Le procès du siècle

Bon film !

source: Denial

"Is he anti-Semitic if he actually believes it?" That's one of the scariest lines of the year, or many years, or ever. Especially in light of this election, that line carries a lot more weight, as does a lot of this movie in this "post-truth" world. Maybe if David Irving had come up around now, he'd be one of the high priests of the alt-right. I'm not even joking. Excellent performances and script, kind of predictable in some moments, but I couldn't help but tear up when Deborah and the other guy sing quietly while at Auschwitz. Other suggested titles: Judgment at Nuremburg (which this feels like the unofficial sequel to), and especially Errol Morris's Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (Leuchter gets mention in this more than once and for good reason)

This is a fine film. Full credit to a great cast, the director Mick Jackson and the distinguished playwright David Hare for his screenplay. Despite knowing the outcome, I found the courtroom scenes really thrilling, and when Mr Justice Gray (Alex Jennings) asks whether David Irving (Timothy Spall) might not have denied the Holocaust in good faith the shock is quite electrifying. The tensions between Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) and her legal team are very intense; the solicitor Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) appears rather arrogant and high-handed but it becomes clear that (to quote Hamlet) he's being 'cruel only to be kind'. This redeems the soap-opera touches, as I see them, in their exchanges. It's understandable that Lipstadt should find the lawyers' strategy perplexing. Similarly, the brilliance of Richard Rampton QC (Tom Wilkinson) in court offsets a tendency towards caricaturing him as a bibulous lawyer with a fund of legal anecdotes. In Timothy Spall's portrayal Irving, representing himself in court, seems dogmatic and devious yet by no means confident of victory. Though clearly concentrating hard, he looks pretty confused. His exchanges with the historian Sir Richard Evans (John Sessions) are embarrassingly unconvincing. At one point he says 'I'm not a Holocaust historian.' That isn't a confession, just an attempt to duck an awkward question from Evans. There's more embarrassment when he tries to look like a good loser. Only one Holocaust survivor appears in the film: a woman who begs Lipstadt to enable her to testify. Others must have been in court as well, but the woman has a symbolic role. Though unable to grant her wish, Lipstadt assures her that 'The voice of suffering will be heard.' Those words are profoundly moving. The voice of suffering was indeed heard. Unfortunately, as James Libson (Jack Lowden), a junior lawyer at the time, has remarked, the longer-term consequences ran counter to expectations. Holocaust denial has spread through the internet and Irving claims, chillingly, 'Interest in my work has risen exponentially in the last two or three years. And it's mostly young people.' ('The Observer', 15 January 2017) Neo-fascist and similar movements are growing across Europe, no doubt encouraged by Donald Trump's election in the USA. 'Denial', then, is also a terrible warning. It teaches a lesson from contemporary history (in 2000) as well as history in the broader sense – at least for those able to learn. Against the dark decor of the lawyers' offices and the courtroom there are some lighter touches with local colour from London. One long scene, however, takes place at Auschwitz.

I don't necessarily agree with the views on either side of the true-story here .. but this movie being more propaganda than true-story/drama made it unwatchable for me 20 minutes in. If they had made this more true to life it could have been a great film. Instead they made the author a goofy-looking, bumbling idiot (which he is not) and the leading character an attractive heroine ... obviously intended to shape people's opinions of the story and people involved. Too bad.

I hugely enjoyed this film. I remember this case when it was happening and I followed it in the papers at the time. Irving embarked on this because he craves attention and loved "performing" in court. I think Timothy Spall portrayed Irving superbly well. I think the film presented the locations and characterisations with some stereotyping, but it is such a success in general that I did not mind. Rachel Weisz plays Deborah Lipstadt as a feisty American who doesn't like to bow as part of court proceedings for example. Maybe this is true of Deborah Lipstadt, but the British lawyers all rather fitted a stereotype of British people. But as I said, I didn't mind, in fact I rather enjoyed the portrayals because it is such a fine film. This film has a very tight script and really first class performances from all the actors. There wasn't drama to be had in the outcome of the trial, because most people know how it ended, however there was plenty of drama in the different opinions as to how Lipstadt's defence should proceed. In that drama a great deal is revealed about motivations of the key characters, about the desire to fight for justice in a heroic high profile way on one hand, and about the way to obtain justice by being quiet and letting the other side talk their way into defeat. I think the film is very relevant today as we see so much dishonesty from holocaust deniers making assertions about the holocaust to undermine its place as a historic event. The film takes apart one or two of Irving's assertions and it is good to see that these dishonest assertions can be dismantled with analysis.

Understated and quietly powerful, Denial offers a satisfying and tasteful dramatisation of one of the most pivotal court cases in history which couldn't be more timely if it tried. Low-key in its approach and never overly complicated in its telling, Denial's decision to put the facts and accuracies of the story front and centre is greatly felt and really respected, with a refusal to descend into cheap tricks to shock or scandalise, courtesy of a compelling and streamlined screenplay from David Hare putting clarity as the focus. Its slender 110 minute runtime is a little scattered with a stronger need for balance but it remains relatively brisk and sharp throughout. Vitalised by a real quality about it - whether that's due to the steady way it is shot, the addition of the 'BBC Films' tag, the complex subject matter it handles or very probably a combination of all of the above - Denial feels like a prestigious product of impassioned and dedicated work. Veteran director Mike Jackson utilises his skill to deliver some impressive camera work; the long, lingering shots of the Auschwitz portray an uncomfortable tranquility and stillness, contrasted with the horrors the camp enclosed, with Jackson demonstrating this in a respectful and sensitive way; the whole sequence is without its loud, gratuitous and ostentatious moments and uses this slice of historical iconography in a moving and refined way. The same can be said for the way he considers the themes of the piece too, examining the importance of preserving and protecting our history and truth in an impactful way that never loses focus of this message.

seems like the racist machine went to work on reviewing this film its pretty good overall the film that is but seems pretty obvious that most of these reviews were done for backing the racist propaganda machine its history folks ask a World war two vet that went to Auschwitz or any of the camps for that matter. Albeit some of the parts of the reviews before mine had some valid points on the film ,it seems they always sung back to trying to rewrite history, sorry racists it happened deal with it.

It is a credit to BBC films that "Denial" is a complex, multi-layered work of cinema that refuses to be popcorn fare that is so frequently "Hollywoodized" in American films. This is a film that challenges the viewer to come to terms with numerous issues and themes surrounding the Holocaust. While drawing on the 1996-2000 legal case that brought together an American university professor, Deborah Lipstadt, and a British Holocaust denier, David Irving, "Denial" makes abundantly clear the irony of the denier as the plaintiff and the professor as the defendant in the case. In the British legal system, the defendant was compelled to demonstrate not only that the Holocaust existed, but that Irving knowingly misrepresented historical fact in his books. As the professor and her defense attorney, Rachel Weisz and Tom Wilkinson are both superb, and they are surrounded by an extremely able cast. The film is well-paced with creative set-ups and camera angles by director Mick Jackson. Above all, the David Hare screenplay is taut with crisp dialogue and a tightly-compressed courtroom sequence. The most moving part of the film was onsite filming at the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial museum. Far from being a history lesson, the footage provided the ocular proof essential to the legal case in refuting Irving's far-fetched hypotheses. The film succeeds in going far beyond a single legal case to explore vital topics such as the following: • What is the difference between historical truth and truth rendered by a verdict in a court of law? Do the two types of truth complement one another or overlap? • What are the parameters of free speech when it comes to outright distortion and fabrication of historical truth that may harm others in what is closer to "hate speech" than history? • How do crank authors like David Irving influence thinking through the act of repetition, bluster, bullying, based only on mindless theories and unsubstantiated opinion? • What was it like to live under Hitler? Were there only resisters and collaborators? Or, was there a grey area? In a film that raises important questions about the Holocaust and finds a vital application to today's world, "Denial" offers a unique opportunity for reflection and discussion rarely to be found in a mainstream motion picture.

"What's the proof. Where's the proof. How strong is it?" Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) is a writer that specializes in the Holocaust. After she writes that fellow historian David Irving (Spall) is a denier of the tragedy she is sued for libel. Now, in front of a court, Deborah must not only defend herself while at the same time proving her case but she must also do the hardest thing she has ever done. Remain silent. This is a straight up fantastic movie. The acting is great (especially Spall), the writing is great and the fact that this is a true story makes it that much better. I was expecting something extremely emotional and hard to watch. It was neither of these things. The movie follows roughly the same form as A Few Good Men in the way that the trial is about something horrific (granted the two subjects are nowhere close to the same) but the focus is on the technical aspects of the trial and not the subject itself. To me that helped this movie. Each person knows the history of what occurred and this doesn't spend a lot of time explaining it. This film is tense and riveting and I didn't know anything about this trial so that really helped my enjoyment. Overall, not as emotional as I was expecting but still just as good. I recommend it. I give this an A-.