A rolling documentary on Ben Ferencz and his role in the Nuremberg trials and subsequent development of the international crime court (ICC). It was quite incredible to learn how Ben came to be at Nuremberg and how we went about proceedings. Commentary coupled with films and pictures from the WWII concentration camps made for an striking documentary. Most of the film deals with Nuremberg and leading up to it, but also goes into the years after and how Ben championed for the ICC. Was a very interesting film, lots of history.
15 Reviews
Outstanding Man
121mcv25 September 2019
Nuremberg
gabethurau14 October 2019
This movie was interesting. And although there is no shortage of films/documentaries on the infamous Aryans, to my knowledge, not a lot of them have focused on the trials at Nuremberg.
It was great to get to peek behind the curtain and see some of the inner workings of the Nuremberg proceedings. I just wished it would have focused a little more on the trial itself, instead of on the minutiae of Ben Ferencz's life.
Yes, yes, I know it's a biography on the man. I know that it'd be a blow to his legacy to reduce his biopic into a giant courtroom film, but that's where I wanted it to dwell the most. Because, after all, it was an unprecedented trial that needs more coverage.
But you could tell the nitty-gritty details were difficult to relive, so I respect the man for everything he could share on camera. It took a lot of cajones.
It was great to get to peek behind the curtain and see some of the inner workings of the Nuremberg proceedings. I just wished it would have focused a little more on the trial itself, instead of on the minutiae of Ben Ferencz's life.
Yes, yes, I know it's a biography on the man. I know that it'd be a blow to his legacy to reduce his biopic into a giant courtroom film, but that's where I wanted it to dwell the most. Because, after all, it was an unprecedented trial that needs more coverage.
But you could tell the nitty-gritty details were difficult to relive, so I respect the man for everything he could share on camera. It took a lot of cajones.
Watching for the third time with a new friend
heatherlspence8 June 2019
I CAN NOT get enough of Ben. When I start to explain the basics of this documentary/ biography, my friends say, "YES! Show me now!" So, here we go, round three and I have no plans of stopping at 3. LOVE YOU, Mr. Ferencz
My Hero
milunac24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
We need so many more leaders like Benjamin. It's a different side of perspective history that we don't hear about often; so much of what is heard pertains to present day. Listen. We, as a people, need more clarified examples of clear and sound morals and ethics that Ben spoke.
"The Trial of the Vanquished by the Victors Cannot be Impartial"
saynotokalergi18 November 2019
The title choice of "Prosecuting Evil" is a red flag indicating a very one-sided bias in the movie, in my opinion. The overall feeling from the movie was about praising Ferencz, and instilling in the audience blind support for his role in the Nuremberg trials.
If only this movie's priorities were an impartial look at what really happened, and included the disagreements from other well known people about how it was all handled. Ferencz was in the Third Army under General George Patton, who did not approve of how the Nuremberg trials were handled. For example, many disagreed with using torture to extract confessions for the Nuremberg trials. See below for more info.* Modern standards would render those confessions obtained through torture invalid, because it violates human rights, which Ferencz is supposedly all about. Why didn't Ferencz ensure a humane, ethical and accurate method of obtaining the truth?
Ferencz's views on modern political subjects were also brought up, which seemed off-topic. To push the idea that all nations should give up their sovereignty to an international court led by a few people that are unaccountable and unelected would have been viewed as treason by audiences not long ago. Lofty goals like "peace" and "avoiding war" are simply disguises for what seems like the real agenda - taking power away from countries around the world and placing it into hands of Ferencz and others who hold those positions.
The audience didn't get an explanation as to why some evils were not prosecuted by Ferencz (such as the Soviet genocides, and the Allied terrorb-mbing of Dresden which is covered by the 2015 documentary Hellstorm). If the goal is to "prosecute evil" - then why let these injustices go without prosecution? Does Ferencz only care about some lives, but not others?
*To get a better idea of the overall feeling at the time about the Nuremberg trials, please read the following:
U.S. Senator Robert Taft said America's participation in the Nuremberg trial is a blot on the honor of the United States, for which Europeans will condemn us in the future. Taft criticized the Nuremberg Trials for trying National Socialist war criminals under ex post facto laws. On Oct. 6, 1946, Senator Taft said, "The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice." -U.S. Senator Robert Taft, Oct. 6, 1946 -Kennedy, John Fitzgerald; Profiles in Courage. Sorensen, Ted (1955). Page 191.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Harlan F. Stone condemned America's participation in the Nuremberg trials, describing it as a lynch mob and a fraud. Mason, Alpheus Thomas (1968) (1956). Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. Page 716.
"The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. . . . The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators." "Strong men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by their prosecutors." - Judge Edward L. Van Roden. Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949. The Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949.
Chief U.S. prosecutor Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest." Luban, David (1994). Legal Modernism: Law, Meaning, and Violence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10380-5. Page 360-361. "The Legacy of Nuremberg". PBS Online/WGBH. 1 March 2006.
Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." 'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr., and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif.: 1983). Page 194.
U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben. Ambruster, Howard Watson (1947). Treason's Peace. Beechhurst Press. Page 411.
"You'll see. A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can't have a trial without law." -Joachim von Ribbentrop, 20 November 1945. Gilbert, Gustave M. (1995) (1947). Nuremberg Diary. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-80661-2. Page 36.
If only this movie's priorities were an impartial look at what really happened, and included the disagreements from other well known people about how it was all handled. Ferencz was in the Third Army under General George Patton, who did not approve of how the Nuremberg trials were handled. For example, many disagreed with using torture to extract confessions for the Nuremberg trials. See below for more info.* Modern standards would render those confessions obtained through torture invalid, because it violates human rights, which Ferencz is supposedly all about. Why didn't Ferencz ensure a humane, ethical and accurate method of obtaining the truth?
Ferencz's views on modern political subjects were also brought up, which seemed off-topic. To push the idea that all nations should give up their sovereignty to an international court led by a few people that are unaccountable and unelected would have been viewed as treason by audiences not long ago. Lofty goals like "peace" and "avoiding war" are simply disguises for what seems like the real agenda - taking power away from countries around the world and placing it into hands of Ferencz and others who hold those positions.
The audience didn't get an explanation as to why some evils were not prosecuted by Ferencz (such as the Soviet genocides, and the Allied terrorb-mbing of Dresden which is covered by the 2015 documentary Hellstorm). If the goal is to "prosecute evil" - then why let these injustices go without prosecution? Does Ferencz only care about some lives, but not others?
*To get a better idea of the overall feeling at the time about the Nuremberg trials, please read the following:
U.S. Senator Robert Taft said America's participation in the Nuremberg trial is a blot on the honor of the United States, for which Europeans will condemn us in the future. Taft criticized the Nuremberg Trials for trying National Socialist war criminals under ex post facto laws. On Oct. 6, 1946, Senator Taft said, "The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice." -U.S. Senator Robert Taft, Oct. 6, 1946 -Kennedy, John Fitzgerald; Profiles in Courage. Sorensen, Ted (1955). Page 191.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Harlan F. Stone condemned America's participation in the Nuremberg trials, describing it as a lynch mob and a fraud. Mason, Alpheus Thomas (1968) (1956). Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. Page 716.
"The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. . . . The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators." "Strong men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by their prosecutors." - Judge Edward L. Van Roden. Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949. The Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949.
Chief U.S. prosecutor Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest." Luban, David (1994). Legal Modernism: Law, Meaning, and Violence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10380-5. Page 360-361. "The Legacy of Nuremberg". PBS Online/WGBH. 1 March 2006.
Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." 'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr., and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif.: 1983). Page 194.
U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben. Ambruster, Howard Watson (1947). Treason's Peace. Beechhurst Press. Page 411.
"You'll see. A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can't have a trial without law." -Joachim von Ribbentrop, 20 November 1945. Gilbert, Gustave M. (1995) (1947). Nuremberg Diary. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-80661-2. Page 36.
Great Story
caramia20021 December 2019
As a bio, this is a good historical story. But this film goes farther, which is also part of Ferencz's life, but it's very one-sided. The film begins with overly dramatic music and slick snippets from the film. Then it settles down into Ferencz's story as the prosecutor at the Nuremberg Nazi Trials, which is pretty fascinating (he was only 27!) and emotional, as he is also Jewish. He arrived soon after the camps (which) were liberated by the US and saw unimaginable things, some of which he is able to talk about, in a limited fashion.
There are few sources or interviews here, other than Ferencz, and of course, few of his own generation, as he is 99 (not sure how old at time of filming, although at least 94+). However, he serves as one of the few surviving witnesses, and a seemingly competent one, of the Nazi atrocities and counter to Holocaust deniers. That Nuremberg was not well received in the US is mentioned, with much more time given to German opposition. I find the US opposition much more interesting, esp as I was unaware of it, although I was born just a few years after WWII ended.
The whole story of the Intl Criminal Court (ICC, based on the Rome Statutes), which he helped organize, is not told here. Just more uplifting music as his vision of a perfect world is laid out. The way politicians and the press speak of the ICC and its trials, I thought we were full signatories, but learned from this film that we are not (even though President Clinton signed the Rome Statues, Bush dismantled them upon taking office, and Obama spoke against (which is not mentioned in the film, so it's a bi-partisan thing)). There are lots of world politics involved, and one can ask why it's Euro-centric or why certain countries haven't been prosecuted, or why mostly African countries have, since WWII (apparently they asked the ICC to, excepting RSA). Granted, it's not a doc about ICC, but a lot of minutes are devoted to it here and things are less rosy than painted in the film. No doubt the ICC might have more teeth and more complete criminal "law" laid out, by now, if the US had been involved all this time.
As a bio, and bios of peaceniks and human rights advocates are generally benign, it succeeds (thus my rating), esp if you do no research and take it at face value (and I am peacenik myself). As a complete doc, it succeeds much less. I would have rated it an 8 or 9 otherwise. It's very well done, which sometimes means "slick", but doesn't always mean complete or fully truthful.
There are few sources or interviews here, other than Ferencz, and of course, few of his own generation, as he is 99 (not sure how old at time of filming, although at least 94+). However, he serves as one of the few surviving witnesses, and a seemingly competent one, of the Nazi atrocities and counter to Holocaust deniers. That Nuremberg was not well received in the US is mentioned, with much more time given to German opposition. I find the US opposition much more interesting, esp as I was unaware of it, although I was born just a few years after WWII ended.
The whole story of the Intl Criminal Court (ICC, based on the Rome Statutes), which he helped organize, is not told here. Just more uplifting music as his vision of a perfect world is laid out. The way politicians and the press speak of the ICC and its trials, I thought we were full signatories, but learned from this film that we are not (even though President Clinton signed the Rome Statues, Bush dismantled them upon taking office, and Obama spoke against (which is not mentioned in the film, so it's a bi-partisan thing)). There are lots of world politics involved, and one can ask why it's Euro-centric or why certain countries haven't been prosecuted, or why mostly African countries have, since WWII (apparently they asked the ICC to, excepting RSA). Granted, it's not a doc about ICC, but a lot of minutes are devoted to it here and things are less rosy than painted in the film. No doubt the ICC might have more teeth and more complete criminal "law" laid out, by now, if the US had been involved all this time.
As a bio, and bios of peaceniks and human rights advocates are generally benign, it succeeds (thus my rating), esp if you do no research and take it at face value (and I am peacenik myself). As a complete doc, it succeeds much less. I would have rated it an 8 or 9 otherwise. It's very well done, which sometimes means "slick", but doesn't always mean complete or fully truthful.
An incredible human
threesevens-384897 June 2019
What Was Once Relevant Is No Longer So
nebohr19 July 2020
Back when Mr. Ferencz was shooting down American airplanes there were basically two ideologies that were threats to Peace and Democracy: Socialism (think the USSR and China) and Fascism (think Germany, Italy and Japan). NOW Germany is a Democracy, Italy and Japan nearly so. The USSR has broken up and the countries are edging ever closer towards Democracy. China is also slowly seeing that Socialism DOES NOT WORK. The threats NOW are the dozens and dozens of terrorist organizations/ nations WORLDWIDE that only the largest nations are able to fight WITH NO HOLDS BARRED. Mr. Ferencz did mankind a huge service. But some of his last few lines around 1:16:35, unfortunately, sounded like sour grapes.
Ben Ferencz is a Hero
AJ_McAninch10 July 2020
Very powerful story
adammargaretrae27 October 2019
More a Selfie than a Portrait
kathleenmcbrair11 June 2019
What a shame that a man who has accomplished so much needs to drown his deeds in self-aggrandizement. Roger Ebert said he's earned it. Really? Maybe some portion if you do it without a paycheck, and legal cases go nowhere without paralegals, secretaries, researchers, law clerks, investigators ... All the "me," "my," and "I" detracts from the telling of a potentially honest and potentially compelling story.
spoilers - first hand account of NurenB trials
ksf-24 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS -- the story of Ben Ferencz, the Nuremberg trial prosecutor. Was 27 years old when the trials took place. His family had to escape romania back in the day when they started coming after the jews. With much of the story being told by Ferencz himself. After personally seeing the plight of the jews in the camps, it got him so angry, he was the perfect choice to lead the trials. A very detailed account, showing that this wasn't about revenge... it was about setting an example of the horrible crimes, and making sure it didn't happen again. Ferencz is remarkably lucid, and in spite of being almost 100 at the time the film was made, has an amazing memory, and sense of the horror that these men had inflicted. Very well done. I'm glad they had Mr. Ferencz tell his story while he still could. Written and directed by Barry Avrich. Known for his documentaries. And shakespeare.
Excellent until the last few minutes
koofasa5 March 2021
This attorney has a fascinating story of his life from his birth in Transylvania through his immigration to the US and then his career as a war crimes and civil rights attorney. Definitely spend time watching this. The last few minutes is about having an unenforceable international court that will keep another genocide from taking place. The countries behind it do not have any sort of military force to back up the court's decisions. There have been four genocides since the court was established and they have accomplished nothing to deter the atrocities from happening. People who commit atrocities don't care about laws so while this is a nice idea, it is unrealistic.
Why does he deserve a documentary?
sdavid-4166011 July 2019
Ben Ferencz was evidently a graduate of the John Lennon School of Political Simpletons. Having lived nearly a century, he can't seem to understand why we don't just all join together in a chorus of Imagine and love one another right now.
For starters, he might try asking Hamas, Hezbollah or Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Ferencz should be commended at age 27 for prosecuting Nazi Einsatzkommandos, even though he was able to win his convictions of these relative small fry through documentary evidence alone without ever having to actually examine any witnesses. He should be slightly less commended as a soldier who spent the War by his own admission shooting down allied planes with very little remorse.
The film ends by focusing on his later years, when he devoted his life to congratulating himself for creating the ICC, an organization that has become so corrupted, the war criminals it should have been prosecuting are instead perverting it to go after the good guys.
Better to try repairing this joke of a court rather than tell us how busy he's been promoting it.
For starters, he might try asking Hamas, Hezbollah or Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Ferencz should be commended at age 27 for prosecuting Nazi Einsatzkommandos, even though he was able to win his convictions of these relative small fry through documentary evidence alone without ever having to actually examine any witnesses. He should be slightly less commended as a soldier who spent the War by his own admission shooting down allied planes with very little remorse.
The film ends by focusing on his later years, when he devoted his life to congratulating himself for creating the ICC, an organization that has become so corrupted, the war criminals it should have been prosecuting are instead perverting it to go after the good guys.
Better to try repairing this joke of a court rather than tell us how busy he's been promoting it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
