Hieldner wrote:.....
I agree that the producers made a point out of Lipstadt’s appearance themselves by choosing Weisz, so this issue is okay to be debated and even ridiculed, but I think such a characterization unnecessarily damages the narrator’s impartiality, since Lipstadt’s looks don’t need further explanation and judgemental comments like these are better suited at the end of the episode/film, not at the beginning.
.....
Sequence needs to be considered. But taking care that cracking down on Lipstadt doesn't earn her sympathies is the key issue. Remember, she tries to portray herself as being victimized by the supposed bully Irving her. She even went so far to state, she would be defending her "freedom of speech" based on the fact that Irving initiated the trial. I think the best is to rather be sarcastic with figures like Lipstadt, ridicule her that way.
The issue that they picked a younger, more attractive looking and also more soft spoken actress is quite telling and ought to be pointed out in contrast how they dealt with the Irving part.
The movie is for a mass audience and the aim is image building for Holocaust proponents while denigrating the image of Holocaust Revisionists. So it's an attempt of further muddying the waters and setting the playing field in their favor. The traditionally play this game and they certainly need to do that, given that rational arguments aren't their strong part.
PRHL wrote:In the 2nd video, beginning at 0:55, the section with Ricky Gervais and Kate Winslet (and later Leonardo DiCaprio) is very impressive:
Jokes about the Holocaust film industry with "Schindler's bloody list", happiness and hilarity all around ... An interesting insight into Hollywood!
Such insights should be published separately, i.e. without any revisionist context and without any comment. Let such material speak for itself!
Here in Germany, every revisionist work is condemned as a whole. That is: If e.g. a video or a book contains even only one single revisionist opinion, it is illegal as a whole. Even a single footnote in a book, and this footnote even written in Latin, can be enough to make the whole book illegal.
Yes, the sources may be useful. I'm sure there is far more on youtube, but screening takes time and effort.
PRHL wrote:Or take the "Jewish soap": Today, even the German government itself officially spreads the word that the soap story is just a myth. Therefore it would be a good idea for a video to just collect and present videos and books where eyewitnesses talk about the soap. And after having presented all these testimonies, simply show the declaration: According to current German scholars, there has never been Jewish soap.
https://translate.google.de/translate?s ... edit-text=
I recall Lipstadt also disputing the soap tale.
PRHL wrote:A possible source for such a soap video could be the Phil Donahue show with Bradley Smith and David Cole. In that program, Michael Shermer himself first rejects the soap myth, but only a few minutes later, Shermer claims that a caller who tells the soap story is a proof that "the Germans themselves admit the holocaust". Yes, according to Shermer, a completely unknown caller who tells a notoriously false story is a proof that "the Germans" (i.e. all of them) admit the holocaust!
Again: Let it all speak for itself. Do not comment, do no explain, do not underline anything. Just put the quotes together. Otherwise, the whole video will be banned, and it will be illegal to link to it.
Don't recall that, but probably a caller with a thick German accent. Even if for real, it still doesn't prove anything relevant. The government and substantially parts of the elites certainly profess the Holocaust, at least publicly or officially. But was that that proof. Germany essentially has got a puppet regime.
