MovieChat Forums > Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Discussion > Overlong and melodramatic

Overlong and melodramatic

posted 9 years ago by rrb_1
30 replies | jump to latest

This talky film, designed to look more like a TV movie than a major Hollywood effort, lumbers through its 3+ hours loaded down by its own sense of importance. The slow pace seems contrived for weighty effect. As does the camerawork – shock zoom-ins screaming “This part is important!”, slow circling of speechifying lawyers and testifying witnesses – and grandiose orations on moral responsibility and civilization. The point of some “big scenes”, like Clift’s and Lancaster’s testimonies, beg editing – we get their purpose long before they end. Too bad Kramer didn’t realize that less is more.

Subtlety is not in abundance. The bad guys are obnoxiously nasty, or preposterously dense - "You can't kill that many people, can you?" Tracy, his helmet of white hair substituting for a white hat, is the Noble American, The Good Man Who Will Not Compromise Under Pressure, unlike the judges of the Third Reich whom he condemns. When Lancaster tells Tracy at the end, "I never knew it would come to [the Holocaust],” and Tracy pontificates, “It came to that when you sentenced the first man to death you knew to be innocent,” the Noble American’s, and the movie’s, moral superiority becomes embarrassingly smug. How sad that Mann never made use of the one black character, a soldier in the courtroom who has no lines, to delve into this country’s 300+ years of racist and genocidal actions towards blacks.

The acting only seldom adds to the film. Though effective in his quieter moments, Schell is ludicrously melodramatic when he bellows and gesticulates in self-righteous anger. His grilling of Garland - DID. YOU. SIT. ON. HIS. LAP? - is a piece of bad high-school-drama-club fare. Lancaster’s underplaying to convey restrained dignity is just dull; his monologue delivery shows no sense of rhythm or drama. Dietrich’s light, sure touch makes her performance fare better. The simplicity and boldness of Widmark’s overzealous prosecutor (though one-note) and Klemperer’s unrepentant Nazi and help pump some oxygen into the film.

Overall: 6/10

reply

[–] holidaysbossi 9 years ago

agreed 5/10

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

No genocidal actions ever took place in the US towards blacks. You might want to look the word "genocide" up.

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

Of course! No blacks died on the slave ships travelling here. Slaves were never abused or killed. Blacks have never been the subject of lynchings or biased prosecution and execution. And the police have never unfairly used deadly force against the black community.

You might want to do your own research.

Now, any comments on the film?

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

None of those are examples of "genocide." Again, look the word up.

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

Yeah, we get that you think the American experience has no genocidal aspect for enslaved Africans and their descendants.

So what word would you use to describe their experience?

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I don't "think" that. It's a fact.

Yeah, we get that you think the definition of "genocide" is something other than what it means. But any blacks who have ever been murdered due to slavery or racism or any hatred whatsoever has never been in an effort to EXTERMINATE the entire race of African Americans.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

Thanks for showing you can open a dictionary. Now look up the word “aspects”, b/c my assertion, as already stated, is about genocidal aspects of the African-American experience.

If you like, forget that "genocidal aspects" was ever used. I dare you to address the larger moral issue (if you can) and again, respond to my question: what word would you use to describe the experience of enslaved Africans and their descendants in the US?

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

Genocide = extermination. Extermination "aspects" would still be incorrect. Slavery involved ownership - slaves were seen as property and as essential to the operations of plantations. At no time did slave and plantation owners attempt to exterminate their property OR blacks as an entire race or group. There is no "aspect" of American history that would support your assertion.

"what word would you use to describe the experience of enslaved Africans and their descendants in the US?"

I could use a lot of words - tragic, unconscionable, inhumane - none of them would be genocide. That's not what genocide means. Not sure why you're having such a hard time with the reality that different words have different meanings. By your logic, and the amount at which you're trying to defend your use of the word, I can call the moon a planet. Or the Earth an asteroid. Or Africa a city. Those words would not be accurate no matter how much I would want them to be. Just like genocide is not accurate no matter how much you want it to be.

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

This discussion started with my questioning positioning America as morally superior in JAN. You don’t address that at all. That’s too bad, b/c it’s much more meaningful and compelling than focusing on who used what word correctly. Your repeatedly doing so implies that the larger, human aspects raised are, to you, less worthy of your attention.

We understand that you don't agree with the words “genocidal aspects/actions” in describing the African-American experience. That established, I hope you can now move on to the original topic.

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

I don't address that because I don't disagree with you. The only thing I've addressed is your misuse of the word genocide which, unfortunately for you, makes your otherwise well thought out post and turns it into hyperbole. For someone who seems like an intelligent person, it's a shame that you can't take that feedback and simply say, "Good point. Let me correct my mistake" and edit one word. Instead, your massive ego won't let you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion and realize that what I've been taking issue with is not my opinion.

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

Wow! So there you are: angry, insulting, pathetic - and incapable of discussing an idea you say you agree with like an adult. Hurl all the bile you want – it won’t be read. You’re ignored.

But thanks for the laugh – who has a massive ego? LOL!

reply

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

Kind of like how you're incapable of admitting when you're wrong. THAT'S a massive ego LOL!

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

it is simply untrue that the American government ever set out to exterminate an entire race of people as part of a quest to conquer the world.

ROTFL!!! You'll have to point out where I said the American government set out on a quest to conquer the world.

Or where I blamed the government explicitly for the genocidal aspects of the treatment of African-Americans - though you might want to read up on the Tuskegee experiment if you wish an education on that topic.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

When one says "this country," the role of government is implicit.

So you're one of those "Alright, you didn't say what I accused you of, but you implied it" types. How is the government implicit in initiating lynchings, or the lethal conditions of the slave ships - to pick 2 American practices that extinguished untold black lives? The role of the government is only "implicit" in your head.

Thanks, but no need to "strike" any words for me. it won't make a difference. You've already shown yourself to be someone who posts baseless accusations.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jpkrunch 9 years ago

Yeah but this movie was not about slavery. There are plenty of those for you to view. And yes Spencer Tracy character was a noble American but by no means were Americans portrayed as noble in any way in the film. Quite the contrary, Tracy lost his original judgeship because he refused to play American politics. Then, the political winds blew once again and Tracy was pressured into not convicting or providing long sentences to the defendants. Finally, the film points out that none of the defendants in any of the cases actually served their sentences. The Ugly Americans abandoned justice for those massacred for political reasons

reply

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

Who said the movie was about slavery? I brought that up - obviously - to point out the hypocrisy of American moral smugness.

Spencer Tracy character [sic] was a noble American but by no means were Americans portrayed as noble in any way in the film.

Try reading your words again and see if you can spot how ludicrously nonsensical they are.

reply

[–] jpkrunch 9 years ago

Yeah you did. And the fact that you can't put that together with the second part of what you quoted makes you about the dullest imbecile I have come across on IMDB in some time. I actually regret responding because it is apparent from your other posts that you are the smartest person in a very dumb family. People like that, when they go into the real world, still think they are superior. But in fact, they are of below average intelligence. It is just that their family is well under average and they grew up thinking they were smart. Tragic really. Good luck with all that. I think I will put you on my ignore list as you are a complete waste of time.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

[–] Jose_Accent_On_E 8 years ago

And the fact that you can't put that together with the second part of what you quoted makes you about the dullest imbecile I have come across on IMDB in some time.

And that's what I love about this here IMDb. And in the spirit of the hyperbole so extreme it should instead be called parabole, let I say that your words demonstrate that you are

worse than Hitler

reply

[–] jpkrunch 8 years ago

wonderful contribution! and timely too! now go back to sleep!

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

[–] Jose_Accent_On_E 8 years ago

wonderful contribution! and timely too! now go back to sleep!

Ooh, sarcasm and a complete lack of appreciation of an admittedly lame attempt at humor.

I enjoy cyber-hostility as much as anyone. However, does it make you feel better to be so totally cynical about the intelligence (or humanity, even) of your fellow cyber-travelers?

It was a mere question, so don't gnaw my head off (leaving a bloody stump).

reply

[–] jpkrunch 8 years ago

Well, that's an interesting question. It's interesting because it's not really a question at all is it? Just like that wasn't a question. So you admit you enjoy cyber hostility, then you engage in it towards me and then you ask me not to overreact. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

reply

[–] Jose_Accent_On_E 8 years ago

My, what fantastic rhetorical skills. You are truly gifted in the opportunistic exploitation of even a single slightly miscast word, that is, "enjoy". This I state in the most non-sarcastic manner.

Anyway, I believe that you possess the intelligence to make a positive contribution to this here discussion instead of cyber-stomping. And despite your self-granted expertise in divining my precise emotional state, I was not being cyber-hostile towards you, but possibly merely cyber-cynical.

It seems to me that too many people come here to vent their spleens. Occasionally, there are thoughtful discussions where I actually learn something about topics of which I am fairly consistently clueless, and I feel quite gratified for the invested time.

So, anything of which you might educate your readers?

reply

[–] jpkrunch 8 years ago

aw cut the crap. You saw my "cyber-hostile" response and decided to engage. What do you expect a cordial "welcome to the party" response?

My, what fantastic rhetorical skills. You are truly gifted in the opportunistic exploitation of even a single slightly miscast word, that is, "enjoy". This I state in the most non-sarcastic manner.

No this is not an insult at all - not a trace of hostility, just a friendly little compliment. Or is it just a passive aggressive insult which you believe gives you moral high ground as opposed to my Neanderthal way of actually being blunt. You are such a sophisticated gentleman/woman! I am in awe.

So, anything of which you might educate your readers?

Indeed, although I would not use the word "educate" - a bit presumptuous for my taste. See my original point on the matter. Perhaps you should have responded to that so we could have had further discussion as cordial citizens. But instead you chose to ignore that substantive point and move on to the "cyber-hostility" you do so enjoy.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Yes, it's all talk, but the talk has the intensity of an action movie. You can only sit quietly glued to the screen.

reply

[–] cultfilmfreaksdotcom 8 years ago

LOL. Yeah. Americans are the only people who think the Nazis were bad.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

reply

[–] kaydenpat 8 years ago

So what would you do to make this film better if it were ever remade? I've yet to watch it but will do so shortly since I keep hearing great things about its portrayal of a pivotal moment in world history.

reply