On J List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
2/11
2/11:
Judgment at Nuremberg is a misleading film in many ways.
At first, I originally thought it's a semi-documentary based on the actual events, but it turned out to be a fictional account
of the actual trial. Second, I thought it's about the trial of twenty-two famous Nazi defendants including Hermann Göring.
Alas, it's not. Rather, it's the trial of the judges of the Third Reich. How boring.
After the film ended, I felt compelled to look up the original source of the proceedings, and it's the 1,267-page
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Volume III: "The Justice Case."
I admit, the book is tedious to read through, but it proves one thing: the movie is absolutely nothing like
the actual trial. Hence, I can't rate Judgment at Nuremberg any higher than '1'.
Sure, I'll be pointed out it's just a movie, and it's a fiction that's not meant to be taken seriously. Well, it's propaganda
at best and an attempt to rewrite history by unqualified, uneducated persons. While watching the film, I never felt so
insulted by the presentation of the information, the way witnesses were treated, and the gross freedom the defendants had
by making immaterial speeches; it's inaccurate, insulting, and deceptive. Most of all, it's a pro-German film at best.
The biggest reason why American viewers don't react strongly to Ernst Janning and Mrs. Bertholt is that they're played
by Burt Lancaster and Marlene Dietrich, respectively. It's pure Hollywood manipulation. Let's have an analogy here: if
Saddam Hussein was played by Daniel Day-Lewis and he had the greatest peformance of his career, of course, we'll have sympathy
for Saddam because it's Daniel Day-Lewis playing him after all. Suppose Saddam Hussein was played by somebody else who's
ugly and unimportant, then it's impossible to sympathize with him. That's exactly what happened in here.
If you look at Emil Hahn, it's easy to hate him because of how he looks. On the other hand, if you look at Ernst Janning,
you'll go, "That's Burt...the legendary actor. What a great performance." Obviously, he's a legendary actor, but this is
bad enough. Now, with Marlene Dietrich, whom I hate, her character is able to gain access to Judge Haywood due to her looks.
Of course, she's resorting to common tactics that are known to veteran police officers, detectives, and
judges today. It's about making excuses and playing the innocent card when in fact it's called DENIAL.
Truth be told, most likely, judges of that time wouldn't have allowed it to happen to themselves because, for all intents and purposes,
the people of Germany were responsible for the mass destruction of mankind. The most appalling statement made by Dietrich's
character, which is a tactic, is nobody in Germany knew about the atrocities that were happening. This is 100% lie.
I read in the IMDb trivia page that Marlene Dietrich, herself a German, was repulsed by the lines she had to say and
subsequently went through the ordeals, but my question is: why go through it if she knew the story was historically false?
Naturally, Marlene Dietrich was cast because she was a well-known actress of the time and was able to get away with it.
Had a different actress, oblivious to the American audience, been used, she would've failed because the Americans
won't buy it for the slightest second. But it's Marlene Dietrich which makes the perspective easier to
swallow which is called MANIPULATION.
Finally, just because the performances are decent, if melodramatic to the point of theatrical, doesn't mean the film
must automatically become great. Just because the film touches the topic of Holocaust doesn't mean it must automatically
become outstanding. And just because the film is about an important event doesn't mean it must automatically become respectable.
All in all, Judgment at Nuremberg is a work of fiction that's full of rubbish and an attempt to rewrite history.