Heir to an Execution: A Granddaughter's Story

The names Julius and Ethel Rosenberg bring on a sweeping sensation of treason. They have become the poster-children for anti-American hatred and fear of foreign ideology. But to some, the names mean mother and father; grandmother and grandfather.

I must admit, before I saw this film I didn't even know the Rosenbergs had children. This is left out of history lessons since, after all, what did that have to do with anything? Heir to an Execution, a sensitive and thoughtful documentary from Rosenberg granddaughter Ivy Meeropol, sheds light into a shadowy area of communist spies and family tightness.

Meeropol's film begins questioning the famed Rosenberg's death sentences by interviewing old friends and socialist peers. A door is opened into their world in a way I had never seen. Hated so fiercely by the rest of America, these revolutionaries have found their way from prisons to retirement homes.

What is far more interesting, however, is what comes next. As Meeropol tracks her grandparents' lives to the electric chair the question of her father and uncle arise. What exactly did happen to them during the chaos? And more importantly, what was to be done with them after the inevitable? Political documentaries are sometimes dry and are often as subtle as a man with a stick pointing at an easel. Heir to an Execution is different. Meeropol raises doubts to at least part of the Rosenberg trial, if not all of it, while at the same time documenting the life of a wonderful man, her father. In the end we don't know which is more important, the Rosenberg injustice or the chronicle of a distinguished life whose path you would not expect winding up here. **** out of ****

Ivy Meeropol has produced an emotionally moving documentary about her infamous grandparents, the Rosenbergs. I liked her work in this film, however her account of this notorious trial of Russian spies and traitors, as well as the effect on both Rosenberg boys, is purely an emotional and subjective view. Julius Rosenberg was definitely a traitor and a Russian spy, operating against the interests of U.S. national security and defense. Ethel was clearly an innocent woman. Julius was arrogant, evil, and extremely selfish not to confess information that would have saved his loving wife Ethel. Obviously, the ramifications were quite extensive as to whom was involved in that espionage ring of secret agents, having smuggled nuclear weapons technology to the Russians. Ivy Meeropol's documentary of the historical events however, never answered the most important question about her grandfather Julius' betrayal of the United States...Why? Why did he do it? What made him commit himself to his loyalty and sympathy for the Russians? Why was he so strongly compelled to give nuclear weapons secrets to the evil heinous empire of Stalin and the Soviet Communist's regime? The long term consequences of Julius Rosenberg's actions are a debacle of infinitesimal proportions. Why do you think we are now horrified that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon to use against the U.S.A.? That same stolen nuclear technology, was given to the Islamic jihadist regime of Iran, by none other than Vladimir Putin and the remnants of his mother Russia!

Ivy Meeropol is the granddaughter of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were executed as traitors for allegedly passing the secrets of the atomic bomb to America's enemy Russia. Decades after the event she decides to try and uncover the history around their execution and sets out to interview her relatives and others involved.

As a non-American and someone who was only born in the 1970's, I was not that familiar with the subject of the film but had a vague knowledge of what this was about – or at least enough to come to the film to learn more. The problem is that the film doesn't actually help the causal viewer at all and seems to assume that everyone watching it will already know the whole story. In a way perhaps this is a fair approach because the film is roundly personal and amateur, made by Meeropol for herself more than anyone else. With this in mind then perhaps it is forgivable that the film has come off this way, because it does just what the small target audience needed; however to my mind this approach is a bit careless towards the audience – Meeropol could easily have built the factual story and then expanded it to be a personal exploration.

The film doesn't do this though and really the history behind the Rosenberg's and the events in America at the time are hardly touched upon in favour of Meeropol trying to get to grips with her complex family tree and the relatives who scattered when the execution took place and the children were left with no family to take them in. The interest in this material will be limited and, without the film giving you any background, the casual viewer will feel as isolated as I did – which is a problem whether Meeropol thinks it is or not.

Overall then a very personal film that has a limited audience as a result. For those very familiar with the Rosenberg and the wider family then this will be gripping and touching but without even knowing the basics then how was I suppose to care about the personal story behind (after) the execution? A very amateurish and personal film that offers limited appeal and fails to make its subject more accessible.

If you're looking for a good, even-handed overview of the Rosenberg case, this isn't it, but it is nevertheless not without interest.

It's not a good overview for two reasons. First, the movie spends little time looking at the actual facts of the case, focusing instead mostly on the effects on the family left behind. This can be excused, since it wasn't the intent of the filmmaker to cover the case itself. Second, and less excusable, the movie seems essentially uninformed by much of the evidence that has come out in the last decade (e.g. from Soviet intelligence archives) which provides unambiguous answers as to what the Rosenbergs actually did.

For instance, you won't hear here that documents in the Soviet archives explicitly describe Ethel Rosenberg helping to recruit David Greenglass to pass on atomic bomb construction details from Los Alamos. Ethel may not have deserved the death penalty for what she did, but it's hard to put much weight on any opinions this movie expresses on the subject, given its reliance on the pro-Rosenberg side for its view of the case.

That one-sidedness, however, is what is responsible for one of the film's two real accomplishments: giving the viewer a clear view of the mind-set of the American left in the 30's and 40's, one in which spying for a foreign power for ideological reasons was not merely acceptable, but laudable, and one in which the bald-faced claims of the complete innocence of the Rosenbergs were credulously accepted. The interviews with the aging members of the American left alone are worth the time of a serious student of the era.

The other interesting aspect of the movie is its clear documentation of the havoc the Rosenbergs' wreaked on their family. As a number of reviewers have pointed out, this is not a polished film, but the lack of polish contributes to the effectiveness of this portrayal. The Rosenbergs' willingness to put their family through this is perhaps the best measure of the depth of their devotion to the socialist cause, and helps us understand how they could have helped pass some of their country's deepest secrets to a foreign power.

I have always been fascinated by the Rosenbergs and was eager to see this film, but came away disappointed. It's a good thing I knew all about the Rosenbergs beforehand, because otherwise I would have been very confused. The film didn't give any back story on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Who were they? What did they (allegedly) do? How were they discovered? Why were they chosen to symbolize the witchhunt era? Why were they executed, when hundreds of other convicted spies were not? What evidence suggests they were guilty, and what evidence suggests they were not? A documentary should elucidate the viewer and make them feel more knowledgeable on a subject than before. Ivy did practically no historical research when making this film, which betrays the entire purpose of a documentary. She interviewed family members and tracked down old people who knew her grandparents, but otherwise provided no context. Someone who is not American, or unfamiliar with the McCarthyism era, would be baffled by this film, because it assumes that everyone already knows the story.

It is clear that Ivy put her whole heart into this project, and the result is a very sincere attempt to humanize the grandparents she never met. However, I wanted to understand what truly happened, and my questions were not answered.

The best thing about this film was Michael Meeropol, Ivy's father. He is a passionate, articulate activist who knows more about the subject than his daughter. The scenes in which he speaks were the smartest in the film. I began to wish that he had directed this documentary, and not his daughter. Ivy, despite her good intentions, is ditzy and a weak interviewer. She has the very annoying habit of trailing off questions halfway, and leaving her subjects to figure out what she is asking. Her interviews were unstructured and the narration was rickety.

Furthermore, the biases and shoddy journalism are apparent. Ivy and her brother are naively insistent that their grandparents were "innocent" (a word that gets thrown around repeatedly) despite admitting that they never examined the evidence or studied the story beyond hearing it from their father. The Rosenberg records were unsealed by the government in 1995, and yet Ivy didn't bother looking at them until she made this film.

Everyone has the right to know where they come from. While the Meeropol family's efforts to define their legacy are admirable, the result was a very amateurish film. It is too bad that another family member with better documentarian abilities didn't take the helm.