उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Maximilian Schell defines acting in this superlative effort which I have used in my classes when discussing the Holocaust. When you watch it, keep an open mind and don't be put off by sayings such as "What is a Christian but a Jew with an insurance policy? Rent it and watch it...I guarantee you will be impressed and troubled by the implications of the subject matter.

The late Austrian actor Maximilian Schell first came to prominence in Hollywood in a supporting role as Nazi Marlon Brando's superior officer in the WWII epic THE YOUNG LIONS (1958); eventually, he became an international film star upon winning the Best Actor Oscar for Stanley Kramer's star-studded indictment of Nazi war crimes, JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961) which, despite the sheer brilliance of his performance, was a somewhat surprising accolade given that he was competing against Paul Newman's iconic characterization of Fast Eddie Felson in THE HUSTLER! Interestingly enough, two of Schell's future Oscar nominations also dealt with Nazism, namely THE PEDESTRIAN (1973; which Schell also directed) and the film under review which garnered him his second Best Actor nod. Once again, he came against an iconic performance – Jack Nicholson's Randle P. McMurphy in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST – but lost out to it this time around; for the record, I have just came across the obscure GIVE'EM HELL HARRY which was the only Best Actor (James Whitmore) nominee from that same year which was still eluding me...

THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH is the fourth of 14 productions from The American Film Theater that I have watched – following Lindsay Anderson's IN CELEBRATION (1975), Guy Green's LUTHER (1974) and Joseph Losey's GALILEO (1975) which more than anything sought to record and preserve renowned pieces of theatre that often featured notable actors. In this case, Arthur Hiller transposes Robert Shaw's play about a Jewish industrialist afflicted by the delusion of being a notorious Nazi officer; this controversial ruse undeniably elicits comparisons with THE RULING CLASS (1971) where Peter O'Toole's mad aristocrat first thinks he is Jesus Christ but then morphs into Jack The Ripper by the end of the film! Curiously enough, Shaw initially objected to Edward Anhalt's s adaptation of his material and asked to have his name removed from the film's opening credits; after watching it, however, he relented and agreed to put it back on but by then it was too late and, indeed, his name does not appear anywhere in the film's opening credits, In any case, there seems to have been no animosity between the two multi-talented actors as Schell eventually directed Shaw in END OF THE GAME (1975) and they co-starred in Shaw's untimely swan song AVALANCHE EXPRESS (1979).

Given the film's title, source of origin and subject matter, I was under the impression that the film would be entirely taken up by the trial which, when it actually comes on in the second half Is indeed riveting – with concentration camp survivors brought face to face with their tormentor; members of the aggrieved public rising from their seats to beat him up following his latest animated diatribe; Schell's own doctors 'confirming' his identity until one of them (Leonard Cimino) breaks down and admits that the evidence was planted by Schell himself! In this part of the film, the presence of passionate prosecutor Lois Nettleton and sensible Magistrate Luther Adler also makes itself felt. While the film's central conceit – a wealthy Jew exposed publicly as a notorious Nazi but ultimately emerging as a delusional Jew - is a fascinating one, it is quite contrived; in fact, the surprisingly fanciful first half, set atop paranoid Schell's NYC apartment, is somewhat heavy-going and even hard-to-take at times. That the film ends up being a worthy one regardless is mostly due to bald-headed, bearded and bespectacled Schell's tour-de-force performance; interestingly, despite the actor's Germanic heritage, he would again impersonate Jews in THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK (1980; TV) and THE CHOSEN (1981). For the record, the copy I acquired suffers from lip-sync issues that can prove distracting at first but one grows accustomed to that fault before long.

The first half of "The Man in the Glass Booth" makes the viewer unsure of what to expect, as Maximilian Schell's protagonist - identified as a survivor of the concentration camps - orates about his experiences and desires. That's when everything changes. But even after this change, the protagonist maintains his attitude. So what's going to become of him, you ask.

The original source was Robert Shaw's 1967 novel, but it got adapted as a play in 1968, and the movie does feel more like a play. Quite a few things in the movie catch you off guard. In the end, it's a fine piece of work. A number of the scenes have a Hitchcock level of suspense. Definitely worth seeing.

I have viewed this movie many times in a poor quality VHS and now finally on DVD. It's difficult to explain the impact this movie can have and one viewing will not do it. It takes several viewings to really get the plot line. Millionaire Jewish entrepreneur Arthur Goldman rules his financial empire from a penthouse apartment overlooking Manhattan. Seemingly at the edge of sanity, Goldman holds forth on everyting from Papal edicts to ex-wives, from baseball to his family's massacre in a Nazi concentration camp. When Goldman remarks on a blue Mercedes continuously parked outside his building, Goldman's captive audience of assistant and chauffeur dismiss their boss' anxiety as encroaching paranoia. But each of Goldman's passionate, seemingly capricious ravings are transformed into a shocking, inadvertent deposition when Israeli agents capture Goldman and put him on trial as Adolph Dorf, the commandant of the concentration camp where Goldman's family was supposedly exterminated. In a trial scene of unrelenting intensity, crafts what the Detroit Free Press called "a white-hot lead performance," mutating from eccentric Goldman to sociopath Dorf and beyond. The riddle of Dorf's true identity becomes wrapped in an enigma of cunning self-treachery and single-minded obsession.

Nice film with magnificent performances about a successful Jew who is kidnapped by Mosad to respond his crimes .It deals with a wealthy Jewish businessman is suspected of being a Nazi war criminal.

This is a retelling of a novel written by actor Robert Shaw, from whose credits he requested his name be removed, and it was adapted as a play by prestigious playwright Harold Pinter who also carried it to stage at a Broadway theater. It works up a certain weight in its exploration of interesting issues as wrong accusation, guilt, responsability and forgiveness .This one belongs to American Film Theater in which it tries to embalm theatrical interpretations. Being freely based on the life of Otto Adolf Eichmann, the picture depicts the arrest and subsequent trial of the former Nazi by the Israelies accused of being a former Nazi concentration commandant. The film's title is derived from the fact that Eichmann sat in glass booth during his trial. And his character has been also adapted in The trial of Adolf Eichman 1997, Eichmann 2007 by Robert Young with Thomas Kretschmann, Franca Potente, Stephen Fry and Hanna Arendt 2012 by Margarette Van Trotta with Barbara Sukowa, Julia Jentsch, Jane McTeer. Cast and support cast provide terrific acting, but it still emerges as stagily verbose. Starring Maximiliam Schell gives a fabulous performance, he delivers a self-indulgent playing, though overacting, at times. He is welll accompanied by a pretty support cast as Louis Nettleton as a prosecutor, Luther Adler as a Judge, Leonard Cimino as a witness, Henry Brown, Lawrence Pressman, among others.

The motion picture with adequate cinematography by Sam Leavitt, being professionally directed by Arthur Hiller. He was a good professional with long career and life, as he died at 93. Hiller directed all kinds of genres with penchant for dramas and comedies. Including important films with the greatest actors, such as : The Americanization of Emily, The miracle of the white stallions, Promise her anything, Plaza suite, Man of La Mancha, The in-laws, Making Love, Tobruk, Silver streak, Nightwing, Author author, Teachers, Outrageous fortune, The lonely guy, See no evil hear no evil, Taking care of business, The babe, among others .Rating 7/10 .Well worth watching. Better than average

A fairly fascinating film, with a thought-provoking, albeit rather contrived, twist at the end, the material is helped a great deal by Maximilian Schell's Oscar nominated performance as the title person. Schell is startlingly good, considering what he has to do, balancing out two different eccentric personalities that are part of his one character. The character he plays is the most intriguing element throughout, but it does have a tendency to dominate, and therefore overshadow the things that film has to say. It also takes a while to get where its going, however the second half is highly intense stuff, and the film is merited by interesting ideas the whole time through.

A unique and terrific movie. Max Shell is the movie. One of his best acting performances. Complex plot calls for close focus and attention. It took quite some time to understand story due to its 'Cerebral layering' of just what is the goal of Shell's character. One very interesting note to movie is that it was based on a broadway play (which on opening had near riots by audiences due to misunderstanding of plot and closed shortly thereafter)and that was based on the original book, both written by none other then Robert Shaw (Capt Quint of 'Jaws' fame). Story is he was involved with the screenwriting or consulting, but in either case Shaw had his name removed in any connection with the movie. Why? Don't know. Unhappy with movie version?? The biggest trouble with this movie is that it is very, very difficult to find. Never shown on TV(where I originally saw on a PBS channel back in ~1979) or in most Video Catalogs. Find it.It's worth the effort. Best of luck.

As has been said in some of my reviews for the other twelve films making up the American Film Theatre series, the American Film Theatre series was an interesting and ambitious project but was also uneven. None of the thirteen films are terrible, one was close to though, but only three are great. 'The Man in the Glass Booth' was also seen as it was written by actor Robert Shaw and to see whether the Oscar nomination (the only performance in the American Film Theatre that was nominated for an Oscar) for Maximillian Schell was deserved.

My conclusions were that Schell's nomination was worthy, but it was a case of the performance being much better than the film itself (same with the subject matter being better than the film). Which left me intrigued but also a little cold. 'The Man in the Glass Booth' is not one of the worst of the American Film Theatre films, it's a lot better than 'Rhinoceros' and particularly 'Jaques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris'. It is also not one of the best, it's no 'The Iceman Cometh', 'The Homecoming' or 'Butley'. Would put it somewhere bang in the middle.

Schell, the heart and soul of 'The Man in the Glass Booth', is extraordinary in the lead role. All the acting in fact is very good, though the rest of the cast are never on the same level as Schell. The second half is a lot better than the first half, with most of the second half being riveting and tension filled.

'The Man in the Glass Booth' is nicely filmed and the setting is simple and intimate without being too stifling. There is some thought-provoking and sincere writing.

However, 'The Man in the Glass Booth' had potential to be a lot better, especially considering the subject and the lead performance. The first half as indicated isn't as involving as the second. Parts are on the sluggish side while the writing is not as natural and can be mannered. While liking the second half a lot, the twist is somewhat contrived.

Furthermore the action was too confined and static. Arthur Hiller's direction has moments, but tended to be undistinguished and in need of more subtlety.

Concluding, definitely worth a one time watch but didn't blow me away. 6/10.

This is my all-time favorite film. Maximilian Schell's Oscar-nominated performance completely dominates everything else on the screen. His long courtroom speeches are both disturbing and riveting. This is based on a book and play by Robert Shaw, who'll you'll probably remember as an actor from "The Sting", "Jaws" and "A Man for All Seasons". He disowned the movie version because of changes made. It has been too many years since I've seen the film, but I have re-read both book and play this month. I think a significant change to Col. Dorff's heritage was probably his objection. While I see his point, I think he overreacted. The film itself is a bit slow moving and everyone else is overpowered by Mr. Schell's breathtaking performance. But those flaws didn't kick in for me until I had seen the film a dozen or more times. It is a must see for Maximilian Schell's work- one of the greatest performances ever filmed.

Robert Shaw's play "The Man in the Glass Booth" might have seemed an odd choice for the American Film Theatre series popular at the time as it wasn't that well known and it certainly was no classic. On the other hand, it offered a great part for its leading actor and Maximilian Schell's performance here is a tour-de-force. Is he the rich, Jewish survivor of the Holocaust or is he, in fact, a Nazi war criminal? That's the question posed by Shaw's play and now this less than exciting film version directed by the less than exciting Arthur Hiller. If it's worth seeing it's for Schell who was nominated for the Oscar for this performance. Needless to say, the original is seldom, if ever, revived.

I can only posit my take on the meaning of this movie based on what was on the screen and not by what Shaw's novel put forth. That said, I found that the meaning and subtext of this movie is amazing.

While an atheist myself, I could clearly see what would be a recasting of Christ's passion in a modern context. What "sins of the world" to be borne by a Jewish man could be more obvious than the burden of the Shoah brought upon him? I see Arthur Goldman's allusions to Jesus throughout, the references about the Catholic Church's "forgiving the Jews" for deicide, his staging of the super before knowingly putting himself in the crosshairs of the Mossad to capture him, and finally most telling... his crucifixion like pose against the inside of the booth at the end, as the magnitude of the Holocaust finally descends upon him.

Did anyone else see this powerful subtext of the movie?

Saw this for the first time recently at a International Jewish Film Festival screening at which both the director (the oft overrated and stylistically lacking Arthur Hiller...the Roger Donaldson of his generation) and star (Maximillian Schell) attended and spoke at. My expectations were high, but the film was quite a letdown. Hiller's direction was dull and generic and had the look and feel of a bad 70's television episode, while Schell brings new meaning to the term overacting (his Oscar nomination makes more sense in light of Al Pacino's Oscar win for his incessant mugging in "Scent of Woman").

The producer of the film mentioned that writer Robert Shaw (from which the source material came and a famous actor in his own right) asked to have his name taken off the film upon reading the screenplay (and then apparently asked to have it put back on later). Not having read his play, I found much of the dialogue awkward and stilted, although many of the statements and speeches in the film give an introspective view of not just the tragedy of the Holocaust, but also the logical if deluded mindset of those Germans that perpetrated such atrocities. Given the intriguing premise, it would have been interesting to see what the film would have been like in the hands of a better director and with the lead character played a bit more understated and nuanced (a great example would be Ian McKellan's brilliant performance in the otherwise flawed "Apt Pupil").

To be fair, the predominantly older Jewish audience I saw it with enjoyed it, although I would guess more out of obligation to the subject matter then to it's artistic merit. All in all, a fairly mediocre film for its' time with a over-the-top performance by Schell, neither of which have aged well. 5/10

This movie, which I have just seen on TCM, in January 2025, for the first time, is pure satire through and through. The American new wave cinema of the 1970s, as some of the work of the European auteur directors of the era, Luis Bunuel being a leading example, was frequently satirical, surrealistic, or both. This explains Schell's exaggerated style, and indeed, the over-the-top style of the film on several aesthetic levels. The film's title pays a knowing nod to Philip Dick.

I am not sure whether any of the reviews, of which I read several, make this identification. Surely, historical and psychological perspectives are relevant here, but the dramatic presentation is underdetermined by such critical considerations, without recognition of the dramatic form as satire. My initial impression was of pretentiousness. Once the courtroom phase of the story took root, I experienced a new revelation about the movie. The script, particularly Schell's character, is so outrageous, indeed, comical -- brilliantly so -- that only the intention of satire could, to my mind, justify and explain the drama as a work of art. Shell's extended, final pose employs a cinematic tactic of permanence superposed on fleeting time, mocking the literal intent (which, so as not to be missed, is clarified by a few trial attendees' utterance of the 'Shema Yisrael'). Only as satire could such a dramatic work become coherent and have its aesthetic virtues appreciated.

Taking the film as satirical may raise the issue of the propriety of making jokes about the Holocaust and, alternately, about Jews themselves, not to put too fine a point on it - and the script is replete with such ironic humor (for which Jewish humor is known). Hitler has been famously satirized in cinema. In this case, the satire is distinguished by an intelligent script, well-informed by cultural themes within current Jewish dialogue respecting Jewish history and the 20th Century. The thoughtful treatment avoids gratuitousness, instead potentially contributing to a more profound understanding of the complexities of history and culture.

Arthur Goldman (Maximilian Schell) is a wealthy Jewish businessman living in a magnificent Manhattan apartment. He is haunted by his Jewish trauma from the war. Mossad agents kidnap him to be held for trial in Israel. He is accused of being a Nazi criminal.

Maximilian Schell with his makeup gets a couple of nominations. He is Schell doing some big acting. Maybe it's too big, but it fits the character. This is based on a Robert Shaw play. At times, it does feel like a play with the characters sitting around talking. The transition is not completely seamless. The first half can be a bit slow and the second half can be a bit too much. I like it.

"Booth," is Schell. Nominated for an Academy Award, he came up against Jack Nicholson in "One flew over the cuckoo's nest." Watch each film, then gauge each actor's performance. Then do it again. As fine as Nicholson is, he is a couple of classes behind Schell. Schell spent years specialising in this type of role, and absolutely perfected it in "booth". Olivier and Brando must take a secondary role to Schell, and I say that fully remembering Olivier's monologue in Rebecca, which was absolutely riveting.

I have many favourite films, Cinema Paradiso, Schindler's List, The Train, Wake in Fright, The Producers, Casablanca, to name a few. My choice is fairly orthodox, you would have to agree! But Schell makes "booth" my number one choice as greatest film ever. And Max is the greatest practitioner of the craft of acting I have ever seen.

As for the controversy associated with this film, I can fully understand it. No one comes out smelling to good in this movie, but in the end, it is humanity on trial, and human failings are, or should be forgiven.

The Man in the Glass Booth is a challenging movie. One finds it difficult to understand completely.

First—Some observations:

---The original novel and play of this story were written by actor Robert Shaw, whose inspiration seemed to come from the 1960 abduction of Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was captured in Argentina by Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, transferred to Israel, tried there, found guilty of war crimes, and hanged in 1962.

---For some unknown reason, Shaw did not want to have his name credited in the movie.

---Maximilian Schell was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for this movie, filmed by The American Film Theatre.

---It seems to have been hard to find this movie for some time, either on VHS or DVD, but is now available through Amazon Prime streaming (with no extra cost). Personally, I am happy for this since, in my opinion, its dialogue is rich and dense, and several viewings may be necessary-- for me at least--to understand it. Due to another user's comment, I am not alone: ..this film deserves, even demands repeated viewing due to its complex and difficult to understand plot.---Schell presents an over-the-top performance, here, in which he completely dominates all the other actors.

---The play seems to touch on many topics: Religion, Ethics, Morality, and Law (both national and international),

---Finally, the very issue of what sanity and insanity is is explored if it is measured in terms of one's relationship to ones' culture and surroundings.

=========================================

Arthur Goldman (Maximilian Schell) is a VERY rich Jewish industrialist who lives in a Manhattan high-rise overlooking his "children"—the many buildings of his empire. His young assistant is Charlie Cohn (Lawrence Pressman) who carries out his orders and listens to his endless ramblings about Christianity, Judaism, sports, and his life in general. While Charlie is looking through Goldman's papers, he is shocked to see a newspaper from November 20, 1964 that is enfolding 2 million dollars in baggies. Why so much cash on hand?!!

The "why" of the cash is not as interesting to Goldman as what the old New York Herald Tribune had reported: The Pope had just forgiven the Jews for Christ's killing and should be held absolved of any such crimes.

Charlie puts up with a lot of Goldman's ramblings, which often seem to verge on paranoid schizophrenia. Goldman sees people in the street that are not there and imagines that a Mercedes is following his every move. He sees his father in the street pushing a pretzel cart (even though his father had been killed in a Nazi concentration camp in 1943 at the age of 70). Through his top-floor telescope, Goldman also sees, men in Nazi uniforms which sends him into a fit—"Why do I live," he says.

However, when Goldman receives a phone call from a wrong number, he goes into action as if he were in danger and needed to prepare for it. He prepares for it as if his own passion play were about to begin. He burns the under surface of his left arm with a candle of his menorah and prepares for the abduction he knows is to come, but why does he do that?

His abduction does come when several men--Israeli secret agents (Mossad)--break into his apartment. They search him from head to toe and even throughout his body cavities. Then they take him to Israel for trial on charges of being a Nazi war criminal—Col Dorff.

During the trial, he demands the right to argue in his own defense and wear his German uniform.

He is placed in a bulletproof glass booth so that no one can harm him during the trial. During the trial, he takes on the personality and arguments as if he were Dorff.

He asks probing questions of his accusers as they present experiences of their time in the concentration camp of Dorff.

But, what gives them the right to judge him guilty anymore than Christ was judged guilty by a system without any clear-cut legal authority? Where did THEY get their authority?

In the end, how can they even prove that he is Dorff?

Note: There are many interpretations of this play. If you don't believe me, read the user reviews. I have my theory. What's yours?

With utmost respect to other reviewers who seem to have enjoyed this film, I keep failing to get the point of the whole thing. Certainly, most actors are doing their best, especially the ones given fewer lines, but you have to avow that Maximilian Schell's performance, however sincere, is overdone and dated. Perhaps he was not the smartest choice for the title role. As to the main plot, if the filmmakers intent was to keep us misled throughout the movie till the very end, congratulations! you did it! I think it's ridiculously twisted and entangled altogether. It is nice to see some good production values of the seventies at their best, as well as some funny hair styles and well conceived props, but this doesn't make up for the lack of sense. I think it's a mistake to overwhelm the audiences with lots of information and tons of strong feelings, just to be unable to come to a well contrived conclusion. Good films need original ideas well developed and well solved. If you launch the great question you have to propose an answer based on sound consideration or, as it should be the case in a film, on a consistent outline for your story. Not a good contribution to understanding the crimes against mankind, and namely the Jewish people, during WWII.

This movie showed up on Turner Classics Movies and as I had never heard of it and it starred Maximillian Schell, I gave it a shot. First off the condition of the print was pretty poor, compared to many movies of the same vintage. Secondly, I am surprised at the relatively high user rating. To me, the jarring plot twist towards the end of the movie not only strains credibility, but is never provided with a convincingly understandable explanation. It just doesn't wash. And Schell's performance is completely over the top; he plays the character as arrogant, imperious, sarcastic and nasty. Whether this was his decision or the director's I don't know, but it helped to ruin the flick for me.

Long unavailable, it is now obtainable in DVD and holds up rivitingly well 30 years later. My wife and I first saw it in the theatre when a few of the American Film Theatre movies were produced and released--and were absolutely blown away. The movie IS Maximilian Schell. The range, nuance, and dramatic mood shifts he brings to this part, which demands polar opposite emotions, are astonishing. How he was not nominated for an Academy Award (to my knowledge) is unbelievable. His performance is what animates this complicated set of twists and turns and brings enrichment of plot turns to a well crafted story with authentic psychological resonance at the climaxe of the film. Well worth your time! It is fascinating, by the way, to pair this movie with a viewing of "Judgment at Nuremburg" in which Schell plays the defense attorney of Nazi war criminals.

This 1975 production caught me off guard.The only reason I took it in was because of Maximillian Schell.Well let me tell you,WOW!! I thought Max was deserving of his oscar for Judgement at Nuremberg in spite of the intense competition that year.This is a movie that starts slowly,and your taken on a ride with Mr.Goldman,a surviving jew from the holocaust,who,is haunted by the stigma of why he survived,and his cynical outlook,on lack of action from the jews against the nazi inquisition,and absence of meaningful resistance.He uses mixed metaphors that his associates don't understand,because of his lack clearly explaining his torment.He delivers one liners,that no one knows what he

is referring to,and keeps this a dark secret,which,he has a morbid museum that is restricted to himself only.The intellect and knowledge of this rich developer is astounding.He expresses everything in outrageous terms,which forms part of his gregarious and likeable personality.Because of the death of his father in the camps,he feels responsible,and also blames the jews themselves,for this outrage to have happened.Max was nominated for this movie,which was not well distributed,in spite of this,his performance is stunning,captivating,and intensive.His humour is chillingly funny.Max gives a whole new outlook on analysis on every conceivable subject.During the trial stage,which he perpetuated,he defends himself in a unique way.He defends his admiration of Hitler,and,his contempt for the jewish people,who went away like sheep.His impersonation of Hitler,is astonishing and riveting.He nails down the body language to a chilling crescendo.He has set himself up as a colonel from the concentration camp,to mock and persecute his fellow jews for their lack of protest.The conclusion of this work by Robert Shaw,was certainly not predictable,I will not give it away.If you like razor sharp scripts and an incredible performance by Schell,this is a must see!!This movie is not for everyone,as the plot is rather complicated,perplexing and confined to 3 sets.Arthur Hiller directed this gem with solid fortitude and conviction.It is unfortunate that the present edited copy,not widely available,was changed,because the original I viewed was flawless.Mr.Shaw who we remember as Quint,in JAWS,retracted his name from the screenplay adapted from his play,because of the editing which cut scenes which had enough change to alter the personality of Mr.Goldman.Mr.Schell's Austrian accent has limited his parts,what a shame!!This movie is very cerebral,and is not for every taste. 11 out of 10

Although I have not seen this film for years it sticks in my mind as one of the best, particularly for its type, ie a courtroom dram, with few different scenes, (the other similar movie I liked was Twelve Angry Men.

The acting is superb, particularly Max Schell as the Nazi and the twists keep the viewer alert.

It is the type of movie that should be shown on TV much more often. It does have a message as well.