There are certain subjects that are considered to be taboo, and anyone who challenges them is faced with immediate criticism and stern judgment. However, what those subjects are isn’t universal, and what one person or nation considers to be irrefutable, another might consider to be very much up for debate. Unfortunately, the Holocaust is one such topic, and Denial tells the true story of a noted Holocaust denier’s lawsuit against a historian who dedicated her life to exposing those like him. The film explores a thorough and very technical investigation into larger ideas of guilt and culpability.

British actress Rachel Weisz plays American historian and professor Deborah Lipstadt in this very British adaptation of the real-life libel suit brought by David Irving, an author most famous at that time for his extensive biography of Hitler. Irving’s unexpected appearance at a lecture and book signing of Lipstadt’s includes a stunt in which he offers $1,000 to anyone who can give him incontrovertible proof of the Holocaust, and as the trial begins, he dives even further into the sensational to make his claims, representing himself with the utmost gusto and fervent energy.

Viewers are likely to feel exactly like Lipstadt, who sees the case through a distinctly American lens of right and wrong. She is shocked to discover that, in the United Kingdom, the burden of proof lies on the accused rather than on the accuser. She scoffs at the notion that Irving can say whatever he wants and it is her responsibility to show that it is untrue. Her role in the trial is also not what she expected, as her formidable English legal team instructs her that it would be better for her not to testify, and, worse still, that no Holocaust survivors will be called to the stand.

Keeping both humans and humanity out of the case is a mind-boggling notion, one that might make legal sense but contradicts basic instinct. Prohibiting survivors from testifying is seen as a necessary means to prevent Irving from twisting their stories and dehumanizing them, but making it all about the facts, and not emotional experiences makes this entire ordeal feel awfully scientific. At Auschwitz, Lipstadt chants “El Maleh Rachamim” with another visitor as the sole act of memorialization during an otherwise solely research-related trip with her lawyer, and she snaps at him when he asks questions  that frame the Shoah as purely clinical and legal, that negate the fact that actual people were murdered.

The main argument that Irving uses, which Lipstadt’s legal team seeks to oppose, is that a single inconsistency or mistake can disprove an entire idea. For example, if just one detail is wrong about the remnants of a gas chamber in Auschwitz, then they must never have existed in the first place. The press seizes on a horrible tagline – “No Holes, No Holocaust” – which shows just how much the minutia can matter, especially when it’s magnified to draw the highest readership. And this before the advent of Photoshop and other technological capabilities to deliberately alter and rewrite what has happened. All Irving has is what he says, and that proves to be a very dangerous weapon indeed.

As a film, Denial is pretty straightforward, not filling in too much background about either Lipstadt or Irving and instead getting to the meat of the trial. As with any legal drama, there are ups and downs, and some of the more significant moments are especially stirring, due in part to the film’s lack of flair and straightforward nature.

Weisz and famed British actor Timothy Spall are well-cast opposite each other, Weisz presenting a relatable and sympathetic portrait of a woman fighting for what is right and Spall lending a villainous, sniveling attitude to the large personality that is Irving. Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott also prove useful as far more stoic members of Lipstadt’s legal team, anchoring the emotion of the case and keeping it grounded. As a chronicle of recent history, this film functions well enough, but as a testament to an important and educational piece of history, it’s far more crucial.

Image credit: Laurie Sparham/Bleecker Street

The post Jewcy Review: ‘Denial’ appeared first on Jewcy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

Here’s the thing: It gives one great hope that one can be, say, an academic, and be portrayed in a film by Rachel Weisz. This isn’t to denigrate Lipstadt’s appearance or Weisz’s acting abilities; they just really don’t look alike. Still, at least Weisz is actually a Jewish woman portraying a Jewish woman.

This got me thinking: Who plays Jewish women in biopics, and what do they look like? I dove down the worst kind of rabbit hole: Wikipedia.

In a list of biopics (film or TV), Jews don’t tend to come up often; we’re a minority, fine. But (with the exception of Holocaust movies, ugh) Jewish women seem to be a rarity, and have films depicting their lives and accomplishments far less frequently than men. Furthermore, the women more often tend to be “glammed up” with their casting. It’s easier to be an accomplished actor without outlying attractiveness if you’re a man, and this is especially clear in biopics.

Male Jewish real-life folks on screen have a range of portrayals— in recent or prominent films depicting Jewish men, we’ve had Peter Sarsgaard as Stanley Milgram, Vincent D’Onofrio as Abbie Hoffman,Kevin Spacey as Jack Abromoff, and Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman. None of these men (actors or subjects) read immediately as heartthrobs, and none of the actors are Jewish. Or, you can have schlubby-coded Jewish men play these roles (very recently, Jonah Hill has portrayed Michael Finkel and Efraim Diveroli).

Occasionally, you can have heartthrobs portray Jewish characters: take Allen Ginsberg, who’s been portrayed by both James Franco  and Daniel Radcliffe (both of Jewish descent).

So what of the ladies?

It’s so hard to find real Jewish women portrayed on screen, particularly as the leads, and especially if you remove Holocaust victims and Biblical characters (enough Christian-made films about Esther. Please).

Somewhat recent Jewish women on film include:

• Keira Knightley as psychoanalyst Sabina Spielrein— Jon Stewart once aptly said of Knightley that she “acts with cheekbones so improbable they were probably sprinkled with God Dust,” though to be fair, this film also cast Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, so, an upgrade all around.
  
• Helen Mirren has played Ayn Rand. I’m not even going to touch how ludicrous that is.
  
• An upcoming HBO series about the Madoffs (Bernie is Robert De Niro) has Michelle Pfeiffer as Ruth Madoff.

Note that all of these woman are both Hollywood standards of attractive, and also not Jewish. Once again, there are exceptions; Natalie Portman plays Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an upcoming film, and she’s a Jewish actor. And Gertrude Stein has been played by a range of wonderful actors not cut from the Hollywood glamor mold, both Jewish (like Miriam Margolyes) and Gentile (like Kathy Bates). But honestly, the sample size is too small to get any reliable patterns, which in and of itself is telling.

And so, keep an eye out for my next piece: A list of ideas for Jewish female actresses that could easily star in biopics, and ideas for  who they might portray. We need more examples, period.

In the meantime, please comment below, or tweet Jewcy with your own ideas.  Try to keep both actor and subject of Jewish descent, and if possible, avoid movies about sex symbols,  therefore repeating casting the same three gorgeous Hollywood actors. As in, try to resist casting Mila Kunis as Hedy Lamarr, as great as that might be.

Images via YouTube

The post Jewish Women in Biopics? Part 1 appeared first on Jewcy.