list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Judgment at Nuremberg on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Judgment_at_Nuremberg/41595/default.aspx Title: Judgment at Nuremberg
Year: 1989
Director: Stanley Kramer
Plot: After the end of World War II, the world gradually became aware of the full extent of the war crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. In 1948, a series of trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, by an international tribunal, headed by American legal and military officials, with the intent of bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity. However, by that time most of the major figures of the Nazi regime were either dead or long missing, and in the resulting legal proceedings American judges often found themselves confronting the question of how much responsibility someone held who had "just followed orders." Judgment at Nuremberg is a dramatized version of the proceedings at one of these trials, in which Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) is overseeing the trials of four German judges -- most notably Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) and Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer) -- accused of knowingly sentencing innocent men to death in collusion with the Nazis. Representing the defense is attorney Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), while prosecuting the accused is U.S. Col. Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark). As the trial goes on, both the visiting Americans and their reluctant German hosts often find themselves facing the legacy of the war, and how both of their nations have been irrevocably changed by it. Judgment at Nuremberg also features notable supporting performances by Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, and Montgomery Clift. Originally written and produced as a play for television, the screen version of Judgment at Nuremberg was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, with Maximilian Schell and Abby Mann taking home Oscars for (respectively) Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 5
Number of Lists: 8
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:53:08 GMTJudgment at Nuremberg1989Stanley KramerAfter the end of World War II, the world gradually became aware of the full extent of the war crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. In 1948, a series of trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, by an international tribunal, headed by American legal and military officials, with the intent of bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity. However, by that time most of the major figures of the Nazi regime were either dead or long missing, and in the resulting legal proceedings American judges often found themselves confronting the question of how much responsibility someone held who had "just followed orders." Judgment at Nuremberg is a dramatized version of the proceedings at one of these trials, in which Judge Dan Haywood (<a href="/players/P____71578/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Spencer Tracy</a>) is overseeing the trials of four German judges -- most notably Dr. Ernst Janning (<a href="/players/P____98588/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Burt Lancaster</a>) and Emil Hahn (<a href="/players/P____38686/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Werner Klemperer</a>) -- accused of knowingly sentencing innocent men to death in collusion with the Nazis. Representing the defense is attorney Hans Rolfe (<a href="/players/P___110140/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maximilian Schell</a>), while prosecuting the accused is U.S. Col. Tad Lawson (<a href="/players/P____76135/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Widmark</a>). As the trial goes on, both the visiting Americans and their reluctant German hosts often find themselves facing the legacy of the war, and how both of their nations have been irrevocably changed by it. Judgment at Nuremberg also features notable supporting performances by <a href="/players/P____19148/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marlene Dietrich</a>, <a href="/players/P____25962/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judy Garland</a>, and <a href="/players/P____13682/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Montgomery Clift</a>. Originally written and produced as a play for television, the screen version of Judgment at Nuremberg was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, with <a href="/players/P___110140/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maximilian Schell</a> and <a href="/players/P___101047/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Abby Mann</a> taking home Oscars for (respectively) Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide5Slightly Tagged (1-5)823http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t46826y4uyr.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Judgment_at_Nuremberg/41595/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:00:29 PM
Body: Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 7:00:29 PMKate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/7/28293.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/7/2008 11:01:04 AM
Body: Upset that the Third Reich doesn’t appear in either this summer’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or Hellboy II: The Golden Army? Of course you are. Nazis have featured in many great Hollywood films, from Casablanca to Schindler’s List. They’ve been the focus of one of the best documentaries of all time (Triumph of the Will). They show up in the best musicals (The Sound of Music), the best action films (Raiders of the Lost Ark), the best science fiction films (Star Wars, sort of), the best comedies (The Great Dictator, sort of), the best dramas (Judgment at Nuremburg), the best foreign films (Rome, Open City) and even the best animated shorts (Der Fueher’s Face). In fact, without the Nazis, cinema might not have had so many great war films, POW films or other kinds of films necessitating a personification of evil. Of course, like many others I would wish for them to have never existed, because millions of lives are more important than any number of classic movies. But the Nazis did happen, and they continue to populate cinema for better or worse. We all know about the latest product of Hollywood’s Nazi fetish, Valkyrie, and we’ve seen a ridiculous trailer for a new Russian Hitler farce titled Hitler Kaput!, which shouldn’t be confused with Germany’s recently announced Hitler comedy Mein Kampf, based on a play by George Tabori (I Confess). And now, because we still need Nazi sci-fi, there’s Iron Sky, for which a teaser trailer (see above) has just been released. The movie, which would be better off titled Nazis in Space (or Space Nazis), is an old-fashioned sci-fi film scripted by popular Finnish author Johanna Sinisalo. Its premise involves a secret history in which the Nazis escaped to the dark side of The Moon in 1945. Now it is 2018 and time for the Nazis to return to Earth, Independence Day stylee. Iron Sky comes to us from the makers of the internet-released Finnish feature Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning (the seventh in a series), yet it will be distributed to theaters, perhaps because cinema loves Nazis. Still in the works and without an expected date of completion, Iron Sky will be looking for financing at Cannes this month (the film’s budget = $5 million). Meanwhile, the filmmakers are also looking to involve thousands of internerd helpers through some kind of social networking-type of web community called Wreck A Movie, where apparently they’re accepting suggestions and ideas for the movie. For more info check out the film’s website. [via Aint It Cool News] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 07 May 2008 15:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/7/2008 11:01:04 AM Upset that the Third Reich doesn’t appear in either this summer’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or Hellboy II: The Golden Army? Of course you are. Nazis have featured in many great Hollywood films, from Casablanca to Schindler’s List. They’ve been the focus of one of the best documentaries of all time (Triumph of the Will). They show up in the best musicals (The Sound of Music), the best action films (Raiders of the Lost Ark), the best science fiction films (Star Wars, sort of), the best comedies (The Great Dictator, sort of), the best dramas (Judgment at Nuremburg), the best foreign films (Rome, Open City) and even the best animated shorts (Der Fueher’s Face). In fact, without the Nazis, cinema might not have had so many great war films, POW films or other kinds of films necessitating a personification of evil. Of course, like many others I would wish for them to have never existed, because millions of lives are more important than any number of classic movies. But the Nazis did happen, and they continue to populate cinema for better or worse. We all know about the latest product of Hollywood’s Nazi fetish, Valkyrie, and we’ve seen a ridiculous trailer for a new Russian Hitler farce titled Hitler Kaput!, which shouldn’t be confused with Germany’s recently announced Hitler comedy Mein Kampf, based on a play by George Tabori (I Confess). And now, because we still need Nazi sci-fi, there’s Iron Sky, for which a teaser trailer (see above) has just been released. The movie, which would be better off titled Nazis in Space (or Space Nazis), is an old-fashioned sci-fi film scripted by popular Finnish author Johanna Sinisalo. Its premise involves a secret history in which the Nazis escaped to the dark side of The Moon in 1945. Now it is 2018 and time for the Nazis to return to Earth, Independence Day stylee. Iron Sky comes to us from the makers of the internet-released Finnish feature Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning (the seventh in a series), yet it will be distributed to theaters, perhaps because cinema loves Nazis. Still in the works and without an expected date of completion, Iron Sky will be looking for financing at Cannes this month (the film’s budget = $5 million). Meanwhile, the filmmakers are also looking to involve thousands of internerd helpers through some kind of social networking-type of web community called Wreck A Movie, where apparently they’re accepting suggestions and ideas for the movie. For more info check out the film’s website. [via Aint It Cool News] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/holocaust/MemberTagFilms.aspxholocaust
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 42

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT3632742Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courtroom/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourtroom
Number of films tagged: 355

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:35 GMT3552542Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/justice/MemberTagFilms.aspxjustice
Number of films tagged: 779

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 27

]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:06:56 GMT7792027Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ethics/MemberTagFilms.aspxethics
Number of films tagged: 331

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 18

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT3311218Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazism/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazism
Number of films tagged: 894

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:02:21 GMT894910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/officer/MemberTagFilms.aspxofficer
Number of films tagged: 799

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 15 May 2009 13:02:12 GMT799610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ideals/MemberTagFilms.aspxideals
Number of films tagged: 211

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT21156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trial-courtroom/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrial-courtroom
Number of films tagged: 639

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:02:15 GMT63945Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/warcrimes/MemberTagFilms.aspxwarcrimes
Number of films tagged: 150

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:03:28 GMT15045Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/atrocity/MemberTagFilms.aspxatrocity
Number of films tagged: 458

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:02:29 GMT45812Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/TheVictorsMaketheRules/MemberTagFilms.aspxTheVictorsMaketheRules
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:15:32 GMT111Tag