Judgment at Nuremberg

What is justice? Who gets to decide right from wrong? Who must be held accountable when a wrong is committed in the name of the state, in the name of the nation as a whole, and in the name of the law itself? Do the people bear a collective guilt for the actions of their leaders, or do we reserve blame only for those at the top? What is the patriotic duty of the citizen when the government is in the wrong? What is the duty of the civil servant, the soldier, the policeman, the judge? And who gets to decide that the government is in the wrong? If the government insists that its actions are necessary and proper, then what right does the citizen, the soldier, or the civil servant have to reject that claim and openly defy the authority of the state? Who has the right to make the laws? Who has the right to judge whether a law is just? Who has the right to defy unjust laws? Who has the duty to do so? What is the proper role and responsibility of the judge? Is it to uphold the law even at the expense of justice, or is it to do justice even in defiance of the law? And who is to say whether or not a law is just? Who judges the judges?These are the sorts of tough questions that are raised by this movie. And it actually takes them seriously, presents well-reasoned and passionate arguments for competing points of view, and doesn't try to give the audience easy answers. You should feel uncomfortable after watching this film. You should have a lot more questions, doubts, and uncertainties about the true meaning of justice at the end of this movie than you had at the beginning. It should leave you with the nagging feeling that, although the final verdict in this case may have been just, the big issues raised by this case have not really been resolved, and may never be resolvable. Justice is not the mechanical application of some universally agreed-upon legal formula that is guaranteed to produce an intellectually and emotionally satisfying verdict. Justice is messy; it is controversial; and it is never quite as satisfying as we'd like it to be. Judges simply have to do the best they can, and try to wrestle a just outcome out of the laws they are sworn to uphold. So, the irony of judges being put on trial for the "crime" of upholding the law should not be lost on anyone. Yes, in this case, the law itself was unjust; but the judges didn't make the law, nor could they have changed it. But did they have a legal duty -- a duty, not to the existing law of the land, of course, but to a higher law with universal jurisdiction -- to refuse to uphold unjust laws? And does any court have the authority or the right to punish them for failing to do so? This is, perhaps, the ultimate legal dilemma.This movie is a work of fiction, though it is based on actual events (much in the same way that director Stanley Kramer's previous film, "Inherit the Wind", was a fictionalized portrayal of the infamous Scopes "Monkey" Trial). The events depicted in this film take place near the end of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals that were held shortly after the end of the Second World War. The Nazi leaders responsible for the war and the Holocaust had already been tried and sentenced; and many of them had already been executed. Interest in the tribunals had waned, as both Germans and Americans wanted to get closure on the war and the Nazi era, and get on with their lives. The Western allies were preoccupied with the emerging Cold War and the ongoing dispute with the Soviets over the status of Berlin; and they needed the support of the German people. Under these circumstances, the Nuremberg trials were starting to be seen as a nuisance. Zealous prosecutors, having hanged or imprisoned most of the top Nazi leadership, were now starting to go after the "little fish", including a number of officials in the German government who were not involved in the formulation of Nazi policies, but who went along with those policies once they were in place. As the legal and moral culpability of the defendants became more disputable, the trials themselves became more controversial. Many Germans were starting to feel that what had begun as a high-minded effort to bring notorious war criminals to justice was starting to degenerate into a petty postwar settling of scores, in which bitter Americans were seeking to punish ordinary Germans for allowing Hitler to rise to power and wage war against the United States and its allies. After all, by what legitimate authority can an ad hoc military tribunal set up by an occupying power pass legal judgment on the civilian officials of a (previously) sovereign state -- officials who have not personally committed any war crimes under the generally recognized laws of war, or any crimes under the laws of the state that (formerly) had jurisdiction over them -- solely for the alleged "crime" of serving under an evil regime and carrying out its immoral policies? A tribunal of this sort would represent an unprecedented challenge to the very notion of state sovereignty -- the principle that every state has the absolute right to govern itself according to its own laws, and that no state has the right to interfere in the purely internal affairs of any other state. But, in the aftermath of the most destructive war in history, and especially after the truth about the Holocaust had come to light, the American occupation forces were in no mood to debate the finer points of international law when it came to bringing the perpetrators of Nazi atrocities to justice; so a number of German government officials were put on trial essentially for doing their jobs, and acting in accordance with the law of the land, while Hitler was in power.Some of the officials put on trial were judges and prosecutors. They were charged with aiding and abetting the Nazis' oppression of their political rivals (especially communists) and of racial minorities (especially Jews). In essence, these judicial officials were alleged to have prosecuted, tried, and convicted people whose only "crime" was belonging to the wrong political faction or the wrong ethnic group, in some cases sentencing them to death or to forced sterilization. But these accused officials insisted that they were not trying to pervert justice in order to advance the Nazi cause. Rather, they were simply doing their jobs as officers of the court: insuring that the law of the land was followed to the letter by all who fell under the court's jurisdiction, without prejudice. They claimed that all those who were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced by German courts were actually guilty of crimes under German law. During the Nazi era, a number of laws were passed that many people, including many judges and prosecutors, saw as unjust. But, in Germany, just as in the United States, it is the duty of every judge and prosecutor to uphold the law, whether he agrees with it or not. Judges and prosecutors are not meant to be legislators or politicians. Their job is to see that the law of the land is followed, not to dictate what that law ought to be or how the country ought to be run. If laws are unjust, that is the fault of lawmakers, not judicial officials. So it's not really fair to hold judges and prosecutors accountable for bad laws passed by evil politicians. Or at least that's what the German judicial officials tried at Nuremberg would have us believe.This movie is a fictionalized account of the trial of these judges and prosecutors for their (alleged) complicity in the crimes of the Nazi regime. It is brilliantly acted, especially by Maximilian Schell, who plays the young German lawyer responsible for defending the accused judicial officials, and by Montgomery Clift, who gives an amazing performance as a man who had been forcibly sterilized for feeblemindedness under Nazi-era eugenics laws. Also of note are Spencer Tracy, who plays the presiding judge over the tribunal, and Burt Lancaster, who plays the chief defendant, a highly respected German jurist who, though he hated Hitler, felt he could still do some good as a judicial official, even under Nazi rule. The movie also features Richard Widmark as the chief American prosecutor, Judy Garland as a key witness at the trial, Marlene Dietrich as the widow of a German general who had been tried and hanged in an earlier phase of the Nuremberg trials, and a young William Shatner as the military aide to the presiding judge.If you are a student of law, political science, or philosophy -- in fact, if you are studying any of the humanities or social sciences -- you really need to see this film. It is definitely thought provoking, and would be a great catalyst for group discussion. It's a bit too long for classroom use (about 3 hours); but if you're an educator and can somehow arrange for your students to watch it, it would really be worth it, whether you're teaching law, ethics, political philosophy, history, critical thinking, or rhetoric and debate. (Or drama, for that matter, since there's some really good acting in this movie.) I encourage you to take the time to watch it. It truly is an excellent film.

Great movie!

I thought these were German on German crimes and should have been tried by a German court. Not an International Tribunal with American judges. The 4 German judges on trial were accused of lesser offenses. They were not the main Nazi leaders of Germany who had been tried earlier. Many of whom were executed.However, that's the way it was done in many cases at the end of World War II. So this is a criticism of what actually happened. Not a criticism of the 5 star movie which had an Academy Award winning screen play by Abby Mann and an an Academy Award winning best actor Oscar for Maximilian Schell, who played the defense attorney. The decision to film in B&W was a wise one. It added to the mood of the film.The film was nominated for 11 Academy Awards. The remaining nominations were for Best Picture, Stanley Kramer for Best Director, Spencer Tracy for Best Actor, Montgomery Clift for Best Supporting Actor, Judy Garland for Best Supporting Actress, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White, and Best Film Editing.The movie was inspired by the Judges' Trial before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1947, which resulted in four of the defendants being sentenced to life in prison.The film focuses on the trial of these four judges who served before and during the Nazi regime in Germany. The judges enforced laws that led to sexual sterilization and to the imprisonment and execution of people for their religions, racial or ethnic identities, and their physical handicaps or disabilities.Some of the film's highlights:Judy Garland testifying about how her Jewish friend was executed. Apparently just for being her close friend.Montgomery Clift testifying about his sterilization because he appeared stupid.Burt Lancaster, in his role as the head German judge on trial, taking the stand voluntarily. And in spite of strenuous objections by his defense counsel, confessing to his crimes. Very powerful performance. I thought Lancaster deserved a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award nomination.Spencer Tracy in his powerful but understated role as the Chief American Judge.Marlene Dietrich, perfectly cast as the widow of a convicted German general who had been found guilty and executed at a previous trial. Her friendship with the judge played by Spencer Tracy.The scenes of a bombed out Nuremberg as Spencer Tracy walked about the town.Richard Widmark's portrayal of an overzealous Army colonel, the lead prosecutor.And, of course, Maximilian Schell's Oscar winning role as the agressive, forceful German defense counsel.I disagreed with the opinion of one of the defendants, the former judge, played by Burt Lancaster, that the decision of life imprisonment was a just one. The film does an excellent job of showing the terrible crimes against humanity brought on by Adolf Hitler and the terrible price Germany paid for this. But the judges on trial appeared to me to be victims of Hitler's madness as well as accomplices. I thought a shorter prison term would have been a more just verdict.As for "trial" films, Judgement at Nuremberg is as good as or better than other famous court room films such as Witness for the Prosecution, A Few Good Men and To Kill a Mockingbird.

There was nowhere any mention that the disc delivered would be region A coded, and thus not playable in European Blu-ray players. This was discovered after the eligible refund period, but neither Amazon nor the seller seem willing now to take responsibility for misleading their customers here. Shame on you. I still hope that either seller or Amazon will acknowledge their fault and offer a full refund. I have thus not been able to see the movie.Edit: After having had contact with the customer service of Amazon they gave me my money back. The rep that helped me understood the situation and acted promptly, with good results. Thanks!

When people say they don't make movies like this any more, this is one of those movies they are referring to. I bought this movie back in 2006 and Amazon.ca just pointed out that I hadn't reviewed it. I can tell you that I certainly didn't pay $ 60+ dollars. I actually paid $ 13.99. How they have the nerve to jack the price up this much is appalling.As for the movie itself, read some of the superb reviews already here. All I can say is they don't make movies like this anymore.

Bel envoi. Toute confiance. Dietrich Tracy lancaster clift Garland : tous ces héros enfin en très bonne définition. Dommage pas de sous titre !

A star studded cast and an excellent script. A top courtroom drama which doesn’t baulk the difficult issues.

With brilliant acting and a chilling moral, this classic film will leave you questioning today's politics.