
Tags
Denial (2016)
The nature of truth and the power to manipulate it have long been contentious themes in history and cinema. The outstanding film Denial (2016) resonates loudly in today’s post-truth world where power is often used to create alternate realities. It is a film that portrays denialism as a dangerous and perverse form of moral corruption, something that may be contained but can never be eliminated.
The story is based on the celebrated 1996 legal case fought between eminent academic Deborah Lipstadt, an American professor of Holocaust Studies, and David Irving, a historian of Nazi Germany. A book published by Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz) accuses Irving (Timothy Spall) of being a Holocaust denier and falsifier of history, and Irving sues for defamation. In the British justice system, the burden of proof is on the accused so Lipstadt must prove that the Holocaust did happen to establish that Irving is a liar. She engages a top legal team led by senior barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) who insists that neither Lipstadt or Holocaust survivors should present testimony against Irving because of his history of promoting himself by humiliating victims. Lipstadt and her lawyers visit Auchwitz to gather evidence of the existence of gas chambers but the bulk of the story is played out on the legal battlefield at court.
Modern audiences are desensitised to the atrocities of war. It is glorified in movies and video games and feeds the entertainment and amusement industry. Today’s filmmakers struggle to find ways of remembering the Holocaust without alienating viewers. The extraordinary Son of Saul (2016) takes audiences right into the flames, whereas Denial (2016) explores the moral issues in a courtroom. In reality, this was a high-stakes legal battle that could have potentially delegitimised the entire history of the Holocaust. It is an outstanding achievement that this film can capture the tension and the burden of moral responsibility carried by the Lipstadt legal team.
The casting and characterisation in this film are brilliant. Rachael Weisz’s American brashness presents a stark cultural contrast with the conservative traditions of British justice. She convincingly portrays a principled academic and scholar of truth, showing restrained emotion beneath her loathing for Irving’s anti-Semitism. Tom Wilkinson gives a masterful portrait of wisdom and conviction, while Timothy Spall plays Irving with subdued Satanic malice. The other support cast make up a strong ensemble. The narrative unfolds at a sweeping pace and the script is both intelligent and instructive in the legal nuance of courtroom manoeuvers. The footage of Auchwitz is emotionally harrowing and the film treats its subject matter with utmost reverence.
If you want light entertainment, do not see this film. It is for audiences prepared to confront the dark side of humanity as well as those interested in the intricacies and triumphs of the British legal system. But more than that, it’s an essay on the nature of truth in history and it exposes the moral abhorrence of those who manipulate facts to suit their prejudices. It is also a warning that manipulators of truth will always be among us.
Director: Mick Jackson
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall
Amazing review. This movie was a gem, and Weisz, Wilkinson, and Spall were brilliant.. Your content is, as always, great! Let me know if you ever want a guest contributor post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Alex. This movie featured at the Sydney Jewish Film Festival late last year and I have thought about it often since then. It is an under-acclaimed gem indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That must have been an incredible experience! So important that these stories be told. I am attending Berlin International Film Festival this year, hoping there are some hidden gems in there as well!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure you will see some great work there. Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
A story this good deserved a better movie, with much better focus. Nice review.
LikeLiked by 1 person
will see it next week!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I look forward to reading your thoughts after you see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come on over to my blog, when you can, and say hello to your fans 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love this movie. I would have given it 5 stars. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS: if you aren’t already a follower of Otto von Muenchow; In Flow, you may enjoy this post. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/77907/posts/1318068595
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Linda; its a very intersting blog that I now follow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see why you say that. The issue of ratings is one that film reviewers can get quiet guarded about. I dont. But I do reflect on it seriously. For me, there are four major criteria sets that I take into account when offering a comparative evaluation numeric: narrative cohesion and sweep; emotional impact; cinematography; and social and political relevance. Each film is considered in the context of others of that genre. This is important as I do not know how anyone can compare a high entertainment value film like La La Land with a searing and gut-wrenching experience like Son of Saul. In relation to Denial, for me a four out of five stars says that this film belongs with the best of them. It is constrained by being a factual account of history therefore there are natural limits on how it can dramatise the events. It easily scores five on some criteria but less on others. Thanks for prodding me to say something of my approach to ratings. I’ll post more details in the coming while as I think all reviewers need to be transparent in how they form evaluative conclusions.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to “deny” your score. I know I tend to not be critical enough with books or films, especially when they move me deeply or carry me away on a gripping narrative, as this one did. I’m trying to think more critically and that is why I so enjoy your reviews. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a really interesting comment mate. Makes me realise that I have over-scored a ton of films this year. I should sit down and develop a proper criteria like you have.
Also, random question – I saw your guest post on flixchatter. It said you were a member of some Australian Films Critics Group, or something along those lines. Can one just sign up, or does the writing style have to be of a certain standard? I have some reviews on saltypopcorn.com.au but that’s it, apart from my blog. Sorry to prod, I’m just curious 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
More than happy to chat about it Jordan. AFCA criteria states:
Membership is available to film critics or journalists contributing on a regular basis to media (print, radio, television, or online).
Membership is subject to majority approval by the Committee and will be judged by the following criteria:
¥ Members add to and enriches the culture of film criticism in Australia.
¥ Must write (or broadcast) for a reputable outlet(s) that reflects AFCA’s high standards and organisational integrity.
¥ Writing and/or multimedia content must be to a professional standard, and of a standard which demonstrates sophisticated understanding of film and film analysis.
¥ Has critiqued feature films on a regular basis over a demonstrable period of time, with a suggested minimum of six months.
Demonstrates a willingness to participate in various forms of film culture and discourse in Australia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey thanks for that, hmm that was what I was worried about. I don’t really know what they mean by a reputable outlet but I only have that one Aussie film site, and I don’t think it is that big. Or maybe it is, I dunno. So you write for someone else too I guess?
And I’m assuming that my writing isn’t of a professional standard in any way. I’m always super-opinionated. Hmm =/
I guess it can’t hurt to try, got nothing to lose. Now that I know the abbreviation I’ll look up their site. Cos apart from those two things, I believe I can add to the culture of film criticism, I believe I can offer a different perspective on things (well I know I can, my consciousness is permanently altered by my epilepsy so I see the world very differently than most people). I’d also LOVE to “participate in various forms of film culture and discourse in Australia”!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go for it Jordan.
LikeLike
Will do mate. Cheers 🙂
LikeLike
I was really hoping to watch it last weekend but ran out of time. Definitely this weekend though. Really looking forward to it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Five for the Fifth: FEBRUARY 2017 Edition – FlixChatter Film Blog
Okay now I really need to see this, I didn’t know Spall AND Wilkinson were in it! Your opening paragraph was really spot on mate, so true. This part also caught my attention: “Modern audiences are desensitised to the atrocities of war. It is glorified in movies and video games and feeds the entertainment and amusement industry.” Amen brother
I’m also with you on Son of Saul, that film just blew me away. It will be interesting to see it all from such a different perspective. I really like the sound of a tense court-room, and the developed characters too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be looking for your review.
LikeLike
Hi Richard. I was lured back to your review while thinking about ‘hate speech’ in general, because denial of an atrocity can be the equivalent of ‘hate speech’, in the right hands.
This was a very good film IMHO and deserves to be viewed again in light of recent events in Christchurch. I intend doing this tonight by accessing catch-up tv.
‘Son of Saul’ could be seen as an even more powerful companion piece for ‘Denial’. (Wise not to be watched on consecutive days).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two fine films indeed Anita, and totally relevant today. ‘Son of Saul’ is, IMO, a masterpiece and the only film I have given five out of five stars. It is not only a cinematic benchmark, but its wider social purpose is of the utmost importance in today’s troubled world. If you can, find ‘Night and Fog’ for a 35 minute documentary masterpiece that deals with these issues.
LikeLike
Thank you very much for that advice. I really appreciate it.
BTW, I have difficulty in pressing ‘like’ here, on each device. I don’t understand the technology to explain this, but please take it as a given.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finished watching this as well Richard. Thanks once again. A useful addition to the main film, though incredibly disturbing.
It took me back to” Son of Saul”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you read “Train Memories”?
LikeLike
Hi Richard. I did! And very good it was too. Sorry for not responding earlier.
How is your course progressing? Another friend of mine is using a U3A writing class as a vehicle for recording her memoirs. She manages to weave a personal story into the heading we are given for the writing task. This way she will have a body of writing to pass down to her children. She’s obviously a clever lady in being able to do this.
I haven’t taken on this task because my kids have never shown much interest in my background. Instead of writing, I have a wealth of photos because my parents and grandparents were keen photographers, using a Box Brownie to chronicle their lives.
A great idea and I’d love to read any other things you have written.
Anita
LikeLike
Might they appear disinterested because you have not shared the stories of your life? The course is great. Anyone can write memoir.
LikeLike
I have shared my life in words as well as pictures but they seem a bit ‘ho hum’. 😉 Of course the grandchildren may be another matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought the movie had good acting although I thought Spall’s character was not hateful enough. He was too obviously odious but not any more than the usual bigoted person. I guess it was just not a bigger than life character; he wasn’t stylized. However, the movie was well done.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see what you mean Karina. He was portrayed almost as an odious background character with all the focus on the Lipstadt team.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well put. As a major antagonist, he seemed too tame.
LikeLiked by 1 person