Buy new:
$18.80$18.80
FREE delivery: Thursday, Nov 17 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: BLGC
Save with Used - Very Good
$7.12$7.12
FREE delivery: Thursday, Nov 17 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: BookTrader924
Other Sellers on Amazon
& FREE Shipping
93% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
97% positive
Image Unavailable
Color:
-
-
-
- Sorry, this item is not available in
- Image not available
- To view this video download Flash Player
Judgment at Nuremberg [DVD]
- Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges
- Learn more about free returns.
- Go to your orders and start the return
- Select the return method
- Ship it!
- Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges
- Learn more about free returns.
- Go to your orders and start the return
- Select the return method
- Ship it!
| Additional DVD options | Edition | Discs | Price | New from | Used from |
|
DVD
June 9, 2015 "Please retry" | — | 1 | $13.42 | $4.71 |
Enhance your purchase
| Genre | Drama |
| Format | AC-3, Black & White, Dolby, DVD, Letterboxed, Special Edition, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC |
| Contributor | Colin Kenny, William Shatner, Rudy Solari, Judy Garland, Torben Meyer, Sayre Dearing, John Wengraf, Otto Waldis, Joseph Crehan, Maximilian Schell, Sam Harris (II), Harold Miller, Karl Swenson, Bernard Kates, Werner Klemperer, Stanley Kramer, Ed Nelson, William H. O'Brien, Howard Caine, Oscar Beregi Jr., Bert Stevens, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Hal Taggart, Bess Flowers, Kenneth MacKenna, Alan Baxter, Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark, Ed Binns, Norbert Schiller, Sheila Bromley, Virginia Christine, Jana Taylor, Montgomery Clift, Olga Fabian, Paul Busch, Ray Teal, Joseph Bernard, Martin Brandt, Asher Brauner, Ben Wright See more |
| Language | English |
| Runtime | 3 hours and 6 minutes |
Frequently bought together
![Judgment at Nuremberg [DVD]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51DNY1X6XQL._AC_UL116_SR116,116_.jpg)
Customers also search
Product Description
Nominated* for eleven Academy AwardsÂ(r), including Best Picture, Judgment at Nuremberg is "magnificent" (Los Angeles Times), "continuously exciting" (The New Yorker) andboasts brilliant performances by an all-star cast. American judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) presides over the trial of four German jurists accused of "legalizing" Nazi atrocities. But as graphic accounts of sterilization and murder unfold in the courtroom, mounting political pressure for leniency forces Haywood to make the most harrowing and difficult decision of his career. *1961: Actor (Maximilian Schell, won); Actor (Spencer Tracy); Supporting Actor (Montgomery Clift); Supporting Actress (Judy Garland); Director; Adapted Screenplay (won); Cinematography (B&W); Art Direction (B&W); Film Editing; Costume Design (B&W).
Product details
- Aspect Ratio : 1.66:1
- Is Discontinued By Manufacturer : No
- MPAA rating : Unrated (Not Rated)
- Product Dimensions : 7.75 x 5.75 x 0.5 inches; 2.88 Ounces
- Director : Stanley Kramer
- Media Format : AC-3, Black & White, Dolby, DVD, Letterboxed, Special Edition, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
- Run time : 3 hours and 6 minutes
- Release date : September 7, 2004
- Actors : Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell
- Subtitles: : English, Spanish, French
- Language : Unqualified, English (Dolby Digital 1.0), English (Dolby Digital 5.1)
- Studio : MGM (Video & DVD)
- ASIN : B0002CR04A
- Number of discs : 1
- Best Sellers Rank: #15,438 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
- #2,741 in Drama DVDs
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on December 3, 2018
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
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.
Wins: Leading Actor Maximilian Schell and Screenwriting Based on Another Medium.
March Boy nominations: Leading Actor-Spencer Tracy, Supporting Actor-Burt Lancaster, Supporting Actor-Montgomery Clift, Supporting Actress-Judy Garland, B&W Cinematography and B&W Film Editing.
Wins: Picture, Director-Stanley Kramer, Supporting Actor-Maximilian Schell and Screenwriting Based on Another Medium.
Judgment at Nuremburg is a 1961 historical fiction drama directed by Stanley Kramer and starring Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster and a host of other iconic, household references. It was nominated for eleven Oscars and won two richly deserved for Leading Actor and Original Screenplay. The plot centers around an American judge named Dan Haywood appointed to preside over a trial in Nuremburg Germany for four Nazi judges and doctors accused of war crimes.
I love this film. I love it because it does such a great job fleshing out the philosophies and motives of the characters. Abby Mann (Screenwriter) could have easily have turned the Americans and Germans into one-dimensional cartoony caricature good guys/bad guys but instead he chose to make even the Germans 'real' by giving several reasons why they did what they did. Some of the Germans joined the Nazi party because:
1.) They totally agreed with Hilter's theory of exterminating the misfits of society (Jews, Gypsies, etc.) to create a utopia and were gleeful about supporting him.
2.) They just went through the motions afraid for their lives.
3.) Certain members decided if they campaigned for a political position they would be softer and more merciful to their constituents than the hard core extremists.
4.) It was fashionable. The new popular political trend.
None of these reasons put the Nazis in a favorable light of course--what light SHOULD they be shown in?--but it does add dimensions to the study of their characters.
Spencer Tracy gives a solid adequate performance in the leading role but it is Maximilian Schell as Hans Rolfe, the defense attorney who is really making the magic of the film. Even though he is deluded into making justification arguments for his defendants he asks some very thought-provoking questions. At one point, Ernst Janning, one of the defendants gives a self-incriminating speech out of sheer remorse and the desire to be punished for his deeds. Hans Rolfe is desperate. He knows he's probably not going to win this trial but he still manages to muster up one last argument:
"What about the rest of the world? Did it not know the intentions of the Third Reich? Did it not hear the words of Hitler's broadcasts all over the world?
Did it not read his intentions in Mein Kampf published in every corner of the world? Where is the responsibility of the Soviet Union who signed in the pact with Hitler, enabled him to make war? Are we now to find Russia guilty? Where is the responsibility of the Vatican who signed in the concordat with Hitler giving him his first tremendous prestige? Are we now to find the Vatican guilty? Where is the responsibility of the world leader Winston Churchill who said in an open letter to the London Times in 1938: "Were England to suffer a national disaster, I should pray to God to send a man of the strength of mind and will of an Adolf Hitler." Are we now to find Winston Churchill guilty? Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments and profited by that rebuilding? Are we now to find the American industrialists guilty? No, Your Honor. Germany alone is not guilty. The whole world is as responsible for Hitler as Germany. It is an easy thing to condemn one man in the dock. It's easy to condemn the German people to speak of the basic flaw in the German character that allowed Hitler to rise to power, but also comfortably ignore the basic flaw of character that made the Russians sign pacts with him, Winston Churchill praise him, American industrialists profit by him! Ernst Janning said he is guilty. If he is, Ernst Janning's guilt is the world's guilt. No more, no less."
Strangely enough, after watching the grisly live footage taken by the allies (a scene I always fast forward because once was enough)--Rolfe says he feels saddened that such things could have happened in his country and there can never be a justification for them--right AFTER he tried to make justification arguments for the defendants in court. You get the feeling Rolfe is seeking truth, that in spite of his harsh exterior (bullying the witnesses on the stand and hollering at the top of his lungs every quarter of an hour) he is insecure and not quite sure if he's doing the right thing defending those judges. Maximilian Schell's performance is one of greatest ever to grace the screen--he manages to make you dislike him and feel sorry for him at the same time and glides smoothly back and forth from subtle to melodramatic. You could take all the clips with him, put them together in a collage and it would be the most watchable film ever made. My only quibble is that he should have won best supporting actor instead of best leading actor because Spencer Tracy as Judge Dan Haywood is clearly the main character. Yes, I know you can sometimes have more than one lead but I sincerely feel like the movie centered more around Tracy than Schell.
Richard Widmark is also excellent as the prosecuting attorney Col. Tad Lawson. I love the cross look he gives Hans Rolfe at the beginning of the trial as if he's 'sizing him up' wondering if he'll be able to beat this young newcomer in the law. Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift are terrific in their cameos as the two witnesses who suffered indignities under the Third Reich--Clift's "I KNOW I AM NOT since...THAT day! I'm half I've ever been!" is enough to rip you to shreds emotionally.
Marlene Dietrich plays the widow of a Nazi general who claims she knew nothing about the death camps, witch hunts, etc.) and that "We have to forget if we want to go on living." During this scene she speaks in a rather huffy, nervous tone. We get a close up of her face--she's sweating bullets and trembling--it's pretty obvious she's lied and feels guilty. Dietrich's style of acting is so smooth, subtle, polished and refined and her rich creamy voice is always a pleasure to the ears. My favorite of her scenes is when she's talking to Judge Haywood about her favorite German folksong and how one of her friends Ernst Janning stood up to Hitler when he made a pass at his wife in an opera house. She managed to make me like her at one point (for how good-natured, friendly and outgoing she is) dislike her (for claiming she didn't know about the camps when for Heaven's sake she's the widow of a general) and feel sorry for her. (Since she loves her country and has a hard time accepting and admitting the evil in it.)
Burt Lancaster plays Ernst Janning, the repentant Nazi who goes mostly through the film with depressed, remorseful expressions and scarcely a line until his big speech in the second half of the film where he incriminates himself.
Spencer Tracy wisely underplays his role as the judge Daniel Haywood and has a fine eleventh hour speech towards the end of the film with one of the greatest movie quotes of all time. "Before the people of the world let it now be noted that here in this court, this is what we stand for: JUSTICE, TRUTH AND THE VALUE OF A SINGLE HUMAN BEING." William Shatner plays Captain (Yes ANOTHER captain) Byers--a peripheral character. Of course, he had the only love interest in the film.
Stanley Kramer's direction is flawless. He manages to bring out the best in every actor and his staging of the sequences is superb. The black and white cinematography contains terrific shots of the city and the sets are sumptuous.
I highly recommend this film. Sure, it may not be the most uplifting, entertaining experience but if you judge it by its intellectual value (especially the courtroom speeches) it is one of the finest ever made.
it's an old and not very well-known film, so i'm happy enough that it's even on Blu-ray, haha ;)
Top reviews from other countries
The second disc dvd was very good to see the numerous special features from pre and post war shorts on the eugenics and Nazi regime. Seeing a young John Gielgud briefly in the short ‘Heredity of Man’ from 1937 was interesting.
I’m thankful that I bought this early enough in its First Pressing to include the 34 page fully illustrated booklet
Now for the plus points. The movie is in glorious 2.20:1 ratio which makes the picture very sharp and clear and also has excellent special features. The picture and sound is sharp and clear. The biggest plus point are the sterling performances of Spencer Tracy, Maximillian Schell, Richard Widmark and all the other colossal stars.













