Review of Denial (2016) by Kyle H — 28 Oct 2016

As you'll notice by the rating I am assigning to DENIAL, I rather appreciated many things about this movie. You may also notice that the movie has had mediocre aggregate scores among both critics and "regular" audience members for the past few weeks - although, those aggregate scores have been slowing rising. My reconciliation of these things is that I am comfortable rating a movie on more than its technical prowess. DENIAL has a number of cinematic problems - particularly, the direction is merely adequate by way of static editing/pacing and a climax which does not quite evoke the same kind of righteous indignation as other recent films regarding conspiracy theories. Fortunately, DENIAL has an extremely satisfying denoument in which tensions feel adequately resolved and the audience can feel, perhaps, contented or assured. The excellent performances and thoughtful subject matter which make up the content of the picture up until the satisfactory denoument are also commendable and will be focus of my review.

In case you have not seen a preview or read any other reviews for the movie, DENIAL is based on the true story of American Historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher[s], Penguin Books, during their lawsuit with English holocaust denier, David Irving. Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" (which rebuked holocaust deniers) mentioned Irving's name, resulting in his bringing a defamation suit to Lipstadt and Penguin. The suit was in tricky terrain, given that it took place in UK where the accused must (at least in the context of defamation) prove their innocence. Lipstadt and team were, effectively, wrangled into proving that the holocaust took place - despite the eye-witness accounts of many survivors.

The timing for DENIAL could not be better, given the political climate. Lipstadt herself, in an interview in October of this year with the Chicago Sun-Times' Matt Fagerholm, mentioned that the story of DENIAL should NOT be thought of as being about any singular figure, though (no matter how much Donald Trump may come to mind). The reason she gave was that this story is bigger than being simply an anti-(fill in the blank of any famous political bully figure here) movie. She went on to say that the movie is rather a response to the notion that "...we live in a conspiracy theory-driven culture where people say that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Sandy Hook was set up by the anti-gun people in order to get anti-gun legislation legislation passed. Facts don't seem to matter to these people. If they believe it and if they are going to insist on it, that's enough.".

Her point is well taken by this author. Consider the first definition of "denial" from Merriam-Webster: a statement saying that something is not true or real. Conspiracy theorists are in the business of denial - of taking evidence and creating counter-interpretations which are taken, by them, to be as good as any other interpretation. This subject seems to be at the center of any conflict that may take place between modernist and post-modern thinkers: do all stories have equal validity? Do we go the way of the Sophists or Socrates? Contemporary studies in rhetoric make clear that people may be persuaded by virtually any story which has coherence and fidelity for them. Does this persuasive potential make the story "good," is the question, though. "Good" seems to depend on the framework; but, to Lipstadt and others, a good interpretation requires at least some degree of objectivity and logical plausibility. That is, David Irving's holocaust conspiracy was a bad interpretation of facts certainly because it hurt people - but not only because it hurt people. Even though Irving persuaded himself and select others that the holocaust did not take place on the scale that is reported by survivors and other historians, his instance on his own interpretation based on his subject relation to the evidence does not make his story true in the scientific sense.

One might argue that Irving's denial story may have some sense of "truth" to him and his social reality, but his interpretation of what could constitute truth did not match the context in which he demanded credibility (in this case, empirical studies). My own musing here is that much tension regarding the reliability of stories often has to do with people approaching the same subject matter with dramatically different paradigms and expecting others to come around to their way of thinking. As both Deborah and Judge Trench in the dramatization of DENIAL concluded, Irving had the right to believe his opinion and to speak freely - however, he did not have the right to silence others who disagreed with him. Even though, to Irving, in his social reality, the holocaust denial story was true, he attempted to interject that story into a context where attempts at objectivity are highly valued - a place where his story didn't fit. He attempted to bully his subject interpretation into that space and silence anyone who disagreed. And, as the movie brings out, such attempts to forcibly subjugate will not do.

Lipstadt herself summed up the whole matter more eloquently any movie critics (later in the Sun-Times interview) when she said, "This film is about Holocaust denial, and about the truth of the Holocaust. It's about how there are not two sides to every story, and that there is a difference between fact, opinion and lies. If I say to you it is my opinion that 9/11 never happened, or that slavery never happened or that Elvis is alive-that's not an opinion, that's a lie, even if I insist upon it. What we see today are people taking lies, insisting on them as their opinion and hoping to shape the facts. Holocaust deniers are a perfect role model for these people." In other words: not all interpretations are the same. Interpretations may be better or worse depending on their coherence with the paradigm of evaluation.

I could not complete this review without also mentioning the potential value of counter-interpretations, though. In the case of DENIAL, Irving's story contradicted clear facts and violated standards of coherence in the context in which he was arguing. Also significantly, Irving's story was used to propagate harmful, racist attitudes. There are also cases where popular, mainstream stories can be the stories re-inscribing harmful beliefs. In this case, counter-narratives may be extremely useful. The point here, in my mind, is to think carefully about the paradigms we use to determine credibility.

Instead of solely focusing on narration versus counter-narration, though, DENIAL also considers notions which are neatly explained in another definition of "denial" from Merriam-Webster: the act of not allowing someone to have something. A refusal. In the case of this movie, a self-refusal. Tom Wilkinson's Richard Rampton - the person who argued for Lipstadt in court - directly addresses the importance of discipline, of self-denial, in his moving speech during the third act of the movie. Paul Asay, from PluggedIn, wrote in his review that, "It's rare for a movie to laud a greater, difficult good over the righteous (and completely understandable) desire of an individual... almost without exception, they tell us to do what feels right. This makes Denial an unusual work indeed. As Richard talks to Deborah, he tells her the main object is to win. And the best way to win is through, as he says, "an act of self-denial."...The movie title refers to David Irving's Holocaust denial, of course. But it also refers to Deborah's self-denial... Her eventual willingness to submit to that team's experience and guidance. It's not easy, but she does it. And her faith pays off.".

Asay brought up an aspect of DENIAL that is as important as the subject of lying about facts - the subject of discipline. Sometimes, denying the self is the best way to help others. The ancient concept of "agape" love is encapsulated by acts of self-sacrifice, which, by definition, must come at the expense of the self. In DENIAL, Lipstadt occasionally went against her desires and instincts, lost a few battles, in order to "win the war" in a way that would ultimately benefit people besides only herself. One of Irving's downfalls was that he was so wrapped up in the attention and praise of his unique take on the holocaust that he failed to consider whether his actions would benefit anyone other than himself.

Beyond the relevant themes of the movie, I think DENIAL has merits in its execution as well. Even though I previously noted some problems with the product of the movie, I feel that the performances are more than enough to make the movie work on the entertainment end of things. Rachel Weisz plays Lipstadt sincerely. Although, the three male leads are especially compelling. Andrew Scott's calculating Anthony Julius, Tom Wilkinson's compassionate Richard Rampton, and Timothy Spall's cringe-worthy David Irving are all exciting to watch on screen. Writer David Hare made the wise choice of keeping the story focused on Lipstadt without getting too bogged in a psychological case study of Irving; but, even so, Spall's sincere and passionate take on the appalling David Irving is magical to watch.

Ultimately, I very much recommend DENIAL, if nothing else, as a conversation piece about narrative theory and contemporary epistemological tensions. While academics may have already well-trodden these roads, many movie-goers will not likely have considered the themes of DENIAL in much depth. DENIAL does not go as far into the nitty-gritty details on its main issues as some viewers may like, but, as the movie suggests, there are more or less appropriate places to try and discuss the complexities of epistemology and (post)modernism. In this case, a short segment of not-even-two-hours seems hardly the place for an exhaustive interrogation of such subject matter. Even so, the movie is a success in even bringing up such themes to begin with, and encouraging the audience to keep thinking about them afterward.