Jugement à Nuremberg

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.

This 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.

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.

This 1961 film is just about as close to timeless in its impact as you can get, in its searing treatment of the universal themes of law, justice, and humanity. This far downstream, it's worth recalling that the movie was made just 15 years after the end of WWII when the aftermath of the war was still reverberating. It's set during the "Nuremberg Trials" of 1947-49 during which high-ranking German generals, judges, politicians and others responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi regime were tried against still-evolving standards of international law. The movie takes us through just one of these, the trial of four high-placed judges, and I was actually surprised to learn that there was an earlier, much shorter version of this drama shown 2 years earlier on the prestigious old TV series Playhouse 90. But the movie carries a wallop that no TV show could have given.

I had to check the history to be sure, but though the bare bones of the time, place, and setting are accurate, all the characters and details are entirely fictional. I think maybe this was the correct choice, because it could allow the script to concentrate entirely on two major themes in its 3-hour run time: first and foremost, the courtroom drama, and second, a look into German postwar society when most were desperate to forget and try to get back to normal living. The side plot is kind of disposable -- some of those scenes drag -- but the courtroom scenes that are the spine of the movie are intense, claustrophobic, and utterly absorbing. Because of the imbalance of the two parts of the story, I rate this as "only" 9/10, but my bottom-line message is simply to see it, any way you can. There is lots here that resonates with what is happening now all around us.

The cast is flat-out astonishing: Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift. None of these giants are still with us, but if you want to see what the classic Hollywood stars were capable of, this is just about the best place to go. (Schell won the Best Actor Oscar for this, which is hard to argue with once you see him work.) Each one of these multiple leads has at least one powerhouse scene -- always in the courtroom, where all of the true interest of the film takes place -- that is guaranteed to stick in your mind. Tracy and Widmark were in lots and lots of movies, and they tended to play every role in much the same way: Tracy played the aw-shucks average guy you could imagine as a next-door neighbor, Widmark always seemed to have that flat delivery with an edge of menace -- but here they stretch themselves. Widmark's narration of the horrors revealed in the concentration camps (which in the setting of the film were uncovered just two years before) accompanied by hard-to-watch film records is impressively spare and restrained, and Tracy as the leading tribunal judge gives a summation speech that has real weight.

Even among all these leads, however, Burt Lancaster stands out. Playing a respected and even renowned German judge who inexplicably stepped into the dark side, late in the film he delivers a long, uninterrupted testimony that is electrifying. Up till that point he had been only a looming Presence lurking at the edge of the proceedings, but he is the key defendant everyone mentions repeatedly. When will he speak? What will he say? The dramatic tension pays off handsomely. Lancaster was an amazingly physical kind of actor, and by that I don't mean just physique or action-hero roles. But the camera is drawn to him in a way that is hard to explain: he can get your attention just by standing up from a chair. I think much of it is due to a kind of stillness of posture, an utter spareness of movement. I can't think of a single modern actor like that.

It's fun to note that one of the supporting actors in this stellar cast who IS still with us is William Shatner. As the military aide to Judge Haywood (Tracy), he's there from beginning to end, and he does very nicely. Several years later, he'd move on to become Captain Kirk.

Maybe understandably for the time, all the speaking roles for the "German" characters, except for Maximilian Schell and Marlene Dietrich, were played by Americans with fake mild accents. Today that wouldn't work . I'm visualizing a re-mounting of this piece with a true international cast, but I'm not sure anyone wants to revisit the Nazi era in quite so unsparing a way.