Judgement at Nuremberg (1961)
As our country comes to a crossroad, and many uncertainties have to be thrashed out so that history would not judge us in a bad light, it is always good to look back at history. Even though inevitable, we do not to want history to repeat itself.
Many of the dialogues in this film cut through incisively like a knife. The topics argued here about race and masterly inactivity by the people in authority are relevant today as it were 80 years ago. It is worth a watch, albeit its 3 hour speech filled presentation.
This film narrates the military trial in Nuremberg of 4 civilians who served in Nazi Germany. The accused are Emil Hahn (prosecutor), Frederich Hoffstetter, Warren Lemmpe and Ernst Janning (a reputable authority in law and Minister of Law, acted brilliantly by Burt Lancaster.)
The trial is presided by a tribunal panel of 3 where the head is Judge Harewood (Spencer Tracy). He is actually given the job as nobody else wanted it and was just a small time District Court Judge from Maine.
Basically the trial covered three angles - forced sterilisation, racial pollution as decreed by Nazi Germany and Holocaust.
The 4 accused, through the powers that they had had either decided to follow the ruling Government's decree or did nothing to mete justice. They carried out the law but not justice!
In the forced sterilisation case, a mentally deficient individual, Peterson (Montgomery Clift) tells of how because of his family's political affiliations, was sterilised as the family had a hereditary genetic disorder.
In another case, an elderly Jew was executed as he was accused of having an affair with a young German (Aryan) girl, Irene Hoffmann (Judy Garland). Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) was the presiding judge then.
In between the trial, Judge Harewood also tries to understand the sentiments of the average German through the eyes of his servants and a former wealthy wife of a Nuremberg executed General, Mrs Bertholdt (Marlene Dietrich). The Americans actually admire the German's culture, civilisation, countryside and music. They could not fathom why they allowed such an atrocity to happen in the first place.
In the meantime, outside the courtroom, pressure is mounting for the court to give a favourable verdict to woo the German people's heart as the Cold War was building up. Russian troops were advancing and for the love of democracy, the Americans have to garner support of the Germans to prevent fall of Germany to the Eastern Bloc.
The prosecutor then screens a film in the courthouse of the events of executions in the concentration camps. By the inactions of the accused, they have been privy to Hitler's cruelty.
Most people claim that the general public were not made aware of the killings. The people in higher place knew the killing but not gravity of the problem, that the execution involved 6 million people!
In a touching speech by Janning, he explained that like many things in life, the Nazi would just be a passing phase. He did not expect it to be a way of life. At that juncture, he thought he could change things by staying within the system.
The defence lawyer, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell who got an Oscar for his role), justified that the accused alone cannot be guilty of their crimes. The whole world should be guilty of it - the Russian for signing a pact to justify Nazi's march to Poland, the Vatican for approving their government, Churchill for praising the leadership in Hitler. Despite his shortcomings, Hitler did give a sense of national pride to its citizen at a time it was devastated from the effects of the world war. Anyway, the Americans have their hands dirty via the human devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The 8 months trail ended with all 4 given life imprisonment but were released soon after.
So, the discussion point is that whether we are doing justice to the nation by our inaction. What is the role of a judge? Is it to carry out what the law says or it to carry out justice? Should they be independent true to the profession or should they be subservient to their paymasters or pass judgements to satisfy populist sentiments?
As our country comes to a crossroad, and many uncertainties have to be thrashed out so that history would not judge us in a bad light, it is always good to look back at history. Even though inevitable, we do not to want history to repeat itself.Many of the dialogues in this film cut through incisively like a knife. The topics argued here about race and masterly inactivity by the people in authority are relevant today as it were 80 years ago. It is worth a watch, albeit its 3 hour speech filled presentation.
This film narrates the military trial in Nuremberg of 4 civilians who served in Nazi Germany. The accused are Emil Hahn (prosecutor), Frederich Hoffstetter, Warren Lemmpe and Ernst Janning (a reputable authority in law and Minister of Law, acted brilliantly by Burt Lancaster.)
The trial is presided by a tribunal panel of 3 where the head is Judge Harewood (Spencer Tracy). He is actually given the job as nobody else wanted it and was just a small time District Court Judge from Maine.
Basically the trial covered three angles - forced sterilisation, racial pollution as decreed by Nazi Germany and Holocaust.
The 4 accused, through the powers that they had had either decided to follow the ruling Government's decree or did nothing to mete justice. They carried out the law but not justice!In the forced sterilisation case, a mentally deficient individual, Peterson (Montgomery Clift) tells of how because of his family's political affiliations, was sterilised as the family had a hereditary genetic disorder.
In another case, an elderly Jew was executed as he was accused of having an affair with a young German (Aryan) girl, Irene Hoffmann (Judy Garland). Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) was the presiding judge then.
In between the trial, Judge Harewood also tries to understand the sentiments of the average German through the eyes of his servants and a former wealthy wife of a Nuremberg executed General, Mrs Bertholdt (Marlene Dietrich). The Americans actually admire the German's culture, civilisation, countryside and music. They could not fathom why they allowed such an atrocity to happen in the first place.
In the meantime, outside the courtroom, pressure is mounting for the court to give a favourable verdict to woo the German people's heart as the Cold War was building up. Russian troops were advancing and for the love of democracy, the Americans have to garner support of the Germans to prevent fall of Germany to the Eastern Bloc.The prosecutor then screens a film in the courthouse of the events of executions in the concentration camps. By the inactions of the accused, they have been privy to Hitler's cruelty.
Most people claim that the general public were not made aware of the killings. The people in higher place knew the killing but not gravity of the problem, that the execution involved 6 million people!
In a touching speech by Janning, he explained that like many things in life, the Nazi would just be a passing phase. He did not expect it to be a way of life. At that juncture, he thought he could change things by staying within the system.
The defence lawyer, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell who got an Oscar for his role), justified that the accused alone cannot be guilty of their crimes. The whole world should be guilty of it - the Russian for signing a pact to justify Nazi's march to Poland, the Vatican for approving their government, Churchill for praising the leadership in Hitler. Despite his shortcomings, Hitler did give a sense of national pride to its citizen at a time it was devastated from the effects of the world war. Anyway, the Americans have their hands dirty via the human devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The 8 months trail ended with all 4 given life imprisonment but were released soon after.
So, the discussion point is that whether we are doing justice to the nation by our inaction. What is the role of a judge? Is it to carry out what the law says or it to carry out justice? Should they be independent true to the profession or should they be subservient to their paymasters or pass judgements to satisfy populist sentiments?
Comments
Post a Comment