahlia Lithwick (7:53)

That's why it took eight years.

Daniel Steepleman (7:54)

That's right. It was actually just eight years of getting notes on the first draft. But the notes were. So I had to teach her a little bit to differentiate between. Cause she's so precise between. You know, this, by the way, this is not strictly accurate. And by the way, if this were in the movie, I would be upset about it. And the latter always came down to. She wanted the law to be right. She wanted the way the law is practiced to be right. And she wanted Uncle Marty to be right. And everything else was sort of free reign. The only other big note she gave me, and I really think this speaks to her credit, was she said. She said, I just don't want people to think that I invented this area of the law. As if it had never occurred to anyone before that women should be considered people under the equal protection principle. She said, I built my career on the shoulders of women who came before me, like Dorothy Kenyon, like Pauli Murray. And people should know that. Then I have to figure out what to do with that note. But one thing that never happened is that she never gave me a note that came from a place of ego. So we would get to scenes where she kind of fumbles or stumbles in the script. And I would think, oh, what's she gonna say when she gets there? And then she would go. And then skip ahead five times. I would say, really? Because you kind of screw up right there. She's, oh, it has to be that way. It's more dramatic.

Dahlia Lithwick (9:01)

Oh, good.

Daniel Steepleman (9:01)

So she understood.

Dahlia Lithwick (9:03)

So I want to talk about the flats in a sea of loafers. Because one of the first.

Daniel Steepleman (9:08)

Heels in a sea of loafers.

Dahlia Lithwick (9:09)

Well. But it turns out to be flats. Was it short loafers?

Daniel Steepleman (9:12)

I did. That was one of the very few arguments I won because I convinced her that, well, it's Orient. The film opens on the day of orientation at Harvard Law School for Ruth. So she's walking into Langdale hall, and I convinced her, well, it's a special occasion. Don't you think you might have dressed up a little? She said, okay, yeah, that makes sense.

Dahlia Lithwick (9:29)

Oh, my God, her poor clerks. Stop right there. So let's Talk about it. Because one of the things, when I've interviewed Justice Ginsburg, one of the things I think she talks about is that young women coming up now have no idea that this was what life was like in the 1950s and 60s. Like, they think it was like 1804. Things like this happen. But not to our 20th century. Yeah, not to our. So let's play a little clip. This is right after what you just described. We've got Ruth and Marty, by the way. They're already married. There's no, like, you know, we fall in love at like the circus. They just are married. And here's. Here's a scene that I think is really powerful to sort of make the point that it was really crazy sexist at Harvard. Even in the 1950s. Harvard had admitted women for the first time in 1950s. By the time she gets there, she's one of nine women in a class of 500. She literally is like glowing with girl. Like, it's so crazy how much she stands out. And in one of the first scenes in the movie, we've got Irwin Griswold. He's the dean of the law school. He invites these women who are going to be the class of 59 to a little dinner party to explain why the hell they get to take a man's place. And this actually happened. She tells this story.

Daniel Steepleman (10:43)

People accuse me of making it up because they're like, it's way too heavy handed. I'm like, no, no, this is exactly how this went down.

Dahlia Lithwick (10:48)

That's how it went. So let's listen to the clip.

Jane Ginsburg (10:50)

I'm Henny Callahan. Father's a lawyer back in Minneapolis. He used to give me drafts of contracts to use for drawing paper. But at some point, I got more interested in reading them than drawing on them. In a few years, it's going to be Callahan and Callahan.

Daniel Steepleman (11:06)

That was fine. Next. Emily Hicks.

Jane Ginsburg (11:14)

Hello, Connecticut. When I finished Mount Holyoke, my mother wanted me to get married, but I didn't want to do that. And I didn't want to be a teacher or a nurse. So when I.

Daniel Steepleman (11:26)

That's not a very good reason.

Irwin Griswold (11:29)

Next.

Dahlia Lithwick (11:33)

Sorry.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (11:38)

I'm Bruce Ginsburg from Brooklyn.

Daniel Steepleman (11:44)

And why are you here, Ms. Ginsburg?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (11:47)

Mrs. Ginsburg? Actually, my husband Marty is in the second year class. I'm at Harvard to learn more about his work so I can be a more patient and understanding wife.

Dahlia Lithwick (12:02)

Okay. So this kind of opens with her. I don't. I want to say lying. I mean, that she actually did say that. She tells that story that is not why she was at Harvard. So there's a weird way in which she opens by telling this very. And Sam Waterston is this terrifying Erwin Griswold, telling him that she doesn't really belong there. But to the extent that she's there, it's just to help Marty have a better life. This is a movie about her finding her voice. That's a really interesting place to start.

Daniel Steepleman (12:35)

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the story of the film is Ruth trying to figure out how to be persuasive. And that's. That's the bulk of it. And it's not just about making the legal arguments, which I think she was always good at. It's about making legal arguments is only half the battle. You also have to make the legal arguments in a way that are going to convince, especially in those days, men in authority who don't think you necessarily belong in what they think of as their sphere, to agree with you. And so she. It's a matter of how she dresses, how she talks, how she covers up her accent, how she presents herself. And sort of over the course of the journey of the film, it's her learning all the tools that she's gonna need for the first time she ever appears in court, which was a case called Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Dahlia Lithwick (13:25)

So before we get to Moritz and I wanna talk about it. Cause it is incredibly thrilling for me as a legal person to have the main character be a case like appellate litigation. Oh, my God.

Daniel Steepleman (13:39)

I think that's how the whole country feels. Yeah.

Dahlia Lithwick (13:40)

No, I know. I know they do. But I wanna. This is a film that is, in effect, about sex discrimination law. But through this lens of this woman who cannot catch a break for the Right. In addition to this just ridiculous treatment at Harvard, she then can't get a clerkship. She graduates, like, Right. Like, near the top of her class. Can't.

Daniel Steepleman (14:02)

Top of her class.

Dahlia Lithwick (14:03)

Top of her class. Can't get a clerkship. Can't get a job. Like, has very sympathetic job. Interviewers who are just like, yeah. Nope. And it's. She goes to teach, eventually she becomes a law professor. Not because she wants to be a law professor, because she can't get another gig.

Daniel Steepleman (14:19)

Right.

Dahlia Lithwick (14:19)

And so talk a little bit about this, sort of two themes of. She's experiencing this unbelievable discrimination, and she's litigating it in a way that she's trying to be sympathetic. But this is really frustrating for her.

Daniel Steepleman (14:35)

I think, you know, sort of the. The arc of the first act is the. Is the 50s and, you know, it's basically law school and not being able to get a job. And it's Ruth sort of becoming kind of angry, right? So as you said, she walks in on that first day of law school, and the speech that Erwin Griswold gives, which admittedly I wrote he didn't give, is what I refer to as the Harvard man speech. What does it mean to be a Harvard man? And here's this one woman surrounded by all these guys. But what's crucial is that she's not. She doesn't grit her teeth and get mad about it. She's just so excited to be there. And then she goes to this dinner, and afterwards, she doesn't come home and say, that Dean Griswold, what an asshole. She comes home and says, this guy's never going to take me seriously. And in fact, that was a note from Ruth, because in my first draft, I had her come home and say, what an asshole. And she was like, no, no, that's the wrong sentiment. That's not the concern. It wasn't about, I personally don't like him. I have a vendetta against him. It was about, how am I ever going to thrive here if they won't take me seriously?

Dahlia Lithwick (15:37)

So that's such an interesting. That's such an interesting paradigm here, because I think this is a movie about being taken seriously more than it's a movie about anger. And there's a lot of anger, and we're gonna talk about that in a second because she takes it out on her loved ones. Like, she's yelling at Marty. She's yelling at her daughter Jane.

Daniel Steepleman (15:55)

There's more make you sound like she's raging throughout the movie.

Dahlia Lithwick (15:58)

But to me, it was really striking because I've never seen her angry. But I think what you're saying is that this is not a movie about anger. This is a movie about how do I kind of tamp down the anger in order to be an effective persuasive advocate. Because my anger is not going to ever redound to my benefit.

Daniel Steepleman (16:16)

Right. Which is. Which is sort of what the whole movie explores once you get to sort of Act 2, which becomes the case for the rest of the movie, because it's really the story of one case. But you get to 1970, where the country is now much more angry, and there's a whole generation after Ruth that feels comfortable expressing that anger. And here is this woman who has been raised not to express her anger, and it becomes kind of a debate between these two ideals, which is straight out of growing up with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Because when I was a kid, we'd be sitting at Thanksgiving, and people would say, there's your aunt across the table. She changed the world. And I'm looking at her going, her. She's quietly, very slowly eating her turkey. Because I had a vision in my head of what a feminist from the 70s is like. Everybody does. It was Gloria, Gloria Steinem standing in front of a crowd, bringing everyone to their feet. And he was this quiet, precise sort of incrementalist. And what I came to appreciate and understand is that you need both. Sustainable change comes from changing the culture, but also changing the laws and the institution. And you need the rage to move the culture forward, but you need the sort of calmness and intellect and the persuasiveness of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to move the institutions and the law forward with you.

Dahlia Lithwick (17:29)

So that's why this case that you focus on, I want you to tell us about Charles Moritz. I want you to talk about the case. But you picked a case that wasn't the landmark Supreme Court case, as she pointed out.

Daniel Steepleman (17:40)

She's like, why? That case?

Dahlia Lithwick (17:41)

It's like, goes to the 10th Circuit. It's kind of. But it is, I think, two things. One, she argues it with Marty, and that's important. But also, this is emblematic of the strategy, which is the way I'm gonna persuade these boy judges who think in their boyheads is by bringing them a boy plaintiff. So talk about that for a little bit, because I think becomes part of what's kind of genius here.

Daniel Steepleman (18:03)

You know, for me, it was, first and foremost, it was the story of a marriage. In fact, it was. You know, it was the. It's Marty and Ruth arguing in court for something that they had managed to create at home, which was real, genuine equality, which is not something you ever get to see in a movie, is a husband and wife who actually support each other. And so for me, that was. That was very much the driving force. It was also the first case that Ruth ever argued. So if you're going to tell an origin story of how Ruth Kiki Bader became Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first case seems like the place to start. And it's a fascinating case. As you said, they were fighting for gender equality, they were fighting for women's rights, but they were doing it by representing a man, which feels counterintuitive in some ways. There's a. Ruth gets challenged in the movie. Someone says, what, you think the judges are gonna be sympathetic just because they all have prostates and in another scene, Dorothy Kenyon, I think, makes the point of. Here's a. Well, I should explain what the case is first. Charles Moritz was a bachelor who was taking care of his elderly mother at home, but he also had to work, so he hired a nurse. And because he had hired a nurse, he took a caregiver deduction on his taxes. I think something like $296 were at issue. But the IRS turned down the deduction because the tax code specifically said that that deduction was available to men if they were divorced or if they were widows or widowers or any women. In other words, if he had been an unmarried woman, he could take the deduction, but as an unmarried man, he was ineligible. And so what, in fact, Marty first and then showed Ruth, what they recognized was that this was a case of sex based discrimination against a man. And that as you say, this could open up the eyes of the judges that maybe now they could finally understand because they could put themselves in the shoes of this guy in a way that they couldn't for over a hundred years put themselves in the shoes of the women who had come before them making similar arguments.

Dahlia Lithwick (19:56)

And I just think this is so important, Daniel, because it's not about making women visible to male judges in some sense, it's about making other men visible to male judges. And that seems the very opposite of what we think, right? In latter day Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hobby Lobby, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Walmart Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's like, no, we're here, look at us. But this was early days.

Daniel Steepleman (20:20)

She's pragmatic and I'm gonna change law.

Dahlia Lithwick (20:22)

Okay, let's listen to her and Dorothy Kenyon. This is Kathy Bates, as Dorothy Kenyon. And I should say, because I think you flicked it, but let's say it really explicitly. One of the things that she always is at pains to say is I stand on the shoulders of all the people who came before Pauli Murray, Dorothy Kenyon, the, you know, the, the feminist lawyers who started blazing this trail that she feels like she inherited. And then I think Thurgood Marshall, right, who also was a part of this brick by brick, years long strategy. This is a scene where she's talking to Dorothy Kenyon. She sort of sandbags her and comes with her daughter Jane and comes to Dorothy Kenyon and says, like, I think now I got this. Let's have a listen.

Irwin Griswold (21:02)

Protection was coined to grant equality to the Negro, a task at which it has dismally failed, but makes you think women would fare any Better.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (21:09)

Please, if we could just talk.

Irwin Griswold (21:11)

You want to know how I blew it? Is that it? What I do differently?

Daniel Steepleman (21:15)

Why?

Irwin Griswold (21:15)

You think you can change the country? You should look to her generation. They're taking to the streets, demanding change, like we did when we fought for the vote. Our mistake was thinking we'd won. We started asking, please, as if civil rights were sweets to be handed out by judges.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (21:33)

Protests are important, but changing the culture means nothing if the law doesn't change. As a lawyer, you must believe that.

Irwin Griswold (21:41)

Let me guess. You're a professor, aren't you? Ton of knowledge and no smarts.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (21:49)

Well, we should go.

Irwin Griswold (21:50)

You want advice?

Dahlia Lithwick (21:51)

Here it is.

Irwin Griswold (21:52)

Tell your client she won't find equality in a courtroom.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (21:56)

My client's name is Charles Moritz.

Irwin Griswold (21:58)

That's cute.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (21:59)

He hired a nurse to take care of his mother, but he was denied a keg of a deduction on his taxes.

Irwin Griswold (22:07)

He's never been married. You found a bachelor taking care of his mother at home. Judges will be repulsed by him.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (22:16)

Feeling anything is the start.

Dahlia Lithwick (22:18)

First of all, the visual is her sandwich between these two generations. Right? She's got the generation before Dorothy Kenyon. She's got her daughter who's on the streets protesting. They're both telling her, what you're doing is dumb because social change does not come from the law. And. And then she sort of reels Dorothy Kenyon in by saying, I think I might have the case. And Dorothy Kenyon is not even persuaded by that.

Daniel Steepleman (22:42)

Not yet. Not yet, no. She's. I think Dorothy's intrigued. The real Dorothy Kenyon. You know, a lot of this is. I actually find this fascinating. A lot of the sort of dialogue or the ideas that she says in that scene specifically came out of her writings on the Equal Rights Amendment. She was worried that it was too soon for an Equal Rights Amendment, that the culture hadn't changed. And then right around this time in her life, she decided that the culture had changed enough, and maybe now it was finally time, and she switched sides on that argument. And I just decided maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg inspired that a little bit.

Dahlia Lithwick (23:14)

It's interesting because one of the things that Justice Ginsburg always says, and she says this even about Roe, is that we can't get too far ahead of the culture. I mean, this has been a lifelong. In some sense, the Dorothy Kenyon lesson is bred in her bones, too, which is the court, when it gets way out ahead of a culture that's still trying to sort things out, often sets us back. And I think she feels that that may even have been the case with abortion. So, again, I think this goes to your underlying point that this is not a radical bomb thrower. This is somebody who's like, wants to be just surfing that cultural moment when the country is ready for something, but she doesn't want to get too far out ahead of it.

Daniel Steepleman (23:59)

Right, But I think the movie is figuring that out. I don't know that that's where she starts out in the film. I think that's where she sort of gets to very near after the scene that you just played. It's her figuring out, wait, this is the argument. This is how you do it. This is how you create the change. It's Ruth Bader Ginsburg coming to understand the legal strategy that will then shape the rest of her career when she starts the Women's Rights Project at the aclu.

Dahlia Lithwick (24:28)

We know that you value the journalism that we do here at Slate. And now more than ever in this time, in this world, the work we do needs your support. The best way to support our journalism is via our membership program, Slate Plus. And with a Slate plus membership, you can enjoy this and all of Slate's other podcasts ad free. Plus you'll have access to exclusive bonus content from some of your very favorite Slate shows. There's a free trial to be found@slateplus.com amicus and now back to our conversation with screenwriter Daniel Steepelman about his new film on the Basis of Sex, which happens to be about his aunt, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So let's listen to this other clip, which I love because there's this amazing relationship between her and her teenage daughter Jane, who is played as this sort of universal, petulant, you know, teenage. You don't get me. And to the extent that there's real. And I know you're, like, balking that I'm saying any shoutiness, but the shoutiness.

Daniel Steepleman (25:28)

There's balking. There's definitely shoutiness, especially with Jane.

Dahlia Lithwick (25:31)

So that's interesting to me because, again, you know, I think of her as so utterly controlled, and yet it seems as though these are the scenes that tell me that there's something else going on there. And Jane in this moment is just. She's like, I'm just done with you. And you're like, drip, drip stuff. I want to go hit the streets. Let's have a listen.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (25:52)

I want to know where you were.

Jane Ginsburg (25:54)

Denise and I went to a rally to hear Gloria Steinem speak.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (25:57)

What?

Jane Ginsburg (25:59)

Gloria Steinem. She's a writer. She just started her own magazine. She testified in the Senate Yeah, I.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (26:04)

Know who Gloria Steinem is. What if you got hurt or arrested?

Jane Ginsburg (26:08)

Mom, it's a rally, not a riot.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (26:10)

Jane, these things can get out of hand.

Jane Ginsburg (26:12)

Okay, well, I'm 15 years old, and you don't need to control every minute of my life.

Dahlia Lithwick (26:15)

I do.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (26:15)

That is my job. And your job is to go to school and learn.

Jane Ginsburg (26:18)

Gloria said we need to unlearn the status quo.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (26:21)

So you're on a first name basis now?

Jane Ginsburg (26:23)

You know what, Mom? If you want to sit around with your students and talk about how shitty it is to be a girl, language. But don't pretend it's a movement, okay? It's not a movement if everyone's just sitting. That's a support group, Jane.

Daniel Steepleman (26:35)

That's enough.

Dahlia Lithwick (26:36)

So there's a lot going on there, Daniel. But I think the thing, and I think this is initially why I called you after I saw the film, was it highlights the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg is actually a beat too late for the take to the streets movement. Right. Like, in our head, we've conflated her. She and Gloria Steinem sort of share the same superhero cape, but they're actually quite profoundly, generationally off.

Daniel Steepleman (27:01)

That scene has never gotten as big a laugh as it did at the New York premiere when Ms. Steinem was there watching and nobody had told her that she got a shout out in the movie. I mean, I think of them as two sides of a coin that, as I said earlier, you need both. You need a Gloria Steinem and you need a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think they were a perfect match in that way, though. In a lot of ways, they were opposites in their tactics and in their personalities.

Dahlia Lithwick (27:27)

But what is it about the idea of getting arrested, the idea of being on the streets, that's so. Does that just go back to. I know Justice Ginsburg? One of the things her mom said to her, beat into her as a child, was, be a lady. Be ladylike. Is there something unladylike about getting in trouble?

Daniel Steepleman (27:45)

Well, I don't think it's her personality. I think the excitement of being on the streets and getting arrested is you get an emotional jolt out of it. You sort of get an emotional. You feel like you're doing something, and I'm doing it right now. And it feels like a revolution, and that's really exciting. Why wouldn't you want to be a part of that? Except that that alone does not create sustainable change. And Ruth's approach was just one step at a time. We're just going to take this one step At a time, because it works. Because that's what she's think. You're right to sort of look back to Ruth's mom who always said, oh, don't give way to negative emotions. Just keep your head about you and keep moving forward and that's how you're going to excel. And you can't argue that she was wrong because certainly Ruth has excelled.

Dahlia Lithwick (28:31)

So this brings us to the saintly Marty Ginsburg, who I think throughout the movie is unbelievable, patient, generous. Every time Jane and Ruth have a dust up, there's, you know, Marty somehow brokering it beautifully. And that was, I think the very first question I asked you was like, come on, nobody.

Daniel Steepleman (28:52)

You and everyone else. 5000 year history of narrative of men coming home from battle and their wives patch them up and send them out again. You write one supportive husband and people are like, such a creature could never exist.

Dahlia Lithwick (29:03)

Well, not only that, but like the rippling biceps, you know, of Armie Hammer as he chops scallions like it's. Oh my God.

Daniel Steepleman (29:10)

Well, first of all. So Marty was first of all an incredibly handsome guy. Marty and ruth, in their 30s, they were, you know, Smoke Shaw, stylish, good looking, you know, people about town. Maybe not Armie Hammer, beautiful. But it was crucial to the film to understand that. And it's accurate to Uncle Martin that he wasn't under her thumb. Right. We live in sort of this culture that has an idea of what, you know, just like there's ideas about, like women are caregivers, which is such a huge motif in the movie. The other thing is that we live in a culture that says men are supposed to be macho. We have these definitions of masculinity. And Marty didn't fit many of those. I mean, he was a successful lawyer, he had a career. But he also came home at the end of the day and put on an apron and cooked for his family. And like I said, he and Ruth were equal partners. They took care of the kids, they took care of the house, and they both did that together. And to me, the crucial thing about Uncle Martin was it was never a burden. He wasn't under her thumb. He wasn't the stereotype of the nebbishy husband who is crawling on his hands and feet for his wife. He was doing exactly what he wanted to do and he was just so confident and so manly about it that you need an Armie Hammer in that role. You need to communicate that to the audience that he is exactly where he wants to be. And it was a note we Got in development, too. People would come with checks and say, we would make this movie. The only thing is, I just don't believe in this Martin Ginsburg character. I think he should threaten to divorce her. That would really raise the stakes. And it's hard to get a movie made. So when someone's there waving the money, you're like, oh, all I have to do is throw my uncle under the bus.

Dahlia Lithwick (30:54)

He just needs to punch someone.

Daniel Steepleman (30:56)

Yeah, exactly. He just needs to be. He needs to fit my stereotype. What's interesting is that now we've screened the movie a lot, and after. And I've been to several of those screenings, and afterwards, a lot of men come up to me and say, wow, I don't live up to the ideals that I thought I did, and now I'm going to do better. And a lot of men come up to me and go, that guy couldn't possibly exist. You're full of it. And it's interesting. It's like, which one do you want to be married to? It's a good date movie in that regard. Sort of a litmus test.

Dahlia Lithwick (31:27)

If the guy storms out, right.

Daniel Steepleman (31:29)

If he doesn't believe in it, then move on.

Dahlia Lithwick (31:31)

So it is interesting. Cause I remember when my kids were little. Your kids are a little younger than mine. But when my kids were little, I remember interviewing Justice Ginsburg and her saying, it starts with finding the partner. If you don't find the partner who supports this, it's a really uphill battle. It's a slog.

Daniel Steepleman (31:52)

You have to fight so much out there. You don't want to come home and have to fight it there, too. And we're still. I mean, Marty was ahead of his time for the 50s and 70s. He's still ahead of his time. I mean, I think we're doing a better job of two career households. But statistically, women are still coming home and doing all the housework or most of the housework. And so to see a real partnership on screen is, as I said, my wife and I really looked to Ruth and Marty as our role models for what a marriage was supposed to be like. And we were so lucky to have that. Because my wife's an oncologist, I'm obviously a writer. We have two kids, and we do it all together. And we realized how fortunate we were to have them. And that was part of the motivation for writing the movie, was this is something I can share. This good fortune that I've had, I can share it with other people.

Dahlia Lithwick (32:35)

So talk for a minute about Mel Wolfe. Because he is the anti Marty in this movie. Right.

Daniel Steepleman (32:40)

He's also the anti Ruth. Right.

Dahlia Lithwick (32:42)

He's an ally. He's the one at the ACLU who's telling her sort of the scope of what he's going to allow her to do at the Women's Rights Project. So on paper, he's an ally. And yet. Oh, my God. Every time he can undermine. He does. Let's just. Before we talk about him, let's listen to a where he is part of a moot court. They're preparing for this argument in this Moritz case. And here's Mel Wolf trying to help her get ready for oral argument.

Daniel Steepleman (33:20)

And this is Justin Thoreau as Mel Wolf.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (33:22)

Why shouldn't men be nurses? And if women want to fight violence. Yeah. Again, if women choose to take on.

Daniel Steepleman (33:28)

These judges, why not CEOs, generals, about garbage men. You want to be a garbage man.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (33:33)

And if men want to be teachers or raise children, percentages aren't the point. People should be able to pursue passion.

Daniel Steepleman (33:40)

Screwing it up.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (33:41)

Ruth, have you read the appendix? You're making the wrong case. Written by men who think we are privileged to be excused for men's obligations. But it is not a privilege. It is a cage. And these laws are the bars.

Daniel Steepleman (33:58)

You're going to take them all on at the same time.

Dahlia Lithwick (34:01)

So that guy's on her team.

Daniel Steepleman (34:07)

The real Mel Wolf was a fascinating guy. He was the legal director of the aclu. He could have gone to a private firm and been a partner and made a fortune. He dedicated his life to social justice and then by the end of his career, sort of got booted out the back door of the aclu. He was a divisive figure. He was a very strong personality. He would bully and cajole people into doing things the way he wanted them done. And like you said, he was an ally. But he was also Mel.

Dahlia Lithwick (34:40)

And at some point in this same scene, he says crushingly, would it kill you to smile? He wants her to be more charming at the 10th Circuit.

Daniel Steepleman (34:49)

But his deeper point is a point that she does take to heart eventually, which is that you have to be persuasive. The judges can't be afraid of you. You. Right. As you said, at this point, I think people had sort of this vision in their head, the same vision I had as a kid of what a feminist was and that she was going to be this woman on the street, tear down the system. And the deeper sort of note behind the note that he's giving her is you've got to show them that you are not that. Because if they're scared of you and they're scared of what you represent, then they're not going to side with you. You. And he says it in the most condescending, awful way while chewing. Yeah, while chewing the food that Marty cooked. But his deeper point isn't wrong. And that's what's so infuriating about Mel Wolf. And that's why he's sort of a great ally and antagonist at the same time.

Dahlia Lithwick (35:41)

And it has this beautiful counterpoint because we just finished talking about how she's saying to other people, including her daughter, we can't get too far out ahead of our skis on this. And then here's Mel Wolf saying, don't get out too far ahead of this. So in a way, he's channeling her fundamental conservatism back at her and saying, right, don't take on this whole thing at once. You don't have to get into a fight about garbage men to win this case.

Daniel Steepleman (36:11)

Right. The strategy is. You know, the strategy he's dictating becomes the strategy of the women's rights.

Dahlia Lithwick (36:17)

So in a weird way, this is a story about somebody who is small C conservative learning to be even more small c conservative in some ways. In terms of at least the litigation.

Daniel Steepleman (36:28)

Strategy, you could see why I'm worried some people are gonna be pissed off at our version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Dahlia Lithwick (36:32)

Well, I think it's. I mean, I think, as you said, it's quite counter narrative to the, you know, she was out there burning stuff down narrative that we like to tell. I'm thinking about all the people who are just gonna go see this movie and fall in love with this movie, because at the end of the day, it's a really sweet love story about.

Daniel Steepleman (36:51)

It's a love story. It's a. I was gonna say David and Goliath. The. Lila and Goliath.

Dahlia Lithwick (36:56)

Yeah.

Daniel Steepleman (36:56)

You know, it's sort of a classic Hollywood movie in a lot of ways.

Dahlia Lithwick (37:01)

And with, like, great hair and great costumes and a real feeling of the 50s and the 70s. And yet it's insidious. It's kind of doing something far more than that. Talk about that for a minute.

Daniel Steepleman (37:13)

Yeah, of course. I mean, the movie works the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg works. Right. Ruth was able to make a revolutionary argument because she presented herself in a way that was approachable and palatable and made the judges feel comfortable in a way. And that's basically how the movie works. The movie presents itself as a sort of a classical Hollywood biopic. And that's how it can make a sort of revolutionary argument, because it's a classic Hollywood biopic, but it's a classical Hollywood biopic with a female lead about tax law and a husband who wears an apron and a teenage daughter who never talks about boys or clothes. And so it can make those sort of revolutionary arguments in a way that makes the audience say, grab your kids, grab a bucket of popcorn. It's coming out on Christmas Day. You know, it's a joyous, fun movie, you know, with a point.

Dahlia Lithwick (38:09)

The last thing that I found so interesting about Felicity Jones, who's this very British, you know, very, very different character from the Ruth Bader Ginsburg that you and I know about, is this voice thing. And so, you know, at one metaphorical level, this is a film about her finding her voice. But talk a little bit about Felicity Jones learning to do like Brooklyn Jewy, you know, sort of there's a real voice, is a character in some ways in this film.

Daniel Steepleman (38:39)

Well, I mean, it's more than just her voice. It's the whole way she presents herself throughout the movie. Ruth's opening line of dialogue in the movie, and it's not a coincidence, is right after Erwin Griswold gives that Harvard man speech. She walks up to Marty with two dresses in her hand and says, which one makes me look more like a Harvard man? And it's a gag. But it's also like the central theme, which is I'm trying to fit in. I'm trying to fit in enough so that I, you know, it's her. It's something that I think a lot of women can relate to and a lot of Jewish people can relate to, to, which is, how much do I want to fit into the mainstream and how much do I want to own myself and be proud of who I am? And that's what she's exploring throughout the movie. And so for Felicity, it's not just. It wasn't just in the voice. It's the way she carries herself, the way she walks, the way. And I can tell you, as Ruth's nephew, the mimicry aspect of the performance is uncanny. I mean, it's just incredible. But one of the things that Felicity taught when we were on set, and she was like, listen to the tapes from the 70s, because that's what she did to prepare. She was listening to tapes of Ruth doing oral arguments in the Supreme Court. And in those tapes, we all have the voice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in our head as like an 85 year old Bubby who is now in a position where she can say anything she wants and she knows she's going to be listened to. But to become that woman, she had to be persuasive and she had to be non threatening, which we've been talking about in the context of feminism. But it also meant sort of covering up her brookliness, her Jewishness. And so when you listen to the tapes, what you get is this sort of almost mid. Well, I would call it Midwestern. Felicity called it almost golden age of Hollywood style accent, where she sort of covers up her Brooklyn. But then this is the part that just blows me away about Felicity's performance. When she gets emotional, when she starts to get angry, she, like, she leads into the Brooklyn ease and then she recovers her poise and she leans out of it again. And then there were certain words on the tapes that always came out from the hood. So whenever she talked about New York, mother, anything associated with home, those words always came out in full on Brooklyn.

Dahlia Lithwick (40:37)

How does mother sound in full on Brooklyn?

Daniel Steepleman (40:39)

I'm not gonna do it. I'm not full of said anything crazy. You're gonna get calls about that. That's his Brooklyn accent. But I think there's a moment in the movie where I think you really see it, or where I really see it is when she's going through her job interviews, which you mentioned, and it looks like she's gonna get the job and she's finally sort of relaxes a little bit bit, and sort of eases into the Brooklyn accent a little bit and then realizes she has to recover her poise and goes out of it again. I don't want to blow the scene, so I'm not going to say any more than that. But for me, for Ruth, who can be a hard person to know, she can be hard to read because she keeps up this shell. She keeps up this facade of calmness, especially when she's in public, especially when she's in front of authority figures. The way Felicity plays that accent like a harp, to give you insight into what's going on in her soul. I just think it's so beautiful.

Dahlia Lithwick (41:35)

I walked out of the movie. I think I told you this when we spoke on the phone. I walked out. Just sad. Daniel. I was like, nostalgic.

Daniel Steepleman (41:42)

That's totally what we were going for, but okay.

Dahlia Lithwick (41:45)

And I just woke up nostalgic for a 1972. Like that feeling of like we're all around the conference table, like the big afros, the turtlenecks, you know, storming the barricades this feeling that it was all before us, that it was all about to happen.

Daniel Steepleman (42:01)

It's interesting. You know, one of the. Ruth's reaction to the film when she saw it the first time is she said, I'm just so glad that it's joyous.

Dahlia Lithwick (42:07)

It is.

Daniel Steepleman (42:07)

She said, you know, that's what feminism was like for me in the 70s. She said, you know, we weren't angry, we weren't depressed. We had this sense that the world was getting better and we were at the forefront of that change. And I think that's what you're missing. That's what I'm missing is like right now, now, to sort of be a liberal or to have these liberal ideals or what we call liberal ideals, is you feel like you're on the defensive. You don't feel like you're winning, you feel angry about it. And she's talking about a time when you felt joyous about it, you felt optimistic about it. And I think that's the special alchemy to Ruth is that she's so steely, she's so driven, she's so precise. But it's all undergirded by joy and optimism. And I think that's. That's the part we start to lose in the memes and stuff like that, is that she's a joyous person who to this day, yesterday said to me, the pendulum's going to swing back. It might not happen in my lifetime, but this is just a phase, and there's going to be another phase, and it's going to keep getting better, because that's the trajectory of America. She really believes in that. She believes in the country. She believes in the institutions. She reveres the court and the Constitution, and she believes that they're going to. They're going to continue to show us the way towards greater freedom for more people.

Dahlia Lithwick (43:26)

And I guess that's the thing. When I was trying to soothe myself after all the turtlenecks, I said to myself, this is the difference, is that you don't stand up in front of panels of all men judges anymore that.

Daniel Steepleman (43:40)

Women have and you never will again.

Dahlia Lithwick (43:41)

We never know. Well, I mean.

Daniel Steepleman (43:43)

Well, but I think. I mean, I think there's. Because of the way she did it, because she made the slow change, cultural changes. The culture will move like waves, but institutional change is sort of by. It takes a long time to make, but it also takes a long time to tear down. I don't think we can imagine getting to a point where women don't have the vote anymore. Right. Those are institutional changes that were made. Yes, there's a lot of white men being put on the courts right now, but I don't think we're gonna get to a time where there are no women judges anymore or ever again. I don't think we're gonna get to a time where there are no women on the Supreme Court ever again. Those are bigger sort of structural changes, and they take longer to make, but they also take longer to tear down.

Dahlia Lithwick (44:35)

I think that's why I wanted to talk to you today, and I think it's why this film gave me huge comfort, because I think that if you believe in the slow drip, drip, the inexorable arc of the moral universe, there is something really powerful about coming out of this movie and saying, at minimum, we have fundamentally changed the legal architecture. And that isn't only because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but it's largely because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She put it into. Yeah, she put it into action in a way that. Almost as invisible now. And the idea that, you know, not all that long ago, you couldn't get a credit card, you know, you could get fired for being pregnant, which, you know, she had to hide her pregnancy in our lifetime, in her lifetime. That's extraordinary. We don't go back to that. And now we have this amazing substructure that she's put into place. And I think that more and more, it feels to me as though. I don't know how joyful I feel about it at this minute, but I do feel very confident about it, and I think she does as well.

Daniel Steepleman (45:39)

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, I have a hard time feeling joyful about it, too, because I have kids and a future and wonder what the country that we're making for them is right now and where is it headed. And it's hard not to feel worried about those things, but I'm not. Ruth, Ruth. Ruth. Continues to feel optimistic.

Dahlia Lithwick (45:59)

Daniel Steepleman is the writer of on the Basis of Sex. It was directed by Mimi Leder, starring Felicity Jones, and swoony woke Armie Hammer. And it is opening Christmas Day.

Daniel Steepleman (46:13)

Daniel Christmas Day Limited, nationwide, January 11th.

Dahlia Lithwick (46:17)

Thank you so much for being here. And thank you for, I think, as macaroni and cheese conversation goes, this was like macaroni and cheese with a really. It was the truffled Mac and cheese.

Daniel Steepleman (46:28)

Ooh, fancy.

Dahlia Lithwick (46:29)

Of the constitutional law world. And that is a wrap for this episode of Amicus. Thank you so much for listening. If you'd like to get in touch. Our email is amicuslate.com and you can always find us@facebook.com amicuspodcast and we love your letters and your feedback. Today's show was produced by Sarah Burningham. Gabriel Roth is editorial director of Slate Podcasts, and June Thomas is managing producer of Slate Podcasts. We wish you and your family happy holidays. We'll be back with another episode of Amicus in two short weeks.