Anita strives to prove one thing: that the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings of 1991 were a sham. Clarence Thomas was being vetted to become a Supreme Court justice and Anita Hill, a former co-worker of Thomas, wanted those who would be appointing him to know about what she claims was his past. She wrote a letter and was called in to what appeared to be a courtroom proceeding. She was questioned for a whole day by 14 white men as if she had committed a crime. Freida Lee Mock's documentary Anita is trying to convince that the hearings were a clear example of men blaming a female victim. She wants you to believe that the men entered that hearing with one goal. It was not to hear the truth. It was to prove Anita Hill wrong. In the end, Anita's testimony may not have changed Thomas's path but as Anita proves, it had a deeper impact on society over time.
Anita Hill didn't want to become a star when she wrote her letter concerning Clarence Thomas in 1991. Thomas was being vetted by then President George Bush to become a Supreme Court judge. Hill wanted the Senate to know about events she claims happened while the two worked together. Thomas is said to have made a few romantic passes at Hill to which she turned down. He didn't continue to act on this but he did continue to make Hill uncomfortable. Thomas is said to have made innuendos about his genitals and about pubic hair. Hill just wanted the Senate to know about what she claims to have gone through before they made their minds up on Thomas. The firestorm that followed was not what she was expecting would happen. Her "anonymous" letter was leaked and it became a major news story. Soon, Hill was giving her testimony in front of 14 male members of the Senate. They questioned every event she claims happened. In the end, her testimony was dismissed and Thomas was appointed as a judge. The attention to Hill continued though. Around the time, she shunned the exposure. 20 plus years later, her view on the event has changed. Anita presents Anita Hill as a Civil Rights activist whose exposure in 1991 had a major impact on society.
My only exposure to the Anita Hill case came from seeing repeats of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring Ellen Cleghorne as Hill. The skit is featured briefly in Anita and is edited to make it look like an uncomfortable and unfunny satire. The hearings are presented in this film in a squirm-inducing way. The audience at my screening was visibly cringing at the questions and phrasing of many members of the Senate. Hill is presented as strong and incredibly composed the entire time. The film doesn't question her testimony in the slightest, instead presenting her as someone who didn't crave the spotlight at all. She is presented as someone who simply wanted to anonymously get her word out. Thomas is only briefly shown giving his testimony which accused the Senate hearing as presented African American men as a racial stereotype and the hearing to be a "high-tech lynching". It doesn't present Thomas a liar as much as someone pulling "the race card".
The hard thing about the Anita Hill case then and now is there is no solid evidence as to Hill being correct. The testimonies of a few of her co-workers at the time Hill claims she was harassed are given. The testimonies of more of her co-workers were ignored. Anita doesn't necessarily strive to prove that Hill was correct and that Thomas was lying. It is trying to prove the case was an example of "witness blaming". It opened up a dialogue about work-place sexual harassment. The last part of the documentary presents how Hill's testimony had opened up the ability for other women who were harassed to make their case known. Even if Hill's testimony were a total lie, it still resulted in people knowing that "work-place sexual harassment" exists.
Mock's direction presents Hill in a positive although not "godly" way. One rather long shot of a picture of Rosa Parks on the wall seems a little over-the-top. It would seem that she could present Hill as an important part of the on-going female civil rights movement without resorting to such a direct comparison to Parks. For the most part, she simply uses Hill's actions in 1991 and her actions today to present her as an activist. The Parks shot seems redundant and grandiose. The film at 95 minutes feels a little longer than it needs to be. Some tightening during the presentation of the hearing could have helped speed the story along. The last part dealing with Hill's impact starting the dialogue of sexual harassment could have been an act in itself, if not just a full-length documentary. While it is a tiny complaint, this section is easily one of the most interesting parts of the film.
Anita reminds us in an entertaining and well-made manner an event that took place over 20 years ago. It reminds us of a time when "sexual harassment" wasn't necessarily a thing. What may have seemed like little more than a character attack is proven to be so much more two decades later. It takes what may have been little than a few paragraphs in history and fleshes it out in a very interesting way.
No comments:
Post a Comment