Denial 2016 (2016) Other movies recommended for you
Denial 2016(in Hollywood Movies) Denial 2016 (2016) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Denial 2016 on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel. Runtime: 109 mins Release Date: 21 Oct 2016
I really thought this movie was terrific. I had never heard of the true story on which it was based. And we were fortunate enough to have a Q and A with Deborah Lipstadt played in the movie by Rachel Weisz in person after the movie. It was an interesting movie on several levels since it was about fighting in court against a holocaust denier who is suing Deborah a holocaust historian and professor, for ruining his reputation. She spends years and millions of dollars fighting to prove that the Holocaust specifically the gas chambers in Auschwitz existed It is a frustrating battle since the <more>
British libel laws are so different than those in America. It is also a case of denial in that she is denied the right to speak in her defense and have holocaust survivors speak about their experiences, under advice of her legal team. This is a movie about a woman's courage to fight back and to speak the truth.
Prejudiced Negative Reviews Bring the Overall Rating Down (by yorkhouse-1)
Rating this film is a complex issue. If you read the very negative reviews and read between the lines, you will discern that those reviewers are politically-motivated. They are not rating the film; they are rating its message, that message being that the holocaust did happen and it was monstrous.This film is well-written, well-acted, and well-directed. It has some of the best one-liners I've heard in a long time -- only some of which have shown up on IMDb's 'Quotes" section.The thing I most enjoyed was the conflict between Ms. Lipstadt the American defendant in the libel <more>
suit and her team of Britian's best lawyers. Her passion vs. their logic. Her desire to be heard, vs. their desire to win. And they were both on the same side. Oh, the angst!Such a shame that this film didn't get a wide release at the theaters. I found it by accident, looking for something to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I wish I'd seen it in a theater, but I wasn't aware of its existence until it was way too late to view it on a big screen. How did this riveting tale escape the notice of the general public? Watch it and tell others to do the same. It's too good to pass up.
Riveting, well-acted film, based on a real legal battle (by Red-125)
Denial 2016/II was directed by Mick Jackson. It's based on the true story of Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, based on her book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier." Denial recounts Dr. Lipstadt's 1996 legal battle against David Irving. Irving accused Lipstadt of libel when she called him a Holocaust denier. In England, in cases of libel, the burden of proof is on the accused. It was up to Lipstadt and her legal team, led by Richard Rampton, to prove that Irving specifically knew he was lying in claiming the Holocaust did not occur. Denial stars Rachel Weisz as <more>
Deborah Lipstadt and Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton, a barrister-at-law who represented Lipstadt in court. Both of them are outstanding actors, and perform their roles superbly. However, even Weisz and Wilkinson are outshone by Timothy Spall as David Irving. You believe in Spall as a Holocaust denier--brilliant, bigoted, and brutally effective.I was amazed when an IMDb reviewer called the movie "boring." There was never a moment in which I was bored. The fact that the movie was based on a real trial just made it better.We saw this film at Rochester's excellent Little Theatre. It will work very well on the small screen. Denial has a dismal IMDb rating of 6.5. It's better than that. See it and decide for yourself.
Not a thriller, not a tear-jerker, but a cerebral telling of a fascinating true story.In 1993 Deborah Lipstadt literally wrote the book on the Holocaust denial movement, its history, its racist roots, and its failed attempts to go mainstream by hiding its swastika tattoos behind suit and tie. In 1996, the movement's glamour boy, pop historian David Irving, sued Lipstadt for libel over his inclusion in Lipstadt's book.In the perverse UK libel law, the burden of proof is on the sued, not the suer. It was therefore up to Lipstadt to demonstrate that Irving was in her barrister's <more>
words a bent historian, someone whose anti-Semitism drove him to intentionally twist and misrepresent Holocaust history to promote the nonsense of the Holocaust denial movement.The main topic of the movie, then, is this: how do you show a liar is a liar, when what he's lying about took place more than half a century ago? Irving is a smooth talker, but Lipstadt has three powerful weapons on her side: her solicitor, her barrister -- and the truth.Rachel Weisz plays Lipstadt, Queens accent and all, as an intelligent and determined woman who refuses to back down from a racist bully when even representatives of the London Jewish community recommend a quiet acquiescence. Andrew Scott is magnetic, as usual, as the ferociously intelligent polymath Anthony Julius, gracious if impatient, who lays out a defense plan with a very troublesome requirement: that neither Lipstadt nor any Holocaust deniers are put in the stand. Julius has good moral and tactical reasons for this, and he's at his most emotional defending it to Lipstadt.Tom Wilkinson is just terrific as Richard Rampton, the barrister who puts on the powdered wig to present the case in court. Like Julius, Rampton's very fast on his feet; unlike Julius, Rampton eventually reveals a warmer side. And Timothy Spall gives us both Irving the charmer and Irving the charlatan -- the expertise, the intellect, the eloquence, but also the malice, the misdirection, the sexism.The film is verbal -- the court scenes are verbatim from the proceedings -- and cerebral, and this is where it is truest to the actual story. It's didactic, but it needs to be given its subject matter; the audience needs to know what's being argued about, and why Irving's arguments fail, or else it's all just an exercise in he-said-she-said. When it reaches more directly for emotional impact -- for example, with a Holocaust survivor whose name is never given, experiences never explored, and who never therefore can never rise above the level of placeholder -- it's less successful. Didacticism isn't always bad; it's not a bad thing that the audience comes out with a better understanding of how the gas chambers at Auschwitz actually worked, or the rhetorical tricks of the deniers. But the didacticism comes at the price of a certain emotional distance. That Lipstadt is constrained in her defense to be silent in the court further lessens the chance to see her in action. The heart of the film comes less from Lipstadt than Rampton.As a guide to how historians actually work, and as a guide to the wackospheric world spun by Holocaust deniers, the film is on its firmest ground. Mark Gattis's Robert Jan van Pelt is invaluable here, as is the real one in real life. The scenes shot on site at the Kremas of Auschwitz-Birkenau bring a sad immediacy to the film, a reminder that nutcase conspiracy theories aren't all harmless, and in the hands of a Hitler can lead to murder by the millions.
A lesson from contemporary history (by epaulguest)
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 <more>
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.
Holocaust denier David Irving loses his libel case (by maurice_yacowar)
The last shot of the David Hare/Mick Jackson Denial adds an important coda to the film. The narrative ends with Holocaust denier David Irving Timothy Spall losing his libel charge against historian Deborah Lipstadt Rachel Weisz . She celebrates her win, warmly thanks her legal team for their diligence — and for the tactical wisdom with which she earlier argued. Then she goes on her morning run, her usual life restored in light and spirit with no more fear for her security. It's a happy ending. But the last shot qualifies that cheer dramatically. It's a black and white photo of <more>
the roof that the Germans collapsed to bury the gas chamber at Auschwitz. The camera draws in on the shot, finding and by nearing it enlarging a hole amid the materials of the roof. That hole recalls Irving's first triumph in his trial. He contended that the absence of any visible holes in the roof's remains debunked the claim that there were vents in the roof for the cyanide that had supposedly slaughtered the Jews within. "No holes, No Holocaust," was his briefly successful summary. The last shot finds the holes Irving had denied. It ends the film with the bleakness of black and white, in contrast to the colours and brightness of Lipstadt's morning renewal of her life.The hole swallows the screen. As the screen turns black the film closes on a saddening, contemplative darkness. Why are we feeling happy? What has been won? The true historian's record of the Holocaust has broken the credibility of the antisemitic self-styled "historian" who declared it a self-serving lie by the Jews. The closing darkness suggests even that happy ending may be yet another — denial. For the victory at the trial rebutted only one denier. And even he persists in his antisemitic slander, as we see when Spall is cut into a Jeremy Paxton TV interview with the indomitable racist Irving. As Irving persists so do other dangerous bigots. When Spall's Irving tells reporters he's not a racist, indeed he has had several foreign staff, all girls with beautiful breasts, denier Irving segues into a more current case of dangerous lies and bigotry, the American presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. The story of the racist liar David Irving resonates beyond his particular case to the more general danger of someone hungry for the power to promote his prejudice. The clips of Irving's incendiary speeches harken back to Irving's hero Hitler but also across to Trump's feeding the furies of hatred and fear. In this wider resonance the film rises above Aristotle's definition of "history" — what happened once — to his "poetry" — the patterns that replay over and over in human history. In fact, the victory over Irving's denial of Jewish history is even in itself an unconcluded campaign. When major powers — including President Obama — condemn Israel for the failure of the "two-state solution" they ignore the main reason for its failure. Since 1922 the Arabs involved have refused any statehood that would have required them to coexist peacefully with the Jewish state. Every negotiation since has broken upon the Palestinians' insistence i that Israel be forced to withdraw to the indefensible borders it held before the 1967 war and ii that millions of Palestinians — those who fled Israel in 1948 to escape the expected slaughter of the Jews by the surrounding Arab states, plus all their supposed descendants — be allowed return with full Israeli citizenship. That would swamp the Jewish citizenry.Both Palestinian governments are pledged to destroy Israel. Hamas includes the eradication of the Jews in its constitution. PA leader Abbas has promised that not one Jew would be allowed to live in the new Palestine, which by his people's maps, textbooks, and banners would REPLACE, not join, Israel. As it happens Abbas's doctoral dissertation was a denial of the Holocaust. In short, the denial of the imperilment of the Jews is a continuing modern issue and shame. Irving's defeat in court was a small victory but his impassioned evil and its pretence to principle and truth persist today. People, groups, even political parties, that support the BDS movement — boycotting the supposedly apartheid state of Israel — whether they know it or not are serving the intention of Berghouti, the movement's founder, which from its outset was to destroy the Jewish state. When those lies and poison spread through Western political parties and when antisemitism in this new form pervades European and North American university campuses, taking the ending of Denial as a happy closure is itself a dangerous form of denial. The last shot tries to save us from that false confidence. The trial goes on.
An historical essay warning that manipulators of truth will always be among us. (by CineMuseFilms)
The nature of truth and the power to manipulate it have long been contentious themes in history and cinema. The outstanding film Denial 2016 resonates loudly in today's post-truth world where power is often used to create alternate realities. It is a film that portrays denialism as a dangerous and perverse form of moral corruption, something that may be contained but can never be eliminated.The story is based on the celebrated 1996 legal case fought between eminent academic Deborah Lipstadt, an American professor of Holocaust Studies, and David Irving, a historian of Nazi Germany. A <more>
book published by Lipstadt Rachael Weisz accuses Irving Timothy Spall of being a Holocaust denier and falsifier of history, and Irving sues for defamation. In the British justice system, the burden of proof is on the accused so Lipstadt must prove that the Holocaust did happen to establish that Irving is a liar. She engages a top legal team led by senior barrister Richard Rampton Tom Wilkinson who insists that neither Lipstadt or Holocaust survivors should present testimony against Irving because of his history of promoting himself by humiliating victims. Lipstadt and her lawyers visit Auchwitz to gather evidence of the existence of gas chambers but the bulk of the story is played out on the legal battlefield at court.Modern audiences are desensitised to the atrocities of war. It is glorified in movies and video games and feeds the entertainment and amusement industry. Today's filmmakers struggle to find ways of remembering the Holocaust without alienating viewers. The extraordinary Son of Saul 2016 takes audiences right into the flames, whereas Denial 2016 explores the moral issues in a courtroom. In reality, this was a high-stakes legal battle that could have potentially de-legitimised the entire history of the Holocaust. It is an outstanding achievement that this film can capture the tension and the burden of moral responsibility carried by the Lipstadt legal team.The casting and characterisation in this film are brilliant. Rachael Weisz's American brashness presents a stark cultural contrast with the conservative traditions of British justice. She convincingly portrays a principled academic and scholar of truth, showing restrained emotion beneath her loathing for Irving's anti-Semitism. Tom Wilkinson gives a masterful portrait of wisdom and conviction, while Timothy Spall plays Irving with subdued Satanic malice. The other support cast make up a strong ensemble. The narrative unfolds at a sweeping pace and the script is both intelligent and instructive in the legal nuance of courtroom manoeuvers. The footage of Auchwitz is emotionally harrowing and the film treats its subject matter with utmost reverence.If you want light entertainment, do not see this film. It is for audiences prepared to confront the dark side of humanity as well as those interested in the intricacies and triumphs of the British legal system. But more than that, it's an essay on the nature of truth in history and it exposes the moral abhorrence of those who manipulate facts to suit their prejudices. It is also a warning that manipulators of truth will always be among us.
Denial may not be the most exciting of films, but it may be the most important film you see this year. (by nathannicolarobertscouk)
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 <more>
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.
This film is tense and riveting. Not as emotional as I was expecting but still just as good. I highly recommend this. (by cosmo_tiger)
"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. <more>
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-.