Juicio en Nuremberg

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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