Nominated* for eleven Academy AwardsÂ(r), including Best Picture, Judgment at Nuremberg is “magnificent” (Los Angeles Times), “continuously exciting” (The New Yorker) andboasts brilliant performances by an all-star cast. American judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) presides over the trial of four German jurists accused of “legalizing” Nazi atrocities. But as graphic accounts of sterilization and murder unfold in the courtroom, mounting political pressure for leniency forces Haywood to make the most harrowing and difficult decision of his career. *1961: Actor (Maximilian Schell, won); Actor (Spencer Tracy); Supporting Actor (Montgomery Clift); Supporting Actress (Judy Garland); Director; Adapted Screenplay (won); Cinematography (B&W); Art Direction (B&W); Film Editing; Costume Design (B&W).Director Stanley Kramer’s socially conscious 1961 film tackles the subject of the war crime trials arising out of World War II in an earnest and straightforward fashion, exploring the consciousness of two nations as they struggle to come to terms with the aftermath of the Holocaust. Spencer Tracy plays the American judge selected to head the tribunal that will try the suspected war criminals. As he sets about his task, he must confront the raw emotion felt by the German people, and his own notions of good and evil, right and wrong. Regarded as a classic, this stark rendering of one of the most pivotal events in the 20th century features a stellar cast including Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Marlene Dietrich, a young William Shatner, and Maximillian Schell, who won an Oscar for his role as counsel for the defense for those charged with crimes against humanity. Judgment at Nuremberg is important viewing not only for the history of film, but for the history of modern times. –Robert Lane
Buy “Judgment at Nuremberg” For Only $7.65
May 9, 2008
#1
Stanley Kramer was an Anti-American liberal member of the
hollywood elite. In this film he uses America’s victory
over the Nazi menace and its liberation of Europe as an
excuse to bash America more than the Nazis.
He salts the film with Anti-America references and reverses
history at the end of the film to make it look like America
freed all the nazis from prison. And guess what? Kramer tells
us through his propoganda that it was our life-struggle for
Freedom against the soviet union that made us into criminals.
Its a wonder the man didn’t move to the soviet union he loved
it so much. Its a well made film and some of the actors give
better performances than the film deserves, but its Anti-American
script and direction work against those great performances.
There is also a clear plea made in the film for Warren-Court
style judicial activism on the part of judges. Kramer is
making a liberal argument in favor of Judges legislating from
the courtroom. But that wasn’t the problem in Nazi Germany.
The problem in Nazi Germany was that these judges were evil
men working for a fear government. Their holding office in
the Nazi government should have been sufficient grounds for
prison terms. The trial for these judges should have lasted
about five minutes. Did you hold office in the nazi government?
Yes – automatic seven years. Did you convict anyone under the
following laws – If yes, one more year for each person he
convicted. Were you a party member? If yes, five more years.
The trials for these men should have been about ten easy
questions. Going into why they made decisions under a particular
law is irrelivant to the crimes that they are guilty of. If
they held office, if they applied criminal laws, if they were
party members, then they are guilty.
And the nazi lawyer should have been thrown out of court for
acting like that. No American judge at Nuremberg would ever
have allowed a nazi to abuse witnesses like he did.
May 9, 2008
#2
I found this movie very long, and not overly compelling. My son and I love old movies, and I thought that this would be a great one, combining history with Spencer Tracy – however, we could barely sit through it all. I watched the miniseries with Alec Baldwin, and found it fascinating – I assumed this movie would be on a par with the miniseries. Such was not the case – unless you’re an insomniac, you might want to skip this one.
May 9, 2008
#3
This isn’t really much of a film. Its not really even much
about the real trials at Nuremburg. Its a big hollywood
exercise in moral outrage years after the events in question.
And the moral outrage is directed all over the map.
Its a film that hates America as much (or possibly more)
than it hates nazi germany. It goes into american history
to “indict” america and then in the end it blames America
for not putting more Germans in prison after the war, for
not overthrowing hilter..etc. In the
end, it becomes less an anti-nazi film and more an anti-cold
war/anti-american film.
The crimes of the judges are carefully selected in the film.
And they are as much (or more) about the american civil rights
movement than they are about nazis. The core crimes are
anti “race” mixing laws and sterlization laws. Kramer couldn’t
make a film directly about those issues at the time, but
this served as a vehicle to say it another way.
The characters are wooden and overly melodramatic at the
expense of any realism. Spencer Tracy plays the super-judge
with the pure all-american heart who gets all the moralizing
sermon lines. In the end, he makes an arguement for “real”
law being centered in vengence and how all that fancy
book-learnen law is just for moral cowards. The problem with
that is that those involved in the film only believed in this
concept of “real” law on a selective basis (i.e. in Germany)
and against “bad” people. The problem with that theory of law
is that law can’t decide between the good and the bad before
the trial begins. “common sense” application of the law always
ends up being politically subjective application of the law.
Burt Lancaster, in his usual hammy style, plays
the repentant nazi. He isn’t convincing as a german judge.
What the film doesn’t deal with is that
the real trials, “repentance” was often false and done in
exchange for deals. The worst example being Albert Speer
who traded reptentance at trial for “rehabilitation” and
a whitewashing of his criminal role. Lancaster would of course
soon after go on to make a hero out of a psychopathic killer
in birdman of alcatraz.
Marlene Dietrich slithers in and out of the film in a rather
useless way. But she is mostly in the film just to be seen
and probably to make her own moral statement. She could
have been put to much better effect in any number of ways.
But really, most of the film is just window-dressing anyway.
The real purpose of the film at the time was to get the US
Army camp liberation films out in front of the public. They are
the real center of the film.
The issues the film touches on could be used to give people
much to think about, but in the end the film wants to do the
thinking itself. And its outrage is directed at America
rather than at the war criminals.
May 9, 2008
#4
It appears there is an almost universal five-star rating for this film among Amazon reviewers. It is of course an important film. But it is also a self-important film. Its interminable running time of 186 minutes can be excruciating. Its release in 1961 came a year before Nazi henchman Adolf Eichmann was executed and the year after Preminger’s “Exodus”, so the film perhaps provided essential insight into wartime criminal responsibility, an issue obviously still with us. But to say that it today delivers its intended wallop is just not so — it is too flawed artistically. First, Kramer’s direction is obvious and plodding. The cinematography & editing provide long pans and zooms in courtrooms, long looks of knowing reactions, long silences, good Germans singing long lieder (“Germans love to sing” says Dietrich) and long-winded observations by folks about everything from autobahns to death camps. In short, everything’s too long! Second, the writing makes you squirm — I challenge anyone to name a major feature with as many repeated lines. Writer Mann apparently imagined that for this film repititions of superficial thoughts added up to deep ones.
Third, the acting is surprisingly wooden, given the talent. Lancaster as a Nazi Justice Minister alternately blusters and conducts soul searches; Garland as a ‘collateral damage’ racial victim gives an unusually unconvincing performance, for her; Dietrich’s appearance as a Nazi widow is stiff and also odd, given her real-life staunch opposition to Nazism; Widmark as the prosecutor is just tiresome. Oscar-winner Schell as the defense attorney, allowed by Kramer to continuously yell in the court scenes, is full of sound and fury signifying practically nothing. Tracey as the head judge is a brighter light, but still mostly sleep-walks except for two sterling scenes –first, as he announces the court’s decision eloquently from the bench and second at the end of the film (which I won’t give away for anyone who hasn’t seen it).
The first major saving grace is the deeply moving performance of Montgomery Clift on the stand – the best piece in the entire 3 hours. His singular portrayal speaks more of horror and responsibility than everything else in the entire movie. The other saving grace is the historical events it, unfortunately, rather ineptly presents. (For my background see: ahlynde under People).
May 9, 2008
#5
I am not a holocaust expert and when I bought the movie I thought it was based on the real trials, and the characters were drawn from real life. Even while viewing it I was able to perceive that it was a fictional story. It does not take a great deal of intelligence to see through the fictional idea of a Nazi judge (played rather well by Burt Lancaster) admitting to his crimes, nobody every did unless they had a reason and with this degree of emotion and integrity? Please…. Spencer Tracy does a great job of the central character although very predictable. The actor who plays the guy who was subject to sterilization (not sure of his name) does a great job. Watchable once, very melodramtic for today’s times and some nice dialogue but definitely fictional.