Heir to an Execution

Ivy Meeropol has produced an emotionally moving documentary about her infamous grandparents, the Rosenbergs. I liked her work in this film, however her account of this notorious trial of Russian spies and traitors, as well as the effect on both Rosenberg boys, is purely an emotional and subjective view. Julius Rosenberg was definitely a traitor and a Russian spy, operating against the interests of U.S. national security and defense. Ethel was clearly an innocent woman. Julius was arrogant, evil, and extremely selfish not to confess information that would have saved his loving wife Ethel. Obviously, the ramifications were quite extensive as to whom was involved in that espionage ring of secret agents, having smuggled nuclear weapons technology to the Russians. Ivy Meeropol's documentary of the historical events however, never answered the most important question about her grandfather Julius' betrayal of the United States...Why? Why did he do it? What made him commit himself to his loyalty and sympathy for the Russians? Why was he so strongly compelled to give nuclear weapons secrets to the evil heinous empire of Stalin and the Soviet Communist's regime? The long term consequences of Julius Rosenberg's actions are a debacle of infinitesimal proportions. Why do you think we are now horrified that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon to use against the U.S.A.? That same stolen nuclear technology, was given to the Islamic jihadist regime of Iran, by none other than Vladimir Putin and the remnants of his mother Russia!

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.

I have always been fascinated by the Rosenbergs and was eager to see this film, but came away disappointed. It's a good thing I knew all about the Rosenbergs beforehand, because otherwise I would have been very confused. The film didn't give any back story on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Who were they? What did they (allegedly) do? How were they discovered? Why were they chosen to symbolize the witchhunt era? Why were they executed, when hundreds of other convicted spies were not? What evidence suggests they were guilty, and what evidence suggests they were not? A documentary should elucidate the viewer and make them feel more knowledgeable on a subject than before. Ivy did practically no historical research when making this film, which betrays the entire purpose of a documentary. She interviewed family members and tracked down old people who knew her grandparents, but otherwise provided no context. Someone who is not American, or unfamiliar with the McCarthyism era, would be baffled by this film, because it assumes that everyone already knows the story.

It is clear that Ivy put her whole heart into this project, and the result is a very sincere attempt to humanize the grandparents she never met. However, I wanted to understand what truly happened, and my questions were not answered.

The best thing about this film was Michael Meeropol, Ivy's father. He is a passionate, articulate activist who knows more about the subject than his daughter. The scenes in which he speaks were the smartest in the film. I began to wish that he had directed this documentary, and not his daughter. Ivy, despite her good intentions, is ditzy and a weak interviewer. She has the very annoying habit of trailing off questions halfway, and leaving her subjects to figure out what she is asking. Her interviews were unstructured and the narration was rickety.

Furthermore, the biases and shoddy journalism are apparent. Ivy and her brother are naively insistent that their grandparents were "innocent" (a word that gets thrown around repeatedly) despite admitting that they never examined the evidence or studied the story beyond hearing it from their father. The Rosenberg records were unsealed by the government in 1995, and yet Ivy didn't bother looking at them until she made this film.

Everyone has the right to know where they come from. While the Meeropol family's efforts to define their legacy are admirable, the result was a very amateurish film. It is too bad that another family member with better documentarian abilities didn't take the helm.

The entire film is based on a fallacy and therefore makes it difficult to watch. Ivy basis the documentary on the misleading notion that her grandparents are not guilty of being traitors. The facts are that her grandparents were spies. Later, her father Michael says, Julius might have helped the Soviets, but Julius did not do what the government accused him of. Then another person says Ethel was only being a loyal wife.

The film is a sophomoric effort to understand the dark stain on her family. The camera work, editing, and narration are all weak.

Ivy should have created a documentary on what caused the executions. It wasn't 'red scare', or 'communist witch-hunts'. It was because Julius and Ethel were spies for the Soviets. They are both guilty of betraying their country.

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.