Wow. That was a long time to try and convince hobnob53, a person who appears to be obstinate in the face of reason. Yet, I suspect hobnob53 has still not conceded the point as they have not responded to pontevedro's last post. It seems easy to get into lengthy and pointless debates on imdb with people who continue to defend indefensible positions, or more likely just enjoy stringing things along to wind people up.
Yes, it is quite obvious that there are seven defence counsel in robes sitting in front of the accused. As the accused enter the dock for the first time, hesitantly, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell) directs his client Ernest Janning (Burt Lancaster) where to sit. The other defence counsel do so for their clients - specifically for Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer) and Friedrich Hofstetter (Martin Brandt). Each defendant is asked in turn if they are represented by counsel before the tribunal and, as pontevedro pointed out, we see two of the defence counsel pay special attention when their client Hoffstetter is asked this question. When Rolfe (Schell) first speaks in court he specifically says "I represent the defendant" (in relation to Janning) not "the defendants". Rolfe, during the course of the trial, does indeed mention "these defendants" (plural) on a few occasions when talking about witness evidence (as the witnesses in some instances were testifying against more than one of the accused), or after the prosecution showed footage of concentration camp atrocities, but at no time does Rolfe specifically state he represents all the defendants. Rolfe only ever specifically says he represents Janning. Hobnob53 asks "when does Rolfe mention that he was there purely to represent Janning? He makes no such statement, ever." But hobnob53 is wrong in this assertion. Several times Rolfe says he represents Janning (and says only Janning) and, to turn hobnob53's assertion on its head, Rolfe in fact never mentions he represents the others by name. We never see Rolfe visit the other defendants in the gaol, only Janning. If Rolfe represents them all then why don't we see him visiting them all?
Certainly the very casual observer may think Rolfe is the only defence counsel as he is generally the only one we are shown addressing the court. Indeed before Rolfe's opening statement Judge Haywood (Spencer Tracy) says "Herr Rolfe will make the opening statement for the defence" and throughout the trial he is only referred to as the "defence counsel" rather than "The Defence Counsel for Ernst Janning". However, it is reasonable to deduce that Rolfe is making the first opening statement for the defence as he represents the most important defendant. Rolfe only discuses his client Janning in this opening statement, giving his background, and does not mention any of the other defendants. According to hobnob53's argument, Rolfe is representing them all but is just very sloppy. No. Rolfe is just representing Janning. The court then adjourns and presumably later the other defence counsels will make their opening statements which we don't see on film for reasons of clarity and focus. Throughout the film Rolfe is referred to as the "defence counsel" as the movie hones in on Janning being the key element of the story. But we are never made to assume he is the only defence counsel or that he represents all the defendants.
The fact that we do not hear the other defence counsel speaking is pure story telling/movie making convenience. It would be nice if there was a line along the lines of "and we will now hear from the defence counsel representing ..." before a scene ends, or if another counsel was shown making a brief objection on behalf of their particular client so as not to confuse viewers like hobnob53. But, there are many movie making reasons as to why this would not be desirable. Time is of the essence in film-making. Time is money and overly long explanations or backgrounding can often bore the audience. Films are usually tightly edited so that the story is told as succinctly as possible and to keep it progressing forward - to not waste film stock, to not to bore the audience and, most importantly, to make money for the filmmakers. It is cheaper to have extras in minor roles, such as the other defence counsels, rather than giving an actor lines and therefore paying them more. One role can stand for all the others to save time, money, and for ease of story telling. Having several defence counsel speak for accuracy does not add to the story but portraying just one of them speaking does not deny the fact that the others are present. Actually we do see at one point Rolfe's assistant defence counsel speak during the cross examination of Dr Wieck. Later the prosecutor Colonel Lawson (Richard Widmark) asks if evidence about sterilisation would be admissible if a witness could be called (before Petersen, played by Montgomery Clift, appears) and Rolfe looks off camera toward his assistant defence counsel for a response before answering Lawson(Hans Moebus is listed as an ADA on imdb). Curiously though, hobnob53 dismisses this character as a mere assistant, not a defence counsel, and asserts that a defendant having more than one defence counsel is ludicrous (but see my comments below).
Audiences can be easily confused by overly complex situations which do not advance the story such that filmmakers decide that characters and events need to be amalgamated and truncated. In "The Great Escape", for example, not all the characters represented are direct historical figures, but rather loose amalgams of several individuals and stories. It could be confusing and time consuming if we were introduced to, and had to keep track of, all the main tunnel diggers and senior forgers - instead Charles Bronson and Donald Pleasance stood in for all of these historical figures.
Similarly in films about the Apollo space programme we are usually just shown one NASA Flight Director (e.g.. Gene Kranz in his white waistcoat) rather than the several people who took on the role of Flight Director, in shifts, over the course of a mission and were there for some, but not all, of the crucial, dramatic events. Often in films on historical subjects, names or the appearances of actual persons depicted can be changed so as not to confuse the audience if they are known better by another name or look, or have similar names or appearances to other individuals in the story. Some minor examples being characters shown with beards or moustaches as that is how we commonly know them (think Darwin or Ned Kelly of Stalin) even though they may have been clean shaven at the time of an historical event depicted in a film. In Henry V one of the king's uncles is always known as the Duke of Exeter at Agincourt even though he was not awarded the ducal title at the time just because Shakespeare named him so in his play. A minor example in "A Bridge Too Far" is an intelligence officer Major Brian Urquhart being renamed Major Fuller for the film so that he would not be confused by audiences with Major-General Richard Urquhart (played by Sean Connery).
Courtroom dramas are usually always boiled down to two opposing counsel battling it out - rarely do we see others of the defence team on their feet in court. When we do, it is often for a plot device showing division within the defence team or, if there are multiple defendants, a device to show that the defendants wish to be distanced from each other. It is purely ease of story telling. I recently saw on TV an Australia cardinal giving live evidence from Rome to a Royal Commission and there was endless delays while the counsels sorted out if the correct documents were available for the witness, how they were labelled and in which folder they might be located. A true reflection of the mundane nature of court procedure but not riveting viewing. Similarly, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright purposely put in an upbeat sequence accompanied by exciting music of a policeman merely filling in forms for minor offenders in the film "Hot Fuzz" as a comment about police films only show exciting car chases and gun fights when in reality the majority of police work is paperwork.
Possibly the least thought out argument from hobnob53 is expressing surprise that each defendant could have their own defence counsel, or even two each. Hobnob53 seems to argue that it is much more 'logical' that all four defendants would have just one defence counsel. Any cursory examination of the actual Nuremberg Trials would show the error of this argument, particularly that of the main party leaders where each of the 24 defendants had their own main counsel (some had two main counsel) and there were up to 70 assisting counsels and clerks. I also like the theory of Cairo 5 that Janning refused to recognise the authority of the tribunal and had failed to arrange a defence counsel so that Rolfe was possibly a last minute appointment. This could be reflected in the ages of the actors - Schell being a very youthful looking 31 year old at the time of release of the film, whereas the other defence counsels look to be older "grey-haired" types and Widmark, playing the prosecutor, is a more sagacious looking 47 year old. Rather than just one defence counsel representing all four defendants, it gels with historical reality that each defendant would have at least one main counsel. Further, the film may even be suggesting that Rolfe was a young, last minute ring-in and therefore certainly not likely to have been chosen by the four experienced jurists in the dock as their only counsel.
It is left to the viewer to understand that there is more going on in this lengthy, complicated and involved eight months trial than just the small snippet shown by the filmmakers, who have chosen to focus on the main defendant and his counsel. Otherwise, to follow hobnob53's logic, because we see two translators speaking on screen only at the start of the film, are we to assume that these are the only two individuals involved in translation for the entire eight months of the trial? (or, if you want to get more bizarre, as we only see them in the opening but never actually see them again, do we assume no human translation occurs after the opening statements and, for the rest of the trial, everyone is using some magic babelfish headphones?). I don't recall anyone ever using a toilet in the film so, by hobnob53's logic, there are none in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. Well, I visited this important site in December 2015 and spent over four hours absorbing the historical information there and can confirm by direct testimony, despite what you did or didn't see in the film "Judgement at Nuremberg", there are definitely toilets in the building!
reply
share
!!!deleted!!! (50578328)
8 years ago
It was entirely self-evident that the four judges were independently represented. I enjoyed reading your post, but feel saddened that such users as hobnob53 made it necessary for you to write it.
He has been very quiet lately, hasn't he?
reply
share