The biggest killing ritual in Germany’s torturous past might be the most difficult thing to prove of its authenticity. In Mick Jackson’s “Denial”, Based on the acclaimed book “History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier”, the story recounts Deborah E. Lipstadt’s (Rachel Weisz) legal battle for historical truth against David Irving (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. What starts as a passionate discussion on Jewish pasts, leads to a dirty court battle for historical accuracies. “Denial” is rated PG-13 for thematic material and brief adult language.
“Denial” was a movie that I was looking very much forward to after seeing the thought-provoking trailer that played for the last few months. This is a real life story based on the legitimacy of the Holocaust, and while I do believe that the Holocaust did indeed happen, I am still free-thinking enough to open up my mind to the arguments and debates that this movie would present to me. That’s where this movie actually started to lose me, as it’s not quite the courtroom drama that I was looking for. Trailers to make this movie into something it isn’t, showcased a Weisz Vs Spall kind of showdown, but unfortunately Weisz’s Lipstack is left very much on the sidelines for much of this case. That’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy “Denial”, but I found that it was a different kind of litigation case presented in real time than we as an audience are used to seeing. This moving is still valuable for the valuable kind of information that it presents for the horrific details of these torture camps in Germany, and just how different of a time it was. What also worked for me is the very specifics of what it takes to win a court case that is essentially free speech Vs historical accuracies.
The idea that some kind of historical event that shocked and murdered thousands of people can be challenged some day down the line is one of great intrigue for me because I was very interested how without pictures or video that Weisz’s defense team was going to prove such an event happened. That is essentially what this court case revolves around; for her team to win, she must prove accuracy. What disappointed me about this aspect is the third act which kind of ignores this aspect of the case. Without saying too much, whatever side won this case simply didn’t prove or disprove anything on the subject matter. It’s an out that feels too easy when you consider what is the turning event that signals the judge’s decision. The other problem that I have with this aspect is something from the past coming back to haunt either Weisz or Stall’s character to cost them the trial. Not only does this have nothing to do with whether the Holocaust did or didn’t happen, but it’s something that I have a difficult time believing that one of the lawyers couldn’t find this nasty aspect of their history. For a litigation team, this is their job, and it just seems to me like if that’s the way the movie is going to play it, then this case never needed to happen in the first place.
What I respect about this film is that the producers never try to paint Lipstack as something she isn’t. This woman wears her heart on her sleeve for this case and the people that it effects, and by virtue she can be very vocal during the case about what parts effect her beliefs. She isn’t the most admirable of protagonists and that’s what really gives this movie an authentic slice of life feel. You can certainly understand not only how close-minded that Irving can be, but Lipstack as well because her passion prevents her from ever seeing the other side. There is kind of an understandable immaturity of sorts in her character since Holocaust victims are coming to her and laying the pressure of their pasts at her feet. Early on in this case, Lipstack’s team tell her that they won’t be calling on her or any Holocaust victims to testify, so the odds are already against them when you consider that no witnesses will be used. We start to understand that the very history of the world’s darkest day might be alone in the hands of Lipstack, and it’s a layer of pressure that feels unavoidable in every deposition scene that we witness inside the hollow walls of the courtroom.
At 105 minutes, this feels like an appropriate enough allowance of time to properly tell this story, but the pacing of this storytelling never feels satisfactory to me. The movie starts to lose gas around the final act of the movie when this monumental discovery that I mentioned earlier happens. It makes the final third of the movie not only predictable, but a vital shift in tone opposite of how the movie had equally played the two main characters on a chess board of moves up to this point, in favor of one character casting a brutal checkmate that leaves the final twenty minutes on an anti-climatic tilt.
As for the performances, there’s a mixed bag here. I mentioned earlier that Weisz is rendered move less because of her lack of involvement in the court case, and as for the rest of the movie, this is pretty close to the chest for an accomplished actress like Weisz. What her performance is missing is what this case internally means for her, as there’s a great lack of development over the real life Lipstack’s Jewish heritage and how important this case is to her. Weisz tears could’ve been enough to push this just one notch higher on my grade scale, but it’s a missed effort for the top bill of this movie. What is the meat of these characters are in that of Spall and Tom Wilkinson as opposing councils. The one memorable scene that stands out above the rest here is the deposition that Wilkinson gives Stall, and really serves as the first instance of Stall’s character being rattled along the way. Stall is utterly despicable, but there is some truth to the things that he says. The worst kind of antagonist is one who believes in what he’s saying, and convinces you of the same, and Stall’s delivery is on the mark for the perfect villain. Wilkinson’s soft spoken delivery offers a magic in film that you rarely see anymore. With decades of experience, Wilkinson continues to amaze on roles that have a capability of showing off his long-winded dialogues meant to impress. These two more than make up for the regretful lack of female characterization in this movie, but overall an impressive list of collective actors.
“Denial” doesn’t rank among the best of courtroom dramas, but its real life narrative and thought-provoking delivery present more than enough things to commend this history lesson of morals. This kind of story feels urgent and necessary to the kinds of prejudices plaguing our own society, and Jackson’s plodding hand offers a history lesson by way of the very lack of knowledge when dealing with freedom of speech.
6/10