Judgment at Nuremberg posed many questions and delved into numerous themes, constantly reminding viewers of the incredible amounts of gray a world that attempts to define itself in terms of black and white.
One of the foremost areas of question is the usage of nationalism as justification. One’s country is, in perspective, an accident of birth. So how far should allegiance go? For me, nationalistic pride is tied to the values that one’s country stands for. To betray those values for the sake of nationalism is to undermine its very source.
Another topic is the question of will. Three of the four men on the dock clearly embraced Nazi ideology. But the fourth, Ernst Janning, was a much more reluctant and tragic figure, representing those who lacked the will to fight evil, who ultimately shared the same guilt as those who embraced it. Many attempt to paint those who do evil as monsters, inhuman in the true sense of the world. But this is a façade that covers the true reality of the fallibility of human beings. Judge Hayward himself stated, “under the stress of a national crisis, men – even able and extraordinary men – can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination.” Oftentimes individuals label these acts as inhuman because they are afraid of the implications if they are not; that all have the potential to commit such horrors. I felt this point was further illuminated by the usage of compare shots. Scenes that followed one another would often be tied together by some common element, such as tea being poured or a pounding noise. In a similar fashion, contrast shots were also used, with heightened emotional courtroom scenes being cut to party scenes taking place in the evening. These two techniques helped show how different the ordinary is from the extreme, while hinting that the two are linked.
The question of guilt and responsibility is another crucial topic the film addresses. The defense argues that prosecuting the defendants essentially condemns the world. But such a claim is not so absurd. It is true that many German citizens were complacent and chose to ignore the situation rather than confront it. The same can be said of many countries. Many instances are recorded of news of Nazi atrocities being ignored, where world leaders chose not to believe that such actions could be occurring. Furthermore, a deeper guilt could also be implied. If the Nazi rise to power was facilitated by the conditions of hardship found in Germany at the time, guilt could be laid upon the victors of WWI, who chose to humiliate Germany through strict measures that robbed it of national dignity and economic supremacy.
“But to be logical is not to be right”. I was struck by this quote, because it mirrors something I have long thought an important point. Many argue under the presumption that fairness is the basis of moral decisions. But fairness does not equate with “rightness”. Machiavellian measures may be fair, but not moral. In the same vein, such measures may be logical, but again, lack morality.
I was also amazed by the actors who participated in the film. I personally felt that the acting was some of the best I have ever had the privilege to witness. In many instances, the movie felt more like a piece of theater than a film, relying almost entirely on the actors themselves to bring emotion to light. The best technical evidence for this is the lack of music during the trial scenes. Instead, the actors’ performances are allowed to stand completely independently.
The usage of actual wartime footage from the liberation of concentration camps was also particularly novel for the time, especially considering their graphic nature. I myself immediately recognized one scene of a woman’s body being tossed into a pit as one that can be found on the Holocaust Museum’s online film archive. The recognition was jarring and highlighted that the movie is based in reality.
However, I also feel obliged to point out that while the movie did an excellent job of displaying many perspectives on this difficult period in history, the film did not escape without hints of bias. While the majority case at the conclusion of the movie was presented in full, the dissenting opinion was cut off, indicating a favorability to the former opinion as opposed to the latter.