MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > the twist with the judge at the end

the twist with the judge at the end

posted 8 years ago by civ-e
2 replies | jump to latest

regarding the question of "is being anti-semitic related to believing false informatoin about the holocaust". what does it matter whether irving actually "believed" his false information or not, when he's not the one being tried. since his claims about the holocaust had already been disproven (why that was even argued in court i don't even know but let's let it be), then the defense should already be off the hook for defaming him, so why does it still matter? did the whole tension scene with the judge at the end imply that, if the judge thought that irving actually *believed* in his own false claims about the holocaust, that irving should then have won the case? how absurd is it.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

In UK libel law, the burden of proof is on the one sued, not the one who sues.

Lidstadt claimed Irving was a liar about the Holocaust and an anti-Semite. Irving sued her for both. That meant she had to show she was right on both points. So the thing with the judge was that they were suddenly not sure whether they'd gotten the anti-Semitism case across. Then the verdict came in and it chopped Irving to pieces.

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 8 years ago

For me I thought it was about whether he was a liar or just wrong.. lying is an intentional act to mislead and I think the judge was saying that Irvings beliefs were honest (even if they were incorrect and abhorrent). They had to prove that he was intentionally manipulating facts rather than just innocently misunderstanding them. I am sure he was completely oblivious of his racism at least, he honestly believed that having a black servant exonerated him, in the film at least, he didn't seem to understand why people would find him using this as an excuse as odd.