Tormentos de duda

The all star cast and impressive budget are not the only things differing Judgment At Nuremberg with Sealed Verdict. For one thing there is no mention at all in 1948 of the Cold War which was now a fact. We still have four allied nations conducting the trials of the people of the Third Reich guilty of war crimes, the definition of which we were trying to arrive at still.

Ray Milland has just successfully prosecuted Nazi general John Hoyt for the massacre of the men of a village. A survivor lived to tell the tale. A French woman appeared as a defense witness for Hoyt who did in fact do a random of act of kindness for her, rare in their higher echelons of the Third Reich. Florence Marly's testimony in fact has brought her to the attention of French occupation forces who are looking at her as a possible collaborator.

We sure didn't see Richard Widmark second guessing himself over those four judges he prosecuted in Judgment At Nuremberg. But Milland whose case was made on the eye witness testimony of one man starts to doubt. He starts reinvestigating the case.

Here the Allied powers seem to be worried about a German underground springing to life. I think Judgment At Nuremberg was far more realistic on this point, the Germans themselves were worried about the Russians as were we. Where were the filmmakers who made Sealed Verdict on this issue?

Like that other Paramount feature A Foreign Affair some second unit cinematography was done in occupied Germany. I wouldn't be surprised if some of that footage found its way into Sealed Verdict.

Milland and cast deliver nice performances, but the film came to the American movie-going public already dated.

"Sealed Verdict" is a film based on a faulty premise. In the film, a prosecutor wonders if perhaps there's a rush to judgment and a Nazi officer is actually innocent of war crimes. However, in reality, following WWII, there were many trials and practically none of these evil men were punished. In total, only about a dozen top Nazis were sentenced to death...and there certainly was no rush to judgment. Because of this, the film seems oddly sympathetic towards some genuinely evil people.

Major Lawson (Ray Milland) does an excellent job trying a case against a Nazi general...so much so that his superior officer is thrilled with the conviction. However, over time, Lawson starts to wonder if the man actually is innocent...especially when the main witness against the General admits he lied under oath!

The film seemed to strongly imply that the Nuremburg Trials might have been miscarriages of justice. While it is true, it's NOT because the innocent were prosecuted but because MANY truly vicious murderers were allowed to get away with their crimes. As such, the film is amazingly sympathetic towards the notion that the trials were somehow rigged or unjust...which simply isn't the case. A VERY flawed and irritating film, in fact, and you wonder WHO at Paramount Studio thought such a film was a good idea.