I've seen the tv movie Nuremberg and thought it was great. Any of you seen it like to compare the two? They are basically the same, right?
shareAbout two different trials. "Judgment at Nuremberg" concerned the trial agaist members of the German judiciary. "Nuremberg" was about the military defendants. The characters are totally different.
shareI saw it. It was an ok movie but it's a typical Tv movie with actors from TV though I did like Brian Cox's performance. It also has a little "romance" between Justice Jackson and his secretary. I'd say it's worth your time but Judgement at Nuremberg is the best movie on the Nuremberg trials [IM0].
"Call it. It's a quater!"share
Similar quality, but Judgment at Nuremberg should get credit for being first, as well as finding drama in trials not as big as Goring and Ribbentrop's.
shareNot remotely. The TV movie is nothing compared to this masterpiece. The subject matter is less dramatic, the characters less defined and sympathetic, the performances not remotely on the same level, and the writing and direction not even comparable.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
I haven't seen the TV movie Nuremberg since it first aired but it does have some interesting aspects to it. Most importantly the performance of Brian Cox as Hermann Goering where the film attempts to flesh out his character somewhat is worth noting but it doesn't compare to this powerhouse of Judgement at Nuremberg...Also this film is based upon Abby Mann's skifful dramatic adaptation of his play and explores the concept of the Judges accountability during the war years.. In Nuremberg - its a forgone conclusion that the all of the military and political bigwigs were going to hang and they are portrayed as caricutures except for the colorful Goering.
shareOf course its a forgone conclusion. Nuremberg 2000 was an attempt at showing the real IMT trials. Judgment in Nuremberg was fiction which happened to borrow the idea of the 3rd NMT trial and so the potential for character development and drama was greater.
shareActually the Latter Version was better, I thought. The second One had the Big Names in the War Crimes Trial, and, the 61' Version had the lower Tier Criminals if You will.
shareJudgment at Nuremberg, no doubt about it.
Nuremberg was a good TV movie/miniseries, don't get me wrong about that. I thought Baldwin and Cox were terrific.
But Judgment at Nuremberg not only had Spencer Tracy and Maximilian Schell, but it was also more quietly horrifying. One scene that will always stand out is when Hahn (Werner Klemperer) denies that so many people could have been murdered in the gas chambers, when another of the defendents (can't think of his name) very matter-of-factly explains how it could have been done. Just a normal conversation. Amazing.
While i think Judgement at Nuremberg is great movie in term of acting, directing and writing. I Prefer the 2000 version. I like my movies to have some Historical Accuracy in them. Its the Same Reason i prefer "A Night to Remember" over James Cameron's Titanic. I Also Perfer the "300 Spartains" over that stupid "300" movie. Frankly i think the 2000 version gave greater insight as to what was going on and the inter working of the trail itself. Also i dont think of Alec Baldwin, Brian Cox, and Christopher Plummer as "TV Actors". Ill give you that Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Maximilian Schell (R.I.P), Judy Garland all did great jobs in there roles. But i just find the more detailed version more interesting. Frankly i never understood why this wan't about the First SS Trail in the first place.
shareWell, when Judgment at Nuremberg was made, a film about the 1945-46 proceedings at Nuremberg (against the Major German War Criminals) would have been if not completely, at least somewhat unnecessary. The war and “Nuremberg 1” so to speak were still very much with us then, through films and footage produced contemporary to or not long after the actual events, ca 1949 or so, perhaps a bit earlier. (A careful examination of youtube might turn up at least one of these, which was made in 1950.) Other documentaries – though they were less about the IMT specifically perhaps and more about the war in a general sense – were also produced. The major German war crimes trials – and I don’t mean to be flippant or facetious in saying this – were just something folks knew about in one or another way; and if they didn’t know yet, they would.
Then too, Adolf Eichmann was very much in the news at the time Judgment at Nuremberg was released, which only I think served to bring “Nuremberg 1” that much closer to the surface of public consciousness generally.
Rod Serling even contributed to that, actually. His Twilight Zone episode “Death’s-Head Revisited” aired about 5 weeks before Judgment at Nuremberg premiered in Berlin.
As the Burkett character implies near the beginning of the film, the Third Tribunal is more or less the redheaded stepchild among the early tribunals – the “big judgments” had already come down and the public at large didn’t care much what became of these Nazi judges.
Now admittedly, there’s no “historical” proof (that I'm aware of, anyway) that any such implication was ever stated, but in a nutshell might explain why Judgment at Nuremberg, about the Third Nuremberg Tribunal, had to be made.
That’s my nickel’s worth, anyway.
It’s interesting I think to consider Max Schell’s performance in this film. To prepare for it, he is said to have read the entire 40 volume set of published proceedings. (They’re not thin books, either.)