"Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

Everyone knows about the Nuremberg trials, which held hearings Nazi criminals. All too aware of the atrocities that have opened around the world at the hearing. Many processes. So many names. Millions of scribbled sheets. Rummaged many cases. Some processes have been more ambitious, while others - less. However, if and to look globally, and more closely at these hearings, you still come to mind are the same questions. How? Why? What happened to the humanity of man?
It is on these issues makes us think about the film "Judgment at Nuremberg." He does not give any answers. Decision should be made by ourselves. After all, in fact, the audience also participants in this process. Although they can not influence the course of the hearing, but the final decision about what lessons have been learned, the audience accept it. And it's a beautiful course directed by Stanley Kramer.
In the hall there were a lot of people. And everyone has their own truth, which he is ready to defend. A truth and a judge, who must decide. The decision on the question not only of this particular case, but also the conscience and honor of Germany. Let not the world, at least for myself. And hearing begins. And what happens next is simply mesmerizing. Here stands a fiery speech the public prosecutor, played by Richard Widmark. And from the first minutes it is clear that this man saw the war, he has a clear vision and its position, he is ready to defend. Here arises the lawyer played by Maximilian Schell. A role he played just brilliant. One of the best lawyers in the history of cinema. Watching his performance, I experienced true pleasure. Here in the dock sat the former judge Ernst Yaning by Burt Lancaster. He was silent most of the time. However, the way he acts all the time and says his monologue. It's just well done. It should also be noted Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, who performed the role of the people, the fate of which had been broken by the Nazi regime. With their work, they coped well. And, of course, I have to say about the Heywood judge, played by Spencer Tracy. He is a man with his ideals, ready to go to the unpopular decision for the sake of justice. In fact the image of the viewer is partly similar to them, because we judge the whole movie get to the truth, trying to make its decision.
Speaking about actors, I can not say about the general atmosphere of the film. Most thrillers does not hold in this strain. While viewing is absolutely not want to be distracted by extraneous things. This is despite the fact that the film is 3:00. This time passes unnoticed
Claim that this film just makes you wonder -. This is to say nothing. This film is not only about crimes of fascism. This film is not only about the common responsibility of humanity for the large-scale crimes. This film is not only about humanism. This film virtually everything. And most importantly, this film is about justice. It is not given a specific definition, they say justice is so and not otherwise. The film just put the question before us. The question that is sometimes so small that it, and not make out, and sometimes so big that touches all mankind. And here a conclusion, we can only do it yourself. Judge Haywood announced the verdict, but even this is not important. He concluded that for themselves. now all the audience. And I responded to the call of this brilliant film, I will look for an answer to evaluate everything yourself. In any case, I have there is still a long way to the size of life. Now I can just put the film deserved
10 of 10
recommend to everyone. a film to be seen.

How to cite this essay: