Denial (15.)
Directed by Mick Jackson.
Starring Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott, Mark Gatiss and Alex Jennings. 110 mins
This is a film about Holocaust denial denial. When Jewish American academic Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) writes that British “historian” David Irving (Spall) says that the Holocaust never happened, he sues her for libel because he says it is not fair for her to say he said it never happened, even though he did say it never happened, because she says the evidence he used to say it never happened wasn't valid, and he says it was and that he is a proper historian, which she says he isn't. And because he sues her in a British court where the burden of proof is with the defendant in a libel trial, she, or rather her expensive legal team, have to prove that the Holocaust did happen.
Based on a true story; a courtroom drama; an underdog tale; about the Holocaust: Denial would appear to have a full house in any hand of Oscar pleading, but David Hare's script inverts every awards season convention. The plucky underdog single handedly facing down the oppressive might of the establishment is a stuck up racist and anti-semite (though to be fair, Irving is a self made stuck up racist and anti-semite, who pulled himself up into the gutter by his boot straps.) The good guys are pampered, patronizing, snooty lawyers who like to drink rather excellent reds from plastic cups. It is really quite a jolt when we are introduced to lawyer Anthony Julius, (Scott,) the man who will be heading her defence team, and the film shows him to be condescending, particularly to women. (And also a little too puffed up by his relationship with Diana, whose divorce he organized and whose name he likes to drop.)
It may seem like an odd recommendation, but what I really like about this film is that there isn't a likeable major character in it. (They try to buddy up a little at the end, for appearance's sake, but I think the initial impression holds.) Spall, now dramatically slimmed down, makes a magnificent gargoyle of Irving, giving him the pained smugness of someone wearily accustomed to the tiresomeness of constantly dealing with intellectual inferiors. The lawyers are the British establishment at their most unbearable, even though this time they are on the side of right. (You can see why they got Moriarty to play Julius.) Even Lipstadt come off as abrasive and strident. Weisz's New York Queen's accent is so strong it'll wrinkle out those carefully hidden aren't-Americans-ghastly prejudices in the most opened minded of Brits.
She does though have a really fascinating narrative arc. Her quandary is whether she should fulfill her role as the heroine of the narrative. She wants to do the right and heroic thing: to get on the stand and defend the truth; and give survivors the right to have their say too. Her lawyers strongly advise against it knowing Irving, who is conducting his own defence, will most likely destroy her, and any survivor who testifies. She believes she's the lead character here, but everybody is demanding she behave like an extra. The narrative's main drive is about her deciding whether to defy her counsel and take the stand herself and risk everything by making a, perhaps selfishly motivated, stand for justice. Spoiler, according to the film her heroism is denying herself the chance to do the right thing, and acquiescing to the will of the experts who know better.
Directed by Mick Jackson.
Starring Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott, Mark Gatiss and Alex Jennings. 110 mins
This is a film about Holocaust denial denial. When Jewish American academic Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) writes that British “historian” David Irving (Spall) says that the Holocaust never happened, he sues her for libel because he says it is not fair for her to say he said it never happened, even though he did say it never happened, because she says the evidence he used to say it never happened wasn't valid, and he says it was and that he is a proper historian, which she says he isn't. And because he sues her in a British court where the burden of proof is with the defendant in a libel trial, she, or rather her expensive legal team, have to prove that the Holocaust did happen.
Based on a true story; a courtroom drama; an underdog tale; about the Holocaust: Denial would appear to have a full house in any hand of Oscar pleading, but David Hare's script inverts every awards season convention. The plucky underdog single handedly facing down the oppressive might of the establishment is a stuck up racist and anti-semite (though to be fair, Irving is a self made stuck up racist and anti-semite, who pulled himself up into the gutter by his boot straps.) The good guys are pampered, patronizing, snooty lawyers who like to drink rather excellent reds from plastic cups. It is really quite a jolt when we are introduced to lawyer Anthony Julius, (Scott,) the man who will be heading her defence team, and the film shows him to be condescending, particularly to women. (And also a little too puffed up by his relationship with Diana, whose divorce he organized and whose name he likes to drop.)
It may seem like an odd recommendation, but what I really like about this film is that there isn't a likeable major character in it. (They try to buddy up a little at the end, for appearance's sake, but I think the initial impression holds.) Spall, now dramatically slimmed down, makes a magnificent gargoyle of Irving, giving him the pained smugness of someone wearily accustomed to the tiresomeness of constantly dealing with intellectual inferiors. The lawyers are the British establishment at their most unbearable, even though this time they are on the side of right. (You can see why they got Moriarty to play Julius.) Even Lipstadt come off as abrasive and strident. Weisz's New York Queen's accent is so strong it'll wrinkle out those carefully hidden aren't-Americans-ghastly prejudices in the most opened minded of Brits.
She does though have a really fascinating narrative arc. Her quandary is whether she should fulfill her role as the heroine of the narrative. She wants to do the right and heroic thing: to get on the stand and defend the truth; and give survivors the right to have their say too. Her lawyers strongly advise against it knowing Irving, who is conducting his own defence, will most likely destroy her, and any survivor who testifies. She believes she's the lead character here, but everybody is demanding she behave like an extra. The narrative's main drive is about her deciding whether to defy her counsel and take the stand herself and risk everything by making a, perhaps selfishly motivated, stand for justice. Spoiler, according to the film her heroism is denying herself the chance to do the right thing, and acquiescing to the will of the experts who know better.
