DVD - 2017
Average Rating:
Rate this:
When Deborah Lipstadt speaks out against Holocaust denier David Irving over his falsification of history, she discovers that the stakes are higher than ever in the battle for historical truth. Now faced with a libel lawsuit in British court, Lipstadt and her attorney have the heavy burden of proving that the Holocaust actually happened, in a riveting legal fight with stunning consequences.
Publisher: Universal City, CA : Universal Pictures Home Entertainment, [2017]
Edition: DVD, Widescreen
Copyright Date: ©2017
Branch Call Number: DVD DENIAL 1DISC
Characteristics: video file,DVD video,region 1,DVD
digital,optical,surround,Dolby Digital 5.1,DVD
1 videodisc (111 min.) : sound, color ; 4 3/4 in


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Jul 24, 2017

Directed by Mick Jackson and written by David Hare, based on Deborah Lipstadt's book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier", this docudrama depicts courtroom drama, in which David Irving, a Nazi Germany scholar, manipulates the evidence and the defence lawyer outsmarts him.
Although the outcome is well-known, the film tuns out to be a well-crafted entertaining piece.
But I hate this scratchy disc.

Because this movie was based on a true story, I found it interesting and disturbing at the same time. How, if the year is late 1990's do people deny the holocaust happened? The ensuing court case answers that question. NF

Jul 16, 2017

Well acted and suspenseful court room drama

Jun 08, 2017

A good narrative of the Holocaust Denial trial, which maintained suspense and got all the essential details; but to be honest, I preferred Lipstadt's book to the movie.

Jun 06, 2017

Great movie and cast.

Jun 05, 2017

Great movie that was directed and acted by very capable people. Definitely one worth watching.

Jun 04, 2017

Excellent movie. Definately recommend this movie. Rachel Weisz was amazing as were the other actors. I have to commend the actor who played the denier David Irving, he was the perfect actor for the part. His demeanour, looks and mannerisms were perfect for the part.

May 31, 2017

This movie was EXCELLENT! Surprisingly -- we did not recognize a single actor is this movie -- yet the caliber of performance by every one of them was exceptional. The story line was not only riveting, but very thought provoking and raised complex issues about how to deal with those seeking to pervert the truth and mislead others. I loved it.

May 30, 2017

A very eye opening movie of the court case against brought by a man who has denied the holocaust. Evidence of survivors is not given at trial, which is a new aspect in prosecution.
A disappointing portrayal by Rachel Weisz.

May 22, 2017

Could have been more powerful, but for the overemphasis on the fact that most people don't understand what a court case is really about ...

View All Comments


Add a Quote

Feb 17, 2017

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie, and then expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal and some things happen, just like we say they do. Slavery happened. The Black Death happened. The Earth is round. The ice caps are melting and Elvis is not alive.
I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. I say to you quite tastelessly that more women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.

Feb 17, 2017

Well, all historians make mistakes.
-But there is a difference between negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness which is far more one-sided. All Mr. Irving's little fictions, all his tweaks of the evidence, all tend in the same direction,
the exculpation of Adolf Hitler. He is, to use an analogy, like the waiter who always gives the wrong change.
If he is honest, we may expect sometimes his mistakes to favor the customers, sometimes himself. But Mr. Irving is the dishonest waiter. All his mistakes work in his favor. How far, if at all, Mr. Irving's anti-Semitism is the cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or individually
it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian in favor of a bogus
rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti-Semitic propaganda.

Feb 17, 2017

Well, the man's an anti-Semite and a racist. It's like having shxt on your shoe. You wipe it off. You don't study it.
I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news... followed by a lady reading the less important news... followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news on muggings and drug busts.
My question is this, if somebody is anti-Semitic and extremist, he is perfectly capable of being honestly
anti-Semitic, yes? He's holding those views and expressing those views because they are indeed his views?
-Well, yes.
And so it seems to me, if it comes down to it, that the anti-Semitism is a completely separate allegation and has precious little bearing on your broader charge that he has manipulated the data?

Feb 17, 2017

And all I have is my voice and my conscience and I have to listen to it.
-Your conscience?
Yes. They're strange things, consciences. Trouble is, what feels best isn't necessarily what works best. I mean, by all means, stand up, look the devil in the eye, tell him what you feel. Why not? It's very satisfying.
See what happens. And risk losing. Not just for yourself. For the others. For everyone. Forever.
Richard Evans gave us plenty of places where Irving got his facts wrong. But we have to prove he got 'em wrong intentionally.
I find the whole Holocaust story utterly boring. ... The Jews keep going on about the Holocaust because it's the only interesting thing which has happened to them in 3,000 years.... I'm not interested in the Holocaust,
I don't know anyone who is.

Feb 17, 2017

Professor, would you agree it is the duty of historians to remain completely unemotional?
-One's duty is to be unemotional, to be objective, but one's duty, I think, is to remain human in the exercise.
He's making it respectable to say that there are two points of view. People are gonna see the news now
and they're gonna think, "Oh, okay. "Some people think there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, "and, oh, this is interesting, some people don't."
Remember the Zundel trial. Remember the Exodus trial. They were torn apart. Because survivors don't remember. Not every detail. They forget something. They say a door was on the left, when actually it was on the right, and then, wham! Irving's in. You see? "They're liars, you can't trust anything they say."

Feb 17, 2017

Yeah. Yes, we know what it is. It's how we prove what it is, that's what we're interested in. We're not here on a pilgrimage, we're preparing a case.
Why would you give away our strategy?
-Deborah, there is no strategy. We're gonna box him in with the truth.
He is a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.
We can criticize his methods, but it's his conclusions we have to discredit.
The word "denier" is particularly evil. For the chosen victim it is like being called a wife beater or a pedophile. It is enough for the label to be attached for the attachee to be designated a pariah, an outcast from normal society. It is a verbal Yellow Star.
He used to be a Holocaust denier, and now he's a verdict denier.

Feb 17, 2017

But he's an anti-Semite. You'd be amazed how many military historians see that as just a detail. They see him
as a serious historian who happens to see things from Hitler's point of view.
-Yeah, but it's not a detail.
You know, I think it's at the center of everything he thinks and does.
-So do I. Yeah. He's a liar and a falsifier of history.
You see, as I see it, it's academia versus the rest. Remember, the greatest historians have never been academics. We're outsiders. Cato, Thucydides, Gibbon, Churchill... I field a very strong team.
What if we lose? Huh? It suddenly becomes acceptable, it becomes respectable to say the Holocaust didn't happen? Has anyone thought about what that will mean? But the wonderful thing is, you see, if we play this right, it's not going to be Irving putting the Holocaust on trial. No. It's going to be us putting Irving on trial.

Feb 17, 2017

You can have opinions about the Holocaust. You can argue about why it happened and how it happened.
But what I won't do is meet with anyone, anyone, who says it didn't happen. Because the Holocaust happened. It happened. And that isn't opinion. That's fact. And I won't debate fact.
What did you say about him?
-I think I called him a Hitler partisan who distorted evidence in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.
In Britain, solicitor and barrister are two quite different functions.
Over here in America, uh, if you're accused of defaming someone, then it's up to them to prove that what you said is untrue.
-In the UK, the reverse is true.

Feb 17, 2017

Holocaust denial rests on four basic assertions. Number one. That there was never any systematic or organized attempt by the Nazis to kill all of Europe's Jews. Number two. That the numbers are far fewer than five or six million. Number three. That there were no gas chambers or specially built extermination facilities.
Number four. That the Holocaust is therefore a myth invented by Jews to get themselves financial compensation and to further the fortunes of the State of Israel. War, the deniers say, is a bloody business.
There's nothing special about the Jews, they're not unique in their suffering. They're just everyday casualties of war. What's the fuss?
"Well, you know, maybe Irving actually believes it. He's an anti-Semite and he believes it. You can't accuse
someone of lying if they genuinely believe what they're saying." That's crazy. That's insane.


Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number


Subject Headings


Find it at SCCLD

To Top