JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBURG

US, 1961, 178 minutes, Black and white.
Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Maximilian Schell, Marlene Dietrich, Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland.
Directed by Stanley Kramer.

Judgment at Nuremburg is a long, but absorbing film about Nazi war-trials. It has been generally praised, but some critics, like the (too?) incisive Pauline Kael have said it is too bland in judgment on goodies and baddies in the world on the part of writer Abby Mann and director Stanley Kramer. However, most audiences should find 1t a worthwhile experience.

Spencer Tracy is his usual self as the American Judge sent to Nuremburg to judge four war criminals. He represents the attempts of the Americans at sympathetic objectivity. Richard Widmark is quite good as the prosecutor representing American superiority feelings. He is outmatched in acting by Maximilian Schell (Oscar 1961) as the defence lawyer who represents an attempt at sympathetic German feeling. A subdued Burt Lancaster as one of the defendants represents the Nazi war criminal in the most sympathetic light possible. But he is still to be condemned.

The film is long and gives one plenty of time to reflect on its issues, issues of war, authority, conscience and the obeying of orders that will always be with us. Kramer gives us strong drama. His intensity eased during the 60's with Ship of Fools (again with Abby Mann), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and The Secret of Santa Vittoria. Probably a film that should be seen.

1. This is an enormous film to try to cope with, themes, numbers of characters and so on. One way is to consider the personality and issues of each character and try to relate these to the whole film. Some introductory comment could be made on the scope of the film, was it too long? too big on the wide screen? Was it well-served by black and white photography? How were the close-ups and the technique of circular panning around the character? The use of music?

2. The Judge - what did he stand for? American justice? The ordinary people? His attitude to the trials and justice? The issues of responsibility in judging war criminals; the judge's role in interpreting laws, not making them; impartiality of judgment, despite human feelings? The sequence of the walk around Nuremburg, his contacts with the servants? What did he and the audience learn about the German people and the war? What point did the judge make to Jannings in his final encounter with him in the prison? "To be logical is not to be right."?

3. The defendants - how did Burt Lancaster’s quiet and dignified portrayal of the defendant mike the issue of the Nuremburg trials more real? How did he contrast with the other defendants in what he had done and in his personality? The fact that he was a legal man of international reputation and humanity and yet he freely chose to co-operate with the Nazi regime? Why did he not accept the validity of the trial? How did he defend himself? Did he have any convincing defence of himself? the issues of conscience and obedience to immoral orders? Why were the sequences of Jannings at the end? Was the Judge just towards him? Was mercy required here as well as justice? Why?

3. The German defence lawyer? What point of view did he represent? Why did he take the job? What were his convictions about Nazism, about Germany and the war, about the trial? Why did he make his defence an appeal to the character of Jannings? Why did he consider the whole German people was on trial? Was he too emotional? What of the appeal that the world went along with Hitler and, as with those who stayed in positions of responsibility to help avoid worse evils, a passing phase became a way of life? What had the defence lawyer achieved by the end of the film?

4. The American prosecutor? What point of view did he represent? Was he committed to his point of view? How objective were his judgments? his methods and arguments? What was the significance of the restaurant scene where he got drunk and railed about the S.S. occupation of Germany and forgiving and forgetting by Boy Scout Rules? In the clashes with the defence lawyer, who emerged as the better man? Why? The prosecutor showed concentration camp footage. Was this necessary in this film? What was the prosecutor trying to prove? What were the writer and director? What emotional impact did the footage have? Was it fair for the making of a judgment?

5. Petersen? What was the significance of using him as an example of Nazi brutality, suspicion of communists, and eugenic sterilisation? (What was the defence's point in quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes on sterilisation?) What was the emotional impact of Petersen's appearance and testimony - on the court, on the film audience?

6. Irene? What was the significance of using her in the case? (Why was she reluctant to appear?) What was the Nazi victimisation of Peltenstein? The words 'sacrificial ritual' are used in this connection. What was the emotional impact of Irene's appearance and testimony - on the court, on the film audience?

7. The German widow? Why was her part written into the film? Did it make a difference that the part was played by Marlene Dietrich? What did she represent (her position in society, her husband, the walk around Nuremburg with the Judge, her appeals on the human level to the Judge)? her point of view? Why did she not answer the Judge's final phone call?