Based on the post-WWII trials of Nazi officials, Judgment at Nuremberg features Spencer Tracy as the lead judge of the tribunal, one of the last roles of his career. The film is certainly a grand spectacle: the formal tribunal is brought to life by a group of skilled actors and accompanied by an epic soundtrack. The film is not exciting because of action sequences but tense because of a number of emotional monologues and confrontations between characters. Tracy’s performance is a highlight as he portrays Dan Haywood, a retired judge charged with deciding culpability among a group of justices who supported the Nazi regime.
Haywood faces a fundamental question that all jurists and rule-makers must ask themselves: what is wrong and what is right in each situation? Scenes from the tribunal show the brutal nature of World War II and Nazi concentration camps but Haywood’s conversations with regular Germans show that they are regular people with their own values. It quickly becomes apparent that not all of the defendants are identical and that they all made their choices for different reasons.
Some argued that the turnaround created by Hitler’s policies was worth the sacrifice of human lives. Others felt that it was important that they perform their duties in accordance with military tradition. A few based their support of Hitler on their aversion to Communism.
Did the judges know the ultimate outcome of their verdicts? How can one person judge another from an entirely different perspective who acted under extreme pressure? One of the defendants, Dr. Ernst Janning had a distinguished career and was considered to be the most skilled German jurist. However, he was now on trial for decisions made under Hitler’s rule that advanced the National Socialist regime.
The U.S. Army prosecutor had been working at the tribunal for two years; after reviewing the same brutal evidence over and over again, he had become very certain of his argument. The German lawyer assigned to the defendants used logical arguments and American legal history to make a compelling case. The primary defendant, played by Burt Lancaster retained his dignity throughout most of the proceedings but eventually exploded in a burst of emotion. Haywood won the respect of all parties by navigating through all of the evidence impartially and attempting to consider as many points of view as possible. ***