Heir to an Execution

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.

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.

As other reviewers have mentioned, this is essentially an amateur effort, but I believe it is more effective for that, and that a more polished, careful effort by "professionals" would not be nearly as poignant and effective.

Though many of the Rosenberg family cling to various pieces of the puzzle hoping, or pretending, that Julius & Ethel were either "innocent" or at least deserved a lesser punishment, it is clear from the Venona transcripts (released in '95) and testimony of ex-KGB agents that they were active -- Julius much more so -- in stealing highly classified U.S. secrets and giving them to the Soviet Union, as part of an organized socialist-communist cabal. They were clearly "true believers," which is what essentially scarred their children's lives.

As this film makes quite clear, the Rosenbergs could have spared themselves right up to the day they were executed, but their refusal to implicate other spies sealed their fate. However misguided, they were true believers, willing to die rather than betray their cause.

At this late date there is of course not the slightest doubt that both were guilty of treason and espionage, and, due to their refusal to "betray" their comrades or their cause, they also inflicted great emotional trauma to their families, especially their children. One cannot help but sympathize with them, but it's hard to argue that their parents are in any way "innocent" or did not commit treason and espionage. They opted to die. One can only bemoan the fact that others in the ring deserved death far more than Ethel, but got light sentences.

Though a bit long and slow-moving at times, for someone interested in this peculiar historical incident this film will prove fascinating despite its less-than-polished production.

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.