Review: In ‘Denial,’ Holocaust denier puts history on trial |

Review: In ‘Denial,’ Holocaust denier puts history on trial

“Do you have any idea how hard it is to hand over your conscience to somebody else?” asks Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), eyes wide. That’s the fascinating idea behind Mick Jackson’s drama “Denial,” based on a real-life lawsuit argued in a London courtroom in 2000.

Lipstadt, an American historian and professor, was sued for libel in 1996 by British author and Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall). Refusing to settle the case, Lipstadt went to court ­— and had to sit quietly while British lawyers (led by Richard Rampton, played by Tom Wilkinson) argued her case for her.

It’s one of those stories that perhaps makes a better book than a movie (Lipstadt has written about the experience, in the memoir “History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier”). The film never finds a distinctive visual language, and screenwriter David Hare struggles to simplify a complex case. The characters here are constantly explaining legal matters to each other, for the benefit of the audience.

But ultimately “Denial’ works, thanks to its strong cast — particularly Spall, who gives Irving a slightly mad gleefulness, and Weisz, whose smart, tough Deborah chafes against the quiet acquiescence expected of her. And the haunting story at its core speaks loudly. We see devastating glimpses of Auschwitz — the piles of suitcases, glasses, shoes — that remind us powerfully that this case isn’t about one woman.

“It’s not for themselves,” Deborah argues to her attorneys, trying to get them to agree to let Holocaust survivors testify. “They want to give voice to the ones who didn’t make it.”

Moira Macdonald is a Seattle Times writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.