MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > Epic Failure- Irving was much more likab...

Epic Failure- Irving was much more likable than Lipstadt

posted 8 years ago by at7000
13 replies | jump to latest

Protagonist was a joke. Totally hateable. To the idiotic, fake, Brooklyn Jewish accent of the 1950s, to the low IQ "I cannot believe she is an academic" quality about her. She was also oblivious to this simple fact- From OJ Simpson to the Kennedy family trials, trust your legal team and never go on the stand. I repeat, Never. An idiot could understand this basic wisdom. Works in USA as well as England.

Irving comes across as thoroughly misguided, but somewhat dignified, in his manners, speech, etc. For the record- I am glad she won the case in real life and I abhor deniers and such. Rachel W. just came across as an idiot, and a vile human being. Did the director of the film not see this?

[–] jkaapa 8 years ago

I think this movie was made too late. Times change so quickly now that calling someone racist to discredit them, kind of blows up in your face. So this is your best argument? I have a feeling it was a misstanke to make this film as it will create more doubters, than if it hadn't been made.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

So this is your best argument?

The verdict didn't say Irving was a liar because he was a racist. It said he was a liar because he's a liar, and that fact was shown in court on point after point after point after point. The movie only had time to dig into one, Irving's intentional mistranslation of an entry in Himmler's diary. There were in the actual trial dozens of points like that where Irving was caught flat out lying, intentionally twisting evidence to support his crank theories. Just blam blam blam blam blam, point after point, Irving got shot down - not because he's a racist, but because he lies so much.

[–] Miscella 8 years ago

trust your legal team and never go on the stand. I repeat, Never.

It would seem that David Irving missed that memo.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

David Irving couldn't afford a legal team and represented himself.

Sounds like Irving was an idiot then -- he couldn't afford a proper case, but he brought it anyway. Nobody made him do it. He's the one who decided to jump up and down on a landmine without adequate armor, and then whine whine whine when the interaction didn't go the way he'd hoped.

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 8 years ago

I don't think it was that he couldn't afford a lawyer, it was that he was too arrogant to think he needed one. He thought he was more intelligent and manipulative than he really was.

[–] speedy1383 8 years ago

Just watched this film and I wondered if anyone else would say something like this. I too am glad she won. I don't know how you can deny the Holocaust. Unconscionable. But Lipstadt was unbelievably unlikable. Time and time and time again, I just wanted her to shut up. The capper was when she was disparaging the judge because god forbid he would have ruled against her. She kept on making her little comments in court. I am surprised the judge didn't tell her to pipe down. I also hated all these middle school looks she was giving Irving in court. She just annoyed me to no end.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

Test

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

The major problem I imagine with the movie (obviously as an alt righter I'm never going to watch it) is how could you make the protagonist ; imho a seriously ugly psychopathic anti white jewess likeable in the first place.

David Hare must have found this a deeply challenging script to conceive.

[–] Mikey-Buckets 8 years ago

Lmao THAT'S what you "imagine" would be your problem with the film? But not that your prophet was so laughably shown to be a liar in everything he says? Huh, strange...

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

He was one man against an all powerful system. In terms of film mythology story prototypes it goes against all templates. I don't know they thought it would work.

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 8 years ago

I agree, she was definitely unlikable but maybe it took those personality traits to be the one to finally say no to this man. I personally think people should be allowed to say what they want though and she should have been willing to debate with him, although I know that debating with people like this can be very frustrating because they are so stubborn in their beliefs, they refuse to even consider another persons viewpoint (I guess the same can be said about her but she wasn't the one falsifying evidence!) By refusing to even discuss his views she was allowing him to continue spouting more nonsense uncontested (I believe it's better to fight them with facts than insults).

[–] Edzachery 8 years ago

"Irving was much more likable"

Which part of him did you "lik" ?

His @rse or his b@ll:cks ?