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.
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.