Rating: 
Summary: Kramer's High Point
Review: Jeeze, I guess they'll let just about anything go out of circulation these days. Back in the pre-Schindler era, this film possessed considerable mana as one of the most effective of the early films dealing with Nazi war crimes--rather surprising, considering it was produced and directed by the mediocre Stanley Kramer, auteur of any number of simplistic '50s "social problem" pictures. Part of the film's power comes from its narrow focus: it deals with the little-known 1948 "judge's trial" rather than the earlier trials of the regime's big figures, allowing the film to concentrate on matters of justice rather than more sensational aspects. But most of the credit goes to the actors, who do an outstanding job virtually without exception, easily overcoming the film's slow pace and Kramer's obvious directorial failings. Of the principals, Tracy and Dietrich turn in effective variations of their customary roles of the period, the low-key man of decency and the aging but still potent high-class femme. Widmark is very fine here; this is one of his few "good-guy" roles that allowed him to utilize the obsessive qualities apparent in his sociopath portrayals. Too bad he didn't do more like this. But the two outstanding performances are Clift and Lancaster. Clift plays a man driven mad by his suffering under the Nazis, in a portrayal that is excruciating to watch (with our knowledge that it reflects Clift's own personal agonies) and utterly unforgettable, for all that it lasts a total of fifteen minutes or so. Lancaster, as Dr. Emil Jannings, is another matter. He says almost nothing for the first hour-and-a-half of the film, but his presence dominates proceedings all the same. And when he at last speaks, his portrayal of a man clinging to the last shreds of dignity, knowing he has not earned them and does not deserve them, is nearly as harrowing as Clift's. Beginning with "All My Sons" in the 40s, Lancaster did a number of pictures on this level when he wasn't playing acrobats or cowboys. It would be nice for some Amazonite to put together a List. (It should be noted that this is probably your sole opportunity to see William Shatner in a role in which he does not overact. In a just world the secret behind this, which Kramer kept to himself, would have been turned over to the UN for distribution to the international film community.) In the end, "Nuremberg" does not match its subject. No film could, but Kramer's implication that his particular brand of earnest liberalism is the antidote to government terror comes across as especially inane. It didn't help in Germany, and it wouldn't help anywhere else. But revealing what doesn't work paves the way toward discovering what does. On that level, at least, "Nuremberg" is a worthwhile effort.
Rating: 
Summary: A touching and brilliantly acted film,
Review: Judgement at Nuremberg is not only a brilliantly scripted and directed film, but also a masterclass in acting. Maximillian that does not appear dated in terms of its morality or ethics, despite the 40 years that have eclipsed since its production. Schell gives an Oscar winning performances as Herr Rolf, who struggles in vain to defend Nazism. While Spencer Tracy is equally convincing as the Judge. Yet it is perhaps Montgomery Clift and Burt Lancaster that give the most touching performances, as both are playing atypical characters; Clift indeed giving the performance of his career. Judgement at Nuremberg is a film that grafts itself (and rightly so) on to the viewers imagination, with the real holocaust films as graphic and disturbing now as they were in 1961.
Rating:
Summary: A Rare Film of Considerable Power
Review: One rarely finds a movie that works on as many levels as Kramer's famous JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG. The film concerns an American judge (Spenser Tracy) sent to Germany to preside over a war-crimes trial at a point when American politicians are less concerned about justice than about securing German support re the Cold War. As such, the film concerns not only the Nazi atrocities on trial, but the American government's willingness to become accomplices after the fact if such will buttress America's own military interests. The film repeatedly raises questions concerning the price of such deliberate, feigned public ignorance--both as it was manifest in Nazi Germany before and during the war and as it is now becoming manifest in America and its allies after the war. The action of the film divides between the courtroom and the judge's personal experiences in Nuremberg. The courtroom scenes are quite powerful, with Maximillian Schell as the attorney for the defense who argues that his clients knew nothing of the holocaust and Richard Widmark who argues that one could not live in Nazi Germany without being aware of the holocaust. At the same time the judge finds the same battle in his social life when he meets Marlene Dietrich, widow of a Nazi officer, who insists that the German people (herself among them) were completely ignorant of Nazi atrocities and who clearly feels judgement of the German people should be quietly set aside now that the war is over. Ultimately, of course, Tracy must pass judgement both in the court and in his personal relationships on the degree to which claims of ignorance can be accepted as truth--and must accept responsibility for the result. Tracy and Dietrich's remarkable performances are equalled by Widmark and Schell. Indeed, the entire cast--which includes Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland, and Montgomery Cliff--is particularly fine. The script is remarkable for its directness, the cinematography is quite basic, and the score is both discreet and atmospheric. The film's conclusion, which includes a confrontation between judge Tracy and accused Lancaster, is extremely memorable. Although some may find the film a bit long or a bit too intellectual, most will be impressed with virtually every aspect of JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG--and most particularly with the casual restraint with which it tells it story and makes it powerful point. Required viewing. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Responsibility?
Review: Spencer Tracy stars as an American judge who travels to Germany in 1948 to take part in the Nuremberg trials. For eight months he chairs the panel trying four German judges, one of whom is respected scholar Burt Lancaster. Defense Attorney Maxmillian Schell makes the case that the men were simply following the law as written in Nazi Germany and cannot be held accountable for the brutality inflicted on those found guilty. Prosecutor Richard Widmark argues that the men knew what they were doing and understood the fate of those found guilty and that they acted inhumanely. Both men argue their cases well in a trial marked by emotion and great drama. Judgment at Nuremberg is a powerful movie, since it deals with atrocities and wounds that may never be completely healed. It also deals with a fundamental question that surrounds war: Are people who are simply following orders (or the law as it exists in their country) to be held responsible for their actions and the fate of those they affect. The film's screenplay is sharp, honest, and makes points on both sides, although emotion certainly affects how one answers the questions it raises. More than anything, however, this movie is about acting. Tracy is the rock that centres the film, the weight of his characters decisions ever present on his face and in his motions. Schell and Widmark have plenty of chances to set off fireworks as the lawyers, and they take full advantage of the opportunity. Lancaster is quietly strong and imposing, never getting much dialogue, but establishing a presence throughout the whole film. Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift have brief scenes as victims of Nazi laws who testify against the defendants. Both actors give outstanding performances, almost uncomfortable to watch they are so real. Marlene Dietrich as the widow of an executed Nazi general is also very strong in one of her last performances. Her scenes with Tracy are a joy to watch - two old pros who have seen a lot in their lives. Judgment at Nuremberg is a long film, but it never lags. Whether you simply watch it as a fine courtroom drama or take its messages about responsibility deeper, it is well worth watching. It deals with a part of our history we would probably like to forget, but never should.
Rating:
Summary: Kramer's Masterwork
Review: Stanley Kramer was a daring filmmaker who never shunned controversy. "Judgment at Nuremberg" represented his finest work, a daring masterpiece with some of the greatest film stars who ever lived performing at pinnacle levels. Spencer Tracy is a former U.S. Federal District Court judge who was removed from office by the voters in his home state of Maine at the last election. He tells Edward Binns, playing a U.S. Senator, that he is "an old hick from the backwoods of Maine" and was "not even the tenth choice for this job." He ultimately proves to all concerned just how wrong his initial self-evaluation happens to be. Richard Widmark and Maximilian Schell square off in a courtroom "High Noon" (another great Kramer drama) debating the issue of personal responsibility on the part of judges interpreting laws on behalf of a thoroughly unjust Nazi regime seeking implementation of decrees such as "sterilization" of those deemed unfit to live. Widmark argues persuasively that as administrators of justice the judges on trial had a responsibility to exercise proper jurisprudence in the face of an administration dedicated to tyranny. Schell is also persuasive as he argues that, were it not for the necessity of playing along with the regime at certain times, the situation would have been worse overall within Germany. Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland are moving as victims of Nazi injustices that went unredressed in the court system, while Burt Lancaster is towering as a noted German judge and legal scholar who parts company with his fellow defendants in admitting that in not standing up to the tyranny emanating on high, he is guilty for the crime for which he is being charged. The highest dramatic point of the film is when Lancaster, a towering giant even in silence, stands up and shouts "Enough!" as Schell brutally badgers Garland in cross-examination. He demands to make a statement, which Tracy allows, in which he concedes his guilt. A moving friendship develops between Tracy and Marlene Dietrich, whose husband was a Nazi military officer convicted and executed at an earlier Nuremberg trial proceeding. She insists that her husband was no more than a military officer concerned about battlefield activity and openly admires Lancaster. She is crestfallen when Tracy concurs with Widmark that the judges being tried by the tribunal had a responsibility to uphold the law even in the face of a crazed floodtide of persecution and injustice emanating from the Nazi high command in Berlin. Abby Mann's brilliant script won an Oscar, as did the riveting performance of Schell in the Best Supporting Actor category.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant use of leitmotifs in soundtrack
Review: The simplicity of the sound track is stunning in this film, perfectly mirroring the war-torn setting of the story. The traditional German tune "Lili Marlene" is repeated in various keys and rhythms to capture the feelings of sorrow, hope, despair, joy, and loss which ebb and flow throughout this masterpiece. (The effect is very similar to the use of "Waltzing Matilda" throughout another Stanley Kramer masterpiece, "On the Beach.") The final rendition of this soulful Lied, at the denouement of the Tracy-Dietrich friendship, is heartbreaking.
Rating:
Summary: Please Release a DVD Version!!!
Review: There are relatively few screen depictions of "man's inhumanity to man" which don't devolve into some unsatisfying simplification of reality. (Ususally this is because the reality is either too complex for the screen or the complexity becomes boring to the moviegoer.) "Judgment at Nuremburg" stands as a stark exception to this rule. Kramer deftly weaves a tale that is at once complex and gripping, ideal and practical. While avoiding a soapbox stance about the Nazi's, there are moments in the film when the audience is caught thinking about justice from a purely practical standpoint, and Kramer grabs them by the heart/soul with the depiction of an ideal delivered sometimes by the accused and other times by the accusors. The character of the elder Nazi jurist, played by Burt Lancaster, even plays both sides of this story element at different points in the movie. (The last few lines of Tracy to Lancaster, for example, get my vote as some of the most powerful on film.) Including the imperfect human sides of each of the characters is a storytelling tool imitated in similar films but never done quite as well as in "Judgment at Nuremburg". I only look forward to the DVD edition for my more permanent collection.
Rating:
Summary: Drama at its finest about right, wrong and very hard choices
Review: There's a serious and timeless theme to this award winning 1961 courtroom drama of four former Nazi judges on trial for war crimes in occupied Germany in 1948. It's not the story of the military leaders who had already been tried and convicted. Rather, these were the men who survived the war by following the laws that ruled the nation. There are deep moral questions here, such as what a judge's responsibility is. After all, judges do not make the laws; they just carry them out. Stanley Kramer, the director, had great material to work with. The screenplay by Abby Mann was powerful. And the cast included some of the finest actors of the time. Spencer Tracy plays the judge, a widower from Maine with simple tastes. He's a bit embarrassed to be given a large house, formerly occupied by a high ranking Nazi officer whose surviving wife is played by Marlene Dietrich. The judge has a difficult job and he ponders it as he walks through the ruins of the city with wide-eyed wonder. How could all of the horror have happened? And who is responsible? Responsibility, however, which is the theme of the film, is not so clear cut. And as the trial progresses, all the shades of gray involved in this concept are brought to light. Burt Lancaster is cast as one of the judges on trial, a dignified and respected man of the law. Richard Widmark is cast as the prosecuting attorney, a colonel who had personally been present at the liberation of the concentration camps. And Maximilian Schell, in an Academy Award winning performance, plays the part of the defending attorney whose outstanding legal expertise keeps shedding new light on the evidence. Judy Garland is one of the witnesses, and so is Montgomery Cliff. The entire cast is excellent. I found myself holding my breath as the twists and turns of the legal implications were examined with fine-honed brilliance.
The film takes up two videotapes and runs for three hours and six minutes and there is not one slow moment. I watched it with a sense of total involvement. I couldn't help but transpose all the legal and moral arguments to what is happening in our world today. And my own mind went though its own little debate as to the subtleties of right and wrong and the hard choices that must be made. This is drama at its finest. And a truly magnificent film. I give it my highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Important film about the Holocaust
Review: This film dramatizes the Nuremberg trials, and does so magnificentally. The film's message is vital, and still pertinent now in modern times. The high-power cast all put in performances that mesmerize. Dietrich and Tracey both act with tenderness and humanity (sorely needed in a film like this), while Lancaster and Schnell pull off two difficult roles--essentially playing the "villains" of the story--but that is what is so amazing about this film--it ask you to decide who's guiltly or not. While the aforementioned actors give great performances, two standout in a dual of brilliant cameos: Montgomery Clift, as a camp survivor, and Judy Garland as a woman who allegedly had an affair with a Jew. The two tragic actors stop the show, and steal the film, with emotions so raw-it's difficult to watch. Garland, in particular is powerful in the film, brining in dignity, defiance, grief and anger to a role that amouts to twenty minutes--yet, she is devastating. She doesn't sing a note, but still matches her performance from "A Star is Born," with strong emotions. Clift obviously feels the pain, just as Garland did, and watching his scenes are also difficult, because of the naked vulnerability in them.
THe film is wisely shot in Black and white, and even at three hours, does not drag. This would be a good film to watch in high schools.
Rating:
Summary: SCHELL, TRACY, GARLAND, LANCASTER, CLIFT & WIDMARK GREAT!
Review: This is a superb film by Stanley Kramer with an unbelievably great cast at the height of their craft. Each of the legendary actors were at the top of their performances in the reinactment of the Judge's Trial at Nuremberg. The world was tired of the Nuremberg trials. This one was a mopping up operation. Against a backdrop of an escalating Cold War with the Soviet Union, the selling out of justice by prominent Nazi judges serving the Third Reich is put on trial. Spencer Tracey plays Judge Dan Haywood, a retired Maine circuit court judge brought out of mothballs to serve as the chief justice. Amazingly, the usual action actor Burt Lancaster plays the top Nazi judge who at first does not recognize the Nuremberg tribunal's authority to judge him. For some mysterious reason, critics over the years failed to acknowledge the tremendous acting job he did in convincingly carrying off what was perhaps this film's most dynamic character change. However, my personal favorite was Maximillian Schell whose quintessential Germanic Hans Rolfe, the defense attorney released the full range of this incredible actor's virtuosity. For this he deservedly won an Academy Award Oscar. One thousand words are not enough to celebrate this timeless film: Judy Garland (in perhaps her last film role) delivers a heartbreaking middle aging Irene Hoffman, reliving her experiences of Nazi cruelty on the witness stand; once again. However, not very good was the young Canadian actor, William Shatner playing Army Captain Byers, the aide de camp to Judge Haywood (Tracy). [The Starship Enterprise didn't seem to improve Shatner's skills any.] Richard Widmark (the moody, hostile prosecutor) and Montgomery Clift [who begged for the role he was willing to play without pay!] were excellent. Clift plays a slightly retarded German laborer, sterilized by Nazi doctors because of his mental slowness. This is among the very best films made by Kramer in the decade of the 1960s. Amazingly, it was released one year after INHERIT THE WIND, another Tracy-Kramer classic!
|
