Negação

I recommend this movie for people who, like me, make time for conspiracy theories despite loathing them. Outside of the interesting "intentionalist versus functionalist" debate, "revisionism" erroneously connotes academic legitimacy. The title is therefore apt.

All the dialogue pertaining to the defense's fascinating legal strategy went over very well with me. That and the much appreciated verbatim courtroom dialogue comprises most of the script. My positive impressions were reinforced by subsequent research into the trial. Denial delves into the sinister practice of Holocaust denialism at its best. I stretched my viewing over several hours and basked in the cerebral delight of it.

Rachel Weisz has been given flak for a performance that did not leave me in want of anything. Though I would not say it was an award-worthy performance, I chalk that up more to the formulaic production than any shortcoming of hers. Tom Wilkinson deserves mention as her character's barrister. Timothy Spall is terrific as David Irving!

This glowing review notwithstanding, Denial has the feel of excellent television, which is no way to compliment a feature film. The defense's true-to-life legal strategy necessarily undercut the film's emotive power. The scenes at Auschwitz itself are therefore especially vital to its success for me. Including London's Boadicea and Her Daughters was a nice touch.

I've been intrigued by this movie for many years but always forget to look it up. I found it on Hulu today and was impressed. My main morbid curiosity was watching a holocaust denier defend himself. As I expected, it was embarrassing, which is why he lost the case. He grasped at straws the whole time. I kept waiting to see how he'd crawl out of the hole he'd dig himself. The worst part was the footage of his speaking and people applauding his nonsense. The fact that multiple people like that exist is terrifying. I think people are being cruel to Weisz's performance. Her character was essentially silenced, and she owned every scene she was allowed to express emotion in. Another thing people aren't taking into account is this film was 1998ish. There's too much complaining about the dialogue (all taken verbatim by the way) the style, etc. it is true to the time. It does not take place in 2016. Maybe the most important lesson we learned about this movie is people need to pay better attention.

An extremely well executed drama, without a single pointless or wasted scene.

No part of this production drew attention away from the story - which was focused on with laser intensity - so although the cinematography was excellent and atmospheric, there was no flashy camerawork or eye-catching visuals; nor did the music ever overwhelm the dialogue or leave you humming a prominent leitmotif; and the editing was crisp, straightforward, and business-like.

The performances were uniformly exquisite, with each actor playing their role with subtlety, nuance, and verisimilitude. There were plenty of opportunities for hammy moments, but to their credit, and the credit of the director, each actor played their part with skilful restraint. In the more emotional scenes, their passions seethed mostly beneath the surface, which all added to the emotional investment of the viewer, forced on occasion to experience the enormity of events far more than if everything had been done for them by the actors. This is a sign of truly skilful and confident directing, as well as a rare example of a modern movie trusting its audience to think and feel what they are meant to, without leading them round by the nose.

Overall, this was a thoroughly satisfying viewing experience, that left just the right cocktail of aftertastes on the intellectual/emotional palate.

From the number of negative reviews of this film, and its low IMDB rating, I can only conclude that there are still a worrying number of anti-Semites and holocaust deniers out there, as there is very little in it to complain about technically or creatively.

There's something that feels packaged and glossy here, and maybe a little bit off with Rachel Weisz's character (not sure if it's the role or the performance), but the subject matter, the true story of a libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving against historian Deborah Lipstadt is compelling, poignant, and raises important questions. How does one respond to someone whose views are so distorted, whose mind is filled with racist filth, and who spews outrageous lies which stir up rage in both those who believe him and those who are horrified by him? Someone who is so far outside the norm that to engage him is to help mainstream him, but to be silent is to let his views go unchallenged and uncorrected? Someone who will quickly drag you down into the gutter he's in if you're not very careful? These are the questions Lipstadt and her legal team wrestle with, and as they're complicated and universal, I found great depth in this part of the drama.

There is a parallel here to demagogues like Trump, and we see the most important thing we must hold on to - regardless of our political or religious viewpoints - is the truth. We must have truth, not "alternative facts", propaganda, or a re-writing of history which dishonors millions and is morally wrong. It's all the more important for monstrous events in history, the crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust. The voice of suffering must be heard, to paraphrase the film.

It's in the clear-eyed, sober pursuit of truth by the barrister played by Tom Wilkinson, and in the scenes at Auschwitz, that the film is at its strongest. And as Lipstadt/Weisz puts it, "Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it." The film stirs up a proper amount of outrage, and for me had real tension. If you'd like a little extra helping of outrage and sadness, just read a selection of the low rating reviews out on IMDb, which seems to be a haven for the alt-right to attack films like this, or those starring or directed by African-Americans. I'm not saying if you didn't like the film you're in this group, but my god, reading some of those reviews is depressing.

Greetings again from the darkness. Guilty until proved innocent. It's a concept that is inconceivable to Americans, yet it's the core of British Law in libel cases. When once respected British historian David Irving accused American scholar and educator Deborah Lipstadt of libel, based on her book that accused him of being a Holocaust denier, the burden fell to Lipstadt to prove not just that Irving's work was a purposeful lie, but that the Holocaust did in fact take place.

This is the first theatrical release in about 15 years for director Mick Jackson, who is best known for his 1991 L.A. Story and 1992 The Bodyguard, and for his Emmy-winning 2010 TV movie Temple Grandin. The script is adapted, from Deborah Lipstadt's book, by playwright David Hare (The Reader, 2008), and the courtroom dialogue is taken directly from trial records and transcripts. Like most courtroom dramas, the quality relies heavily on actors.

Rachel Weisz plays Ms. Lipstadt with a brazen and outspoken quality one would expect from a confident and knowledgeable Queens-raised scholar. Timothy Spall bravely takes on the role of David Irving, a pathetic figure blind to how his racism and anti-Semitism corrupted his writings and beliefs. Tom Wilkinson is the barrister Richard Rampton who advocates for Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin Books in the libel suit brought by Mr. Irving. Andrew Scott plays Andrew Julius, the noted solicitor who also handled Princess Diana's divorce from Prince Charles. Others include Caren Pistorius as an idealistic member of the legal team, and Alex Jennings as Sir Charles Gray – the sitting judge for the case.

Of course for any sane human being, it's beyond belief that a Holocaust denier could achieve even a modicum of attention or notoriety, much less have the audacity to bring suit against a scholar who simply published descriptions of that denier's own words. Rather than come down to fact vs opinion, a more fitting title would be opinion based on fact vs opinion based on a lie. If the words used against Irving in Lipstadt's books are true, she would win the case. In other words, she had to prove that he was a racist, an anti-Semite and knowingly misrepresented the facts in his works as a Holocaust denier.

Mr. Jackson's film begins with Ms. Lipstadt as a professor in 1994 at Emory University (where she remains employed to this day). In 1996, the lawsuit is filed, and in 1998, Lipstadt and Rampton visit Auschwitz. Though the courtroom drama and corresponding legal work takes up much of the film, it's this sequence filmed at Auschwitz that is the heart and soul of the film. Very little melodrama is added … the scenes and the setting speak for themselves.

The trial finally started in 2000, and as always, it's fascinating to compare the British court of law and process with that of the United States. The formality is on full display, but nuance and showmanship still play a role. The film and the trial ask the question … are you a racist/anti-Semite if you truly believe the despicable things you say/write? This is the question that the judge wrestles with (and of course, "Seinfeld" had a spin on this when George stated "It's not a lie, if you believe it").

It's been a rough movie week for me with the Holocaust and slavery (The Birth of a Nation), but it's also been a reminder of just what wicked things people are capable of, and how current society continues to struggle with such inexplicable thoughts. Kudos to Ms. Weisz, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Spall for excellent performances, and to Mr. Hale for the rare inclusion of a Chappaquiddick punchline.