jakubmike
02-15-17, 11:57 AM
Introduction
Okay first let's talk about one problem with movies "based on facts"... reality lacks narrative structure:rolleyes: In the story we have clearly defined roles, structure, build up, climax etc. Life does not work like that. And it shows.
So what is this movie about?
Basically it is about a libel trial beetwen Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. Irving claims that gas chambers are myth, there are no proof of them existing etc. Lipstadt calls him holocaust denier which he finds offensive and so the stage is set for great trial.
Okay but how is it handled?
Basic premise is fascinating since Lipstadt has to prove beyond shadow of the doubt that Irving is what she said he is (antisemite liar etc.). So why is movie so boring? First of all it takes a lot of bad directing to make a holocaust denier a sympathetic figure... and he is. From the very beginning we see her having a massive team of lawyers, best money can buy, she is swimming in cash from donors so there are no stakes in financial sense meanwhile Irving has no lawyer, he is representing himself.
Before you say anything, of course being underdog does not make you right but it is effective story-telling device and it is hard not to feel a pang of sympathy when you see one old man fighting against an entire team of lawyers. Especially since our main character (Deborah) says nothing at a trial. Yes, we have main character who could be entirely cut out from the movie in the editing room and story would not suffer for it. For most of the movie she is just there, adding nothing to the narrative. And this has to be my main problem with the movie, there is nobody to connect with, her lawyers are cold and unemotional, not exactly guys you want to root for, there is barely any dialogue that would create some kind of connection between characters.
Conclusion
Overall movie is not really interesting but more informative, for person who did not even knew about existence of holocaust deniers (that would be me:D ) it gives you overview of their arguments and debunks them but in terms of actual plot it is hard to get invested, it simply lacks human element. And yes, like I said it is hard to take liberties with a story that is so fresh, which limits options as a director. You simply cannot show anyone as multifaceted complicated character because then you may be sued for something:rolleyes:
I recommend it to people who want to know more about holocaust deniers, their movement and motivation but if you are looking for gripping court-room drama- look elsewhere.
Okay first let's talk about one problem with movies "based on facts"... reality lacks narrative structure:rolleyes: In the story we have clearly defined roles, structure, build up, climax etc. Life does not work like that. And it shows.
So what is this movie about?
Basically it is about a libel trial beetwen Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. Irving claims that gas chambers are myth, there are no proof of them existing etc. Lipstadt calls him holocaust denier which he finds offensive and so the stage is set for great trial.
Okay but how is it handled?
Basic premise is fascinating since Lipstadt has to prove beyond shadow of the doubt that Irving is what she said he is (antisemite liar etc.). So why is movie so boring? First of all it takes a lot of bad directing to make a holocaust denier a sympathetic figure... and he is. From the very beginning we see her having a massive team of lawyers, best money can buy, she is swimming in cash from donors so there are no stakes in financial sense meanwhile Irving has no lawyer, he is representing himself.
Before you say anything, of course being underdog does not make you right but it is effective story-telling device and it is hard not to feel a pang of sympathy when you see one old man fighting against an entire team of lawyers. Especially since our main character (Deborah) says nothing at a trial. Yes, we have main character who could be entirely cut out from the movie in the editing room and story would not suffer for it. For most of the movie she is just there, adding nothing to the narrative. And this has to be my main problem with the movie, there is nobody to connect with, her lawyers are cold and unemotional, not exactly guys you want to root for, there is barely any dialogue that would create some kind of connection between characters.
Conclusion
Overall movie is not really interesting but more informative, for person who did not even knew about existence of holocaust deniers (that would be me:D ) it gives you overview of their arguments and debunks them but in terms of actual plot it is hard to get invested, it simply lacks human element. And yes, like I said it is hard to take liberties with a story that is so fresh, which limits options as a director. You simply cannot show anyone as multifaceted complicated character because then you may be sued for something:rolleyes:
I recommend it to people who want to know more about holocaust deniers, their movement and motivation but if you are looking for gripping court-room drama- look elsewhere.