‘Lilly': ‘Erin Brockovitch' Lite
PG-13 | 1h 33m | Biopic | 2025
In 'Lilly,' writer-director Rachel Feldman tells the story of trailblazer Lilly Ledbetter (Patricia Clarkson), a pioneer from humble beginnings who took her employer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., to court on the basis of gendered pay discrimination.
While the influential legacy of Lilly Ledbetter (whose contributions toward equal pay fight resulted in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) deserves celebration, this earnest and heavy-handed biopic is more focused on its message than on Lilly. Sadly, her legacy doesn't receive the polished and sophisticated biopic treatment it deserves.
Unequal Pay
Lilly spent two decades as an Alabama tire factory supervisor before discovering in 1999 the extent of her unequal pay compared to her male colleagues. After filing a lawsuit for discrimination, she became an underdog crusader for the issue, learning difficult lessons along the way about corporate manipulation of the justice system, and the influence of political lobbyists.
Lilly Ledbetter (Patricia Clarkson) at work in the tire factory in "Lilly."
Blue Harbor Entertainment
Co-writer-director Rachel Feldman's biopic feels more a rushed docudrama. In it, everything is spelled out for the audience by both the characters within the story and one expert who exists outside of it—the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It's likely Ginsburg's writing on Ledbetter's case resulted in Congress passing new legislation to address inequality of pay. The late judge was obviously an expert on the case, an impassioned and wise advocate for gender equality, and a fine storyteller, but making her the narrator immediately makes one wonder if the filmmakers wouldn't have rather made a biopic about Ginsburg and not Lilly.
Related Stories
12/23/2020
11/29/2020
Throughout, a few scenes communicate Lilly's personal life. There's her relationship with her husband, Charles (John Benjamin Hickey), who at first resents his wife's decision to start working to supplement their meager income, but who eventually becomes her constant advocate over the years. Also, there's her strained relationship with her wayward son (Will Pullen). Lilly loves to dance, that is, until a work 'accident' severely injures her leg.
Clarkson ('The Station Agent') displays Lilly's feisty tenacity but is ultimately forgettable in this tonally confusing narrative. Lilly remains little more than a representation of the legal fight and activism that happened around her. There must have been much more to the real Ledbetter than this movie portrays, but it's ultimately sabotaged by the intrusive, edited archival material and curious stylistic choices. Although well-intentioned, the film overall lacks subtlety and surprise.
Promotional poster for "Lilly."
Blue Harbor Entertainment
'Lilly'
Director: Rachel Feldman
Starring: Patricia Clarkson, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Benjamin Hickey, Will Pullen
MPAA rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 33 minutes
Release Date: May 9, 2025
Rating: 2 1/2
st
ars out of 5
Would you like to see other kinds of arts and culture articles? Please email us your story ideas or feedback at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Ginny & Georgia' is a breakthrough in showing abortion as a personal experience
The series: 'Ginny & Georgia.' The setting: A women's healthcare clinic. The scene: Ginny, 16, is carrying an unwanted pregnancy. She's seeking an abortion. During a preconsultation, a clinic provider asks if she needs more time to decide. No, says the teen, she's sure. There's no proverbial wringing of hands around the character's decision. No apologizing for her choice. Why? Because it's not for us to judge. It's a personal matter, despite all the politicization around reproductive rights that might have us believe otherwise. Opinions, debates and legislative fights around abortion have raged since Roe vs. Wade was adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 1973, then overturned in 2022. It's no secret why such a lightning-rod issue is rarely touched by series television. Alienating half the country is bad for ratings. Exceptions include breakthrough moments on shows such as 'Maude,' 'The Facts of Life' and 'Jane the Virgin,' but even those episodes were careful to weigh the sensitivity of the political climate over a transparent depiction of their character's motivations and experience. Another pitfall is that subplots featuring abortion storylines are hard to pull off without feeling like a break from scheduled programming for an antiabortion or pro-abortion-rights PSA, or worse, a pointless exercise in bothsidesism. Season 3 of Netflix dramedy 'Ginny & Georgia' dares to go there, unapologetically making the political personal inside a fun, wily and addictive family saga. The series, the streamer's No. 1 show since it returned two weeks ago, skillfully delivers an intimate narrative that defies judgment and the fear of being judged. The hourlong series, which launched in 2021, follows single mom Georgia Miller (Brianne Howey), her angsty teenage daughter Ginny (Antonia Gentry) and her young son Austin (Diesel La Torraca). This formerly nomadic trio struggles to forge a 'normal' life in the fictional Boston suburb of Wellsbury. Flamboyant, fast-talking Southerner Georgia stands out among the fussy, provincial New England set. Born in Alabama to drug-addicted parents, she fled her abusive upbringing as a teenager. Homeless, she met Zion (played as an adult by Nathan Mitchell), a college-bound student from a good family. Soon into their relationship, she fell pregnant, giving birth to their daughter Ginny, kicking off a life on the run and in service of protecting her children. Now in her 30s, the blond bombshell has relied on her beauty, innate smarts and countless grifts to endure poverty and keep her family intact. The hardscrabble lifestyle has made Ginny wise beyond her years, though she's not immune to mercurial teen mood swings and the sophomoric drama of high school. But history appears to repeat itself when Ginny becomes pregnant after having sex just once with a fellow student from her extracurricular poetry class. Overwhelmed, he's the first person she tells about their dilemma. 'That's wild,' he responds idiotically, before abruptly taking off, leaving her to deal with the pregnancy on her own. Episode 7 largely revolves around Ginny's decision to have an abortion, a thoughtfully paced subplot that breaks from the perpetual chaos and deadly secrets permeating the Millers' universe. Ginny is painfully aware that she is the product of an unwanted pregnancy and her mother's choice not to have an abortion. Georgia has repeatedly said her kids are the best thing that ever happened to her. But when counseling her distraught daughter, Georgia says the choice is Ginny's to make, and no one else's. Here's where 'Ginny & Georgia' might have launched into a didactic, pro-abortion-rights lecture cloaked in a TV drama, or played it safe by pulling back and highlighting both women's stories in equal measure. Instead it chose to bring viewers in close, following Ginny's singular experience from her initial shame and panic, to moving conversations with her mom, to that frank counseling session at the women's health center where she made it quite clear she was not ready to be a mother. We watched her take the medication, then experience what followed: painful cramping, pangs of guilt, waves of relief and the realization she now bore a new, lifelong emotional scar that wasn't caused by her mother. By sticking to Ginny's intimate story, through her perspective, the series delivers a story that is hers and hers alone, partisan opinions be damned. 'Ginny & Georgia' has offered up many surprises over its three seasons. Georgia has emerged one of the more entertaining, cunning and inventive antiheroes of the 2020s. As such, she attracts men in droves, schemes a la Walter White and doesn't believe in therapy: 'We don't do that in the South. We shoot things and eat butter.' But therapy might be a good idea given Season 3's cliffhanger ending: another accidental pregnancy.
USA Today
6 days ago
- USA Today
Millions from books: Here's what Supreme Court financial disclosures show
Millions from books: Here's what Supreme Court financial disclosures show Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made more than $2 million last year for her best-selling memoir, according to the latest round of financial disclosure reports for the justices which became public on June 17. Jackson's book, 'Lovely One,' made the New York Time's bestseller list when it came out last year amid an extensive publicity tour for the court's newest member. That's much more than the $250,000 in royalties Justice Neil Gorsuch reported earning last year for a book on the law he co-authored with a former clerk. But Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett could report eye-popping figures in the future for her forthcoming memoir, which reportedly earned a $2 million advance. Barrett's book, 'Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,' is coming out in September. The annual disclosure reports cover the preceding year of financial activity. As is his usual practice, Justice Samuel Alito received a 90-day extension to file his annual report. Jackson, in last year's report, disclosed she'd initially received a $893,750 advance for 'Lovely One.' More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. Justice Sonia Sotomayor continues to receive royalties − $73,944 last year – from children's books she's written. And she received a $60,000 advance from Penguin Random House for "Just Shine,' another children's book to be published in September. In May, multiple justices recused themselves from deciding whether to accept an appeal involving alleged plagiarism in books published by Penguin Random House. That meant there were not enough justices to consider the appeal, which left in place a lower court's ruling dismissing the lawsuit. Other outside earnings and travel In addition to income from their writings, several justices reported outside earnings from teaching. Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each received $31,815 from Notre Dame Law School. Gorsuch received $30,379.91 from George Mason University. Travel the justices reported, without detailing their cost, included:
The Hill
7 days ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court won't revive copyright suit over Ed Sheeran's ‘Thinking Out Loud'
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a copyright challenge to Ed Sheeran's 'Thinking Out Loud' that accused the pop star of unlawfully emulating the late Marvin Gaye's 'Let's Get It On.' The justices turned away an appeal by Structured Asset Sales, a partial owner to the rights of Gaye's 1973 hit, which filed suit in 2018 over alleged similarities between the songs. Lower courts deemed Sheeran not liable for copyright infringement, finding the singer's 2014 hit did not unlawfully rip off Gaye's song because the earlier tune was too mainstream to be legally protected. 'Even when combined, the four-chord progression and syncopated harmonic rhythm at issue are too unoriginal for copyright protection,' wrote Judge Michael Park of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 'Plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that this same combination appears in well-known songs predating Let's Get It On, leaving no triable issues of fact as to the originality of the alleged combination.' 'And no reasonable jury could find that the two songs, taken as a whole, are substantially similar in light of their dissimilar melodies and lyrics,' the judge continued, affirming a district court's ruling. Structured Asset Sales, owned by investment banker David Pullman, owns about 11 percent of the rights to Gaye's song and argued that the lawsuit should not have been thrown out. Hillel Parness, a lawyer for Structured Asset Sales, wrote in its petition to the justices that the law surrounding the company's copyright claim is unsettled and should be addressed by the nation's highest court. 'The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,' Parness said. Sheeran previously saw victory in a separate copyright lawsuit brought by the family of Ed Townsend, the co-writer of Gaye's song. A jury in 2023 said that he didn't steal key components of the tune. After that verdict, the singer told reporters that the claim should not have been brought in the first place. 'I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy,' he said at the time, according to the Associated Press. 'I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake.'
