Judgement at nuremberg analysis. Film Analysis Of The Film Judgment At Nuremberg 2022-11-08
Judgement at nuremberg analysis Rating:
Judgment at Nuremberg is a film that was released in 1961 and is based on the real-life trials of high-ranking Nazi officials in the aftermath of World War II. The film centers around four judges who are on trial for their involvement in issuing illegal orders and committing war crimes during the Holocaust.
The film is a powerful and thought-provoking examination of the nature of justice and the difficult moral choices that must be made in the aftermath of war. It raises important questions about the role of laws and institutions in holding individuals accountable for their actions, and the extent to which those who were simply following orders should be held responsible for their actions.
One of the most striking aspects of the film is its depiction of the defendants, who are portrayed as ordinary men who were caught up in the political and social upheaval of the time. Despite the horrific crimes that they are accused of committing, the film humanizes the defendants by showing their vulnerability and their struggles to come to terms with their actions.
The film also explores the role of the judges in the trial, and the challenges that they faced in trying to uphold the principles of justice in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. The judges are torn between their duty to uphold the law and their desire to see justice served, and must grapple with the difficult question of whether or not it is possible to hold the defendants accountable for their actions without undermining the foundations of the legal system.
Overall, Judgment at Nuremberg is a poignant and thought-provoking film that provides a powerful commentary on the nature of justice and the role of the legal system in holding individuals accountable for their actions. It is a powerful reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of justice, even in the face of great evil, and serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blindly following orders and the importance of personal responsibility.
Judgement At Nuremberg Movie Analysis
One way to understand it is through the previously studied natural law position, which alleges that law must have a necessary basic core to be perfectly understood as law. But his speech for all its force has nothing to do with the defendants and the charges against them. Perhaps it is most brave in its determination to take an absolutely clear stand concerning the guilt of the men on trial. Are we not to find Russia guilty? Moreover, as Smith shows, the judges at Nuremberg were not entirely able to rise above their prejudices and social values. The possibility that the woman might have an equally high duty to herself and to her marriage is, in this one phrase, completely dismissed. In the scene outside of courtroom, namely at the lobby of Grand Hotel, Haywood confesses his confusion to Mrs.
This time, the four main judges took turns reading out the verdicts. Did they not hear the words Hitler broadcast all over the world? Then, as now, middle-class judges tended toward leniency in cases that resembled white collar crime. Through my narrative discovery, background on the time period, summary and analysis of the film, and contemporary responses to the film I will explain how these stereotypes came about in film at the time Art, Ethics, Morality, And Cultural Values Of Art Art is subjective and everyone has a different perspective on different works of art. Contemporary audiences may view these films through a cynical lens and sneer at their earnestness, but at the time, they were incredibly bold, and Kramer was one of the few Hollywood filmmakers that regularly rattled the status quo. As the film ends and we last see Spencer Tracy, he is walking through the long, grated corridor of the prison in which the trials had been held.
This is the most important question. The most apparent connection would obviously be the books because the plot lines are continuous and intertwine. He pointed out that the defendants at the trials had the right to chose their own lawyers. There was sometimes also a lack of consistency in the verdicts at Nuremberg: Streicher was hanged for what he advocated rather than for what he actually did during the war. This caused many embarrassments to the victors during the trial.
The background is this: Before the war, an orphaned sixteen-year-old German girl had been looked after by a long-time friend of her family, a sixty-year-old Jewish man. Include social, political, international concerns, attitudes and events. Though the United States and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Nuremberg Charter, both countries seemed to ignore many of the standards of the Charter in subsequent years. Janning but also represents the German public conceptions of National Socialist Party. As scholars of the phenomenon of genocide like Raul Hilberg pointed out, the judges at Nuremberg failed to recognize the extermination of European Jews as a crime sui generis. And so things went down the line.
Though they took no direct part in the atrocities, their decisions freed others to commit offenses against humanity that stand as bold reminders of wartime excesses. Boston Massacre: Leading Up To The American Revolution 1029 Words 5 Pages The next trial was for the British soldiers, their trial did not start till November 27th and ended up lasting till December 5th. In the dialogues with Haywood, Mrs. But the connections here are meaningless. She knew that the nazis had a choice they could either be brutal or kind.
Most movies escape any such easy classification, of course. But the characters fail even to fulfill these clichés. The conduct of the defendants during the trial was also taken into consideration by the judges. Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, and Julius Streicher were all met with those same three words. So for those who are seeking the happiness and entertainment, this movie is not recommended. But for all the debating points that are exchanged, there is little doubt from the very beginning as to how the trial will come out, and it requires an effort to go along with the pretense that Spencer Tracy, despite his anguished wrinkles, is really keeping an open mind.
Many men who were put on trial claimed that they were just obeying orders. He was later captured in Argentina by the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, and tried and hanged in Israel in 1962. Halfway through the film, long before he decides to relent, the prosecutor asks to be sworn in as a witness and proceeds to darken the courtroom so that he can show films taken in the death camps on the day they were liberated. From Selma to Montgomery: The Long March to Freedom. Of course, the trial was botched and imperfect…it had to deal with new crimes for which there was no provision in national law or international law. In less than a decade, The Nazi Party murdered well over 6,000,000 Jews.
‘Judgment at Nuremberg’ Shows the Cost of Not Caring
After the Nuremberg trials, almost 70,000 Nazis and their accomplices were tried in Germany and other countries for wartime actions. The patients did not offer informed consent and were lied to by the. Benjamin has the lead role in this movie. Albert Speer received 20 years, and Konstantin von Neurath 15. Meanwhile, Garland was so happy to be working in a motion picture again after seven years away that it took her a while to get into the proper frame of mind to break down and cry.
And the Nuremberg principles have served as an important foundation for international criminal tribunals for But concerns about violating state sovereignty, which were reflected prominently in the Nuremberg judgment, continue to this day. He was denazified in absentia in 1952. Smith effectively argues that the American staff did not immediately recognize the central importance of systematic enslavement, deportation, and genocide that was included under the third count. The last date is today's date — the date you are citing the material. Next came Ernst von Kaltenbrunner, the only SS man in the dock, whom the Tribunal found guilty on Counts Three and Four.