Denial - directed by Mick Jackson
The entire time that I was watching "Denial" I assumed that the film's antagonist David Irving must have died some time between the year that the film is set (2000) and the making of it.
But no - he is in fact still alive.
My incorrect assumption was based on the fact that he does not come off at all well in this film and given that the entire plot concerns him suing someone for saying less than complimentary things about him I would have thought that the movie itself would have drawn his legal ire should he still be alive.
In fact I don't know that it hasn't.... time will tell I guess.
"Denial" concerns American writer Deborah Lipstadt defending herself against a case of defamation.
She wrote in her book 'Denying the Holocaust' that British Historian David Irving distorted history to back up his incorrect view that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Under British Libel Law she has to prove that her statements were correct.
In the United States it is the accuser who must prove that the statements made by the defendant are incorrect.
In the early scenes of the film we see a heated encounter between Lipstadt and Irving when he shows up to a lecture she is giving.
He talks her down and grandstands offering $1000 to anyone who can show a document that supports the claim that Adolf Hitler authorised the mass extermination of Jews during World War 2.
In reality the case which was against Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books took four years to arrive in a courtroom.
The film didn't make this passage of time particularly clear aside from a few meetings to assemble legal assistance and a visit to Auschwitz by Lipstadt and said legal team.
Regardless the expedience with which we arrive in the courtroom is probably a good move.
The stakes here are pretty big - this is more than a he-said / she-said case of mean things being said.
At stake is the historical recognition of a major and very ghastly piece of human history.
Should Lipstadt and her team lose the case there could follow a barrage of similar writing expressing doubt over what became of millions of Jews between 1941 and 1945.
Accordingly Lipstadt chooses pedigree representation in the form of Anthony Julius who represented Princess Diana during her divorce proceedings.
Julius is solicitor who prepares a case and can show up in court but cannot present arguments and cross examine witnesses.
This is down to a barrister - in this case Richard Rampton.
Playing the three main parts are Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, Andrew Scott as Julius Anthony and Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton.
They could scarcely be better.
Wilkinson and Scott are terrific and the only reason that they outshine the always wonderful Weisz is that she is simply not given as much to do.
Suffering almost as much is Timothy Spall as David Irving.
The decision to accept this role must have produced much debate for Spall and his representation.
As written the character is a very unpleasant chap.
There is a scene in which he cannot see how a rhyme he taught his infant daughter is racist.
As the child is wheeled past children of mixed race she recites it....
'I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.'
Yep.
That pretty much sums up the character that we are shown.
The timing of this movie cannot be an accident.
There is enough going on the world right now to resist truth and present instead half baked lies in support of very worrying ideology that it therefore seems very timely.
As interesting as the subject matter is it isn't explored as thoroughly as I had hoped it would be.
The trailer for this film makes it look like a very tense, very serious film filled with courtroom arguments and out of court controversies and even dangers.
Julius points out to Deborah that she follows the same route every night for her daily jog and suggests that she vary it.
A couple of times Deborah has anti-semitic verbal abuse tossed at her as she enters the court buildings.
But any suggestion that she is in danger never amounts to anything probably because this was the case in reality.
It all comes off as trying to load in much more drama than really existed.
This is also true of the courtroom scenes which quite fascinating are very lopsided and lacking in any real tension aside for one or two moments.
I am caught therefore between praising the film for not fudging the truth for the sake of more drama and deriding it for being a little flat and pedestrian.
I kept thinking of another Rachel Weisz film "The Whistleblower" which treads similar ground and is infinitely more harrowing and tense than "Denial".
Director Mick Jackson is a versatile and talented filmmaker.
His tv film "Threads" is extraordinary and you will not find a bigger fan of his Steve Martin movie "LA Story" than me.
And of course there is that little Kevin Costner flick "The Bodyguard".
Much less of the grimness of "Threads" and the flash of the two features I mentioned is required here but he still manages to inject a flourish here and there.
I liked the shot of the Judge walking out to the courtroom to deliver his final verdict shot from behind and ending up above the mans shoulder looking down on the assembled masses.
There are a couple of flashes of gas chamber victims and some very effective cold, grey shots of Auschwitz in the present time but all in all this is a film that feels more like a made for tv production than a feature.
I don't mean that as too harsh a criticism as too much flash and grandeur would certainly threaten to misrepresent the real events and clearly accuracy is the aim.
But still I cannot praise this film as much as I would like because it does feel very slight.
The acting is exemplary across the board and this combined with the subject matter which remains very, very important makes this well worth seeing.
It isn't quite of the pedigree that I had hoped however.
RATING: 80 / 100
CONCLUSION: Terrific performance from a perfectly cast group of actors and compelling subject matter go a long way towards making up for the lack of tension or real drama. Still well worth a look but regardless "Denial" is very good rather than great.
Starring: Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall, Tom Wilkinson, Andrew Scott, Jack Lowden, Alex Jennings, Caren Pistorius, Mark Gatiss, John Sessions, Harriet Walter, Pip Carter, Nikki Amuka-Bird
Screenplay: David Hare
Music Score by: Howard Shore
Cinematography: Haris Zambarloukos
Edited by: Justine Wright
Running Time: 110 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Themes relating to the Holocaust
Running Time: 110 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Themes relating to the Holocaust
But no - he is in fact still alive.
My incorrect assumption was based on the fact that he does not come off at all well in this film and given that the entire plot concerns him suing someone for saying less than complimentary things about him I would have thought that the movie itself would have drawn his legal ire should he still be alive.
In fact I don't know that it hasn't.... time will tell I guess.
"Denial" concerns American writer Deborah Lipstadt defending herself against a case of defamation.
She wrote in her book 'Denying the Holocaust' that British Historian David Irving distorted history to back up his incorrect view that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Under British Libel Law she has to prove that her statements were correct.
In the United States it is the accuser who must prove that the statements made by the defendant are incorrect.
In the early scenes of the film we see a heated encounter between Lipstadt and Irving when he shows up to a lecture she is giving.
He talks her down and grandstands offering $1000 to anyone who can show a document that supports the claim that Adolf Hitler authorised the mass extermination of Jews during World War 2.
In reality the case which was against Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books took four years to arrive in a courtroom.
The film didn't make this passage of time particularly clear aside from a few meetings to assemble legal assistance and a visit to Auschwitz by Lipstadt and said legal team.
Regardless the expedience with which we arrive in the courtroom is probably a good move.
 |
| Action is mostly in the courtroom but there are some rather good scenes either side of these |
At stake is the historical recognition of a major and very ghastly piece of human history.
Should Lipstadt and her team lose the case there could follow a barrage of similar writing expressing doubt over what became of millions of Jews between 1941 and 1945.
Accordingly Lipstadt chooses pedigree representation in the form of Anthony Julius who represented Princess Diana during her divorce proceedings.
Julius is solicitor who prepares a case and can show up in court but cannot present arguments and cross examine witnesses.
This is down to a barrister - in this case Richard Rampton.
Playing the three main parts are Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, Andrew Scott as Julius Anthony and Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton.
They could scarcely be better.
Wilkinson and Scott are terrific and the only reason that they outshine the always wonderful Weisz is that she is simply not given as much to do.
Suffering almost as much is Timothy Spall as David Irving.
The decision to accept this role must have produced much debate for Spall and his representation.
As written the character is a very unpleasant chap.
There is a scene in which he cannot see how a rhyme he taught his infant daughter is racist.
As the child is wheeled past children of mixed race she recites it....
'I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.'
Yep.
That pretty much sums up the character that we are shown.
The timing of this movie cannot be an accident.
There is enough going on the world right now to resist truth and present instead half baked lies in support of very worrying ideology that it therefore seems very timely.
As interesting as the subject matter is it isn't explored as thoroughly as I had hoped it would be.
The trailer for this film makes it look like a very tense, very serious film filled with courtroom arguments and out of court controversies and even dangers.
Julius points out to Deborah that she follows the same route every night for her daily jog and suggests that she vary it.
A couple of times Deborah has anti-semitic verbal abuse tossed at her as she enters the court buildings.
But any suggestion that she is in danger never amounts to anything probably because this was the case in reality.
It all comes off as trying to load in much more drama than really existed.
This is also true of the courtroom scenes which quite fascinating are very lopsided and lacking in any real tension aside for one or two moments.
I am caught therefore between praising the film for not fudging the truth for the sake of more drama and deriding it for being a little flat and pedestrian.
I kept thinking of another Rachel Weisz film "The Whistleblower" which treads similar ground and is infinitely more harrowing and tense than "Denial".
 |
| Actor vs reality - Weisz/Lipstadt, Scott/Anthony, Spall/Irving and Wilkinson/Rampton |
His tv film "Threads" is extraordinary and you will not find a bigger fan of his Steve Martin movie "LA Story" than me.
And of course there is that little Kevin Costner flick "The Bodyguard".
Much less of the grimness of "Threads" and the flash of the two features I mentioned is required here but he still manages to inject a flourish here and there.
I liked the shot of the Judge walking out to the courtroom to deliver his final verdict shot from behind and ending up above the mans shoulder looking down on the assembled masses.
There are a couple of flashes of gas chamber victims and some very effective cold, grey shots of Auschwitz in the present time but all in all this is a film that feels more like a made for tv production than a feature.
I don't mean that as too harsh a criticism as too much flash and grandeur would certainly threaten to misrepresent the real events and clearly accuracy is the aim.
But still I cannot praise this film as much as I would like because it does feel very slight.
The acting is exemplary across the board and this combined with the subject matter which remains very, very important makes this well worth seeing.
It isn't quite of the pedigree that I had hoped however.
pg ยอดเยี่ยมเกมออนไลน์สล็อตบนมือถือแบบใหม่ปัจจุบันของโลกสมัครเล่น PG SLOT วันนี้ไม่มีเบื่อไม่ซ้ำซากในแบบการเล่นเดิมๆอีกต่อไปเป็นเกมสล็อตที่แจ๊คพอตแตกหลายครั้งที่สุดลองเลย
ReplyDelete