Em 1948, um tribunal dos Estados Unidos na Alemanha ocupada julga quatro nazistas por crimes de guerra.Em 1948, um tribunal dos Estados Unidos na Alemanha ocupada julga quatro nazistas por crimes de guerra.Em 1948, um tribunal dos Estados Unidos na Alemanha ocupada julga quatro nazistas por crimes de guerra.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Ganhou 2 Oscars
- 16 vitórias e 26 indicações no total
Resumo
Reviewers say 'Judgment at Nuremberg' is acclaimed for its profound exploration of justice and morality post-World War II. It examines accountability through the trial of German judges, highlighting moral dilemmas and post-war challenges. Performances by Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell, and others are universally praised. The script, direction by Stanley Kramer, and historical accuracy are lauded. Despite minor criticisms about length and direction, the film is recognized as significant and thought-provoking.
Avaliações em destaque
It 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.
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.
If 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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesSpencer Tracy's eleven-minute closing speech was filmed in one take using multiple cameras shooting simultaneously.
- Erros de gravaçãoAt the end of the movie a graphic states that 99 people were tried and sentenced at Nuremberg and that by the date of the movie (1961) none remained in prison. Some critics have pointed out that Nuremberg defendants Rudolf Hess and others were still imprisoned in Spandau. However, Hess and the other major defendants were tried by the International Military Tribunal (with judges and prosecutors from each of the four victorious Allied powers). The caption in the film states that the statistic refers only to the Nuremberg trials "held in the American sector." By 1961, all of the defendants sentenced in the American trials were indeed free; the graphic is therefore correct.
- Citações
[last lines]
Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Juicio en Nuremberg
- Locações de filme
- former Reichsparteitag area, Nuremberg, Bavária, Alemanha(After the first session Judge Haywood walks through these former Nazi Party Rally Grounds)
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 3.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 12.180
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 59 min(179 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente