Judgement at Nuremberg review

Number 136 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1961 courtroom drama, Judgement at Nuremberg.

Inspired by the infamous Nuremberg Trials, Judgement at Nuremberg focusses on Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) an American district judge in charge of the trial of four Nazi officials.  Defending them is Hans Rolfe (Maximellen Schell) Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and William Shatner appear in supporting roles.

Courtroom dramas by definition take place within a courtroom. To stop these kind of films from becoming stilted and boring, you need strong writing and even stronger performances.  Judgement at Nuremberg certainly delivered on this front.  Ethical issues a-plenty were presented and tackled with great skill.  This was most evident through Spencer Tracy's great performance as Dan Haywood.  It was clear the moral dilemma that he was struggling with.  What's important to remember is how the film is set at the birth of the Cold War.  America, terrified of the threat of Communist Russia, wanted Germany as an ally. 

This meant that judges like Haywood were under high pressure to treat Nazis leniently.  And this is exactly what happened.  At the end of the film, it is revealed that of the 99 Nazis who were sentenced to jail, by the film's 1961 release, none of them were still serving the sentences.

But the other element which comes into play is Haywood's conscience.  He knows that these officials played a part in the Holocaust and finds it difficult to believe that they weren't aware of the full atrocities of the Holocaust.  Also, unlike the American prosecutor Tad Lawson who staunchly condemns the officials, as cruel-blooded murderers, Haywood wanders whether if it was really that simple.  Haywood's struggle with this dilemma was one of the diving forces of this film and Spencer Tracy played the part well.

Maximillen Schell was also brilliant in his role as Herr Rolfe, the lawyer defending the Nazi officials.  He was utterly convincing as Rolfe.  You could tell that he believed everything he said, and his own arguments posed their own moral questions.  He argues that his defendants were acting out of a misguided patriotism - post-WW1 Germany was humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles - and they were only following orders.  Although does this excuse their actions? Perhaps if ever single soldier recognised the immorality of their actions and stood up against their commanders then maybe the worst of the Holocaust could have been avoided.  Obviously, that's an oversimplified version of a vastly complicated subject, but it's interesting to think about.  Schell won an Oscar for his role and it was well-deserved.

Rolfe also argues about the moral implications behind the American decision to drop a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  These bombings killed 200,000 people, most of which were civillians.  True, this helped to bring WW2 to a close, but do the ends really justify the means in this situation.  Again, this is only my oversimplified opinion, but it is still an interesting question to ponder.

But, most interesting of all, is the quandary about whether we should condemn the majority for the actions of the minority.  Haywood is reluctant to do this, hence his efforts to come to as an objective decision as possible.  It's easy to let emotion guide us and say that all Germans were Nazis, and wonder how any of them could claim to be ignorant of the horrors of the Holocaust, but again, are things really that simple?

With a 3-hour run time, things do get a bit slow in places, but be patient and give Judgement at Nuremberg a chance.  Just be prepared to put your thinking cap on as it poses some real ethical quandaries.