Judgment at Nuremberg

Based on the post-WWII trials of Nazi officials, Judgment at Nuremberg features Spencer Tracy as the lead judge of the tribunal, one of the last roles of his career. The film is certainly a grand spectacle: the formal tribunal is brought to life by a group of skilled actors and accompanied by an epic soundtrack. The film is not exciting because of action sequences but tense because of a number of emotional monologues and confrontations between characters. Tracy’s performance is a highlight as he portrays Dan Haywood, a retired judge charged with deciding culpability among a group of justices who supported the Nazi regime.

Haywood faces a fundamental question that all jurists and rule-makers must ask themselves: what is wrong and what is right in each situation? Scenes from the tribunal show the brutal nature of World War II and Nazi concentration camps but Haywood’s conversations with regular Germans show that they are regular people with their own values. It quickly becomes apparent that not all of the defendants are identical and that they all made their choices for different reasons.

Some argued that the turnaround created by Hitler’s policies was worth the sacrifice of human lives. Others felt that it was important that they perform their duties in accordance with military tradition. A few based their support of Hitler on their aversion to Communism.

Did the judges know the ultimate outcome of their verdicts? How can one person judge another from an entirely different perspective who acted under extreme pressure? One of the defendants, Dr. Ernst Janning had a distinguished career and was considered to be the most skilled German jurist. However, he was now on trial for decisions made under Hitler’s rule that advanced the National Socialist regime.

The U.S. Army prosecutor had been working at the tribunal for two years; after reviewing the same brutal evidence over and over again, he had become very certain of his argument. The German lawyer assigned to the defendants used logical arguments and American legal history to make a compelling case. The primary defendant, played by Burt Lancaster retained his dignity throughout most of the proceedings but eventually exploded in a burst of emotion. Haywood won the respect of all parties by navigating through all of the evidence impartially and attempting to consider as many points of view as possible.

Understanding Media

Recently, CNN has revamped the format of their programmes to include more subtitles. Immediately after a guest says something, it is posted in the bar at the bottom of the screen. According to Marshall McLuhan in Understanding Media, this will turn television into a slightly cooler medium and require greater audience participation to keep up with the addition information that they are offered. Highlighting the key point - along with the visual medium - will increase audience retention of that specific information relative to a written article or radio broadcast. However, the phrases are so superficial and pedantic that the viewer will learn nothing; Mr. McLuhan would predict that the audience won’t pay as much attention to the speaker explaining the details and focus on keeping up with the statements on screen.

While it makes a great number of predictions about media as an extension of man’s self, the book is a little long. Some anecdotal evidence is interesting but esoteric and not germane to McLuhan’s argument. On the other hand, the work is very thorough and breaks down many components of daily life, ranging from radio and telephone to games, automobiles, and weapons.

The seminal argument is that it’s not what is on the news that that is important, but how the fact that people are communicating in new ways which is changing how modern life is structured. What becomes unfortunate is that the book (a hot medium) will likely scare away many prospective readers who have been conditioned to receive their information in little bunches as opposed to seeking it out and processing it themselves. So McLuhan may put forth correct theories but less and less people will be aware of them and understanding the effect on their daily lives.

Gran Torino

Clint Eastwood stars and directs this low-key film which ranges from sarcastic to sappy and manages to be meaningful without becoming too melodramatic. Gran Torino is the epilogue of the life of Walt Kowalski, played by Eastwood (sort of like a retired Dirty Harry at times) who fought in Korea and worked for forty years at the nearby Ford plant. After his wife died, he begins to connect with the Hmong family living next door and helps them out when they have trouble with a local gang.

At times, the film is not plausible yet the audience enjoyed the film. Walt’s offensive jokes drew laughs, in an “I can’t believe he just said that” sort of way. The plot was perfunctory at times but Eastwood’s performance drew many viewers in. Whether it was lending tools or lending his car - a 1970s mint condition Gran Torino that becomes the focal point of the film - Walt grows as a person, moving from intolerant to accepting to helpful.

Times when Walt mentors his neighbour Tao so that he has the skills to work instead of joining a gang are the highlights of the film, not the clichéd confrontations. It is funny when Walt throws his son out of his house for suggesting a retirement home but the moment when Walt finally opens his mind after seventy years and sees things a in different light makes the film stand out.

The Wrestler

The Wrestler seems to be a series of compelling character studies instead of an amazing story. Mickey Rourke, possibly playing himself - either a washed-up actor or professional boxer - is the centerpiece of the film. Darren Aronofsky’s decision to use hand-held cameras and authentic locations add to the realism of the film but I would have strongly preferred for his screenplay to tie up a few more loose ends. Does Randy “the Ram” die in the ring? Does his daughter forgive him? What about Cassidy the stripper?

“The people who you pass on the way up are the same ones who you will meet on the way down.” Twenty years after main eventing national wrestling events, Randy “the Ram” Robinson finds himself starring in same-time local shows at the American Legion Hall. Randy has trouble finding his identity: he seems to value his action figure and video game personas more than his real self. A dismal failure away from the ring, he decides to focus on what he enjoys: the wrestling ring.

Health concerns crop up, he becomes closer to a stripper named Cassidy, and he tries to reconnect with his daughter. Randy experiences some success and some disappointment as he approaches a twenty year rematch with his arch-nemesis the Ayatollah. He can’t decide whether to go through with the match or whether to finally call it quits.

I thought that The Wrestler does an excellent job of portraying the wrestlers as real people, with real emotions. A bespectacled Necro Butcher doesn’t want to run the ropes because of his knees; yet in the ring he staples a dollar bill to his forehead. Tommy Rotten and Ron Killings are concerned about reaching the next level; Bob a.ka. the Ayatollah goes from a businessman who owns several used car dealerships to “the Beast from the Middle East” in a matter of moments.

The Killers ask in their new album, “Are we human or are we dancer?” The Wrestler doesn’t answer that question but it does impart the importance of living with yourself and being satisfied with your lifestyle.

It’s a Wonderful Life

The Bloor Cinema held a complimentary screening of It’s a Wonderful Life for members last week; it’s another tribute to what can be done with steady direction, good chemistry between cast members, and a sensible screenplay.

Ranked thirty-second among I.M.D.B.’s top films, I never found it particularly great. At times, it seems to drag. Viewing the film in a full theatre erased some of those complaints as the film really has a lot of humourous lines. Certain scenes may be slightly old-fashioned (the scenes in Slap Shot don’t age well but it’s still an excellent comedy) but the messages that one person’s life touches dozens of other people and that an individual should remain true to their standards and values are still salient.

Older Films

Today, although it is rarely aired on television and rarely screened at cinemas, 12 Angry Men is an excellent film that highlights many of the faults in modern filmmaking (even in modern culture).

The strengths of the film are tremendous performances and a meaningful script. Henry Fonda’s Juror #8 is clear-headed and well-spoken, using salient logical points to make his argument. Other Jurors have superficial biases or deeper internal conflicts and are gradually won over due to a sensible line of reasoning. Thanks to the individual actors, the viewer can see how each member of the jury must deliberate within themselves before the group can render a verdict.

Writer Reginald Rose wrote a compelling script with many intense dialogues between different characters. Questions range from the basic facts to more complicated moral issues. Director Sidney Lumet employs a number of tight-angle shots to show the tension on the jurors’ faces. If remade today, the film would likely fail since it requires the audience to pay attention for more than ninety minutes. The contributions of the actors, Rose, and Lumet make the 1957 film a joy to watch.

Unfortunately, modern media doesn’t have the patience to create an urbane piece of art. Movies and television are repetitive; most films seem to share the same screenplay and reality shows have replaced significant programs. 12 Angry Men - like other older films - is simple but sophisticated. There should always be incentive for artists to take the high road and improve popular culture.

Toronto Stories

Toronto Stories begins with a series of diverse people passing through customs and ends with a wide-angle shot of a homeless man crossing the street and entering the dense maze of downtown. The link between these two diverse scenes (the personalities of the travelers and the soulless nature of the city) is a mysterious boy of unknown origin who does not speak English. Alongside the tapestry of tales of people moving on and doing their best in their different lives, there is a thread that asks how the city would be perceived by a newcomer who knew nothing about Toronto or its citizens.

The myriad of stories is arranged chronologically: two adventurous pre-teens, two stories of young adults in their early and late 20s, and an older homeless man who has been on the ropes since his son died in a swimming accident. The characters showcase the many types of compassion in a large city like Toronto and personify alternate ways of coping with adversity, such as resistance, recovery, or a stubborn refusal to change. Early in the film, the two kids find a homeless person sleeping and think that he is a monster but as the audience gets to know Henry, who seems to be a recalcitrant drug-addict at first, we see that he is a complex person trying to cope with his own tragic.

The writing and performances are uneven, given that the four separate stories have different writers. I thought that the film could have used a fifth story explaining how the boy figured into the equation. At the end of the fourth story, he is able to communicate via an interpreter so it would have been interesting to see him try to settle in Toronto.

There were some loose ends in each story that were not tied up; more contact between the storylines could have created a sense of Six Degrees of Separation, or better displayed the drama occurring in each story. For example, in the first story, a man jumps from a bridge with no apparent explanation. Had the explanation appeared in another story, it would have created a neat relationship.

The film was enjoyable, but not excellent. For example, just off the top of my head: other superior films, such as A History of Violence or No Country for Old Men, feature average everyday characters going about their lives and trying to make a difference.