Graeme Robertson on why Judgement at Nuremberg should have won over West Side Story at the Academy Awards…
It’s Oscar season again, so it’s time to take a look at Oscar ceremonies of the past and spotlight the films that I feel should have won the coveted Best Picture trophy over those that ultimately did.
Before I argue my case about this particular Oscar decision, I must make a confession dear readers. I really don’t like musicals.
While I will admit that a few manage to escape my disdain by being decent films outside of the musical segments (I was pleasantly surprised by La La Land for instance) or they have so much charm gushing from every frame that I can’t bring myself to hate it (I have a fondness for Singin’ in the Rain), I tend to steer clear of any films concerning matters of singing and dancing.
So with that in mind, you can understand why I disapprove of the decision of the Academy to award Best Picture trophy for 1961 to Jerome Robinson and Robert Wise’s Shakespeare inspired musical West Side Story. While it’s not necessarily a bad film and I understand that some of you reading might love it, it’s just not a film I have any particular fondness for.
In my view, the film that I feel should have been named as Best Picture of 1961 is one that holds a far more powerful message and is of great historical importance. That film Stanley Kramer’s powerful war crimes courtroom drama Judgment at Nuremberg.
A panel of three American judges arrives in Nuremberg, Germany to oversee the trials and sentencing of four German judges accused of aiding in the wrongful imprisonment, forced sterilisation and mass murder of innocent civilians during World War II, all the while trying to understand why such seemingly intelligent men would aid such a monstrous regime.
The film is packed with an all-star cast of some of the finest actors cinema has ever produced. The film stars (deep breath) Spencer Tracey, Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, Montgomery Clift, Marlene Dietrich (whose were banned by the Nazis in the 1930s) and Maximilian Schell.
Schell, in particular, is outstanding in his Oscar-winning performance as defence lawyer Hans Rolfe, with the Austrian actors passionate and often aggressive questioning of witnesses being deeply captivating but also rather chilling.
Clift also deserves praise for his single scene performance as a somewhat simple-minded man who was forcibly sterilised, with his tearful and heartbreaking testimony being deeply upsetting and powerful, especially when he produces a photo of his mother and emotionally asks “was she feeble-minded?”
The rest of the cast also give truly fantastic performances and to discuss each of them would be a pointless task, just go watch the film already.
The story of Judgement at Nuremberg is a fairly straightforward one, with it being a depiction of the “Judges Trials” that took place in the American zone of occupied post-war Germany, with much of the film’s 3 hour runtime focusing on long dialogue heavy courtroom exchanges, all of which is expertly written, directed and performed by the fantastic cast.
However, despite the relatively straightforward story and simple set up, the film is in fact a much richer and deeper experience than a simple synopsis would suggest, with the film tackling ideas such as patriotism, the basis on which laws are written, justice, geopolitics and the Cold War and most importantly the power of guilt.
In one of the film’s pivotal scenes, the defendant Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) a respected judge accused of aiding in the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime states that he feels guilty for what he did, and was fully aware that he was committing crimes against humanity by following and enforcing Nazi laws, but admits that he did so because he loved his country.
This theme of patriotism also carries through the story of Rolfe, the German lawyer charged with defending the men on trial. While Rolfe is not there to defend the atrocities of the Nazi’s, he feels a duty to not just defend the men on trial but to defend the entire German nation from the accusations that all of its people should shoulder the guilt of the murderous tyrants who held the nation hostage.
Rolfe’s final speech to the court about the “world’s guilt” is a powerful defence of both the German nation, but also a fiery condemnation for the part the rest of the world played in helping Hitler to rise to power and make war, accurately pointing out that several of the Allied powers aided Hitler’s rise by signing pacts (as the Soviet Union did) or profit from helping him to rearm (as US industrialists did) amongst many other indiscretions. In short, the German people might have allowed to Hitler’s rise but the rest of the world did nothing to stop him until it was too late.
While you are free to disagree with my decision regarding the Best Picture of 1961, I feel that Judgment at Nuremberg’s powerful message makes it a far richer and more historically important work of cinema than any film featuring finger snapping street gangs. While it is a long sit at 3 hours, this is a film that is well worth the time.
Do you agree or disagree with my choice dear readers or do you think that the Best Picture trophy should have gone to another film?
Let me know what you think in the comments below…
Graeme Robertson
