Denial (2016)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Waste of time

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Based on Deborah Lipstadt's perspective of the trial where she, a Holocaust historian and professor, was sued for libel by Holocaust denier David Irving, "Denial" saves most of the melodramatic moments for outside the courtroom, as she argues with her lawyers over legal strategies and as Irving plays to the press and public and later has an egg thrown at him, while the trial itself is a rather dry presentation of evidence. It's an appropriate, if not necessarily entertaining, approach to a based-on-a-true-story defense of academia and facts. Released during the 2016 presidential campaign in the United States, the movie's portrayal of Irving invites easy parallels to be made with now-President Donald Trump's disregard for facts and dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation, whereby "Denial," thusly, becomes a kind of catharsis or wish fulfillment for the election's losing side.I don't think the comparison goes much further than that, though. Perhaps, even, Irving may be seen as a somewhat sympathetic, or at least pathetic, character, which seems unfortunate for a movie that visits Auschwitz and portrays a Holocaust survivor. He's an anti-Semitic buffoon with a fragile ego, but he's right, in a sense, that he's the David up against the Goliath in this dramatized contest. There's a reason that most courtroom dramas are from the perspective of the underdog. It's less compelling to root for the side with plenty of resources, a team of skilled lawyers and, to top it off, academia and facts in their favor. It lacks obstacles. Meanwhile, Irving has no one and represents himself at trial. If like me, you don't seek cinema merely to reflect your own judgments, "Denial," if not seen through the lenses of contemporary politics or an interest in racist conspiracy theories as controversy, has the unpleasant appearance of the flogging of a dead horse.

Denial is professional to the eye with strong performances and some good dialog but, why is it shows on this topic can too often leave me feeling I'm being unnecessarily manipulated? I.E.; the casting of suss looking actors for the 'bad' guys - with too many snide characteristics to make sure we get that this is a 'bad' guy - then at times, with too many 'there, I told you so' situations on the side of the 'good' guys. This can be undermining and should not be necessary as a device to influence us regarding the already terrible incidents most of us are already on-side with. Shocking crimes were committed by Nazi Germany and these cannot be denied but, these were also administered to numerous victims of all races - not just those being examined in many movies with this theme. Make no mistake, Denial is a fine movie and apart from the odd single-sided issues, it's a story that deserves to be told. Perhaps one problem could be that some original issues are being dealt with too long after the fact and, often by countries that did not do enough when these atrocities were being committed. France (among others!) has much to atone for by betraying many innocent bystanders. Any justice is good but late justice is not always good enough. As for the doubters, Eisenhower's prolific camp liberation footage is enough to confirm what was happening at these sites. If in any doubt, take a look! Visually, this particular movie is a strong production dealing with a contemporary, factual court case and should please viewers with an interest in justice and history.

Unfortunately, some of the highlighted reviews in this page were obviously made by Nazi sympathizers. Do not take their low rated reviews seriously and watch this important movie. And Imdb should use more scrutiny when they allow a horrid and insulting review to be a top review.

All actors deliver a good performance, especially Tom Wilkinson is standing out, who made a big impression on me in the past already. He displays a wide variety of emotions and has a remarkable and intense presence on the screen.Timothy Spall accurately portrays David Irving, a human being who out of vanity and sheer craving for recognition is pretty much indifferent to the question if the applause so desired by him comes from the wrong direction.The scene in Auschwitz I found too long and expendable. People standing on rubble did not convey the emotional impact to me that it tried to. And in principle we all know what Auschwitz was like and know the emotional implication.For people like me who are interested in the subject this court room drama can feel like a thriller by times, especially the verbal duels between Richard Rampton and David Irving. The discourse about the gas chambers shows how many claims of the deniers of the Shoah are not really thought out and are ultimately inconsistent with the state of evidence.The movie is of great importance especially today, for we are living in an age of relativism, sometimes even called the "post-fact" era. Shermer and Grobman have a good chapter in their book "Denying History", which demonstrates how in the science of history the pendulum swung into the opposite direction in a counter reaction to the (not accurate) convictions of the 19th century – we can describe everything in history objectively and comprehensively – and it did this in an excessively strong way. And how this could explain the emergence of phenomena like the denial of the Shoah.The movie can serve as a starting point for anyone interested in the topic, with the movie pointing to the very extensive verdict of the judge. Furthermore the expert witnesses Richard Evans and Robert van Pelt appear in the movie, each one of them has written a very good and well documented book about his findings in the trial.That means that thanks to the trial Irvings lying is thoroughly documented now. That is the reason why the historian Evans could give his book the title "Lying about Hitler" – because Irving actually IS a liar, and it is documented beyond any doubt now. It is not "Hollywood" or this movie which tries to "discredit" Irving. Irving discredited himself with his lying, everyone can see this today just by comparing the historical sources with Irving's works.Furthermore as the movie correctly addresses it is Irving who attacked free speech. Had he won his libel trial every publishing company and author would have to think twice if they ever say anything critical of a denier of the Shoah anymore. This fact is often missed or even distorted into the opposite.Some people coming here seem to feel the urge to try to push their ideologically driven agenda by voting this movie down and any positive review of it. My message to them would be: sorry guys, but history is not determined by voting. Not on a movie database website. Not at all.Because of the major importance of this movie I'm giving it 10 stars.