External factors are outside influences that commonly include: television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, literature, advertisements, and government.  In Stuart Hall’s essay, “Encoding/Decoding”, Hall discusses how television, specifically the media, targets a specific audience, and how these messages are interpreted by that audience.  Hall’s theory of encoding and decoding are applied to television, but can also be transferred and synonymous to films and to everyday life.  In the film, Denial, certain opinions on the Holocaust are more dominant than others due to the various messages presented and their interpretations by society, which are utilized within the plot.

It is thought that the process of mass communication occurs in a simplistic, linear fashion.  The cycle starts at the sender, who then producers the message, which finally ends up in the hands of the receiver.  According to Stuart Hall, this is not the case as the process of mass communication occurs in a cycle composing of: the production of the message, the circulation of the message, the distribution and consumption of the message, and the reproduction of the message (Hall 231).  This is the circumstance as the cycle of mass communication is very complex and has many individual layers to it.  

To describe this process, Hall states: 

The “object” of these practices is meanings and messages in the form of sign-vehicles of a specific kind organized, like any form of communication or language, through the operation of codes within the syntagmatic chain of discourse.  The apparatuses, relations and practices of production thus issue, at a certain moment (the moment of “production/circulation”) in the form of symbolic vehicles constituted within the rules of “language”.  It is the discursive form that the circulation of the “product” takes place.  The process thus requires, at the production end, its material instruments- its “means”- as well as its own sets of social (production) relations- the organization and combination of practices within the media apparatus.  But it is in the discursive form that the circulation of the product takes place, as well as its distribution to different audiences (Hall 231).  

Hall begins by stating that there is a distinguished way in which society addresses ideas and presents language.  Hall continues by saying this presentation of language is what produces communication.  However, these ideas that are being presented must also include the foundation and ideas of the media outlet, which in turn produces a unique message.  This message that is presented by the media is then interpreted by the people.  Different people may perceive the message from the same media differently, but there is only one message the media is presenting.  In order to perceive the true meaning that is being presented by the media, one must be able to recognize the unique way in which the media is presenting its ideas.

Hall continues to explain this process by stating that: “In the moment when a historical event passes under the sign of discourse, it is subject to all the complex formal ‘rules’ by which language signifies.  To put it paradoxically, the event must become a ‘story’ before it can become a communicated event.” (Hall 232).  Hall argues that it is crucial to understanding information by examining their origins.  Applying this to media, Hall is saying that it is important to understand where the stories came from, instead of just understanding the message.

To fully understand the aspects of this communicative process, Hall states: “The codes of encoding and decoding may not be perfectly symmetrical.  The degrees of symmetry- that is, the degrees of ‘understanding’ and ‘misunderstanding’ in the communicative exchange- depend on the degrees of symmetry/asymmetry (relations of equivalence) established between the positions of the ‘personifications’, encoder-producer and decoder-receiver.  But this in turn depends on the degrees of identity/non-identity between the codes that has been transmitted.” (Hall, 234).  In these sentences, Hall explains how communication can be unsuccessful when audiences interpret the message of the producer in a way that was unintended by the producer.  This can be attributed to the discrepancies between the devices used by the producers to encode a message, and the devices used by the audience to decode the message.  

To help interpret these discrepancies that cause unsuccessful communication, Hall relates this to three positions people take on the media.  “The first hypothetical condition is that of the dominant-hegemonic position.  When the viewer takes the connoted meaning… and decodes the message in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded, we might say the viewer is operating inside the dominant code.” (Hall 240).  In this situation, the person fully interprets the message as it was intended to and no discrepancies between the sender and the receiver are present.  This position is the perfect position for the dominant society, but rarely happens.  “The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or position…  Decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions… while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules- it operates with exceptions to the rule.” (Hall 241).  This position is when the receiver recognizes the hegemonic position, but adapts it to reflect their own personal interests.  “Finally, it is possible for a viewer perfectly to understand both the literal and the connotative inflection given by the discourse but to decode the message in a globally contrary way.  He/she detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework or reference.” (Hall 241).  This third position is the globally contrary position and it occurs when a message is broken apart to create a new message.  The receiver is in an opposite position from the dominant code and the receiver fully rejects the message.

In America, we currently live in a hegemonic society that agrees that the Holocaust occurred. Using Hall’s vocabulary, the belief that the Holocaust happened is the dominant-hegemonic position. This is the case as this historical event is taught in school curriculum and most people understand that this tragedy truly did take place.  While most people believe the Holocaust did occur, there are some people who deny the Holocaust.  These deniers fall into one of two positions.  According to Deborah Lipstadt, these positions are “hardcore Holocaust deniers and softcore Holocaust deniers” (United States).  The hardcore Holocaust deniers would fall under the “globally contrary position” while the softcore Holocaust deniers would fall under the “negotiated position” (Hall 240-241).

Hardcore Holocaust deniers operate under an extreme viewpoint.  They believe the mass extermination of the Jews during the Holocaust never occurred (United States).  This is essential as these people truly think that this proven event didn’t happen and was a conspiracy.  This is very dangerous as this globally contrary viewpoint is very destructive to society as it spreads menacing ideas.  These ideas threaten the safety of the Jewish community here in America, and throughout the world.  In America, anti-Semitic incidents have increased from 912 incidents in 2014, to 941 incidents in 2015.  This is an alarming increase of about three percent in only a span of one year.  As these incidents increased, so did the violent nature of these attacks.  In 2014, 36 of these incidents were assaults, while in 2015, 56 of the total 941 incidents were assaults (Anti-Semitic).  This is a major increase in violent attacks and is detrimental to society. Another believe of hardcore Holocaust deniers is that the Jews made up the Holocaust for their personal gain.  Many of these hardcore deniers actually think that the Jews made this up to help them get the state of Israel (United States).  This is absolutely absurd and disrespectful as Israel is a place of tradition and value to the Jewish faith, not a product of the Jews lying and saying that the Holocaust happened.  This is also contagious to the rest of society and can cause further persecution for the Jewish community.  

While the hardcore Holocaust deniers are more radical in their beliefs, softcore Holocaust deniers are also hurting society with their skewed viewpoint.  These deniers fall under the negotiated position as they believed the Holocaust occurred, but question the actual results of the Holocaust.  These deniers often question if six million Jews really died and also question if gas chambers were really used (United States).  This is also extremely important as these deniers are completely undermining the significance of the Holocaust.  These questions proposed are spineless questions that shrug off the negative emotion and suffering associated with the Holocaust, which in turn provokes doubt about how much damage was actually done.  Both hardcore and softcore deniers are dangerous to society as they diminish the truth and justify negative, and violent action towards the Jews. 

Many of Hall’s ideas are also vividly present in the film, Denial.  The introduction of this film begins with Professor Deborah Lipstadt discussing various reasons why people deny the Holocaust.  Professor Lipstadt is a teacher at Emory University in Atlanta, and is very passionate about Jewish studies.  Lipstadt states that the reasons people deny the holocaust include: there were no gas chambers found, the number of Jews that died could have been less than six million, and there is no substantial proof of this event.  In the upcoming scenes, Professor Lipstadt had published a book discussing the Holocaust, which included rude comments about David Irving, a Holocaust denier.   Professor Lipstadt was giving a speech about her book in front of an audience when David Irving interrupts her.  He says he will give anyone in the room $1,000 if they can find a document that proves the Holocaust.  After, David Irving accuses her of libel and tries her in the English Court.  At the beginning of this film, it is evident that alternating opinions can cause conflict.  These alternating opinions often stem from personal beliefs.  Furthermore, personal opinions are often based off of literature, as depicted in this movie.  These personal beliefs and alternating opinions are examples of different positions people derive from external sources (Denial).

In this circumstance, Deborah Lipstadt displayed the dominant hegemonic position.  It is evident that she utilizes the dominant hegemonic viewpoint of the Holocaust as it is a known fact that this historical event occurred.    Professor Lipstadt states at the beginning of the film that, “Whatever the reason is that people become deniers, they often has an agenda which they won’t admit to.” (Denial).  This can obviously be associated to David Irving and his globally contrary position.  David Irving is an anti-Semite and racist who was a passionate denier of the holocaust.  This places him in complete opposition with Deborah Lipstadt and the majority of society.  He is in complete denial of the truth and expresses his viewpoint in his publications.  This provides the central conflict of the plot and shows how opposition can stem from personal beliefs (Denial).

After the central conflict is established, Professor Lipstadt decides to take Irving on.  She meets with British lawyer Anthony Julius to discuss the case.  She is appalled when Julius informs her that there is no presumption of innocent in the UK, and it falls on her and her team of lawyers to prove that the holocaust did indeed happen.  The team ultimately decided that there were three ways in which they could combat the case.  They could argue that Irving misinterpreted Lipstadt’s words, the offending words weren’t as offensive as Irving took it, or the team could focus on Irving’s lies.  The first two positions were out of the question as Professor Lipstadt clearly encoded her statements about David Irving in her writing in a way that could be decoded in only one obvious manner.  Deborah Lipstadt clearly attacked David Irving as she stated that she, “called him a liar and a falsifier of history.” (Denial).  The only way to approach this case was to prove that David Irving was in fact lying.

As the film progresses, the team sets out to prove that David Irving is in fact lying.  It was important for the team to analyze the original history of the holocaust as its original event as suggested by Stuart Hall.  By fully understanding this event, the team could then examine David Irving’s publications and find discrepancies between his works and history.  This was no easy feat and a team of researchers were used to look through his publications.  While this was occurring, Professor Lipstadt and Richard Rampton, one of her lawyers, visits Auschwitz to continue to search for evidence of the Holocaust.  The search grew weary as the crew discovered that evidence of the Holocaust at Auschwitz had already been tampered with.  This is a major turning point in the film as Deborah Lipstadt begins to get emotional and starts letting her feelings get the best of her.  She begins to have trouble restraining herself in court, and grows more and more frustrated as David Irving is able to successfully represent himself.  After one of the days in court, a Holocaust survivor comes up to Deborah and asks for her to put some of the survivors on the stand.  Deborah’s lawyers quickly shoot this idea down and Deborah grows increasingly restless.  Deborah also tries to convince her lawyers to allow her to speak on the stand, but this idea is also quickly denied by her team (Denial).

The team finally thinks they got somewhere when they were able to show a drawing of the infrastructure of a gas chamber at Auschwitz.  David Irving quickly debunks this idea as he was able to show that there were no holes in the roof.  As there were no holes in the roof, there was no way in which the gas pellets could enter the chamber.  The phrase “no holes, no Holocaust” was coined after and placed around the city of London as propaganda.  This simplistic slogan was effective as it was easily interpretable by any audience.  This slogan depicted the false point that the holocaust didn’t happen.  The effect of this propaganda was a devastating blow to Professor Lipstadt and her crew.  David Irving was gaining more support and Deborah was ridiculed even more by people for being Jewish (Denial). 

As the film comes to an end, Deborah and her crew of lawyers finally expose David Irving of distorting and manipulating evidence in his publications to please his own ideology.  This shows that Irving was operating under his own agenda, which gives Professor Lipstadt more credibility as she stated that all holocaust deniers operated under their own agenda at the beginning of the film.  David Irving’s personal agenda was that of being a racist, anti-Semite, and a distorter.  Professor Lipstadt’s exhausting trial is finally over, and she is finally at peace (Denial). 

The film concludes with some final words from Deborah Lipstadt in front of the press.  Lipstadt states, “Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can’t do is lie, and expect not to be accountable for it.” (Denial).  Deborah continues to talk and states that all opinions are not created equal.  She further validates this point by staying, “The earth is round, the icecaps are melting, and Elvis is not alive.” (Denial).  This is another one of Stuart Hall’s idea.  Certain meanings and are opinions are more dominant than others, and these hierarchy of opinions correlate with the hegemony society agrees to.

It can be properly stated that Stuart Hall’s ideas reflect onto society, and onto the film Denial.  In society, there are certain dominant positions.  Television and the media are utilized in society to formulate ideas of dominant positions.  These dominant positions are then interpreted by the receiver in a dominant hegemonic position, a negotiated code position, or a globally contrary position.  In the film Denial, dominant societal opinions were also evident.  These differences in positions can be exemplified by the conflict between Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving.  In this film, propaganda and dominant opinions also have a role in affecting societal views.  Stuart Hall’s ideas are synonymous to society and to the film denial as interpretation of messages by the receiver creates a hierarchal order of different perspectives and opinions in everyday life.
