What do we make of HBO’s “Confirmation”? Seen by millions, this movie strongly suggests that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas perjured himself in 1991 in denying the accusations of Anita Hill of sexual harassment. The story is not just of the personal disgrace for Thomas but of the national scandal that he was ever confirmed.
What’s it been like for him and fellow justices living that lie for the past quarter of a century?
More important, what does it do to our national life to have that blotch on what should be our most respected institution?
“Confirmation” is only a movie; it doesn’t actually prove anything. But it uses pretty much verbatim the testimony from the Senate hearing (also available on YouTube). And it is pretty clear what version of the story it favors, that Hill was telling the truth and Thomas lying through his teeth.
If the testimony itself doesn’t convince you, other elements of the movie favor that view: all the old, male crony politicians on Thomas’s side vs. fresh-faced, as yet uncorrupted young aides—for Hill. Hill passes the lie-detector test; Thomas refuses to take it.
Can we expect someone—out of conservative outrage, or perhaps just some mistaken notion of balance—to make another movie telling the story the other way? Is there a credible story using the same facts, the same testimony, making Hill out to be a liar with a vicious agenda and Thomas to be a guiltless victim?
I don’t think so, any more than we are likely to be getting movies showing that the Wall Street traders and pedaphile priests of “The Big Short” or “Spotlight” were actually the good guys.
No Comments