| Judgment at Nuremberg | |
|---|---|
.jpg) Theatrical release poster | |
| Directed by | Stanley Kramer |
| Screenplay by | Abby Mann |
| Based on | "Judgment at Nuremberg" by Abby Mann |
| Produced by | Stanley Kramer |
| Starring | |
| Cinematography | Ernest Laszlo |
| Edited by | Frederic Knudtson |
| Music by | Ernest Gold |
Production companies | Roxlom Films Amber Entertainment |
| Distributed by | United Artists |
Release dates |
|
Running time | 179 minutes |
| Country | United States |
| Languages | English German |
| Budget | $3 million[2] |
| Box office | $16 million[3] |
Judgment at Nuremberg is a 1961 Americanepiclegal drama film directed and produced byStanley Kramer, and written byAbby Mann. It featuresSpencer Tracy,Burt Lancaster,Richard Widmark,Maximilian Schell,Werner Klemperer,Marlene Dietrich,Judy Garland,William Shatner, andMontgomery Clift. Set inNuremberg, in the thenAmerican occupation zone in Germany, the film depicts a fictionalized version – with fictional characters – of theJudges' Trial of 1947, one of the twelveNuremberg Military Tribunals conducted under the auspices of the U.S. military in theaftermath of World War II.
The film centers on amilitary tribunal led by Chief Trial Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), before which four judges and prosecutors (as compared to sixteen defendants in the actual Judges' Trial) stand accused ofcrimes against humanity due to their senior roles in the judicial system of theNazi German government. The trial centers on questions regarding Germans'individual and collective responsibility forthe Holocaust, with the backdrop of a tense international situation including the onset of theCold War, theBerlin Blockade, and the geopolitical ramification of thelater Nuremberg Trials upon German support for theWestern Bloc, placing great pressure on Haywood's efforts to reach a just verdict. In addition, the judge faces emotional challenges in his personal relationships withGerman people outside the courtroom who consistentlyclaim ignorance of Nazi atrocities, but who the judge suspects may have known more than they will admit.
An earlier version of the story was broadcast as anepisode of the same name on the television seriesPlayhouse 90 in 1959.[4] Popular interest in this effort caused an expanded focus on its dramatic elements. Maximillian Schell and Werner Klemperer portrayed the same characters in both productions.
In 2013,Judgment at Nuremberg was selected for preservation in theUnited StatesNational Film Registry by theLibrary of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[5][6] The production's presentation of historical events has attracted interest over decades before and since then due to its place in thenarrative portrayals of the Holocaust in film.
Judgment at Nuremberg centers on amilitary tribunal convened inNuremberg,Germany, in which four German judges and prosecutors stand accused ofcrimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under theNazi regime.
Dan Haywood heads a panel of Allied jurists who will hear and decide the case against the defendants. Haywood is particularly interested in learning how the defendant Ernst Janning, a respected jurist and legal scholar, could have committed the atrocities he is accused of, including sentencing innocent people to death.
Haywood seeks to understand how theGerman people could have been deaf and blind to the Nazi regime's crimes. In doing so, he befriends Frau Bertholt — the widow of a German general executed by theAllies — whose family home has been commandeered by the Americans and is serving as Haywood's residence during the trial. He talks with other Germans who have varying perspectives on the war.
Other characters the judge meets areUS Army Captain Harrison Byers, who is assigned to assist the American judges hearing the case, and Irene Hoffmann, who is afraid to provide testimony that may bolster the prosecution's case against the judges. (Hoffman's character bears a resemblance to Irene Seiler, a key figure in the notoriousNazikangaroo court case, theKatzenberger Trial.)
German defense attorney Hans Rolfe argues that the defendants were not the only ones to aid or ignore the Nazi regime. He claims the United States has committed acts just as bad or worse than the Nazis, such asUS Supreme Court JusticeOliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s support for the firsteugenics practices; the German-VaticanReichskonkordat of 1933, which the Nazi-dominated German government exploited as an implicit early foreign recognition of Nazi leadership;Joseph Stalin's part in theNazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, which removed the last major obstacle to Germany'sinvasion andoccupation of westernPoland, initiatingWorld War II; and theatomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final stage of the war in August 1945.[7][8]
Meanwhile, as astrict constructionist jurist, Janning refuses to testify or participate in a legal proceeding that he profoundly feels is no better than a post-WWII Western kangaroo court of its own. As the proceeding becomes more and more intolerable to him, he dramatically breaks his silence. He chooses to testify before the Tribunal as a witness for the prosecution, admitting he is guilty of condemning to death aJewish man of "blood defilement" charges — namely, that the man had sex with a 16-year-oldGentile girl — when he knew there was no evidence to support such a verdict. Janning explains that misled people such as him helpedAdolf Hitler'santisemitic,racist policies out of naive patriotism despite knowing it was wrong, and that all of Germanybears some measure of responsibility for theatrocities committed by the Nazi regime.
Haywood must weigh considerations ofgeopolitical expediency against his own ideals of justice. The trial is set against the background of theBerlin Blockade, and there is pressure to let the German defendants off lightly to gain German support in the growingCold War against theSoviet Union.[9]
While the four defendants maintain their pleas of "not guilty" in their closing statements, Janning and fellow defendant, Werner Lampe, show clear remorse for their actions, while a third, Friedrich Hofstetter, claims theyhad no choice but to execute the laws handed down by Hitler's government. Only the fourth defendant, Emil Hahn, remains unrepentant, telling the Americans that they will live to regret not allying with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. Ultimately, all are found guilty and sentenced tolife in prison.
Rolfe goes to Haywood as he is departing Germany to inform him that Janning wishes him to visit, and he predicts that no defendant will stay in prison for more than 5 years. Haywood replies that Rolfe's position may be logical but without reverence for justice.
Haywood places a phone call, but hangs up when it is unanswered. He receives his travel documents from Byers and tells him to give his best to his German girlfriend. Byers, responding that "Americans aren't very popular in Nuremberg this morning," implies that they broke up in the wake of the verdicts. Haywood dials the phone once again; it's revealed he is trying to reach Frau Bertholt, who ignores the ringing phone with a tear in her eye.
On his way out of Nuremberg, Haywood visits the prison. Janning affirms to Haywood that his verdict was a just one, but asks him to believe that, regarding the mass murder of innocents, he never knew that it would come to that. Judge Haywood replies it came to that the first time Janning condemned a man he knew to be innocent.
As Haywood is shown leaving the cell block, atitle card informs the audience that, of 99 defendants sentenced to prison terms inNuremberg trials that took place in the American Zone, none was still serving a sentence when the film was released in 1961.[10][a]
The film's events relate principally to actions committed by the German state against its own racial, social, religious, andeugenic groupings within its "in the name of the law" (from the prosecution'sopening statement in the film), from the time of Hitler's rise to power in 1933. The plot development and thematic treatment question the legitimacy of the social, political, and alleged legal foundations of these actions.
The realJudges' Trial focused on 16 judges and prosecutors who served before and during the Nazi regime in Germany, and who embraced and enforced laws—passively, actively, or both—that led to judicial acts ofcompulsory sexual sterilization and to the imprisonment and execution of people for their religions, racial or ethnic identities, political beliefs, and physical handicaps or disabilities.
A key thread in the film's plot involves a "race defilement" trial known as theFeldenstein case. In this fictionalized case, based on the real lifeKatzenberger Trial, an elderlyJewish man had been tried for having a "relationship" (sexual acts) with anAryan (German) 16-year-old girl, an act that had been legally defined as a crime under theNuremberg Laws, which had been enacted by the GermanReichstag. Under these laws, the man was found guilty and wasput to death in 1942. Using this and other examples, the movie explores individual conscience,collective guilt, and behavior during a time of widespread societal immorality.
The film is notable for its use ofcourtroom drama to illuminate individual perfidy and moral compromise in times of violent political upheaval; it was the first mainstream drama film to not shy away from showing actual footage filmed by American and British soldiers after the liberation of theNazi concentration camps.[11] Shown in court byprosecuting attorney Colonel Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark), the scenes of huge piles of naked corpses laid out in rows and bulldozed into large pits were considered exceptionally graphic for a mainstream film of the time.
According to numerous sources, Tracy's climactic monologue was filmed in one take using several cameras.[12] Clift had trouble remembering his lines, so Kramer told him to do the best he could, correctly figuring that Clift's nervousness would be central to his character's mental state.[13] (Clift was so eager to do the film that he worked just for expenses.[14]) Lancaster speaks only three lines (none in the courtroom) until his lengthy monologue roughly 135 minutes into the film. Meanwhile Garland was so happy to be working in a motion picture again after seven years away that it took her a while to get into the proper frame of mind to break down and cry.
Theworld premiere was held on December 14, 1961, at theKongresshalle inWest Berlin, Germany.[1] 300 journalists from 22 countries were in attendance[15] and earphones offering the soundtrack dubbed in German, Spanish, Italian and French were made available.[1] The reaction from the audience was reportedly subdued, with some applauding at the finish, but most of the Germans in attendance leaving in silence.[15]
Kramer's film received positive reviews from critics and was lauded as a straight reconstruction of the famous trials of Nazi war criminals. The cast was especially praised, including Tracy, Lancaster, Schell, Clift and Garland. The film's release was perfectly timed, as its subject coincided with the trial and conviction in Israel of NaziSS officerAdolf Eichmann.
Bosley Crowther ofThe New York Times declared it "a powerful, persuasive film" with "a stirring, sobering message to the world".[16]Variety wrote: "With the most painful pages of modern history as its bitter basis, Abby Mann's intelligent, thought-provoking screenplay is a grim reminder of man's responsibility to denounce grave evils of which he is aware. The lesson is carefully, tastefully and upliftingly told via Kramer's large-scale production."[17]Harrison's Reports awarded its top grade of "Excellent", praising Kramer for employing "an ingenious device of fluid direction" and Spencer Tracy for "a performance of compelling substance".[18]
Brendan Gill ofThe New Yorker called the film "a bold and, despite its great length, continuously exciting picture", which asks questions that "are among the biggest that can be asked and are no less fresh and thrilling for being thousands of years old". Gill added that the cast was so loaded with stars "that it occasionally threatens to turn into a judicialGrand Hotel. Luckily, they all work hard to stay inside their roles."[19]Richard L. Coe ofThe Washington Post declared it "an extraordinary film, both in concept and handling. Those who see this at theWarner will recognize that the screen has been put to noble use."[20]
The Monthly Film Bulletin of Britain dissented, writing in a mostly negative review that "this large-scale trial film undermines faith in its philosophical and historical merit by colouring the better part of its message with hackneyed court-room hysteria", explaining that "in a series of contrived scenes ... the point is hammered home right down to the last shock-cut. The same specious technique (zoom-lens shots and camera-circlings predominant) and showmanship turn the trial into little more than a travesty—notably in the melodramatic switch in the character of Janning."[21]
The film grossed $6 million in the United States and $10 million in worldwide release.[22]
The television network premiere of the film was shown onABC on 7 March 1965; it was interrupted to show news footage of the violence on"Bloody Sunday" during theSelma to Montgomery marches.[23] The juxtaposition of the film about Nazi atrocities and the news footage of violence against African-American people resulted in sympathy and greater support for thecivil rights cause.[24][25]
Judgment at Nuremberg was released in American theatres on December 19, 1961.
CBS/Fox Video first released the film as a two-VHS cassette set in 1986.MGM re-released the VHS version in 1991, while the 1996 and 2001 reissues were part of theVintage Classics and Screen Epics collection respectively. In addition, the special edition DVD was released on September 7, 2004.[38]
ThreeBlu-ray versions of the film were also produced. A limited edition Blu-ray was released byTwilight Time on November 14, 2014.Kino Lorber re-released the Blu-ray as a standard release in 2018. The BFI released a 2-disc Blu-ray on January 20, 2020.[39][40]
The Australian Blu-ray was released as part of The Hollywood Gold Series.[41]
In 1985, aSoviet stage adaptation of the film under the titleJudgment was produced forBaltic House Festival Theatre, with Gennady Egorov as director.
In 2001, another stage adaptation of the film was produced forBroadway, starring Schell (this time in the role of Ernst Janning) andGeorge Grizzard, withJohn Tillinger as director.[42]
He argues that the love of country led to an attitude of "my country right or wrong." Obedience or disobedience to the Fuehrer would have been a choice betweenpatriotism ortreason for the judges. [...] Why did the educated stand aside? Because they loved their country.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
