Nuremberg is a Canadian film that was first released on 16th July 2000. The film was based on a book written by Joseph E. Persico and a teleplay by David W. Rintels. The runtime for the movie is approximately 180 minutes. The language used throughout the movie was English and German. Alliance Atlantis Communication produced the film in association with Canada Television (CTV) and British American Entertainment. It received various film nominations and won several awards.
Several actors were featured in the movie and were assigned different roles. Among the most notable characters included Alec Baldwin, Christopher Plummer, and Brian Cox alongside many other actors. In the film, Alec Baldwin acts as a judge of the United States Supreme Court.
…show more content…
The Nuremberg legislations were enacted in a special meeting during a political rally by the NSDAP in Nuremberg (Hirsch, 2013). The Reichstag was the creators of these laws. The Nuremberg Justice Palace was a small regional court used to trial matters in the region. In fact, the building did not have any association with the rally conducted by the NAZI party annually.
Historical Event Three
In the movie, Justice Jackson is portrayed as a hero in the manner in which he conducted the trial. He is embarrassed and outmaneuvered by Goring in the initial stage of the trial. However, he rejuvenates and raises concrete evidence against the defendant thereby winning the case. The movie errors when it portrays that some verbal statements were made by the defendants when they were indicted. Additionally, the sentences given to the accused were pronounced together in the film.
The actual events were also misrepresented in this case. In reality, the cross-examination conducted by Jackson severely destroyed his reputation because it was below expectation. In fact,
NUREMBERG (2000) MOVIE
…show more content…
Having watched the movie Nuremberg, several issues about the movie are debatable. The movie is based on a book written about the actual events that took place in Germany after World War 2. However, in the actual cast, the movie does not depict the true nature of events. Entirely different accounts of what happened are not shown in the film. This action lowers the credentials of the movie about the theme of history. It is not possible to understand the real intention of the creators of the movie. A movie based on real events is supposed to be educative as it represents events that took place a long time ago. The movie will be watched by numerous people many years after it was released. Whenever the events are wrongfully illustrated, false information will be passed to the viewers. I would recommend to people who are interested in historical events that took place in the Second World War to have a look at this film. Though the film depicts some false information of the true events that took place, it acts as a guide on what transpired during the aftermath of the Second World War.
NUREMBERG (2000) MOVIE
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
The movie did not really go into much of the activities before the pretrial. The action really happened with the court drama. There are several points that are in the movie that are more for show than for true effects. In the pretrial the Judge went a little
From the start, the movie is adapted from the novel and therefore it could not cover everything, some actions or acts in the novel are too dense such that it is not of any importance to angle them in the movie. It is very realistic to everyone that the movie cannot cover every single paragraph in the novel even the memorable ones. Some materials are left out in the film, and others were changed.
The personality of the character played by Henry Fonda affected the way things played out because he was analyzing all of the evidence and the whole situation. The character played by Henry Fonda, was an architect. In the first initial vote, he was the only one who voted not guilty. This juror which was #8, made sure that they went over all of the evidence and eye wi...
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
I believe that both characters showed interesting standpoints for the audience to recognize and maybe even understand. Juror 3 and 8 were definitely the two most conflicting characters; they created a lot of tension within the play. I find that the play “Twelve Angry men” really brought truth to the saying “justice is blind”; prejudice simply cannot interfere with the truth, neither can it restrict reasonable doubt.
...s of the Holocaust, the Allies held the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46, which made the horrifying actions of the Nazis known all over. The Ally forces pressured Germany to create a homeland for those who suffered through the Holocaust. Over the decades that followed, ordinary Germans struggled with the Holocaust’s bitter legacy, as survivors and the families of victims tried to regain their property and wealth that was taking away during the Holocaust. In 1953, the German government made payments to individual Jews and to the Jewish people as a way of apologizing for the crimes which were committed by the German people.
****Both the movie and the book portray a timeline of events beginning with the start of the Holocaust or the taking of the Jews and concluding with the end of the
Another accuracy in this movie was the concentration camps in this movie, they were portrayed very well. Just like history, immediately after arriving at a concentration camp, they were split up and divided by gender and age. As soon as they arrived people who the Nazis did not see fit to work were killed. Along with this people
Director Mark Herman presents a narrative film that attests to the brutal, thought-provoking Nazi regime, in war-torn Europe. It is obvious that with Herman’s relatively clean representation of this era, he felt it was most important to resonate with the audience in a profound and philosophical manner rather than in a ruthlessness infuriating way. Despite scenes that are more graphic than others, the films objective was not to recap on the awful brutality that took place in camps such as the one in the movie. The audience’s focus was meant to be on the experience and life of a fun-loving German boy named Bruno. Surrounding this eight-year-old boy was conspicuous Nazi influences. Bruno is just an example of a young child among many others oblivious of buildings draped in flags, and Jewis...
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
Many times in Hollywood, a movie that intends to portray a novel can leave out key scenes that alter the novel’s message. Leaving out scenes from the novel is mainly done to time limits, however doing so can distort the author’s true purpose of the story. In history, movies were directed to intentionally leave out scenes that could alter the public’s opinion. This frequently lets the novel’s main points be swept under the rug. There were times of this at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, where white Americans were the only ones making movies.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror