Black and white cinema, especially American post-noir, never fascinated me. Therefore, the Nuremberg Trials have long been in the folder of postponed films. After I started watching the film, I didn’t even realize it was more than double the length. . .
Stanley Kramer loved to show the human soul at its worst, not its best. He always pointed with his finger and as if said: “Look, there, in the most secret, inconspicuous corner lurked concentrated evil and abomination.” And yes, you have all of this present.” In 1961, Kramer made a film based on real events, which he specifically emphasized. The conviction of the leaders of the Third Reich did not end with the trials of Nazi criminals. In particular, judges sat on the dock. In focus are the hard questions about how this happened? How vulnerable are citizens when judges become agents of repression? Did the judges not understand the criminality of their actions? And most importantly, how far away are we from them? No wonder one of the heroes offers to look at the photos of the destroyed Hiroshima. Another feature of Kramer’s handwriting is the use of melodrama to create a plot. The most unfortunate feature. Watching this part of the film is painful. Even worse are the pathos monologues of old Hollywood, which Kramer diligently reproduced until the 70s. No less oppressive are the stiff tales of pompous rebukes that a dignified judge could address to Hitler. Faispalm. With melodrama and Victorian stiffness in post-Nazi Germany, Cramer greatly overstated, and the film, alas, turned out dull.
If we talk about the Second World War, then 'The Nuremberg Trials' continues to be the main cinematic reflection on the topic 'Who is to blame?'. Hitler, a handful of radicals, officials, the Fascist Party, the German people or the whole world? There can be no definite answer, but this does not mean that you should not try to find it.
American judge Den Haywood arrives in Nuremberg to ' to judge the judges' - Ernst Janing and some other representatives of German jurisprudence who worked during the reign of Hitler. Haywood is respected, but not too popular in his homeland, which is quite suitable for those who sent him to Germany, because this business trip is difficult to call entertaining. Den takes matters seriously: thoroughly studies the materials, listens to all points of view, communicates with the locals.
The defense is trying ' to defend the honor of the entire German people' appealing to the fact that the judges only did their job, did not know and did not understand that each of their new sentence condemned the innocent to suffering and death. The prosecutor sees no compromise - he personally participated in the liberation of the camps and is ready to lay down with bones so that everyone who made the work of hell on earth possible will go to prison for the rest of their lives.
The trial will hear a lot of revelations from the accused, witnesses, judges and defense, each of which will tell the viewer a lot about the life of ordinary people under the Hitler regime. After reviewing everything and listening to everyone, the judge will make an informed decision, which will immediately be criticized. The problem is that the circumstances have already changed and it is time to add politics, and she does not care that the cities have not yet been rebuilt, and the ovens in Dachau barely managed to cool down.
Yes, someone after the Nuremberg trials will avoid punishment, for some it may be too harsh, and someone will be judged only by their conscience. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have tried everything. In the end, I want to believe that all these victims were not in vain, and at least someone in fact will draw the right conclusions. And there is only one claim to the film - there is not a single word about the Russians in it.
Foundation for Assistance to People with Nolan Brain Degree
Participating
Creative group "Tarantino is our everything"
Presents
“Nobody Needless Reviews from Unnecessary People”
Work No. 6
The Nuremberg Trials of 1961 is one of the best legal films in the history of cinema. The picture is immersed in his head, for 186 minutes I never had a desire to take a break, and here’s why:
1. Casting and acting
Spencer Tracy is beautiful in the lead role. His character passes an important arc for the plot, changes his own views, and the actor is the main factor why this arch works and attracts.
Burt Lancaster as Ernst Yanning. At first I had the impression that this person is only the background of the main action, but, I admit my mistake in opinion, then he grew into one of the main diamonds of this masterpiece. His character changes quite symbolically - from complete rejection of the court to respect for their own convicts.
Maximilian Schell. A well-deserved Oscar statuette. Each of his performances in the frame fascinates and fascinates, you can watch him forever. Objectively, he is the best actor in this film.
Richard Widmark also enjoys his talent. The prosecutor is certainly not as good as the defender, but rightly deserves praise.
Marlene Dietrich fully corresponds to his character by acting data. Her game is natural and stands on a par with the rest of the casting.
2. Musical design
In this film, the soundtrack, for the most part, is designed to show the emotions of Judge Heywood (Hitler’s speech when looking at the podium) or to help reveal the general meaning of the scene (a song in a bar at the time of Frau Berthold’s story). These are the fundamental functions of any soundtrack, and the film only benefits from this.
3. Technical side of the film (editing, camera work, etc.)
For stupid people, the negative factor will be the black and white film, the presence of combined shooting and the like. But true art goes deeper than the fact that the film is technically obsolete. So for me, there are no drawbacks associated with the picture or sound (especially since the dubbing pleasantly surprised me with such a good quality for such a long-standing film). Of the interesting details, I want to note the camera hits (they reminded me of the film “Django Liberated”) and a remarkable camera reception with a moving camera around the acting character.
4. Plot
The above-mentioned character arches are well-built, both motivation and logical consequence are clear. The story itself, shown in 3 hours, is a brilliant embodiment of the concept of “non-trivial plot” – until the end of the film, intrigue remains. All the arguments of the accusers are fair, all the arguments of the defenders are constructive and have meaning. Until the end of the film, the question of which side is the truth cannot be answered. And even the final explanation has the right to challenge itself, because the script was written by talented people. Therefore, the film is still relevant as a film, giving rise to several hours of interesting discussions. The narration does not seem protracted at any moment, because new facts that affect the attitude of both the hero Tracy and the viewer to the trial constantly appear throughout the film. And the final monologues of Yanning and Heywood (which last a few minutes) cause no less emotions than even the shortest performances of Lawson and Rolfe.
5. Similar creations
Of course, I cannot but mention another film about the trial – the cult “12 Angry Men” of 1956.
6. Summing up
A good idea, an interesting script, a beautiful embodiment in life, where the main roles were played by the directorial talents of Stanley Kramer and the brilliant acting of all the participants of the project - all this pleases when watching the "Nuremberg Trials" and I quite rightly consider this film one of the main assets of the cinema of the 1960s and world cinema in general.
10 out of 10
The events unfold in post-war Nuremberg. In the dock of the judges of the Nazi regime, people who committed crimes in the name of the law and who are now forced to answer for it.
The prosecution is represented by an American general who, in the absence of arguments, can include documentary footage of the horrors of concentration camps.
On the defense side of the young German lawyer Rolf. Extremely subtle and cold-blooded using the techniques of logic beats off any accusations in the direction of his client. And without too much pathos in his voice says that the whole world is responsible for the coming of Hitler to power.
In the chair is an elderly American judge who came to speak on behalf of ordinary people rather than delve into court precedents. With his usual scrupulousness, he reconstructs the events of recent years by bricks.
In the evenings, he walks among the Germans, meets the widow of General Reich, drinks coffee, attends classical music concerts and watches ordinary Germans who have forgotten all the horrors and live on. And only the old judge destroys this idyll, his misunderstanding, how it happened that such a simple and peaceful people brought the Nazis to power.
Pleiades of films that belong to the genre of judicial drama, like any other film-theme, has its most prominent representatives. And if the modern viewer is more likely to recognize the adaptation of the novels of John Grisham, the classics of the genre returns us to half a century in the past. In fact, the Nuremberg Trial, along with the cult film 12 Angry Men, is a real classic of world cinema, artistic quotes from which find their application, often invisible to us, today. If you do not find the strength to watch black and white films of the mid-twentieth century, lasting 3 hours, then in this case, you should also not do it through force.
The film surprises its viewers already in the first introductory act, where most understand that the already small knowledge of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal is practically useless here. History does not undertake to tell about the main process of 1945-1946, about which many have heard. Instead, the film takes the clock two years ahead and introduces us to a lesser-known trial of German judges from the Third Reich. This historical specification, not entirely understood at the beginning, takes on more and more narrative meaning as the three-hour timekeeping progresses. Little by little, history follows from a more private view to a general view of events in Germany.
Judgment at Nuremberg can be divided into several parts, reflecting the traditional key stages of the trials themselves. Acquaintance with the key characters of the story takes place against the background of preparing the process as a kind of plot act, through the prism of which the narrative will develop. Then comes the main part, which combines classical elements of the court drama. Interrogation of defendants and witnesses, confrontation between the prosecutor and the lawyer, reasonable doubts and prejudice, philosophical immersion in issues of ethics and humanity. Even if we leave aside the specific historical background and the key theme, the Nuremberg Trials easily captivates its competently, albeit leisurely, built narrative. Character by character, conflict by conflict, location by location (outside the courtroom). This is where three hours of timekeeping is used.
The story builds up tension within the framework of local conflict between the characters and the parties of the process, and then leaves the characters and us to reflect on what happened. Although in the scenes of a trip by car sharply striking shots of editing, which was a common practice, was found in the film and a place for the real Nuremberg. The territory of the party congresses of the NSDAP, where Judge Dan Heywood walks, as well as real archival footage of the liberation of Nazi concentration camps, such as Bergen-Belsen, are still able to provide a certain degree of immersion in the current and historical background, in particular. Beautiful acting, memorable images of the Chief Judge, the Prosecutor and the Lawyer, all this creates a holistic picture and a complete complete impression of the viewing, the return to which will be only a matter of time.
8 out of 10
Stanley Kramer’s legal film drama Nuremberg Trials indicates that evil exists, that it is not just a lack of good, but a powerful global force. To achieve the essence of the Nazi phenomenon, the director minimizes the external effectivity of the action, focusing on the internal state of human reactions.
The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg became the first experience in the history of condemning crimes on a state scale. After the trial of the main political and military figures, a series of “small” Nuremberg trials takes place. During one of the proceedings, the cases of judges who held prominent positions in the judicial system of Nazi Germany are heard - this is the plot of the film.
The heart slowly and stubbornly grows heavy from episodes involving the demonstration of atrocities committed in concentration camps. The accused once made a shameful compromise with conscience and went on the behest of the ruling regime, became accomplices in the punitive institution, relying on deadly machines. To understand the complex case will have the American judge Heywood (Spencer Tracy).
The court drama received 11 Academy Award nominations and two statuettes, and was recognized by the American Film Institute as one of the greatest legal films in history. The tape chamberly expresses the gloomy life of pre-war Germany, the violent pain of war and the reproach of postwar life.
- We are not interested in what everyone did, we are interested in what you did.
This is the first time I’ve seen this movie and I’m not sure what it’s doing in the top 250. Such films are a little away from the usual entertainment product, and deserve a separate assessment. But for that matter, I'll try to make it out.
The film is quite difficult to perceive, because the main action is long dialogue. All of them are filled with meaning, and reasoning on a particular topic is an integral part of the philosophy of the picture. If something missed or misunderstood, of course, nothing terrible will happen, but the essence of the picture may well pass by. However, everything that happens on the screen, in any case, gives serious food for thought.
It is quite difficult to say something about the actors, because all attention is focused on the plot so as not to lose the thread of the narrative, and you pay the least attention to the acting. However, a couple of heroes all stand out among the total mass. This, of course, is Maximilian Schell, who played defense attorney Hans Rolfe. The Oscars are not in vain.
As I said, such films should be evaluated separately, but if you translate to the Top 250, then the film deserves quite a high rating.
9 out of 10
Does history teach us? Inaction is worse than action. There is nothing worse than ignorance.
It is impossible to explain in one film the entire historical and political essence of what the lesson of World War II taught us. When you read or look at those times, you don’t always associate the past with the present. War and extermination of peoples for the sake of patriotism, mass consciousness and ideology, justice and conscience, the influence of politics and benefits on decision-making – these are the questions that this film posed to me.
What characters does the film describe? They are quite ordinary, they are unusual events.
Let’s start with secondary characters.
The peaceful inhabitants of Nuremberg. Frau Bertholt (played by the beautiful Marlene Dietrich) is the wife of an executed general who subconsciously wants revenge for her husband. She just doesn’t understand what happened. She lived, like everyone else, her world, her family, even to some extent the fantasies of the upper world. Her husband did not even agree with Hitler’s policies. She clearly exonerates her husband.
The home of the main character's workers in Nuremberg. Simple, nice people. They said they knew nothing about the concentration camps. You can see from the actors that they are nervous. Before a judge? Or in front of your conscience?
Defendants. There are three quite “typical” (as far as this can be applied to such a trial) accused and one atypical. Ernst Janning (Bert Lancaster) Perhaps if it were an ordinary movie about the court, they could be called forced accomplices. But it won't be exactly that. People just closed their eyes . It’s not clear how you can work with people you disagree with. But, apparently, in Yanning there is a person who has seen the light.
Prosecutor and lawyer. Richard Widmark and Maximilian Shell. Excellent actors, their task was very difficult. Especially Maximilian Schell's problem. A lawyer who sympathizes with the accused admires him. And there's a reason for that, because the outstanding Judge Yanning is unquestionably a decent man. It’s wonderful that there was a scene in the film where you can see people taking the wrong path of fascism. Although the scene was slightly drawn out, in my opinion it shows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And, of course, Judge Dan Heywood. Charming old man Spencer Tracy is a principled and fair judge, a good man. His position, his decision, is a very difficult act. If you don't think about it, you might think he's just a stubborn old man with conservative views. But it's not.
Defendant Emil Khan says: “You have condemned me, tomorrow the Bolsheviks will condemn you.” Think about that phrase differently. There will always be someone to judge. Especially in terms of global politics. But there are pillars of humanism, there is an internationally recognized value: life. This is what fascism taught the world. Everyone knew this for a long time.
In closing, I would like to say that although we have learned this lesson (I think we have learned it by grade 3), there are many other values that we all know about. Even when people see injustice, they are silent. They tolerate injustice, deceive their conscience or believe that you go quietly, you will go on. And it really is. So living with principles is what parents and fairy tales teach, but the real world makes us forget about it. If you forget, just watch this movie.
The Nuremberg Trials is a film that is definitely worth spending 186 minutes of its time.
I was going to watch this movie for a long time. I saw that both the rating is high and the reviews are good, but the 1961 release was very embarrassing. Films made in the middle of the last century are often highly regarded by critics and film professionals, but for the average viewer, they are quite difficult to perceive. And yet, the decision to watch was prompted by the participation in the film of the beautiful Marlene Dietrich.
The film presents the trial of judges who worked in Germany during Hitler’s time and often rendered decisions absolutely wild for civilized society: medical sterilization and transfer to concentration camps of undesirables.
The main dilemma is how should a judge behave in conditions when the country is ruled by fascists and when the law and universal morality are not in step at all? Is it the judge's fault that, under current law, he convicted people only on the basis of their nationality? When does the conscientious performance of one’s duties cross the line and become a crime?
What is great about the film is that the process is presented as a contest of sides: not only a condemnation of fascism, but also an attempt to understand how a person feels in the system, how he makes decisions. It is not so easy in conditions where dissenters are mass-executed, to abandon albeit immoral, but legitimate work and expose yourself and your family to mortal danger. What a person should do is survive or remain a person.
In my opinion, the film is more relevant now than ever in our country, in the current conditions, in the current system. To survive or to remain human?
9 out of 10
The Nuremberg Trials is a page of history, a terrible story about how millions of people were brutally exterminated, about how hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands of people knew or guessed about the horror that was happening, and remained silent, inactive, and some took an active part in these atrocities on a global scale.
In fact, the film is not about how a handful of fascist judges and other officials are judged, a film about fate, about choice, about morality and justice, about how the concept of justice is often at odds with the politics and political benefits of a country or several states.
On the one hand, listening to the skillful speeches of the defense, in this process, you can verify the innocence of Ernst Janning, make sure that his thoughts are pure, or at least that the charges against him significantly exceed his real guilt. At some point of viewing, I myself almost began to believe in his innocence, because if he is to blame, then the entire German people are to blame, which, of course, cannot be true, which contradicts any ideas about the world order. I have always been convinced that only a handful of extremists are to blame for that terrible war, because as ordinary people as possible, who were certainly afraid to blame for their inaction. I still doubt and cannot make a firm decision on this issue, because I put myself in their place and do not understand what I would do: according to conscience, or I would try to save my life and the lives of my loved ones with all my might, and often this is the choice that was put before German citizens.
On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that the defendants in the Nuremberg trials are not ordinary people, they are the top of the government of the Third Reich, they are people who wrote the law and implemented it, real lives of real people depended on their words or their signatures. They didn't have guns in their hands, they didn't turn a crane with deadly poison, but they did kill with a feather. And Ernst Janning rightly said that they could not but know, they could not but see what they were doing. Yes, maybe they didn’t know about the scale, maybe they didn’t know about the extermination of millions, but they knew about tens, hundreds, maybe thousands, which no longer begs their guilt.
The judge was faced with a difficult choice: to do the right thing or to do the right thing in the current economic and political stop, but he understood that it was in the Feldenstein case that this mistake was made when the idea of political benefit and the idea of the correctness of the decision in a particular situation overshadowed the idea of justice and truth. The court is not a political machine, and it should not be turned into an instrument of political struggle and propaganda, and, as I think, this is what Ernst Janning, Emil Khan, Friedrich Hofstetter, Werner Lampe were convicted of for succumbing to the evil that Hitler and his henchmen did, for not refusing to participate in all this outrage, for the fact that through their fault at least one innocent person died.
After watching the film, I still face the dilemma of the right sentence for all these people, but now I will not be able to look at this war one-sidedly, and I will not be able to unequivocally blame or justify the German punitive forces.
The events of the past are obscured every year, their outlines fade, and their meaning becomes almost unattainable. World War II, which broke out on the planet in 1939, is without a doubt the event that is still alive in the memories, dark and terrible. It has been engraved in the memory of peoples of all continents, but even such an event cannot escape oblivion.
Many people know about the parties that fought there. Fewer people can say how the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War relate to each other. Even less is known about the end of the war. Few people know what the Nuremberg Trials are. A handful will say that he was not alone, but a series of trials that lasted several years after the defeat of Nazi forces. One of them is dedicated to the painting by Stanley Kramer “The Nuremberg Trials”.
The theme raised in the 1961 film was very close to the director. During the war, Stanley Kramer began his career as a director, filming anti-fascist propaganda tapes. There lived a rebel and a defender of freedom. Let him begin to shoot in the traditional manner, slowly, gradually, his paintings were sharp; sometimes fell to the American society itself. Such a movie can be attributed to the three-hour “Nuremberg trial”.
The plot itself is an interesting situation: the trial of judges. These judges served the Nazi regime. But all the names here have been deliberately fictitious. The authors were not so much interested in historical authenticity as in the message that history can convey. Despite the abundance of characters, there are three of them at the center: the judge leading the trial, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy); the German judge accused by the tribunal, Ernst Janing (Bert Lancaster), and his lawyer, Hans Rolf (Maximillian Schell, Academy Award for this role). Their relationship, their development and stitch together a picture that has become a model of judicial drama.
The viewer is immediately aware of the case, showing why the judges sit on the bench of the accused. But the plot is not limited to superficial coverage of events. The writer and the director went deeper: through the speeches of the characters, they imagined what happened to people in Europe in the 1920s and 1940s, why the most decent of them gave up universal principles and silently watched what was happening or participated. Moreover, there is a comparison with the new, post-war era. The atmosphere of the time, when the former allies distance themselves from each other and threaten war, is well conveyed. The viewer is told that the same thing happened after the First World War. The film is saturated with this anxiety. It seems that a little more and the search for internal enemies will begin again. Be careful, for you are not so different from those you condemn.
My motherland, you will always be mine. Right or wrong.
Sometimes it’s good to get away from blockbusters and all sorts of epics and, as I call it, “boom your head.” Films such as the Nuremberg Trials are not made for educational purposes, but rather to draw public attention to morality. And there's a lot of morale here. I don’t know what the truth is about this movie, but it looks very realistic. While the Third Reich was being built, ordinary people did not suspect how it would end. But is that really true? Or maybe they just turned a blind eye to it and are now backing down. Promotion of the ideology of defending the defendant about the innocence of Hitler and his henchmen, whom the whole world has simply untied their hands.
-Of course. Why was the whole world silent? Did no one know the intentions of the Third Reich? Didn't the whole world hear Hitler on the radio? Has no one read Mein Kampf’s book, published in all countries?
The film is incredibly addictive. It looks in one breath despite its duration.
What was this war for if we learned nothing?
9 out of 10
Everyone knows about the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi criminals were tried. Everyone is also aware of the atrocities that were revealed to the world at these hearings. So many processes. So many names. Millions of written sheets. There's so much to do. Some processes were larger, others less. But when you look at the hearings globally and more closely, the same questions come to mind. How? Why? What Happened to Humanity?
It is on these questions that the film Nuremberg Trials makes us think. He doesn't give any answers. It's up to us to decide. After all, the audience is also participants in this process. Although they cannot influence the course of the hearing, the final decision on what lessons to learn is made by the audience. And this is a great move by director Stanley Kramer.
There were a lot of people in the room. And everyone has their own truth, which they are ready to defend. And the judge who has to make the decision. A decision on the question of not only this private matter, but also the conscience and honor of Germany. Not for the world, at least for yourself. And here begins the hearing. And what happens next is just fascinating. Here is a fiery speech by the prosecutor, played by Richard Widmark. And from the first minutes it is clear that this man saw the war, he has a clear worldview and his position he is ready to defend. Here stands the lawyer, played by Maximilian Shell. He played his role simply brilliantly. One of the best lawyers in the history of cinema. Watching him speak, I really enjoyed it. Here in the dock sits former judge Ernst Yaning, played by Burt Lancaster. He's silent almost all the time. However, the way he leads all the time and says his monologue. It's just bravo. Also notable are Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, who played the roles of people whose fates were broken by the Nazi regime. They did their job perfectly. And of course, I have to talk about Judge Heywood, played by Spencer Tracy. He is a man with his own ideals, ready to make an unpopular decision for the sake of justice. In fact, the image of the viewer is somewhat similar to them, because we, as a judge of the whole film, are digging into the truth, trying to make our decision.
Speaking about the actors, I can’t help but mention the overall atmosphere of the film. Most thrillers don’t hold in such tension. During viewing, I absolutely did not want to be distracted by extraneous things. This is despite the fact that the film runs for 3 hours. This time passes unnoticed.
To say that this film just makes you think is to say nothing. This film is not just about the crimes of fascism. This film is not only about the universal responsibility of mankind for large-scale crimes. This film is not just about humanism. This movie is about almost everything. And most importantly, this film is about justice. At the same time, no specific definition is given, they say that justice is one way and not another. The film only posed a question. A question that is sometimes so small that you can’t see it, and sometimes so huge that it affects all of humanity. And here we can only draw conclusions ourselves. Judge Heywood pronounced the verdict, but that's not even the point. He made a conclusion for himself. Now it's the turn of the viewer. And I, responding to the call of this brilliant film, will look for an answer to assess everything for myself. Anyway, I still have a long way to go, the size of my life. Now I can only put the film deserved
It’s a tough movie, I don’t write reviews for all movies. Only those who touch to the core and the film “Nuremberg trial” is one of the few.
It is told in the film about one of the trials, a high-profile military tribunal for accusing Nazi criminals of crimes against humanity. All the trials simply could not be removed physically, because there were a great many of them, and the tribunal itself lasted quite a long time - several years. Therefore, we were shown an episode of accusing four representatives of the jurisdiction of Nazi Germany - judges who, guided by criminal laws, sent people to death or committed inhumane acts on them. By fate, the trial takes place in the same place where the accused once tried themselves.
And so, in the courtroom, a representative of the prosecution, a prosecutor, who saw with his own eyes the atrocities and believes that it is necessary to accuse as many as possible involved in the atrocities, came together in an unequal battle. And he is opposed by a young lawyer, a supporter of the ideas of one of the accused, who believes that enough people have already been punished and it is impossible to accuse absolutely everyone, the entire German people. But the judgment rests on the shoulders of a venerable judge, the simplest judge who has ever retired, according to the laws and regulations of the state where he resided and whose objectivity is hard to doubt, as well as the vast experience.
It seemed that, what would be easier, no one doubts the crimes committed by the Nazis. No one doubts the evidence found in the archives, in the concentration camps. Yes, in many places, you could find prints of a bloodthirsty beast, he inherited order. However, doubts crept in about the number of criminals, the degree of their guilt and what to do with all this. How easy it is to destroy a few million people and how difficult it is to unearth this shit to verify the analysis and confirm who and when committed such a heinous crime.
The German people say, "We didn't know." The wife of a convicted and executed military officer says, "We were against" and must forget, but go forward." One woman from the party says, "We were forced to join the party." And the young lawyer, a kind of prototype of Hitler and clearly understands his motives and goals, says: "It is the fault of a bunch of extremists." And this is how everything just turns out, nobody is to blame, nobody knew, let’s forget everything, let’s go ahead and, in general, the Bolsheviks are plotting something there. That's how simple it is. Nonsense! And again, nonsense! On the shield of greatness builds up a people and throws it off, the same people. And this people betrayed their compatriots, oppositionists and those who did not support the ideology, those who were executed. Maybe they didn’t know about it, drinking beer and singing their loud songs?
But how can this people be blamed when the obvious criminals, who with their own hands and speeches condemned the innocent and sent them to death, doubt the scale of the crimes, believe that they acted for the good of the country or wanted to act in this way and do not repent. And even one of the four who pleaded guilty tried, deep down, to prove to himself, “What did I not know?” Think of yourself when you’ve done something wrong, and it would seem that this is the proof: a broken vase or spilled tea, and how hard it is to admit to this annoying misunderstanding. And here, the shattered lives of millions of families and spilled liters of blood, who wants to admit it? How do you blame an entire nation after that? This is the psychology and trait of the masses, and there is no escape from it, and it extends to the rest of the world, humanity has always been afraid and still afraid to admit its mistakes.
The rest of the world... And the rest of the world is no better than these forgetful and inattentive people. The world thought it right to delay the inevitable and cynically smile at the executioner as if nothing had happened. As if there were no peace treaties, whether from the Communists or from Europe. It's like they didn't deliver guns or read Mein Kampf. Everyone is guilty (but many were not guilty, both among Germans and around the world, it is foolish to deny this fact, but who listens to these units of people?), the question is different: what is the degree of guilt of each, what are the political motives behind this and how to avoid the destruction of all mankind. This is the confrontation, not only of man, but of justice with the logic of thought.
The story moves in cycles. And before the Nazis, there were power-hungry dreamers to conquer the whole world, and the undesirable, according to dreamers, could be destroyed. Who will remember? And after the Nazis, there will be such dreamers who imagine themselves to be the messiah, start wars and destroy those who do not like them. Because they prefer to forget.
But as I try to understand the film’s message, I veer deeper and deeper into assessing history and those who made it and sentencing it. There's no other way. The film itself puts the viewer in the role of a judge and offers to make its verdict. All thanks to talented actors: the judge - Spencer Tracy, and the prosecutor - Richard Widmark, and the accused - Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, etc. (I confess, it would be very difficult for me not only to take on the role of a Nazi criminal, but also to perfectly perform it). And I want to focus on the brilliant game of the lawyer – Maximilian Shell. Fantasy, when you look at his oratorical performances, is played out in such a way that you do not notice whether the actor is in front of you or Hitler himself. The movements of the hands, the tone of speech, the stormy performance - this cannot be noted, the deserved statuette of the Golden Oscar did not bypass him.
What verdict the viewer will make is a personal matter. The judge ruled. Criminals, they did. Prosecutors took it out. The lawyer did. And I took it out, too.
I would like to give the maximum assessment of the film, but I cannot. Heroes say to us, “So, is the whole world guilty?” Why is the whole world being judged only by American justice? Yes, I am a supporter of their judicial system, although it is not perfect. I am not a supporter of communism and the Bolsheviks. But if you're going to judge the world, you should have called representatives of the world, right? Trials were conducted by many, many judges: American, Soviet, British, French and representatives of many other countries. It was an international tribunal. Only on this basis 9 out of 10. A great film and for those interested in history, I highly recommend watching.
From the point of view of showing the trial - it looks interesting, in some places fascinating, and the topic is far from unknown, I emphasize - useful to study.
The timing of the picture is chosen correctly, there is nothing especially superfluous, the film practically does not give distractions, otherwise you can miss something important. But in time, the degree of tension is relieved by scenes outside the court. The quality of the filming process at the time and matching to today's, even making any discounts, is difficult. The camera sometimes trembles, does not move symmetrically, but you should not focus on this of course.
The film tells about the horrors of the existence and pseudo-justice of the judicial system during the reign of such ideology as fascism in Germany. One way or another, during the viewing you personally evaluate the actions of the defendants, this makes it even more interesting. The picture makes me feel sorrow and sympathy. Remember all the horrors that occurred during the Third Reich. The film plays filigree on your emotions.
I advise you to view without translation (sound), namely with subtitles.
First of all, it should be noted that quite pathetic and feverishly used, often by stupid people, the phrase “Such a movie is not made now” for some reason most accurately reflects the first impressions of the film. Yes, indeed, we will not see such a thing in our century, but the essence of such a problem lies in the unwillingness and inability of the mass consumer to perceive this picture, because even a minded viewer with a full understanding of the proposed idea, it is extremely difficult to cut out the entire timekeeping of the tape, and all because of its unusual, smooth and calm narration. In this, in fact, there is a terrifying subtext, where behind the cold tone of the speaker boils a terrible truth, presented nevertheless in the manner of the director and presented by us as a thesis, which, like any other, can be confirmed or refuted.
Regarding the issue of formulation, there can be no reproach. The work performed by any technique (it is difficult to talk about sound) looks exemplary. However, what the actors give here lends itself only to delight. Judy Garland's performance is the best female role I've ever seen, and the judge's final speech is a triumph of acting and writing.
10 out of 10
A picture that is included in many tops and a list of the best films. The film, which had eleven Oscar nominations. The truth has won only two awards. The picture is based on real events - on the story of the trial of Nazi judges who during the Third Reich took on their conscience a huge number of human souls.
First of all, a story based on reality is always a huge plus for me. After all, watching a story that really happened in life, and is not someone’s fiction, is very interesting.
Second, and perhaps the most important thing about this movie is the actors. The game is amazing!!! Kramer, whose work, by the way, to my great shame, before this picture, I was not familiar with, picked up just a wonderful cast. The events develop mainly in the courtroom, and all the attention of the viewer is directed primarily to the heroes. Their faces, facial expressions, monologues. And here they are beautiful. Characters so strongly, so sensually and heartfeltly defend each one of their truths, as if they were the very people. Sometimes you don’t even know who is right. Whose morals, whose beliefs are true? Whose truth is the truth?
The picture looks with great interest, especially without swinging, and at some point you suddenly realize that you do not remember how you found yourself among these people, in this courtroom and follow this process. Sometimes the movie really makes you shudder. For example, showing documentary filming from concentration camps.
A worthy film that is rightfully included in such a large number of lists of the best films of the planet.
The Nuremberg Trials is a 1961 military, historical drama by American director Stanley Kramer. To say that this is a good movie is to say nothing. Cinema is more than good, it is strong and deep, touches to the heart. The Nuremberg Trials were a very important post-war and extremely complex process. It is very difficult to convey his contradictions, emotionality and truth, but this director succeeded.
This three-hour drama takes us to a Nazi trial. The trial of judges who served the Nazi regime. The protagonist of this difficult story is an American, elderly judge who flew to Germany to make perhaps the most important decision in his life and listen to everyone and make a worthy and most faithful sentence.
This three-hour black-and-white film is shocking, and it is a very important and necessary film. It shows the truth decades later, and this picture must be seen by new generations. The movie is emotional and disturbing. Winner of two Academy Awards and multiple Best Actor nominations, Spencer Tracy is a wonderful, American actor, and he is a perfect judge. We see how his hero is swallowed by this difficult situation and pressure and criticism from all sides, but no matter what, he accepts the verdict by conscience and as it should be. Burt Lancaster played the complex role of a Nazi who was remorseful, and his situation is much deeper than it seems at first glance, but he was a fascist and a man devoted to the Nazi system, making decisions and killing thousands of people, and therefore, personally, he does not cause any regrets or emotions. The role of a lawyer was also very emotionally difficult, and Maximilian Schell handled it with dignity and played clean and convincing, all the attention was on him. I can’t help but say that it was nice to see Marlene Dietrich in this picture, who played a proud but broken German woman. “Nuremberg Trials” is one of the most necessary, worthy and powerful films for me. Cinema causes a storm of emotions, opinions and thoughts, and to some extent this picture is a masterpiece of its time.
P.S. The last dialogue between the hero Tracy and the repentant Nazi, who convinced the judge that he did not think that there would be so many victims and crimes in the future and chaos, was remembered for a lifetime, and the hero Tracy told him that it began when he sentenced the first time to death an innocent one Jew, who was previously mentioned.
Pleasant viewing!
I’ll answer why I don’t want to be a human manager, an engineer (I’m talking about real people, not people who think they’re engineers without getting up from a computer or a book, without talking to a worker or taking part in that process personally), a foreman, any leader, in general. Because when you're wrong, you're usually alone. When you are responsible for people, they suffer for your mistakes. And even if you make only one mistake in your “righteous” life, it can skew your entire destiny. To be a leader or to decide the fate of many is rather a gift from God. Like Noah and Moses at the time. The first judges mentioned in the Holy Book were the judges of God. The question is: “Who and how do they perform their duties?”
I’ve actually seen many leaders over the years. At school, in higher education, in state bodies, in the private sector, even among criminal elements (many, if not almost all, in the post-Soviet space, had to face it, at least once in their lives). All of them have one thing in common: they are not random people in their place. I am not talking about those who cannot hold a chair for three months, or who are proteges by acquaintance, etc. Others. There's something in them from birth. A gift. They seem to know and understand everything in advance. Like an eagle in the sky sees everything for miles in the distance. From their speeches there is no disorder, as after spoiled food, on the contrary, they inspire and raise morals. Whatever slander some individuals (ill-wishers) may have, we love our leaders who care not only about the results of their work, but also about us.
But, just like that, there are more demands and claims to such people, quite justified if something goes wrong. To whom more is given, more will be asked. But what about this particular movie? Can you apply this formula to him? Yeah, why not? The defendants mentioned in the film represent both the executive and the legislative system. These are not errand boys, but the brightest minds and masters of the fates of hundreds of thousands of people. Gradually you understand why even here “hand washes”.
The film is unique in that it presents arguments that are very weighty, however, and “for” and “against”. The judges are actually you and I. For the most part, we’ll be watching the movie on behalf of the judge. Though unobtrusive. We'll be forced to choose. And whether you personally agree or not with each argument separately is your own business. Only with a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”, I think there will be no dissenters.
Stanley Kramer’s Nuremberg Trials (1961) is a multi-layered, psychologically nuanced, philosophical film, with a hidden, unsurprising (as is often the case in modern cinema), powerful dynamic that forces you to stare into the screen for more than three hours.
At the center of the picture, the trial, which began with the accusation of a crime against humanity of judges who performed their “justice” under the auspices of the Nazi state, gradually expands the boundaries to accuse humanity itself of choosing not to notice the fascist atrocities taking place in the center of Europe, and thereby contributing to the spread of this brown contagion. It is the fault of the world, not Germany or the Germans (although this aspect is also reflected in quite detail). This, in general, objectively correct author’s idea, is complemented by frighteningly relevant prophecies about forgetting the lessons of the Second World War and the threat of the rehabilitation of Nazism in order to achieve selfish narrow national goals. The principle of “the most important thing to survive”, even if you have to turn a blind eye to the past, formulated by an American general, one of the heroes of the film, who tried to put pressure on the court and the prosecutor, will very soon be fundamental in world politics. The end justifies the means. The logic of the state is more important than historical justice. All these embodied prophecies, exposing the cynicism of the morality of double standards in modern geopolitics, strike a scourge in the back of the descendants of politicians who have retired in time. But the whip is short, the pain is no longer felt. At best, they hear a deaf, receding echo of his click, which they prefer not to pay attention to.
The most relevant film of 2014 in light of recent geopolitical events. You have to watch.
A deep film that makes you think about the many contradictory qualities of human nature. How to determine the degree of responsibility of a person for his actions? Is it possible to use logic to define it? Can a second person be charged with murder? What is the real good in the profession of an official, and how not to cross the threshold that leads to the death of millions of people? Who should be responsible for the deaths of these people, when the leaders of the building cowardly tightened their tails and left the world?
All these questions are answered by the Nuremberg Trials. Of course, they can be set only in a historical context, but the film does not lose relevance today.
They're not 4. A nation that blindly believed in the National Socialist idea is being judged. The bottom line is that the nation itself didn't "know," it didn't want to know. She was blinded by her selfishness. They thought they were the gods, the kings of Olympus. All the doors were open to them. All countries.
Therefore, one of the convicts admits his guilt before the world. Before peace and peace on Earth. Nothing can justify Nazi Germany for its actions. Even if those actions were for the good of the country. How many vile things contrary to morality can be done for good. There is no logical justification for this.
The further into the forest, the more wood. You always need to know what to do.
The twentieth century is perhaps the most terrible period of time in the history of mankind, when civilization at the peak of its development, in which, it would seem, such concepts as humanity, universal equality and equality were instilled in all mankind, ceased to value the most elementary rights and freedoms of any person. This century was marked by a huge number of cruel and immoral wars, the most vivid of which, of course, was the Second World War, when human cruelty and violence were beyond limit. One of the consequences of this event was the famous Nuremberg Trials, which revealed the identity and essence of the ideology of fascism and National Socialism, which was revealed in the cult court drama Stanley Kramer “Nuremberg Trials”.
Synopsis since 1945. Post-war Germany. In the city of Nuremberg, a court of the century is set to decide the fate of the faithful servants of the Third Reich, namely the four judges who, when handing down death sentences to thousands of innocent people. The case is led by Judge Haywood, who not only finds out who is guilty of any of the defendants, but also understands what caused the atrocities that Germany carried out.
Game of actors The acting in the film was simply stunning. It was clear that the actors invested not only their talent, but also their soul in the game, since they managed to create unique images on the screen that eclipsed the other characters involved in the plot. One of the most striking roles was played by Spencer Tracy, who played the role of Judge Haywood, trying to find the truth not only in the court case, but also in the case of the Third Reich itself. Without a doubt, the most striking male role was played by Maximilian Schell, who played a lawyer who tries to justify not only his client, but the entire German people. Of the secondary roles, the most impressive were Marlene Dietrich, who played the role of a German widow who dreams of proving the world the innocence of a German general, Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, who witnessed the atrocities committed by their homeland, the victims of which they became.
Director Stanley Kramer proved himself as a talented producer, under whose control several amazing films were shot, which took a deserved place in the classics of cinema. The Nuremberg Trials were withdrawn. Kramer declared himself as a talented director. The picture turned out to be very strong and impressionable, as impressive as our famous documentary Ordinary Fascism. I was impressed by how the director was able to get around the point of language difference. So, in the first 20 minutes of the film, we sometimes hear German in court, then everyone starts speaking English, but still use headphones, allegedly not understanding the language of others.
Scenario The plot of the film mainly takes place in a courtroom, in which the whole battle between truth and falsehood, between truth and illusion, breaks out. The main character of the judge appears not just in the role of the decider of fates; for him, this work becomes something more significant that can change his view of life in general. And if only after coming to Nuremberg, he was initially sure of the guilt of the defendants, now it becomes increasingly difficult for him to pass a conviction, because he is trying to figure out what exactly caused her to be one of the most advanced countries in the world with a rich history and culture, whose Enlightenment in the XVIII century extolled the universal equality of all people on Earth, was able to reach this point.
Operation of the operator Of the technical advantages of the film, it is necessary to highlight the work of the operator. Hungarian cameraman Ernest Laszlo, who will receive his well-deserved Oscar after the Nuremberg Trials, showed a stunning sight. Unusual angles of shooting, turns, camera contours - all these details contributed to the ideal transfer of emotions of the heroes, some of whom in some positions appeared as Heroes, and others as villains.
The Nuremberg Trials is a very strong, intelligent film with a deep social and historical meaning. The picture really amazes Germany as a nation that once dictated humanity to all living beings on this planet, and at some point imagined itself as something divine, deciding who to live and who not.
10 out of 10
I recently watched this film about the trial of Nazi criminals in 1948, held in the so-called American sector of Germany.
I liked the film, the brilliant performance of Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster and especially Maximilian Schell. The lawyer in his performance proves to the Americans that playing by their judicial rules can justify at least Hitler himself.
The main idea of the film is very correct - in the responsibility for monstrous military and "civil" crimes, in particular wrong trial, not only the Nazis, but the whole nation. Very correctly noted “we did not know”, “the people of Germany did not guess” such excuses are still taking place now, but what this leads the whole world has already seen: documentary footage testifies.
When you read books or watch movies about Nazi concentration camps, the brutality of what is happening in them is striking to the core, but you still can not come away, because even more striking to you is the question: how, how could this happen? This film is another attempt to find answers.
He recounts the Nuremberg trial, where judges try judges who worked in Nazi Germany. The process is not simple, since the latter delivered verdicts within the framework of the then existing legislation, albeit criminal.
On the one hand, the Prosecutor is a straightforward and honest colonel, on the other, a young, ambitious lawyer who firmly believes that he is defending the interests of Germany herself, occupied by the whole world. And an American judge who meticulously tries to understand the tragedy that occurred in this country. All the characters are very bright and charismatic. Everyone has their own truth and their own ways of defending it.
At the time of the events of the picture, the trials of fascists have been going on for several years, and society has “cooled down” to these cases.
At first glance, it seems that the central thought of the film is the inhumanity of the crimes in Nazi Germany and the legislation that existed then, but in fact the range of issues involved is broader. This is understandable when unjustly convicted victims are summoned during the hearings, and the attitude towards them in society is almost hostile, and this is only three years after the war. And they are trying to put pressure on the judge himself, his compatriots, saying that that war has already ended, and the confrontation with the USSR is ahead, and America needs an ally in Germany, so the sentences should be softer. The court must be loyal to the accused.
The film is unique in that it is a very honest critique of American politics. And how relevant it is! We all say that we protect the interests of our countries, but if we do not have principles, justice, then what are we defending? Now, they have an inferiority complex, not a megalomaniac in fact. Both the USSR and ordinary German citizens received their share of critics, who had a concentration camp “under their windows”, and they curtained the curtains and continue to live as if nothing had happened.
The picture lasts three hours in it has everything: the history of inhuman crimes and documentary chronicles from concentration camps, and the repentance of former executioners, and personal dramas, and the brilliant final speech of the judge, putting everything in its place.
Delivered and played - great! It looks like one breath!
There was a scientist, Stanley Milgram, who set up an experiment named after him that blew up the scientific world. He first described it in 1963. The purpose of the experiment is to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi domination could participate in the murder of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. Milgram was going to work out the experiment in the US and go to Germany to put it there. But after the experiment it became clear that there is no need to go anywhere.
The essence of the experiment. They hire a person allegedly as an assistant to the experimenter, although in fact, this person is the object of the experiment, just he does not know about it, he will call him further “assistant”. The experimenter gives him a person who is supposed to be the object of the experiment, although in fact he is only an actor, so we will call him. The assistant is put behind a device that allegedly beats the actor with an electric current, on which there are a number of buttons, and under them there is a signature how much which button gives voltage. The actor is placed in another revenge, outside the eye of the assistant. The assistant is given the task - to check the memory of the actor, and for the wrong answer to beat him with an electric shock, and for each incorrect answer to increase the tension. And under the last buttons signature that the tension is life-threatening. Naturally, the actor gives the wrong answers, for which the assistant punishes him, increasing the tension. The actor screams, knocks on the wall, and on the last buttons stops showing signs of life. The experimenter asks the assistant to continue the experiment. People start protesting, they get sick, they obviously don’t want to, but they still continue the experiment because the experimenter demands it. There are those who refuse to continue, but they are only 35% of the total. The rest continue to torture and kill another person simply because the experimenter demands it, the person they see, perhaps for the first and last time in their lives.
This experiment was repeated in Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Jordan, and the results were the same as in the United States. Read more about it on Wikipedia.
In the film, which was released before the experiment, people are judged for obeying orders and laws. Yes, someone did it with more zeal than needed, someone overstepped. But submission to authority is a fundamental feature of human nature, it is what we are. Milgram proved it.
You can't judge a man for simply obeying an order or a law, that's my opinion.
If not, then what to do with the military, whose exact execution of orders is a necessary component of their service? Are criminal orders in combat to carry them out or to disrupt a combat operation and risk your life and the lives of comrades in arms? And what about a man whose boss is obviously wrong, forcing him to do things that contradict his principles? Retirement and look for another job?
And it's funny to hear a U.S. prosecutor accusing judges of wrongful convictions sending people to be sterilized. It’s no secret then and now that from 1907 to 1974, some states in the United States had sterilization laws that sterilized thousands of “inferiors.” You can find out more by looking at the Buck vs. Bell case on Wikipedia. And a U.S. judge has the audacity to convict citizens of another country for what is legal in his country? And why did the lawyer not use this argument in defense of the defendants, limiting himself to reading the opinion of one of the members of the US Supreme Court?
But in general, the film is not bad, raises very important moral questions, which still have no answer, makes you think.
In the film, there is an episode with the “trial” of a Jewish old man who “defiled” a German woman by copulation. It is a purely documentary fact that the German was actually called Mrs. Seiler. She got 2 years on that trial. A 69 (!!)-year-old cohabitant The Kazelberger was guillotnated.
The judges were so eager to please the "Führer" that they even exceeded the limit stipulated by this article (which did not provide for the death penalty).
After the defeat of the Third Reich, the judges of this (and many similar) “processes” merged into a Nazi reserve organized in Schleswig. In 1969, two of them (Hoffmann and Fereber) were convicted.
It was more of a farce, a concession to public opinion.
I noticed this because the trial of Nazi judges Ferber and Hoffmann took place after the film was released. In the same room.
And a couple of clarifications - the prototype of Yaning was Oswald Rothaugue. Before the Nazis came to power, he languished in fourth roles, and under the new “order” he gave up a quick career on “Nuremberg” cases (persecution of dissenters and “non-Aryans”). Unlike the on-screen alterego, repentance did not overtake him. He served 12 years, then was released and after two years “pardoned”.
Irena Zayler was not present at the tribunal. She sent a written statement from the GDR. So, the Nazi repetition in the performance of the “super-advocate” did not happen.
However, the authors of the film had the task to sit on two chairs - to show the whole abomination of the fall of the Germans and not to fall under the distribution of "hawks", who believed that even the unfinished Nazi garbage will be useful in the confrontation with the Soviet Union.
This is where Shakespeare’s passion comes from.
Like the same remorse of the matergo Nazi, in reality made a career on the corpses of "enemies of the Reich", and did not even understand what he was guilty of.
The key phrase of the film is the words said by the colonel to the prosecutor: “If we want to get the support of the German people, we must not strictly judge the German criminals.”
Thus he recognized the collective responsibility and complicity of the entire German people in the heinous crimes of the Third Reich.
The same prosecutor correctly observed that it was not the Eskimos who committed all these crimes, but the Germans themselves. There were 6,000 different camps, "institutions" of the SS, the Gestapo, "people's courts" and other places to destroy "enemies of the Reich." There were 100,000 (!) Germans who were doing their “work” properly. And everyone else knew it, and they approved or took it for granted.
Scientists, sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists, philosophers think: what is it? What is heredity, upbringing, environment, external conditions, historical predestination, the criminal will of leaders? What is it? How did this happen? Embryonic features of racism, which seemed comical in the statements of second-rate professors-charlatans and wretched provincial theorists of Germany of the last century, the contempt of the German philistine for the “Russian pig”, to the “Polish cattle”, to the “garbled Jew”, to the “depraved Frenchman”, to the “merchant Englishman”, to the “crooked Greek”, to the “bag” all this penny bouquet of pompous, cheap superiority of the German over the rest of the world, to the “kinds of his life”, suddenly turned into a deadly threat to mankind, from a few years of his life, and death. There's a lot to think about. Wars like this are terrible. The innocent blood shed by the Germans is enormous.
V. Grossman, military journalist, writer, war veteran and witness to events.
The Germans should have no illusions, for it is clear to the world that World War II was used for criminal acts with which nothing can compare in our time. Unprecedented criminal murders disgraced the name of the Germans in the eyes of the whole world.
Willy Brandt, Chancellor of Germany
6 out of 10
As I was preparing to watch the film, I was expecting to see another American WWII story & #39, where the Yankees again teach a lesson in democracy and impartiality. And I'm grateful to the filmmakers that it didn't happen. The depth of the problem raised is so great, and the tragedy of what happened is so terrible that it is unlikely that a relatively short screen time will be enough to convey it. I will not repeat what others have said, but this is what I am truly grateful to the authors of the picture - it is for the fact that I suddenly asked myself a simple question: why has Russia not yet had its own trial & #39; Nuremberg trial'? If you close your eyes and do not look at the picture, it is so easy to imagine in that dock Vyshinsky and his campaign #39, the NKVD with its executioners in place of the Gestapo, and millions of innocently lost lives (even if not because of sterilization), but certainly for political views and race? Who will have the courage to shoot our 'Process'??? Ah, yes, because for this it must first take place. . .
I was not raised to be an honest and decent person. I did not commit any large-scale bad deeds, but I will not deny that I did covertly, if not illegal actions, then unacceptable from the point of view of morality and strict education. However, if I say something publicly, I will most likely encounter only a misunderstanding of others. Why? Because everyone in Russia knows that sometimes you have to do something against the law to feed your family or defend your life. All people have forgotten about justice, people only think about survival in a perverted system. Thank you to the USSR and thank you to the generations who grew up in it and brought us up. Ideology is superior to justice, so it was believed in Soviet countries. Survival over justice was considered in the 90s. Order is above justice, so it was considered to be “zero”. “What can we change?” we now think. I understand that the wrong things, which now seem to be the order of things, I wish I had never hung on my conscience, but the trouble is that I feel no guilt for this. I don't think anyone is. It's perverted thinking, perverted concepts, perverted meanings -- that's what we've got, and we're now willing to come to terms with. We look to the future and don’t want to think about the past. But what are we living for now? We live like beasts, for short-term stability, for profit. That is why we live in such conditions, in such a country and in such a political system that we deserve.
The beauty of this film lies in the fact that against the background of general agreement prevailing in the world (not only in our country), it touches on such eternal concepts as justice and truth. Sooner or later, or at least occasionally, people should remember them – and these things should triumph, especially in our dark times.
The film is controversial, as is its morality, but it captures, makes you think, makes you admire and empathize. The film depicts a subtle struggle in which justice is forged. Although it depends on logical chains, the most important detail is the spirit. If there is, then the court has already done its job. Justice must be felt, not only comprehended by reason.
It’s amazing that a three-hour movie looks in one breath. From the actors I would like to distinguish Montgomery Clift and Mr. Lancaster. Both roles are episodic, but the power of their game is really catchy. And if the second perfectly coped with the task, the first showed what the word reincarnation means - I did not expect this from an actor who was used to seeing in the role of a handsome and gold.
The last thing I would like to note is that the film is not replete with special effects, like modern Hollywood crafts. Most of the movie takes place in the courtroom, but the film is completely immersive and does not seem boring. On the contrary, which is atypical for Western paintings, the film does not drown in emotions and impressions, it does not bully its ideology and does not dull primitiveness, it does not lead us into the philosophical wilds. This film is an educational film. Moreover, I can say with confidence that I have not watched such an excellent movie for a long time and do not even hope to see it soon.
Bravo. Stand.