Heir To An Execution

2004
Heir To An Execution
7| 1h39m| en| More Info
Released: 01 January 2004 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Journalist Ivy Meeropol makes her directorial debut with Heir to an Execution, a personal documentary exploring the execution of her biological grandparents: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. In 1953, the Rosenbergs were put to death by the U.S. government with the charge of conspiracy to commit wartime espionage. Their orphaned young children were adopted by the Meeropol family, who raised them with the belief that their real parents were innocent. After working as a magazine reporter and political speechwriter for much of her career, director Meeropol conducted her own intimate investigation of her grandparents. The film includes commentary from the Rosenbergs' friend Morton Sobell (also convicted, but released from prison in 1969) and the director's father, Michael Meeropol. Produced by filmmaker Marc Levin, Heir to an Execution was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in 2004 as part of the documentary competition

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Reviews

Glilyerami I'm not sure how any of the other reviews were 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, etc. "A sophomoric attempt at film-making" Amen!!! This is truly one of the worse documentaries. Not only are the facts inaccurate, distorted, and omitted, but also the credibility of the witnesses ivy meerpool interviews leaves viewers who were unsure of the Rosenbergs certain of their guilt. In short, no credibility. Especially the over reaching grand daughters with scenes of hyperbolic emotion. Growing up with biased and hearsay. Even Meerpools methods as a pseudo journalist with follow- up questions was baffling. Meerpool makes the assumption that everyone knows the story, which with this case, she shouldn't have--filmmaking 101, Journalism 101. Attempting to persuade the audience emotionally and with "evidence" that her grandparents were wrongly convicted, as a rhetorician I would use this film as a failing attempt and untrustworthy.
ShempMyMcMalley 7/10 This is a pretty good documentary, directed by the Rosenberg's blood granddaughter Ivy Meeropol, it covers in more detail the relationship the trial and execution has had on the family, than on the the actual trial and evidence. It is clear and objectively shown that indeed it has had an arrant multigenerational effect and most likely will continue with the director's children. However, important in the film was the revelation of information contained in the 1995 opening of classified government documents (The Venona Papers) which pretty much proves Julius' guilt (guilty of passing secrets, but nothing supposedly as serious as atomic info) and exonerates Ethel. This is presented as a surprise in the film, although this information was revealed nearly a decade before the film had been made. We spend half the film getting to this point, whereas the film would've been much more effective and in-depth if it would've started off at this point. I only say this 'cause the degree to which the guilt, or degree of guilt affects this family's identity, is highly relevant and the major theme of the documentary. This, and Morton Sobell's incomplete answers to the nature of their guilt (he was their co-defendant!!) made the film seem a little more biased than it had to be. The film also in a way martyrizes the Rosenbergs, which is fine if they were innocent, but a sad and unavoidable manipulation if not. Overall, this is slightly nitpickish on my part and anyone interested in this era of history will not be disappointed.
Strausszek I saw this documentary investigation on TV recently, and it seems obvious it raises some questions about the Cold War era and about the kind of pressures that may apply in a courtroom. We'll probably never know just how far Julius Rosenberg, in particular, was involved in the top ranks of Soviet espionage on the U.S., or why he took what he must have known were grave personal risks to himself and his family. The accusation at the time that he'd "sold the secret of the atomic bomb to the Russians" was certainly an exaggeration; other people like Klaus Fuchs and British physicists seem to have handed over much more, and anyone interested in the era and the Soviet infiltration of the Manhattan project should read Allen Weinstein's "The Haunted Wood" - a pioneer work on Soviet espionage in America in the 40s and early 50s, written together with an ex-KGB veteran, and a book that makes real use of the Russian intelligence archives. One point he makes is that the NKVD (the KGB of the time) espionage activity in the U.S. seems to have declined sharply in the late 40s, and it had become really hard to find new agents (Mr Rosenberg may have been recruited as early as around 1940).Anyway, Meeropol's film takes no unequivocal stance on her grandparents' innocence. Her father believed in it for a long time, but he points out that the Venona telegrams (released in '95) seem to put this in doubt. On the other hand, the question of just why the atomic bombs were used on Japan is still debated among historians. The clips of Nixon ("if you set out to shoot rats, make sure you shoot'em straight!") and McCarthy make a powerful, if a bit predictable, picture of the paranoia. I just read a review in the ultra-right Frontpage magazine which poured venom on this film, labeling it a clever and cold propaganda work, meant to exonerate the Rosenbergs. This is bullshit; the movie is much more about the human cost of this sort of heavily publicized show trials, and about how even the nearest relatives drew off (not *one* of the next-of-kin would pick up the Rosenberg boys after the trial and execution). In one poignantly funny scene, Ms Meeropol's father recalls how he realized the role of David Greenglass in giving away his parents - he still had to pay a heavy price - and says: "I wanted to go to whatever little place where he lived now, sneak up behind him and purr "Ex-con!" He'd say, No, wait a minute, just don't talk that loud - and I'd raise my voice to a shattering "EX-CON!!" "Of course, a while later, Ivy Meeropol tells him (and us) how she felt exactly the same when she read about the case in school.The Rosenbergs were just two of the many people who were credited with low motives and acts of treason in these years, but because they seem so everyday (in a positive sense) the fragments of their story get all the more poignant.
williamdoug2001 The entire film is based on a fallacy and therefore makes it difficult to watch. Ivy basis the documentary on the misleading notion that her grandparents are not guilty of being traitors. The facts are that her grandparents were spies. Later, her father Michael says, Julius might have helped the Soviets, but Julius did not do what the government accused him of. Then another person says Ethel was only being a loyal wife.The film is a sophomoric effort to understand the dark stain on her family. The camera work, editing, and narration are all weak. Ivy should have created a documentary on what caused the executions. It wasn't 'red scare', or 'communist witch-hunts'. It was because Julius and Ethel were spies for the Soviets. They are both guilty of betraying their country.