Leonard Nimoy's acting is, as usual, superb and the story moves along at a decent pace--never edge of your seat excitement but not dragging anywhere either. The problem is that it takes a fairly complex court case and turns it into a good v evil morality play. This often happens when movies are made based on real events because rarely are the actual events compelling enough to hold an audience.
The problem with the movie is that the viewer is left with the impression that Mel Mermelstein--a Holocaust survivor--took on a vast, well-financed, powerful network of neo-Nazi extremists who believe the Holocaust is a myth and was able to prove once and for all in a court of law that the Nazi Holocaust did indeed occur and thereby score a great victory for historical truth.
In actuality, the case was not about whether or not the Holocaust occurred but whether or not Mel Mermelstein had a valid contract with the Institute for Historical Review. Mr. Mermelstein did get the judge in the case to take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.
This, however, was not a major coup for historical truth nor was it anything new. As far back as 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried the Nazi war criminals took judicial notice of the fact that Jews were murdered in gas chambers at Auschwitz--and that Jews were murdered in 'steam chambers' at Treblinka while at Belsen they were killed in a room with an electric floor.
A fact is not proved to be true when a court takes judicial notice of it. Theoretically, a court should only take judicial notice of a fact because it has already been proved to be true. The fact that a judge in California took judicial notice of gas chambers at Auschwitz has meaning only to lawyers in a court room in California. It means nothing to a historian.
In the movie, Mel Mermelstein proves that the Holocaust is true and the IHR is forced to pay him the $50,000 they offered to anybody who could prove a single Jew was gassed at Auschwitz and they are forced to apologize to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety and to acknowledge that Jews were indeed gassed at Auschwitz.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The IHR in actuality settled out of court before trial because litigating the case would easily cost more than what Mr Mermelstein was asking in damages. The IHR did not have to acknowledge that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, although they wrote an apology to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety, they did not apologize for questioning the official holocaust story.
There'a a big difference between a husband who tells his wife he is sorry that he came home drunk last night and the husband who tells his wife he's sorry that she was angry at him for coming home drunk last night. The IHR apology is along the lines of the latter. They said they were sorry that Mel Mermelstein got upset that the IHR asked for proof of gassings at Auschwitz. The IHR did not apologize for asking for proof of gassings at Auschwitz.
The movie ends with the historical truth of the Auschwitz gas chambers triumphing over the evil of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, all because one man had the courage to speak the truth. As far as genuine Holocaust scholarship is concerned however, Mel Mermelstein contributed nothing to our understanding. He did not submit any evidence that Jews were ever gassed at Auschwitz to either the IHR or to the courts. As far as the offer the IHR originally made in 1979--$50,000 to anyone who can prove that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz--Mel Mermelstein was able to provide an affidavit of his own experiences at Auschwitz but nothing more. He submitted nothing that addressed the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. He didn't even say that he saw the gas chambers with his own eyes!! To this day, Mel Mermelstein has not proved that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz and nobody else has submitted any proof of gas chambers at Auschwitz in connection with the IHR contest either.
The fact that anybody watching this movie would believe that they understand the basic facts of this case but instead would have no idea of what really happened is what makes the movie so awful in my mind. It would be a pretty good little flick if it was presented as a work of fiction. Presenting it as based loosely on the truth is misleading at best and is more accurately described as a demonstrable fraud.
The problem with the movie is that the viewer is left with the impression that Mel Mermelstein--a Holocaust survivor--took on a vast, well-financed, powerful network of neo-Nazi extremists who believe the Holocaust is a myth and was able to prove once and for all in a court of law that the Nazi Holocaust did indeed occur and thereby score a great victory for historical truth.
In actuality, the case was not about whether or not the Holocaust occurred but whether or not Mel Mermelstein had a valid contract with the Institute for Historical Review. Mr. Mermelstein did get the judge in the case to take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.
This, however, was not a major coup for historical truth nor was it anything new. As far back as 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried the Nazi war criminals took judicial notice of the fact that Jews were murdered in gas chambers at Auschwitz--and that Jews were murdered in 'steam chambers' at Treblinka while at Belsen they were killed in a room with an electric floor.
A fact is not proved to be true when a court takes judicial notice of it. Theoretically, a court should only take judicial notice of a fact because it has already been proved to be true. The fact that a judge in California took judicial notice of gas chambers at Auschwitz has meaning only to lawyers in a court room in California. It means nothing to a historian.
In the movie, Mel Mermelstein proves that the Holocaust is true and the IHR is forced to pay him the $50,000 they offered to anybody who could prove a single Jew was gassed at Auschwitz and they are forced to apologize to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety and to acknowledge that Jews were indeed gassed at Auschwitz.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The IHR in actuality settled out of court before trial because litigating the case would easily cost more than what Mr Mermelstein was asking in damages. The IHR did not have to acknowledge that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, although they wrote an apology to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety, they did not apologize for questioning the official holocaust story.
There'a a big difference between a husband who tells his wife he is sorry that he came home drunk last night and the husband who tells his wife he's sorry that she was angry at him for coming home drunk last night. The IHR apology is along the lines of the latter. They said they were sorry that Mel Mermelstein got upset that the IHR asked for proof of gassings at Auschwitz. The IHR did not apologize for asking for proof of gassings at Auschwitz.
The movie ends with the historical truth of the Auschwitz gas chambers triumphing over the evil of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, all because one man had the courage to speak the truth. As far as genuine Holocaust scholarship is concerned however, Mel Mermelstein contributed nothing to our understanding. He did not submit any evidence that Jews were ever gassed at Auschwitz to either the IHR or to the courts. As far as the offer the IHR originally made in 1979--$50,000 to anyone who can prove that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz--Mel Mermelstein was able to provide an affidavit of his own experiences at Auschwitz but nothing more. He submitted nothing that addressed the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. He didn't even say that he saw the gas chambers with his own eyes!! To this day, Mel Mermelstein has not proved that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz and nobody else has submitted any proof of gas chambers at Auschwitz in connection with the IHR contest either.
The fact that anybody watching this movie would believe that they understand the basic facts of this case but instead would have no idea of what really happened is what makes the movie so awful in my mind. It would be a pretty good little flick if it was presented as a work of fiction. Presenting it as based loosely on the truth is misleading at best and is more accurately described as a demonstrable fraud.