David Irving is a notorious British historian, best known for his extremist views. Those are his racism, sexism, antisemitism, admiration of Adolf Hitler, and most of all, his denial of the holocaust. This film focuses on a libel lawsuit he brought before a British court in 1996, against the author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books who published her book, Denying the Holocaust. In that book, Lipstadt claimed that Irving deliberately misrepresented historical evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoint.
In recent times, I have heard views expressed that there have been too many films about the treatment of Jews by the Nazis and they need to get over it and move on. Also some might say what is the relevance of a 20 year court case. Indeed, how can a film about someone who presents lies as….well, let’s say alternative facts, be of any interest?. It seems to me, that a couple of weeks into living with the most powerful man in the world who is a lying, misogynistic, bigoted narcissist, this story has a new resonance.
The film is better than you could expect when the story itself, and the ending, is well known. The fact that a judge delivered the verdict weeks later in a massive written report, rather than using a jury, might have given problems with the dramatic focus of the film. However, it really overcomes that and it is a gripping and moving affair. Transcripts from the trial were used as the basis for the courtroom scenes, and those are the most powerful in the movie.
There is much to hold the interest outside of the court as well. Scenes involving Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) and her lawyers are all good, helping us understand the complexities of the legal machinations, and understand the unexpected decisions made by her legal team (such as not allowing Lipstadt or any eye witnesses appear in court). It helps that her solicitor is played by the wonderful Andrew Scott and her barrister by the superb Tom Wilkinson.
Timothy Spall is sufficiently chilling as the charlatan historian. Hints of a troubled childhood and a clear desire to be part of an establishment that mostly shuns him make him more than a cardboard villain.
Ultimately it is too talky or sensational to be a big success at the box office. Also, it isn’t very cinematic, so, bearing in mind that it was partly funded by the BBC, I can see Denial finding its audience more on the small screen.
Rating: 8.5 out of 10