ShelbyTMItchell It is a shame and sadness that the Rosenberg family had to live in the shadow of Julius and Ethel, the first and only two Americans executed for treason and espionage. And shows the points of view from different angles.Julius was guilty as his arrogance got to him. Ethel may have supported his ideas with the Communist party. But she was made a scapegoat in order to bring her husband down. Sadly, she ended up in the electric chair with him at Sing Sing. The FBI should had eyed David, not Ethel.Julius could had named names and spare him and his wife from the chair. And not lie and proclaim his innocence. He was guilty as charged. Ethel may have typed the notes to give to the then-USSR at the time. But she had no codename. Julius and his brother in law, with his brother in law's wife did though.Roy Cohn and Joseph McCarthy made careers out of hunting down communists. And in the end, they were overzealous and arrogant than Julius was. But very little was mentioned of them.Filmmaker Ivy Merepol, daughter of Michael Merepol shows how the family has been in shame and guilty. As neither of Julius or Ethel's families wanted to get involved. Cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. And how they were expelling Michael and brother Robert of the espionage and treason of both men's parents. When the men were oprhaned and nobody would come to take them after their parents execution. As the families were ashamed of Julius and Ethel brought onto them all.Except one cousin did talk to Ivy. As he was so ashamed of the family continuing to shun Michael and Robert, and both men's family.Michael and Robert both turned out really well in the end, as they grew up. After being adopted by a loving couple, changed their names to Merepol in order to avoid anymore hurt and pain. That both men were being caused over their parents and being orphaned for a time. Went on to both earning several degrees and being professors. It could had turned out a lot more worse for them. But in the end, after the times changed and the hoopla died down. The media and the feds as well, left them alone to live their own lives, with their careers, started their own families.Think that the real villain and main antagonists was Ethel's brother, David Greenglass and his wife Ruth. Whom both helped send Ethel to the chair. In order to save their own skin. Think that David should had been riding the lightening instead of his sister, sitting in Julius' lap when the electricity hit in the chair. Talk about heartless and cruel. And in a 2001 interview, David in a disguise in his first and only interview for CBS 60 Minutes. Has no remorse at all. And probably will never have that he sent his own sister to the chair.The documentary is informative, helpful, and shows from all kinds of angels. The ending where Ivy and Michael found the graves of Ethel and Julius were touching. But only written in plain letters with their names. Not like Ivy said, beloved mother, father, husband, wife, etc.Sure it was so bad that Julius and David Greenglass committed espionage and to a lesser extent, Ruth. And could had cost about nearly half a million peoples' murders. Like Judge Irvin Kaufman said, worse than murder. Sadly the overlooked happens to be Julius and Ethel's own children, and children's children!

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.

JNC-4 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.

leychica 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.