I watched this movie only a few hours ago and was highly impressed by it. The only thing I didn't like was Burt Lancaster's acting, I actually laughed out loud during his speach at the witness stand. The other actors were all outstanding though, especially Maximillian Schell.
shareI wouldn't say it was that bad. Compared to the other performances in this film, or in Lancaster's career, it was average. Everyone admits that. But keep in mind that he was a late choice for the role, originally intended for Lawrence Olivier. One can't help but wonder how the film would be with him in the part.
That said, the one thing I thought that did not go well was Montgomery Clift's "I've been half I've ever been" line. In a movie filled with extraordinary performances and in the core scene that rises at en even higher level, this cliche line does not fit the movie's overall tone. It's not something that Clift's character was likely to say, it appeared to have been intended as a tearjerker line.
Some people have said similar things about Janning's whole speech, but I disagree.
One thing I did find laughable was the American Colonel's "We're not cut out to be occupiers" line. But I saw that as the character's personal opinion, and not as a message, so dismissed it off.
Other than that, this is one of the best examples of cinema in my opinion.
Never be complete.
I disagree. I think he portrayed on the outside what was going on inside
his character. In spite of all his brilliant books and his ideology,
he sat there knowing FULL WELL that HE and the rest of those judges
were just as guilty as hitler and his demonic crew!
The resolution and disappointment to what he once was,
and what he had become was very prominent in his non-facial expressions, and his body language!
"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"
This is actually the only performance that I've seen by him that I felt was great, his speech was in my opinion the highlight of his whole career.
shareI thought his speech was the best speech of the whole film. Burt has always been underrated in my view, possibly because of his looks and build. Other great films of his are "Bird Man of Alcatraz," "Atlantic City," "Seven Days in May," and "The Swimmer."
I liked Judy Garland's speech in the film also. Clift made me uncomfortable; maybe that was the intent. I thought Widmark was just as good as Schell.
I saw The Swimmer last summer. It was an odd film, but I think it was deeper than a viewer realizes on first watching - I think I need to see it again.
shareI thought Burt was outstanding. But then I'm a big Burt Lancaster fan. The only thing laughable was your comment. His speech was forceful and dynamic. He was a little younger and better looking than one would normally think of as a Nazi general, but so what? Of course, a lot of people resent Burt because of his looks and build, but I have always considered him a truly great actor.
shareI watched this movie the first time two evenings ago, during a screening on TCM. Being born just after WWII, I grew up with some familiarity with the subject matter, but was not directly familiar with the trial of the judges.
To understand the film, it's necessary to understand the times it portrays. The war is over, the country is still in ruins, and the war crimes trials have ground on for some little while. The German public is already quite dismayed with the outcomes. Tracy is brought in as an apparent second- or third-string "quarterback", to finish things up.
In retrospect, Ernst Janning was still a very revered public figure in post-WWII Germany. Putting him on trial at that time was as disheartening to the German public, perhaps, as would be putting some present day American public figure like Reagan or Clinton or Bush, on trial. This reality is significantly brought out during the film, particularly as the blockade of Berlin emerges as a counter reality midway through the film.
One of the central themes of the story was the silence of the judges in the face of the rise of oppression. In this light, I found Burt Lancaster's silence during the most of the film to be a very powerful performance. He has been indicted, basically, for remaining silent while evil sprouted, grew and festered all about him. As the plot unfolds, Lancaster continues his silence, being most laconic with his speech. This is particularly emphatic as Schell implores him to rise in his own defense, to which Lancaster silently shakes his head. When he finally does speak, towards the end of his trial, his words are most compelling. His previous silence gives great emphasis to his final self-judgment, and drives home the central point of the movie. Without the counter-poise of his early silence, the impact of his final confession would be lost.
Overall, I feel that this is one of Lancaster's very best performances.
I disagree with some of the earlier comments regarding Lancaster in that his performance somehow being laughable? He was infact a very underrated actor and considering this was a major departure for him in that this was not a physical role and he was supposed to be portraying a man in his seventies or so-I think many viewers might be simply reacting to the makeup choice and his accent which are distractions but in no way diminish his power in his acting or his pivotal role in the film..I think you need to lighten up a bit and look at this not as pure escapism but as a portrayal of important historical events that have been dramatized for an important film for its time.
shareThe OP's a hater.
shareBurt Lancaster was magnificant in the film. The only thing laughable is your name.
shareAnd now, people are laughing at you. Isn't life odd sometimes?
As for Schell, you're right, of course.
Maybe the problem is that you're not aware of where this film is in the history of film. For quite a few years, some actors still held to the idea that film was really photographic theater. Guys like Spencer Tracy were ahead of their time in catching on early to the need to de-artificialize performances, bring everything down in manner and tone, understand that they weren't looking for stylized artifice aimed at an audience at a distance. Because of this, you had many films where there was a lot of unevenness in the performances, with actors falling all along that spectrum (from theatrical to filmic). Not every director caught it. Certainly this film has its share of unevenness in that regard.
Or maybe your objection is more to the fact that it's Lancaster in the part, with the German accent and all. Most likely, a serious filmmaker today would get a German actor to play the part, but that just wasn't done very much then. Audiences were used to suspending disbelief and participating in the production more than they are now. A lot more.
But none of the explains why you would think Lancaster's performance was "laughable."
Burt Lancaster was a terrific actor, one of the top ten of the 20th century. I think this performance in Judgement at Nuremburg is one of his best. His trademark was a big beautiful smile, but here he had to sit looking silent and glum most of the film. But this made his impassioned speech at the end so much the better. To call his performance "laughable" is just to expose yourself as a troll, searching for attention.
shareYeah, it does seem kind of like the stereotypical "let me say something totally counter to what most people think, make it really unmitigated and unbalanced, and encapsulate it in a contrarian statement in a subject line to provoke a reaction" thing you see all the time out here. But maybe I should've given the OP the benefit of the doubt, I dunno.
I do know that if you look at the standards and practices of the time (kind of a bad theatrical makeup job, a speech that had a little too much rhetorical flourish to it to be starkly realistic, etc.), the performance itself was just fine, perhaps (as some have said here) one of his best. That is, I think objections to the "performance" are mostly objections to the time. Within the constraints of the time, I'm wondering what's supposed to be bad about Lancaster's actual performance.
However, I will say that the OP's original post provoked a thought that is singularly unusual to a guy (me) who hates almost all remakes: This film might make for a great remake, with the "old film" and theatrical elements booted out. Same for Inherit the Wind, which obviously is very, very relevant to the current cultural and political environment (for that matter, so are some of the elements in Nuremberg).
Then, obviously you are not mature enough for this type of film. This was one of Mr. Lancaster's best roles, full of meat, and he chewed the role up completely.
share[deleted]
[deleted]