Beyond its compelling subject matter "Judgement At Neuremberg" revolutionizes the court room drama genre. The camera swings and swerves and dives between the lines of this exemplary Abby Mann script. Stanley Kramer conducts his orchestra of iconic stars with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. The language barriers and the confinement of the action masterfully resolved. Spencer Tracy is simply magnificent and, as per usual, we believe every word that comes out of his mouth. His judge is an American monument of unsentimental humanity. Twentynine year old Maimilian Schell won the Oscar as best actor and his performance survived the test of time with the vigor of his conviction. Montgomery Cliff makes his short minutes on the screen, one of those memorable moments that nobody that has ever seen it will be able to forget. The man and the character merging into one chilling, shattering truth. "I am half the man I've ever been" Marlene Dietrich gives to her German aristocrat a legendary star quality. And Judy Garland, overweight and almost unrecognizable breaks your heart and gets her last Oscar nomination. My only troubles came with the stoic Burt Lancaster because I could never forget it was Burt Lancaster and with Richard Widmark's strident prosecutor. I have seen "Judgement At Neuremberg" more than a dozen times and it never ceases to amaze me that no matter the darkness of the subject it always manages to entertain and inspire.
Add a Review
-
littlemartinarocena1 February 2007
-
I watched "Judgment at Nuremburg" on PBS the other night. I had never seen it before. I expected an empty-headed, Hollywood-style, quasi-melodrama, but I was pleasantly surprised. Even Spencer Tracy, that universally beloved actor whose appeal has always escaped me, gave an honest and heartfelt portrayal of a "simple man" who was also a deeply conflicted judge.
What I liked most about this movie was that it didn't pull any punches, in the manner of other "controversial" films of its time. The defense attorney, superbly played by Maximilian Schell, weaves a simple, but undeniable web of logic:- Sterilization of "undesirables," one of the charges against the Nazi war criminals, was at one time condoned by the U.S. courts, and encouraged by none other than Oliver Wendell Holmes. - Numerous leading industrialists in the U.S. contributed to the development of the Nazi war machine. - Encouragement was given to Hitler's expansionism by both Russia and England. - Churchill is quoted as having admired Hitler. - The Vatican actively collaborated with the Nazis.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it must have taken major cojones to present that kind of message to American filmgoers in 1961. Would a film of that candor have a chance of being made today?
I tend to doubt it.
One further note. The film describes how the Nazis went about stripping the German judiciary of judges who were known for their objectivity, and replacing them with judges who were appointed based solely on their party loyalties.
The mind boggles at the implications and yes, the prescience of this well-written, well-played masterpiece. -
Outstanding film. Star-studded with several fantastic performances. Highly emotional given the subject matter, but presented in a very intelligent, balanced way. I was struck at once by that, and by how well director Stanley Kramer gives us both sides of the argument – and avoids simply paying lip service to the defense of the German judges on trial. Maximilian Schell is brilliant as the defense attorney, well worthy of his Oscar, and is forceful and compelling in his arguments. There are also so many brilliant scenes. Spencer Tracy walking in the empty arena where the Nazi rallies were held, with Kramer focusing on the dais from which Hitler spoke. The testimony of Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, both of whom are outstanding and should have gotten Oscars. Burt Lancaster in the role of one of the German judges, the one tortured by his complicity, knowing he and others are guilty. The devastating real film clips from the concentration camps, which are still spine tingling despite all we 'know' or have been exposed to. Marlene Dietrich as the German general's wife, haunted but expressing the German viewpoint, one time while people are singing over drinks. Her night stroll with Tracy, as she explains the words to one song, is touching. It just seemed like there was just one powerhouse scene after another, and the film did not seem long at all at three hours. Heck, you've even got Werner Klemperer and William Shatner before they would become Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk! In this film, the acting, the script, and the direction are all brilliant, and in harmony with one another.
As for the trial itself, the defense argument was along these lines: they were judges (and therefore interpreters), not makers of law. They didn't know about the atrocities in the concentration camps. At least one of them saved or helped many by staying in their roles and doing the best they could under the heavy hand of the Third Reich. They were patriots, saw improvement in the country when Hitler took power, but did not know how far he would go. If you were going to convict these judges, you would have to convict many more Germans (and where would it stop?). The Americans themselves practiced Eugenics and killed thousands and thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one small weakness I found was that the defense never makes the simple argument that these judges were forced to do what they did, just as countless others in Germany were, and would have been imprisoned or killed themselves had they not complied. Anyone who's lived under a totalitarian regime may understand, or at least empathize.
I'm not saying I bought into these arguments or that one should be an apologist to Nazis, but the fact that the film presented such a strong defense was thought provoking. How fantastic is it that Spencer Tracy plays his character the way he does – simply pursuing the facts, and in a quiet, thoughtful way. It's the best of humanity. How heartbreaking is Burt Lancaster's character, admitting they knew, admitting their guilt, knowing that what happened was horrible and that they were wrong, and yet seeking Tracy's understanding in that scene in the jail cell at the end – intellectual to intellectual - and being rebuked. Even a single life taken unjustly was wrong. Had the Axis won the war, I don't know which Americans would have been on trial for war crimes for the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or for dropping the atomic bombs, but the film makes one think, even for a war when things were seemingly as black and white as they could ever be. The particulars of this trial were fictionalized, but it's representative of what really occurred, and it transports you into events 70 years ago which seem so unreal today – and yet are so vitally important to understand, and remember. -
campbell-russell-a17 June 2012I once read a review of this film that criticized the fact that the American chief prosecutor as played by Richard Widmark was a less sympathetic and engaging character than the defending lawyer, Herr Rolfe as portrayed by Max Schell. Schell's Oscar winning performance illuminated the "shattering truth" that the film reveals about Nazism. Extremely able and educated men were able to rationalize what they did with an irresistible logic. They loved their country and, in a time of a national crisis, found it necessary to implement certain measures. As expounded by Rolfe, it all sounds so logical and reasonable. He also cites the fact that many world leaders actually commended Hitler upon his leadership in getting Germany out of the Depression as swiftly as he did.
Widmark's character, Lawson, is understandably appalled by Herr Rolfe's defence of the indefencible and therefore he pulls no punches. He wants those responsible to be held fully responsible but he finds Germans who are ready to extenuate and rationalize. After he is told to tone down his demands for justice, Lawson acerbically retorts, "There are no Nazis in Germany. It was those damned Eskimos."
The moment that illuminates how pure reason without humanity is so dangerous is when Pohl, a right hand man for Eichman, explains how it was possible to kill millions of people in purely technical terms. His explanation as he eats his lunch is devoid of any hint of human empathy for the victims he has so blithely exterminated. His was a job that was the logical extension of a policy and he carried it out with a detached and technical logic.
The key point that the film makes is that to be logical is not always to be morally right. -
alexkolokotronis28 January 2009This quote is one of the most shocking and yet truthful quotes I have ever heard. It is one of many shocking and intense quotes in the movie. Furthermore Judgment at Nuremburg is one of the most absorbing movies I have seen. Even though most if not all of it is dialog it is very much a haunting film. This film is loosely based on the trials in Nuremburg in 1948. Right from the start the movie captures your mind and never lets it go.
The acting was collectively amazing. One of the best casts ever assembled which included Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, Burt Lancaster as well as international stars Maximilian Schell and Marlene Dietrich. It is not just the fact that this is a star studded cast that made it so great, it was the way everyone appeared to blend in together. Maximilian Schell gave the performance of his life in this film playing the defense lawyer for Burt Lancaster who give two superb narratives that will certainly stay in your mind forever. Schell's character use of logic is that of something which will mesmerize use you whether or not you agree or disagree with what he says. Richard Widmark playing the prosecutor gave the type of supporting performance that was necessary for Schell to shine. The way both actors fed off each other was a joy to watch. Then of course the tiny appearances of Garland and Clift were excellent and worth every second they spent on camera. I usually find myself frustrated with cameos and actors receiving recognition for them but this film used cameos the best way I have ever seen. Then of course Spencer Tracy and Marlene Dietrich provided such great presence were perfect for the lead.
The direction of Stanley Kramer was spectacular as the film intensified more and more as it wore on. It was always engrossing and never let up. The writing of Abby Mann was great, filled up with great material and narratives allowing every actor in the cast to give a superb performance. There were many memorable quotes as well. The writing carried the film forward and allowed all the potential and talent to push this film to another level.
Judgement at Nuremburg is not just another movie. It is a very thought provoking movie. More than that though it is haunting. Just thinking about the course of the events being talked about in the movie became subtly haunting in a way I really didn't expect. What was the most compelling though was the way we need to separate what we feel with what has to be truly done, with what is truly right. -
Judgement At Nurmeberg is a 1961 film about four Nazi Judges are in trial for crimes against humanity. Well let me just start out by saying that this is a very sad, powerful film. I was expecting it to be very boring and I guess I underestimated it. The film is also very well written, so well written that actually it makes you really think. I'm happy that it won an Oscar for writing.
The best quality about the film HAS to be the acting. Judy Garland, I think should of won a Supporting Actress. This is her finest performance ever, and I'm sad she didn't win one. Maximilian Schell gives the performance of a lifetime in his role as the defense attorney for the judges. He truly deserved his Oscar because he was very powerful. Spencer Tracy also gave a quite exceptional performance as he always had. (He isn't a Two-Time Oscar Winner for nothing. As for Montgomery Clift he deserved his Oscar Nomination. I am kind of ticked off that Marlene didn't get an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress. I always feel she is underrated.
As for Stanley Kramer (The Director) he had real talent and this film shows it. The 9-Time Oscar nominated Director should've of won an Oscar for Best Director for Judgement at Nuremberg. I hope his talent though will be remembered for many years to come.
My Overall Consensus is that the movie definitely succeeds due to the Extraordinary Performances and the Quite Exceptional Writing.
You Should see this Film. 10/10 -
stanford-46 October 2005If this is not considered as one of THE great films of all time, then all of us film fans should pack up bags and go home I cannot fault anyone, any scene, anything in this film. The dialogue races along in its smooth yet supremely captivating style. You grab a film like this, see a whole host of famous actors, and wonder if such a mix could ever work. It does, believe me, it really, really does.
Tracy. He was given the most powerful of dialogues, he presents it to us in a way that does not shout at you, yet holds you in a vice like grip every time he comes on screen. With his characteristic method of looking down whilst talking, hands in pocket, that small sly look up that he does, vintage Spencer, just how you would imagine a judge to be, or should be.
The supporting cast, again, never lets the film down. Some have the opportunity to step up a notch, Snell, Widmark, and others play their roles in a more subtle manner, Garland and Dietrich. And others just wipe away the floor with their presence, Clift and Lancaster for example.
And the story by Abby Mann - incredible.
Shot in black and white, it makes you think, it makes you smile, it will make you sad, and in the end you will be all the better for having seen one of the greatest films ever made, you will be richer for the experience, and you will be wiser.
You will also be able to say that you saw what Hollywood can do, you saw what great actors can do when put amongst their peers and are not 'stars' of a movie but are part of a larger ensemble.
And you will also see why this particular group were, genuinely, the very best Hollywood had to offer, period. -
I have always been fond of Stanley Kramer's work , but this movie proved to be quite extraordinary and exceptional .The movie has every thing you can desire and human sentiments are at there level best. The plot is written by Abby Mann who won best screenplay Oscar from that and quite deserving one. The story based on Nuremberg trials held after fall of Nazi's in Germany but this movie is nice blend of history with fiction as the major characters were fictional but the evidences and indictments presented in the trial ever authentic and truly depicts the conditions of Nazi occupied Germany. The most intriguing thing of the movie was the true representation of aftermaths of Nazi's occupation in Germany and the feeling of German toward the trial and immaculate direction of Kramer made possible to convey these types of sentiment on cinema for the very first time. The cast was also fascinating with big names like Tracy and surely he did justice with his role as he was very compelling and humble as Judge Haywood. Maximilian Schell was at his best as a compassionate enthusiastic zealous and patriotic attorney to defend the dignity of Nation. He won best actor Oscar for his role. Montgomery Clift was also the one who made this movie special as he played a role of feeble minded sterile man who was nominated for best actor in supporting role though he only played for 9 min in the movie. Burt Lancaster gave one of the most extraordinary cinematic performances as Ernst Janning. This is one of those movies which provokes our mentality and also our morality and is a treat to watch.
-
buckboard25 February 2001This is a fine film by a fine director, but I can only hope that Stanley Kramer, in committing to full length film a television story, knew at heart the message his movie was trying to say. Because this is truly a message movie, for all mankind, but if the reviews I've read on this site are any indication, the message has been lost to some degree.
I've entitled my review "Revelation of Horror", but the horror revealed was not the Holocaust. That had already been revealed, although Kramer's film certainly lent its emotional impact. The revelation was a deep, true insight into how it happened, and the horror is that it happened in a civilized country. Few on this earth can imagine the true horror of Nazi Germany--I've read criticism of Widmark's Colonel Lawson as too preachy, but the character and the acting conveyed the mission of one who actually saw the horrors, beyond any scope we can identify with.
Kramer's achievement is that everything in this movie reminds us that the Nazi's used every facet of civilization, no matter how minute, to foster their extermination of their enemies, to inculcate it as an ordinary part of life. That was why judges were chosen to portray the issue of "obeying orders" versus "human decency." Herr Rolf is "forced" to defend the worst criminals imaginable, and yet his very defense and the principles behind it are abused in the process, used as a weapon against the very law they represent. Thus did the Nazis prevail with the willing acquiescence of the German people, and the abominable disregard of the rest of the world.
The other horror revealed in this film is the incessant excusing of it. Beyond the obvious pleas of the guilty ("We didn't know", or as one judge says to another, "Was it possible to kill like that?") are the multiplicity of subtle excuses: the reminder of centuries' old German culture, Rolf's plaintive cry of "unfairness" at the showing of the death camp films because of their inflammatory nature, the invocation of "Lili Marlene" throughout the film, to name just a few. While the song evokes sadness, a guilty German society meant for it to invoke sadness. Long before Germany had its country destroyed by bombs, it had its soul destroyed by Hitler.
Because this is a courtroom drama, respecting the sacred role of the Rule of Law in safeguarding humanity, almost every scene, every line is a statement that Nazi Germany perverted the Rule of Law, as did the very defense of the war criminals. But what is principle on a small scale of a single man being judged by society becomes outrage when used to defend the indefensible on an impossibly massive scale. Tracy's character at the film's end has a realization that this is so, as well as an awareness that what happened in Germany during the Third Reich was an Aristotelian tragedy for anyone touched by it, even remotely, so that any personal considerations (such as Mrs. Berthold) are made utterly impossible.
Rolf's speech about the guilty responsibility of the rest of the world was valid--but he was indicting the world to save one man. Where have we heard that in our own time? This quality about "Judgment at Nuremburg" makes its message forever fresh--and its warnings. -
Lechuguilla8 May 2005They say that time heals all heartache. In the case of the Third Reich, I'm not sure that the old saying is true. Out of respect for the Holocaust victims, and as an important history lesson, there's something to be said for not forgetting the evils of Hitler. Fortunately, we have this great film to help us not forget.
"Judgment At Nuremberg" is a dramatization of one of the many real life post WWII Nuremberg trials of high ranking Nazis. Most of the film focuses on the 1948 courtroom trial of four judges who helped to carry out Hitler's decrees. As part of the prosecution's case against the judges, real life, graphic film footage showing the horrors of the death camps engenders a gut level impression that is both powerful and persuasive. The film thus educates viewers in ways that a dry textbook of facts and figures never could.
But there's more to the film than the trial. In other parts of Nuremberg we see ordinary Germans trying to get on with their lives as best they can, three years after the war's end, in a bombed out and bleak city. One of these persons is Madame Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich), the wife of a dead German soldier. In contrast to the harsh and contentious trial, Madame Bertholt's kindness toward the tribunal's lead judge, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy), provides an example of the innocence and decency of ordinary Germans, and thus adds a softer, more contemplative perspective to the ordeal. In these non-courtroom scenes, the melancholy background music and the soft production lighting create a mood of depression and sadness.
I find very little to criticize in this three hour film. Perhaps the plot could have been clearer in identifying the legal counsel of three of the four defendants. And maybe in those scenes wherein the four defendants conversed among themselves, the dialogue should have been in German, not English. But these are trivial points. Overall, this is a film that is well written and directed, a film with credible actors giving stellar performances, and most of all, a film that assures preservation of that era's historic significance, with a political and social message that has enduring value. -
sme_no_densetsu22 August 2010Stanley Kramer's "Judgment at Nuremberg" is a courtroom drama based on the Nuremberg trials for war crimes which were held in the years following WWII. In particular, it was inspired by the Judges' Trial, which focused on a group of jurists.
As producer, Kramer saw to it that his film was populated with an enviable cast. The performances of Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift all resulted in Oscar nominations, while Maximilian Schell, reprising his role from an earlier television production, took home the Best Actor Oscar. Also starring were Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster and Richard Widmark. Given this lineup, it is unsurprising that the acting is likely the picture's strong suit.
However, that is not to say that the other elements of the film are unremarkable. After all, the picture did land eleven Oscar nominations, which suggests (accurately, in this case) that the film's production was a well-rounded one. While Kramer's direction gets somewhat repetitive over the course of three hours the cinematography and art direction are quite attractive throughout. All were awarded with Oscar nominations but, strangely, Ernest Gold's evocative score wasn't.
Besides Schell's victory, the only other Oscar win went to Abby Mann for his adapted screenplay. To my mind, it's pretty good but not entirely successful. My main complaint is that Mann tries to do too much. While I give him credit for tackling the thorny subject of the guilt of the German people at large I don't think that it was handled particularly well. Bringing this angle into the film only made it seem more like a glib condemnation of the entire German people, which I hope was not Mann's intention. For me, consideration of this bigger picture only hurt the main thrust of the narrative, which, while not exactly clear-cut, was more well-defined.
Ultimately, even though the script is the film's chief weakness, Kramer & company manage to hold the viewer's attention for the full three hours. While the film has several good points it also has the potential for coming across as self-righteous, so your appreciation of it may owe as much to personal factors as to filmmaking craft. -
Full too the brim with more star wattage fire power than a dozen other films combined, Stanley Kramer's Oscar winning courtroom epic Judgment at Nuremberg is a powerful and ageless dialogue heavy classic that remains to this day one of the best World War 2 themed films, all without ever firing a single shot or even a single battle.
Inspired by real life courtroom trials that came to public attention in the aftermath of the great war as Nazi members were trialed for their actions during the horrific period in Germany's history, Kramer and Nuremberg's writer Abby Mann (with unofficial work from one of the films stars Montgomery Clift) spend a great deal of time exploring the after effects of the Nazi reign on Germany and how those caught up in the situation dealt with what was for all intents and purposes a hopeless situation to be a part of.
Lead by a powerful performance from its main focus Spencer Tracy as aging American judge Dan Haywood (who delivers a stunning final monologue in the films later stretches), we only spend brief moments of Nuremberg's runtime outside of the sweat inducing caught room action that sees Maximillian Schell's defense lawyer Hans Rolfe go head to head with Richard Winmark's American army lawyer Col. Tad Lawson but the film never feels small or confined by its devices as we explore the mental anguish and eye opening examinations of what the war meant outside of the battlefield, what it meant to those everyday people who were nothing more than pawns in a much bigger game of life and death.
In this loaded ensemble we also get a memorable Burt Lancaster turn as German judge Dr. Ernst Janning with both the actors performance and characters arc making for an extremely moving examination of a good man caught in an horrific predicament while screen legends such as Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and a very young William Shatner all deliver great turns with varying degrees of screen time, ensuring Nuremberg is one of the era's most well-rounded examples of a collection of once in a generation talents.
The whole production is beautifully constructed by the often underappreciated Stanley Kramer who alongside this effort and the likes of On the Beach, Guess Whose Coming to Dinner, comedy gem It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and The Defiant Ones, established himself as a director of true worth that may not have received the plaudits of some of his era's peers but remains a director with a fantastic catalogue of films he managed to produce in a career that will stand tall during the tests of time.
Final Say -
Powerful and emotion packed without the need for any theatrics, Judgment at Nuremberg is one of the most stunning cinematic examples of a courtroom and World War 2 drama respectively and is a film that should continue to be adored by cinephiles for the years yet to come.
5 Opa's out of 5. -
kenjha3 May 2009This is a long-winded but absorbing drama about Nazi leaders being tried for war crimes. Mann's script raises some intriguing issues about law and morality. It features an impressive all-star, although everybody seems to be bucking for an Oscar. Except for Tracy and Dietrich, everybody has bursts of overacting. Schell is interesting to watch not because his is a great performance, but because he is so incredibly hammy. Clift is touching as a witness. Much of the blame for overacting must go to Kramer, who tends to be heavy-handed and theatrical. His direction of the courtroom scenes is frustrating to watch because of his ever-moving camera and amateurish zooms.
-
rmax30482324 November 2003SPOILERS.
I watch this once in a while if it happens to be on TV because the performances are as good as they are. Tracy is the epitome of rock-ribbed Republican rectitude. Widmark is good. Maximilian Schell is nothing less than great. He deserved his awards. Burt Lancaster should avoid any part that calls for an accent unless the movie is a comedy. But Garland and Monty Clift are truly pathetic, for more reasons than the script gives them.
But that's the problem with the movie -- the script. The trial is a court set up in such a way that we must fight the values behind World-War-Two Germany all over again. Except for Lancaster's character the defendants are inhuman caricatures. Werner Klemperer is compelled to be a malignant version of Colonel Klink. The others are plain nasty. And Schell must try to get them off by defending their actions, which is impossible. The best he can do for Lancaster is to argue that Lancaster knew the justice system was rotten but was determined to minimize the harm it did by working against it from the inside, occasionally letting rotten things happen because the rottenness was prescribed by the law. If you think about it, that's kind of what a judge is supposed to do, isn't it? See that the law is carried out? Here's how two analysts posed the dilemma: "The criminal law usually punishes people that break laws, not carry them out. The responsibility imposed by such a standard requires a judge to choose between resigning immediately or becoming an international criminal if he enforces an unjust law or becoming a German criminal if he refuses to enforce it. This is a lot to ask of anyone." (Bergman and Isamov, "Reel Justice," 1996.)
But it's best not to think too hard about this movie. Some idea of its self-congratulatory and self-righteous nature is given by Abby Mann's speech when he won the academy award, accepting it not only for himself but "for all intellectuals everywhere." Really.
He's very mistaken if he actually believes that this movie is in any way "intellectual." It doesn't invite analysis. It invites judgment based on hatred of the Nazis. Or, let's be honest about it, hatred of Germans. There isn't a good German in it. Tracy's butler and his wife seem compliant and obedient but "we knew nothing of what was going on." Then there is Marlene Dietrich, cultivated and intelligent and helpful and friendly towards Tracy. When the guilty verdict comes in, her true nature reveals itself and she refuses to answer his phone call, sitting alone in the dark, filled with the kind of anger that brought Hitler to power. (The Germans will never change, not even the best of them.)
Tracy has a last jailhouse conversation with Lancaster, at Lancaster's request. Burt has been mute throughout most of the trial, refusing to speak in his own defense, but here he tries to tell Tracy, as one morally upright man to another, that he, Lancaster, didn't know Germany was going to turn into what it did. Tracy sneers at him and says, "You knew what was going to happen the first time you sent an innocent man to jail." That's judgment at Nurenberg for you.
The movie never asks what a moral person might do in Lancaster's circumstances. Mann and Kramer don't bother to ask because they already know the answer. The rest of us may not be quite so sure what we might do because we are aware of our moral flaws, our weaknesses, our desire to get along trying to do well without stepping on too many toes or striking useless heroic poses. But the writer and director haven't really thought about it.
The worst scene in the movie, perhaps, among so many, has Schell grilling Judy Garland (Judy Garland!), who as a young girl had some innocent dalliance with an elderly Jew who was then convicted of consorting with Aryans and was disappeared. The most damning evidence was that she'd been seen sitting on the man's lap. She stutters neurotically while Schell bears down on her and he finally shouts at her -- "DID YOU -- SIT -- ON -- HIS -- LAP???" Enough is enough, finally.
I really dislike this movie for its fake humanitarianism. The victims were innocent, but does that make all of their countrymen evil? That's the kind of stereotypica, digital, black-and-white thinking that will lead to the next war, the next genocide. If the Nazis hadn't existed we would be almost forced to invent them because as a society we need bad examples. Without evil, how can we possibly convince ourselves that we are good? So we can all leave the theater or switch off the TV, eyes brimming with tears at the tragedy that has been brought to our attention again, cheapened though it is by this film, and go to bed glowing with self satisfaction. -
lastliberal11 April 2008It is so easy to dismiss this as a story of other people in another time in another land. Unfortunately, what was done then, is being done by the leaders of our country in the name of protection from terrorists, and we, the people, sit silently by and let it happen just as the German people did seven decades ago.
We need to watch films like this over and over to remind us of what is important and what we, as civilized humans, can be reduced to out of fear.
This is another great film by the fantastic Abby Mann, who died last month. He won an Oscar for his screenplay, and it was well deserved.
Maximilian Schell was simply fantastic, as was Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, and Judy Garland. Director Stanley Kramer brought out the best in these actors, and others like Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, William Shatner, and Werner Klemperer.
Don't look upon it as three hours of cinema, but as a class in humanity as only Abby Mann could write. -
American judges arrive at Nuremberg, to preside over the trial of four high ranking Nazis.
This film is truly monumental, it is an incredible movie, and a fascinating subject, there are so many films that detail the start of the war, the harrowing
It was actually The Americans that called for this trial, and it's incredible to think that the trial was actually broadcast on TV. I'm surprised add just how realistic it is, I've recently watched exerts from the trial, and so much is accurately reproduced.
There are some very interesting camera angles and techniques used, it's far from static, as there's virtually only one set, the courtroom, they did a great job ensuring that scenes don't feel lengthy or too wordy, it's incredibly watchable.
Outstanding performances, truly astonishing, Maximilian Schell and Spencer Tracy in particular are fabulous, but the whole cast deliver.
It's worth watching to see William Shatner in a US uniform alone, wow he's insanely handsome.
If you're interested in the events at Nuremberg, and have access to BBC iPlayer, I'd recommend you checking out The Rise of The Nazis Series four, which details these events.
There's a reason why this film is so highly regarded, and still enjoyed by many, it's not quite an obscure subject, but hardly what you'd call a crowd pleaser, but I urge you to watch this great film.
10/10. -
TheLittleSongbird23 December 2010What can I say? Judgment at Nuremberg was just wonderful. At three hours, it is just mesmerising from start to finish. The subject matter of the story is admittedly grim and hard-hitting, but in the way it is put across and acted it is also incredibly gripping. The production values are striking, Ernest Gold's music is memorable and Kramer's direction is superb. Then there is the script, intelligent, thought-provoking, poignant, quite simply a brilliant screenplay, and the cast is for me one of the best on film. This film does have a lot of dignity, exemplified by Burt Lancaster's thoughtful performance as Ernst Janning, and a startling turn from Maximillian Schell. Marlene Dietrich is also great, and I also have to mention Judy Garland's touching Irene and Montgomery Clift's Rudolph. Overall, gripping and intelligent helped enormously by adept direction and acting. 10/10 Bethany Cox
-
Lacking the big names of what people normally think of as the "Nuremberg Trials" - the trial of Nazi leaders such as Goering, Hess and Speer - this movie focuses on the lesser known people who were tried for war crimes: the German judges whose responsibility it was to dispense "justice" in Hitler's Germany. Although the big names are missing, the movie is powerful and masterfully deals with the troubling questions around Nazism: how could normally good, decent people (represented in this movie by Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster, on trial with three others) have allowed themselves to be sucked into the evil that was Hitler and National Socialism? How could the German people have turned a blind eye to what was going on and simply denied all responsibility? And the movie also considers a troubling question about the United States: if Nazism was evil enough to have warranted a war and then all the effort of the Nuremberg trials, why were the Americans suddenly so willing to "forgive and forget" with the onset of the Cold War and the threat of communism?
The implication here is that the Americans never really took the secondary trials seriously. A second-rate judge (Dan Haywood, available only because he had been defeated in an election, and played magnificently by Spencer Tracy) was appointed to head the trial, the Army was putting pressure on the prosecution to go lightly. It's an amazing fact of history that within three years of the end of World War II, the feeling was so clearly against pursuing those who had played roles in the Nazi nightmare (and, of course, it's a question that still haunts us today as Nazi war criminals from time to time turn up and the response of the public is often, "he's an old man. Why bother?")
Focussing largely on the trial itself, the movie is consistently gripping throughout, and even the diversions outside the courtroom (such as the relationship between Judge Haywood and Mrs. Bertholt -Marlene Dietrich) don't detract from the suspense, as they continue to push the question: "how can you just sit there and deny knowing anything?" Anyone with an interest in the puzzle of Nazi Germany should watch this. In the end, it raises a lot of questions and offers few answers, but that may be the legacy of Nazism. But the movie makes its point. As Judge Janning talks to Judge Haywood at the end of the movie he says almost pleadingly, "we never knew it would go so far." Haywood simply responds, "Herr Janning, it went that far the first time you convicted a man you knew was innocent." Powerful stuff.
10/10 -
Scaramouche200417 February 2005At the end of the Second World War in 1945, the world was dealt the final blow, with the discovery and liberation of the Nazi death camps.
The human race who had already faced up to and who had become hardened to nearly six years of murder and violence, found this level of barbarity and cruelty unlike anything the world had witnessed before or since.
For four years after the war, the heads of the former Nazi state were gathered and put on trial for their crimes. This film tells the story of these trials at Nuremberg.
Richard Widmark, plays an American army officer, one of the unfortunate few who marched in to liberate a concentration camp and was sickened by what he saw, a man who is now hell bent on prosecuting the culprits and bringing them to justice.
Spencer Tracy, without doubt one of the greatest screen actors of all time plays Judge Haywood, the man who is to sit in judgement over the proceedings,a man trying to remain impartial, despite his own personal views of disgust and hatred.
Burt Lancaster, in probably his finest performance, plays Dr. Ernst Janning, a former German lawyer, a man who had worked for the Nazis and had been responsible for sending many innocent men to their deaths in the interests of Hitler's Reich. A man now eaten away by his inner torment and feelings of guilt. A man who is now on trial for his own life just as his victims had once been on trial for theirs.
Maximillian Schell, deservedly won an Oscar for his portrayal of Hans Rolfe, the German defence lawyer, trying to defend these men he knows are guilty, while at the same time trying to salvage some threads of dignity for the people of his defeated and war battered nation.
Other notable performances come from Judy Garland, who showed us what a fine dramatic actress she could be when give the opportunity, and Marlene Deitrich as the widow of an already executed German officer...both performances, especially that of Garland were in my opinion Oscar winning level.
It is however Lancaster's performance which gripped me most. He takes the stand against Rolfe's advice and speaks to the court of his crimes, his guilt and his repentance.
He says that for the German people to rebuild their self respect, then they need to face up to the terrible things they have done. He lays mention to the fact that most Germans are saying that they didn't know of the death camps, and his speech is both heartfelt and moving.
'When train loads of women and children past through our towns, crammed in like cattle on the way to their extermination.....were we blind? When we heard those children crying out to us in the night and did nothing to help them....were we deaf? We didn't know because we didn't WANT to know.' He mentions how he thought Nazism was a good thing in the beginning, but how he had become too heavily involved and was too scared to back out once he realised the levels to which it had risen.
A poignant speech and one that still leaves a lump in my throat.
Spencer Tracy has the most accurate and thought provoking line in the whole movie.
Jannings tells Haywood, that he was shocked and appalled at the figure of six million victims....he explains how he never knew it would go that far.
Spence looks down at his shoes and says with neither hatred or kindness, 'It went that far the first time you ever sentenced someone to death whom you knew was innocent.' A truer word could not have been spoken.
It is my belief that every person in the entire world should be made to watch two movies as part of their education of life. Schindlers List and Judgement at Nuremberg. In no other film has the horrific and sickening crimes of the Nazis, been described or portrayed more vividly or graphically as in these two productions.
It is only by keeping this fresh in the mind of future generations can we ensure it can never happen again. -
I am actually humbled by this film, and I am unusually grateful to have seen it, finally, 45 years after its making.
There are some superficial aspects of *Judgement at Nuremberg* that are dated: some of Stanley Kramer's camera-work is unnecessarily showy or gimmicky. Some of the sets are noticeably fake, and some of the dialog is stilted, especially in early scenes outside the courtroom. The music goes momentarily over the top in the climactic confrontation between the key defendant, played by Burt Lancaster, and the chief judge (Spencer Tracy) after the trial.
Much more striking, however, are the film's strengths, and how unusually well it holds up. I usually think of Kramer as an overstated liberal autodidact, but here the acting is, for the most part, admirably restrained and authentic. Even *William Shatner*--no kidding--is subtle here. After an unpromisingly sensational opening salvo by Richard Widmark as the chief prosecutor, this movie settles into a gravity, balance and rigorous honesty (both intellectual and emotional) that are utterly necessary for a serious treatment of a subject as overwhelmingly important as the origin and expression of Nazi evil.
Balance is a key to this film's greatness. It is not insignificant that it was Maximillian Schell, who played the Nazi judges' defense attorney not as a slimy shyster but as a powerfully rigorous advocate determined to hold the *world's* feet to the fire rather than let his clients become patsies for a vast breakdown of moral responsibility with astonishingly widespread implications. By looking courageously into the teeth of the reality of German society and politics leading up to and during the Second World War and the reality of American, European and Communist moral failings, Abby Mann's great screenplay creates an extraordinarily persuasive context for the extraordinarily powerful thematic statements against Nazi atrocities with which it concludes.
Two scenes near the movie's conclusion struck me most powerfully. First, I have never been more sickened, enraged and humbled by visual evidence of the Holocaust than I was when it was presented in the context of the trial at this film's center. Second, I was chilled--frightened in a very contemporary and immediate way--by the great speech of judgment given at the trial's end by Spencer Tracy's Chief Judge Dan Hayward. I urge anyone that is concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in America today to watch this film to better understand how insidiously evil may overtake a modern nation in crisis. More important, I urge anyone that believes that America is today in a crisis that requires extraordinary measures to watch this movie, listen with an open mind to this speech, and consider its implications for the direction of our own country today.
Stepping down now from my soap box, let me say more clearly: Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Never mind how old it is or how long it is or how dreary the subject may seem. If you care about the fate of humanity, you too will be grateful. -
bsmith555225 September 2004"Judgment at Nuremberg" is one of the great films of all time. This can be attributed to the excellent script written by Abby Mann, its skillful direction by Stanley Kramer and possibly one of the greatest casts ever assembled for a motion picture.
The subject trial takes place in 1948 long after the trials of the major German military generals when most people had lost interest in such proceedings. Writer Mann chose to write about the trial of German judges, the people who above all, should have seen the evil of Hitler and his followers coming.
Assigned to the trial as Chief Judge is Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) a low profile justice who by his own admission was not the original or subsequent choice. The prosecutor is Col. Tad Lansing (Richard Widmark) an "army man" who vows to convict the four ex-German Judges. Defending the accused is Hans Rolfe (Maximillian Schell) who must convince the court that the defendants were acting only for the love of their country.
Among the defendants are respected Judge Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) who has written several books on law accepted the world over. Lawson accuses the defendants of signing orders for the sterilization of innocent men and the execution of those who opposed to the Reich and the extermination of the jews. He puts Rudolph Peterson (Montgomery Clift) on the stand as a victim of sterilization. Rolfe manages to expose the pitiful Peterson as mentally challenged. Later Irene Hoffman (Judy Garland) is put on the stand to explain her alleged affair at the age of 16 with an elderly jew. As his coup de grace, Lawson shows a film depicting the horrors of German concentration camps.
In between the sessions, Judge Haywood strikes up a friendship with Madame Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich) the widow of a former German general, in whose former home the judge is staying. In spite of their differences they begin to grow fond of each other.
The army pressures Lawson to ease up and suggests that acquittal or light sentences would best serve American interests since this was the time that the blockade of Berlin was beginning. Judge Haywood is also pressured to go easy on the sentencing.
Maximillian Schell deservedly won an Oscar for his outstanding performance as Rolfe. Any one of the other principals could have easily won as well. Clift and Garland are simply outstanding as are Widmark and Lancaster. And Tracy, did he ever give a bad performance? The still beautiful Dietrich was also excellent.
Others in the cast are a very young William Shatner as Capt. Byers, a court officer, Werner Kemperer as Emil Hahn the most militant of the defendants and Ray Teal as Judge Ives. Teal had long been a fixture in westerns and is probably best remembered for playing Sheriff Coffey on TV's Bonanza.
The DVD release contains an excellent conversation between Abby Mann and Maximillian Schell plus an interview with Kramer's widow, the still beautiful former actress Karen Sharpe.
A true cinematic masterpiece. -
krational666 May 2020First of all, the plot of the movie is interesting: it is the judge of the victorious country who tries the judge of the defeated country.
The reason of the victors was that the judges of the defeated countries had not only failed to uphold justice and violated the dignity of the law when the nazis were in politics, but also helped the nazis to implement many inhuman ACTS. Of the four judges on trial, the best was janine, not only in attitude, but also in reflection: After the defeat of Germany, the national economy was in a state of great depression because of the huge reparations. However, the rise of Hitler not only improved people's livelihood, promoted economic development, solved the problem of employment, increased national strength, but also greatly cultivated national self-confidence and pride. Can such a man be unpopular with the people? He took the germans out of the shadow of the first world war and inferiority, gave Germany strength and hope, he hoped to lead all the people in Europe can develop like Germany, so he did not stop using force to achieve his grand goal. As far as Hitler's rhetoric is concerned, it would be good news for europeans if his dream came true. Under the efforts of Hitler and the Nazi party, the iron fact made people believe that everything Hitler did was for the happiness of the whole nation, and there was no reason not to support him. The servants in the film also said that Hitler did a lot of good things for the germans, such as building roads. In such a situation, even the judge has lost his judgment, let alone ordinary people? And he didn't like Hitler himself. Mrs Berhalter defends her husband: he does not like the nazis, he does not like Hitler, but as a soldier it is his duty to obey orders. But in the end her husband was executed; At the same time, many people did not know about the camp because it was carried out by the ss, the stormtroopers and the secret police. In this trial, the defense of janine's lawyer was brilliant, asking the right questions:
Janine said, 'our achievements are based on our lofty ideals.' why are we successful? What about the rest of the world? Don't they know the intentions of the third Reich? Didn't they hear what Hitler was saying around the world? Did they publish in all the countries of the world what mayne canaveri had to say about his intentions? What was the role of the Soviet union, which had signed an agreement with Hitler in 1939 to encourage him to wage war? Can we convict the soviets? What is the Vatican's responsibility for reaching the height of Hitler's prestige by signing an agreement with him in 1933? Can we convict the Vatican? Is the world leader Winston Churchill to blame? 1938! 1938! In an open letter in The Times of London, he said that when England had suffered a national catastrophe, I should pray to god to send a wise and resolute Hitler. Can we convict Churchill? Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists? Can we convict these American industrialists of helping Hitler make weapons and profit from them? No, Sir, no, only the germans are innocent, and the whole world is responsible for Hitler and Germany. It is easy to convict a man on the bench, it is easy to say that the German system and people were at fault for Hitler's rise to power, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the institutional and national errors with which the soviets had signed the agreement with him, and Churchill praised him and the americans for helping him. Janin said he was wrong, and if so, janin's sin was the sin of the world.
If they are all guilty, the russians, the British, and the americans are also guilty, why are the others/countries not tried, and why should the americans judge only them? But the story of a winner and a loser. If the americans had lost the war and the germans had won, perhaps there would have been a change in the dock and the bench, and in this trial the American judge who had won the war said that the German judge who had lost the war had not presided over the execution of the law. In this sense, the trial of these judges is a political game, because the law in such cases is not neutral, but victorious. The law here is not the representative of justice, but the puppet of politics. As the movie says, the men were sentenced, but they were eventually released for political reasons. It is conceivable that if the United States fought Iraq, and the United States lost, and Iraq occupied the United States, instead of saddam hussein being tried and hanged, bush being tried and hanged. Consider judge Hahn's closing statement: germans fight for their lives and must take specific measures to ensure it is not invaded by foreign enemies. How similar this is to the rhetoric of the United States in the war on terror. Through this film, it is very good for the so-called victors to reflect on what role we played in the tragedy of the world. We have always said that justice will prevail, is the story of the world are eulogizing the victory of justice, but saw this film, but I felt the victory are just. That is to say, not to say that justice will prevail, but victory will be justice. Which reminds me of another sentence: evil is to win, because just stand by.
I wonder if that's what the Chinese government means when they keep saying that most Japanese are innocent? Are ordinary good people victims of a system, an idea, a propaganda voice and a machine? It is easy to condemn others, but difficult to reflect on oneself -
rondine1 February 1999SPOILER: This is perhaps one of the best movies regarding WWII because of the point that Spencer Tracy's character makes towards the end of the movie in his summation. He points out that the defendants were people of ability and intelligence- some were even remarkable. If all of the people that helped this terrible thing along were depraved criminals and monsters, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or a flood. That good, even remarkable people in a time of crisis can delude themselves into heinous crimes against humanity is something to remember, to be guarded against. Personal morality is more important than the good of the state or going along with someone else's idea of right. The movie is a bit long, it actually takes the time to go into depth with the characters. It is definitely a powerful statement about personal responsibility. In one of the closing lines, Burt Lancaster's character (a defendant) tells Spencer Tracy's character (a judge) that he never knew it would come to that- all those people, he never knew. Tracy's character tells him that is came to that the minute he sentenced a man to death that he knew to be innocent.
-
dcshanno14 February 2002There have been many, many court room films made since 1961, and each have made advances in pacing and tension. This is perhaps why "Judgment at Nuremberg"--though a good movie--feels achingly slow at times. It reminded me of the type of thing you'd see in an intro to law or ethics class as an undergraduate. The aged instructor would see it as a meaty source for generating class discussion, and the room of teenagers would find it duller than dirt.
What I liked about the movie, what I found to be its strength was it's attitude of fair play. Everyone in the film is allowed to gain sympathy from the audience because their motivations are given. Colonel Lawson is only self-righteous because he has witnessed first hand the horrors of the concentration camps. Hans Rolfe is ashamed of himself and of his countrymen for what was done during the war but trudges ahead with his defense of the judges because he hopes to give Germany some sense of dignity through the trial. And Ernst Janning did what he did during the war because he hoped to make a difference from within the system rather than resigning from it in protest. This easily could have been a film in which the triumphant Americans put the smug and arrogant Nazis in their place (maybe if it had been made ten or 15 years before it would have been), but instead it concentrates on very grey issues and the people behind them. -
hitzzen4 October 2005Judgment at Nuremburg is a well-made and well-acted film, with some stirring speeches. However, in the end it presents an incredibly rhetorical and propagandist perspective on these trials. For instance: there is a serious legal question as to the authority by which the US puts the Nazis on trial. Of course. what the defendants did was horrific, and they ought to have been held accountable for it, but was it illegal? By what law? By whose law? Shouldn't there be a distinction between acting against a Nazi law and acting against a moral law? Aren't we really looking at a sort of self-righteous 'victor's justice'? Shouldn't these questions be settled politically or by force, rather than with a veneer of pseudo-legalisms?
At the beginning of the movie, it seems sensitive to this question. The prosecutor seems over-zealous. The defense lawyer seems earnest. By the end, any opponent of the procedure of the trial (like the dissenting judge) is racist Nazi or an equivalently immoral patriotic American. Any subtle thought that, for instance, there is something funny about holding someone responsible for enforcing the laws of their own country is assimilated to racism and Nazism.
To add insult to injury, the movie can't even bear to have a heroic German figure. Janning, who gives the crucial testimony in the case, ends up trying to excuse himself in the end--in a way entirely inconsistent with his earlier speech and everything we know about his character.
Don't be taken in by this movie. It doesn't want you to think. It wants to bully you, with all the heavy-handed tricks a movie-maker has, into thinking that all patriots are Nazis and that legal niceties can be run roughshod over if some pure vision of morality demands it. It's really too bad, because the moral and legal issues connected with the trials are very serious and very relevant today.