Post by roverpup on Mar 6, 2017 3:05:32 GMT
We watched Denial tonight and I have to say I think it was a much better movie than a lot of the nominated Oscar films. I see it has a BAFA nomination so I hope it does well there.
I mentioned my interest in this movie in another thread (brought on by BC mentioning it in a recent interview as a movie he was impressed with). Here's my post just for reference -
So I think you can see that it is a little hard for me to be completely objective about the topic and the movie that draws from such a source.
But I will try to look at it less from a personal POV and more just as any other movie I have watched.
First I really like Rachel W. as an actress. In this movie her character was very abrasive during the first half and then she let us see her character undergo a transformation that was important to the growth of the woman who she was portraying. She did all of this in a most convincing manner so that her personality grew on me out of the irritation I had felt initially. You understood why she was so pushy and obstinate when faced with a foreign system of justice that she didn't have any tolerance or understanding.
Even the small nuances were articulated by her so well (like her finally nodding to the presiding judge as he entered the court room).
Tom Wilkinson was a mammoth presence in the film and filled the screen completely with his performance of the barrister Richard Rampton. I absolutely loved his portrayal! He was so complex and steady, completely opposite in every way to Weisz's character. Chalk and cheese for sure but eventually they come to terms and get on the same page to work together. Really lovely dynamic for the whole film.
It was like old home week for Sherlock as well with Mark Gatiss and Andrew Scott also in roles in this film (so taking into mind that RW also played with BC in The Whistleblower, that a total of 3 actors with a connection to him in this movie).
Gatiss was excellent as the Dutch Jewish architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt. It was a small but important role that he did flawlessly.
Andrew Scott - he was just "Wow!" I have never seen him like this and sooooo different from his Moriarty role. I have to admit I wasn't impressed with him in The Hollow Crown - I thought he was just playing Shakespearean Moriarty and camped his way through the performance. But here he was amazing! You couldn't find a shred of Moriarty in his character. He played the Solicitor advocate Anthony Julius who helped prep the protagonist for trial. Just a gobsmacking part and I am super impressed by what he did with it.
And then we come to Timothy Spall as the villain of the piece David Irving. My husband said that they did an excellent job of making him look like the real Irving and Spall's acting did the rest. He was arrogant, aggressive, confident and unrepentant right up to the end. The character you loved to hate because the acting was so fine in reproducing such a bucket of slime. He caught perfectly Irving's conceit and ingrained hatred. A powerful performance for sure!
This movie really made you think as well - it wasn't sentimental but yet it showed emotion when it counted. It also showed a clash of cultures (between the British way of doing things and the American way) without being disrespectful of either one.
A really magnificent film and I would highly recommend it.
I know there were definite parallels drawn in the movie by the makers about re-writing history to suit an agenda and that you shouldn't be allowed to reshape the truth to suit your personal interpretations/paranoias/theories. I think it was poignantly directed at the current political scene one particular country (but a good lesson for all).
But even in a wider, non-political sense it also carried a message (to me at least) to a certain section of the internet - truth shouldn't be made into just another topic of speculation. And I am thinking of something like someone's marriage and child - it shouldn't be an acceptable position to make a real person's life into conspiracy fodder for your entertainment because you are a bored hateful fan (or a butthurt fan). Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to spread hatred and gossip that is hurtful and nothing more than a pack of lies without suffering some kind of consequence for those ill-advised actions. People have to be held accountable for their words - especially when those words incite hateful reactions and further ignorance.
In the end Irving was shown to be unrepentant and sounded much like those SHHaters - loudly claiming victory after being proven wrong, where most honest people would have just slunk away in embarrassment. But it was hollow sounding and the braying of a jackass who didn't recognise when the tide had turned against him and exposed him for the hate-filled person he had always been.
:-))
I mentioned my interest in this movie in another thread (brought on by BC mentioning it in a recent interview as a movie he was impressed with). Here's my post just for reference -
I am especially interested in it because my late BIL was someone who was instrumental in expelling David Iring from Canada. He was an immigration officer who was assigned the case when Irving crossed back into Canada at Niagara Falls. As a result of his fine work my brother-in-law was later reassigned to Ottawa to work on more difficult cases. He and my husband were extremely close as siblings and we had many long talks about the Irving case (and after that there was a DI site set up and Steve's name was prominent in that hate filled diatribe - a bit creepy but also a badge of honour in a way).
I have just now come back from setting it up to view this movie this afternoon. I see it stars Timothy Spall - a familiar name among British actors.
Glad this got me to look this up. And although it also has brought back some painful memories of Steve (he died not too long ago from a rare cancer) it also reminded me of how proud everyone in the family is of his efforts to thwart Neo-Nazis and their attempt to re-write history to suit their own agenda.
:-))
I have just now come back from setting it up to view this movie this afternoon. I see it stars Timothy Spall - a familiar name among British actors.
Glad this got me to look this up. And although it also has brought back some painful memories of Steve (he died not too long ago from a rare cancer) it also reminded me of how proud everyone in the family is of his efforts to thwart Neo-Nazis and their attempt to re-write history to suit their own agenda.
:-))
But I will try to look at it less from a personal POV and more just as any other movie I have watched.
First I really like Rachel W. as an actress. In this movie her character was very abrasive during the first half and then she let us see her character undergo a transformation that was important to the growth of the woman who she was portraying. She did all of this in a most convincing manner so that her personality grew on me out of the irritation I had felt initially. You understood why she was so pushy and obstinate when faced with a foreign system of justice that she didn't have any tolerance or understanding.
Even the small nuances were articulated by her so well (like her finally nodding to the presiding judge as he entered the court room).
Tom Wilkinson was a mammoth presence in the film and filled the screen completely with his performance of the barrister Richard Rampton. I absolutely loved his portrayal! He was so complex and steady, completely opposite in every way to Weisz's character. Chalk and cheese for sure but eventually they come to terms and get on the same page to work together. Really lovely dynamic for the whole film.
It was like old home week for Sherlock as well with Mark Gatiss and Andrew Scott also in roles in this film (so taking into mind that RW also played with BC in The Whistleblower, that a total of 3 actors with a connection to him in this movie).
Gatiss was excellent as the Dutch Jewish architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt. It was a small but important role that he did flawlessly.
Andrew Scott - he was just "Wow!" I have never seen him like this and sooooo different from his Moriarty role. I have to admit I wasn't impressed with him in The Hollow Crown - I thought he was just playing Shakespearean Moriarty and camped his way through the performance. But here he was amazing! You couldn't find a shred of Moriarty in his character. He played the Solicitor advocate Anthony Julius who helped prep the protagonist for trial. Just a gobsmacking part and I am super impressed by what he did with it.
And then we come to Timothy Spall as the villain of the piece David Irving. My husband said that they did an excellent job of making him look like the real Irving and Spall's acting did the rest. He was arrogant, aggressive, confident and unrepentant right up to the end. The character you loved to hate because the acting was so fine in reproducing such a bucket of slime. He caught perfectly Irving's conceit and ingrained hatred. A powerful performance for sure!
This movie really made you think as well - it wasn't sentimental but yet it showed emotion when it counted. It also showed a clash of cultures (between the British way of doing things and the American way) without being disrespectful of either one.
A really magnificent film and I would highly recommend it.
I know there were definite parallels drawn in the movie by the makers about re-writing history to suit an agenda and that you shouldn't be allowed to reshape the truth to suit your personal interpretations/paranoias/theories. I think it was poignantly directed at the current political scene one particular country (but a good lesson for all).
But even in a wider, non-political sense it also carried a message (to me at least) to a certain section of the internet - truth shouldn't be made into just another topic of speculation. And I am thinking of something like someone's marriage and child - it shouldn't be an acceptable position to make a real person's life into conspiracy fodder for your entertainment because you are a bored hateful fan (or a butthurt fan). Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to spread hatred and gossip that is hurtful and nothing more than a pack of lies without suffering some kind of consequence for those ill-advised actions. People have to be held accountable for their words - especially when those words incite hateful reactions and further ignorance.
In the end Irving was shown to be unrepentant and sounded much like those SHHaters - loudly claiming victory after being proven wrong, where most honest people would have just slunk away in embarrassment. But it was hollow sounding and the braying of a jackass who didn't recognise when the tide had turned against him and exposed him for the hate-filled person he had always been.
:-))