Director: Mick Jackson Starring: Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall Studio: Bleecker Street Genre(s): Drama Rated: PG-13 (For thematic material and brief strong language) |
There is a scene in the middle of “Denial” where a professor
named David Irving (Timothy Spall) is questioning a historian on details about
the exact purpose of the concentration camps in Auschwitz. The historian is showing various simulations created
by other scholars to show how the camps worked, what their purpose was, and how
we know that they worked for their intended purpose. Irving listens intently, hanging onto to
every word, before he launches his attack: no actual photographic evidence has
been provided. The burnt down structure
does not have the materials that prove certain functioning mechanics
existed. Therefore, he concludes, the
popular notion that the camps were used specifically to kill Jews can be
legally brought into question and reasonably assumed to be a complete and utter
fabrication.
The scene stands out because in one short scene the audience
has been confronted by two things: that someone is not only able to conceivably
deny something as major as the killing of millions of Jews actually happened,
but also that they can do so and actually sound rational and intelligent in
doing so. Before we continue I do want
to stress that of course the concentration camps existed and the Holocaust
actually happened. The evidence that the
Nazi’s did this is overwhelming and I believe you would have to be a fool to
believe otherwise. What is clear though
is that no event – regardless how obvious – can ever truly be critic proof. What is also clear is that you can have
people who are completely wrong in their assertions, regardless how intelligent
and well intentioned they are. And make
no mistake: David Irving comes off as a very intelligent man.
To the extent that he even seems to know what he is talking
about to how he believes things actually happened. And Timothy Spall does a great job of
portraying this ideologically corrupt man as someone we might actually want to
have a cup of tea with so long as the subject of the Holocaust wasn’t brought
up in the first place. I should now take
the time to mention that Irving is not really supposed to be the focus of the
film. In fact, he is pretty much the
villain in “Denial” and the movies hero is Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), who
wrote a book criticizing Irving’s beliefs, which prompted him to sue her for
libel. That we are on her side from the
beginning was probably never going to be in question. In fact, it is made clear early on that the
real point of the trial is so that Irving can get Lipstadt on the stand and
question Holocaust survivors in the public.
This is why Lipstadt is prohibited from speaking on the
stand. This is also why no survivors of
the concentration camps are called as witnesses; the lawyers don’t want to give
Irving what he wants. This is probably
why Irving comes off as the most interesting character despite our disagreement
with him: he is simply the most prominent character in this movie. He is his own lawyer, fact checker, and
personal witness. If his side makes a
great point or a mistake, it is entirely on his shoulders. The lawyers working for Lipstadt are
professional and well versed in what they do, but they are following an opinion
that is widely accepted by the general public as true and, thus, they have less
work to do. If anything, “Denial” seems
to be a strong case to be made on how fascinating opposite opinions can really
be even if we disagree with them (and in some cases have no choice but to).
As a film it does make some mistakes. Our main protagonist is almost a passive
player in all of this, reduced to taking a back seat to her legal defense
team. The nature of the lawsuit itself
makes it almost impossible to not predict the final verdict. In some respects, “Denial” would be just an
average courtroom drama. Spall’s
performance and character is what makes the movie worth watching. Again, we can clearly (and with good reason)
disagree with the man and even think he is hateful and crazy. But to watch someone be that dedicated to his
false ideals is not only interesting, it is weirdly fascinating. We almost want him to make a strong case
because it is a point of view we rarely see, and we just want to see how far he
can take his argument. We don’t have to
agree, mind you, but one thing that is more interesting than a good agreement
is a good disagreement.
|
|
|
|
| CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there is talk about the Holocaust and how Jews were gassed and killed. Nothing that would warrant more than a PG rating, but the single use of an f-word pushes the rating (of course). Recommended for ages 10 and up.
|