MovieChat Forums > Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Discussion > 9/10. Here's why:

9/10. Here's why:

posted 9 years ago by IMDB_Vits
9 replies | jump to latest

JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG is a 3-hour movie that's mostly about people talking, and yet, it kept me at the edge of my seat for the most part. The performances are good. Maximilian Schell's and Judy Garland's were the stand-outs for me, but I didn't like Burt Lancaster's. After watching the movie, I read that he couldn't remember his lines and director Stanley Kramer was so fed up that he asked him to just improvise. It makes sense. ROLFE says that showing the clips from concentration camps in the trial was a manipulation of emotions. Ummm... Isn't that what Kramer and script writer Abby Mann were trying to do to the audience? I'm not saying they shouldn't have shown them, but because of how long the scene was, and how much focus was in the actors' reacions... Well, isn't that a hypocrisy?

You can read comments of other movies at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.cl/2015/10/comments-round-up-september-2015.html

Any thoughts?

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

I don't think you know what 'hypocrisy' means because, no, that is not an example of hypocrisy.

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

Now that you've copied and pasted the definitions, hopefully you actually read them and understand how they wouldn't apply to Kramer and Mann, or wouldn't be example of them being hypocritical.

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

They showed clips to manipulate the audience and then had ROLFE say it's wrong to do that. How is that not hypocritical?

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

Rolfe is the defense attorney. Saying it's "wrong to do that" is HIS opinion (and he knows it hurts his defense). In order for it to be hypocritical, the filmmakers would have to agree with his opinion.

A character's opinion is not a reflection of the filmmaker's opinions.

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

A character's opinion is not a reflection of the filmmaker's opinions.

It can be, depending on the context. Here, they wouldn't have included that in the movie if they didn't know an attorney would say that in real life. If they knew that, they would know he was right.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 9 years ago

An opinion can't be "right." So no, they didn't know he was right. They didn't just include the parts that happened in real life that they agreed with. They included both sides of the argument because it is a courtroom drama and that's what happens in court - you hear both sides.

By your logic, Spielberg agreed with the Nazi's in Schindler's List since he included the anti-Semitic things they said in real life. No. It's included in the movie because that is what happened. Not because the filmmakers agreed with it.

[–] manage-932-700755 9 years ago

I thought all performances were outstanding, Clift and Garland had the showier performances, but I found Burt Lancaster's performance to be the best- the most riveting. Especially when he shouts "Enough" at Garland's testimony and cross examination, and his comment to Tracy at the end that he never knew the atrocities would become so great.

I had never heard that comment about Burt not remembering his lines. I've never heard that about Burt in any other mvies. In JAN he didn't have that many lines, but had one soliloquy that was quite long. Maybe he got bored with waiting around (lol). If Burt did improvise, he did pretty well.

[–] yunie1281 9 years ago

It seems completely different to me. The one is a very important court case where the fates of multiple people were decided. Hearing about crimes is one thing, knowing what happened. Actually seeing photographs or film is just so much more visceral and fictional lawyers (don't know about real ones) are always complaining it's prejudicial because it is very compelling and does tend to sway the jury against the defendant.

But what does showing the victims of the Holocaust hurting the chances of the men being tried for their participation have to do with people making a movie and trying to get the audience to feel something? It doesn't matter what kind of movie you're making or what kind of reaction you're going for, nobody is making a movie saying "And I don't care what the audience reaction is or hope that they have literally no reaction". This movie didn't have anyone killed or imprisoned.

Emotional manipulation can be defined as just impacting someone's emotions, particularly if it's intentional. And that can be a bad thing in some cases (political ads try to manipulate emotions by making people angry or scared or sad, for instance) but it doesn't have to be. It can be a bad thing if it's a court case and going to sway the jury. In a regular murder trial, the defendant could be completely innocent but if pictures of the crime scene are passed around then it's going to be emotionally manipulative and prejudicial and the poor defendant has a better chance of being found guilty just based on the emotion that was stirred up. Making a movie...entertainment, art...the whole point is to impact emotions. It's not hypocritical because it's a different thing entirely.

To say it's hypocritical to disapprove (if they even did because having a defense lawyer say something and a prosecutor say something else is a big leap to assuming how they really felt) of blatantly trying to use emotion to win a case instead of logic and facts so therefore ever intentionally using emotion for anything or trying to get anyone to feel anything...well it would render anyone who disapproves of emotional manipulation in court a hypocrite!

If they complained about emotional manipulation in court cases in this movie then were involved in a court case and proceeded to emotionally manipulate people all over the place then THAT would be hypocritical.