Hadding Scott notices a crucial misrepresentation in "Denial" trailer

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2016-08-25 09:31

Actress Rachel Weisz plays Deborah Lipstadt in the upcoming film Denial about David Irving's libel trial against her.

by Hadding Scott

THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF THE FILM DENIAL, about David Irving's failed libel-suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt in 2000, is not to pound David Irving even farther into the dust -- although it may do that -- but to discredit Holocaust Revisionism: hence the film's title is not Irving, but Denial.

To attack Holocaust Revisionism through the person of David Irving, however, requires portraying him as the quintessential Holocaust Revisionist or "Denier," which he never was. The purpose of the film thus requires misrepresentation. Please continue reading at Codoh.com


David Irving


The casting of Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt reminds me of Pee Wee Herman and Dottie seeing themselves portrayed by James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild.

I don't get that feeling with Weisz' portrayal of Lipstadt in the trailer as much as I do with Spall's portrayal of Irving.  It's not that I'm saying its some sort of particular defamation of Irving.  I just don't hear or see Irving in that portrayal.  Your example is spot on for how I see that trailer's portrayal of Irving.  It creates a weird discomfort to view it.  I'm not saying I'm a particular fan of Irving, either.  That is not a true portrayal of him.

We all here know that (Jewish) Hollywood is not about entertainment but about Goyim mind control. The fact that the Jews have made this film is an indication that they are worried about the increasing popularity of Holocaust revisionism on the Internet. People who can be convinced by films are ipso facto superficial and don't search independently for the truth. Serious people will not be effected by this film. Serious people search (and find !) answers on the Internet, and Hollywood doesn't control that.
Notice also how the Jews have deliberately chosen an ugly actor to play the role of Irving, and a handsome actress to play the role of Lipstadt. A cheap trick that won't fool serious people either.

I am doubtful about this. There are people who have sued filmmakers in recent times for how they were represented in a film.
I think that if they wanted to use artistic license they should not have used David Irving's real name.

It would be amusing if David Irving sued the makers of Denial for misrepresenting him.
Irving is not the type to let a libel pass. The suit against Penguin and Lipstadt is not the only time that he's responded.

I wonder how far artistic license in an "historical" movie goes?

I found Irving's own record of what he said to Lipstadt on 11 November 1994 and added it to the article. He did not offer $1000 for proof of the Holocaust but for proof that there was a blueprint of a gas-chamber with holes in the roof for Zyklon-B.
"You have just told an outright lie to these students. You are trying to gull gullible students into believing that there are mounds of documents proving the Holocaust. You referred specifically to one, a 'blueprint of a gas chamber' which you have, complete with 'the holes through which pellets were inserted'. I have here" -- holding up my right hand stuffed with $20 bills -- "a thousand dollars for you if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them. One thousand dollars!
I think that if Irving sues, the counter-argument will be that although they did not use Irving's exact words they conveyed the essence of what he meant. They will say that the context shows that Irving meant that there was no proof of the Holocaust itself.
It is easy to show that this is an incorrect interpretation, since Irving has never taken the position that there was no Holocaust. At most he has said (in 1995) that "if Auschwitz sinks" -- as he anticipated it would -- then the entire Holocaust would be open to skepticism. Meanwhile Irving has always affirmed that various minor atrocity-accusations that are supposed to be parts of the Holocaust are true. What they have Irving saying in that film is not an accurate representation of any position that David Irving ever stated.

A film is by its very nature an artistic creation and therefore has the benefit of "poetic license". Inaccuracies therefore can never be sued, just as inaccuracies in poems cannot be sued.
A different matter is a newspaper. Newspapers that publish inaccuracies or lies are liable to prosecution, because they are supposed to tell the truth.

A film like this is supposed to be pure history. It is not an "artistic creation" at all. There is a distinct line between fact and fiction, and this film is clearly intended as fact. A big problem is that the actual words of the leading actor (who, by the way, is named David Irving in the film) are recorded in reliable sources!

A film based on a book by a participant in a libel trial is no different than a newspaper's account ... or an op-ed written by the same participant.

I think there is a good case for some kind of complaint. The movie business should not get away with creating its own version of history ... even though it has for many, many years.

Has there ever been a precedent of a film being sued for inaccuracies?

This report from 1997 says that Henry Kissinger sued Turner Classic Movies, and George Wallace was looking into suing, for how they were portrayed in TV dramas. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1241&dat=19970123&id=3VEPAAAAIBAJ...

I think that it's not unusual for ostensibly biographic films to take liberties to make a more entertaining story. I vaguely recall that the movies about Sid Vicious and Jerry Lee Lewis were less than rigorously factual.
But Jerry Lee Lewis and Sid Vicious were dead when the films were made about them, and the portrayals of them were on the positive side. Irving is alive and he is being attacked with this film. I would say that there is something wrong with the law if printed libels can be grounds for legal action but the same libels packaged in a drama that uses the victim's real name are not.

I notice that Michael A. Hoffman created a bowdlerized version of my article that omits any criticism of David Irving. He changed the purpose of what I wrote, from defending Revisionism, to defending David Irving. He also changed the title, and did not include any link to what I wrote.
There is a certain element among self-described Holocaust Revisionists that seems to believe that one ought never to tell the truth when it makes David Irving look bad. I find this a very destructive attitude. Irving really does have significant flaws as an historian, and I can't see why Holocaust Revisionism should soil its own credibility with efforts to hide Irving's faults.
That is not the way forward.