JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG: region B-locked Blu-ray (UA, 1961) BFI
The penultimate moment of realization for condemned
German justice, Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) is, in fact, the haunting
epitaph to Stanley Kramer’s Judgment at Nuremberg (1961); a weary
Janning imploring American Chief Judge, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) with a
personal atonement for all the atrocities committed under Nazi socialism,
adding “I never knew it would come to that. You must believe me.”
Haywood’s sobering reply: “Herr Janning…it came to ‘that’ the first time you
sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.” By then, audiences had been treated to 179
minutes of intense courtroom histrionics, some fairly weighty – if poetic –
speeches, expertly delivered by the principle cast, and, an artistic framework built
around the very first mass public exposure to the gruesome newsreel footage
taken by the American liberator’s film corps at Dachau concentration camp.
While no accurate number of casualties incurred will likely ever be known, for
certain the tally of the murdered accrued there is in the thousands. Too often,
the meticulous narrative construction of screenwriter, Abby Mann’s sublime
melodrama is overlooked. What Mann has achieved is nothing short of a miracle;
his expansive canvas of world events lyrically distilled into a highly personal
and unlikely ‘respect’ peppered in sublime disenchantment, dishearteningly
expressed by Tracy’s world-weary Haywood for Lancaster’s demoralized Janning.
In his courtroom summation, Haywood points to the
staggering and unholy truth of it all; Janning – the tragic figure, whom
Haywood staunchly believes “loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the
present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and
death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record
and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this
trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the
leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events
would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural
catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national
crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the
commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the
imagination.” Haywood’s penultimate
assessment is, perhaps, even more prophetic today. “There are those in our
country too who speak of the protection of the country. Of ‘survival’. The
answer to that is: ‘survival as what?’ A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an
extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something
is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in
our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth... and the
value of a single human being!”
By his own admission screenwriter, Abby Mann did not
set out to write a propaganda piece. Indeed, in his passionate resolve to spare
his entertainment the trappings of a lengthy diatribe or heavy-handed
indictment on the atrocities committed under Adolf Hitler’s reign, Mann focused
the crux of his documented theatrics on the conflict of personalities at play
in this electrifying courtroom drama. Many today will forget Judgment at
Nuremberg began as a play filmed for television’s popular live-theater
program, Playhouse 90; the roster including the inimitable Claude Rains (as
Haywood) and newcomer, Maximilian Schell – the brother of famed German star,
Maria Schell. Max’s star turn in the TV drama made him an obvious choice for
the movie version, although it took the clout of director, Stanley Kramer to
insist on his reprise. The part was heavily sought after by Marlon Brando - a far more ‘bankable’ name above the title
then. Schell’s superb and Oscar-winning performance as defense council, Hans
Rolfe is counterbalanced in the movie by Richard Widmark’s venomous prosecuting
attorney, Colonel Tad Lawson. Viewed today, both performances are apt to
occasionally veer into grotesque caricature; Schell’s defense – the impassioned
German, refusing to bow in his singular and glowing admiration for
Janning/Widmark’s telescopically focused prosecutor, who refuses to entertain
even the notion any virtue or shred of morality at all has survived the hellish
deluge of the Nazi holocaust. But Schell’s performance remains more steadily on
course; Widmark’s passionate reveling in punctuation of every last syllable as
written becoming marginally tedious near the end.
Other roles went to Judy Garland, spellbindingly
brilliant as the fragile, Irene Wallner; Montgomery Clift as the surgically
enfeebled Rudolph Peterson, and, Marlene Dietrich’s world-wearily embittered
Madame Bertholt, former wife of a high-ranking Nazi general since put to death
for war crimes. Of all this glittering assemblage, Dietrich’s is perhaps the
most poignant and truest at its core. The sultry and gender-bending Dietrich –
one of Germany’s brightest cinema stars in the late 1920’s and early 30’s – had
forsaken the Nazi occupation of her country in 1939, becoming a U.S. citizen.
Her outward condemnation of her former homeland, “the German people and I no
longer speak the same language”, incited considerable ire back home that
would continue to linger for decades yet to follow. The irony, of course, is
Marlene would forever be linked to Germany in her American career; often cast
as an ex-pat, spy or scheming – if sinfully exotic – foreigner, perpetuating
the myth of the good/bad German in America movies. In Judgment at Nuremberg, she is, quite simply, the shattered soul of a nation, revealed to Judge Haywood
by an, at first, glacial exterior slowly – even unexpectedly - to melt into
tender friendship, doomed to an abject pity and ultimate refusal as Haywood’s
perspective on the German people’s complicity under national socialism turns
from compassion to letdown and eventual – if restrained – scorn. Dietrich’s
international fame led to a reconciliation of sorts with Germany. In later
years, she toured the country in a ‘one woman’ show that mesmerized audiences.
On the surface, Judgment at Nuremberg is a
fairly weighty tome, covering not only the atrocities of the Holocaust but also
examining the geo-political hotbed of complexities surrounding the actual
Nuremberg trials. Almost miraculously, Judgment at Nuremberg never
deviates into typically heavy-handed courtroom theatrics; Abby Mann’s critique
of the persecution and genocide of European Jews is unapproachable, when
transferred as crimes perpetrated by a corrupt German autocracy against its
racial/religious and eugenic groupings. Alas, Abby Mann could find no one to
produce it; the general – and nervous – consensus being not enough time had
passed between the proposed film and actual events; at least enough for them to
be considered ‘ancient history’. Hollywood on masse might have also seen a
distinct parallel between Mann’s prose and the, then, even more recent scourge
of the McCarthy witch hunts, resulting in the blacklisting of some of its most
prominent talent. Better not to pick at that scab. For Mann has perceived
‘blind patriotism’ as the villain of his piece; recognizing that under
considerable stress even extraordinary minds, sculpted with the most altruistic
of moral convictions and high-functioning intellect, could be swayed into its
maelstrom of ethical turpitude.
Along the road to immortality, Mann was repeatedly
discouraged from proceeding with his plans to turn the TV drama into a major
motion picture. However, Katherine Hepburn had seen Playhouse 90, had
been moved by it, and furthermore, had thought it a splendid vehicle for her
lover, Spencer Tracy. Tracy agreed, but only if Stanley Kramer would direct it.
With such heavy-hitters on his side, United Artists green lit Judgment at
Nuremberg; Mann, going to work assembling his all-star cast from a roster
of Tinsel Town’s finest. To the film version, Kramer brought his own inimitable
brands of conviction and energy; a passionate film-maker’s eye with a keen
sense of timing. Kramer had hoped to shoot the entire movie in Berlin and
Nuremberg. In the end, half his wish was granted; approximately fifty percent
of Judgment at Nuremberg shot among the rot and ruins of those decaying
cities. Kramer also had dozens of photographs taken of the actual courtroom
where the Nuremberg trials had taken place to better inform his production
designer, Rudolph Sternad, and set decorator, George Milo in their meticulous
recreations.
In retrospect, Judgment at Nuremberg can also
be seen as one of the first – of the last – blindingly all-star pictures to
emerge from the decade that gave us such grandiose ensemble entertainments as The
Guns of Navarone (1961) and Kramer’s own jam-packed It’s A Mad, Mad,
Mad, Mad World (1963). Courtroom dramas are, perhaps, the most exigent form
of movie entertainment to pull off successfully – primarily because the
‘action’ takes place inside a single confined space with the principles
immobilized in seated positions. Kramer did, in fact, ‘open up’ the play to
accommodate the demands of cinema; his departures from the courtroom yielding a
rich tapestry of vignettes to showcase and crystalize the pall and lingering
devastation inflicted on Germany’s nationalism and pride. There is very little
room within the framework of Abby Mann’s original to infuse a more lighthearted
flair. But Kramer managed brief flights into quaint comedy nonetheless;
perhaps, the most charming of them all featuring Tracy’s Haywood stopping for a
sausage at an outdoor market. He takes notice of an attractive German fräulein,
quietly smoking a cigarette. The two exchange mildly flirtatious glances and
she quietly says a few words with tenderness he does not understand before
departing. Inquiring for a translation from the street vendor who has overheard
their conversation, Haywood is told the girl said “Goodbye, grandpa!”
The emotional core of Judgment at Nuremberg is
centered on Haywood’s burgeoning friendship with Madame Bertholt; the widow of
a high-ranking Nazi official who has already been executed for war crimes.
Haywood’s stay in Bertholt’s former residence is fraught with a quiet unease by
two of Bertholt’s former servants; Mr. and Mrs. Halbestadt (Ben Wright and
Virginia Christine). Haywood’s introduction to the city reveals its desolate
wasteland. “I didn’t think it was this bad,” he confides to fellow justice,
Kenneth Norris (Kenneth MacKenna). Indeed, Germany is a shell of its former
self; the specters of Hitler’s reign lingering about. Stanley Kramer aptly
begins Judgment at Nuremberg with the implosion of the Nazi insignia – a
stone wreathed swastika – toppled from its perch at the
Reichsparteitagsgelände. From here, Haywood is introduced to his personal
attaché, Capt. Harrison Byers (William Shatner), the Halbestadts and, not long
thereafter, Madame Bertholt, who has come to take a few prized mementos from
the house. Bertholt is distant. But Haywood is compassionate and allows her to
retrieve whatever she wishes without question or inspection of the goods being
taken.
From these auspicious beginnings, Stanley Kramer
delves into the trial; presided over by Haywood, Norris and a third judge,
Curtiss Ives (Ray Teal). The prosecution, helmed by Col. Tad Lawson, is intent
on exposing the distortions and perversions of German law, as dispensed by a
motley crew of grey-faced and steely-eyed former judges. These included, Dr.
Ernest Janning – once, the foremost progressive influence in modern German
justice. Also, in the dock are Justices Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer), Werner
Lampe (Torben Meyer), and Friedrich Hofstetter (Martin Brandt). Each enters a
plea of ‘not guilty’ in tandem, cumulatively represented by impassioned defense
council, Hans Rolfe. Haywood is empathetic toward the accused. Indeed, as he
points out, some feel the trial of these judges is a redundancy stalemating the
post-war recovery. But Haywood is determined to press on. In his free time, he
explores the city. A widower, he begins an unlikely friendship with Madame
Bertholt, suggestively to lead to something more. She introduces him to the
traditions of Germany before the war. Lawson is adversarial toward Bertholt.
But his more blatant vitriol is spared for the trial where he and Rolfe
frequently clash over contentious talking points about the extent to which the
German justices had prior knowledge about the gruesome fates awaiting innocent
defendants their verdicts condemned.
We hear testimony from Dr. Karl Wieck (John Wengraf);
once, a mild proponent of National Socialism, but long since having changed his
opinion, Rolfe suggests to avoid his own prosecution. Also called to testify is
Rudolph Petersen (Montgomery Clift, in a mesmerizing performance); a
shell-shocked remnant of his former self since being ordered to submit to
medical sterilization. On the witness stand, Petersen accounts the hour he was
forcibly taken away and made ‘half the man he used to be’. Clift, who survived
a near fatal auto accident that deprived him not only of his matinee idol good
looks but also the self-confidence that went with it, is tragically exquisite
as this bumbling and wild-eyed figure, infused with nervous ticks as he holds
up a picture of the real Petersen’s mother, shouting “Look…my mother! Was
she feeble-minded?!?”
The other exemplary performance, among the many called
to testify, belongs to Judy Garland. Primarily known as a musical comedy star,
Garland is riveting as Irene Hoffman, a middle-aged frump sent to a Nazi work
camp in her youth after being accused of improprieties with a then
grandfatherly Jewish friend of her family, cruelly labeled a sexual deviant and
sent to the gas chambers. Under cross-examination by Hans Rolfe, Irene suffers
a near breakdown; vehemently denying the allegation - that simply because she
sat on the ‘old Jew’s’ lap and accepted candy from him, there was something
more sinister and sexual about their friendship.
Abby Mann had, in fact, based the nefarious ‘Feldenstein case’ in the
movie on an actual trial involving an elderly Jewish man put to death in 1935
for allegedly carrying on a sexual relationship with an Aryan girl of sixteen.
Garland’s performance is the lynch pin in Act II of Judgment at Nuremberg and
she anchors the picture in a sort of resonating ‘sad-eyed’ intensity for all
the fallen victims and utterly desolate survivors of the holocaust, destined to
be haunted by the memories and nightmares for the rest of their lives.
As the climax of Rolfe’s humiliating insinuations
bring Irene to the brink of collapse, her tear-stained testimony is interrupted
by the stoic, Ernst Janning who addresses the court directly, despite
objections from his defense council. Janning describes the ‘fever’ afflicting
the German people; one predicated on ‘disgrace, indignity and hunger’. He
eloquently surmises the folly of the Weimar Republic, its fractured democracy
leaving a void into which Hitler was able to whip up his blind-sided - if
unified - frenzy from the ashes as both its paranoia and propaganda. At last, Janning concedes to the fault in
Hitler’s master plan. It was not in the tyranny he preached, but by how
infectious it proved on the hearts and minds of the people and, more
importantly, the judges who had sworn their allegiances to justice. Now, they
too partook of the hysteria, knowing full and well the brevity of their
actions. Janning’s benediction hypnotizes the courtroom. He speaks of a passing
phase becoming a way of life; of a people turned, not to accept, but willfully
desiring the perversion of their own human rights. In his penultimate moment of
realization, Janning points to Rolfe’s skillful defense; in effect, charging
him with the perpetuation of the myth of their innocence.
“I was content to sit silent during this trial,” Janning
concludes, “I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let
counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he
would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it
here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the
benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of
the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen-year-old
girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy
to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know
our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.”
Armed with the forcefulness of Janning’s argument,
this after having seen the grotesque concentration camp footage for the first
time, Haywood and his cohorts render a verdict of guilty. Madame Bertholt’s
faith in the past; in her husband’s notorious legacy; her burgeoning hope for
an understanding from Haywood; everything she had once dreamed, known, hoped
for and invested in to be the truth – these principles are devastatingly swept
away for all time. In the movie’s epitaph, Janning bequeaths his writing to
Haywood, imploring him to be compassionate. Haywood is, but his tenderness
toward Janning’s predicament has left him. In his departure from the courtroom,
Haywood is confronted by Hans Rolfe, who wagers that none of the defendants
charged and imprisoned this day will remain so for very long. “In five
years,” Rolfe gloats with a cocky smile, “…the men you sentenced to life
imprisonment will be free.” Haywood nods with sad-eyed agreement. “Herr
Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly
brilliant in your use of logic...so what you suggest may very well happen. It
‘is’ logical, in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not
to be right, and nothing on God's earth could ever make it right.” The
movie’s epilogue reveals Rolfe’s prophecy come true. None of the convicted
served their full life sentences, all of them out by the time the movie was
made.
Judgment at Nuremberg is, perhaps,
Stanley Kramer’s finest hour as a film maker. Unquestioningly, it remains one
of his most potent and enduring movies. Based upon the ‘subsequent Nuremberg
trials’, Abby Mann’s screenplay is an impassioned critique of the legalities of
justice pitted against the moral condemnation and outrage focused on the
atrocities committed in the name of nationalistic pride. Mann’s eloquent speeches are superbly spoken
by Spencer Tracy, and particularly, Maximillian Schell, who won the Best Actor
Academy Award. Additionally, Judgment at Nuremberg was nominated for a
total of eleven Oscars; the only other statuette bestowed on the movie for Abby
Mann’s writing. Interestingly, Tracy’s performance anchors us in a sort of
present-day relevancy, while Schell’s moody and haunting counterpoint, attempts
with the greatest conviction to whitewash and blindside the legal wheels with
an emphatic defense strategy; evoking every known precedent and even the
jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes to persuade and manipulate.
The stellar supporting cast is all just icing on an
already exceptionally well-frosted cake; Tracy’s craggy exterior, coupled with
his curmudgeonly world-weariness proving the quintessence of America’s awkward
forthrightness in matters of policing the world. The other deliciousness at
work is, of course, Rolfe’s wily verbal sparring with Col. Lawson. Here we have
two angry men of diverging mindsets to be sure, but of incredibly like-minded
and singular passions: Rolfe’s fervent belief in his clients’ innocence, but
also perhaps in the tragically flawed past that has brought them all to this
moment, never entirely beaten into the dust, even as it is vehemently
challenged by Lawson’s bitter and even more self-doubting/pitiless crusader for
justice; chasing after his lost cause with hammer and tong, only to be
emotionally emasculated by the excursion.
At one point, outside of the courtroom, and a little worse for the wine,
Lawson begrudgingly admits, “One thing about Americans, we're not cut out to
be occupiers. We're new at it and not very good at it.”
Judgment at Nuremberg is a peerless
entertainment, surefooted, as executed by Stanley Kramer, whose command of not
only the language of cinema, but also its space, has yielded an unusual and
varied richness. Courtroom dramas are a main staple of Hollywood movies, though
few have run an epic 3 hrs. 6 min. and managed to remain as star-studded or as
spellbinding for virtually every last minute of their screen time. Judgment
at Nuremberg is the exception. It yields an embarrassment of riches. It is
an actor’s movie – also, a playwright’s – the combined efforts from all these
memorable faces, resulting in a spectacle impossible to top. Through it all
runs the fine thread of Abby Mann’s personal conviction. The pleasure in Mann’s
prose is not to be derived from the performances given – at least, not
entirely, but rather, by listening to the meticulously concocted arguments he
manages to bestow without a single word seemingly left out of place. Cut one
line here or add just a few words to a bit of dialogue and the tenuous balance
of the piece could so easily be thrown out of whack. But Mann’s craftsmanship
is immeasurably confident and astounding.
Such is the way with all great artists who discover the kernels of truth
in their art. Mann’s remains a legacy of astute eloquence, likely to remain
unchallenged for a very long time.
For those with ‘region free’ Blu-ray players, BFI’s
newly minted ‘region B-locked’ Blu-ray re-issue of this already oft
re-purposed classic will be the way to go. Not only does BFI’s 1080p transfer
marginally improve upon the overall visuals, with slightly richer black levels
and grain looking just a tad more refined than either on the now defunct Twilight
Time release from 2014, or the Kino Lorber reissue state’s side from 2018
(still in print), but BFI’s pads out the extras in the extreme. More on this in
a moment. We get a ravishing B&W 1080p image with densely layered contrast
and fine grain textures. Fine detail abounds. Textures in hair, clothing, background
detail, are superb. Ernest Gold’s score gets a repurposed in 5.1 DTS as well as
the original mono mix. Where BFI absolutely bests the competition, however, is
in the extras. We get a newly recorded audio commentary from historian, Jim
Hemphill that is informative and respectful. On the Blu-ray there is also a
trailer and image gallery. On BFI’s DVD, also included, we get Maximilian
Schell’s Guardian Interview, hosted by critic, Deac Rossell. This is 86
mins. of audio only dazzling magic, recorded in 1971, with Schell having
exceptional recall. It is a joy to listen to. Ported over from the North
American release are the almost 20 min. ‘In Conversation with Abby Mann and
Maximilian Schell from 2004, the barely 6 min. ‘Value of a Single Human
Being’ – also recorded in 2004, in which Mann discusses his screenplay, the
‘Tribute to Stanley Kramer’ with Mann and Karen Sharpe, Kramer’s widow,
also from 2004 and barely 15 min. Additions to what was already made available
include ‘Resistance’, from 2008, the tale of a group of defectives as
part of the Nazi's Aktion-T4 program of mass murder through involuntary
euthanasia. There is also, ‘Heredity in Man’ from 1937; offering
absolutely bone-chilling insight into pre-Holocaust eugenics, and ‘These Are
the Men’ from 1943, a propaganda puff piece with a narration by poet Dylan
Thomas. From 1946, we get ‘Man One Family’, another propaganda short by
Ivor Montagu and ‘Berlin Airlift The Story of a Great Achievement’ from 1949.
All of these shorts run – more or less between 10 and 15 mins. in length and
nicely round out the socio-political climate of the period in which the movie
is set. Finally, as part of their first
pressing, BFI has included a lavishly appointed booklet with new reflections
written by William Shatner – the only surviving cast member – plus, new essays
on Kramer and the movie from Jennifer Frost.
Bottom line: while you must own a ‘region free’ player to enjoy
BFI’s release, the results represent the most comprehensive release of Judgment
at Nuremberg on home video. Judge
and buy accordingly.
FILM RATING (out of 5 – 5 being the best)
5+
VIDEO/AUDIO
4.5
EXTRAS
5+
Comments