This film should not be so highly rated, as it praises what it portrays, an illegitimate court that serves a made up justice. If a film was made on the trial of Saddam Hussein's trial that praised it, it would never be seen.
"We played with life and lost." - Jules et Jim, François Truffaut.
Wow, you're either a clueless moron who knows nothing of the "rule of law" and the international courts... or you're just a troll looking for attention. Either way, you're lost.
Well then Alfriend, please educate me with your prestigious law school education and years of practice. Explain how the creation of the Nuremberg Trials conforms to the rule of law. In your answer, please also include what country's rule of law you mean and how that is applicable in the case of a war victor trying the state that it defeated just prior.
"We played with life and lost." - Jules et Jim, François Truffaut.
LOL, the onus is on you bub. You made the accusation and have as of yet proven nothing. Your words so far are empty sound bites. Please dazzle us with YOUR amazing legal mind.
shareI don't have to explain anything extensively beyond the posts that I've already made because my argument is not that extensive. Further, it surprises me that I'm the first person you've heard making it. It's everywhere including the Wikipedia article, so I suggest you read up on it and when you demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the legal issues involved, we may actually be able to debate like grown ups.
"We played with life and lost." - Jules et Jim, François Truffaut.
You've made no argument. Only sound bites. And if Wikipedia is one of your sources than you really are lost.
But ultimately you've failed to grasp the major point of the film which has very, very little to do with what you stated its premise to be in your initial post. It has little to do with the wanting to prove the courts legitimacy, but with subject matter that goes far beyond it into the realm of our individual and collective conscience and our responsibilities to one another. Your assessment of the film and its actual intent was and is far more objectionable to me than anything else. Oddly enough in fact, the writer does go out of his way to point out the various biases and imperfections in the allied courts, which I thoroughly agree with. I don't think you caught much of that or if you did, you would not have made such a thoroughly incorrect post to start.
I don't think it completely ignores the issue. There are several scenes where the Germans question the "moral superiority" of the victors. It's not an overt argument because that's not the main thesis of the film as others have pointed out.
All nations have episodes in history that are not shining examples of humanity, including all of the Allied powers. Few of these episodes, however, were on the scale of the Holocaust. I'm not a legal scholar, but surely some form of justice was warranted for these crimes?
I've read through the whole thread and I agree with your points about the ACTUAL events, but I have to strongly disagree with your original assertion, that the film should not be so highly rated because of your issues with the ACTUAL events. It is a very good film, the writing, the acting and the cinematography range from competent to exceptional throughout the film. If people are getting their history through films that is the problem. This film portrays approximations of real world events, with a fair amount of historical accuracy, at least as much as can be expected from a Hollywood production, but that doesn't make it an historical document nor a definitive source about the matter and it never claims to be.
I feel as if your attack on the regard of the film is unwarranted and lacks any real credence. You really should have opened up with your main point because, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. At best it is a snapshot of what a specific group of people thought about the Nuremberg Trials, filtered through a commercial sieve. Your points are valid but not to attack the regard that is held for this film. It's like when people say that JFK is obviously a bad film because it ranges from flat out terrible history to just plain made up. That is really besides the point, if anyone is getting their history or informing their perspective on the world through a film, that is the problem. You can not like the film because of your views on the ACTUAL events but to disparage it in a larger context, because it did not fulfill what you thought appropriate, is not a very good argument for wagging the finger at the rest of us, who enjoy it as strictly a film i.e. entertainment.
"If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simple like the natives."
[deleted]
One wonders how the OP would've held the leaders of the Third Reich accountable for its atrocities.
share