Sunday, 29 January 2017

My review of #Denialmovie

Even if I was initially very sceptical of its ability to tell anything approaching the truth, already disgusted by the deliberate miscasting: ex-supermodel Rachel Weisz - the wife of James Bond, no less - playing the spinster who lives alone with a dog while Britain's ugliest actor Timothy Spall was chosen to play David Irving - an undeniably attractive man when younger with the looks of a matinee idol, I was very glad I saw it.  I did enjoy David Hare's adaptation of The Master Builder at the Old Vic last year and had a vague memory of thinking Wetherby terribly profound in my youth.

The other annoying thing is that Rachel Weisz did not even have a proper dialogue coach so she could learn to speak with a proper Queens accent which is Deborah Lipstadt's and only had a very anodyne mid-Atlantic accent. The Queens accent is also the accent of Donald Trump, the Great Emperor of the West. Yes, I know it is  a bit much expecting Rachel Weisz to talk like Trump, but like to think Miriam Margolyes would have done it better. Margolyes is obviously more suited for all sorts of reasons to playing the part of a spinster living alone with her dog.

Miriam Margolyes - the Jewish British actress who should have played Deborah Lipstadt in my view doing many Jewish accents on Johnny Carson. Isn't she just great? Rachel Weisz is not a patch on her. But perhaps it is not too late. A remake of Denial could be made, but this time told from David Irving's perspective, with a properly handsome actor playing David Irving setting women's hearts a-flutter ...

One cannot help wondering if David Irving managed to drag himself to the cinema to see it and whether he spotted his fatal error when he agreed to a judge-only trial.

In the film Anthony Julius and Irving are in front of the judge. (Julius had earlier told Lipstadt that getting a judge-only trial would be key to winning. Lipstadt asked how he would manage to get Irving to agree and Julius said he would appeal to Irving's vanity.)

Scene in the Judge's Chambers where Julius asks the judge for a judge-only trial:

Irving raises his eyebrows.

Julius points out that many of the facts the jury must understand in order to arrive at their verdict are technical and complex, requiring a lifetime's study. They cannot be expected to understand easily and quickly what it took Irving a lifetime to understand.

Irving immediately agrees. 

I feel almost certain that a gentile English jury would have given David Irving the benefit of the doubt while a single judge would have succumbed to all kinds of dark forces trying to influence him to find against David Irving.  Twelve jury members would be just a bit harder to nobble than a single judge, in my view.

Poor old Sally Bercow too lost her case because a single judge decided that she had libelled the late Lord McAlpine in a tweet. It is simply unimaginable that twelve tweeting jury members would have found an emoticon of a surprised face libellous, as Justice Tugendhat found.

I am no Holocaust bore and find the technicalities of whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz or anywhere else frankly quite unintelligible, unconvincing on both sides.

The judgment was presented on 11 April 2000, although the lawyers had received the decision 24 hours earlier.

In the film, journalists outside the Royal Courts of Justice were complaining that, although they had read the judgment, they were quite unable to tell from its reasoning whom the judge would favour in his decision.

It is therefore still not clear to me how David Irving falsified the evidence beyond interpreting it in a way that departed from the official version and being guilty of infuriating the powers that be.
is an example of an exchange I had with someone who claimed to have read a book on the David Irving trial I have confessed not to have read, but who was quite unable to explain in any intelligible way how Irving falsified the evidence.

It was almost as if Justice Gray was given 1 + 1, but inexplicably said the sum was 3. Even more inexplicably, nobody has pointed out this error and everyone just went along with it.

In practice therefore, even though Holocaust Denial is not officially a crime in the UK, it is in fact treated as if it were one, so beware.

Alison Chabloz is undeniably denying the Holocaust in this song here, but as far as I know, it is legal to deny the Holocaust in the UK. However, will the Jews get her anyway on 24 March 2017?

If they do manage to nail her for Holocaust Denial when there is in fact no law against Holocaust Denial in this country, would that not be a blatant display of Jewish power?

And if this Jewish power is displayed, why are Jews - who are supposed to be a clever people - surprised that the gentiles subject to this Jewish power in their own land in which the majority of people are gentile would resent it?

Is their resentment not increased exponentially when they are told they cannot complain or criticise those whom they feel have the whip hand over them?

If I were a Jewess exercising such power over the majority of gentiles, I like to think I would have the good grace to allow them to complain about me. If you allow people to complain about you, you would have a greater understanding of their grievance than if you arrogantly dismissed all complaints as motivated from people who not deserve to have their concerns and grievances aired. Most unwise. However much you despise the goyim hoi polloi, they are still the majority and understandably wish to enjoy the right to free speech in their own land, which is supposedly part of the Free West in which free speech is enjoyed.

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Why do so many Jews hate any sensible move or gentile leader if he says or does anything to protect his national interest?

I seem to remember Hitler often conflating with Jews with Liberals in Mein Kampf. Perhaps there is an argument that only observant Jews are Jews. Unobservant Jews should not even be alive, according to This means that the halakha, which states that a person is Jewish if his mother is is a damnable innovation, because the Torah should trump all other competing and subsequent views on who is a Jew.

A Liberal Jew is an assimilated Jew.

An assimilated Jew is a Jew that has assimilated into degenerate goyim liberalism.

Will I now be accused of anti-Semitism?

These days, you are accused of being an anti-Semite if a Jew hates you!

If liberals hate truth and logic, then it follows that an assimilated liberal Jew would also hate truth and logic. Sensible observant and Orthodox Jews tend to agree with me, I find.

 Irving mentions Lipstadt from the 17th minute

From the 29th minute, I ask him questions about his libel action and Denial, which he hadn't seen, to my annoyance.

From the 36th minute the Kol Nidre is mentioned by David Irving.

The vows annulled at Kol Nidre do not include vows made to people and this includes gentiles, only to God. In other words, the purpose of Kol Nidre is not a licence to not keep promises to people, but is intended to make the promisor think which vows to God he will renew after Kol Nidre and which he will allow to expire, if they are found to be foolish or redundant. This is an excellent idea giving us a chance to perform an annual review of promises made to God and decide on their necessity, folly or redundancy, which can only increase our wisdom and self-knowledge.

Below is a talk by Rabbi Sacks on the nature and purpose of Kol Nidre. It does not mention my suggested reason, but my theory hangs together better, in my ever so humble opinion. 



Jane Kelly said...

Your review started well, good lively style but then went off in all directions and forgot to tell us anything much about the film, the acting, direction, intrusive music, script etc.
If I was an editor I would ask you to write it again and stick to the point.

Jane Kelly said...

Irving got himself into this situation because he sued her, a very unwise move.

Claire Khaw said...

I imagine Irving thought he would win when he sued her.

I shall just say that it is on the whole worth seeing, if you are interested in these things. It is not completely one-sided and it is not the kind of thing you see for fun, but in the hope of being better informed.

I did feel better-informed about Holocaust Denial afterwards, so it was worth seeing.