Not all of the film’s historical sleights came from archival footage — some came from editorial choices. Renowned writer Ishmael Reed was interviewed by Ezra Edelman during production, but his footage was left out of the final cut; Reed later published a forceful takedown in CounterPunch. He accused Made in America of shaping a comforting, marketable narrative that emphasized the LAPD’s racism and the prosecutors' lines while marginalizing other explanations and dissenting voices. Reed argued that the film leaned on a single juror whose perspective served that narrative rather than presenting jurors who believed evidence had been tampered with, and complained that a detective who ‘might have planted evidence’ was nevertheless given time and legitimacy in the documentary’s account. He also raised lingering questions — cited in his piece — about Philip Vannatter carrying a vial of the victim’s blood to Simpson’s estate, an anecdote Reed argued went insufficiently interrogated. The episode became its own aftershock: a public feud over documentary ethics, the selection and omission of testimony, and whether a single film can or should settle unsettled controversies about one of America’s most fraught criminal cases. Because Reed’s critiques speak to editorial intent and to contested allegations about evidence, the specific accusations remain matters of debate rather than settled historical fact.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
A Documentary Divided: Ishmael Reed’s Bombshell Critique and Accusations of a Curated Narrative
O.J.: Made in America / Ishmael Reed / 2010s
Not all of the film’s historical sleights came from archival footage — some came from editorial choices. Renowned writer Ishmael Reed was interviewed by Ezra Edelman during production, but his footage was left out of the final cut; Reed later published a forceful takedown in CounterPunch. He accused Made in America of shaping a comforting, marketable narrative that emphasized the LAPD’s racism and the prosecutors' lines while marginalizing other explanations and dissenting voices. Reed argued that the film leaned on a single juror whose perspective served that narrative rather than presenting jurors who believed evidence had been tampered with, and complained that a detective who ‘might have planted evidence’ was nevertheless given time and legitimacy in the documentary’s account. He also raised lingering questions — cited in his piece — about Philip Vannatter carrying a vial of the victim’s blood to Simpson’s estate, an anecdote Reed argued went insufficiently interrogated. The episode became its own aftershock: a public feud over documentary ethics, the selection and omission of testimony, and whether a single film can or should settle unsettled controversies about one of America’s most fraught criminal cases. Because Reed’s critiques speak to editorial intent and to contested allegations about evidence, the specific accusations remain matters of debate rather than settled historical fact.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.