Judgment at Nuremberg

Ostensibly, the action takes place after the more sensational trials of the Nazi hierarchy, when the public appetite for blood, revenge, and harsh justice had been somewhat abated. Tracy plays a relatively obscure retired rural American judge called upon to act as one of the three presiding judges in overseeing the trials of prominent German jurists who had co-operated, collaborated, and then presided over the gradual civil drift from a nation whose conduct and laws were based on a corpus of jurisprudence to one characterized by crackpot eugenic policies, blatant racism, & officially-sanctioned violence and mayhem.

Burt Lancaster plays a pre-eminent German judge, one famed for his legal treatises and international reputation as a jurist. Through the prism of the testimony of both the judges on trial and their cross examination by a zealous American military prosecutor played masterfully by a young Richard Widmark, the viewer begins to understand much more about the slippery slope most of the jurists had unwittingly embarked upon. Add into this equation the introduction of a sensational set of key witnesses played by Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift, and the full emotional impact and profound significance of what these judges had allowed to happen truly gels.

This is an unforgettable and remarkably unique movie, truly a classic and cautionary tale based on the historical record of what the Germans did to each other, based on fact. And by the way, be sure to listen carefully to the final several scenes in which Tracy takes full advantage of several opportunities to cut through all the equivocations, half-truths, and "honest mistake" nonsense, literally electrifying the screen with the power of his monologue and his superb acting. He was truly one of a kind, too. Wow! Don't miss this


Drama at its finest about right, wrong and very hard choices   June 22, 2002
Linda Linguvic (New York City)
67 out of 70 found this review helpful

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.


a really disappointing film   December 9, 2004
Walter Smith (Atlanta, GA)
47 out of 122 found this review helpful

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.




Responsibility?   December 5, 2002
James L. (Toronto, Canada)
32 out of 35 found this review helpful

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.


Anti-American Propoganda from Stanley Kramer   February 26, 2005
Albert Lee (Denver, CO)
22 out of 121 found this review helpful

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.