Denial

Dir: Mick Jackson

2016

****

Without wanting to sound unkind, I’m amazed that Denial, based on Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, was made into a film, let alone a good one. I love Mick Jackson’s LA Story, I think it’s one of the best films of the early 90s and really sums up Hollywood while it was finding its feet again while switching between decades. I liked his 1997 film Volcano a lot less, or at least, I enjoyed it but for all the wrong reasons. He hadn’t made a film since 2002, certainly never one like this before and I personally didn’t think he could do it justice. I was very wrong and ask he accepts my humble apology though, as Denial captures every aspect of the real story, to the point where you could believe you were a fly on the wall, if it weren’t for the static cameras. I watched it mainly because I had faith in Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson (and because I watch everything and anything to be honest) and both were as brilliant as always. Rachel Weisz was a surprise though, Hillary Swank was set to play outspoken journalist, historian and lecturer Deborah Lipstadt – which made perfect sense to me – but in the end the part went to a Brit. Her portrayal is dead on, probably more so than the real Lipstadt would care to admit, and she hones the era perfectly, with a slight air of Julia Roberts about her performance. Indeed, the era – 1996-2000 – looked totally authentic, which thrilled me as someone who is quite nostalgic for the time. For though, the most impressive performance, or at least, the most convincing, was from Andrew Scott whose portrayal of celebrity solicitor Anthony Julius was incredible. Julius was quite famous at the time for taking care of Princess Diana’s divorce proceedings and defending two campaigners of libel from fast-food chain McDonalds in a case that would become infamously known as the McLibel case. He was England’s answer to Johnnie Cochran, nothing like him in reality but famous and the person you’d want representing you. I remember David Irving being something of a media sensation at the time, like most other people, I didn’t give him the time of day and he has pretty much been ignored since – the media always have the next grubby opportunist waiting the wings. Spall’s depiction of him is perfect in character, although the two men look nothing like each other. Wilkinson’s performance and the methods of barrister Richard Rampton are at the real heart of the story, while Lipstadt is extremely emotional and Julius is rather clinical, Rampton was the in-between, the level-headed one who brought everything together. The case brought a lot of contention with it. For starters, survivors of the holocaust wanted to testify and Lipstadt promised that they could, stating that they had more than earned the right to but Julius forbid it, as he didn’t want them to be cross-examined by Irving, they didn’t deserve it. This conflict is integral to the story away from the media’s reports and it comes through brilliantly in the film, with respect and integrity. It was a good day for justice, truth and history and not such a great day for neo-nazis and those that used the freedom of speech to spread lies and hatred, although twenty years later it seems the case has been largely forgotten. I’m glad the film has come out when it did but it is a shame it didn’t quite have the impact of reaction it deserved. People were critical of the film’s tone which I can’t help but think was a way of saying it wasn’t dramatized enough. Every single word of dialogue spoken during the courtroom scenes are taken verbatim from the trial records. The film is factual and authentic, there is plenty of drama, it’s just never overcooked, it’s just how it was, very British if you will but I think that is its strength. A Hollywood version would have been over the top and grass and would have no doubt won all the awards but for me Jackson has told the story as it was, with perfect balance and with the utmost respect.