In Reply to: "North Country" posted by rico on October 23, 2005 at 13:09:59:
The film's web site is remarkably preachy, posturing the movie as a landmark in the battle against sexual harassment. The New York Post's review of North Country confirms that the movie is awash in liberal stereotypes. But one jarring note jumped out at me:Inspired by Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Josey talks Bill, a local hockey-hero-turned-lawyer (Woody Harrelson, in his best work in years) into mounting a lawsuit. And like Hill, Josey is confronted by the mine owner's "nuts and sluts" defense that focuses on her own sexual past.
The real Jenson case was filed in 1985, six years before the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing. So this particular embellishment is pure fiction. Why did the moviemakers throw it in? Why do you think? The Supreme Court is in the news, and Justice Thomas is a hero to conservatives. So the liberals who made North Country went out of their way to slime him, shifting the movie's time line by six years just so they could slander a Republican. No wonder conservatives hate Hollywood.And, by the way, what's this about Anita Hill being "confronted" by a "defense" that "focuse[d] on her own sexual past"? I don't remember hearing anything about her sexual past; the defense put forward by Thomas and his supporters was that she was a liar, which the evidence seemed to show pretty convincingly.
"Is this the end of Rico?' Little Caesar, 1930
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Is this the end of Rico?" (6 years off!!) - Colin 05:40:01 10/25/05 (2)
- Re: "Is this the end of Rico?" (6 years off!!) - rico 06:17:03 10/25/05 (1)
- Nice try (try responding to facts): suit filed in 1985 - Colin 04:32:31 10/27/05 (0)