When you sit down to watch a movie about the Nuremberg trials, you probably expect a straightforward history lesson. You expect clear-cut villains in dusty uniforms and a heroic prosecutor shouting about morality. But the 1961 classic Judgment at Nuremberg—the definitive trials of Nuremberg movie—is actually a lot messier than that. It’s uncomfortable. Honestly, it’s kind of a gut-punch because it refuses to give you the easy "good guys vs. bad guys" narrative that most Hollywood biopics lean on.
Spencer Tracy plays Judge Dan Haywood. He’s a small-town American judge sent to occupied Germany in 1948, years after the big-name Nazis like Göring had already been dealt with. This movie focuses on the "Judges' Trial." We’re talking about the legal professionals who stayed in power during the Third Reich. People who were supposed to protect the law but ended up using it to justify sterilization and state-sponsored murder.
It’s long. It’s three hours of people talking in a courtroom. Yet, it feels more intense than most modern action movies.
The Weird Reality of Making a Movie About the Holocaust in 1961
You have to understand the context of when this was made. In the early 60s, the world was still processing the sheer scale of the Holocaust. Abby Mann, who wrote the screenplay (originally as a television play for Playhouse 90), was obsessed with the idea of individual responsibility.
The movie was filmed in black and white. Director Stanley Kramer did this on purpose. He wanted it to feel like a documentary, like you were actually sitting in that courtroom in Germany. He even used actual footage from the liberation of the concentration camps. This was radical at the time. Audiences in 1961 weren't used to seeing those graphic, harrowing images on a giant cinema screen.
Some people hated it. In fact, when the film premiered in Berlin, the audience sat in total silence. No clapping. Just a heavy, suffocating quiet. It forced a mirror up to a generation of Germans who were trying to move on and an American public that was starting to care more about the Cold War than punishing old war crimes.
Why the Cast Was Actually a Miracle
The star power here is insane. You’ve got Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, and Montgomery Clift.
But here’s the thing: nobody was there for the paycheck. Montgomery Clift was in a bad place physically and mentally during filming. He couldn't remember his lines. Kramer told him to just look at Tracy and tell the story of his character’s forced sterilization. Clift’s performance is heartbreaking because that confusion and pain were real.
🔗 Read more: A Simple Favor Blake Lively: Why Emily Nelson Is Still the Ultimate Screen Mystery
Marlene Dietrich’s involvement is also fascinating. She was a massive star who had famously turned her back on Nazi Germany, even entertaining US troops during the war. In the movie, she plays the widow of a German general. She represents the "refined" German society that claimed they had no idea what was happening. Her presence adds a layer of meta-commentary that most viewers today might miss.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Trials of Nuremberg Movie
A lot of people think the movie is just a lecture. It’s not. The most compelling character isn't the judge; it’s the defense attorney, Hans Rolfe, played by Maximilian Schell.
Schell actually won the Oscar for Best Actor for this role. It was well-deserved. He doesn’t play Rolfe as a mustache-twirling villain. He plays him as a brilliant, fiercely patriotic man who argues that if the German judges are guilty, then the whole world is guilty.
He brings up some points that still make people squirm today:
- He points out that the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler.
- He mentions that American industrialists made money off the German war machine.
- He cites U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who once wrote in favor of eugenics laws.
It’s a bold move for a Hollywood film. It basically says, "Yeah, the Nazis were monsters, but everyone else kind of let it happen." This nuance is why Judgment at Nuremberg stays at the top of the list for anyone searching for a trials of Nuremberg movie. It’s not just about what happened in 1945; it’s about how institutions fail when individuals stop being brave.
The Technical Brilliance of the "Zoom"
If you watch the film closely, you’ll notice something weird about the camera work. Stanley Kramer used these long, sweeping zooms. The camera will be way back in the courtroom and then suddenly fly into a close-up of a witness’s face.
It’s jarring. It’s meant to be.
💡 You might also like: The A Wrinkle in Time Cast: Why This Massive Star Power Didn't Save the Movie
It makes the viewer feel like a voyeur. You’re not just watching a play; you’re being forced to look at the sweat on their brows and the fear in their eyes. The cinematography by Ernest Laszlo breaks all the "polite" rules of filmmaking from that era. It’s aggressive.
The Verdict That No One Liked
Without spoiling the ending (though it’s history, so you probably know), the movie deals with the tension between justice and politics. By 1948, the U.S. was worried about the Soviet Union. They needed West Germany as an ally.
There was massive pressure to give the Nazi judges light sentences or let them go so the German public wouldn't be offended. The movie shows this struggle through Judge Haywood’s eyes. He’s being told by his own military and political peers to "be reasonable."
"Reasonable" meant looking the other way.
The final scene between Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster (who plays Ernst Janning, the lead defendant) is legendary. Janning was a world-renowned legal scholar who "went along" with the Nazis because he thought he could do more good from the inside.
He tells the judge, "I never knew it would come to that."
And Tracy’s character gives the best one-line rebuttal in cinema history: "It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."
📖 Related: Cuba Gooding Jr OJ: Why the Performance Everyone Hated Was Actually Genius
How to Watch This Film Today
If you’re looking to dive into the trials of Nuremberg movie world, don’t just put this on in the background while you’re scrolling on your phone. It’s too dense.
- Check the runtime. It’s about 179 minutes. You need an intermission.
- Watch the faces. Look at the background actors. Many of them were people who had lived through the war. Their reactions in the courtroom gallery feel authentic because, for many, they were.
- Compare it to Nuremberg (2000). There is a miniseries starring Alec Baldwin that covers the trial of the high-ranking officials like Hermann Göring. It’s good for historical facts, but it lacks the philosophical soul of the 1961 film.
The 1961 film is currently available on various streaming platforms like Tubi (usually for free with ads) or for rent on Amazon and Apple. It has been preserved by the Library of Congress for a reason.
Actionable Steps for History Buffs
If this film sparks an interest in the actual legalities of the period, you shouldn't stop at the credits. Movies simplify things. History is a lot more chaotic.
First, go look up the "Justice Case" (United States of America v. Josef Altstötter, et al.). This was the real-life inspiration for the movie. You can find the actual trial transcripts through the Nuremberg Trial Archives at Harvard Law School or the University of Virginia. Reading the actual defenses used by these judges is even more chilling than the movie scripts.
Second, if you’re ever in Germany, visit Memorium Nuremberg Trials. It’s located on the top floor of the courthouse where the trials actually took place. Standing in Courtroom 600 makes the film’s set design feel incredibly haunting.
Third, read Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt. While she was covering a different trial, her observations about how "normal" people participate in horrific crimes perfectly complement the themes of the movie.
The trials of Nuremberg movie is a reminder that the law is only as good as the people who sit on the bench. When judges care more about their careers or their country’s "greatness" than they do about individual human rights, the law becomes a weapon. That’s a lesson that doesn't age, no matter how many years pass since 1945.