The Worst Film Ever

That was an excellent one.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Neither the script nor Weisz convince in this disappointing superficial and artificial take on the David Irving libel case. Timothy Spall, however, is on fine form.

The logic & dialogue of the script was Supurb. Acting & Casting were Perfect. The Story True & Realistict.

"Denial" centers on a Hitler "scholar", David Irving, a British author who has consistently denied the Holocaust, and his lawsuit against American historian Deborah Lipstadt. To be fair, Irving was among several scholars who refuted the authenticity of the so-called "Hitler Diaries" which were revealed by the German periodical "Stern" in the early 1980's. While Irving has brought to light many interesting facts about the Nazis and Adolph Hitler, he has repeatedly stated in his books he doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred on the widespread scale which is generally accepted by mainstream historians. Lipstadt published a book "Denying the Holocaust" in which she refers to how Irving and other deniers misrepresent history and facts to perpetuate their erroneous conclusions about the Holocaust. The trouble is, Irving wants it both ways. He wants to deny the Holocaust and yet be recognized by other scholars and historians. In short, he wants the keys to the academic washroom. He brought the lawsuit against Lipstadt because, in some sense, her books which referred to his denial of the Holocaust as bogus history was denying him the keys to the washroom. Lipstadt is a bona fide and recognized scholar, and her criticisms of Irving deny him entry into the exclusive club. The film is about Irving's attempt to debunk the criticisms of a fellow scholar and in some sense legitimize a debate about whether or not the Nazis systematically gassed Jews and other minorities labeled as "degenerate" by the German government in the late 1930's and 1940's.Timothy Spall in an Academy-Award caliber performance plays David Irving, author and Holocaust denier who sues Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz). Tom Wilkinson is convincing as Lipstadt's British libel lawyer. The film begins at a lecture concerning the Holocaust offered by Lipstadt and Irving interrupts the proceedings, claiming he has filed a lawsuit against the speaker. Instead of settling out of court, Lipstadt resolves to defend herself. She hires a law firm whose cracker jack defense attorney is Richard Rampton. To prepare, they not only visit one of the Auschwitz camp sites but painstakingly go through Irving's books to see if he uses propaganda and deception to further his assertions that the Holocaust as portrayed by history is a fallacy.An horrific episode in the annals of human history involved Germany whose government was controlled by right-wing radicals, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, better as the Nazi Party, and their supreme leader, Adolph Hitler. The Nazis with Hitler at the helm instigated what is known as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", a systematic extermination of Jews and those of Jewish heritage, defined as an individual as having one grandparent or closer being Jewish. Millions of Jews and other ethnicities such as Gypsies, Poles and other Eastern Europeans were forced into concentration camps where many gassed or suffered other heinous indignations. At the same time, Germany was fighting the Western Allies in the Second World War. When the war ended, many of the camps were liberated, such as those collectively called Auschwitz, and the inmates told horrific stories of unimaginable torture and execution.Over the many decades since the end of the Second World War, there have been a small but vocal group of so-called "historians" who have tried to tell and sell a different picture of the war. They claim the interment and execution of Jews and other ethnicities by the Nazis, called "The Holocaust", did not actually happen. They agree that inmates were interred in camps, but their captivity was intended for expulsion, not for extermination. They refer to the accepted fact of the Holocaust as a large propaganda hoax perpetrated by Jews. History is not always a pretty picture. But if we deny history, especially the horrific episodes, we deny who we are today and who we can become. While the real Lipstadt did not agree with Germany's government desiring to put Irving in jail for 3 years for denying the Holocaust, it is extremely important that we understand real history to the best of our abilities. We can help prevent a holocaust from occurring in the future only if we acknowledge the reasons for holocausts of the past, which entail knowing and understanding how and why they happened. It is interesting that the Jewish Holocaust and Holocaust Denial seem to have common enemies: Jews. Just about all Holocaust Deniers are Anti-Sematic. Is this a coincidence?

The historical drama 'Denial' by Mick Jackson thematizes the post- truth world by focusing on the topic of Holocaust denialism and the lawsuit of David Irving against historian Deborah Lipstadt.Referring to the Leuchter report, historic writer and self-appointed historian Irving claims that the Holocaust never existed and even accuses survivors of it as frauds. Historian Lipstadt publishes a book in which she stands up against these lies, but Irving fights back in form of a lawsuit, since his reputation is now ruined. A few years later, Lipstadt and her lawyers must prove that she is in the right and that the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity happened.This film really has the finger on the pulse: It conveys a topical message to the audiences and raises significant questions how far the freedom of speech goes. By exposing the tactics of Mr. Irving, it draws a parallel to today's alt-right movement and how they create their own alternative version of the world (and of history). Even here on IMDb are people who defend Irving (actually, quite alarmingly lot), although he is a Hitler apologist, an open racist and denies the crimes against humanity the national socialists committed. As Lipstadt expounds, denying the Holocaust and being pro-Nazism is against the basic principles of modern societies. Thus, no one can call the film ''biased'', as there is just one acceptable opinion! - but that's another point and maybe this is not the best place here to discuss it. The film talks about this, especially in the end, highlighted by a strong, terrific statement by Lipstadt. Moreover, there are two brilliant scenes where barrister Richard Rampton, played by Tom Wilkinson, undertakes a frontal attack against Irving and unmasks his lying strategy. Applause, applause!The second big plus of the film is its accurate authenticity conveyed by the actors – ALL of them are glorious in their roles. My big respect goes to Timothy Spall who interprets the disgusting character of Irving in a chilling way. Rachel Weisz really shows how important the history for Deborah Lipstadt is and gives her a heroic warmth, but also a sentimental side. All the humanity which is missing in Irving can be found in her. Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott portray the lawyers Rampton and Julius who focus on the facts and figures much to the dismay of Lipstadt. But both get some human scenes as well and it is more than pleasant to see the showdown between Rampton and Irving where he finally looks this man in the eyes and takes him down. Again applause! Some conflicts appear between Lipstadt and her lawyers, but sadly they are only adumbrated: Julius has obviously some other motives than justice and Deborah has a rumpus with him over the question whether the Holocaust survivors should testify or not. Ultimately, this is never played out fully, but is compensated by the authentic performances of the main actors.Sounds like a food-for-thought-drama to watch, nevertheless its IMDb ratings are not always so rosy (even by people who are not Irving fans, I suppose :)). Why so? The biggest problem of the film, beside its uninspirational and easy forgettable score is that the main enemy, Mr. Irving, is very soon forced onto the defensive. There are some scenes where he tries to manipulate and win over the judge and the public, but there is no offensive counter strike against Lipstadt, not a gripping confrontation. I do not think that this makes the film boring, no, the 109 minutes pass by quickly, but on the contrary, it also eliminates any surprises concerning the dramaturgy of the storyline. Thanks to several questions – How can something which definitely happened be proved in court? What is the price of fighting for the truth?... – and thanks to the extreme degree of topicality, an interested viewer will keep watching. This validates that the film makes something right. Nonetheless, the criticism that 'Denial' feels in part generic, because of its lack of originality and suspense may not seem too far- fetched. For example: the scenes in the court, which use the real dialogue of the trial, give the film a documental touch, but may seem a bit low- paced to some.Overall, the message and topic of 'Denial' is so pertinent for the current condition the discussion culture in democracies finds itself. This film can bolster all who fear that far-right politicians like Marine Le Pen or Donald Trump can skew the history with their alternative facts. Instead, the story of David Irving's downfall proves that truth will always win. Without a shadow of a doubt, the film has a noble ambition and a significant message, but in a cinematic sense, Denial is not a perfect film – I really don't know who to blame for the genericism. More depth and less generic courtroom discussions and lawyer meetings would have been appropriate. Not only the audiences but the topic deserves it.Generous 8 pts.