Review of Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) by David C — 07 Apr 2014

"Judgment at Nuremberg" belongs at or near the top of two prestigious lists: that of the greatest World War II movies and that of the greatest courtroom dramas. High praise, but well-deserved. Few film depictions of the home front can even boast an awareness, much less so sensitive and character-driven a presentation, of the class dynamics that along with racial prejudices shaped Nazi Germany's rise and fall. Few depictions of the war depict the atrocities of the Nazi regime so unflinchingly: several minutes of real-life concentration camp footage, appropriately contextualized, do more to move the audience than all the red-dress girls and misfiring guns that a Spielberg can invent for the purpose of manipulation. Few court procedurals so effectively consider the culpability of the "good guys" and humanize the "bad guys" without ducking the responsibility to take a side.

No movie has made me think for so long about an ethical dilemma. It has been years since I first saw it, and though I have seen it several times since I am still pondering the central question: whether Nazi judges were responsible for Nazi war crimes. The movie answers the question, as must the war crimes tribunal headed by Spencer Tracy's character, but it does so in a way that gives a full and fair hearing to opposing viewpoints and to the seemingly endless complexities inherent in the case. Two reasonable viewers can watch the film and come to different conclusions. Even one viewer can fail to settle on a completely comfortable answer, as I have discovered.

The runaway star of the movie is Maximilian Schell as the German defense attorney. He commands the courtroom physically and verbally, punctuating his monologues with perfectly-placed pauses and stresses. His ability to generate and sustain dramatic momentum is no small achievement in light of the movie's approach to translation. Instead of subtitling the Germans or pretending that only English was spoken in the Nuremberg court, the actors all speak in English but act as if they are speaking in their characters' native languages and hearing translations through their headsets. It sounds potentially silly, but in practice it works magnificently. In addition to Schell's Oscar-winning turn, Judy Garland gives what may be her best performance, emotionally and even vocally, as a thickly-accented witness to Germany's anti-miscegenation laws. Marlene Dietrich is perfect in a role that only she could have played: an aristocratic widow reduced to drinking ersatz coffee with pointed stoicism. Her relationship with Tracy's judge is a vehicle for the film to explore the physical wreckage of the defeated nation as well as its upended social structure. Her speeches are gripping, as nearly all of them are and must be for a talk-heavy movie to be successful.

What can be criticized in "Judgment" it the rather gauche performance of Richard Widmark as the lead prosecutor, a few jarring musical cues, and one too many dramatic close-ups. The latter presentational decisions may be vestiges of the made-for-TV version that preceded the film. In any case, these are quibbles when weighed against the film's overall quality and sophistication.