Analysis Of Judgement At Nuremberg By Abby Mann

Judgement at Nuremberg by Abby Mann is a courtroom drama, depicting the trial of a former judge of Nazi Germany, Ernst Janning. The drama goes on questioning his responsibility for sending Jews to extermination under the Nazi regime, but throughout the trial, Janning keeps quiet. Nearing the climax of the play, Janning gives a spectacular confession, admitting his guilt of knowing what was happening but never stopping it. The play comes to an end as Judge Haywood gives the judgement of guilty. Janning’s confession is so dramatic that every audience pays attention to it. If you were to see this play in a simple manner, there is no room for further discussion about his guilt. However, there are also minor confessions in dialogues outside the …show more content…
Bertholt, (s)he would realize the complexity of the concept of guilt in this play. In the scene outside of courtroom, namely at the lobby of Grand Hotel, Haywood confesses his confusion to Mrs. Bertholt as he’s trying figure out what actually was happening in Germany under the Nazi regime. Prior to this scene in the courtroom, Colonel Parker shows a documentary film on Nazi’s genocide. He presents the film as his strong evidence that supports his argument that Janning is guilty, and states that “there are no words to fully describe what happened, but we have a mute but eloquent witness ... the camera’s eye”(60). The film is so graphic and shocking that everyone in the courtroom even including Judge Haywood is convinced that Janning is pure evil. Sontag discusses, in her book, Regarding the Pain of Others, about images and their impact on people’s perception of what’s been recorded. On camera’s eye, she argues that it provides only one viewpoint of a picture, and it is strictly controlled by the caption. According to her, when an image is displayed, “[the] meaning—and the viewer’s response—depends on how the picture is identified or misidentified; that is, on words”(Sontag 29). She stresses the power of identification of an image using words, and argues that it sends out a strong message. The film of Nazi’s holocaust works as a strong evidence of accusation because of Parker’s presentation, and it …show more content…
Bertholt provides, but also the character of herself—who she is in the play—work to further complicate the question of who is guilty. In the dialogues with Haywood, Mrs. Bertholt provides her viewpoint representing the civilians in Germany. However, it is important to mention her character, who is ambiguous in her responsibility as a widow of a military man who was found guilty in a prior trial. Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt also provides the vague sense of guilt of a specific figure in the Nazi’s crime. Adolf Eichmann argues in his trial questioning his responsibility as a bureaucrat under the Nazi regime. Eichmann keeps claiming throughout his trial, that he is not the one who was responsible for the Nazi’s holocaust, but he was just following orders as an obedient servant. He reveals his disappointment on the judgement of the court as he was found guilty. He did not know or did not care much about what was going on, and decided to just follow the law and orders, as a perfect bureaucrat, practitioner of the law. The same is true for Mrs. Bertholt, if I apply Eichmann’s claim in Arendt’s writing, which says that “they knew, of course, even though many of them may not have known the gruesome details”(Arendt 150), and that “[they have been tempted] not to become accomplices in all [the] crimes by benefiting from them”(Ardent 150). Similarly with Eichmann’s case where Arendt has come to the conclusion that the nature