User reviews

Beyond its compelling subject matter "Judgement At Neuremberg" revolutionizes the court room drama genre. The camera swings and swerves and dives between the lines of this exemplary Abby Mann script. Stanley Kramer conducts his orchestra of iconic stars with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. The language barriers and the confinement of the action masterfully resolved. Spencer Tracy is simply magnificent and, as per usual, we believe every word that comes out of his mouth. His judge is an American monument of unsentimental humanity. Twentynine year old Maimilian Schell won the Oscar as best actor and his performance survived the test of time with the vigor of his conviction. Montgomery Cliff makes his short minutes on the screen, one of those memorable moments that nobody that has ever seen it will be able to forget. The man and the character merging into one chilling, shattering truth. "I am half the man I've ever been" Marlene Dietrich gives to her German aristocrat a legendary star quality. And Judy Garland, overweight and almost unrecognizable breaks your heart and gets her last Oscar nomination. My only troubles came with the stoic Burt Lancaster because I could never forget it was Burt Lancaster and with Richard Widmark's strident prosecutor. I have seen "Judgement At Neuremberg" more than a dozen times and it never ceases to amaze me that no matter the darkness of the subject it always manages to entertain and inspire.

Outstanding film. Star-studded with several fantastic performances. Highly emotional given the subject matter, but presented in a very intelligent, balanced way. I was struck at once by that, and by how well director Stanley Kramer gives us both sides of the argument – and avoids simply paying lip service to the defense of the German judges on trial. Maximilian Schell is brilliant as the defense attorney, well worthy of his Oscar, and is forceful and compelling in his arguments. There are also so many brilliant scenes. Spencer Tracy walking in the empty arena where the Nazi rallies were held, with Kramer focusing on the dais from which Hitler spoke. The testimony of Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, both of whom are outstanding and should have gotten Oscars. Burt Lancaster in the role of one of the German judges, the one tortured by his complicity, knowing he and others are guilty. The devastating real film clips from the concentration camps, which are still spine tingling despite all we 'know' or have been exposed to. Marlene Dietrich as the German general's wife, haunted but expressing the German viewpoint, one time while people are singing over drinks. Her night stroll with Tracy, as she explains the words to one song, is touching. It just seemed like there was just one powerhouse scene after another, and the film did not seem long at all at three hours. Heck, you've even got Werner Klemperer and William Shatner before they would become Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk! In this film, the acting, the script, and the direction are all brilliant, and in harmony with one another.

As for the trial itself, the defense argument was along these lines: they were judges (and therefore interpreters), not makers of law. They didn't know about the atrocities in the concentration camps. At least one of them saved or helped many by staying in their roles and doing the best they could under the heavy hand of the Third Reich. They were patriots, saw improvement in the country when Hitler took power, but did not know how far he would go. If you were going to convict these judges, you would have to convict many more Germans (and where would it stop?). The Americans themselves practiced Eugenics and killed thousands and thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one small weakness I found was that the defense never makes the simple argument that these judges were forced to do what they did, just as countless others in Germany were, and would have been imprisoned or killed themselves had they not complied. Anyone who's lived under a totalitarian regime may understand, or at least empathize.

I'm not saying I bought into these arguments or that one should be an apologist to Nazis, but the fact that the film presented such a strong defense was thought provoking. How fantastic is it that Spencer Tracy plays his character the way he does – simply pursuing the facts, and in a quiet, thoughtful way. It's the best of humanity. How heartbreaking is Burt Lancaster's character, admitting they knew, admitting their guilt, knowing that what happened was horrible and that they were wrong, and yet seeking Tracy's understanding in that scene in the jail cell at the end – intellectual to intellectual - and being rebuked. Even a single life taken unjustly was wrong. Had the Axis won the war, I don't know which Americans would have been on trial for war crimes for the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or for dropping the atomic bombs, but the film makes one think, even for a war when things were seemingly as black and white as they could ever be. The particulars of this trial were fictionalized, but it's representative of what really occurred, and it transports you into events 70 years ago which seem so unreal today – and yet are so vitally important to understand, and remember.

I watched "Judgment at Nuremburg" on PBS the other night. I had never seen it before. I expected an empty-headed, Hollywood-style, quasi-melodrama, but I was pleasantly surprised. Even Spencer Tracy, that universally beloved actor whose appeal has always escaped me, gave an honest and heartfelt portrayal of a "simple man" who was also a deeply conflicted judge.

What I liked most about this movie was that it didn't pull any punches, in the manner of other "controversial" films of its time. The defense attorney, superbly played by Maximilian Schell, weaves a simple, but undeniable web of logic:

• Sterilization of "undesirables," one of the charges against the Nazi war criminals, was at one time condoned by the U.S. courts, and encouraged by none other than Oliver Wendell Holmes. - Numerous leading industrialists in the U.S. contributed to the development of the Nazi war machine. - Encouragement was given to Hitler's expansionism by both Russia and England. - Churchill is quoted as having admired Hitler. - The Vatican actively collaborated with the Nazis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it must have taken major cojones to present that kind of message to American filmgoers in 1961. Would a film of that candor have a chance of being made today?

I tend to doubt it.

One further note. The film describes how the Nazis went about stripping the German judiciary of judges who were known for their objectivity, and replacing them with judges who were appointed based solely on their party loyalties.

The mind boggles at the implications and yes, the prescience of this well-written, well-played masterpiece.

I once read a review of this film that criticized the fact that the American chief prosecutor as played by Richard Widmark was a less sympathetic and engaging character than the defending lawyer, Herr Rolfe as portrayed by Max Schell. Schell's Oscar winning performance illuminated the "shattering truth" that the film reveals about Nazism. Extremely able and educated men were able to rationalize what they did with an irresistible logic. They loved their country and, in a time of a national crisis, found it necessary to implement certain measures. As expounded by Rolfe, it all sounds so logical and reasonable. He also cites the fact that many world leaders actually commended Hitler upon his leadership in getting Germany out of the Depression as swiftly as he did.

Widmark's character, Lawson, is understandably appalled by Herr Rolfe's defence of the indefencible and therefore he pulls no punches. He wants those responsible to be held fully responsible but he finds Germans who are ready to extenuate and rationalize. After he is told to tone down his demands for justice, Lawson acerbically retorts, "There are no Nazis in Germany. It was those damned Eskimos."

The moment that illuminates how pure reason without humanity is so dangerous is when Pohl, a right hand man for Eichman, explains how it was possible to kill millions of people in purely technical terms. His explanation as he eats his lunch is devoid of any hint of human empathy for the victims he has so blithely exterminated. His was a job that was the logical extension of a policy and he carried it out with a detached and technical logic.

The key point that the film makes is that to be logical is not always to be morally right.

This quote is one of the most shocking and yet truthful quotes I have ever heard. It is one of many shocking and intense quotes in the movie. Furthermore Judgment at Nuremburg is one of the most absorbing movies I have seen. Even though most if not all of it is dialog it is very much a haunting film. This film is loosely based on the trials in Nuremburg in 1948. Right from the start the movie captures your mind and never lets it go.

The acting was collectively amazing. One of the best casts ever assembled which included Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, Burt Lancaster as well as international stars Maximilian Schell and Marlene Dietrich. It is not just the fact that this is a star studded cast that made it so great, it was the way everyone appeared to blend in together. Maximilian Schell gave the performance of his life in this film playing the defense lawyer for Burt Lancaster who give two superb narratives that will certainly stay in your mind forever. Schell's character use of logic is that of something which will mesmerize use you whether or not you agree or disagree with what he says. Richard Widmark playing the prosecutor gave the type of supporting performance that was necessary for Schell to shine. The way both actors fed off each other was a joy to watch. Then of course the tiny appearances of Garland and Clift were excellent and worth every second they spent on camera. I usually find myself frustrated with cameos and actors receiving recognition for them but this film used cameos the best way I have ever seen. Then of course Spencer Tracy and Marlene Dietrich provided such great presence were perfect for the lead.

The direction of Stanley Kramer was spectacular as the film intensified more and more as it wore on. It was always engrossing and never let up. The writing of Abby Mann was great, filled up with great material and narratives allowing every actor in the cast to give a superb performance. There were many memorable quotes as well. The writing carried the film forward and allowed all the potential and talent to push this film to another level.

Judgement at Nuremburg is not just another movie. It is a very thought provoking movie. More than that though it is haunting. Just thinking about the course of the events being talked about in the movie became subtly haunting in a way I really didn't expect. What was the most compelling though was the way we need to separate what we feel with what has to be truly done, with what is truly right.

Judgement At Nurmeberg is a 1961 film about four Nazi Judges are in trial for crimes against humanity. Well let me just start out by saying that this is a very sad, powerful film. I was expecting it to be very boring and I guess I underestimated it. The film is also very well written, so well written that actually it makes you really think. I'm happy that it won an Oscar for writing.

The best quality about the film HAS to be the acting. Judy Garland, I think should of won a Supporting Actress. This is her finest performance ever, and I'm sad she didn't win one. Maximilian Schell gives the performance of a lifetime in his role as the defense attorney for the judges. He truly deserved his Oscar because he was very powerful. Spencer Tracy also gave a quite exceptional performance as he always had. (He isn't a Two-Time Oscar Winner for nothing. As for Montgomery Clift he deserved his Oscar Nomination. I am kind of ticked off that Marlene didn't get an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress. I always feel she is underrated.

As for Stanley Kramer (The Director) he had real talent and this film shows it. The 9-Time Oscar nominated Director should've of won an Oscar for Best Director for Judgement at Nuremberg. I hope his talent though will be remembered for many years to come.

My Overall Consensus is that the movie definitely succeeds due to the Extraordinary Performances and the Quite Exceptional Writing.

You Should see this Film. 10/10

If this is not considered as one of THE great films of all time, then all of us film fans should pack up bags and go home I cannot fault anyone, any scene, anything in this film. The dialogue races along in its smooth yet supremely captivating style. You grab a film like this, see a whole host of famous actors, and wonder if such a mix could ever work. It does, believe me, it really, really does.

Tracy. He was given the most powerful of dialogues, he presents it to us in a way that does not shout at you, yet holds you in a vice like grip every time he comes on screen. With his characteristic method of looking down whilst talking, hands in pocket, that small sly look up that he does, vintage Spencer, just how you would imagine a judge to be, or should be.

The supporting cast, again, never lets the film down. Some have the opportunity to step up a notch, Snell, Widmark, and others play their roles in a more subtle manner, Garland and Dietrich. And others just wipe away the floor with their presence, Clift and Lancaster for example.

And the story by Abby Mann - incredible.

Shot in black and white, it makes you think, it makes you smile, it will make you sad, and in the end you will be all the better for having seen one of the greatest films ever made, you will be richer for the experience, and you will be wiser.

You will also be able to say that you saw what Hollywood can do, you saw what great actors can do when put amongst their peers and are not 'stars' of a movie but are part of a larger ensemble.

And you will also see why this particular group were, genuinely, the very best Hollywood had to offer, period.

I have always been fond of Stanley Kramer's work , but this movie proved to be quite extraordinary and exceptional .The movie has every thing you can desire and human sentiments are at there level best. The plot is written by Abby Mann who won best screenplay Oscar from that and quite deserving one. The story based on Nuremberg trials held after fall of Nazi's in Germany but this movie is nice blend of history with fiction as the major characters were fictional but the evidences and indictments presented in the trial ever authentic and truly depicts the conditions of Nazi occupied Germany. The most intriguing thing of the movie was the true representation of aftermaths of Nazi's occupation in Germany and the feeling of German toward the trial and immaculate direction of Kramer made possible to convey these types of sentiment on cinema for the very first time. The cast was also fascinating with big names like Tracy and surely he did justice with his role as he was very compelling and humble as Judge Haywood. Maximilian Schell was at his best as a compassionate enthusiastic zealous and patriotic attorney to defend the dignity of Nation. He won best actor Oscar for his role. Montgomery Clift was also the one who made this movie special as he played a role of feeble minded sterile man who was nominated for best actor in supporting role though he only played for 9 min in the movie. Burt Lancaster gave one of the most extraordinary cinematic performances as Ernst Janning. This is one of those movies which provokes our mentality and also our morality and is a treat to watch.

American judges arrive at Nuremberg, to preside over the trial of four high ranking Nazis.

This film is truly monumental, it is an incredible movie, and a fascinating subject, there are so many films that detail the start of the war, the harrowing

It was actually The Americans that called for this trial, and it's incredible to think that the trial was actually broadcast on TV. I'm surprised add just how realistic it is, I've recently watched exerts from the trial, and so much is accurately reproduced.

There are some very interesting camera angles and techniques used, it's far from static, as there's virtually only one set, the courtroom, they did a great job ensuring that scenes don't feel lengthy or too wordy, it's incredibly watchable.

Outstanding performances, truly astonishing, Maximilian Schell and Spencer Tracy in particular are fabulous, but the whole cast deliver.

It's worth watching to see William Shatner in a US uniform alone, wow he's insanely handsome.

If you're interested in the events at Nuremberg, and have access to BBC iPlayer, I'd recommend you checking out The Rise of The Nazis Series four, which details these events.

There's a reason why this film is so highly regarded, and still enjoyed by many, it's not quite an obscure subject, but hardly what you'd call a crowd pleaser, but I urge you to watch this great film.

10/10.

This is a fine film by a fine director, but I can only hope that Stanley Kramer, in committing to full length film a television story, knew at heart the message his movie was trying to say. Because this is truly a message movie, for all mankind, but if the reviews I've read on this site are any indication, the message has been lost to some degree.

I've entitled my review "Revelation of Horror", but the horror revealed was not the Holocaust. That had already been revealed, although Kramer's film certainly lent its emotional impact. The revelation was a deep, true insight into how it happened, and the horror is that it happened in a civilized country. Few on this earth can imagine the true horror of Nazi Germany--I've read criticism of Widmark's Colonel Lawson as too preachy, but the character and the acting conveyed the mission of one who actually saw the horrors, beyond any scope we can identify with.

Kramer's achievement is that everything in this movie reminds us that the Nazi's used every facet of civilization, no matter how minute, to foster their extermination of their enemies, to inculcate it as an ordinary part of life. That was why judges were chosen to portray the issue of "obeying orders" versus "human decency." Herr Rolf is "forced" to defend the worst criminals imaginable, and yet his very defense and the principles behind it are abused in the process, used as a weapon against the very law they represent. Thus did the Nazis prevail with the willing acquiescence of the German people, and the abominable disregard of the rest of the world.

The other horror revealed in this film is the incessant excusing of it. Beyond the obvious pleas of the guilty ("We didn't know", or as one judge says to another, "Was it possible to kill like that?") are the multiplicity of subtle excuses: the reminder of centuries' old German culture, Rolf's plaintive cry of "unfairness" at the showing of the death camp films because of their inflammatory nature, the invocation of "Lili Marlene" throughout the film, to name just a few. While the song evokes sadness, a guilty German society meant for it to invoke sadness. Long before Germany had its country destroyed by bombs, it had its soul destroyed by Hitler.

Because this is a courtroom drama, respecting the sacred role of the Rule of Law in safeguarding humanity, almost every scene, every line is a statement that Nazi Germany perverted the Rule of Law, as did the very defense of the war criminals. But what is principle on a small scale of a single man being judged by society becomes outrage when used to defend the indefensible on an impossibly massive scale. Tracy's character at the film's end has a realization that this is so, as well as an awareness that what happened in Germany during the Third Reich was an Aristotelian tragedy for anyone touched by it, even remotely, so that any personal considerations (such as Mrs. Berthold) are made utterly impossible.

Rolf's speech about the guilty responsibility of the rest of the world was valid--but he was indicting the world to save one man. Where have we heard that in our own time? This quality about "Judgment at Nuremburg" makes its message forever fresh--and its warnings.

Stanley Kramer's "Judgment at Nuremberg" is a courtroom drama based on the Nuremberg trials for war crimes which were held in the years following WWII. In particular, it was inspired by the Judges' Trial, which focused on a group of jurists.

As producer, Kramer saw to it that his film was populated with an enviable cast. The performances of Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift all resulted in Oscar nominations, while Maximilian Schell, reprising his role from an earlier television production, took home the Best Actor Oscar. Also starring were Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster and Richard Widmark. Given this lineup, it is unsurprising that the acting is likely the picture's strong suit.

However, that is not to say that the other elements of the film are unremarkable. After all, the picture did land eleven Oscar nominations, which suggests (accurately, in this case) that the film's production was a well-rounded one. While Kramer's direction gets somewhat repetitive over the course of three hours the cinematography and art direction are quite attractive throughout. All were awarded with Oscar nominations but, strangely, Ernest Gold's evocative score wasn't.

Besides Schell's victory, the only other Oscar win went to Abby Mann for his adapted screenplay. To my mind, it's pretty good but not entirely successful. My main complaint is that Mann tries to do too much. While I give him credit for tackling the thorny subject of the guilt of the German people at large I don't think that it was handled particularly well. Bringing this angle into the film only made it seem more like a glib condemnation of the entire German people, which I hope was not Mann's intention. For me, consideration of this bigger picture only hurt the main thrust of the narrative, which, while not exactly clear-cut, was more well-defined.

Ultimately, even though the script is the film's chief weakness, Kramer & company manage to hold the viewer's attention for the full three hours. While the film has several good points it also has the potential for coming across as self-righteous, so your appreciation of it may owe as much to personal factors as to filmmaking craft.

It is so easy to dismiss this as a story of other people in another time in another land. Unfortunately, what was done then, is being done by the leaders of our country in the name of protection from terrorists, and we, the people, sit silently by and let it happen just as the German people did seven decades ago.

We need to watch films like this over and over to remind us of what is important and what we, as civilized humans, can be reduced to out of fear.

This is another great film by the fantastic Abby Mann, who died last month. He won an Oscar for his screenplay, and it was well deserved.

Maximilian Schell was simply fantastic, as was Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, and Judy Garland. Director Stanley Kramer brought out the best in these actors, and others like Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, William Shatner, and Werner Klemperer.

Don't look upon it as three hours of cinema, but as a class in humanity as only Abby Mann could write.

This is a long-winded but absorbing drama about Nazi leaders being tried for war crimes. Mann's script raises some intriguing issues about law and morality. It features an impressive all-star, although everybody seems to be bucking for an Oscar. Except for Tracy and Dietrich, everybody has bursts of overacting. Schell is interesting to watch not because his is a great performance, but because he is so incredibly hammy. Clift is touching as a witness. Much of the blame for overacting must go to Kramer, who tends to be heavy-handed and theatrical. His direction of the courtroom scenes is frustrating to watch because of his ever-moving camera and amateurish zooms.

Lacking the big names of what people normally think of as the "Nuremberg Trials" - the trial of Nazi leaders such as Goering, Hess and Speer - this movie focuses on the lesser known people who were tried for war crimes: the German judges whose responsibility it was to dispense "justice" in Hitler's Germany. Although the big names are missing, the movie is powerful and masterfully deals with the troubling questions around Nazism: how could normally good, decent people (represented in this movie by Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster, on trial with three others) have allowed themselves to be sucked into the evil that was Hitler and National Socialism? How could the German people have turned a blind eye to what was going on and simply denied all responsibility? And the movie also considers a troubling question about the United States: if Nazism was evil enough to have warranted a war and then all the effort of the Nuremberg trials, why were the Americans suddenly so willing to "forgive and forget" with the onset of the Cold War and the threat of communism?

The implication here is that the Americans never really took the secondary trials seriously. A second-rate judge (Dan Haywood, available only because he had been defeated in an election, and played magnificently by Spencer Tracy) was appointed to head the trial, the Army was putting pressure on the prosecution to go lightly. It's an amazing fact of history that within three years of the end of World War II, the feeling was so clearly against pursuing those who had played roles in the Nazi nightmare (and, of course, it's a question that still haunts us today as Nazi war criminals from time to time turn up and the response of the public is often, "he's an old man. Why bother?")

Focussing largely on the trial itself, the movie is consistently gripping throughout, and even the diversions outside the courtroom (such as the relationship between Judge Haywood and Mrs. Bertholt -Marlene Dietrich) don't detract from the suspense, as they continue to push the question: "how can you just sit there and deny knowing anything?" Anyone with an interest in the puzzle of Nazi Germany should watch this. In the end, it raises a lot of questions and offers few answers, but that may be the legacy of Nazism. But the movie makes its point. As Judge Janning talks to Judge Haywood at the end of the movie he says almost pleadingly, "we never knew it would go so far." Haywood simply responds, "Herr Janning, it went that far the first time you convicted a man you knew was innocent." Powerful stuff.

10/10

What can I say? Judgment at Nuremberg was just wonderful. At three hours, it is just mesmerising from start to finish. The subject matter of the story is admittedly grim and hard-hitting, but in the way it is put across and acted it is also incredibly gripping. The production values are striking, Ernest Gold's music is memorable and Kramer's direction is superb. Then there is the script, intelligent, thought-provoking, poignant, quite simply a brilliant screenplay, and the cast is for me one of the best on film. This film does have a lot of dignity, exemplified by Burt Lancaster's thoughtful performance as Ernst Janning, and a startling turn from Maximillian Schell. Marlene Dietrich is also great, and I also have to mention Judy Garland's touching Irene and Montgomery Clift's Rudolph. Overall, gripping and intelligent helped enormously by adept direction and acting. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Full too the brim with more star wattage fire power than a dozen other films combined, Stanley Kramer's Oscar winning courtroom epic Judgment at Nuremberg is a powerful and ageless dialogue heavy classic that remains to this day one of the best World War 2 themed films, all without ever firing a single shot or even a single battle.

Inspired by real life courtroom trials that came to public attention in the aftermath of the great war as Nazi members were trialed for their actions during the horrific period in Germany's history, Kramer and Nuremberg's writer Abby Mann (with unofficial work from one of the films stars Montgomery Clift) spend a great deal of time exploring the after effects of the Nazi reign on Germany and how those caught up in the situation dealt with what was for all intents and purposes a hopeless situation to be a part of.

Lead by a powerful performance from its main focus Spencer Tracy as aging American judge Dan Haywood (who delivers a stunning final monologue in the films later stretches), we only spend brief moments of Nuremberg's runtime outside of the sweat inducing caught room action that sees Maximillian Schell's defense lawyer Hans Rolfe go head to head with Richard Winmark's American army lawyer Col. Tad Lawson but the film never feels small or confined by its devices as we explore the mental anguish and eye opening examinations of what the war meant outside of the battlefield, what it meant to those everyday people who were nothing more than pawns in a much bigger game of life and death.

In this loaded ensemble we also get a memorable Burt Lancaster turn as German judge Dr. Ernst Janning with both the actors performance and characters arc making for an extremely moving examination of a good man caught in an horrific predicament while screen legends such as Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and a very young William Shatner all deliver great turns with varying degrees of screen time, ensuring Nuremberg is one of the era's most well-rounded examples of a collection of once in a generation talents.

The whole production is beautifully constructed by the often underappreciated Stanley Kramer who alongside this effort and the likes of On the Beach, Guess Whose Coming to Dinner, comedy gem It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and The Defiant Ones, established himself as a director of true worth that may not have received the plaudits of some of his era's peers but remains a director with a fantastic catalogue of films he managed to produce in a career that will stand tall during the tests of time.

Final Say -

Powerful and emotion packed without the need for any theatrics, Judgment at Nuremberg is one of the most stunning cinematic examples of a courtroom and World War 2 drama respectively and is a film that should continue to be adored by cinephiles for the years yet to come.

5 Opa's out of 5.

They say that time heals all heartache. In the case of the Third Reich, I'm not sure that the old saying is true. Out of respect for the Holocaust victims, and as an important history lesson, there's something to be said for not forgetting the evils of Hitler. Fortunately, we have this great film to help us not forget.

"Judgment At Nuremberg" is a dramatization of one of the many real life post WWII Nuremberg trials of high ranking Nazis. Most of the film focuses on the 1948 courtroom trial of four judges who helped to carry out Hitler's decrees. As part of the prosecution's case against the judges, real life, graphic film footage showing the horrors of the death camps engenders a gut level impression that is both powerful and persuasive. The film thus educates viewers in ways that a dry textbook of facts and figures never could.

But there's more to the film than the trial. In other parts of Nuremberg we see ordinary Germans trying to get on with their lives as best they can, three years after the war's end, in a bombed out and bleak city. One of these persons is Madame Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich), the wife of a dead German soldier. In contrast to the harsh and contentious trial, Madame Bertholt's kindness toward the tribunal's lead judge, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy), provides an example of the innocence and decency of ordinary Germans, and thus adds a softer, more contemplative perspective to the ordeal. In these non-courtroom scenes, the melancholy background music and the soft production lighting create a mood of depression and sadness.

I find very little to criticize in this three hour film. Perhaps the plot could have been clearer in identifying the legal counsel of three of the four defendants. And maybe in those scenes wherein the four defendants conversed among themselves, the dialogue should have been in German, not English. But these are trivial points. Overall, this is a film that is well written and directed, a film with credible actors giving stellar performances, and most of all, a film that assures preservation of that era's historic significance, with a political and social message that has enduring value.

I am actually humbled by this film, and I am unusually grateful to have seen it, finally, 45 years after its making.

There are some superficial aspects of *Judgement at Nuremberg* that are dated: some of Stanley Kramer's camera-work is unnecessarily showy or gimmicky. Some of the sets are noticeably fake, and some of the dialog is stilted, especially in early scenes outside the courtroom. The music goes momentarily over the top in the climactic confrontation between the key defendant, played by Burt Lancaster, and the chief judge (Spencer Tracy) after the trial.

Much more striking, however, are the film's strengths, and how unusually well it holds up. I usually think of Kramer as an overstated liberal autodidact, but here the acting is, for the most part, admirably restrained and authentic. Even *William Shatner*--no kidding--is subtle here. After an unpromisingly sensational opening salvo by Richard Widmark as the chief prosecutor, this movie settles into a gravity, balance and rigorous honesty (both intellectual and emotional) that are utterly necessary for a serious treatment of a subject as overwhelmingly important as the origin and expression of Nazi evil.

Balance is a key to this film's greatness. It is not insignificant that it was Maximillian Schell, who played the Nazi judges' defense attorney not as a slimy shyster but as a powerfully rigorous advocate determined to hold the *world's* feet to the fire rather than let his clients become patsies for a vast breakdown of moral responsibility with astonishingly widespread implications. By looking courageously into the teeth of the reality of German society and politics leading up to and during the Second World War and the reality of American, European and Communist moral failings, Abby Mann's great screenplay creates an extraordinarily persuasive context for the extraordinarily powerful thematic statements against Nazi atrocities with which it concludes.

Two scenes near the movie's conclusion struck me most powerfully. First, I have never been more sickened, enraged and humbled by visual evidence of the Holocaust than I was when it was presented in the context of the trial at this film's center. Second, I was chilled--frightened in a very contemporary and immediate way--by the great speech of judgment given at the trial's end by Spencer Tracy's Chief Judge Dan Hayward. I urge anyone that is concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in America today to watch this film to better understand how insidiously evil may overtake a modern nation in crisis. More important, I urge anyone that believes that America is today in a crisis that requires extraordinary measures to watch this movie, listen with an open mind to this speech, and consider its implications for the direction of our own country today.

Stepping down now from my soap box, let me say more clearly: Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Never mind how old it is or how long it is or how dreary the subject may seem. If you care about the fate of humanity, you too will be grateful.

There have been many, many court room films made since 1961, and each have made advances in pacing and tension. This is perhaps why "Judgment at Nuremberg"--though a good movie--feels achingly slow at times. It reminded me of the type of thing you'd see in an intro to law or ethics class as an undergraduate. The aged instructor would see it as a meaty source for generating class discussion, and the room of teenagers would find it duller than dirt.

What I liked about the movie, what I found to be its strength was it's attitude of fair play. Everyone in the film is allowed to gain sympathy from the audience because their motivations are given. Colonel Lawson is only self-righteous because he has witnessed first hand the horrors of the concentration camps. Hans Rolfe is ashamed of himself and of his countrymen for what was done during the war but trudges ahead with his defense of the judges because he hopes to give Germany some sense of dignity through the trial. And Ernst Janning did what he did during the war because he hoped to make a difference from within the system rather than resigning from it in protest. This easily could have been a film in which the triumphant Americans put the smug and arrogant Nazis in their place (maybe if it had been made ten or 15 years before it would have been), but instead it concentrates on very grey issues and the people behind them.

SPOILER: This is perhaps one of the best movies regarding WWII because of the point that Spencer Tracy's character makes towards the end of the movie in his summation. He points out that the defendants were people of ability and intelligence- some were even remarkable. If all of the people that helped this terrible thing along were depraved criminals and monsters, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or a flood. That good, even remarkable people in a time of crisis can delude themselves into heinous crimes against humanity is something to remember, to be guarded against. Personal morality is more important than the good of the state or going along with someone else's idea of right. The movie is a bit long, it actually takes the time to go into depth with the characters. It is definitely a powerful statement about personal responsibility. In one of the closing lines, Burt Lancaster's character (a defendant) tells Spencer Tracy's character (a judge) that he never knew it would come to that- all those people, he never knew. Tracy's character tells him that is came to that the minute he sentenced a man to death that he knew to be innocent.

Stanley Kramer was more active as a producer rather than a director, but, when he stood for something, he would often take up the reigns himself. Kramer made no apologies for producing "message films," and, though his transparent motives have the potential to age poorly, there's no doubt that he had the stature to approach controversial issues – such as racism {'The Defiant Ones (1958)'}, religion {'Inherit the Wind (1960)'} and the Holocaust – with confidence and dignity. 'Judgement at Nuremberg (1961)' wears its pretensions on its sleeve, a film so utterly convinced of its own importance that Kramer must surely have already known about the eleven Oscar nominations before he opened production. Fortunately, much of this self-importance is quite justified. The epic 186-minute courtroom drama tackles some of the fundamental issues in the aftermath of WWII, such as the accountability of higher citizens for the Holocaust and how patriotism has the ability to corrupt human morals. With a mighty cast of Hollywood stars, Kramer impartially dissects the Nuremberg trials, exposing tragedy and hypocrisy.

Courtroom dramas have remained such audience favourites because they are a showcase for emotional outbursts and impassioned monologues. 'Judgement at Nuremberg,' in keeping with the tone of its subject matter, is largely gloomy and subdued, only occasionally reaching the thrilling highs of Sidney Lumet's '12 Angry Men (1957),' Robert Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)' or Kramer's own 'Inherit the Wind (1960).' Any speech by Maximilian Schell {who won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, despite being billed fifth} keeps you fixated on the screen, and, likewise, Burt Lancaster's confession and Montgomery Clift's interrogation are must-see moments. The remainder of the film occasionally falls in stagnation, perhaps an inevitable consequence of its format and length, though the drama remains quite watchable, even if I wouldn't fancy a re-viewing until several years from now. The performances are impressive across the board, though Judy Garland, who somehow still retains the rosy cheeks of her childhood, seems terribly out-of-place in such a grim drama.

When he isn't in court, American Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) experiences the post-war German lifestyle, as its defeated citizens attempt to reconstruct their shattered lives amid the humiliation of being branded "evil" by the rest of the world. Screenwriter Abby Mann has it both ways on this issue: on the one hand, he represents the ordinary German civilians as proud and resourceful people, who could never have known the true extent of Hitler's regime. However, Judge Haywood later lambasts this perception, asserting that this argument is merely a self-made delusion, and that their inaction – and, indeed, the inaction of the whole world – was just as contemptible as the acts of those who physically committed the atrocities of the Holocaust. In stating what he believes to be the truth, Haywood invokes the ire of the American government, and severs his close friendship with Mrs. Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich), whose husband was executed for his leadership of the German Army. The truth, it seems, was not something that most people wanted to hear, but Stanley Kramer said it, and we listened.