The above two photos are from footage a second before and a second after the Nazi emblem atop Nuremberg's Zepplin Stadium was exploded by the US armed forces April 25, 1945.
For the next two weeks, we’re going to discuss three films that examine the allied occupation of post-War Germany. Specifically, what happens when military, judicial, congressional representatives, and by way of the audience -- civilians -- of the United States deal with a hated and now vanquished enemy. We became the leading military and economic power after World War II, but our traditionally isolationist and inward-looking mentality did not prepare us to be our enemies’ judge and jury. Our wealth, and our ethnic ties to other lands where most of our families originated, however, made us extremely sympathetic and generous to that outside world we so often distrusted. We were uneasy victors.
The three films are: “A Foreign Affair” (1948), “The Big Lift” (1950), and “Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961).
With these three films we experience a pattern of links that bring us full circle. “A Foreign Affair” is set in 1947, when a group of neophyte congressmen, and one delightfully prudish congresswoman played by Jean Arthur, investigate US military morale in the moral morass that is post-War Berlin. This film was released in August, 1948.
Two months before this film came out, the Berlin Airlift began, which, for the next year, ferried fuel and food to a stranded, captive western Berlin in the allied occupied zones when the Soviet Union, attempting to force the allies out of territory they wanted, enforced a blockade on the citizens. In response, the western allies, led by the US, undertook repeated, dangerous flights in a narrow flight path to feed the Berliners, a daring operation many feared would lead to war.
“The Big Lift” is about the Berlin Airlift through the eyes of one Air Force enlisted man, played by Montgomery Clift. He gets more lessons on international intrigue than he bargained for when he falls in love with a German woman in Berlin. Paul Douglas is his cynical pal, who hates the Germans and is not shy about showing it.
This movie was shot in Berlin in 1949, and released in April, 1950, after the Berlin Airlift had ended. In two more months, we would become involved in the Korean War, and leave Occupied Germany behind -- at least in our thoughts. In 1949, The German Democratic Republic, or East Germany was created, severing the country for the next 41 years.
“Judgment at Nuremberg” explores the Nuremberg Trials which investigated and tried Nazi officials for war crimes. There were actually several sets of trials over a three-year period. First the most notorious Nazi generals and political figures were tried from November 1945 to October 1946. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is set at the Judges Trial that ran from March to December 1947. So, this movie is set about the same time that the comedy “A Foreign Affair” is set, though that takes place in Berlin, and the trial is in Nuremberg in southern Germany. In one scene, we see two US military officers worrying about the trial because it might alienate the German civilians against us, and we need them now -- because the Russians have just blockaded Berlin.
Dovetailing us back to “The Big Lift”.
The movie, however, being made in 1961, has a gloss to it that the earlier movies do not. Partly because it is a drama and a truly superior film in every way, but mainly because so much time has passed. When we have digested an era, we are more introspective. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is achingly introspective.
The two earlier films share with us the excitement of the moment, when we really don’t know how the political events depicted are going to turn out in real life.
Our casts also dovetail a bit. Marlene Dietrich is Jean Arthur’s rival in “A Foreign Affair”. She plays a former Nazi collaborator.
Montgomery Clift also makes a dual appearance, first in the “The Big Lift”, and like Dietrich, he returns in “Judgment at Nuremberg” in a riveting performance as pathetic, mentally challenged victim of the Nazi regime.
The one thing all three films have in common is the ruins.
Montgomery Clift and Paul Douglas walk down city streets that are banked by ruins. Both they and Jean Arthur have already seen what they look like from the air when their planes fly over the bombed city.
We start this series on a light note - but not without controversy. “A Foreign Affair”, one of Billy Wilder’s most clever black comedies, drew the ire of the U.S. Congress, and our military. Both were seen in a less than flattering light in this movie, in an era where many felt that as the victors, we deserved to reap the benefits of triumph -- one of which was the assumption of moral superiority.
But that is no trick when you’re dealing with Nazis. Of course almost anybody is going to be morally superior to Hitler and his goon squads. But what about the average German citizen? The ones who were complicit in an evil regime, and the ones who were not? At what point did we discover they were human, just like us?
The discovery is always a shock and an embarrassment to the victor.
Come back Thursday for the comedy, “A Foreign Affair”, when Congresswoman Jean Arthur hunts for immorality among the GIs in a smoky Berlin cabaret.






17 comments:
This film is so interesting because of the REAL encounter between the two actresses. Sadly Jean lost, since America liked Dietrich better in the late 40s. But it really was the encounter of two totally different worlds -- entirely diverging morals.
I agree the two female leads' face-off was the driving engine behind the movie, for many reasons. Jean may not have garnered as much attention at the time as Dietrich, but she had unique strengths and more than holds her own in this movie.
I look forward to this trilogy, Jacqueline. I have not seen the first 2, but Judgment at Nuremberg is a life-changing movie. It tears the heart, challenges the conscience, makes you look at true evil, and then realize that these monstrous things were done by just -- people. Not aliens from space, but people just like us. Well, I hope not just like us. If the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis and the Japanese in that era are forgotten by our younger generations, we may be truly lost.
I agree, Becky, "Judgment and Nuremberg" is an astonishing movie, not just for its important message, but for the careful, quiet way it's told -- without any sensationalism.
Jacqueline, Jean's movies are extremely modern today. We all know she was a progressive. I had closed sweet&hot to concentrate on politics after the teaparty gridlock and downgrade. Now I opened it again, because I see many parallels between 30s unrest and occupy movement.
Jean will be more important than ever:
* Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (of course)
* The Devil and Miss Jones (unions and labor rights ect.)
* You Can't Take It With You (housing crisis)
ect./ect.
Jean has lots of nostalgia, romance and charm for the occupy movement. Revolt, outcry for social justice, is an old thing, with tradition and Jean shows it. She can make our days shinier.
The 40s/50s were pretty much anti-progressive and unpolitical. The McCarthy era... Marilyn Monroe... very typical for that time. But this is over now -- Jean has a lot to say in our days!
Holy walrus, I love this! Let me subscribe.... I gotta tell my buddies too....
Thanks, Miss G., and sweetandhot I agree that Jean's progressive messages in some of her films ring true today in many ways. I also think we're really lacking a healthy sense of humor these days, and Jean had that in abundance.
Of the three, I think I like JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG best. Although it's been years since I've seen all three films.
How do you judge true evil? How can you judge, condemn and punish without coming too close to the fire? (When you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you.)
Something had to be done, of course. But so many of these vile human beings went free or escaped. There was no real justice.
But then, that was, I suppose, to be expected.
Still, a great movie.
I like this: "When you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you."
It was a great movie, and the other two have their place as more "current events" and not so much the eloquent assessment that "Judgment at Nuremberg" is.
Stephanie Miller "and her sexy liberals" do it pretty much the right way: They laugh a lot and make fun of the evil. I love their radio show on Chicago's Progressive Talk.
The ideal way is always to fight the evil with positive goals. Don't hate the person who utters evil things -- just negate their ideas. Yes, and people who see a fascist behind any corner, are pretty much in the claws of the evil. I mostly refuse to meet negative people, but if necessary they get my "NO!" Then I tell 'em I haven't much time (for I don't wanna be influenced too much by negative spirits)....
So, Yvette is perfectly right.
I saw a very interesting doucumentary by Michael Riva about Dietrich. She really did not want to play the scene in A Foreign Affair where she appears in film footage socializing with Nazi elites - she'd spent so many years railing against just that type. But she said she'd only do that for Billy Wilder.
Then she hated doing the scene in Nurenberg where the widow swears they "didn't know". Spencer Tracy who convinced her to go through with it. Just an example of how fiercely she felt about Nazism and the path Germany took.
And.. John Lund is one of the most under appreciated actors! He is really great in this film. He was always as good or better than the material.
Hi, panavia, thanks for stopping by. Yes, one has to really feel for Marlene, getting these two good roles, but characters who were in step with the Nazis. Still, she did a great job with them. And I agree that John Lund was underappreciated, certainly under-used. I think this was his last best role, and then he went onto a handful of stuffy, stiff types.
Yes, yes, yes! Although I will always be on Jean's side: Dietrich was anti-Nazi. Although in 1930 she had been rather unpolitical. She was forced to leave Germany, because of a contract-swindle -- Sternberg had downright tricked her.
I just like Jean better, because she was anti-sexy. She was neither a Lola, nor Lolita later. She was a progressive with dignity and decency and that's great.
As actress Dietrich plays always the same type. Jean Arthur showed much more variety in her films. Bing Crosby also played always the same type, but he was a great voice. Jean wasn't a singer at all, but Dietrich was a rotten singer herself -- no voice art at all -- still copied by performers of all 'three' genders who can't sing at all.
Jean was really an American actress, she was a wonderful person and she was a progressive. These days we need her and Frank Capra's spirit very much!
Jacqueline, you and Yvette nailed it when you said, "When you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you." Having had many people in our family who fought in both World War 1 and World War 2, I was particularly interested in your thoughts on your "Uneasy Victors" post. Thanks for the sneak preview; looking forward to reading the whole thing!
My dad was part of Canadian Forces stationed in Berlin in the early 50s. If he had been in the earlier part of the alphabet he would have gone to Korea.
In Germany he first saw "High Noon" sitting in the cheap seats, and found a love for German opera. I didn't hear a lot of stories. I think he got in trouble a lot.
If he's your father, he probably did have a hard time keeping out of German trouble.
Must have been a fascinating experience for him, Berlin after the Airlift and before the Wall, German opera, and "High Noon". Strange days for a young man.
Post a Comment