We stand for justice, truth, and the value of a single human 

Everything about this movie and Annie hoffman,'s script unforgettable! Magnificent.

Thanks for this information.I never knew. How wonderful!!!!!!

You're welcome! Gregory Peck also had a commanding voice and presence and James Earl Jones still does...but there aren't too many who can do that for sure. Sidney Poitier maybe is another. Of course, it helps when you have great material and Tracy did.

saulpaulus As an actor myself, you must always consider casting not only the best actors, but the best actors for the PART. Greg Peck was far too young, Poitier and Jones are black. This role called for a " an old backwoods hick from Maine," and none but Tracy specifically filled the bill.

tiffsaver Yes, of course. I was thinking more generally of the vocal abilities of the actors although at 45, Peck probably could have been made up to take the role.

saulpaulus Better still, he would have made a perfect prosecuting attorney instead of Widmark, who I thought was the weakest of the all-star lineup.

tiffsaver Maybe. He'd have had to approach it differently. Widmark was the agitator who got under everybody's skin. Don't see Peck playing that sort of role. Heard either the producer or the director interviewed some years ago when the show was reprised on Broadway and he thought Lancaster was the weak link.

AMEN!!!

It was an incredible movie. Glad you appreciated the post. As becomes clear later in the movie & in this speech, the movie was a critique not only of Nazism but McCarthyism as well.

Absolutely agree! Some years ago, I went to see a Broadway rendition of it with Schell in the part of Judge Janning played by Burt Lancaster in the movie. The producer or director of the movie was involved in the play and was interviewed. He mocked Lancaster's performance suggesting that it was wooden and pro forma. The play was a disappointment. The movie, including Lancaster's performance, was not.

@@billboth4814 Definitely one of my favorite actors ever, Lancaster. His speech in JAN is one of the best ever; frankly so is Schell's for that matter. I rarely see such movies where everybody just kills it in their respective role. Even though it is fantasy, Once Upon A Time In The West also has massive performances from all actors/actresses in it. That movie might be the best Charles Bronson ever did; Hard Times is also arguably his best performance. Henry Fonda kills it, but I still think nothing can ever top the movies Fonda did in the 1940's, and especially his fine works with John Ford and William Wellman. And mocking Lancaster? Clearly the person you were speaking of never watched him in The Train, or the Oscar winning Elmer Gantry. Understated sells Burt's character amazingly well in Judgement at Nuremberg.

@Jack Wehrung Or frei sprechen, as it was known in the good old days.

Are you 4 years old?

Yes, too many people think that their personal freedom is of greater value than that of the lives they endanger.

@@billboth4814 Too many refuse to accept that their messiah is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Concluding stattement from the trial. This is the concluding statement from the film and it is jawdropping: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jRSw_0zpNE8.html

some are more equal than others...

Important and best.

Surely one of the greatest.

A great movie superbly acted and directed. A collector's item . Stanley Kramer at his best.

Max played Janning in the 2001 Broadway play that I went to see. It was a disappointment but anything would have been compared to this.

It was loaded w/ incredible performances. Judy Garland was nominated for best supporting actress and Montgomery Clift for best supporting actor.

Haven't seen CK but would rate this far better than the other 2.

We certainly have a president who doesn't seem to value human life.

What an idiotic statement to make.

@@billboth4814 definitely agree, Biden has no respect for unborn human life, plus he’s got over 40k American Covid deaths under his belt already.

@@izregistered He has plenty of respect for human life, far more than the "president" that preceded him. He simply does not believe that it is the government's business to invade womens bodies. However many Covid deaths have taken place since Jn 20 have really nothing to do with his policies as they have not had time to be implemented.

@@billboth4814 excuses Bill excuses.

Used to be Pro Life but noticed Pro Life pols didn't care much about babies after they left the womb. Safe, legal, rare is my view now.

You only need go to YOU Tube, view the whole actual trial with death camp footage, and then watch Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster, bring to life the personages in the fine , fine film. That is all.

+Jane Doe The murderers must answer for what they have earned.

And to the people who claim to be pro-life but consistently oppose programs that help poor women and their children.

+saulpaulus Can you give an example of that? I can give plenty of the opposite. Christian organizations feeding the poor, the homeless, drug addicts. Christian woman's shelters taking in girls and women who, either keep their babies or put them up for adoption to loving families instead of killing them. Look at 50 years of government programs, it's replaced fathers, who just impregnate and leave, women who have baby after baby to get more money, the majority of people on subsidies, too many no longer have any will or reason to get off but complain nobody cares, it's never enough. You think abortion solves anything? It just makes us colder and less human, killing an innocent life because of a poor life choice, because it's a "burden."

There you are making excuses for cutting the programs that are in place to provide for poor women. Why do you think women get abortions? Because they will not be able to provide for them because of the holier than thou folks who cut those programs and condemn abortions, who make it too easy for the men who impregnate them to get guns to threaten those women and pressure them into getting abortions. And then, of course, folks fight to cut funding for contraceptives and foreign aid that promotes development and encourages smaller and more prosperous families. I help sustain a soup kitchen in my community. That is NOT a substitute for funding programs to help the least among us.

saulpaulus You should be honored for sustaining a soup kitchen. I salute you. I volunteer along with my wife at a chain of Christian run second hand stores that employs former exotic dancers and prostitutes, battered women and single mothers. ( no federal money is taken) I'm also a Firefighter/Paramedic stationed in a low income part of town and my wife is an ER nurse so we have a pretty good idea of what you see. We just see how to help differently. Of course the government should help BUT there is a difference though between reducing or cutting off funds to those who have no drive, no incentive to better themselves, who just want to have it all handed to them, who think they DESERVE it, then helping those who TRULY need and deserve it and are TRYING. As I stated it's been going on for 50+ years yet the poor and uneducated are still with us despite BILLIONS of dollars being spent but now HIGHER numbers of families are on subsidies because it's generational, a way of life Planned Parenthood is a murder racket, founded by Margaret Sanger a bigot and supporter of eugenics who believed certain races and the poor should not reproduce. Consciously or not that's the view of liberal whites who support PPH though they mask it by seeming to be "caring" when it's just the bigotry of low expectations.. The largest PPH facility in the world is located in the 9th Ward of Houston where the neighborhoods are low income white, black and Hispanic. Think that is an accident?

Most of the programs that RW Congressional reps like to cut benefit the working poor. So-called welfare reform of the 1990s made it very hard for anyone not working to collect benefits. Cutting food, housing and medicaid benefits for the poor makes it more likely that he mother will terminate a pregnancy. PPH clinics tend to be in poorer neighborhoods because they provide womens healthcare that wealthier women get at the doctor's office. Much of their work is focused on improving womens health and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

The point of the clip is that no one should be sacrificed. All humans have value.

Do medical experiments have an element of risk involved?

Absolutely. Also important to remember that with abortion we are talking about the government simply allowing a woman to make a decision whereas the Nazis decided to murder others.

...Allowing a woman to destroy an organism that is genetically distinctive from herself. Oh, and if you're a black fetus, you have a 30 percent chance of being killed in the womb before you're even born. In 2012, there were more black children being aborted in New York than were being born. This sounds like race-based Genocide to me - you know, the thing this entire movie is supposed to be against!

Self defense is the only justification for killing.

He references "our decision", not the entire US. He notes that "the real complaining party at the bar is civilization". All nations have skeletons in their closets. For example, China lost between 15 & 20 million to Japanese aggression. As many or more Asians were dying of starvation every month thanks to Japanese confiscation of food supplies than the 1-200 K who tragically lost their lives from the atomic blasts. It should not be forgotten that Japan started the fighting in Asia by invading China and brutalizing its population. It continued it by attacking the US & its allies. It continued the war after its leaders admitted to themselves in the summer of 1944 in messages that were intercepted by US intelligence that they could not win. They continued the fighting after the terrible firebombings (that surrender in 1944 would have prevented as well as the A bombings) that actually killed more than the A bombings. They themselves were working on an atomic weapon and they surely knew what was meant when they were warned of “prompt and utter destruction.” .

That's what you got from this great film?

It's DIETRICH, THE GREAT ACTRESS, PLAYING A NAZI WIDOW, DURING THE TRIAL OF NAZI 'JUDGES' WHO SENT MILLIONS TO THEIR DEATHS. DIETRICH IS A TRAGIC CHARACTER---- ONCE HER HUSBAND IS HUNG, SHE IS HOMELESS-AND HER NAZI VIEWS AND HIS, DESTROYED MILLIONS.

+gsimon123 I am not a fan of abortion either although I have decided that I cannot substitute my judgement for the mother's. But, to be consistent, you have to also support measures that help mother and child AFTER the child is born. Most pro-lifers I know of do not.

saulpaulus The point is still unchanged though that basically everything that this speech is about could apply to abortion as well. If a fetus is a human... I'm just speculating. Keep in mind, some might say we can't substitute our judgement for the judgement of the nazis in this movie or in the actual real world events that occurred. But clearly we did when it got way too out of hand. Makes me wonder with the advances in science making fetuses viable earlier and earlier if abortion will one day be looked at as just another barbaric thing humans used to do but moved past.

+gsimon123 You aren't REALLY comparing the mother to the Nazis, are you? And you can only fairly apply this to abortion if you are ready to stand with the mother and help her in every possible way after she gives birth.

saulpaulus Well I'm not in any position to provide anything to any women. However, if you think I'd let some kid starve or something absolutely not. Of course children should be taken care of after the fact. That point is sort of irrelevant though if you are arguing that they should be killed before even getting to that stage. There is a weird misconception that being pro-life and pro-baby are mutually exclusive. They aren't. You value human life at any stage. I mean if you find a pro-lifer who hates babies by all means criticize them but I have yet to find a single one in my entire life that says "ok fuck off" as soon as a baby is born. No one allows you to kill a human after it is born; I'm saying why is it ok to kill right before it is born? Why? Because it isn't a "person" is often the answer. I'm comparing the logic that allows both the nazis and abortion to happen. No two people are alike. Mothers and nazis are not the same people. However, the logic of allowing "personhood" or your personal opinion of how you much you value a human being so that you can exterminate it is almost identical between how the nazis viewed human life and the pro-choice movement. When you look at a human and say it isn't a "person" (and personhood is some arbitrary opinion) so you can kill it for virtually any reason you want... what degree of moral corruption should come as a surprise after that? Just like this video surmises the value of a single human is where it all falls apart. If you don't value a single human life you don't value ANY human life.

+gsimon123 I personally would not want my wife to have an abortion. Comparing the pro=choice movement to the Nazis is not really a good comparison. You might also compare those who cut benefits for poor women and children to Nazis. Those policies promote abortion. The Nazi analogy is way overused. Only the Nazis were Nazis.

fucking pst - funny bullshit trash present - any change??? - ok the numbers of deaths - and the way of killing / in-justment - fucking this failure of evolution - this fucking trash humen race - after all.