纽伦堡

出自《恐怖的法官——纳粹时期的司法》一书

事实上，纳粹时期的法官远比电影中描述的要邪恶得多，德国司法机构对纳粹上台起着推波助澜的作用，在其上台后更是鞍前马后、为虎作伥，所谓的实证主义法学与自由主义法学的争论更是伪命题，德国法官们不仅完完全全忠实的遵守了纳粹的法律，他们在对政治犯的迫害上鼓足干劲，积极地运用国家利益、国家安全等理由对政治犯进行量刑，一位购买了一份共产党报纸的工人就被视为要参与颠覆纳粹政权的行动，在种族问题方面，司法实践中将接吻、交谈等行为都通通上升为了《保护德意志血统法》中的性行为，更是主动积极地提出了许多理论以帮助实现纳粹的统治，《恐怖的法官》一书进行了无情的揭露与批判，算是把德国法学界底裤都拔掉了，值得各位阅读以加深对影片的理解。

德国法律界公开宣称应当摈弃实证主义思维

历史是由胜利者书写的，亦即审判者。德国对犹太的恶，日本对中国的恶，意大利对本国人的恶，可能会受到审判。那美国对越南的恶呢？苏联对波兰的恶呢？无人可予以审判。更不能审判的，是汉回蒙满纠缠千年的、无数次的、遍及神州的、尸首千万的彼此屠戮。而同样的情况，又发生在东南亚、南北美、欧非中东至全世界，至人类全部的历史。谁又会去为尼安德特人公诉呢？

Judge Haywood: The trial conducted before this Tribunal began over eight months ago. The record of evidence is more than ten thousand pages long, and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

Heir Rolfe, in his very skillful defense, has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilization. But the Tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions, men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men, men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings, men who in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws -- illegal even under German law. The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime -- is guilty.

Heir Rolfe further asserts that the defendant, Janning, was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the Government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial: If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary -- even able and extraordinary -- men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them: men sterilized because of political belief; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

开场推焦纳粹标志逐渐放大，然后爆炸升格。61年这么玩儿很前卫。13min镜头围绕发言的韦德马克一周。17min整对马克西米蓝谢尔直接用了一个邵氏镜头！因为在这个镜头中直接让谢尔从经翻译的德语改用英文致辞。

此片中虽然马克思米兰谢尔用德语口语的英语与法官曲塞对话（此情形同样见于此片中其他跨国别对话，但有意思的是，蒙蒂克利夫和兰卡斯特这两位扮演德国人的演员都并不会说德语）明明双方都能够不经由翻译而明白彼此，但却仍在戏剧动作上还原真实情况：默认二人使用语言不通而要抓起听筒通过同声传译交流。

而在另一段落传唤蒙蒂克利夫扮演的证人上庭时，美国控方韦德马克先像他询问，二人通过传译交流，此时克里夫特的表演格外突出了这种因语言不畅和翻译的略微延迟而导致的沟通卡顿和频繁思索。而在韦德马克完成询问后，谢尔代表的德籍律师接手，他建议克里夫特“拿下传译听筒直接交流”，可事实上我们看到，他们两人仍用英语完成了对话，韦德马克方才也是这么做的。当然，在此片中也有特殊桥段：开庭时屈塞质询兰卡斯特是否认罪服辩，兰卡斯特不为所动，此时谢尔像庭上提出抗议，“原告对于法庭的审判权力表示怀疑”一句谢尔用德语发言，镜头给到传译员，用英语复述庭上。此后所有本应需要传译介入的对话，在视听上均无具体镜头表述，也没有让演员用除英语之外的语言发言。仅仅只有刚才所讲的戴上或摘下传译器的动作表述。我们可以说，在这个美国电影中，英语毫无疑问是占有绝对霸权地位的，导演每一次让其他语言“闯入”，都是别有用心的词语调度，在这里更像是是一种“戏剧语气”的表述，观众在熟悉的词句语调中几乎处于一种“语言的无意识”状态、此时唯一的主导是影像事件的发生，而外语的“不和谐音”的突然介入，打破了这种状态，使观众从影像语言空间中惊醒，又回到了日常的语言空间，这让观众骤然感到陌生，从而警觉地思索到“影像”这种正在发生的存在，进而，观众反应到：谢尔只不过在扮演着一个角色罢了，这是我们面前的一出好戏！但纽伦堡审判作为一个真实的历史事件毋庸置疑，这就形成了一种参照关系，一种互文性——影像独立于现实又再生产之。而影片持续进行，事件的推进让观众来不及思索这一表述的内涵遍被迫被其裹挟前进，他们在影像持续不断的推进力的包裹下放弃了对于实在的追求而将自身和判断力完全交给了银幕上的发生。听之任之，直到落幕，才可能从中醒来，但这一种知觉却不会因此消弥，而会不断的侵蚀我们的日常语言经验。好莱坞也正是在这样的互文性之中不断加强影像的神秘主义倾向和对观众的精神控制，用另一种“语言”说教、输出、批判、缅怀…如此片中一些段落，操控了观众的情绪，用这样一种手段，一种极为高明的导演把戏，一种运用电影的自我呈现机制而达到戏剧效果的绝妙手笔。

于是，我们看见了一个重要问题——语言在电影（另一种笼罩性的语言）中几乎无关紧要，重要的则是不可说的现实经验的具象化及一种超语言逻辑的行为方法。这也即影像的存在，作为一种知觉的存在。而在今天，它几乎强大到可以和语言分庭抗礼。