Jogo Perigoso

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!

Ms. Redgrave is no less than stunning as Richard. This is so much the case that when she finally won her hard-fought battle to become Renee, I was worried that she'd have a hard time passing as female. Her performance really grabbed me that much. The supporting cast is also very professional, and they wisely defer to Redgrave's presence in every scene. This film walks the line between the clinical and the emotional better than any other I have seen on the subject including the recent TransAmerica. There can be no greater fighting for the dignity of one's soul than when the world insists that your apparent gender is true but you are certain it is a lie and that you really can never life your own life until you correct that lie.

"Second Serve" is a stunning made for TV movie done at a time when TV films seemed to have a little more thought put into them than they do now. In later years, they have descended into true crime and women in crisis, drawing largely from the headlines. This film is drawn from the headlines, too, but a different kind. It's the story of Richard Radley, who becomes Renee Richards. Back in 1986, these stories were uncommon - there were no MSNBC documentaries on sex changes, no true stories shown on The Learning Channel. Renee Richards, of course, is a tremendously accomplished woman, an ophthalmologist and tennis pro, who gains a great deal of publicity by suing the tennis association for discrimination.

I found this to be a very uplifting story of a brave person who fought for what she believed in so that she and others like her could have a better life. Vanessa Redgrave is perfect in the role - tall and big-boned, she has an androgeny that she can turn on when a role calls for it, and of course, she is a great actress. I saw her several years ago in "Long Day's Journey into Night" and was blown away, as I was when I saw her in this 19 years ago. If you get a chance to see this, it's beautifully done.

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.

... but at the time no such controversy existed. Transgender rights would not become an issue until about 2015.

In 1986 , when this film was made, somebody being trans was still a very rare thing. I always thought the protagonist was a fictional character, and I was surprised when preparing to rewatch it to discover Renee Richards was an actual person.

Richard Radley (Vanessa Redgrave) is an opthamologist in New York City and also a very good tennis player. The film actually minimizes his tremendous athletic accomplishments. But he's also suffering from considerable gender dysphoria. He first approaches his mother - both of his parents are physicians - about his feelings. She connects him with an excellent psychiatrist. This being the 60s, transsexualism was considered insanity at the time, so he is only encouraged to "get over it" by medical professionals. This leads to lots of heartache, including RIchard marrying and fathering a son, with the wife wondering what is wrong with her when Richard grows cold towards her- she knows nothing about the gender dysphoria. The marriage fails, and ultimately Richard becomes Renee, finally taking the step of having the sex change surgery.

The public trouble begins when Renee plays in an amateur tennis tournament. A member of the press finds out the truth about her background and tells it on the air - members of the press aren't known for their compassion or discretion - and a controversy and the upending of Renee's life results.

One thing that wasn't discussed in the film is the tremendous advantage she'd have - in bone density, lung capacity, strength - having gone through puberty as a man. With there being so many trans people coming out today, many wanting to play sports, this has become a much bigger issue. In 1986 the novelty of the situation had it not being mentioned. It's almost like realizing that until the late 1970's the GOP really had no strong party position against abortion.

I'd say this is worth watching for Vanessa Redgrave's acting. She really has me convinced she is a wiry somewhat shy man up to the point of the physical transition. It's also interesting to see how the issue has evolved over 40 years.