Denial

Denial

Blu-ray Disc - 2017
Average Rating:
33
9
Rate this:
When Deborah Lipstadt speaks out against Holocaust denier David Irving over his falsification of history, she discovers that the stakes are higher than ever in the battle for historical truth. Now faced with a libel lawsuit in British court, Lipstadt and her attorney have the heavy burden of proving that the Holocaust actually happened, in a riveting legal fight with stunning consequences.
Publisher: Universal City, CA :, Universal Pictures Home Entertainment,, [2017]
Edition: Blu-ray and DVD, Widescreen
Copyright Date: ©2017
Characteristics: 2 videodiscs (111 min.) : sound, color ; 4 3/4 in
digital,optical,surround,DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1,rda,Blu-ray
digital,optical,surround,Dolby Digital 5.1,rda,DVD
NTSC,rda,DVD
video file,Blu-ray,rda,Blu-ray
video file,DVD video,region 1,rda,DVD

Opinion

From the critics


Community Activity

Comment

Add a Comment

v
Vivica
Nov 14, 2017

I was surprised!! I thought it might be dry and predictable... that I already knew the whole
story because it is such near history and was all over the news. I was wrong!! It was riveting - well acted, well written & well done.
Considering the times we now live in...you can see the same tactics being used now to pervert the truth and distort reality...Time in its sameness is constant!!

l
llane
Sep 16, 2017

I find it hard to believe that this ACTUALLY happened !!!!!!! What some people think is soooo stupid !!! Wonderful , disturbing !!!!!!!

j
jacinthabrown
Sep 06, 2017

The ideological battle between two strong-willed academics, one who specializes in Holocaust studies and the other who denies it ever happened, plays out in the courtroom in this true life account. Superb legal strategy delivers some compelling dramatic moments, with Rachel Weisz well cast as Professor Deborah Lipstadt, Tom Wilkinson as her skillful lawyer and Timothy Spall as the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic historian who is never short of headline-grabbing theatrics. This film takes the audience through the fight for truth and justice, with some surprising twists and turns along the way. Put this film in your must-see viewing list.

i
ilovewhippets
Sep 05, 2017

A Well-done movie! The acting and the story were superb! I highly recommend it!

c
Calvacade
Aug 30, 2017

This movie was incredibly slow leading up to a predicable ending. Of all the things to complain about almost everyone chooses Weitz's character - Lipstadt. This is bizarre in the extreme because Lipstadt is in real life obnoxious, radical, annoying and rude. How else could the character be played? The story is a good one. The technique for telling was not. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

m
mikeedm
Aug 26, 2017

I stumbled across this movie and I am very glad I did. Great movie, really enjoyed watching it.

l
legbider
Aug 24, 2017

Jewish hollywood propaganda. The gas chamber story is a blatant lie. Everything you think you know about Hitler is all propaganda lies.
Are you aware that the world jewry declared war on Germany in 1933?
And why have the jews been expelled from every country in Europe over the last 5 centuries?
Do the math. 6 mil were cremated in 4 ovens built to acommodate 1 body. How much fuel and time would that take?
according to census stats., maybe 300,000 perished during the whole war.
Look it up!

b
ba_library
Aug 21, 2017

Interesting film, basically a trial about the holocaust. An American professor and author (who is Jewish) who wrote several books about the holocaust is sued for libel in an English court by a man who racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and a self-proclaimed historian who denies the holocaust ever happened and Hitler was some sort of hero. The DVD is based on a true story (I don’t remember reading about it in the newspaper in the late 1990s.) Most people (or maybe just me) are thinking, of course it happened and why waste so much time and money on some loony guy’s delusional thinking. The British legal system is different from the American and that point is proven early on when the American defendant argues, I’m the defendant am I not supposed to be held innocent until proven guilty? The British legal team tells her no, not in England – you have to prove yourself or your claims to be innocent. The British legal team also refuses to allow the defendant to speak in court for herself and also refuse to allow her to let holocaust survivors testify about their experiences. I found the DVD got a bit dry with all the legal maneuvers (judge or jury trial?) but the basic premise that someone actually litigated the holocaust was very interesting – did she win? You’ll have to watch!

t
TheeAvebury
Jul 24, 2017

Denial is textbook Oscar bait: an autumn release recounting an inspiring real story about fighting prejudice, led by a showy performance from an Oscar winner, written by an award-winning playwright, and buffeted by a swelling, emotional score. However, patches of it are so ludicrously hammy it plays like one of those unbearably corny fake films teased at the beginning of Tropic Thunder.

a
akirakato
Jul 24, 2017

Directed by Mick Jackson and written by David Hare, based on Deborah Lipstadt's book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier", this docudrama depicts courtroom drama, in which David Irving, a Nazi Germany scholar, manipulates the evidence and the defence lawyer outsmarts him.
Although the outcome is well-known, the film tuns out to be a well-crafted entertaining piece.
But I hate this scratchy disc.

View All Comments

Quotes

Add a Quote

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

***SPOILER ALERT***
Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie, and then expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal and some things happen, 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.
===
I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. I say to you quite tastelessly that more women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

Well, all historians make mistakes.
-But there is a difference between negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness which is far more one-sided. All Mr. Irving's little fictions, all his tweaks of the evidence, all tend in the same direction,
the exculpation of Adolf Hitler. He is, to use an analogy, like the waiter who always gives the wrong change.
If he is honest, we may expect sometimes his mistakes to favor the customers, sometimes himself. But Mr. Irving is the dishonest waiter. All his mistakes work in his favor. How far, if at all, Mr. Irving's anti-Semitism is the cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or individually
it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian in favor of a bogus
rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti-Semitic propaganda.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

Well, the man's an anti-Semite and a racist. It's like having shxt on your shoe. You wipe it off. You don't study it.
===
I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news... followed by a lady reading the less important news... followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news on muggings and drug busts.
===
My question is this, if somebody is anti-Semitic and extremist, he is perfectly capable of being honestly
anti-Semitic, yes? He's holding those views and expressing those views because they are indeed his views?
-Well, yes.
And so it seems to me, if it comes down to it, that the anti-Semitism is a completely separate allegation and has precious little bearing on your broader charge that he has manipulated the data?

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

And all I have is my voice and my conscience and I have to listen to it.
-Your conscience?
Yes!
Yes. They're strange things, consciences. Trouble is, what feels best isn't necessarily what works best. I mean, by all means, stand up, look the devil in the eye, tell him what you feel. Why not? It's very satisfying.
See what happens. And risk losing. Not just for yourself. For the others. For everyone. Forever.
===
Richard Evans gave us plenty of places where Irving got his facts wrong. But we have to prove he got 'em wrong intentionally.
===
I find the whole Holocaust story utterly boring. ... The Jews keep going on about the Holocaust because it's the only interesting thing which has happened to them in 3,000 years.... I'm not interested in the Holocaust,
I don't know anyone who is.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

Professor, would you agree it is the duty of historians to remain completely unemotional?
-One's duty is to be unemotional, to be objective, but one's duty, I think, is to remain human in the exercise.
===
He's making it respectable to say that there are two points of view. People are gonna see the news now
and they're gonna think, "Oh, okay. "Some people think there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, "and, oh, this is interesting, some people don't."
===
Remember the Zundel trial. Remember the Exodus trial. They were torn apart. Because survivors don't remember. Not every detail. They forget something. They say a door was on the left, when actually it was on the right, and then, wham! Irving's in. You see? "They're liars, you can't trust anything they say."

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

Yeah. Yes, we know what it is. It's how we prove what it is, that's what we're interested in. We're not here on a pilgrimage, we're preparing a case.
===
Why would you give away our strategy?
-Deborah, there is no strategy. We're gonna box him in with the truth.
===
He is a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.
===
We can criticize his methods, but it's his conclusions we have to discredit.
===
The word "denier" is particularly evil. For the chosen victim it is like being called a wife beater or a pedophile. It is enough for the label to be attached for the attachee to be designated a pariah, an outcast from normal society. It is a verbal Yellow Star.
===
He used to be a Holocaust denier, and now he's a verdict denier.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

But he's an anti-Semite. You'd be amazed how many military historians see that as just a detail. They see him
as a serious historian who happens to see things from Hitler's point of view.
-Yeah, but it's not a detail.
You know, I think it's at the center of everything he thinks and does.
-So do I. Yeah. He's a liar and a falsifier of history.
===
You see, as I see it, it's academia versus the rest. Remember, the greatest historians have never been academics. We're outsiders. Cato, Thucydides, Gibbon, Churchill... I field a very strong team.
===
What if we lose? Huh? It suddenly becomes acceptable, it becomes respectable to say the Holocaust didn't happen? Has anyone thought about what that will mean? But the wonderful thing is, you see, if we play this right, it's not going to be Irving putting the Holocaust on trial. No. It's going to be us putting Irving on trial.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

You can have opinions about the Holocaust. You can argue about why it happened and how it happened.
But what I won't do is meet with anyone, anyone, who says it didn't happen. Because the Holocaust happened. It happened. And that isn't opinion. That's fact. And I won't debate fact.
===
What did you say about him?
-I think I called him a Hitler partisan who distorted evidence in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.
===
In Britain, solicitor and barrister are two quite different functions.
===
Over here in America, uh, if you're accused of defaming someone, then it's up to them to prove that what you said is untrue.
-In the UK, the reverse is true.

j
jimg2000
Feb 17, 2017

Holocaust denial rests on four basic assertions. Number one. That there was never any systematic or organized attempt by the Nazis to kill all of Europe's Jews. Number two. That the numbers are far fewer than five or six million. Number three. That there were no gas chambers or specially built extermination facilities.
Number four. That the Holocaust is therefore a myth invented by Jews to get themselves financial compensation and to further the fortunes of the State of Israel. War, the deniers say, is a bloody business.
There's nothing special about the Jews, they're not unique in their suffering. They're just everyday casualties of war. What's the fuss?
===
"Well, you know, maybe Irving actually believes it. He's an anti-Semite and he believes it. You can't accuse
someone of lying if they genuinely believe what they're saying." That's crazy. That's insane.

Age

Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.

Summary

Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.

Notices

Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number

Subject Headings

  Loading...

Find it at RCPL

  Loading...
[]
[]
To Top