But for the Grace of God, by Tyler Smith

JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961)
Directed by: Stanley Kramer
Written by: Abby Mann
Starring: Spencer Tracy, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, Burt Lancaster

Is there anything more disturbing than when somebody tries to justify rape? Not that many people out there are doing that, but the fact that there are some men out there who blame it on the woman is both infuriating and just sad. One looks at this mindset and tries to figure out what exactly these people are thinking. How can they defend this? What is wrong with them?

Well, upon watching Stanley Kramer’s Judgment at Nuremberg, I think I’m a little closer to understanding this line of thinking. When you really think about it, how often are we confronted with evil? I’m not talking about somebody lying or stealing; I’m talking about pure, unrelenting evil. Rape, murder, that sort of thing. It’s not very often, I think.

But, if we were, how would we react? Of course, the majority of people would disapprove, but I think there’s a deeper, less conscious reaction to it.

Often, the first thing we do is try to figure out how it applies to us. Did we know the victim? If not, are we familiar with the circumstances? Are we somehow similar to the victim? Could this happen to us?

Then comes the more chilling question; are we similar to the perpetrator? In the right situation, would we be capable of doing this ourselves?

It is in reaction to this question that we instinctively distance ourselves from the crime. We play up the differences between us and the perpetrator, so that we can safely say, “No, of course we wouldn’t do that.”

But, sometimes that doesn’t work. Maybe the similarities are just too great. So, the next step, sadly, is to say that perhaps the crime is not that bad. Yes, we’re very similar to the person that did this, and we could be capable of this, but, really, is it that bad? I mean, the girl was asking for it, right? The clerk at the store was giving the robber grief; he got himself killed, really, when you think about it? Maybe if those Arabs over there weren’t so damn crazy, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now, right?

And, hey, while we’re at it, the Jews brought it on themselves, right?

And so, here we are, at Judgment at Nuremberg. Set during the Nuremberg war crime trials, the film is a fascinating examination of how several character react to the unfathomable evils of National Socialism. There’s the judge, trying to remain objective and gain as much information on the country as he can before he makes his decision. There’s the prosecutor, one of the first American soldiers to see the piles of bodies in the concentration camps. Those images forever burned in his head, we can see the contempt that he has for all things German. There are the German townspeople, who plead ignorance with such fervor that one can clearly see the guilt they feel.

Then there’s the character who I find the most fascinating; Herr Rolfe, the lawyer for the defense. In an Oscar-winning performance by Maximillian Schell, Rolfe is an exuberant, passionate academic, whose zeal for the case almost borders on dangerous. Because, by the time the film starts, all of the obvious German war criminals have already been tried and convicted. Now, we’re down to judges and other officials, whose guilt is not as obvious as one would assume. To find these men guilty is getting uncomfortably close to finding the German commoners guilty.

It is with this in mind that Rolfe systematically, and brilliantly, makes his case. His passion is so deep that, on occasion, one feels as if Rolfe is, in fact, defending himself. At one point, Rolfe says, “All of Germany is on trial.” And, of course, if all of Germany is on trial, then he himself is on trial, as well.

Rolfe, whose official line of defense is “they, as judges, were just upholding the laws of the land,” smashes through the prosecutions witnesses. At times, it is so interesting to watch his logical mind work, that we sometimes forget what it is he’s arguing for. The fact that Rolfe is a fairly likable fellow helps quite a bit, too. So much so, in fact, that it takes us a while to realize that he has started to blame the victims. In one particularly harsh questioning, Rolfe has reduced a woman to tears before somebody finally speaks up and talks about the insanity of turning this back around on those that were already so hurt.

Rolfe is taken aback. His look is that of realization. He was so busy defending his client, that he failed to see that he was justifying an evil that is completely indefensible.

Rolfe’s story is an interesting meditation on how to react to evil. As many of you know, I myself fall into a lot of groups that have caused a great deal of suffering in this world. I am a Christian, conservative, white, and male. As many of you can attest, any time somebody criticizes one of these groups, I often get a bit defensive, because I feel as though I personally am being criticized. And, sometimes, I’m sorry to say, I find myself turning into Herr Rolfe, defending actions and attitudes that I don’t at all approve of.

This film has helped me to realize (though I don’t always exemplify this) that, just because I have something in common with someone else- perhaps someone that has done something awful- this does not make me the same as them. An attack on them is not an attack on me.

I should not defend evil just because it may sometimes come into contact with good.