At the beginning of the film, the theme of the film to be explored, that is, whether the judiciary and law enforcers who carried out judicial law enforcement activities in accordance with their anti-human laws during the reign of the anti-human regime constituted a crime. This is also a topic that has been debated endlessly and inconclusively in the extensive discussions of legal academic circles and social ethics. Such controversial, profound and complex questions of examining and dissecting human nature caught the audience's attention and brought them into thinking. What follows is an extremely informative and exciting trial one after another. Through the sharp confrontation between the prosecution and the defense during the trial, the power of the game changes, throwing out different viewpoints and supporting arguments, so that the The audience kept swaying among different voices, so that the audience could not help but put themselves in the position of Judge Haywood, the protagonist sitting on the bench, and were forced to think, analyze and judge. There is no need to repeat the wonderful performance of the defense lawyer Schell. He very well interprets the cleverness and cunning of a defense lawyer with outstanding talents. The most powerful proof for him. Judy Garland's performance is not inferior, under the strong and malicious questioning of Schell trying to distort the truth, choked up and argued several times, showing the image of a weak female victim of humiliation, grief, anger and helplessness. But among the star-studded super-luxurious casts in this film, what impressed me the most, impressed me, and astonished me, was Clift's performance in just ten minutes. He played a A low-level laborer with low intelligence, he blinked his big eyes, listened to everyone's questions earnestly and slightly dull, answered each question slowly and carefully, word by word, and occasionally raised the corners of his mouth slightly when he spoke, showing a shy kindness, Showing an honest and honest, dull and simple attitude, when he was pressed sharply by Sher, when the wound in his heart was uncovered, he frowned nervously, his rough eyebrows, looked around, at a loss, trying to argue, trying to The proof was incoherent. When he held up the photo of his mother and repeatedly "interrogated" everyone present, he was humiliated but could not fight back. The image of the imbecile who was stupid and unable to protect himself jumped out of the screen, which was sad. With this short ten minutes, Clift was nominated for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Although he never won, he is already one of the most talented actors in my mind. (Writing here, I suddenly found out why I spent so much time writing acting skills? It caused too much effort and weak follow-up) The essence of this movie lies in an excellent script. The best script is to let the audience break away from the role of bystanders and participate in it. Go to the movie, talk to the movie, interact with the movie. In this film, the audience passes The repeated comparison of the wonderful game between the prosecution and the defense seems to be in the trial seat, participating in thinking and participating in the trial. Although this is a highly controversial topic, the director did not leave an open-ended ending, he gave his own answer: when you acquiesce, when you participate, when you become part of this killing machine, you is guilty! In the play, it is repeatedly emphasized that the trial of these judicial and law enforcers is to judge the whole of Germany. If you have to say this, then yes, this film is to judge the whole of Germany. Those Germans who support the Nazis and participate in Nazi acts are "guilty" , from a criminal trial to a trial of human nature. During the viewing process, I also repeatedly struggled, sometimes persuaded by the prosecutor, sometimes shaken by the defense lawyer, but I still agree with Judge Dan Haywood in the end, guilty! Even though most similar war criminal cases were acquitted, none of the defendants in this film were finally released after serving their sentences because, "Jiang Ning, you've known for a long time that when you first sentenced a When innocent people are guilty."
Ignorance is not an excuse to do evil. Distinguishing between good and evil is an innate instinct. Ignorance is just because you don't want to know, don't want to know, don't dare to know.
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
