[3.5/4.0]
When examining controversial subjects, discussions often diverge into the emotional dimensions of the topics involved. This makes it difficult to present a story based around a charged issue, because there is the temptation to delve into the more sensational aspects. With this film, veteran documentary filmmaker Errol Morris examines an individual connected with two grave subjects, capital punishment and the Holocaust.
The film begins by showing the main character, Fred Leuchter, sitting inside a metal cage that is rising towards a Van De Graaff generator. The artificial lightning repeatedly strikes strikes the cage, symbolizing the controversy surrounding Leuchter. Then the narrative slowly explores Leuchter's background, mostly in first person. He immediately strikes the viewer as an odd character, with his mousy appearance and whiny voice with a thick Boston accent. Morris' films usually focus on individuals with odd or amusing interests and passions, and this film is no different.
Leuchter has been associated with death and execution all his life. His father worked at a prison, and growing up in that environment gave Fred and interest in capital punishment. He taught himself the repair and design of electric chairs. Eventually his interest branched out into other forms of execution equipment, and he grew from a self-taught technician to an engineer with a successful business. Few people work in his field, so Leuchter established himself and designed electric chairs, gas chambers, and gallows for the penal system for several states.
Through this point in the story, Leuchter is an interesting character, but hardly a controversial one. In fact, he even appears compassionate. He is driven by the desire to make execution efficient and humane. His primary concern is for the safety and dignity of both the the executioner and the condemned. Although the tone of the subject is morbid, there are numerous instances of odd humor based on the quirkiness of Leuchter's character, like his claim to drink 40 cups of coffee a day.
The film then proceeds to examine the source of Leuchter's infamy--his role supporting Holocaust denial. There are few topics as charged as the mass slaughter of Jews that took place in Nazi Germany during the middle of the Twentieth Century. It is a tragedy of such immense scope that today it symbolically represents the lowest depths of evil to which modern man can sink. However, there still remain a small minority of Nazi sympathizers who dispute that the Holocaust actually happened. Their claims of distorted pro-semitic propaganda are not usually taken seriously, and the historical fact of its occurance is not an open topic for objective analysis. When one particular Holocaust denier seeks to scientifically examine whether the Holocaust actually occurred, he is unable to find anyone who is willing to even consider the question, except Fred Leuchter.
Unlike most people involved in this inquiry, Leuchter has no political agenda. He is willing to keep an open mind and use forensic evidence to determine whether six million individuals could have been killed by the Nazi regime. Leuchter feels that as an expert on execution methodology, he can determine whether the facilities proportedly used for the mass killings were actually used. Leuchter travels to the remains of a death camp and surreptitiously takes samples of the site. He meticulously documents his research, including ample videotaping of his activities. The viewer sees the diminutive, unassertive man crawling through all parts of the historical site with a hammer and chisel, chipping off pieces of the buildings so he can have them tested for cyanide residue.
After he returns home, he has the samples analyzed and finds that there is no basis, according to his knowledge of execution procedures, to say that mass killings could have taken place. He publishes a paper detailing this finding, and the infamous "Leuchter Report" completely alters his life. It is obvious to the viewer that Leuchter has made a Faustian bargain. He overestimated his knowledge of the scientific basis of his testing. He took on an important study as an expert in the field that boosted his ego, but it makes him more enemies than friends. Eventually, Leuchter is shown in his present situation where his wife has left him, he has become unemployable, and his only admirers are people that no one takes seriously. He is merely a pawn in a larger political game, but it is a role he entered voluntarily, without assessing the consequences.
Unlike the majority of Holocaust deniers, Leuchter come across as pitiable rather than evil. Most are anti-semitic radicals who believe the Holocaust was an exaggeration, and are looking for proof to support that belief. Leuchter, on the other hand, approaches the topic from a completely objective perspective. He makes no assumptions, and uses his expert knowledge to extract scientific evidence that either support or contradict historical Holocaust claims. Ultimately the film paints him as a pathetic victim of his own ego. Although he is an expert on constructing execution machines, he is not qualified to be an investigator of historical events. Interviews with other experts reveal the fatal flaws with Leuchter's approach and methods. Being in the middle of such heated controversy, most observers are split into two groups, the fringe radicals who support him and believe his conclusions, and the majority who denounce him as a tool for hatred. Morris' film carefully avoids judgments and allows the viewers to see the man clearly and allows the alternate assessment, that he is simply a naive, pitiful fool who allowed his ego to drag him into his own ruin.
The style of the film is different than what is typically seen in documentaries in that actual footage is mixed with dramatizations. These dramatizations are done for viseral effect. For example, there is plenty of footage of Leuchter rummaging through the ruins of Auchwitz, but there is also footage of Leuchter re-enacting those actions in a studio, as an eerily backlit silhouette. By using contrived scenes such as these, Morris is not augmenting the factual basis of the narrative, but he is accentuating the imagery in order to build mood. It is a bold style for a documentarian, and a technique that Morris has perfected.
Highly recommended. The film deals with difficult and sensitive subject matter, and although it is mostly free of disturbing imagery, the topics discussed may be disturbing to sensitive viewers. That same dimension makes it a powerful and thought provoking exploration of an individual. Director Errol Morris skillfully navigates the narrative through many charged subjects, but consistently keeps the focus on the examination of the central character. He is brought to life and objectively displayed for the audience to dissect and examine for themselves.
(c) 2000 Murali Krishnan The Art House Squatter http://ArtHouseSquatter.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews