In cinemas January 27th!
Adapted from 'History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier', Deborah Lipstadt’s 2005 memoir of her libel case against London-based Nazi scholar David Irving. 'Denial' recounts the case’s entire story, from the two opponents’ first encounter in 1994 up to the court’s final judgement in 2000.
Given this sixteen year span and the nature of the story, this seems like quite a challenge to adapt for the screen, even for a writer as seasoned and talented as David Hare, who, between 'The Hours' and 'The Reader', has proved his brilliance in that specific department. Here though, because the story is told in chronological order, with many scenes feeling like real time, I didn’t quite sense that I was watching a film, which was refreshing at times, but didn’t quite work throughout. It is oddly a film cliché that kept me from getting into it during the exposition. In addition to beginning in 1994, 'Denial' actually has a 90's feel to it, which goes beyond costumes and also makes its mark on the script and cinematography.
Given this sixteen year span and the nature of the story, this seems like quite a challenge to adapt for the screen, even for a writer as seasoned and talented as David Hare, who, between 'The Hours' and 'The Reader', has proved his brilliance in that specific department. Here though, because the story is told in chronological order, with many scenes feeling like real time, I didn’t quite sense that I was watching a film, which was refreshing at times, but didn’t quite work throughout. It is oddly a film cliché that kept me from getting into it during the exposition. In addition to beginning in 1994, 'Denial' actually has a 90's feel to it, which goes beyond costumes and also makes its mark on the script and cinematography.
Indeed, we’re introduced to our Queens-born Holocaust scholar heroine through her daily life: running, feeding her cat, teaching a few students about the holocaust on a sun kissed American campus... I was slowly reminded of 1990s TV movies and other “spag bol” films of the era (spag bol film: you know exactly what’s going to happen, when and how, yet you’ll eat it because of those comfortably recognisable ingredients, even at the risk of your stomach bursting with what eventually will feel like lead). As I wasn’t very familiar with Mick Jackson’s work, I looked him up and discovered extensive TV experience, but not that many films. Bingo. The film soon jumped to her first confrontation with Irvine, suddenly flirting with the documentary genre…to then skip to the beginning of the legal procedure, leaving me very uncertain as to what I was watching.
That being said, once the plot moved to London (with a stop in Auschwitz), it seemed to settle into a form (something between a high end TV movie and cinematic memoirs/diary, the latter making sense given the book it’s adapted from), I became pleasantly hooked. There is more than one reason for this. First and foremost, I fell in love with Tom Wilkinson’s performance as Richard Rampton, the London barrister defending Lipstadt. This may also be the most interestingly written character in the story: a subtle blend of quintessentially British toughness, quiet passion, and heart warming affability. Wilkinson played all brilliantly. Equally captivating was Andrew Scott as solicitor Anthony Julius, who was already famous at the time for taking care of Princess Diana’s divorce.
On the subject of barristers and solicitor, seeing the British legal system presented from an American perspective was something I’d never seen on screen before, and thus most welcome.
This aspect was also linked to what truly got me hooked and gives the film’s title a double meaning: once in London, the heroine’s journey and her conflicts became clear. Due to British law, Lipstadt and her legal team are forced to prove the holocaust happened, using facts and logic only. No witnesses. Nothing spoken. And thus Lipstadt must keep quiet at all costs, deny the holocaust survivors the opportunity to speak in court, and put her entire career and beliefs in the hands of a foreign legal team she barely knows. Parallely, she must face a surprising response from the Jewish community in London when she attempts to raise funds for the case.
That being said, once the plot moved to London (with a stop in Auschwitz), it seemed to settle into a form (something between a high end TV movie and cinematic memoirs/diary, the latter making sense given the book it’s adapted from), I became pleasantly hooked. There is more than one reason for this. First and foremost, I fell in love with Tom Wilkinson’s performance as Richard Rampton, the London barrister defending Lipstadt. This may also be the most interestingly written character in the story: a subtle blend of quintessentially British toughness, quiet passion, and heart warming affability. Wilkinson played all brilliantly. Equally captivating was Andrew Scott as solicitor Anthony Julius, who was already famous at the time for taking care of Princess Diana’s divorce.
On the subject of barristers and solicitor, seeing the British legal system presented from an American perspective was something I’d never seen on screen before, and thus most welcome.
This aspect was also linked to what truly got me hooked and gives the film’s title a double meaning: once in London, the heroine’s journey and her conflicts became clear. Due to British law, Lipstadt and her legal team are forced to prove the holocaust happened, using facts and logic only. No witnesses. Nothing spoken. And thus Lipstadt must keep quiet at all costs, deny the holocaust survivors the opportunity to speak in court, and put her entire career and beliefs in the hands of a foreign legal team she barely knows. Parallely, she must face a surprising response from the Jewish community in London when she attempts to raise funds for the case.
Though not among my favorite performances from her, Rachel Weisz was still very compelling, and having listened to Deborah Lipstadt talk on the Charlie Rose show, I was impressed with how faithfully she embodied the historian (accent included, especially throughout the London scenes). I suspect her character might have suffered the most from the script’s TV movie touches, but she truly shone whenever the script allowed it. Tim Spall was baffling as Irving, blinded by sexist and racist beliefs deeply grounded within him. He is clearly hopeless, though scarily neither insane nor blatantly evil. An interesting character to observe in our current political climate.
Although I knew how the story would end, Alex Jennings’s guarded quality as judge Sir Charles Gray kept me on the edge of my seat nonetheless. Unquestionably a story worth dramatising, with fascinating characters played by a great cast, it unfortunately lacked that cinematic and narrative oomph to make it a courtroom classic in the likes of, for example, '12 Angry Men'.
Although I knew how the story would end, Alex Jennings’s guarded quality as judge Sir Charles Gray kept me on the edge of my seat nonetheless. Unquestionably a story worth dramatising, with fascinating characters played by a great cast, it unfortunately lacked that cinematic and narrative oomph to make it a courtroom classic in the likes of, for example, '12 Angry Men'.
Review by Anne-Sophie Marie.
Tell us what you think!
Rate the film and why not write your own review in the comments?
Rate the film and why not write your own review in the comments?
RSS Feed
