![Judgment at Nuremberg [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51DNY1X6XQL._SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)
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.
Frequently bought together
![Judgment at Nuremberg [DVD]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51DNY1X6XQL._AC_UL116_SR116,116_.jpg)
$18.80
Get it as soon as Thursday, Nov 17
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers also search
Page 1 of 1Page 1 of 1
Customer reviews
Excellent performances with a powerful question posed…
Reviewed in the United States on December 3, 2018
Excellent real life courtroom drama of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi judges who obey the laws of Nazi Germany while breaking international laws of humanity… The defense by Maximilian Schell insisting that the judge is “protected the people” from more intense horrors from the Nazi regime. The court is represented by three American judges led by the great Spencer Tracy.Although Spencer Tracy gave a great performance and had some powerful lines it was Maximilian Schell whose Incredibly emotional performance outshown Tracy enough to win best actor of the year!The question is: did the judges remaining in office providing a “buffer” against the horrors of the Nazi regime although they still sentenced innocent people to death? Burt Lancaster provided a very moving performance as the judge with the greatest reputation for fairness in Germany before the Nazis took power… His speeches are quite moving, too. A very good movie!I provided a few pics of Maximilian Shell in another movie which gives him a small part although demonstrates his great acting to elicit emotional responses from the audience with his controversial relationship with his daughter (Tea Leoni) in the great science-fiction movie “Deep Impact.”
Reviewed in the United States on December 3, 2018
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on September 30, 2012
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 7, 2013
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on September 4, 2022
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 16, 2022
Top reviews from other countries
Viandante del Cielo
Judgment at Nuremberg BFI 2020 Release
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on August 1, 2020
P. R. Storey
Less Is Sometimes Better
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 27, 2022
Rusi Mahudawala
1 ratio which makes the picture very sharp and clear and also has excellent special features
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 17, 2015Lincoln.
What it is what it was.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 11, 2022Christian clennell
A well judged film
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on July 9, 2020
