A new docudrama titled “The Ford/Hill Project” places the 1991 Senate testimony of Anita Hill and the 2018 testimony of Christine Blasey Ford next to each other, using recordings from both Supreme Court confirmation hearings to ask how much has actually changed. The review, published by the New York Times Arts desk on September 11, 2026, and headlined “‘The Ford/Hill Project’ Review: Two Unnerving Testimonies,” describes the project as a measure of continuity and change across nearly three decades of Senate Judiciary Committee proceedings.
According to the NYT Arts summary, the docudrama draws on archival recordings of the two nominations to stage its comparison, rather than building a new narrative around either woman’s account. The result, per the review’s framing, is a piece meant to unsettle audiences on both timelines at once.
What “The Ford/Hill Project” actually is
Archival Supreme Court nomination recordings
The project is built on archival audio and video from the actual Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, according to the NYT Arts summary describing the source material. Rather than reenacting the testimonies from scratch with invented dialogue, the production works from the historical record of what senators and witnesses said in the room during both nominations. That choice ties the docudrama directly to the public record of the Hill and Ford hearings, which were nationally televised events in their respective years.
Docudrama format versus documentary
Calling the piece a docudrama rather than a straight documentary signals a deliberate blend of reenactment and archival material. The review’s headline, “Two Unnerving Testimonies,” points to a structure built around the emotional weight of the two accounts rather than a purely journalistic recap. That format lets the filmmakers cut between 1991 and 2018, drawing out parallels the review says the project is built to surface, in ways a traditional documentary timeline might not.
The two hearings at the center of the project
1991: Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
Anita Hill’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 came during the confirmation process for Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Hill, a law professor, alleged that Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked for him at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thomas denied the allegations, and the Senate confirmed him. The hearing became one of the most closely watched moments in the history of Supreme Court confirmations, largely because it put a woman’s allegation of workplace harassment on national television in a way American audiences had rarely seen.
2018: Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
Twenty-seven years later, Christine Blasey Ford testified before the same committee during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, alleging that Kavanaugh had assaulted her when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh denied the allegation, and the Senate confirmed him shortly after the hearing. Like the Hill testimony before it, Ford’s appearance drew intense national attention and became a reference point for how the Senate handles sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominees.
What the comparison reveals about change and continuity
Similarities in how the testimonies were received
By placing the two hearings side by side, according to the NYT Arts summary, “The Ford/Hill Project” is structured specifically to measure how much, or how little, changed between 1991 and 2018. Both hearings involved a woman testifying under intense public scrutiny about a nominee’s past conduct, both drew national television audiences, and both ended with the nominee confirmed despite the allegations. The project’s premise rests on that basic parallel: two women, nearly three decades apart, testifying before the same committee about conduct by men who went on to sit on the nation’s highest court.
Where the 27-year gap shows up on screen
The available summary of the project doesn’t detail the specific ways the docudrama marks the passage of time between the two hearings. What it does establish is the core comparative structure: the archival recordings themselves are the mechanism for showing continuity or change, rather than narration or after-the-fact commentary layered on top. Viewers are left to draw their own conclusions from the juxtaposition of the actual hearing footage across the two eras.
The review’s verdict: “two unnerving testimonies”
What the NYT Arts review says works
The review’s headline frames both testimonies as “unnerving,” a word choice that suggests the project succeeds at capturing the discomfort of watching each woman’s account be received by an all-or-mostly-male Senate committee. That framing, drawn directly from the NYT Arts headline, treats the docudrama’s central achievement as its ability to make both hearings land with equal force for a contemporary audience, regardless of which decade a viewer originally watched them in.
Where the project falls short, according to the review
The available summary and headline don’t specify particular criticisms the review raises about pacing, structure, or interpretation. Without further detail from the source material, the most accurate account is limited to what the headline and summary convey: a project built on real archival material that makes both hearings feel immediate and unsettling. No additional specifics are available here about where it may fall short.
Why this release lands now
Absence of similar coverage elsewhere
Among recent entertainment coverage, “The Ford/Hill Project” stands out as one of the few pieces of new film or television work built directly around Supreme Court confirmation testimony. Other current entertainment stories circulating alongside it, such as indie film previews and reality TV recaps, aren’t focused on Senate hearings or sexual misconduct allegations at all. That gap makes this project’s subject matter unusually specific within the broader entertainment news cycle.
The broader conversation about Supreme Court confirmation hearings
The release arrives against a backdrop in which Supreme Court confirmation hearings remain a recurring flashpoint in American public life, given their role in shaping the composition of the nation’s highest court for decades at a time. Both the Hill and Ford hearings are widely referenced touchstones whenever a new nomination raises questions about how the Senate should handle allegations against a nominee. “The Ford/Hill Project” sits inside that ongoing reference point by putting the two most prominent examples in direct dialogue with each other.
What to know before watching
Viewers coming to “The Ford/Hill Project” should know it’s built from real archival recordings of both the 1991 Hill/Thomas and 2018 Ford/Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, not invented dialogue. It’s a docudrama, meaning it blends that archival material with dramatized elements rather than functioning as a straight documentary. According to the NYT Arts review published September 11, 2026, the project’s central achievement is making both testimonies feel equally “unnerving” to a present-day audience. Anyone watching without firsthand memory of either hearing may want to know the basic outcomes beforehand: both Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the Supreme Court despite the allegations against them, a fact that gives the project’s side-by-side structure its central, unresolved tension.
Be the first to comment