Nuremberg | Alec Baldwin, Brian Cox | "A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY"-Justice Robert Jackson

Nuremberg | Alec Baldwin, Brian Cox | Not a remake! Different trial!

DVDs:

Nuremberg

	Nuremberg Alec Baldwin, Brian Cox Turner Home Ent, 2001 average customer review:based on 41 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

"A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY"-Justice Robert Jackson

The Nuremberg Trials: Major War Figures Trial November 21, 1945

"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that CIVILIZATION cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it CANNOT SURVIVE THEIR BEING REPEATED. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."

That lengthy quote, part of an even lengthier speech, is mouthed verbatim by Mr. Justice Jackson (Alec Baldwin). What I love most about this film is its adherence to historical details about this first of thirteen trials in Nuremberg. The 21 defendants to this trial, named the Major War Figures Trial, are seated precisely in the order they were in during the original trial with Goering seated conspicuously in the corner. The Nazi defendant Kaltenbrunner's character, who was the friend who introduced the Nazi party to the infamous Adolph Eichmann (executed in Jerusalem in 1961), has the height, (he was 6'6") and scar on his left cheek. Indeed, the 21 defendants' personalities, behaviors, looks, are all effectively recreated in the cast who play them. Alec Baldwin is practically the only American on the cast. Most of the rest are Canadian. I believe Baldwin helped produce this TV miniseries which first appeared on TNT. Brian Cox, as others have noted, was fab as Goehring, playing him as the clever, cunning, and charming Reichsmarschall he was, who entertains naive U.S. soldiers and whose seeming lightheartedness to the whole affair presents problems to the prosecutors and military in charge of him. Eleven of the 21 defendants were sentenced to death, the rest given prison sentences. Goehring, the day before their executions on October 16, 1946, swallowed cyanide smuggled in probably by his American military guard. At first, I was disappointed with this film, I had seen Judgment at Nuremberg right before, yet watching it again and doing some net research, I must say that it is good, although somewhat inferior, yet worthy of five stars for content, its faithful reproduction of this trial. I was most impressed by Matt Craven who plays the Army's psychologist, Captain Gilbert, in charge of the defendants. His interrogations of and interactions with those men added a dimension that was lacking in the first film, revealing the thought processes of these most notorious criminals; some of them find out that he is jewish. It was during this trial, the original War Criminals Trial, that the actual footage of concentration camp atrocities was shown; the film shown in this movie and Judgment at Nuremberg is that same film taken by allied soldiers liberating the camps.

The movie is based on the book Nuremberg:Infamy on Trial by Joseph Persico.

for more information click here

Not a remake! Different trial!

"Judgment at Nuremberg" was the fictional account of one of the "minor" trials, with Spencer Tracy as the sole judge;
this miniseries is the more-or-less true story of the BIG
trial, the International Military Tribunal conducted earlier by Americans, British, French, and Russians jointly.

Alec Baldwin doesn't resemble the real-life Justice Robert Jackson, who was the chief US prosecutor, but he does a good job of delivering the role, and won awards for his portrayal. Ignore the silly, totally irrelevant relationship between the Supreme Court justice-on-leave and a secretary or assistant played by Jill Hennessy. You'll get a pretty good impression of the proceedings, in a reconstruction of the IMT courtroom in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.

The Number Two Nazi, the Number One defendant, Herman Goering,
actually bested Jackson during the questioning. Note how the script portrays their encounter.

Choose: The star-studded original about an imagined follow-on trial, or this pseudo-documentary about the original tribunal--
the one most people actually mean when they say "Nuremberg war-crimes trial."

for more information click here

Lest we forget

This made-for-tv movie portrays the Nazi war criminals being tried in Nuremburg. Alec Baldwin plays Robert Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice who is asked to temporarily step down from his position in order to act as Chief Prosecuter against the war criminals. This event is portrayed as a new and unique idea in the annals of war, and the importance of the situation is stressed, not only so that justice can be served, but that the trials would serve as an example in future wars. There is plenty of political intrigue as the Allies and their foes alike jockey for position and power. Baldwin at first falters when he faces the charismatic and manipulative Hermann Goering, but eventually he hits his stride and boldly does his duty. The romantic subplot is almost distracting at times, but generally the movie holds the viewer's attention for the entire 3 hours. New generations of Americans need to know the dangers of absolute power in the hands of ruthless men and this movie generally succeeds in that goal.

for more information click here

A valiant effort

'Nuremberg', for a TV miniseries production, is a wonderful production. The movie recreates the court room setting and drama wonderfully, as well as the physical appearance of the defendants.

However, I would like to make my observations concerning certain weaknesses of the film:
-There is barely enough time of the film devoted to the actual court-room examinations and cross-examinations. Perhaps, this would have been feasible if there wasn't so much concentration on the inception, organisation and the buildup of the film.

-What is the point of adding a hinted romance between the chief prosecutor and his assistant? Was it relevant in any way and did it help to keep our interest in the film? I think not.

-Brian Cox plays the role of Goering absolutely wonderfully. The Nazi leader is not demonised, yet is shown for his aristocracy and great intellect, as well as his ability to sway his authority on other people. Watching the movie will surely help one understand why Goering became so influential and became Hitler's deputy.

-There is too much concentration on the friendship developed between Lt. Tex Wheelis and Goering. There is still a looming conspiracy on the American Lieutenant's role partaking in Hitler's suicide, but there has been not one iota of evidence affirming his involvement, so why not-so-subtly imply it in the film?

-The Russian staff were portrayed as seemingly ignorant, revengeful superficial characters, which is far from the truth. The movie managed not to stumble on older films' weaknesses; the demonization of the Nazis, yet does so with the Russians! The Cold War is over!

-I understand that the development of all the defendants' cases would not have been feasible in a movie, yet some omissions are daunting! In the judges' rendering of sentences, they highlight the decision to acquit Hjalmar Schacht, certainly an important decisions with vast consequences. Yet, why was there no cross-examination of him throughout the movie, as he was described as the most eloquent of the defendants, surpassing even Albert Speer!

-Language? Some of the defendants were known to speak English fluently throughout the trial, revealing often their aristocratic background (von Ribbentrop for example). Others did not, yet the distinction was not made at all in the movie, rather making the defendants speak English with very ludicrous accents.

To conclude, 'Nuremberg' certainly is a great introduction to the trials themselves, but those with a bit more advanced knowledge on the issue, will remain unsatisfied.

Overall, 'Judgment at Nuremberg' is the best movie available concerning the legal aspect of the trials, even though it does not touch upon the 'war criminals' but the Nazi judges.

for more information click here

An attempt to explain

This film was more of a documentary than it was a drama talking about the Trials at Nuremburg.

First it started out with what they were trying to accomplish by having the trial. The goals were set out that it wasn't just to seek revenge but was to hold people accountable for their actions. The film tries to show some of the politics and adversaries among the allies during the trials.

I felt the best part of the film was showing the dualality of the various personalities of the prisoners. I wish it would have explained a little more in depth what each of these high profile Nazis had done to deserve their various fates. For example I didn't understand why Rudolf Hess got so much time considering he was a prisoner of war most of the war and had not been involved in the final solution. I'm sure he was part of their initial solution but I guess the time constraints of the film would not have allowed this.

For a time in the film you are impressed by Gering until they show the films and you know what kind of a person this guy really was.

The attraction between Baldwin and Hennessey was predictable, I guess to add more intrigue to the film. You'll have to watch it to understand that part.

In the end the psychologist tries to explain why these men had committed there various crimes and why it could have happened in Germany. Overall the film is a refreshing look at the trial.

for more information click here