In fact, how did he not any ANY awards for this role? The speech he gives in this film, his testimony, is one of the most powerful and harrowing minutes I have ever seen on screen.
The Nameless
I am not what I am
First of all, the Best Actor Oscar is HARDLY a rule of thumb of whom was the best actor for any given years, but furthermore...he was terrible! Burt Lancaster completely overacted, was too young, and spoke too quickly and was too much of a ham. Just watch him deliver the line: "Were we deaf...dumb...BLIND!!!"
It's laughable.
I like over the top performances, but this was pure hambone. I'm cringing and making faces just thinking about it.
Marlene was the unappreciated actor in this film. It is at the end that we learn that her impression of these trials is what matters most. These trials meant nothing unless she could understand what we had done with these trials...and she didn't, she couldn't, and she wouldn't. At all times she tried to be a self appointed ambassador of German culture to the judge. He left Germany with many good impressions of the German people. Marlene had not such a good impression of the Americans. They were conquerors to her, and nothing more.
Sorry, but Lancaster was all wrong here. I liked him in The Train, though, where he played an American in the French resistance trying to stop a trainload of great artworks the Nazis had seized and were trying to ship back to Germany for "safekeeping". A slow movie, but a good performance. He was good in Birdman of Alcatraz too. I loved that film.
Sorry I disagree so vehemently. He was a big ham in this film.
I beg to differ, I think B.L. did his role justice, every scene with his character was filled with emotion, you speak about shouting? did you even watch the same movie?
95% of the time he says nothing, he doesn't have to, his characters guilt, shame.. it's all there in the simplest expressions.
I do not like Burt Lancaster's performance in Judgment at Nuremberg either, I do think that it might have been much better if the character of Ernst Janning was played by Laurence Olivier instead. I do like the rest of the casts, most of them gave a good performance if not great, and I'm particular impressed with Maximilian Schell and Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell gave a breathtaking performance while Spencer Tracy's performance was lifelike. As opposed to the rest of the casts, Burt Lancaster's performance seemed very "fake" to me, his "statement" scene reminds me of those story telling competitions I used to watch during my school time, unnatural. Like Sponiatowski, I feel very uncomfortable with his performance every time I watch the movie.
On first viewing of the film many years ago I also felt that Burt Lancaster was a bit mis-cast for the part of Ernst Janning. Although he's a particular favorite, I felt that he was a bit too young and that even with make-up he didn't appear to be a man of such age and distinction. Also it is hard to play older and not look fake next to real older actors like Spencer Tracy. Ray Teal and Torben Meyer (Lampe). But over time I've come to appreciate his performance. He gave it a great effort and I disagree with the earlier comment that started this thread about the lousy speech he makes. I think it was very truthful and well-done. You can see the pain and guilt in his whole demeanor throughout the film. This speech just gives that pain voice. The greatest moment in the film may just be Burt's realization to Tracy's line "Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you put a man to death that you knew to be innocent."
Over time too, I can see that Burt Lancaster really had this "Aryan" look that director Stanley Kramer might have found a visual irony. I think this is something he tried in other films like "Inherit the Wind". Note the casting of actors Claude Akins as the Reverend and Dick York as Cates. Both actors have the jutting brow and nose similar in look to a neanderthal. (not making fun of those talented men).
I agree with you about Laurence Olivier being a great choice for the role. He was actually originally cast in the role and for some reason could not do it. It would have been great to see him and Tracy together. They were real-life friends who admired one another.
"I do not like Burt Lancaster's performance in Judgment at Nuremberg either, I do think that it might have been much better if the character of Ernst Janning was played by Laurence Olivier instead. "
Totally agree. I saw on the Trivia page that Olivier was supposed to play Janning and I shouted "That would have been so much better!" at the screen. Lancaster seriously misjudged his performance here, or maybe he's just not as good an actor as the rest of the cast. The praise on this forum for Schell, Clift, Dietrich etc. is all very well justified, but the actor that really kept me watching this film was Spencer Tracy. His performance is practically perfect and hugely underrated. I don't think there's too many actors whose initial career boom was in the 30s, but whose skills would still stand up to today's standards - acting was very different back then (imagine Jimmy Cagney or Cary Grant in a modern thriller or gangster movie), and not many people were realistic enough to not look dated. Spencer Tracy is certainly safe from that.
I totally agree with you execept for one small comment. Cagney, would hold his own very well today in a modern film of any kind. Yes, he had a very strong personality and way of moving and speaking-- but he was extremely truthful, natural, exciting and unpredictable. He didn't have the depth of a Spencer Tracy, who at that time had a real presence of authority, but he had this energy that I don't think even the great Tracy had. If you watch Cagney as Commissioner Waldo in "Ragtime", which is a modern film (1981, I believe)it is amazing to watch Cagney. He was so ill at the time, he could barely move or stand for any length of time; but even then he had a charisma, energy, weight and reality to him that really stood out in the best way. Tracy and Cagney are very different actors, but imho, both would hold up today.
shareSpencer Tracy was terrific in this role. His acting was so natural and believable. No one could've done this part but him.
shareSince I'm normally content with Lancaster's performances I didn't mind him in this role, although Alec Baldwin told Robert Osborne on TCM's Essentials program that even he thought Lancaster's performance is the weakest, in terms of the "star" performances.
"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."
[deleted]
Sponiatowski, I completely disagree with you...Mr Lancaster did not overact in this movie, he was terrific, and I wondered the same thing as the OP. Why wasn't he nominated for an Acadamy award?
shareI also think Lancaster's performance was good.
His contempt towards the other judges, the silent tension building throughout the movie is delivered so well by Lancaster that when the statement arrives eventually, it's a weird combination between Janning's usually cold temper and the pressues building inside him, waiting to explode - - and Burt Lancaster delivered that combination perfectly.
I thought him and Monty Clift were the best in the movie. Clift's performance broke my heart and was so convincing in the fragmented person portrayed that you really could see how the defence would have an easy task in breaking him and the judges a difficult one in trying to figure out whether Peterson was always this way or was he like this because of what was done to him.
I used to have a , but damnit do I want a !share
Sorry to disagree with those that don't think Lancaster did well in this role.
He is the one that made this movie come to life. His performance was Oscar worthy, considering some of the winners in the last few years.
Lord of war: where do you think Marlene Dietrich overacted? She was unbelievably cold throughout the whole film. Just like the tomb.
share[deleted]
I thought Burt Lancaster was quite good in this film and was not at all a ham as suggested. He made an impassioned speech which was complimented nicely by the use of camera angles.
shareWell to be honest.. I thought, as somebody else said here, that Burt did his role justice.. he's plain good.. but overall I think he comes in way too late in the movie to make his role really oscar material.
(ON a sidetrack I also agree, that Oscars Wins are not necessarily linked to a good performance.. think about LOTR (11 oscars.. and now.. in sales for less than 6 euros.. what does that say.., )
he didnt!!!1 o dear me, what is teh world coming to
shareIts bad enough that Maxmillian Schell won an Oscar for his overrated hammy performance over Paul Newman in the Hustler come on. Lancaster was way off in this film, and I really like lancaster. The film does not hold up at all, dated stagy and preachy. Ugh.
shareI think the film holds up quite well, at least for a Stanley Kramer film, with the exception of Lancaster's performance. He stood out amongst most of the cast with an ever-changing "accent" that sounded more like New Jersey than East Berlin. Schell was over the top at times, but his character was passionate, so the roll called for it. The standouts were Judy Garland and Spencer Tracy, both very natural in their roles...
I agree with the others O'livier would've been far better than Lancaster in the part.
[deleted]
Honestly, I think every major player in this film could have received an Oscar nomination. Burt's great, as is Richard Widmark who also didn't receive a nod. Laurence Olivier, as others have stated, probably would have been a better choice as Ernst Janning, but Lancaster played the role very well.
"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."
because he was hideously miscast--hardly an actor's fault when that happens, but the audience always blames him anyway; i have no idea why stanley kramer cast him in the role. who would have been interesting to see play ernst janning? paul henreid? alec guinness? charlie laughton? larry? any ideas, folks?
shareyeah... totally. garland was amazing. but lancaster... i was speechless!
share