Strange Justice

The Supreme Court has always fascinated me. I was the only person I've known who took days off of work to stay glued to the Thomas confirmation hearings; to watch the conservatives steam-roll through the nomination of, perhaps, the least qualified nominee of the 20th century.

This film pulled me in for the first 20 minutes, but then ruined itself by overdramatising what should already be a horrifying story. There was no need to show both Justice Thomas and Ms Hill exploding during the committee hearings, though I think that the director was trying to be sympathetic to their outrage. Both actors did a fine job, they were just poorly directed.

The "behind-the-scenes" actions of the aides were refreshing, and true to my knowledge of the workings of Washington. But over-all the film left me (someone who stayed home to see it all live) cold.

I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't remember the hearings, with the understanding that their guard needs to be up for the strange direction. Not to mention the fact that Justice Thomas and Ms Hill, in reality, handled themselves very well (with far less display of emotion) during the committee hearings. We also lose sense of the actual hearings; the demeaning behavior of the Republicans, the silence of Sen Kennedy, the exemplary leadership of Sen Biden, the cutting wit of Sen Heflin, etc.

I barely remember the events of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas portrayed in the movie Strange Justice, but now I saw the events unfold infront of me, I began to understand what happened when I just entered Kindergarten. Mandy Patinkin, being the best actor IMHO, does an emmy calibre performance of Kennith Duberstien, the lobbiest for Clarence Thomas. This is a very worthy movie for family with older kids, but beware, it goes into detail on everything, so this isn't suitable for young kids.(Besides, they'd probably go to sleep during this movie). And I have another gripe. Mandy Patinkin didn't show off is vocal talents in this movie.

The acting was pretty good as was the casting and editing. There was some attempt at revising history but over all was fairly accurate. What was most distracting from the quality was the ill chosen transformation of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. During their testimony the light suddenly changed, their notes and microphone disappeared. Anita became almost demonic at one point. Clarence took off everything above his belt except his tie, approached the senate committee and ranted for five minutes. Then suddenly the lighting went back to normal, their notes and microphone reappeared and both witnesses went back to their normal selves. I have no idea what the director was trying to communicate other than his ability to not communicate. ???+

This confirmation hearing changed things for good. It seems far fetched today because it is. Thomas would not be confirmed today.

I liked the movie, but it only pretends to be objective. I also liked the way they spliced in real scenes from the hearings. There should have been more. I'd also have liked the actors to use more of the real dialog from the hearings. In this instance, the reality was better than the fiction.

Amusing work of fiction based on actual events (but not to closely). Several very good actors turn in fine performances, but the script is a travesty of justice. A shameful event in the nation's judicial history becomes a shameless attempt at character assassination, particularly upsetting since those too young to have watched the Thomas hearings will probably have their notions of what really happened warped. I was a lifelong knee-jerk liberal at the time of the hearings, just having a crisis where my views were changing, and the "high-tech lynching" (words surprisingly left in from the script) was enough to tip the scales, so it was a very important moment for me. Although one can't fault the production values, the movie was perpetrated by partisans trying in the best Orwellian fashion to change history into what they wistfully wish it had been, which is 180 degrees from what it was. Let's hope history does better justice to a distinguished and much-maligned jurist than this peculiar ideologist fantasy. If you thought "JFK" was sound history, you'll enjoy this one.