If I told you that I watched a movie featuring Judy Garland and William Shatner last night, you'd be intrigued. "Captain Kirk and Dorothy? Awesome!" And then I'd sigh, because watching the movie for a bizarre combination of supporting actors is fine in some cases, but this is actually great cinema we're talking about here.
Judgment at Nuremberg is a black and white film from the 60s, which means it was black and white on purpose. Unless you're more than unusually slow, you can probably guess that it's about the Nuremberg Trials, specifically the Judges Trial. To me, this is a particularly fascinating time in history. How do you try someone for six million counts of murder?
This movie has many strengths, but we'll start with directing. I have a hard time deciding whether the direction is good or bad in movies. It seems an impossible task to tally up the quality of decisions in all aspects of the making of the film solely as a viewer. There are people who do it, I know. However, I strongly suspect, with my completely uninformed and amateur powers, that director Stanley Kramer knew what he was doing here. That opinion is mostly based on one item: the handling of the bilingual nature of the trial. It's the story of a trial held in Germany with German defense attorneys and defendants and witnesses, yet with an American prosecutor, judges, and audience. The participants in the trial constantly make use of headphones, into which translators are speaking. At the beginning of the movie, the defense attorney is giving his opening statement in German. He is seen through a long shot from over the translator's shoulder. His voice is dim, while the translator's voice is prominent. This goes on for several sentences. As you get used to it, you think, hmm, that's a good way to handle it, though you suspect that it might make the movie a bit long. Then, there is a sudden zoom into the defense counsel, as he switches mid-sentence from German to accented English. You understand that in reality, he is still speaking German and the translator's voice is still ringing in the headphones of the America tribunal. It's important to understand that there is a huge language barrier in place here, but you don't have to wade through that to watch the movie. This crucial aspect was handled so well that I decided to trust Kramer in everything else.
The cast is impressive, a list of people who have already proved themselves in other roles. Spencer Tracy, Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster. Even the relatively small performances were absolutely perfect. Judy Garland broke my heart, guys. Shatner was good enough that I didn't recognize him until the credits rolled. The roles in this movie are so powerfully played that I feel certain that I will think first of them whenever I see these actors in other parts.
But while the acting was fantastic, they really seem only to be a part of the whole, a vehicle to get this story told. One of the things that I loved about this movie was it showed just how many shades of gray there can be (Perhaps the black and white film was a good choice, eh?). On trial are four judges, and each represented a different kind of mindset. Each approached the problem differently, but arrived at the same destination of assisting the Nazi government in sterilizing and executing innocent people. One was scared, and one was obedient. Only one was a really terrible person, who took the government's policies of hatred and ran with it. And finally, there was the tragic figure, a patriotic, brilliant, and dignified man who thought he was helping his country be great. As these men are on trial, you feel that all of Germany is, too. Where does the blame of letting something happen stop? Are the rest of the citizens of the world fully guiltless? The defense brings up Winston Churchill's praise of Hitler as late as 1938, as well as American Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes support of the idea of sterilizing the mentally incompetent.
Tense is maybe the word of the day for this movie. The German people are rebuilding, ashamed of what happened, embarrassed for their country and anxious to prove to the occupying Allies that they are not all Hitlers. The Soviet Union is making advances, and as a Cold War seems imminent, many U.S. officials want to make sure that the Germans are on their side. Both the defense and the prosecuting attorneys are passionate about their cases, one wanting to recoup some shred of dignity for Germany, the other haunted by memories of liberating Dachau and wanting to see justice done. And then there is the main judge of the case himself, as he is forced to pass judgment on a man that he respects within his own profession.
Judgment at Nuremberg is both an investment in time and emotion. Surprisingly, the three hour dialogue-driven film does not drag, though I suppose you have to be into that sort of thing. It raises a lot of questions and then leaves them for you to answer for yourself. It is a beautiful, powerful film that represents a very tense and sticky time. If I were a history teacher, I'd make it required viewing. As I am not, I'll just recommend it heavily. See this movie, even if it's only for Captain Kirk and Dorothy.
No comments:
Post a Comment