Judgment at Nuremberg

West Side Story was a force to be reckoned with in 1961, and there was just no way any other film was going to legitimately compete with it for the top awards of the year. It was flashy, colorful, had lots of great music and choreography, and had a powerful message about racism and hatred. It’s no surprise that it won it all at the Academy Awards. When I saw the Oscar reel depicting every film that ever won Best Picture, one of the first to get loud applause from the audience was that movie. It’s one that is still shown to this day and adored by millions as amongst the best that Hollywood has to offer. I saw it originally in my junior high music class and have never forgotten it.

One of the films that I heard about, but never saw growing up, was in direct competition with West Side Story, yet it was never shown to me in school, and I never came across it on television over the years. This movie was Judgment at Nuremberg. This movie has just as important things to say about racism and hatred but adds on to that mix an eye-opening look at willful ignorance when good people do nothing, and great evil is allowed to happen in the world. It looks at who is to blame for actions done in service of your country and what is the greater obligation: to oneself or to one’s country. Judgment at Nuremberg doesn’t pull any punches when making its pronouncements, and there are several scenes that are difficult to watch, yet we must watch them and understand them lest we be doomed to allow it to happen again. This is a film that has suddenly become relevant again in a world where certain groups of people are being villainized, and there is talk within our political system of racial purity and cleansing. This is scary stuff, but it happened before, and if we forget that, it will happen again. 

The film centers on a military tribunal led by Chief Trial Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy), a retired judge from Maine who has been sent to Germany to oversee the tribunal of four judges and prosecutors (the real number was sixteen but has been pared down to four for the sake simplicity) who stand accused of crimes against humanity due to their senior roles in the judicial system of the then Nazi German government. Their defense is that they were acting within the laws of their country at the time and thus are not guilty of the acts they committed under that law. The prosecution posits that the laws of humanity supersede the laws of the country and that they should have refused orders that ultimately led to people being killed by the millions.

The argument, “I was following orders,” is a difficult one to counter-argue when it comes to mass murder. That doesn’t make it any less compelling to examine. As human beings, the argument can be made that it is better to give up your own life to save another. The New Testament in the Holy Bible says that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). In practice, it becomes more difficult, especially if you value your life more than the salvation of your soul, assuming you believe in that sort of thing. When faced with execution, if you don’t comply, it becomes easy to make the decision to fall in line rather than fight against the government. 

These men of power chose to serve a government that was based on hatred and murder, and they profited from it. There is some talk about the possibility of working from within to lessen the effects of a corrupt government, but this argument doesn’t really go anywhere. There is also an enlightening scene when the accused are eating lunch together, and one of them is in disbelief of the realities of the Holocaust, not wanting to accept the video evidence shown earlier of the sheer numbers of the massacred. This form of denial is shared by even the civilians who lived near the concentration camps, who insist they knew nothing of what was going on. These seemingly good people turned a blind eye to the suffering going on nearby because it was easier and safer for them to go on telling themselves they were unaware of the truth.

The one accused that stands out the most is Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster), based loosely on Oswald Rothaug. Janning initially refuses to participate in the legal proceeding, viewing the whole ordeal as akin to a kangaroo court. But his views shift as the proceeding grows more and more intolerable, finally breaking his silence when the German defense counsel, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), is badgering Irene Hoffmann (Judy Garland) on the stand. Irene, a gentile, was accused of “blood defilement” by having a sexual relationship with an older Jewish man. Her case was tried by Janning, and they were found guilty without any evidence. Janning’s ruling meant jail time for Irene and the death of the Jewish man. Janning admits before the court that they acted out of misled patriotism, which allowed Adolph Hitler and his regime to maintain and grow their power. By doing so, they all, the accused, as well as all of Germany, share the blame for all the atrocities that occurred under the Nazi rule. By speaking up, Janning is branded a traitor by another of the accused. 

Stanley Kramer’s film feels like a television movie, made on a budget to be played out over two nights on one of the major networks. In fact, it originated as just that, being an episode of Playhouse 90 that aired just two years previously. Kramer expanded on that production when adapting it for the big screen, but all that he really managed to do is expand the production to the point that it loses the narrative from time to time. The scenes where Judge Haywood is sharing a sandwich with a German couple while asking them how much of what was happening just down the road they were aware of are interesting, but later scenes of him walking the streets of Nuremberg and most of the scenes between him and Frau Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich) feel redundant and unnecessary padding. Kramer was trying to break up the courtroom scenes, but while the instinct to do so was a good one, the execution was not done well. This is a three-hour film that was told more effectively on television in about half the time. 

Bloated as it is, it is still a compelling drama that asks a lot of questions while also taking jabs at the inefficiency of these trials in the first place. The prosecution, Col. Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark), is approached about how sending these men to jail will only anger the local population and that they should be allowed to go free. It is argued that similar trials in other parts of the country have resulted in acquittals or light sentences. Lawson fights back against this ridiculousness, pointing out that that would be a violation of justice. Still, we are informed in text at the end of the film that as of the release of this film, none of the men who stood trial were still incarcerated despite being sentenced to life in prison. So much for justice.

This film is not only overly long but it also looks cheap. In many ways, this is entirely thanks to the cinematography. There are moments where the camerawork feels stagnant and other times where it is being utilized in a way that feels like the cameraman is inexperienced. This is especially noticeable during moments of sudden revelation where the camera abruptly zooms in on someone mid-sentence. It’s jarring and pulls me out of the moment every time it happens. Still, Ernest Laszlo was nominated for his camerawork and had decades of experience by this time, so what do I know? For me, if the camera calls attention to itself, then it is poorly executed. 

Judgment at Nuremberg was never going to win Best Picture, not with West Side Story to compete with. It really is unfortunate because it is a deserving film, flaws and all. The acting is riveting all around, even a young William Shatner who was just a few years away from hamming it up as Captain Kirk in Star Trek. The biggest snub at the Oscars that year, though, was leaving Burt Lancaster off the ballot for this. His role may be small, but even when he is sitting in the background, not the focus of the scene, he is selling his character. When he gives his big speech in court, and later when he is speaking one-on-one with Haywood in his prison cell, his misery and sorrow are palpable. The actors all around are the main thing that elevates this above being a mere television movie. This is an excellent group of A-listers, and they elevate this movie, even in the slower moments. This keeps the film from dragging whenever it is not focusing on the trial and helps make this three-hour film worth watching after more than sixty years. 

Academy Award Nominations:

Best Motion Picture: Stanley Kramer

Best Director: Stanley Kramer

Best Actor: Maximilian Schell (won)

Best Actor: Spencer Tracy

Best Supporting Actor: Montgomery Clift

Best Supporting Actress: Judy Garland

Best Screenplay - Based on Material from Another Medium: Abby Mann (won)

Best Art Direction - Black-and-White: Rudolph Sternad and George Milo

Best Cinematography - Black-and-White: Ernest Laszlo

Best Costume Design - Black-and-White: Jean Louis

Best Film Editing: Frederic Knudtson

Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award: Stanley Kramer (won)

____________________________________________________

Release Date: December 19, 1961

Running Time: 190 Minutes

Not Rated

Starring: Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, Judy Garland, Montgomery Clift, William Shatner, Edward Binns, and Kenneth MacKenna

Directed By: Stanley Kramer