Zweiter Aufschlag

I've just read a local paper bemoaning the fact that very few films or books had been made with tennis as a central theme. I was waiting for the author to mention "Second Serve" - and the fact that he didn't proves that he must not have seen this movie.

It would be fully 15 years since it was shown here on TV, but I remember how superb Vanessa Redgrave is in the lead role (true to form - she is one of my all-time favourite actors).

Since becoming an activist in the local gay community, I have come to know personally several transgenders and to appreciate even more just how honest a representation "Second Serve" makes.

Significantly it is just this month that the Olympics governing body have declared that transgenders will be included in the next Games. I believe that Renee Richards personal strength and public honesty was the first step in achieving this statement of equity.

I think it was about 25 years ago that I saw Second Serve for the first time. At the time I had a personal interest in the problem of gender identity and Renée Richards was probably the most famous – or notorious – transsexual in the world. So I was quite curious to see the film, but in the end I was rather disappointed. When saw it again recently it was the other way round. Probably because of my low expectations I thought that it is not such a bad film after all. The best part is definitely when Richards is still a man struggling with his gender identity. On the other hand the part after the operation is too smooth and superficial for my taste. It looks as if the only problem that Richards has a female are the reactions of other people.

Of course I have to admit that Vanessa Redgrave is really fantastic in such a complicated role. Few actress could have played a male so well. But here we come to the biggest flaw. Why was the main part cast with an woman and not with a man? Richard Raskind – or "Radley" as is he called in the film - was a 100 % male. How hard Redgrave tries, especially in the close-ups you can see that she is a woman playing a man. On the other hand Renée Richards after the "sex-change" looks like a real woman and in some ways an attractive one. The real Richards did not. I think it is dishonest that Second Serve creates the illusion that an operation can turn a man into a woman. Of course there have been a number of famous transsexuals like Christine Jorgensen, April Ashley or singer Amanda Lear - who was born as Alain Tapp - who were really attractive women, but the male-to-female transsexuals that I have known personally just looked like men in drag.

Although just a small part of the film deals with her career as a female tennis player I think it is unfair that she is only presented as a victim of mean morons. Richards was already in her forties and had never been a real top player as a man. Still she had a male physique and was towering over her rivals. I can understand that other players didn't want to play against her and were deeply frustrated when they lost. Interesting enough it was Richards herself who called it "a particular stupid decision" that in 2004 transsexuals were allowed to take part in the Olympic Games. Maybe some would call her a hypocrite, but I think most of all she was a human being. And it is human never to stop doubting.

It is hard to discuss Second Serve and not talk about the real Renée Richards and the problem of gender identity. According to some studies of all the people who consider a sex change 97 % give up the idea after a while. And of the 3 % who actually go on a considerable number has regrets. Richards seems to be one of them – at least now and then. In 1999 she said in an interview: "I wish that there could have been an alternative way, but there wasn't in 1975. If there was a drug that I could have taken that would have reduced the pressure, I would have been better off staying the way I was - a totally intact person. I know deep down that I'm a second-class woman." She never wanted to be a role model, but her life can teach many interesting lessons about the hardships of transsexualism.

Mine is not so much a review but a rebuttal of the negative reviews here. One reviewer thinks that taking female hormones change a male voice to a female one and eliminates a beard. This is completely untrue. The voice has to be retrained and the beard removed via electrolysis. This is hard to do and takes a long and painful time to complete. Many have said that Renee Richards had an unfair advantage when competing against cis-women. This is a falsehood. The female hormones that Richards would have taken would have significantly reduced the muscle mass and strength from that when she was a man. The only advantage she would have had, perhaps and only perhaps, was that gained from being a man and the superior sports hand eye coordination and technique that would entail. Having said that, Raskin wasn't that great a player as a man in that environment. Others have said a man changing sex will never be a true woman. But he will never again be a true man. So that then creates a voluntary inter-sex, the eunuch. This position has existed since the dawn of human history and therefore should be treated with the utmost respect and admiration for it is a brave and committed path. Transsexuals hurt no-one and give much love back, when allowed to do so.

I'am a Vanessa Redgrave fan. However, that does not mean that every performance she gives and every film she makes will be "Oscar" worthy in my eyes. This film DESERVED every Emmy it was nominated for (3) and deserved the 2 wins. However, Redgrave was cheated out of her Emmy. I have never seen a woman pass so greatly as a man before. Redgrave is wonderful! She even got down the movements of a man! There are times you can tell it's her. But if you don't know her, you can't. She looks like a man 100% of the time and only when she turns slightly do you get a glimpse of the real person.

The movie is wonderful. It's brilliant. Redgrave is brilliant! You see her struggle time after time with her identity and you feel for this character. She really jumps into character. She even fights like a man! If you can get your hands on this, get it! It is wonderful!

This is a telemovie, but make no mistake about its quality. There are better production and performance values here than in many big screen Hollywood flicks.

Get it if you can! I'm lucky enough to have found an ex-rental copy many years ago.

Vanessa Redgrave delivers a performance characteristic of her extraordinary body of work - stirring, believable, assured, compelling - in fact you will wonder where the 90 minutes went as she takes you on an incredible trip through the life of an extraordinary individual.

Redgrave is totally convincing as a man, and as the movie progresses she remains totally convincing as a woman who was once a man. She clearly has enormous empathy for the difficulties faced by Richard Radley in his long and arduous quest to live the life he wants, as Renee Richards.

There are some other fine performances in this film (Louise Fletcher, however, is surprisingly stilted) but it is Vanessa Redgrave's breathtaking portrayal that makes this movie unmissable, and will make you forgive the glib, all-too-convenient telemovie-style moments of plot development, of which there are mercifully few.