If the U.S. presidential election and the “Brexit” decision have not made it abundantly clear, our time is teetering on the brink of becoming a “post-truth” era. Using any variety of rhetorical techniques, charlatans can play fast and loose with the facts to push an agenda based on blatant falsehoods or distortions of reality. Mick Jackson’s “Denial” plays like a kind of incidental prologue to our present dilemma, and perhaps this recent history is one we ought to have lent more credence as it played out.
Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) falls under attack from Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall), who baits her into making disparaging comments on video so that he can sue for defamation. Using a sneaky legal maneuver, he files suit in the United Kingdom where the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Thus, Lipstadt and her legal team must make the case that the Holocaust did happen, and Irving deliberately twisted the truth.
David Hare’s script hardly ranks among the most compelling courtroom dramas – a bit of fat could definitely be eliminated to make the film tauter – yet “Denial” still provides plenty of fodder for the mind. Some of the most provocative action in the film takes place in plotting the logistics of the case. Is the best strategy to go after the message or the messenger? It might be easier to take down Irving based on his character, but does that show adequate respect for the suffering of those whose history he tries to erase? Should Lipstadt take the stand? What about Holocaust survivors?
Ultimately, “Denial” asks us to consider who gets to make the case for history – and what place those who lived through those events have in shaping it. The road to the conclusion can be an uncomfortable sit; however, the film’s passionate case for freedom of truthful speech and the primacy of logic are quite moving. And given the current climate, we could all use a little confidence booster that reason will eventually triumph over the misguide notion that it’s respectable to have two points of view regarding incontrovertible evidence. B+ / 
Marshall and the Movies 
Interesting to read an opposing point of view. I admire what Deborah did in real life but I didnt feel the movie portrayed that journey effectively. She wasnt likable enough and I felt she was basically the same at the end as at the beginning- not enough growth. There wasn’t this sense of building a case. They seemed to have it all figured out and their main problem was getting Deborah to keep quiet. I wanted to like it but to me it didnt work
Must she be likable? Does she have to change? I don’t have a problem answering “no” to those because she was in the right from the beginning. And her incredulity at the legal team mirrors our own – frustrated that we cannot speak out more openly and forcefully against the obvious lies, but trusting still that the forces of justice will eventually triumph.
Yeah but the character isnt compelling if she doesn’t grow or have a character arc from the experience. It ends up being kind of predictable and boring when it should be compelling. Spotlight, for instance, did a much better job showing you the characters journey and how the case was built
I will say, “Spotlight” is definitely a far better film. But I reject the notion that a character has to have a strong arc to be compelling. Sometimes just watching events happen to a person is fascinating in its own way.
Hmmm. Interesting. I was underwhelmed
I’d love your thoughts on my review if you get a chance https://54disneyreviews.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/denial-review/