The HBO film, "Confirmation" documents the grueling events of Judge Clarence Thomas' US Supreme Court confirmation hearings. For a young person that is not as familiar with the history behind his confirmation to the US Supreme Court this film was very shocking and very upsetting. Before watching this movie I did not know about all of the controversy that surrounded his nomination and I had never heard of Anita Hill. When President Bush nominated Thomas (Wendell Pierce) to replace Thurgood Marshall the nation was overall convinced that he would be confirmed by the Senate. However when Anita Hill (Kerry Washington) is asked to come forward to with her testimony of sexual harassment against Thomas the chaos begins. The director Rick Famuyiwa includes news clips that were live during the hearings which enhances the audiences' experience. The news clips make the viewers feel as if the hearings are taking place now. Also this film includes many behind the scenes looks into what occurred without the public's knowledge and it is very disturbing. I would recommend this film because of the outstanding acting and the important message.
Add a Review
-
gmclean-246361 May 2016
-
simaba27 June 2022Watching this post Roe v. Wade overturn is pretty heartbreaking. So many people so many senators knowingly let this happen. It really shows how politicians focus on power, money and winning but not what's right.
-
Quinoa198417 April 2016The bottom line with Confirmation is that it's not complex as far as the plot goes, and this is particularly if you know the history. In fall of 1991 Thurgood Marshall retired from SCOTUS, and, feeling the pressure to nominate a black man to the court, Bush picked Clarence Thomas, a man who many felt wasn't qualified for the court (as Jeffrey Wright's character says at one point, "I have students who are better qualified than Clarence Thomas"). But when asked by someone from Senator Biden's office about whether or not he should be confirmed, Anita Hill couldn't hold back and be silent and told the truth: she was sexually harassed, as far as having to hear vulgar talk about sex (i.e. "Long Dong Silver" is a thing in a court of public record, I mean Jesus), and asked out on multiple occasions. It got out to the press, she had to go testify, as did Thomas, and all this before a seemingly immovable date for the man's confirmation.
This all could have made for a compelling mini-series, or an even longer movie. What is a little disappointing about is that this is probably the best this kind of movie could be, but it's still not quite good enough, or I should say that the detail isn't exactly strong enough. Mostly I found that the depiction of Clarence Thomas not exactly weak but basic: for such a man who I may find reprehensible (from before and during his 25 past years on the court), Wendell Pierce gives Thomas as a person, and character in this story, some dignity, and Anita Wright as Clarence Thomas' wife as well. But what about anything else aside from his indignation and sad faces? What else was/is there to Thomas?
Maybe that just wasn't the focus, and director Fumiyama (of last year's surprise critical hit Dope), wanted to keep it on the politics and especially the media - many figures who you might recognize from CNN and elsewhere in cable news pop up as younger selves - certainly keeps a good eye on that. But what does make an impact and what is certainly good to look past the flaws here, are a) Kerry Washington's performance, which is so unwavering in making Anita Hill a figure of sympathy but also aching empathy, completely stripping anything else except this woman and having to put up being solid in front of the committee. And b) how the story and movie treats the whole aspect of how equal rights were not there in 1991, and may still not be (or, to put it another way, despite the changes the struggle is ongoing), for women in this country.
Like the recent People vs OJ series, we get a story that seems to deal a lot in race - Thomas' "High tech lynching" comment that struck an emotional chord for some but was seen as being disingenuous by others - and yet it's really about how women fit it, or certainly do not, in a world full of men. Images of women and how they talk and react, every little thing that they say, is under the kind of scrutiny here that men just don't have to face, at least not to this level. Confirmation is about the representation of a woman's image in politics, in the media, in the public at large, and what that does when up against a "street fight" as one of the raging white male Republican senators says. You can read a lot into what the hearings, as seen in this story, say about the national public character, and yet it's displayed for us to see in those hearings, and the behind-the-scenes fights and digging for dirt via the Republican senators, as opposed to spelled out all the time.
Confirmation doesn't stretch entirely too far for it to be great, or quite on the level of Recount or Game Change as far as HBO original movies about hot-button/controversial political stories in this country from the modern age, but within what it tries to do, and from the acting from all the players that is never less than convincing (Kinnear, who plays a rather unsympathetic Senator Biden, who screwed up things in the hearing just as far as scheduling people to testify, is one of those), it works. I'd even watch it again if just to see how Washington pulls off the majority of her scenes. -
lavatch7 February 2017This well-produced film from HBO offers a good recreation of the contentious and sensational congressional confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. The acting was superb with the performances of Wendell Pierce as Thomas and Kerry Washington as Anita Hill. Still, the film dragged at the end and did not fully convey the emotional impact of the tense hearings.
The strength of the film was that it sought to adopt a balanced and fair-minded approach to the portrayal of Thomas and Hill. With the hindsight of fifteen years, the HBO production had the opportunity to examine the case impartially. In this regard, the film was successful in not "taking sides." For the viewer who may not have lived through the televised hearings, the film allows everyone to come to terms with the controversy of who was telling the truth in the serious allegations of sexual harassment. With little doubt, it is clear that Thomas perjured himself in denying all of Hill's allegations and cleverly moving on the offense to accuse the Senate judiciary committee members of "a high-tech lynching."
In the end, politics prevailed over ethics, Thomas was confirmed, and is still sitting on the Supreme Court bench in 2017. Hill concluded that she never received a fair hearing from the politically-driven committee presided over by Joe Biden. The film points to this case as a watershed moment when Anita Hill's voice empowered women to come out of the shadows in matters of sexual harassment. There followed greater freedom and opportunities for women in the workplace and even in Congress.
Overall, the film was successful in walking a historical tightrope and allowing viewers to make up their own minds about essential themes of culture, race, and politics. -
surfandski-16 October 2018Venmo Ben I want to comment that the reason that the actress shows the same expressionless expression, sad or happy, is that that WAS Anita Hill. She was expressionless or better said, inmutable. I don't know how old you are but watch the news clips and you will understand my point. If anything her performance is flat out perfect.
-
the_match_maker28 April 2016The movie itself is a credible by-the-numbers presentation of the firestorm that was the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings from the early 1990's. Where the made for t.v. movie really shines is in its character portrayals.
Anita Hill is shown as a martyr; Clarence Thomas is portrayed as a creep, but not a criminal; Senator Biden is played as a well meaning boob; Senator Simpson comes off as out of touch; Senator Dansforth seems loyal to a fault; and the presidential administration looks to not care if the charges leveled against their nominee are true or not.
While not exactly covering any new ground, the film at least appears to give a fig leaf to not choosing a side (though it leans in favor of Anita Hill). It's not a hatchet job, which is something actually worthy of praise these days.
All in all, it's a solid film, and doesn't try too hard to create its own narrative. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours on a weekend. -
Reno-Rangan4 September 2016This is a television film, a political-thriller-drama from the director of 'Dope'. Inspired by the real 1991 event when president Bush nominated the judge Clarence Thomas to the supreme court. Followed by a former employee Anita Hill, came forward claiming Thomas sexually harassed her while working for him back then which brings an enquiry on the issue before any big decision regarding his new post. Both the sides fight, but it's her alone against the president backing team. How the hearing ends and who wins it disclosed in the remaining part.
Good cast, but Kerry Washington was reason the film to shine. Her performance reminded me Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin from 'Game Change'. She won the Emmy Awards for that and now I believe Kerry Washington has a chance to do the same. Apart from her, the story did not look good. It opened so well, followed by strong middle part and then the last act last its charm quickly. Because it was all about one alleging against another and he keeps rejecting them, but that twist I expected never came or its powerful dialogues. Even though it was beautifully made.
The reason the movie staying neutral is might be the actual result of the trial. So they kept balancing the contents throughout the narration, yet the as the viewers, we can understand the guilty feelings from the suspect's face. That's how the film silently gives its own verdict regarding whatever the real one was. One of the best television film, but due to its weak conclusion, the people are dissatisfied. Still, it is a good watch, if you are interested in politics to learn how ugly and at a same time how silly it is.
7/10 -
grimalkin-222 April 2016The movie did a fine job of condensing the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and Anita Hill's accusations that Thomas had sexually harassed her on numerous occasions and was morally unfit to become a justice. Various issues are explored, including sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual harassment by an African American in the workplace, and sexual harassment by an African American male directed toward an African American female in the workplace. If there is a villain in the piece, it is neither Anita Hill nor Clarence Thomas (beautifully portrayed by Kerry Washington and Wendell Pierce respectively), but the Democratic chairman, Joe Biden (Greg Kinnear), of the Senate committee debating Thomas's qualifications. From start to finish Biden is presented as a wuss, easily swayed and manipulated by Republicans to present Thomas in the best possible light. Along the way, Biden also loses witnesses to affirm Clarence Thomas's alleged behavior toward Anita and other women. The movie confronts the cowardliness of liberal white men (all the Democrats on the committee) dealing with sexual harassment charges that concern a black man, with the possible exception of the late-blooming Edward Kennedy who finally comes to Anita Hill's defense. For the most part, Republicans have a field day in attempting to destroy Anita Hill's reputation with bogus charges while Democrats remain mute. Greg Kinnear is completely credible as Biden as is Treat Williams as Ted Kennedy. The movie stresses how this confirmation hearing resulted in the country's growing sensitivity to sexual harassment. But it also shows how Joe Biden's ineptness results not only in Clarence Thomas's confirmation, but a generation of conservative opinions from the Supreme Court.
-
sergepesic27 May 2022We live in the world where certain words became symbols that stand out way above the original meaning. When we use words like conservative and progressive it stirs up immediate reaction depending which side one belongs to. And what a perfect timing to see this movie. The Supreme Court overtaken by the far right is about to reshape our world and force us to live in their version of Christian morality. What a terrifying prospect. The confirmation of Clarence Thomas 31 year ago explains the root of his angry vengeance upon the rest of us. The movie is precise and almost seems like a newsreel from times bygone. My only quibble would be that the two leading actors weren't strong enough to stand above the rest of the cast. They did a very fine job, but this story needed way more than that. What's happening to us all could be best described by the title of a great American novel. "An American Tragedy", by Theodore Dreiser. Yes, a tragedy of our own making, the worst kind.
-
damianphelps20 July 2021I had heard a little about the story but generally speaking I was new to the details of it. As such I found it to be a completely engaging and interesting film with great performances.
Knowing how politics deteriorated even more after this was and is somewhat depressing.
If you are strong for either side of the political fence you will get frustrated by the story. For those free of politics is great! -
I've heard this movie marketed and talked about a lot. The story overall is basic and not that fascinating, a Black female professor accuses Judge Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment 10 years ago as he is just about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. She writes her accusation down and shares it with a Congress investigation team. This of course causes the media to pick it up. As the case reaches the media Republican senators now don't want to confirm Thomas as a justice before hearing her out. She presents her case in a Congress hearing and Thomas defends himself. It's he said she said stuff. The same thing happened to Brett Kavanaugh. A female professor appeared with sexual harassment accusations that yet again was a he said she said case hence didn't have further evidence. The polls show one thing in these cases: Democrats believe the Democrat in such a case and Republicans believe the Republican. No matter what side either of them are on. There is no good evidence either way. You just have to hear people out and make a subjective judgment. But likely you already made up your mind beforehand and whatever people say won't mean much. Your political ideology will decide who you believe.
In these cases where someone is about to be elected political leader there is often someone popping up at the last minute with some story about something negative the person did. Usually these stories are fake or extremely exaggerated. With Kavanaugh there were a ton of women coming out regularly with sexual harassment claims and being interviewed by big left-wing media. Some of the cases were so fake that not even the people who hated Kavanaugh could believe them. Especially sexual harassment accusation claims are popular in these cases as you don't have to rely on any physical evidence. Someone just said or did something without anyone else seeing it. It left no marks and the accuser didn't have to tell anyone about it as it was maybe not even illegal. These cases always end up with nastiness from both political parties leading nowhere. At the end of the day it's not easy to believe new accusations that are 10 to 30 years old with zero witnesses. Memories fade fast so it's not clear you can recall non-aggressive events correctly after 10 years. What is true? How much is true? How bad is the event? How much could be a misunderstanding?
The movie itself is presented from Anita Hill's point of view. We see Clarence Thomas worry about stuff and Republican politicians using dirty tactics to confirm his nomination. But they never seem to care about bringing in evidence from his point of view. The producers clearly do not like Clarence Thomas. The movie doesn't make him out to be nasty, crude, or mean though. They tried to present him as he is as a person and the actor playing him is spectacular! But there are no scenes taking his side over hers at any point. While the opposite is true half the time.
The script writer also wrote the fake historical movie Erin Brockovich (2000) and then a TV show about a r#pe case where the police didn't believe the accuser. She likes stories about women not being believed as they go against some powerful men. Unfortunately the Erin Brockovich script is quite a mistake on her part. The misinterpretation of legal facts in that movie makes me worry about her neutrality as a writer, but then you do need heroes and villains in movies and she knows how to write that into a story. Brockovich is in real life a sleazy liar. She constantly lies and makes up claims to get rich. She's a scam artist. In the movie she was a hero. How is that?
This movie unfortunately also takes liberties with the real case to make it look like Anita Hill is 95% telling the truth. With such political appointments you often have a lot of rumors and angry voters from the opposite political party. Some people invent fake stories, some have old claims with no evidence. Then there are political teams searching the country for all such stories and finding the best ones to use in Congress. They then prepare the witness and create giant teams to make the message and story clear. It becomes an attack carefully controlled top-down where the accuser is just their mouthpiece. In the movie they have some scenes with Anita Hill telling the story to her friend and initially being unwilling to testify. We also see her cry about not being believed. All of this is one side of the story. It's Anita Hill's story retold exactly as she told it. We don't know how Congress found her or how willing she was to put Thomas in the spotlight. It's easy but fishy to have scenes where the accuser tells the story before the political team contacts her. In reality we seldom know what happened first. Did the political team contact her because she once worked for Thomas and disliked Republicans or did she tell her story and then get contacted? Obviously the Democrats would like to make it seem like she was just a random woman to them. In these cases it's impossible to know how the story came about. She may have invented it or this may have happened as shown in the movie with her actually believing the story fully. With Thomas there is no scene where he shows himself to be innocent in the same way. No scene where he hears the accusation and looks shocked. No scene where he initially thinks it may be a joke. No scene where he asks who Anita Hill is or says she's unattractive and that he only likes White women. No scene where he is shown to be a person who cannot say such sex stuff. These sort of scenes would make him look 95% innocent. But again, we don't know what happened to him or her outside what the cameras picked up in real life. So either way you make stuff up. The movie picks a point of view. It's not exactly factually wrong. We don't know what happened. It's just very one-sided to such a degree that it hurts the quality of the movie. The acting, sets, and camera work is all spectacular. I did enjoy the movie. But if you know the real story and know how impossible it was to take a side on any of the accusations you will find the movie to be eerily biased. I do think she's fairly convincing in how she explains her story. On the other hand it also seems like Thomas would never do the things she says he did. I can't imagine someone like him being this perverted and weird this openly only in this one case and then never again in any setting. So what happened? Did some other guy do it to her or did Thomas just do something less extreme? Who knows.
I think if the movie title was "Anita Hill's Story" it would be more proper. But then I don't really need to watch any movie presenting the other side as the opposite story is that nothing happened, quite boring. So what to make of the bias?
This movie reminds me of another historical Black movie, Marshall (2017). About the justice Thomas replaced, Thurgood Marshall. That movie also tries to make the case look unsolved until the end where it completely reveals what actually happened. I feel the same thing happened here. The movie makers couldn't keep the mystery a mystery in the movie setting even though we don't know what actually happened in either case. This is why the Republicans here are evil while Biden is a good person. It's how Anita Hill or someone on her team would have experienced all of this. It's a shame the Thurgood movie is about him being a fighting superhero while a similar movie about a conservative Black justice does the opposite. Hollywood gonna Hollywood. -
Mcc800717 April 2016Great casting, writing, and performances. It's very difficult to separate political opinions from opinions about this film. As usual, HBO does a great job depicting these accusations and subsequent hearings objectively and inspiring discussion about them. Since they don't cast Thomas in a very good light, I'm guessing the lower rating is due to some Thomas defenders who don't want to be reminded of the accusations. It's difficult to watch this in light of Thomas's subsequent lackluster performance on the Supreme Court without concluding that Bush should have withdrawn the nomination. Both Kerry Washington and Wendell Pierce did an outstanding job, as did the entire cast. I remember this well and the movie is historically accurate -- no matter who seeks to deny it.
-
cherold14 September 2016There's nothing terrible about Confirmation. The acting is decent, with persuasive performances. It puts out the basic facts, shows the Republican street-fight tactics that included a threat to introduce nonsensical, sleazy testimony from some Hill students, and portrays the Democrats as outgunned and, as is often the case, unwilling to pull out their own knife even after the Republicans draw blood.
The problem is, it's all pretty boring. To some extent, that may be the result of the source material; neither Thomas nor Hill is a dynamic personality, and you're essentially faced with a he-said- she-said between two staid Republican lawyers.
At the same time, the movie seems desperate to keep things dry and serious. Alan Simpson says some nutty things, but the actor says them as blandly as possible. Kinnear does a good job of imitating Biden, except his performance tosses out Biden's low-key humor in favor of midwestern blandness.
Basically, any place where the movie has a choice between making things more dynamic or less dynamic, it chooses less dynamic, resulting in something that's actually sometimes less dramatic than watching the original hearings on youtube.
Confirmation seems built for the classroom, where students can watch and discuss it. If you want to learn a little history, I'd say this is a palatable choice, but if you want to watch something enjoyable, give this a pass. -
rmax30482330 April 2016In 1991 President G. H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, an African-American, for a position on the Supreme Court. A young law professor who had worked with him, Anita Hill, testified in an investigation that he had sexually harassed her. The allegations most remember are probably Thomas' asking bout a pubic hair on his can of Pepsi and he referring to a character named Long Dong Silver that he'd seen in a porn movie. Legal entanglements abounded, dominated by public relations. Thomas was confirmed.
The movie clearly takes the part of Anita Hill without storming the ramparts. She's shown as a quiet professor at the University of Oklahoma who was contacted by the press in a routine inquiry about Thomas' nomination. She told the reporter of her experiences after a promise that her name would never become public. The reporter made the entire incident public and the result was an investigation in which Thomas angrily declared that what was going on was nothing more than a "high tech lynching." At the time, it sounded plausible enough to me, but I thought, well, so what? I was more interested in his politics than his putting moves on some woman in the work place.
His politics and his performance as a judge didn't measure up. The American Bar Association denied him its highest ranking of "well qualified." Thomas claimed that he'd never had a conversation or given any thought to the controversial Roe vs. Wade decision. And since his appointment he's been invariably conservative and since 1998 has asked only one question from the bench. He's probably the least of our nine -- or rather eight -- Supreme Court Justices.
Yet he was confirmed by a narrow margin with bi-partisan votes. I was curious about the Dems who voted in his favor. Here are the states those Dems represented: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.
It's too bad the movie makes such a pitiable suffering victim out of Anita Hill, although that's what she was. An attractive and intelligent black woman (Yale Law School) who may well have been subject to unwelcome and vulgar comments from her boss.
Still, she's certainly not Mother Theresa or Roma Downey. In the film she comes across as a stereotype, the harassed, betrayed, victimized woman. And the actress, Kerry Washington, is believable but no more than that. She has little range. She's not particularly INTERESTING and when she shouts something in anger it sounds acted.
As Clarence Thomas, Wendell Pierce is rather a blank coin. He denies everything. He's indignant. But he's even more of a cardboard cutout than Hill's character. His white wife, Alison Wright, stands staunchly by his side, showing no more animation than a figure in the President's Hall at Disney World.
The only casting choice that stands out is that of the usually forgettable Greg Kinnear, who is Joe Biden, chairman of the committee. He looks a little like the younger Biden but his voice -- deliberately or not -- bears an uncanny resemblance to Biden's.
Hill may be shown as put upon and Thomas as virtuous but if there is a man who clearly makes misjudgments, it's Joe Biden, who shuts down the inquiry before the witnesses have a chance to speak, and who does so because he's brow beaten into compliance by angry peers who want the whole blasted thing to disappear from the media because it's giving the Senate a bad rep.
On the whole it's inoffensive and a little bland. I guess that's better than white hot agitprop. -
If this was a reasonable film it would have both sides of this story, including the dozen women who worked with Thomas and who made it clear that Thomas was being smeared. Just google: clarence thomas witch-hunt
Hill is simply a documented liar, even the cheer-leading mainstream press documented clear untruths by her. This was (another) lynching of a black man by Democrats.
I recommend looking at Hill on meet the press in 1998 where she made her motives clear: Appearing on "Meet the Press" in 1998, Hill was asked to respond to Gloria Steinem's defense of President Clinton following allegations he'd groped a White House volunteer. Steinem had said, "The truth is that even if the allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. Hill AGREED. When "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked her if she had a double standard for sexual harassment claims made against Clinton, she said, "There are larger issues, larger issues than just individual behavior." Just google: youtube Anita Hill
This rationalization of it being ook for partisan interests reasons to make up claims of sexual harassment or ignoring those by Democrats because of the "larger issues" (ie PARTISAN interests making lies and smears ok) also accused recently with Kavaugh hearings where after that circus we saw two of the accusers withdraw accusations, one have theirs totally debunked, and the fourth, a Democratic Party activist, not able to recall when where or who committed the assault. -
kapelusznik1824 April 2016In what was to be the the most x-rated Senate hearing in history those gathered in hearings to confirm or deny Judge Clarence Thomas a seat on the US Supreme Court which were to be the most shocking even seen on daytime as well as on the local TV networks. The viewers were to hear stories of coke cans with pubic hair flouting in them as well as the erotic actions and adventures of porno super star Long Dong Silver that had the red faced TV commentators warn their TV viewers to have women and children leave the room in order not to be shocked and corrupted by what their reporting.
Thomas' accuser Anita Hill never said that Thomas as much laid a hand on her or threatened to have her fired from her job as his assistant at the EEOC if she didn't go along with his wanting to take her out on a date; which she never did. But her testimony about his bragging about what a power-house stud as well as sex machine, with sexual equipment matching that of his hero Long Dong Silver, he is was enough to, excuse the pun, blacken his nomination for justice to the US Supreme Court that has followed him all these years-25-in TV skits and night club acts since he got confirmed for the job.
As we see in the movie as well as in real life Anita Hill was forced to come forward to accuse, very reluctantly, Thomas of sexual harassment while working as well as not, some ten years after leaving his employment, working for Thomas was in fact used by a number of feminist fanatics out to destroy the man. It seemed to work for a while until an outraged Thomas himself went before the senate hearings committee and pleaded his case before the public showing himself as a rightist and God fearing man who's only being smeared because he was a conservative in his opinions on the rule of law, like abortion, which his many enemies in and out of congress hated him for.
This "Tempest in a Teapot" event has since blown over with what's been happening in politics as well in the country in regard to real sexual harassment-against men as well as women- as well as going so far as rape and even murder by many of those who opposed Thomas, in and out of politics, who in what they've done make him look like an alter boy at best or crypto video porn connoisseur, which is no crime at all, at worse. Thomas for his part has kept his nose clean since his nomination that he's done nothing good or bad since he's got the post of Supreme Court justice. He's only offered up one bizarre opinion on the court the right to torture prisoners to gain confessions that was soundly rejected by his fellow members, both liberal and conservatives, of the Supreme Court. As for Anita Hill she like Thomas has tried to put the entire sleazy incident behind her and not be part of the now mostly discredited feminist revolution-where are they now in the massive rapes and abuse as well as murders of women by the "politically correct" illegally immigrants in and out of the USA- that tried to use her to its advantage. -
rhoo-5749119 February 2017I'm giving this movie a 10 because of its importance. The acting is great, but it isn't a riveting movie. It is an excellent example of what women go through when they speak out about sexual harassment and sexual abuse. It accurately portrays how people who know the abuser absolutely cannot believe the person capable of such acts. Our culture still does not understand sexual predators rarely look like bad people and in fact may do good things. Unfortunately no matter what a person's status is or how many good things they do, if they commit sexual crimes they have harmed another human being in a critical way and sometimes the damage is irreparable. Thank goodness Anita Hill's courage had a positive impact on society.
-
TaylorYee9419 December 2022Realistic portrayal of the Anita Hill allegation. 'Confirmation' keeps away from embellishing dramatization, which is how Hill appeared for the first time in front of all the people. It almost gives out documentary vibe, being organized into chronological order with references of media coverage and news clip in 1991. Famuyiwa did a great job of selecting and focusing on the most important aspects out of lengthy hearings. How Thomas played race card against sexual harrassement claim and how race affected the whole dynamics of the society are well-stated. The only emotional scene is at the end where Hill reads the letter from a woman who is going through the similar situation. All the compressed feelings burst out because the whole movie and Hill remain rational and even-tempered till that very moment. And it is the right moment to do so because the most important message from 'Confirmation' is women's solidarity.
-
Anita Hill's publicly broadcasted testimony in 1991 against U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, has become one of the first well-known cases of sexual harassment. As Thomas waited for confirmation into the Court by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hill stepped forward to recount the instances of sexual harassment she endured working under Justice Thomas' supervision, including inappropriate discussions of pornography and sexual acts. The 2016 political thriller film, Confirmation, dramatizes the Senate's induction of Judge Thomas. The HBO movie effectively captures the historical moment with convincing character interpretations by the lead roles, yet it overlooks the case's racial facets that layer the gender and political biases culminated in Judge Thomas' ultimate confirmation.
-
moerevenged1 November 2019One sided political farce. If your on one side of the political fence you'll love this work of fiction, if your in the other you will hate it.
-
helenadair3219 September 2021I love Kerry Washington as Anita Hill, I never knew the hold story thanks to this movie, I understand Professor Anita Hill and her position and the stand she took. This movie is compelling, intense, riveting. Kerry Washington was outstanding, I now see that the government will do anything to protect whom they will no bars held, this is also appallingly and despicable that we entrust these people with our US and why this country is a total mess! I am hurt and feel mentally abuse as a woman watching this powerful movie.
I also learned that at my work place as a Security Officer, I get unwanted sexual advances from people I don't even know every day. Not once do these people think how they have disrespected or hurt me in any kind of way. My co-worker's call it "trying to Holla at someone" and laugh it off ! If anyone is talking under anyone's clothes or talking sexually when its unwanted or trying to force me to have conversation when I say I'm not interested to me that's sexual harassment. This movie brought out so much pertinent information about the face of sexual harrassment. -
phd_travel19 September 2016This movie was mesmerizing from start to finish. The most famous sexual harassment suit in history is the subject matter of this dramatic HBO movie. The way the story exploded onto the national spotlight and got how it became a political battle is so interesting. By casting the highly sympathetic Kerry Washington as Anita Hill in the role you can tell which side the movie slants towards. She gives a clear and dignified performance even through all the salacious testimony. Jennifer Hudson is a supporting witness on her side - another sympathetic actress. Greg Kinnear as Joe Biden is aged appropriately and his various decisions as head of the investigating committee. The actor who plays Clarence Thomas, Wendell Pierce is a bit too passive until his testimony before the committee. Mamie Gummer looks quite different with darker hair and plays an aide to Ted Kennedy played by Treat Williams.
Highly recommended. -
blanbrn23 April 2016As always I enjoy HBO original movies as they are well done and in deep and direct and informative with terrific cast simply the best around as most of the pictures involve real life happenings in the world of politics, people, famous and historical times, and with this film "Confirmation" HBO stands out and does it again. I'm sure everyone can remember in 1991 being glued to the TV to hear the hearings of one Clarence Thomas(well acted by Wendell Pierce) the first African American man to be nominated as a justice to the United States Supreme Court. As he was a conservative with his views and politics being to that of the right and many felt he was not qualified, still then president George Bush stood by his man. As the film will shed light on race and gender it was still more than just a black man being up for nomination it was the fact that sexual harassment charges were brought against him from a former office employee that being a now Oklahoma law professor a black female in Anita Hill(in a strong and attention grabbing performance from Kerry Washington). It was in front of the U.S. Senate that this legal and political drama played out as you can remember and the film shows it was a lot of he said she said with drama about witnesses not being called and hard questions from senators. With Thomas feeling this was a race case because he was the first black appointee to the USSC, and Hill feeling the cold shoulder being questioned all by political men as it was tough to believe a black female and her allegations. Thru it all this case would pave the wave for awareness about sexual harassment and open the door for more women to enter politics. "Confirmation" is one legal political drama to see and appreciate for the fact that it brought change and awareness.
-
cronk-brian2 August 2020This movie was biased. The film focuses primarily on Hill. Comparatively, it gave little thought and screen time to how Clarence Thomas felt and what he was dealing with. The end of the movie showed the true agenda of continuing to try to discredit Thomas by overwhelmingly showing those who thought Hill told the truth. As someone who watched this unfold in real time, it was not an unbiased presentation of occurred.
-
Clarence Thomas lied his way onto the Supreme Court playing the victim of one of the women he harassed sexually. Several nauseating moments became forever etched into the culture as a result. He liked to talk about perverted sexual acts with the women who worked for him, ironically, at the EEOC. He discussed the size of his penis, pubic hairs on a coke can (presumably that was a sexy thing for him,) threesomes and his sexual prowess.
As an associate justice, he has been more wallpaper than brilliant jurist, but he has done everything the right wing asked of him. Even though he benefited greatly from Affirmative Action, he was been opposed to any law which would benefit his fellow Afro-Americans. He occupies the furthest right-wing territory of the court, agreeing with his virtual twin, the recently-deceased Antonin Scalia, on virtually every decision. He has refused to speak at oral argument for many years, appearing to sulk or sometimes sleep.
The nation was anything but asleep during his confirmation hearing. The spectacle of his nomination took over the nation over a long weekend in 1991. Anita Hill, a law professor from Oklahoma, was asked by investigators if there would be any reason why Thomas should not be considered qualified for the job of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She reluctantly told the investigator of various episodes of sexual harassment, of inappropriate workplace comments and his obsession with pornographic material.
Other women reported the same kind of comments from Thomas, and the video store had records of Thomas' rental history which corroborated the claim that he was an avid consumer of X-rated videos. Also, friends of Anita Hill remembered her complaints about Thomas' behavior. That information was kept from the committee and the public.
At that time, there were many qualified candidates who did not carry such disgusting baggage, but President Bush wanted to force Thomas onto the court. A smear campaign began at the highest levels of government intended to discredit Ms. Hill. The campaign was effective enough so that the American public called it a draw, and in the end, Thomas squeaked by with 52 votes in favor of his confirmation. In the intervening years, the slime that got Thomas his government position has remained with him and taints the highest court. In recent years, his wife's political activities and her conservative causes suggest that Thomas should have recused himself in a number of important cases where his family obtained economic benefits. For example, during the confirmation process, Citizens United contributed to him, and yet, he voted on the recent decision involving that organization. His inability to understand what amounts to a conflict of interest would seem to disqualify him to sit on the highest court.
His wife's political activities have raised vast sums which have benefited the Thomas family. Thomas did not report any of that income for several years, even though it was mandatory. When caught, Thomas excused himself by saying he didn't understand the reporting form. Not smart enough to obey the law should not be an excuse for an associate justice.
Senator Joe Biden embarrassed himself when he ran the hearing which would decide who was telling the truth, but the most despicable conduct belonged to Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah and Sen. John Danforth.
This movie does a good job of covering an ugly moment in Supreme Court history.