Heir to an Execution

If you're looking for a good, even-handed overview of the Rosenberg case, this isn't it, but it is nevertheless not without interest.

It's not a good overview for two reasons. First, the movie spends little time looking at the actual facts of the case, focusing instead mostly on the effects on the family left behind. This can be excused, since it wasn't the intent of the filmmaker to cover the case itself. Second, and less excusable, the movie seems essentially uninformed by much of the evidence that has come out in the last decade (e.g. from Soviet intelligence archives) which provides unambiguous answers as to what the Rosenbergs actually did.

For instance, you won't hear here that documents in the Soviet archives explicitly describe Ethel Rosenberg helping to recruit David Greenglass to pass on atomic bomb construction details from Los Alamos. Ethel may not have deserved the death penalty for what she did, but it's hard to put much weight on any opinions this movie expresses on the subject, given its reliance on the pro-Rosenberg side for its view of the case.

That one-sidedness, however, is what is responsible for one of the film's two real accomplishments: giving the viewer a clear view of the mind-set of the American left in the 30's and 40's, one in which spying for a foreign power for ideological reasons was not merely acceptable, but laudable, and one in which the bald-faced claims of the complete innocence of the Rosenbergs were credulously accepted. The interviews with the aging members of the American left alone are worth the time of a serious student of the era.

The other interesting aspect of the movie is its clear documentation of the havoc the Rosenbergs' wreaked on their family. As a number of reviewers have pointed out, this is not a polished film, but the lack of polish contributes to the effectiveness of this portrayal. The Rosenbergs' willingness to put their family through this is perhaps the best measure of the depth of their devotion to the socialist cause, and helps us understand how they could have helped pass some of their country's deepest secrets to a foreign power.

The names Julius and Ethel Rosenberg bring on a sweeping sensation of treason. They have become the poster-children for anti-American hatred and fear of foreign ideology. But to some, the names mean mother and father; grandmother and grandfather.

I must admit, before I saw this film I didn't even know the Rosenbergs had children. This is left out of history lessons since, after all, what did that have to do with anything? Heir to an Execution, a sensitive and thoughtful documentary from Rosenberg granddaughter Ivy Meeropol, sheds light into a shadowy area of communist spies and family tightness.

Meeropol's film begins questioning the famed Rosenberg's death sentences by interviewing old friends and socialist peers. A door is opened into their world in a way I had never seen. Hated so fiercely by the rest of America, these revolutionaries have found their way from prisons to retirement homes.

What is far more interesting, however, is what comes next. As Meeropol tracks her grandparents' lives to the electric chair the question of her father and uncle arise. What exactly did happen to them during the chaos? And more importantly, what was to be done with them after the inevitable? Political documentaries are sometimes dry and are often as subtle as a man with a stick pointing at an easel. Heir to an Execution is different. Meeropol raises doubts to at least part of the Rosenberg trial, if not all of it, while at the same time documenting the life of a wonderful man, her father. In the end we don't know which is more important, the Rosenberg injustice or the chronicle of a distinguished life whose path you would not expect winding up here. **** out of ****

This is the Granddaughter's story. They skip (or, at least, I missed) Sobell's full story. He escaped the US to Mexico but could not get anywhere. Her grandfather was guilty. Her grandmother, yes less so, but still not innocent. Fascinating glimpse into history.

Ivy Meeropol is the granddaughter of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were executed as traitors for allegedly passing the secrets of the atomic bomb to America's enemy Russia. Decades after the event she decides to try and uncover the history around their execution and sets out to interview her relatives and others involved.

As a non-American and someone who was only born in the 1970's, I was not that familiar with the subject of the film but had a vague knowledge of what this was about – or at least enough to come to the film to learn more. The problem is that the film doesn't actually help the causal viewer at all and seems to assume that everyone watching it will already know the whole story. In a way perhaps this is a fair approach because the film is roundly personal and amateur, made by Meeropol for herself more than anyone else. With this in mind then perhaps it is forgivable that the film has come off this way, because it does just what the small target audience needed; however to my mind this approach is a bit careless towards the audience – Meeropol could easily have built the factual story and then expanded it to be a personal exploration.

The film doesn't do this though and really the history behind the Rosenberg's and the events in America at the time are hardly touched upon in favour of Meeropol trying to get to grips with her complex family tree and the relatives who scattered when the execution took place and the children were left with no family to take them in. The interest in this material will be limited and, without the film giving you any background, the casual viewer will feel as isolated as I did – which is a problem whether Meeropol thinks it is or not.

Overall then a very personal film that has a limited audience as a result. For those very familiar with the Rosenberg and the wider family then this will be gripping and touching but without even knowing the basics then how was I suppose to care about the personal story behind (after) the execution? A very amateurish and personal film that offers limited appeal and fails to make its subject more accessible.

7/10 This is a pretty good documentary, directed by the Rosenberg's blood granddaughter Ivy Meeropol, it covers in more detail the relationship the trial and execution has had on the family, than on the the actual trial and evidence. It is clear and objectively shown that indeed it has had an arrant multigenerational effect and most likely will continue with the director's children. However, important in the film was the revelation of information contained in the 1995 opening of classified government documents (The Venona Papers) which pretty much proves Julius' guilt (guilty of passing secrets, but nothing supposedly as serious as atomic info) and exonerates Ethel. This is presented as a surprise in the film, although this information was revealed nearly a decade before the film had been made. We spend half the film getting to this point, whereas the film would've been much more effective and in-depth if it would've started off at this point. I only say this 'cause the degree to which the guilt, or degree of guilt affects this family's identity, is highly relevant and the major theme of the documentary. This, and Morton Sobell's incomplete answers to the nature of their guilt (he was their co-defendant!!) made the film seem a little more biased than it had to be. The film also in a way martyrizes the Rosenbergs, which is fine if they were innocent, but a sad and unavoidable manipulation if not. Overall, this is slightly nitpickish on my part and anyone interested in this era of history will not be disappointed.