Based on the acclaimed book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier," DENIAL recounts Deborah E. Lipstadt's (Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz) legal battle for historical truth against David Irving (Cannes Award winner Timothy Spall), who accused her of libel when she declared him a Holocaust denier. In the English legal system, the burden of proof is on the accused, therefore it was up to Lipstadt and her legal team to prove the essential truth that the Holocaust occurred. Also starring two-time Academy Award nominee Tom Wilkinson, the film is directed by Emmy Award winner Mick Jackson ("Temple Grandin") and adapted for the screen by BAFTA and Academy Award nominated writer David Hare (THE READER). Producers are Gary Foster and Russ Krasnoff. Written by

Plot Synopsis:
-------------------

----------------------------------------
A_Different_Drummer from North America
----------------------------------------

A difficult review.

99% of the time a film is "about" entertainment. No matter how horrible the topic, how wretched the narrative, the argument has always been that, if viewers wanted reality, they would watch a documentary.

So this production would have seen major headwinds going in, and, when you consider the historical record, the topic, and the potential for emotional bias by both those who made the film and whose who see the film, I think overall they have done an admirable job.

The script is tight, so tight you can almost sense the constant rewrites required to make it that way.

The performances are stellar. Rachel Weisz, an actress of remarkable range with a much wider body of work than most realize, takes a lower key than she usually does because the story requires it. One applauds her restraint.

Fortunately Tom Wilkinson and Timothy Spall (the latter literally played a rat in a Harry Potter film) had no such constraints. Both are brilliant but Wilkinson, one of those many top-tier British actors we take for granted, arguably gives the performance of his life, a performance that could hold its own with any actor in any courtroom drama in the history of British cinema.

To the credit of the writers, although it seemed an impossible feat given that the story was based on known, historical fact, at the 1:35 timestamp they successfully managed to inject suspense into the story by playing on a tricky legal concept known as belief vs. intent. And it works.

The film. like the events it records, is more geared to the historical record than light entertainment.

For those looking -- and I apologize for the carefree use of words -- for an "entertaining" story of the Holocaust, perhaps something to show children, I point to the astonishingly brave film intended for teenagers, The Devils Arithmatic 1999. Worth a look.

----------------------------------------
Michael Wehle from San Francisco, California
----------------------------------------

While Denial is easy to watch and not particularly boring I found it also unrewarding. The story is a compelling one, especially if one has a strong interest in history and is familiar with the epistemological questions raised. Denial, however, allows for little nuance and no tension, making for a monochromatic experience.

The film's characters are portrayed as each having but a single dimension. Deborah Lipstadt is the crusading Holocaust historian. Of her the audience learns that she's got a Queens accent, goes jogging, loves her dog, but little else. What prompted her to teach this subject? Why publish a book about denial? By way of explanation the film offers that her mother named her Deborah. There is a similar lack of substance to each of the other characters. We are told David Irving's Holocaust denial stems from his childhood in WW II but nothing is said of what motivates him, and nothing of his work on issues such as Dresden or the naval action which saw his father sunk. Anthony Julius is accused of being after his own aggrandizement, but there's nothing in the film to suggest this or to suggest that the viewer should care what his motivations are.

The plot arc is as simple as the characters. Lipstadt is introduced and accused of libel and then for the remainder of the film we watch her legal team go about her defense. With Irving wild-eyed and unpleasant, the Lipstadt team noble and hard-working, there is little doubt of the outcome, even if the viewer is unfamiliar with the case. The one moment of dramatic tension comes at the close of the trial, when a question from the judge seems to throw Lipstadt's defense off balance. While the audience seems intended to worry, at this point with Irving so thoroughly distasteful and Lipstadt and company so noble, dedicated, and devoted to such good wines there can be little doubt of the trial's outcome.

Steven Spielberg is referred to towards the end of the film, and indeed there is a Spielbergesque quality to several scenes, especially the visit to Auschwitz/Birkenau. It is winter. The camp is deserted and frosty with snow. Lipstadt is upset that her lawyers are not sufficiently respectful of the dead. The film's score, the ghostly images of victims descending the gas chamber stairs, a technical expert's injunction to step carefully because the site is hallowed ground, all hammer home to the viewer what must be felt, lest one mistakenly have an illusion of choice. Likewise in the closing scenes Lipstadt goes jogging and triumphantly stands before a female statue. Atop the plinth the camera holds on Winged Victory. At this point my date leaned over to quip that this was in case we weren't clear on what had happened. When a film's devices are chuckled at this is an indication they are perhaps not effective.

Curiously Denial presents Lipstadt's triumph as what she did not do, rather than what was done. At one point a question of conscience is introduced in the person of a Holocaust survivor who demands to testify on behalf of those who did not survive. Lipstadt assures her that she'll have her day in court, despite Julius & Co.'s decision that there will be no survivor testimony (strictly for the survivors' good we are told, as Irving would tear them apart). Lipstadt is torn, and argues for the survivors but in the end she and they must remain silent. Lipstadt's lack of contribution to her own defense is underscored by several exchanges with Julius where she forcefully gives guidance yet is brushed off. Julius and colleague Richard Rampton obviously know what they are doing as they win Lipstadt's case, but the dynamics involved are such that Lipstadt's closing lecture left this viewer a bit confused. We shouldn't be so quick to claim what we'd have done in the place of Germans faced with the Holocaust, Lipstadt's college students hear. In the face of public obloquy fighting evil is hard work they are told. So the right thing to do to resist genocide is to remain silent while one's high-powered lawyers argue in civil court? I left Denial feeling less roused to action than I might have.

----------------------------------------
Quietb-1 from United States
----------------------------------------

if you like talkie courtroom dramas this is for you. It deals with important issues but so much is said and so little is shown this book adaptation might have worked better as a play.

The male performances are excellent and there might be award consideration for the male leads. Rachael Weisz is capable of better. There is a forced American accent that is more annoying then authentic. Her lawyers asked her not to speak in court, that was the only place she didn't talk.

The score is forgettable and adds nothing to the movie. The crowd scenes outside the courthouse seemed staged.

The movie is in limited release and does not need the big screen. It will play well on home platforms and seem like a very good made for TV movie.

----------------------------------------
svorva from United States
----------------------------------------

It's that time of year again. The leaves are colorful and the movies are meaningful. Denial touches on one of film's more serious subjects, the Holocaust. Many among you might be weary of this theme. I assure you, it is a fresh premise. Denial is the story of unsuspecting historian Deborah E. Lipstadt and her battle against the predatory Holocaust denier David Irving. 20 years ago, this libel suit was fought in the English court where it commanded international headlines. Denial spotlights the unheralded heroism of Lipstadt. Beyond the obvious stress, Lipstadt internalizes to clash with bigots on an even platform gives them attention and legitimacy. Still, Lipstadt feels it is her duty to fight the good fight, despite criticism from England's Jewish community. Even her crack legal team continually ignores her personal feelings towards the case. To win, Lipstadt feels she needs to abandon her conscious. Denial is the story of her turmoil. Until it isn't. Our protagonist disappears halfway into the movie. The movie warps into a courtroom drama highlighting the idiosyncrasies of the British legal system. Lipstadt turns spectator. This switch does not make scenes incomprehensible or characters dull, but all direction is lost. Denial has a fertile premise, but the lack of thesis sinks any high aspirations.

Without clear direction or a complex plot, Denial's strength is in characters. Lipstadt (Weisz) is convincingly intelligent as a prolific writer and prestigious professor, but clearly human trying to be hero. My greatest criticism is her personal struggle is not always the focus. Antagonist Irving (Spall) is a creep. He occasionally appears as an eldritch skulk, staring after prey. His ugliness is repeatedly on display. In more neutral scenes, actor Spall does try to reign the portrayal in. Despite Irving's views, he is sophisticated and resourceful. He gets the "David and Goliath" situation he desires, one man against the best legal team in the country and makes a game of it. The man is presented as unambiguously obscene, but at least he is at least complex in his obscenity. Finally, barrister Rampton (Wilkinson) is the counter point to Lipstadt and the focus after her sudden disappearance. Where Lipstadt is emotionally and culturally connected to her case, Rampton's approach is initially impersonal. While visiting Auschwitz he is completely irreverent, approaching the monument like a crime scene. Over the course of a year of preparation he develops a personal hatred of Irving. When Denial becomes a courtroom drama, it is his arguments that dictate the momentum. Rampton speaks the words we need to hear.

I feel a film devoted to the perspective of Lipstadt or Rampton would have a natural edge on Denial. This counterfactual aside, Denial fails at striking a balance between the two. The lack of a thorough exploration is obvious in the final scene. Lipstadt has been told during the trial not to speak to the press, but after the verdict is finally allowed to face the media. Her speech is the cinematic equivalent of high fructose corn syrup. If you are not paying attention, passable, but otherwise cheap and unsatisfying. Lipstadt proclaims all her personal turmoil is resolved, that all voices were heard. But no, movie Lipstadt, that was the poignant point. Lipstadt frustrations were never addressed. Holocaust survivors did not participate as witnesses. Rampton, a third party, was the voice for those who believe that the Holocaust is an unforgettable historical fact. The fact that you were ignored was the tragedy beyond the tragedy. Or maybe that is just what I wanted to think. Denial is worth the price of admission as basic entertainment, but I deny a coherent, greater ambition.

----------------------------------------
Red-125 from Upstate New York
----------------------------------------

Denial (2016/II) was directed by Mick Jackson. It's based on the true story of Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, based on her book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier."

Denial recounts Dr. Lipstadt's 1996 legal battle against David Irving. Irving accused Lipstadt of libel when she called him a Holocaust denier. In England, in cases of libel, the burden of proof is on the accused. It was up to Lipstadt and her legal team, led by Richard Rampton, to prove that Irving specifically knew he was lying in claiming the Holocaust did not occur.

Denial stars Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt and Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton, a barrister-at-law who represented Lipstadt in court. Both of them are outstanding actors, and perform their roles superbly. However, even Weisz and Wilkinson are outshone by Timothy Spall as David Irving. You believe in Spall as a Holocaust denier--brilliant, bigoted, and brutally effective.

I was amazed when an IMDb reviewer called the movie "boring." There was never a moment in which I was bored. The fact that the movie was based on a real trial just made it better.

We saw this film at Rochester's excellent Little Theatre. It will work very well on the small screen. Denial has a dismal IMDb rating of 6.5. It's better than that. See it and decide for yourself.

----------------------------------------
fionadp from England
----------------------------------------

This is a pathos laden,syrupy melodramatic Hollywood film.The film's portrayal of the historian David Irving is highly distorted,he is depicted as a pompous,ranting & raving buffoon with a speech impediment.Exaggeration and crude simplification is employed in order to ignore the real nuances.Obviously Timothy Spall was under pressure to characterize Irving as a baddie but the spluttering caricature he offers up is of someone who barely resembles a functioning human being.Usually an actor becomes very sympathetic to their character during their research and preparation & that is what enables them to bring the character to life. Sadly with this role Spall is overly anxious to let the audience know 'I do not care for this stigmatized person' and because of this psychological need to distance himself from Irving, his acting is bad, it is uncharacteristically one dimensional.

Viewers need to bear in mind that this was a libel trial and it was not a test of historical truth as the movie is claiming. Irving,a famous best selling author,started having problems getting book contracts after the academic Deborah Lipstadt wrote about him giving him the Orwellian label of '"denier". He began to be blacklisted and his income was suffering and his response was to seek some justice.Deborah Lipstadt had at her disposal a multi million dollar team of lawyers paid for by Steven Spielberg and his foundation,so this was not a 'fair fight'...from the outset there was never a realistic chance of lone litigant David Irving succeeding with his legal action.

This movie is mind-numbingly boring and generic.The question we should all be asking ourselves is: why do people still bother paying to see Hollywood films when the vast majority of them are predictable propaganda.The movie relies on straw man fallacy. Strawman or stick man is the term used when someone constructs a more easily defeated version of his opponent's position to attack, rather than addressing his real arguments.The fallacy itself is comparable to defeating a dummy version, then claiming you have defeated an actual opponent.

Denial contrasts duality, the socially respected heroine encounters a shadowy villain. Lipsdat is being portrayed as defenseless in the presence of danger, as if an ogre is stalking a maiden in distress. Horror movies often utilize this theme,when a menacing mad man attacks a defenseless victim. Screen writers are aware this usually elicits a primal response in an audience.Irving is thoroughly demonized and the Zionist Deborah Lipstadt is portrayed as a heroine.That ridiculous Oswald Mosley-esque scene where he is rabble raising a bunch of neo- Nazis into a hate filled frenzy was not true to life at all,it was a gross misrepresentation of reality.In real life Irving is softly spoken,lucid,eloquent, and very precise in how he explains his views.After watching this film,buy his books, upload his lectures and make the effort to properly understand the complexities of this issue.

This film is based on what is known as an 'overcoming the monster' theme - this is a common & predictable archetypal theme in storytelling.

(1) Heroine becomes aware of a monster (Irving is depicted as evil personified-an irrational beast) (2) The ordeal begins (legal action initiated) (3) She prepares to fight the monster (legal team assembled) (4) Heroine and her trusty helpers become frustrated and scared of the monsters power (Irving is coherent in court) (5) Monster is defeated and the treasure is won (Irving loses his case)

----------------------------------------
Ethan_Martin from United States
----------------------------------------

So I'm just gonna go on record and say that this is the best movie I've seen so far this year. I really like courtroom dramas that are done well, and this is superb. A lot of people'll say this is boring because it's just people debating, but that's why I love it. It's down to Earth, it's not a complicated story, and it gets the job done. The movie also does a good job of presenting both sides of an argument. You have one side that believes the Holocaust happened (Weisz), and one side that doesn't (Spall). Instead of being one-sided, it actually shows Spall's character as a human being. Sure he might be a racist and a liar, but it also shows him playing with his infant daughter. It doesn't show him as this depressed individual who's whole life goal is to make people miserable, which would've been the easy way out. I actually don't have a problem with differing opinions and conspiracy theories. If someone has concrete proof that the Holocaust didn't happen, or 9/11 was an inside job, I'd like to see it, and hear what they have to say, but the amount of people that present an intellectual argument on these theories isn't that high. Even though one side wins and the other loses, it's still interesting to see both sides of the story, and the evidence they present to support their viewpoints. All the performances are great, with Wilkinson in particular doing an amazing job. Will this be held up to other classic courtroom dramas like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "12 Angry Men"? Probably not, but it's still one of the best I've seen.

----------------------------------------
Paul Allaer from Cincinnati
----------------------------------------

Historical and legal landmark value: 5 stars; Movie's entertainment value: 3 stars "Denial" (2016 release from the UK; 110 min.) is the story, "based on true events" we are reminded at the start of the movie, of how British Holocaust denier David Irving sues American author Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she publishes a book called "Denying the Holocaust". As the movie opens, we see Lipstadt delivering a lecture at Atlanta's Emory University in 1994, shortly after her book comes out. Irving sneak into the audience and interrupts her presentation. Next we are in "London, 1996", where Irving brings his claim against Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books that Lipstadt's book has ruined his reputation. Lipstadt and her legal team now must come up with a strategy for the pending court case. At this point we are 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the events would spoil your viewing expertise, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: I was surprised to see that this movie was directed by none other than British director Mick Jackson, probably best known for the Whitney Houston-Kevin Costner movie "The Bodyguard" from the early 90s. Here he tackles an important historical (and landmark legal) event, namely how a racist liar turns the tables by filing a libel suit again a Jewish author in a British court. Indeed, as crazy as it sounds, under UK libel law, it is not the accuser who has the burden of proof, but somehow it is the accused. It would seem that this should provide fertile ground for a riveting historical and court drama, but alas, you might be wrong. For whatever reason, the movie from the get-go just feels wooden and oftentimes just boring. In particular the first half of the movie is just not that good, the sole exception being the scenes from when the legal team, accompanied by Lipstadt, decides to make a visit to Auschwitz, not as a pilgrimage, reminds the lead lawyer, but to study it as a crime scene. (I visited Auschwitz a few years ago, this is not a "fun' visit for obvious reasons, but it should be a requirement for all high school kids in Europe for its historical significance and lasting legacy.) The second half of the movie, which centers around the actual court case, is a little better, mostly because of the wonderful performance of Tom Wilkinson as the lead lawyer in the court room. Strangely, Lipstadt, the movie's lead character played by Rachel Weisz, is unlikeable for parts of the movie, and at times outright irritating. Does that make it a great performance by Weisz? I honestly can't tell you. I am a huge fan of her, and can't recall a single movie where I enjoyed her less than I did here. Let me also mention the sober, and touching, orchestral score in the movie, courtesy of veteran composer Howard Shore.

"Denial" opened this past weekend on a handful of screens here in Cincinnati (including not one, but two screens at our local art-house theater). The Tuesday evening screening where I was this at was attended poorly (only one other person beside myself). To be frank, I am torn about this film. It is an important topic but sadly the movie is only so-so. There are many other movies out there dealing with the Holocaust that are so much better than "Denial" (check, for example, the Hungarian film "Son of Saul" which just earlier this year won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film and which is a harrowing and haunting film that everyone should see).

----------------------------------------
Dan1863Sickles from Troy, NY
----------------------------------------

This movie really rubbed me the wrong way. I mean it really gave me the creeps. I respect the subject matter, and I understand its importance, yet somehow the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure why.

Well, the first thing that rubbed me the wrong way was Rachel Weisz doing an American accent. It was awful! I've lived in New York all my life, and I've got plenty of Jewish friends and family, but I never met anyone who talks like Rachel does in this movie. If you want to hear a good Jewish American accent, watch the Comedy Central show SOUTH PARK and listen to Kyle's mom, Sheila Broflovski. That's an authentic NY Jewish accent!

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Rachel Weisz wasn't really trying to get the accent right. She's just doing a really, really bad Julia Roberts imitation. What you're getting is a bored Beverly Hills drone, with just a hint of trailer park meanness underneath. Evidently someone in England thinks this is what authentic Americans sound like. And every time the "authentic American" has to deal with well-educated English people, she reacts like Julia Roberts in a typical Julia Roberts movie. In other words, she's sullen, rude, disrespectful, impatient and childish. Because that's how all Americans behave . . . we're a nation of spoiled film stars!

But there's more to this than harmless fun at the expense of the Yanks. The American woman has to be vulgar, childish and impulsive, because how else can the ladies and gentlemen of the English courts and the English universities be revealed (once again, as in countless films before) as universally wise, patient, and just? They're so cool they have to smoke and drink in every scene . . . just to remind us that they're human!

That's what this movie is really about. DENIAL is not really about exposing the truth about what actually happened to Jews during the Holocaust. It's about covering up the truth about how the British monarchy, the British aristocracy, and the British professional classes responded to the Holocaust . . . while it was actually taking place.

What we get here is justice after the fact. One creepy guy gets treated like a leper, to prove that the "right" sort of people were on the side of the Jews all along. Except they weren't. They just weren't. There were plenty of British aristocrats (like Unity Mitford) who openly admired Hitler, plenty of British fascists (like Oswald Mosley) who hated Jews, and plenty of ordinary British people who just wanted to avoid another war with Germany at any cost. And by the time they stopped avoiding it, it was already too late for a lot of people.

But that's not worth remembering . . . let's all dog pile the guy doing the really bad Captain Bligh imitation.

He's not one of us . . . and he never was!

By the end of the picture, even the smart-mouthed Jewish lady from New York is only too happy to bow down before the Lion and the Unicorn. Because English justice and right-thinking (read educated, upper class) British people will always save the day.

Except when they don't.

----------------------------------------
phd_travel from United States
----------------------------------------

There is so much denying of atrocities that this is an interesting subject to see on screen from the Middle East to Nanjing. In this well made movie a British holocaust denier David Irving sued an American Jewish Historian Deborah Lipstadt for calling him that.

The best parts of this movie are the trip to Auschwitz to investigate and the trial in London.

The worst parts of this movie are the times when Deborah acts stubborn and uncooperative with her legal team. Even though she apologizes it makes her seem unsympathetic. Also the big team against one loon makes the battle seem a foregone conclusion. The climax isn't exciting in the sense that the outcome was so certain, what court would rule for a holocaust denier? It seems a bit of an anti climax.

The acting is good. Rachel Weisz isn't the best for this role. Her accent and manner just don't ring American. There could have been so many more convincing actresses to play the role. Tom Wilkison is good as Deborah's barrister. So is Tim Spall who plays David Irving with a hateful look on his face.

Worth a watch

libel suit|based on a true story|holocaust denial|holocaust|common law|shoah|expert witness|holocaust survivor|diary|discovery phase|anti semitism|neo nazi|scholar|professor|cross examination|auschwitz|barrister|solicitor|death camp|courtroom|

AKAs Titles:


Certifications:
Canada:PG (British Columbia) / Ireland:15A (IFCO) / Singapore:PG13 / UK:12A / USA:PG-13 (certificate #50541)