The Ending of “Judgment at Nuremberg” And the Film’s Lesson for Today

The film “Judgment at Nuremberg” ends with a stunning indictment from Spencer Tracy’s character that should offer a chilling lesson for today.

The 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg, directed by Stanley Kramer and written by Abby Mann, presents a fictionalized trial based on real events following World War II. There were twelve trials in military courts in Nuremberg, Germany regarding Nazi crimes committed during the war. The movie centers on a trial similar to the actual trial of jurists and lawyers (sometimes called “The Judges’ Trial“). [Warning: This post contains some spoilers for the movie.]

Judgment at Nuremberg features many great actors of the time, including Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, Montgomery Clift, Maximilian Schell (who won the Best Actor Oscar) and a young William Shatner. Much of the fim, though, centers on the characters played by Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster.

Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster

Spencer Tracy, who was 61 at the time and looked older, plays Chief Judge Dan Haywood, one of the judges overseeing the trial. Tracy’s Maine judge is in many ways the heart of the film, as we see through his eyes the war-torn streets of Germany and the moral questions surrounding the war and the atrocities.

Lancaster, plays Dr. Ernst Janning, one of the German defendants. Initially appearing defiant, Janning is troubled by what the Nazi’s did. Eventually, Janning takes the stand as a witness for the prosecution. During his testimony indicting the works of the Nazis, he confesses his own role in sentencing a Jewish man to death for having sex with a 16-year-old Gentile girl when he knew the charges were not true.

Lancaster was a great handsome movie star, and he brings his gravitas to the role, evoking sympathy from us for the guilt he feels and for his willingness among the defendants to admit the sins of the Germans. Tracy and Lancaster were long-time movie stars by this point, and we were familiar with Tracy as a trustworthy character and Lancaster as a strong man with a vulnerable heart and intense eyes.

The Final Confrontation

Janning: “Those people . . . Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it. You must believe it.”

Haywood: “Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”

At the end of the film, we do finally get a one-on-one scene between the two heavyweight actors. After Janning and the other three defendants are found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, Janning asks Judge Haywood to visit him in his cell. And Judge Haywood agrees. Throughout the film, Tracy has played Haywood as a man conflicted about how blame may be assessed among the living for the crimes of the Nazis, and we have seen him moved by Janning’s acceptance of guilt. So, the viewer may expect that this final scene of the two men (and great actors) meeting alone, will provide some common understanding between the two judges. But that is not what happens.

The two men complement each other. Lancaster’s Janning tells Spencer’s Haywood that his decision of the court was a just one. Haywood responds that Lancaster’s testimony was what needed to be said.

Then, Burt Lancaster’s Janning turns to the reason he wanted to talk to the judge in private. He does ask for some type of understanding, if not forgiveness from Spencer Tracy’s judge, explaining he did not know the extent of the horrors and the killings of the Jewish people. He pleads, “Those people . . . Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it. You must believe it.”

But Spencer Tracy’s judge does not give forgiveness or understanding, only an indictment. He replies, “Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.” The camera captures Lancaster’s pained and haunted face as the movie ends with his prison door closing.

America’s Dilemma

That scene from Judgment at Nuremberg has always stayed with me, and I have been thinking about it a lot lately. In the news, we have read and seen about the Trump administration rounding up immigrants and sending them to an inhumane prison in El Salvador. A few years ago, it might have been hard to imagine the United States sending convicted criminals to such a place, but because these men are not citizens of the U.S. and the administration asserts they are members of the MS-13 gang, so far we have mostly accepted sending people who have been convicted of no crimes.

As we find out more about some of the men sent, we should be more troubled. There is Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist who sought asylum in the United States last year. He was sent to the prison based on a signature from a disgraced former police officer, now a private prison contractor, with a record of lying.

Merwil Gutiérrez also was sent to the El Salvador prison. The 19-year-old with no criminal record and reportedly no gang affiliation was taken from the Bronx and sent to the prison. Reportedly, he was seized after an ICE agent realized he was not who they were looking for. But another agent responded “take him anyway,” so they did. Gutiérrez’s father is still trying to get information on his son.

Ábrego García also sits in the El Salvador prison, though his case has already gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawyer for the foreign-born Maryland father says he has no ties to criminal gangs. The U.S. has admitted it was a mistake to send García to El Salvador, and the Supreme Court has ordered the government to “facilitate” his return to the U.S. But the Trump administration continues to do nothing and claim both that they cannot do anything to get García back — and anyway García is still a bad guy who is not a citizen.

García’s case in particular might remind one of Spencer Tracy’s rebuke to Burt Lancaster’s character in Judgment at Nuremberg. After observing Lancaster’s sympathetic performance, like his character, we are reminded that one bore the blame for the atrocities that followed once one was complicit in the first injustice.

I don’t know if we are there yet, and of course we are not Nazi Germany. But there are lessons to be learned from history (and movies).

And many of us are surprised that more of our fellow citizens are not outraged at the thought of innocent people being sent to this inhumane foreign prison. And to have our government concede it committed a mistake that results in suffering and do nothing to correct it (even assuming anyone should be in this prison) is something out of a horror movie if you imagine what these people are going through each day.

The U.S. has never been perfect. And maybe in recent years the fact that people did not stand up to the horrors we perpetrated in the wake of 9/11 like torturing suspects and accepting the mistreatment, torture, and rapes at Abu Ghraib prison have made us immune to these atrocities committed by our country against non-citizens.

Twenty-five years ago, I would have thought that my fellow citizens would not have allowed these things to happen. Yes, some have stood up and many are fighting the administration’s cruelty and bullying today. For example, constituents showed up in Iowa at a Republican senator’s town hall to ask what was being done about getting García out of the prison where he does not belong.

Yet, how many of us will allow our government to send people to an inhumane prison without any type of due process?

Maybe like Burt Lancaster’s Janning character we will be thinking that later we will be able to claim that we never knew it would come to whatever comes next.

Find your representatives in Congress to call them athttps://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member. Leave your two cents in the comments.

Jim Thorpe, Great American Athlete

Thorpe James Francis “Jim” Thorpe was born around May 28, 1887 near the town of Prague, Oklahoma. Because there was no birth certificate, different sources list different birth dates.  One official website lists the May 28, 1887 date while Wikipedia lists the birth date as May 22, 1887. The Bio website lists the birth date as a year later on May 28, 1988. Either way, the Native American would grow up to be regarded as one of the great — if not the greatest — American athlete of all time.

Thorpe’s athletic career included two All-American honors while playing college football (1911 and 1912). He won the pentathlon and the decathlon at the 1912 Summer Olympics. He later played professional baseball and football, even doing a stint on a basketball team.

Despite his great talents, he faced great difficulties in his life, including ongoing racism, a controversy about his Olympic medals, alcoholism, and struggles to make a living wage. Even after his death in 1953, his body has not been able to rest in peace, as battles continued about his remains, which were bought by a Pennsylvania town named after the athlete as a tourist attraction.

But Thorpe left a lasting legacy, continuing to receive honors after his death.  For example, in 1963, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Below is a short video about Thorpe’s career. Below is Part 1.

Here is Part 2 of the documentary from ESPN.

Regarding longer feature films, Jim Thorpe had a cameo in Knute Rockne, All American (1940), and Burt Lancaster played Thorpe in Jim Thorpe – All-American (1951).

Leave your two cents in the comments.

Buy from Amazon

  • The Ending of “Judgment at Nuremberg” And the Film’s Lesson for Today
  • Moral Ambiguity and “Lawman” (Missed Movies)
  • Thanksgiving with Marty Stuart: Badlands
  • Listen My Children and You Shall Hear Inaccuracies About Paul Revere
  • Moral Ambiguity and “Lawman” (Missed Movies)

    Burt Lancaster stars in “Lawman,” an underrated Western that veers into unexpected territory.

    Burt Lancaster Western Lawman is an excellent underrated 1971 Western that should stand next to the better-known classics in the Western canon. The film, directed by Michael Winner, features the brutality and moral ambiguity of other more highly regarded films like The Wild Bunch (1969), McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), and Unforgiven (1992). Lawman also features excellent acting from Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, Lee J. Cobb, Robert Duvall, Sheree North, and many other familiar supporting actors.

    Lancaster plays Jared Maddox, the lawman of the title, who comes to town seeking the cowboys who got drunk and shot up his town and accidentally killed a man, as shown in the movie’s opening scene. Lee J. Cobb is the cattle baron Vincent Bronson who employs the cowboys.  And Robert Ryan plays the local marshal who basically works for Cobb.

    With that setup, early on a viewer might expect a good-guy-versus-evil-cattle-baron Western.

    But that is not what happens.

    While some of Bronson’s men are hotheads, Bronson is a practical man who initially tries to reason with Maddox. As the movie progresses, one begins to see that Maddox is relentless in his pursuit to follow the rule of law.  Thus, he begins to seem like a Western version of Inspector Javert from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.

    Even though Maddox realizes that the wanted men will most likely face a fine if brought to justice, various encounters lead to more and more bloodshed. Ryan’s marshall and Maddox’s former lover (Sheree North) question what is happening in the town. As the film moves to a chilling climax, the viewer begins to question what is right and what is wrong. But I will not reveal any more about the plot.

    The wonderful screenplay is by Gerald Wilson, and Winner does an excellent job with the direction. Winner, who would revisit themes around violence three years later in Death Wish (1974), here highlights both the beauty and loneliness of the desert landscape (filmed in Durango, Mexico), doing the same with Lancaster’s face. His Western attempts to give a realistic portrayal of violence and the difficulty of living in the West.

    Conclusion? If you are looking for a Western that features twists on classic stereotypes and you like movies that challenge conventions, you will probably enjoy Lawman. While Lawman may not be on the same level as some other classic challenging Westerns — such as McCabe & Mrs. Miller from the same year, it is still worth seeking out if you are in the mood for an unusual Western.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me? The somewhat unusual Lawman garnered mixed reviews at the time of its release, although I wonder if it is a movie better appreciated as time has passed. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an 80% critics rating and a 61% audience rating. The lower audience rating might be because some viewers were disappointed that the movie did not follow the usual Western conventions and featured a somewhat unusual resolution. Roger Ebert gave the film only two stars, calling it “a Western with a lot of sides but no center.” The New York Times found the movie “unresolved in substance” but “long on sting.” One of the few reviews of the film on the Internet is one by Dennis Schwartz, who gives the movie a B- and calls it a “wannabe thoughtful Western.” Schwartz also calls Lawman and “unofficial remake” of 1955’s A Man With a Gun, and I see some similarities in plot to that also underrated Western, which stars Robert Mitchum. Meanwhile, Jeremy Poulos on Letterboxd found the film enjoyable and noted similarities to spaghetti Westerns.

    {Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}

    Thanks to Tony Fontane for telling me about Lawman on Twitter. Leave your two cents in the comments.

    Buy from Amazon

  • Rating the Lonesome Dove Series, Part 1: The Prequels
  • The Ending of “Judgment at Nuremberg” And the Film’s Lesson for Today
  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • “Westworld” is Coming to HBO
  • Jim Thorpe, Great American Athlete
  • 8 Reasons to Watch the Sterling Haden Western”Terror in a Texas Town”
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)