Judgment at Nuremberg
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.11 You Save: $8.87 (59%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.63 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Judgment at Nuremberg
Movie Review: A Real Must-See Movie
Summary: 5 Stars
You really must see this, both for its historical content and its entertainment value. Surprisingly, it wasn't all that depressing. For one thing, this was the trial of four Nazi judges. The big guys had already been tried. But as Judge Haywood (Spencer Tracy) pointed out, they were effectively giving the color of law to atrocities. At the very end, one of the defendants, Ernst Yanning (Burt Lancaster) said to Haywood that he did not know it would come to that, all those millions murdered. Judge Haywood replied, "It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."
So the story is really about justice, and the cast is amazing. Tracy and Lancaster are the start: William Shatner plays the young Army officer assigned to assist Heywood. Marlene Dietrich plays Mrs. Bertholdt, the owner of the house that was commandeered for Haywood's residence during the trial (which lasted almost a year). Richard Widmark is the prosecuting attorney; Maximilion Schell is the defense attorney. Judy Garland is Irene Hoffman, a girl who was sentenced to prison for perjury because she refused to lie.
The one seriously depressing part of the movie is when the prosecution plays the films made at the opening of the concentration camps. Piles of emaciated corpses, ovens with human skeletons, artwork on pieces of parchment made from human skin. The film started with a map of Germany and German-occupied states showing the locations of all the concentration camps: there were so many!
The most dramatic moment is when Ernst Yanning, against the advice of his attorney, makes a statement about his guilt and the guilt of all those who supported the Nazis. Only problem with his role was that when we saw him in his prison garb, I couldn't help seeing the Birdman of Alcatraz.
It's an important film, very well made, and over three hours long. Worth the time it takes, but be prepared for the fact that courtroom drama necessarily involves a certain amount of tedium, that being the nature of legal procedure.
Movie Review: Topical moral dilemmas
Summary: 5 Stars
Judgment at Nuremberg was made in 1961, the year that the Berlin Wall went up. It is set in 1948, the year of the Belin airlift. For those with a sense of history, these two facts are vital in understanding the subtext of the film.
The Nuremberg trials were perceived by many Germans as Siegersjustiz - victors' justice. The generation of perpetrators has gone and time has dulled the edge of the atrocities. A film like this is necessary to remind the modern generation exactly what went on. The clips of the extermination camps are disturbing, but absolutely vital at a time when some who should know better deny history in order to shape contemporary politics.
More important than the historical significance of the film are the moral and legal dilemmas it deals with. How far is it acceptable to obey laws that are discriminatory against a minority? To bend the law for "the greater good"? To convict an innocent man because it is politically necessary? When faced with an implacable foe bent on its destruction, how far can a society go to protect itself? And what of the little people who implement the rules that are promulgated from on-high?
At the time the film was made Communism seemed to be on the march. At the end of the film the postscript informs the viewer that not one of the war criminals sentenced in Germany was still in jail in 1955 (except Rudolf Hess, it should be added for completeness, who remained incarcerated in Spandau until his death). It was politically necessary to forget what had been done in order to face a ruthless new enemy from beyond the Iron Curtain.
Those dilemmas - truth and reconciliation, justice for the victims, responsibility for genocide, political rapprochment with yesterday's enemies in order to confront today's foe - still are relevant today. This is a thinking person's film. Watch it and then watch the news. Anyone who has even the least interest in what is going on in The Hague, Arusha, Baghdad and Phnom Penh should buy this film.
Movie Review: An American film made with rare subtlety, especially for 1961
Summary: 5 Stars
I saw this film for the first time a few days ago and it will stay with me a long time. Are you embarrassed to think that you've read and seen enough already about the Holocaust? This film is only tangentially about the Holocaust. It is mostly about how morality shifts depending on who is in power and who wins the war, and how easy it is to accuse others of crimes that most of us under similar circumstances might commit or ignore. It is about standing up and saying out loud that you have made a terrible mistake. It is about not going along with the prevailing winds just because you tell yourself you'll try to do better later.
The film is in black and white, which gives it a semi-docuemtary look,
There are interesting shots, including zoom close ups used to great dramatic effect. The actors never gave better performances, including
Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland, and of course Spencer Tracy. Maxmillian Schell was fifth or sixth in billing for the film, yet he won the Oscar for the thankless role of being a defense attorney for German judges on trial in 1947 for committing crimes against humanity because they worked for and supported the Nazi regime. This was a second-string trial, the famous criminals like Hess had already been tried and convicted. Yet, Spencer Tracy's character, as head of the military court tribunal (written a little too nobly perhaps)takes this trial, and its implications, as seriously as if it had been the first time the issues of complicity and "just following orders" had ever been raised. The film is 3 hours long and yet moves right along, and there are few slow moments. I'm not sure if the Marlene Dietrich character (widow of an executed Nazi general) was essential to the story, but it was entertaining to watch Dietrich and Tracy play off each other. Watch them in the coffee-drinking scene in her apartment. This is still a great film, equally for the story and the issues it raises, and for the cinematic techniques and choices.
Movie Review: A Film for All Seasons
Summary: 5 Stars
Written by Abby Mann, directed by Stanley Kramer, "Judgment at Nuremberg" is one of those rare movies that keeps you in its clutches for a very short three hours. Set in 1948 this 1961 film covers the Nuremberg trials when judges were put on trial for their decisions during Hitler's rule. The acting to an individual is outstanding. Spencer Tracey, who presides over the trials, is an American judge recently turned out of office by the electorate, a rube from Maine who has the uncanny ability to get to the truth. His performance, his facial expressions, his eyes are a joy to watch. Richard Widmark for the prosecution is on fire with righteous indignation at the atrocities the defendants have committed. Maximilian Schell as the attorney for the defense-- he won a much-deserved Academy Award-- attempts to show that his client was only obeying German law. Bert Lancaster gives one of his best performances ever as Ernst Janny, a judge who was just doing his job. Montgomery Clift as a man who has been ordered sterilized by the German judiciary should have won an Academy Award. Judy Garland as a German woman accused of having an affair with an older Jewish man is superb. The ageless and beautiful Marlene Dietrich as the wife of an executed Nazi officer is magnificent. Finally a very young William Shatner recently of the television series "Boston Legal" completes the major players in this timeless film.
Mr. Kramer used actual footage from the concentration camps in this black and white film, much of which-- the outside scenes-- was shot in Germany. Its statement is simple: obeying an unjust and evil law does not excuse anyone, whether or not he is a judge.
Informative interviews with Abby Mann, Maximilian Schell and the wife of Stanley Karmer are included with the DVD.
Movie Review: Thought Provoking Film; Moving Performances
Summary: 5 Stars
Director Stanley Kramer's classic masterpiece, JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG explores one of the world's darkest periods - World War II and the Holocaust - with a deeply moving plot and stellar performances from a magnificent cast. From screen veterans Spencer Tracy, Marlene Dietrich, Richard Widmark, and Burt Lancaster to relative newcomers, including William Shatner, Maximillian Schell and Werner Klemperer, the film explores the theme of individual complicity in actions of the state, while weaving a complex tapestry of raw emotion, legal, ethical and political nuance, and humanitarian considerations.
The power of the film - not doubt more numbing at its 1961 release, lies not in the sweeping panorama of world events, but in the singular moments of human connection. Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland give small, but significant performances in their roles of victims. Richard Widmark's fiery personality and passionate prosecution is given credence by his singular testimony to the horrors of the concentration camp. Werner Klemperer offers a portrait of a man possessed with a chilling arrogance and strident rationalization of horrors in the name of bureaucratic efficiency. Maximillian Schell offers the conflicted personality of an attorney torn by the horrors of events and fidelity to the notion of a fair trial and preservation of post-war national pride. Burt Lancaster's character is the archetypical "fallen angel," a man who has turned aside from his own principles and now must confront the demons, which have resided in his sould.
For those who hide behind a swell of ignorant patriotism and mindless obedience to irrationality, this film is a chilling testimony of the evil that can occur when good men do nothing in the face of tyranny.