Interesting and well-written. I have a friend who uses "Judgment At Nuremberg" in her modern Europe classes to illustrate many of the very points you have made here.
I do have a personal observation to make though. I am an American born in 1959 so obviously I have no personal experience of these things. However I have a large extended family in Belgium with whom I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. As you might surmise the parental generation experienced the War and the Occupation for five long years, before the Liberation. And of course, at the time, no one could predict whether the Occupation would last for five years, fifty years or five hundred years.
So people went to their jobs, because they had families. There were seven brothers and sisters in the parental generation, and they had to eat, which meant that the grandfather--a retired Belgian infantry officer who had commanded an infantry regiment in WW1--had to work, and--inexorably--do business with the Occupier.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? To be clear, I think that a senior leader like a judge owes more than, e.g. a shopkeeper. But...we have seen how this goes in the former socialist-bloc countries of central Europe, which were, in fact, under Soviet occupation for nearly fifty years. After the fall of the Wall, a reckoning came due, and the question became, how do you deal with an entire nation who collaborated with a murderous regime, albeit under force majeure?
In central Europe, many of the countries involved eschewed a judicial process in favor of some variant of "Truth and Reconciliation." Notably, in many cases there were public releases of personal dossiers that were made publicly available. This allowed each person to judge those they knew and be judged by them in turn.
In her book "The Haunted Lands," Tina Rosenberg meditates on the difference between these countries and places in which the legitimate government has been overthrown, and concludes that it is far harder to make out a case against people who comply in the former than the latter. "I was only following orders" may seem like a nonsensical defense to us, but...we've never been occupied by a foreign power.
Or at least, not since we threw the British out in the late 1700s. One can only imagine how the leaders of the Revolution would have been treated had the British won the Revolutionary War.
My larger point being, you are correct in what you say about Judgment At Nuremberg. But you should bear in mind that even its seemingly fair treatment and mature invitation to the audience to make up its own mind is heavily weighted by the planted axioms embedded by the filmmakers.
Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts and the additional context. If I suggested in my essay that I would have joined the "off with their heads" crowd with respect to men like Janning, that was not my intention. I am very sympathetic to the argument that people do what they have to do in these situations and that it's very easy to say they should have been willing to go to jail or be executed rather than work for the Nazis... it is a much different thing to have to make that choice, as I tried to point out in the piece.
Where do I draw the line? I dunno, and I certainly hope I never have to decide, but I agree with Judge Haywood's decision and I agree with his final word to Janning, "Herr Janning... it came to that the moment you sentenced a man to death who you knew to be innocent."
Didn't mean to suggest that...if I'd actually thought that I'd have been more direct! :-) But my experience is that most folks in this country have something of a blind spot for the issues involved, for all the reasons you mention.
And I agree with where the line should be drawn with Janning. But by the same token it's a lot easier with a bright-line moment than the slow but steady erosion of moral values that inexorably occurs in these circumstances for most--not all--normal people.
Totally agree, and I think that's what Haywood was getting at. The Feldenstein Case wasn't Janning's first... he had likely embraced many other smaller moral compromises before Feldenstein fell on his desk.
I think a major problem that hasn’t been addressed is that we used to treat adults like adults and children like they are smart enough to understand complex concepts. Today we treat adults like children who need everything spelled out and kids like drooling morons who can’t comprehend even the most basic ideas.
...unless we're pretending children are the ultimate authorities on global warming/cooling, eco-enviro-absolutism, which two-spirit unicorn identity they want to chemically and surgically alter their bodies to resemble, the existence of God, the superiority of Che Guevara and his ilk, and a host of other topics the complexities of which require more than one or two decades of experience living on this planet to start to be able to begin to comprehend.
Hello! Found you via an Instapundit link. Great essay although I am forced to admit I've not seen either film discussed. But it brought back a memory of a film that I have seen that is also one that trusts the audience (although its been years and my memory may be faulty) - Breaker Morant. A very good film if my memory serves me right that involves some morality that, in the end, doesn't matter.
Hey there, thanks, and I'm glad you found me. There are something like a hundred essays here and a lot of them focus on analysis of particularly great films... here's hoping they inspire you to check out some of my faves, including Nuremberg!
Breaker Morant is a good one. I haven't written about that one, but I've written about some other similar movies... "Absence Of Malice" for one.
Excellent juxtaposition. “Judgement” was and is an eternal masterpiece. “Conclave” was an insult, a lavish and beautifully filmed, but an insult nonetheless.
Your Excellency, once again a very thoughtful essay. "Judgment at Nuremberg" is one of my favorite kind of movie. Every time you watch, something new to see. And kudos to your audience for the intelligent comments. Take care.
The American judge most frequently identified with Judge Hayward actually presided over the later, longer and more fraught Ministries trial, in which the 21 defendants ranged from the Secretary of State to high SS officials to the Minister of Agriculture. The process lasted into 1949; it spanned the Berlin blockade and the American airlift; it drew down public criticism from Senator McCarthy as well as from the German public, and most of the sentences it pronounced were later curtailed or suspended by the US High Commissioner. The movie is certainly a landmark in American filmmaking for all the reasons suggested here, but the actual circumstances were infinitely more complicated than any film could address.
I thought the acting in Judgement at Nuremberg was stiff and the film overly long but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it and you’ve convinced me to give it another try. Someone said all good teachers teach the same subject: how to think, not what to think. Too many films teach us the latter. I think particularly of a 2008 Israeli film called “Brothers” (in English) which fairly and honestly portrays the secular-religious divide in Israel through the eyes of a single set of brothers - right up until the end when the filmmaker chose a side. Instead of a work of art I left the theater feeling I’d been forced to watch a polemic. To say the least, it was disappointing.
I don't mind so much when a filmmaker chooses a side, I just don't want them to do it at the very beginning. Kramer definitely chose a side at the end of Nuremberg... if you remember the last thing Haywood says to Janning, you know what I mean.
Anyway, thanks for reading... thrilled to have you aboard.
Take a glance at the 2024 take on the homecoming of Odysseus: The Return. Ralph Fiennes plays the reluctant hero, unsure of what he will find, and unsure if he does want to return. The final scenes are much more nuanced than the ones given us by Homer and does require the thoughts of all sides (three, perhaps four), most modern productions lack.
“as with much of Hollywood’s output these days, it is a movie which does not trust its audience and spoon-feeds its moral lessons in order to make sure we learn the correct ones.”
That’s the rub right there; filmmakers in 1961 (when “Judgement at Nuremberg” was released) trusted their audience. Today filmmakers do not; whether it’s their own insecurity or that of the money managers you must come away from a film with the “approved” conclusions & the film itself must include the “correct” messages & include the “proper” characters (certain # of blacks, gays, women, etc.) . Unfortunately the industry @ large has sunk to a level of cinema in normally relegated to totalitarian societies - such as in Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia - where the story is secondary to the “approved” overall message. This is unsustainable over the long term & will only further the collapse of the industry. People won’t pay to be lectured to moreover that type of filmmaking is predictable, droll, & inherently boring.
Hollywood can only save itself by gutting itself & starting over.
I was about to comment something similar. Hollywood is dying. YouTube is now the most streamed platform in the US. People just want to be entertained and they can find non political entertainment on YouTube
Yeah Hollywood is definitely suffering from an increase in the number of competitors, but YouTube is a very different experience than going to a movie and I believe the desire to go to the movies is still out there. Sinners proved that, if nothing else.
When a stellar, stand out writer such as David Mamet is effectively banished from the industry because of his independence of thought you know you’re on totalitarian ground.
the younger people generating the story ideas have grown up in an era when the worst thing you can do is to "platform" wrong think. So obviously you cannot produce a story where a Conservative Catholic is allowed to make a persuasive argument against recognizing homosexuality in the Church, because someone out there might say "hey, you know, he's right", and then you, the creator, would be as guilty as the bigot.
similar to what's happening in the news media where you cannot report on a story that reflects badly on a Democrat or your colleagues and viewers will label you the one who got the bad guys elected.
An excellent article that I thoroughly enjoyed. I havent watched Judgment in years. Time to do so again.
Several decades back I taught a college course called something like Communications and politics. We discussed several types of things that I claimed had political messenging, including movies.
I showed the the move Meet John Doe, to demonstrate that movies could be quite political even in the 1930s. <Of course we discussed Birth of a Nation, but I didnt show it.>
They quickly recognized that everything we said about movies, tv, big business, etc in the 1990s clearly existed in the 1930s of movies.
They enjoyed the course, but in this instance what the young females in the class learned evidently was that Gary Cooper was really dreamy.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
Interesting and well-written. I have a friend who uses "Judgment At Nuremberg" in her modern Europe classes to illustrate many of the very points you have made here.
I do have a personal observation to make though. I am an American born in 1959 so obviously I have no personal experience of these things. However I have a large extended family in Belgium with whom I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. As you might surmise the parental generation experienced the War and the Occupation for five long years, before the Liberation. And of course, at the time, no one could predict whether the Occupation would last for five years, fifty years or five hundred years.
So people went to their jobs, because they had families. There were seven brothers and sisters in the parental generation, and they had to eat, which meant that the grandfather--a retired Belgian infantry officer who had commanded an infantry regiment in WW1--had to work, and--inexorably--do business with the Occupier.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? To be clear, I think that a senior leader like a judge owes more than, e.g. a shopkeeper. But...we have seen how this goes in the former socialist-bloc countries of central Europe, which were, in fact, under Soviet occupation for nearly fifty years. After the fall of the Wall, a reckoning came due, and the question became, how do you deal with an entire nation who collaborated with a murderous regime, albeit under force majeure?
In central Europe, many of the countries involved eschewed a judicial process in favor of some variant of "Truth and Reconciliation." Notably, in many cases there were public releases of personal dossiers that were made publicly available. This allowed each person to judge those they knew and be judged by them in turn.
In her book "The Haunted Lands," Tina Rosenberg meditates on the difference between these countries and places in which the legitimate government has been overthrown, and concludes that it is far harder to make out a case against people who comply in the former than the latter. "I was only following orders" may seem like a nonsensical defense to us, but...we've never been occupied by a foreign power.
Or at least, not since we threw the British out in the late 1700s. One can only imagine how the leaders of the Revolution would have been treated had the British won the Revolutionary War.
My larger point being, you are correct in what you say about Judgment At Nuremberg. But you should bear in mind that even its seemingly fair treatment and mature invitation to the audience to make up its own mind is heavily weighted by the planted axioms embedded by the filmmakers.
Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts and the additional context. If I suggested in my essay that I would have joined the "off with their heads" crowd with respect to men like Janning, that was not my intention. I am very sympathetic to the argument that people do what they have to do in these situations and that it's very easy to say they should have been willing to go to jail or be executed rather than work for the Nazis... it is a much different thing to have to make that choice, as I tried to point out in the piece.
Where do I draw the line? I dunno, and I certainly hope I never have to decide, but I agree with Judge Haywood's decision and I agree with his final word to Janning, "Herr Janning... it came to that the moment you sentenced a man to death who you knew to be innocent."
Didn't mean to suggest that...if I'd actually thought that I'd have been more direct! :-) But my experience is that most folks in this country have something of a blind spot for the issues involved, for all the reasons you mention.
And I agree with where the line should be drawn with Janning. But by the same token it's a lot easier with a bright-line moment than the slow but steady erosion of moral values that inexorably occurs in these circumstances for most--not all--normal people.
Totally agree, and I think that's what Haywood was getting at. The Feldenstein Case wasn't Janning's first... he had likely embraced many other smaller moral compromises before Feldenstein fell on his desk.
I think a major problem that hasn’t been addressed is that we used to treat adults like adults and children like they are smart enough to understand complex concepts. Today we treat adults like children who need everything spelled out and kids like drooling morons who can’t comprehend even the most basic ideas.
...unless we're pretending children are the ultimate authorities on global warming/cooling, eco-enviro-absolutism, which two-spirit unicorn identity they want to chemically and surgically alter their bodies to resemble, the existence of God, the superiority of Che Guevara and his ilk, and a host of other topics the complexities of which require more than one or two decades of experience living on this planet to start to be able to begin to comprehend.
Hello! Found you via an Instapundit link. Great essay although I am forced to admit I've not seen either film discussed. But it brought back a memory of a film that I have seen that is also one that trusts the audience (although its been years and my memory may be faulty) - Breaker Morant. A very good film if my memory serves me right that involves some morality that, in the end, doesn't matter.
Hey there, thanks, and I'm glad you found me. There are something like a hundred essays here and a lot of them focus on analysis of particularly great films... here's hoping they inspire you to check out some of my faves, including Nuremberg!
Breaker Morant is a good one. I haven't written about that one, but I've written about some other similar movies... "Absence Of Malice" for one.
Excellent juxtaposition. “Judgement” was and is an eternal masterpiece. “Conclave” was an insult, a lavish and beautifully filmed, but an insult nonetheless.
Thanks! Appreciate the kind words!
Your Excellency, once again a very thoughtful essay. "Judgment at Nuremberg" is one of my favorite kind of movie. Every time you watch, something new to see. And kudos to your audience for the intelligent comments. Take care.
Thanks! I have the smartest audience in the business…
The American judge most frequently identified with Judge Hayward actually presided over the later, longer and more fraught Ministries trial, in which the 21 defendants ranged from the Secretary of State to high SS officials to the Minister of Agriculture. The process lasted into 1949; it spanned the Berlin blockade and the American airlift; it drew down public criticism from Senator McCarthy as well as from the German public, and most of the sentences it pronounced were later curtailed or suspended by the US High Commissioner. The movie is certainly a landmark in American filmmaking for all the reasons suggested here, but the actual circumstances were infinitely more complicated than any film could address.
Yes a problem with every true (or loosely based on true) story put to film since men first picked up cameras.
I thought the acting in Judgement at Nuremberg was stiff and the film overly long but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it and you’ve convinced me to give it another try. Someone said all good teachers teach the same subject: how to think, not what to think. Too many films teach us the latter. I think particularly of a 2008 Israeli film called “Brothers” (in English) which fairly and honestly portrays the secular-religious divide in Israel through the eyes of a single set of brothers - right up until the end when the filmmaker chose a side. Instead of a work of art I left the theater feeling I’d been forced to watch a polemic. To say the least, it was disappointing.
I don't mind so much when a filmmaker chooses a side, I just don't want them to do it at the very beginning. Kramer definitely chose a side at the end of Nuremberg... if you remember the last thing Haywood says to Janning, you know what I mean.
Anyway, thanks for reading... thrilled to have you aboard.
Take a glance at the 2024 take on the homecoming of Odysseus: The Return. Ralph Fiennes plays the reluctant hero, unsure of what he will find, and unsure if he does want to return. The final scenes are much more nuanced than the ones given us by Homer and does require the thoughts of all sides (three, perhaps four), most modern productions lack.
Good tip, thanks! I remember thinking I wanted to see that and then, for whatever reason, I never got around to it.
So well said - thank you.
“as with much of Hollywood’s output these days, it is a movie which does not trust its audience and spoon-feeds its moral lessons in order to make sure we learn the correct ones.”
That’s the rub right there; filmmakers in 1961 (when “Judgement at Nuremberg” was released) trusted their audience. Today filmmakers do not; whether it’s their own insecurity or that of the money managers you must come away from a film with the “approved” conclusions & the film itself must include the “correct” messages & include the “proper” characters (certain # of blacks, gays, women, etc.) . Unfortunately the industry @ large has sunk to a level of cinema in normally relegated to totalitarian societies - such as in Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia - where the story is secondary to the “approved” overall message. This is unsustainable over the long term & will only further the collapse of the industry. People won’t pay to be lectured to moreover that type of filmmaking is predictable, droll, & inherently boring.
Hollywood can only save itself by gutting itself & starting over.
I was about to comment something similar. Hollywood is dying. YouTube is now the most streamed platform in the US. People just want to be entertained and they can find non political entertainment on YouTube
Yeah Hollywood is definitely suffering from an increase in the number of competitors, but YouTube is a very different experience than going to a movie and I believe the desire to go to the movies is still out there. Sinners proved that, if nothing else.
When a stellar, stand out writer such as David Mamet is effectively banished from the industry because of his independence of thought you know you’re on totalitarian ground.
the younger people generating the story ideas have grown up in an era when the worst thing you can do is to "platform" wrong think. So obviously you cannot produce a story where a Conservative Catholic is allowed to make a persuasive argument against recognizing homosexuality in the Church, because someone out there might say "hey, you know, he's right", and then you, the creator, would be as guilty as the bigot.
That’s why the industry is moribund. The PTB are incapable of doing what is necessary to right the sinking ship.
similar to what's happening in the news media where you cannot report on a story that reflects badly on a Democrat or your colleagues and viewers will label you the one who got the bad guys elected.
Just heard WGA are prepping for a 2026 strike? That should fill in the grave.
Watching the establishment media dying is actually pretty entertaining in & of itself; like Hollywood they’ve totally brought it on themselves.
An excellent article that I thoroughly enjoyed. I havent watched Judgment in years. Time to do so again.
Several decades back I taught a college course called something like Communications and politics. We discussed several types of things that I claimed had political messenging, including movies.
I showed the the move Meet John Doe, to demonstrate that movies could be quite political even in the 1930s. <Of course we discussed Birth of a Nation, but I didnt show it.>
They quickly recognized that everything we said about movies, tv, big business, etc in the 1990s clearly existed in the 1930s of movies.
They enjoyed the course, but in this instance what the young females in the class learned evidently was that Gary Cooper was really dreamy.
They're not wrong! Thanks for the kind words as always
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.
It’s interesting that you mention the “the “be this guy” meme”. There is an easy way to see who would really be that guy. How people act on the abortion issue. It’s a clear cut moral issue, with strong public pressure for the side of agreeing to kill innocent people. If you are not actively pro-life, you are not “that guy”.
And don’t waste my time with pro abortion arguments. Modern ultrasound has made it clear that those are human babies being killed.