While the film will mostly be known as a period piece about the Holocaust, I think it does have some unintentional relevance to politics today. I say unintentional because I don't think the filmmaker Mick Jackson had any goal other than to tell this specific story. And maybe I'm just too immersed in election coverage. This election is drowning our national conversation and it's quite probable I'm seeing it in places where it isn't. But the film Denial is about trying to prove something that doesn't need to be proved by physical evidence and I see a lot of that in this election.
That line in the film Denial really stood out to me. A running theme in the film is the idea of not engaging with people who try to dispute facts. Lipstadt is essentially called a coward by Irving for not discoursing with him, not entertaining his "view" that the Holocaust didn't happen. Lipstadt doesn't feel compelled to engage with people who already disbelieve her, because everything she says can be contradicted. Rather, the response to cold hard facts is distracting theatrics and deflections. But his opinions are not really equal to her facts, because his opinions are denying a basic truth. And this denial is harmful not only to history and history's legacy, but to actual human beings.
I wondered what the modern equivalent to the Holocaust denial conspiracy is. And the answer hit me: there are already people who dispute the veracity of 9/11. Right now they are just a crackpot group of conspiracy theorists, but that's only because the 9/11 tragedy is still so fresh. This film takes place about 50 years after the Holocaust. It's possible that 9/11 deniers (or "truthers") could be a credible threat in 2051. And current Republican presidential nominee got his start in politics and pretty much found his campaign on the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the US. There are people who are out to deny basic truths--and their vicious agendas should not be legitimized with the label "opposing viewpoints."
David Irving also uses a Trump tactic in the film, by positioning himself as the outsider David opposing Goliath. He wants to be seen as a corrector, someone who can finally rid everyone of the establishment and corruption. Irving's lies in the film are absurd and unreasonable, that even trying to disprove them gives them an air of validity. It's hard to resist the temptation to scream at him, but unfortunately his admittedly charismatic and impressive delivery makes any sort of forceful response seem hysterical. This brings me to...
Ultimately I know that Lipstadt won her case, and that obviously nobody really believes the Holocaust didn't happen. But for a second the stress flashbacks to the presidential debates were so strong I forgot that I was watching a movie. It's not that the courtroom scenes are staged or performed to resemble the debates (I mean, that's impossible). But Irving is a racist extremist with a worldwide platform, and he uses the presumption of male authority to push a harmful, toxic agenda. And that Irving's opponent is a woman makes the battle against him even harder to win. I've seen how victims of injustice can sometimes lose because of the system that's rigged against them. I've seen how Trump can take an objective defeat and spin into a victory. I've seen Trump and his surrogates essentially attempt to gaslight the country into believing his horrific actions aren't all that bad--even signs that he's a genius. I found myself legitimately worried that Irving could win the trial, even if only the one in the court of public opinion. As ludicrous as that sounds, take a look at how close we are to a Trump presidency.
A major plot point in this movie is whether Lipstadt will get to testify at the trial in her defense. Lipstadt obviously wants to. Not only does she have a few choice words for the man, but she is extremely qualified and knowledgeable about every last detail of the Holocaust. Her lawyers, led by Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) and Anthony Julius (Scott), strongly urge her not to testify. They want to keep her silent as part of a strategy, since her emotional connection to the Holocaust could be a liability. They also refuse to let Holocaust survivors testify for fear that Irving would humiliate them in cross examination. Rachel Weisz's best scenes are when she plays silently frustrated and when she makes her impassioned pleas to be heard and to give voices for the suffering.
But guys who else do we know who is immensely qualified, remarkably passionate, and informed about what she's talking about? Oh yes, the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now, I can't presume to know what her campaign staff is advising her to do. But I can't imagine that she isn't being told to play down her attributes and superior intellect for fear of seeming smug, shrill, or hysterical. As much as this campaign--or any campaign, really--is about politics, it's also about optics. And Clinton has to win a marathon, not just a 5K. I don't think it's that off to speculate that Clinton would love to go off on Trump for his numerous misdeeds and lies, but she cannot. For one thing, they will be thrown right back into her face. And the public will most likely react negatively to this. I think Denial does a brilliant job in depicting this struggle, one that is predominately feminine (although not limited to women; men of color often have to walk the same tightrope). Self-denial could win the war, even if it looks like losing the battle.
I really liked Denial. By no means is it a movie that will change the medium of cinema. But it's sharply written, brilliantly performed, and stripped of any cheap drama. As a courtroom drama, it's fascinating and riveting. I can't say enough about Rachel Weisz. I admire her as an actress in general, but I really enjoyed her performance here. Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson are scene-stealers, each relishing their monologues and examination scenes. The muted color scheme and carefully composed angles add to the seriousness and emotional complexity of the story.
Denial isn't a flashy game-changer, so it'll probably get lost in the awards race hurricane. But I do recommend you seek it out when it becomes available on VOD. It's a smart film, about some very important times in history. And while I'm sure we'll get many films and books about the 2016 Presidential Campaign, I think Denial might be a great representation of its gender politics. Even if by coincidence.
Like what you read? Please like my blog at Facebook.com/MathurMarquee. Also, follow me on Twitter @HippogriffRider. Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments below!
No comments:
Post a Comment