Denial

If ever there was a time to applaud the efforts of individuals who stand up against people who pervert the truth for their own ends, it’s surely now. To my mind the release of David Hare’s film ‘Denial’ could not be more apposite…

The film revolves around two principle characters. The first is the historian and Hitler apologist, David Irving, who has had made it his life’s work to tell the story of the Holocaust ‘from the other side’. The other main character is Deborah Lipstadt, Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta. In 1977, Irving published “Hitler’s War”, in which he argued that Hitler initially had not known about the Final Solution and later tried to stop it. His contention, expressed in even more extreme terms in a later (1991) version of the book, was that Hitler did not order the systematic extermination of the Jews and that camps such as Auschwitz were never death camps (just labour camps), and that the mass gassings never took place. In his eyes these events were fabricated to satisfy the Jews’ own agenda. In response Lipstadt in 1993 published “Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth & Memory”, in which she accused Irving of being a dangerous Holocaust denier, distorting the truth to conform to his own ideological leanings.

‘Denial’ picks up the story in 1996 as Irving decides to bring a libel case against Lipstadt (and her publisher Penguin Books) for what he perceives as serious damage to his professional reputation. Unlike in other cases, the onus with libel is on the defendant to prove his/her innocence, i.e. Lipstadt is faced with having to prove the Holocaust happened. But how to do that when the Nazis destroyed evidence of their actions when their defeat was imminent, blowing up the gas ovens as they retreated?

The first half of the movie (we know it actually took four years to prepare the case) shows us Lipstadt assembling her team of lawyers, while Irving prosecutes his own case. The second half of the film deals with the case itself. But, though this was a complex trial lasting ten weeks, there are no lengthy courtroom scenes here and the film never gets bogged down with legalese. By skilful cross-examination, Rampton is able to expose Irving’s various claims as absurd and prove Lipstadt’s contention that his work shows him to be a racist, anti-Semite and a distorter of historical evidence for his own ends.

The title chosen for the film of course refers first and foremost to the central plank of the film, Irving’s denial of the Holocaust, but also Lipstadt’s self-denial in having to keep quiet throughout the trial process. Her legal team decide early on that neither she nor any Holocaust survivors will be called as witnesses – they wanted it to be Irving who was on trial and not the survivors, who they felt would be vulnerable in the face of humiliating cross-examination by a clever man such as Irving. Only during the press conference that follows the verdict is Lipstadt able to voice her feelings and explain her motivation. In response to inevitable accusations that she was seeking to block free speech, she says: “Now, some people are saying that the result of this trial will threaten free speech. I don't accept that. I'm not attacking free speech. On the contrary, I've been defending it against someone who wanted to abuse it. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal. And some things happened, just like we say they do. Slavery happened, the Black Death happened. The Earth is round, the ice caps are melting, and Elvis is not alive.”

There are several stand-out performances in ‘Denial’. Tom Wilkinson (a brilliant, but much taken-for-granted actor) is superb as Lipstadt’s defence barrister Richard Rampton QC. Rachel Weisz plays Lipstadt with great energy, her fierce intellect and passion for her cause coming to the fore even in the opening scene. But most credit has to go to Timothy Spall for his depiction of the chilling figure of David Irving. Ineffably civil, smart and well-spoken, he nevertheless sends a chill down the spine. The Guardian critic Wendy Ide describes him neatly as “effectively repellent”.

So why, some may ask, are we still watching films about the Holocaust? What is the relevance to our situation today? I think recent political events are testimony enough to the need for an ongoing and dogged pursuit of truth in an age where politicians can spout “alternative” facts at times when the truth doesn’t quite suit them. And, of course, Holocaust denial still goes on. Just last week, the White House released a statement on Holocaust Memorial Day that completely omitted any reference to Jews or anti-Semitism, talking instead simply of “innocent victims”. A spokesman said this language was used in the interests of “inclusivity”; Lipstadt herself called it “softcore Holocaust denial”.

 

Watch a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7ktvUWaYo