Nuremburg

[Sausagenbacon]

Has anyone else seen this?
I was disappointed- there's a good film to be made on the subject, and this isn't it.
Too many incidents that wouldn't have happened and I find it distasteful that they show real footage of the camps.
A decent director could have got the effect by showing people's reaction to the film. Co-opting this into a fairly poor film is disrespectful, IMO.
Plus I find Malik irritating.
On the other hand, Crowe is always a magnetic screen presence.

I find it distasteful that they show real footage of the camps.

presumably you knew the background to the Nuremberg Trials before watch the film?

it really happened, yes it is distasteful, that's the point. War and persecution is beyond distasteful.

I’d be intrigued at what was added post audience research showings.
The real footage was shown at the trials and it brought the movie audience in. Until then it was a period court drama; relationship between the two was more important than justice. I also wonder whether the translator's backstory was in the original edit- it was in the book but it felt clunky in the film. I don’t know whether it was brought up in the trial but the Nuremberg Laws (not the trial, but laws a few years earlier) before were based on the Jim Crowe laws which is sobering.

Nuremberg Laws (not the trial, but laws a few years earlier) before were based on the Jim Crowe laws which is sobering.
Indeed

Anyway, I know that the films were shown at the trial, but it's wrong to show them for dramatic effect , especially in such a mediocre film.

I’m interested to know why you think it’s wrong. Upsetting, jarring, yes. But not wrong. It jolted us out of the relationship between the psychiatrist and Göring. It wasn’t disrespectful. The ultimate disrespect was that it happened at all. If any reshowing ever makes one person stop or change it’s a good thing.

I know not everyone will agree with me. But IMO, yes, use it in a documentary, but not for dramatic effect in a film. It's disrespectful.

I do understand your point of view. I guess as the original crimes were so egregious that it blows ‘disrespect’ out of the water. One identifiable random dead body for dramatic effect, yes disrespectful and grim. So many, part of ‘system’ that we could be sleepwalking back into, yes broadcast it widely imo.
I also find Malik very watchable!

Just saw this and thought it was excellent. The real archive footage was devastating but necessary, everyone needs to be continually shocked by this and it mustn't be sanitised.
I thought Malik and Crowe were both brilliant. Totally recommend.

I also thought it was an excellent film and very timely. I do understand the sensitivity around showing the actual footage, but I think it was required to really show (particularly to a modern audience that is increasingly distant from this reality), what was actually at stake. In a world where Holocaust denial is becoming increasingly prevalent and the concept of genocide is more and more loosely applied, I feel this reminder of what these words actually mean is critical.

Curious - how is it disrespectful? I've just seen this today.,

Using real life trauma to add dramatic effect to a film.

But isn’t that the point? It’s not a made up story and people need to remember that, especially in light of what’s happening around the world at this very minute

I don't think it was to add dramatic effect. If anything it was the opposite - grounding what could have been seen as a dramatic exercise in the horrific reality of what really happened and what was actually at stake. It was mentioned briefly in the film, but support for the Nazi party and ideology didn't die with the end of the war. There was a real danger that support for the party could resurge if they weren't conclusively linked with the horror of genocide.

"Judgement at Nuremberg", the 1961 film, is on iPlayer at the moment.

I'm aware that posters will disagree with me.
If it was a serious documentary yes, use it.
But this is, frankly, a mediocre film and it is inappropriate to use it. And it would be inappropriate if it was a great film.
Because they are dramas, containing a lot of action that would never have happened. Tying it in with this is wrong.
A decent director could have shown the impact of the footage without showing it.

I think Oliver Stone is a decent director - he showed footage of the assassination of JFK in the same-titled movie. Was that ok?

The Hindenburg included newsreel footage of the disaster. Was that ok?

I think when making a movie of a hugely significant moment in history then including what was shown in the news at the time is in no way inappropriate. It would be far more inappropriate to fictionalise it, particularly when such footage exists. I actually think there is more of an imperative to show reality so that people don't just turn off the TV/leave the cinema and say: "Well that was a shit film... next time we'll go and see The Smurfs" and then get on with their day.

It's supposed to be shocking. You are supposed to be jarred. You are supposed to feel horrible about it and be reminded that this happened, even though it is a movie you are watching. It's supposed to be 'distasteful' (weak word) because what happened was so far beyond 'distasteful' that we must never, ever forget.

Just my view, doesn't have to be yours.

Yes, I hear you. But I disagree.

Fine, we agree to disagree. As I said: just my view, doesn't have to be yours.

What is your last sentence suggesting then? No footage but just people looking troubled, sad etc?

Agree and I had never seen any of this particular footage despite having seen a great deal. They could have shown real court room scenes too instead of the black and white scenes. It's interesting the decisions they make for effect.

it isn't adding dramatic effect, the film is depicting what actually happened in real life, with authentic footage taken to maintain a record, so people couldn't deny it happened at any future time. There was a high likelihood that people would deny it, it was that horrific, so let's thank those who create footage that became a historic record, even if people recoil. That's the whole point.

What is your last sentence suggesting then? No footage but just people looking troubled, sad etc?
That's for a decent director to do.
the film is depicting what actually happened in real life
it doesn't though, does it? Did the psychiatrist visit Goering's wife and daughter, and pass letters between them? Would he have been allowed to do that? Would the psychiatrist have emotional scenes with Goering? Would he have dashed back from the train station and been allowed to see the lawyers, AND allowed in the courtroom? Plus the pivotal scene at the station with the Jewish translator?
I doubt it. It's just drama, making stuff up from the bare bones of history.

This is an excellent point - I totally agree and should have expanded on it with my 'never forget/repeat' comment in my post, you are absolutely right about the deniers. Particularly in this age of manipulated media and deep fakes. Thank you for making it.

But now you are arguing against yourself. You don't want real footage included, but other parts are dramatised and that's wrong too?

I thought it was a brilliant. Really moving.

But now you are arguing against yourself. You don't want real footage included, but other parts are dramatised and that's wrong too?
No, i'm reacting to a post that said that the film depicted real life by giving the examples of how unlike it was from real life.
If the film was a true depiction of events, I would understand people's point. But it's not, it's full of fake material that is shoehorned in for dramatic effect.