Nuremberg (2000)

I'm a graduate student doing my thesis on the Nuremberg Trials and so for the past few months I've been immersed in the transcripts, diaries and all the different interpretations of the Trials. I think that the documentary is actually a very good representation of what happened. The most striking aspect of it was the visual side of things. The locations were perfect, with the reconstruction of a bombed-out Nuremberg as well as the courtroom being absolutely perfect. As well as this, the actors playing the defendants looked remarkably similar to their real life characters and had clearly studied their mannerisms and facial tics. Streicher's excessive chewing, Jodl's upright posture and Hess' craziness were all really well represented- attention to detail was clearly a priority in the casting. I am prepared to put aside minor artistic licenses they took with the plot- not giving the minor characters many lines (although I think they did well to introduce them all at one point). I think they did well to include most of the 'highlights' of the trial (the trial itself was mostly a dull affair, partly due to Jackson's insistence on using documentary evidence, as was touched upon in the film), whilst at the same time staying very faithful to what happened in the courtroom. The differing tales of how they all ended up in the dock (Frank being roughed up by the Soviets, Goering and Speer coming from relative opulence in the American Zone) are well represented, as are some of the challenges concerned with the trial. For me, what carries this performance is both the brilliant cinematography and attention to detail, as well as the performance of Brian Cox and Hermann Goring. He conveyed his personality, from his playful humour to his shocking lack of regret brilliantly and really mastered his character in a way which is very rare to see. Honorable mentions also to Sam Stone (as Streicher), Roc LaFortune (as Hess), Colm Feore (as Rudolf Hoss, whose testimony was brilliantly chilling) and also to Christopher Plummer, who really captured the dry wit and legal mastery of Maxwell-Fyfe.However despite it being mostly excellent, there are a few problems I had with the film: 1) The romantic sup-plot between Jackson and his secretary Elsie Douglas was ridiculous. Not only was it patently unture, it added nothing to the plot. There are so many more interesting avenues that could have been explored within the US prosecution case (eg the fact that many of them were not on speaking terms due to disagreements about the merits of documentary vs witness evidence).2) The film totally overplayed and built up Robert Jackson. In reality, his cross-examination of Goering was seen to have been a total flop. Although he did pick it up by the end, it didn't redeem what was a really poor performance; probably because Jackson was actually a Supreme Court judge and had little experience of it. It was felt to David Maxwell-Fyfe to rescue the prosecution case with one of the best cross-examinations in history, something that wasn't really mentioned in the film. Jackson was well aware he'd made a mess of it and was in an awful mood for the rest of the Trials, frequently quarrelling with the Tribunal. His opening and closing statements were very good though. On a physical level, Jackson was a short, bespetacled man, not an Alec Baldwin type at all!! 3)The film also made the Soviets look like idiots, which really wasn't the case in reality. While the Soviet judge took occasional orders from Moscow (such as the dissenting judgement), during the trial and the London Conference he was actually pretty fair and reasonable. The Soviet prosecutors were also competent and did a good job. And there are some things left out which I think were worthy of inclusion: 1) The case of Karl Doenitz. This was a very interesting case, in which it was established that Doenitz behaved no differently to the American or British admiralties, however still broke the law. This was a very interesting case which raised all kinds of moral issues about 'victor's justice' and would have been interesting to bring up.2) There were actually some fairly humorous elements in what was a fairly slow-moving trial which could have been good to include instead of the romantic strand. An example was the arrival of a Russian government member, who at a meeting with the judges proposed a toast to the 'speedy death of all the defendants'. The judges toasted without hearing the translation and were pretty annoyed afterwards! A fairly cruel joke that could have been quite funny if put on the screen. Also, there was the comic scene of Hess sitting through a hearing on whether he was fit to stand trial or not (after he'd been claiming to have amnesia for weeks). Just as the judge was about to deliver the verdict (and probably call him insane), Hess rose and declared himself sane and says he was putting it on all the time. The court collapsed in laughter with no-one sure what to say. I feel this could have been included, whilst still leaving ambiguity about whether he was putting it on or not.3) I was surprised more wasn't made of the process of actually coming to a judgement. There was some very interesting compromises and trade offs made behind the scenes which could have been worth inclusion. It would certainly have explained the inconsistencies such as Sauckel being sentenced to death, whereas Speer had his life spared. Also, the fact that the Soviet judge dissented from a few of the judgements could have been highlighted.On the whole it was excellent and the most accurate portrayal of Nuremberg I've ever seen, but I can't help thinking with a few tweaks it could have been a true classic.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.I'm very angry.

Apparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...

"Second Nature" is the kind of movie that makes me long for the great motion pictures of the past 50 years. Allow me to be as redundant about this movie. "Second Nature" is a really badly written and badly made movie. I say this with over a thousand motion pictures on my shelf as a collector and "movie buff" for the last 50 years. I know of which I speak. If you have two hours to waste, do some exercises or volunteer to help someone who needs help, but don't waste your two hours including commercials, watching what is a really bad movie. Fortunately, I recorded it and watched it twice to make sure before I wrote this, and then regretted the waste of all that time.Alec Baldwin is a better actor than one who had to do a script like this. He must have made someone very angry in the motion picture business. A line from "Tootsie" is applicable here when Sidney Pollack as Dustin Hoffman's agent says to Hoffman, as Michael Dorsey, "No one will hire you, you're too much trouble,..." Has Alec Baldwin become too much trouble? If not, I can't understand why he's not doing better scripts and making better motion pictures. In the first picture I saw him featured in, "The Hunt For Red October," I saw a very good, new actor. His not making the second Tom Clancy motion picture, "Patriot Games," secured Harrison Ford's position as ‘the' major actor born after 1940. I hope Baldwin was paid well for this abysmal remake of all the so called adventure films made for TV recently. I hope Mr. Baldwin understands I'm not trying to only be critical of him, but would like to see him in good movie or better, good motion picture. I'm awaiting the arrival of "Nuremberg" and hoping it's a better work than "Second Nature." I hope Mr. Baldwin shares this with his present agent.