***
out of ****
Like
most young men, when I was growing up I was fascinated by WW2,
especially the events of the Holocaust. It seemed almost
spectacularly evil – that the entire political and military arms of
the powerful nation of Germany could be fully engaged and totally
unified in such horrific crimes. As I got older I learned more and
more about it until I felt I understood what happened and why.
But
I was only connecting with it on a historical, academic level.
Perhaps the events of the Holocaust were so awful that I
unconsciously decided to view them from that angle only, instead of
from a personal level. That all changed a few years ago when I got my
hands on a copy of “Shoah” (1985), a ten-hour documentary about
Auschwitz, Chełmno, Treblinka and the Warsaw Ghetto. I've heard
people call movies “important” before, but this is the only one
that I feel truly is. “Shoah" used no historical footage or
photos, rather was a long testimonial – people who were actually
there talking about what happened there, and how it affected them. It
was the first time I really connected with the Holocaust on a
completely personal level, and watching many of the people in it tell
their stories frequently brought tears to my eyes.
Unfortunately,
for decades there have been people in the world who deny the
Holocaust ever happened. These individuals make me sick, trying to
clear the name of Adolph Hitler and his Nazis by suggesting that what
happened didn't really happen. I have been unlucky enough to have had
conversations with more than one of these people, and their Neo-Nazi
agendas, whether disguised or blatant, are absolutely repellent.
Even terrifying on certain levels. The new film “Denial” is about
such people.
Rachel
Weisz plays real-life author Deborah Lipstadt, who in 1993 wrote a
book called “Denying the Holocaust” about this movement, its
arguments and the motivation of its proponents. In her book she
characterized one Holocaust denier, British historian David Irving
(played here by Timothy Spall), as bending historical evidence until
it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda,
accused him of falsely shaping accurate information to suit his
conclusions, and concluding that his work was “dangerous”. Irving
apparently decided this would be an ideal opportunity to get his
point of view on the front page and sued her for libel saying her
description of him as having falsified evidence, or deliberately
misrepresented it, had ruined his reputation as a historian.
In
America when someone is accused of libel the courts require the
accuser to prove the alleged libelous statements are untrue, but in
England (where the case was argued) the burden of proof is on the
defendant to prove that they are true. This becomes the crux of the
movie as Lipstadt decides to go to court rather than settle the case,
knowing full well the problems that will go with it. In order to win
the case, she would not only have to prove Irving lied, but prove
that the Holocaust actually happened in the first place, that Irving
had evidence of it, and that his interpretation of that evidence was
demonstrably and deliberately wrong. And it placed a social burden on
her of “you'd better win, or all the deniers will finally have a
leg to stand on.”
The
Nazis went to great lengths to make sure that there was little or no
paper trail leading to their extermination of the Jews and others
they considered undesirable, and when the war was lost they went to
great lengths to try to cover all trace that it had happened. So how
could one prove in court something where the perpetrators had gone to
such lengths to eliminate all evidence of its existence? This is the
challenge facing Lipstadt and her team in “Denial”.
Rachel
Weisz is fantastic in the lead role, always leaving us with no doubt
about her passions and her loathing of Irving and his ilk. Spall is
equally terrific as Irving, and I defy any watcher of this film not
to want to knock his teeth out. Tom Wilkenson is Richard, Lipstadt's
lead attorney, and the second half of the film becomes a full blown
courtroom drama. I loved that the script didn't go for any overly
dramatic “A-HA!” moments like so many courtroom films do, rather
let it unfold as earnestly as possible. It might have been more of a
box office lure to go that route, but I was delighted with the
movie's lack of Hollywood influence.
“Denial”
already looks like it's going to be a box office failure, probably
for some of the reasons that make it so effective. But it tells the
story of an important event, and of people who were motivated to try
to do something important. Specifically ensure that the most horrible
event of the 20th century would be recognized for what it was, and
expose its deniers as the agenda-oriented monsters that they are.
Well
worth seeing.
