It's taken a few sittings. It is a 1961 fictionalization of a Nurenberg trial, of German judges, which had taken place less than 15 years prior.
Interesting to think of this turning point of history, after the ostensible crushing of fascism, when choices were being made about its future. Communism is mentioned a couple of times, by an American, then by a Nazi defendant, as a potential consequence of being overly zealous.
The equivocation of liberalism is displayed. The main American judge character, Heywood, seems to have his sympathies pulled to the "humanity" of everyday nazi collaborators. During his time in Germany he is provided to live in the former home of a wealthy German woman who's husband had already been hung in a prior trial for his leading role in the military. She attempts to charm him into believing that trial had been unjust and that they, like most Germans, had been oblivious to the now-revealed horrors of concentration camps. Heywood also spends a bit of time with the servants who worked in the house under this wealthy Nazi and remain there to care for him. Me personally I feel that there was too much time to allowing this argument to be made in plain language, while the counter to it was rather subtle, being made substantially by facial expressions and other quiet means.
There is a fairly lengthy scene where actual footage from the liberation of concentration camps was played with explanatory narration from one of the prosecution. This is by way of evidence of what happened to the people who were sentenced by the judges. Showing ovens, bodies, children with tattooed arms, shoes, glasses, teeth, more bodies, leather and other artifacts made of human remains, Zyclon-B showers. Later, the 4 defendant judges are eating in the prison mess, and 1 of them is saying how horrible it was to play that video which had nothing to do with them. And it was impossible all those horrible things happened, how could so many people have been killed like that? Impossible. At another table, there is a prisoner who was in charge of one of the camps. The upset judge gets his attention and asks him, that couldn't have happened right? And the man responds, "Oh, It's possible" and mirrors the language used by the prosecution in his description. Ends by explaining the hard part is disposing of the bodies. Dinner goes on.
In the conclusion, all defendants are found guilty and sentenced to Life. But as described in wikipedia:
[Nazi] German defense attorney Hans Rolfe meets Haywood after the trial to inform him on his estimation that no defendant will probably stay in prison for more than 5 years. Haywood replies that Rolfe's position may be logical but without reverence for justice.
The film closes:
The 1985 Soviet theatrical adaptation, Процесс, which sounds overall more spirited, underlines this:
On the screen footage of newsreels: former war criminals walk through the streets, exercises of NATO troops, American missiles on the territory of Germany, the nuclear mushroom of Hiroshima, the police disperse an anti-war demonstration.
very 1961 trailer: https://archive.org/details/judgment-at-nuremberg-1961-720p-trailer
full 3hr movie: https://archive.org/details/movie-judgment-at-nuremberg-1961
RU-to-EN machine-translated Plot section of wikipedia page for Процесс
The American tribunal, led by Judge Heywood, is listening to the four-day-old perpetrators of Hitler’s “justice” Ernst Yanning, Emile Hann, Friedrich Hoffestter and Werner Lampe. Judges are judged - those who in the days of the fascist Reich were called guardians of the law. It was their turn to sit on the dock according to the laws of a different time. Prosecutor Colonel Lawson proves their guilt not only to those they subjected to violent sterilization, innocently condemned and shot for “relations with the lower race”, but also in front of all living on earth.
Chief accused Ernst Yanning (formerly the Minister of Justice of the Third Reich) did not fight, did not work in concentration camps, wrote books on the right. But, confirming the policy of Hitlerite Germany by court orders, made the crimes of the authorities committed on behalf of the law. Without being a villainous by nature, he nevertheless served the most inhuman regime as the world knew. Rolfe’s lawyer stubbornly and persistently argues that the defendants acted in accordance with the laws of the country in which they were born and the historical time in which they lived. But the representative of the prosecution, Colonel Lawson, stands at his own: thanks to such non-resistance to violence, fascism became possible. And almost first of all they, the judges, are guilty of the death of an estimated number of people.
The defendant’s compatriot, the lawyer Rolfe is not alone – he is only a clear part of the dark forces behind him, not only those who are in the dock, but also ordinary people, like the Halbestadtov, and refined aristocrats like Frau Berthold. The fight between fascism and humanism forces everyone to make a choice: to indulge (at least not by interference) evil or fight.[[4]
His account of fascism is presented by his miraculously surviving victims witnesses: Irene Goffmann and Rudolf Petersen. Violently paid for convictions and reluctance to lie, they are now at war with those who would like to reverse the story. Viewers have the opportunity and time to seriously think about each argument of the prosecution and the defense, seriously solve the question for themselves: what is the responsibility of each of those who lived then, for the tragedy that happened on the planet, what is the responsibility of each of us for what is happening in the world today.
During the trial, the accused Yanning understands that his acquittal, which Rolfe’s lawyer is so stubbornly seeking, will inevitably lead to the revival of the terrible ghost of fascism. Yanning stands up and condemns himself and all those who justify the ideology of fascism. Lawyer Ralfe understands that it is no longer possible to defend Yanning, but it is very important how the Yanning case will sound for the Germans. The goal of Rolfer’s lawyer is to psychologically prepare Germany for rehabilitation. After all, Rolfe is running for the Bundestag of a new formation. Rolfi's aggressive hatred of peace and humanity lies in fascism and leads to реваншизму[revanchism.[5]]
The tragedy of irresponsibility led, in due time, to the flowering of fascism, and this should not happen again. This idea is gradually coming to this American, Judge Heywood, under whose chairmanship the tribunal must pass off his sentence. Step by step, Judge Heywood penetrates into the nature of Nazism, slowly but irrevocably comes to condemn not only the four executioners in the mantles now in the dock, but also fascism as such. Each such step acquires a generalizing meaning in the performance, showing how much a “small” can do, but an honest person in the common struggle for peace. If at first Judge Heywood was still doubting, then by the time of the end of the meetings I was convinced: it is necessary to judge from the position of all mankind, all living and alive. The defendants must answer on the highest account.
The other way goes to the prosecutor Colonel Lawson: the accusing fascism passionately and sincerely at the beginning of the performance, he is under pressure from those who are no longer afraid of fascism, but “dangeries from the East”, at the last moment he refuses to fight. Prosecutor Lawson has subdued himself to a new political situation. He is deeply vigilantly experiencing his inner conflict. Time broke the hero. The pre-prepared accusatory speech for the final session of the court, Lawson postponed. Too sorry. Too principled. Not by time. And this climax, the hero of the play becomes Judge Heywood.
The trial ended as if rightly: all the defendants, as Judge Heywood demanded, were sentenced to life imprisonment, as were their predecessors in 1946. But after the end of the trial, Rolfe’s lawyer offers Judge Heywood Levy “all those he was sentenced to life imprisonment, will be at large in five years.”
The actor, who played the role of Judge Heywood, goes to the forefront and utters into the auditorium: “Of the 99 people sentenced by the tribunal to prison, none is serving more punishment.” On the screen footage of newsreels: former war criminals walk through the streets, exercises of NATO troops, American missiles on the territory of Germany, the nuclear mushroom of Hiroshima, the police disperse an anti-war demonstration. In the finale of the performance, with tightly close the elbows, the cramped rank with a friendly line is the artist to meet the auditorium - all the participants of the play.
And when in the final all the participants of the play, no longer the defendants and judges, not witnesses and defenders, and the artists of the Lenin Komsomol Theater will firmly bring the elbows and amicably go to meet the auditorium, all in this hall - as one - will stand in response to these steps [6[6]].
