Judgment in Berlin

Magandang pelikula!

What does a bad movie feel like when you strive to be free from it, or a slow movie that somehow builds and finally gets you to enjoy it in spite of it's flaws? That is the situation with this film, a movie that starts off slow and builds once you get into the court case, but at times seems stagnant and lifeless. It's the story of a plane that is hijacked from poland, supposed to land in East Berlin and ending on the west side instead. That puts the hijacker (Heinz Hoenig) on trial, having held one of the passengers at gunpoint to make his move, and put the case in the gavel of American judge Martin Sheen under the defense of the tough Sam Wannamaker. Like other films set in West Berlin, this is quite intense as it shows the impact of the hijacking for everybody involved. The film opens up with the actual hijacking, showing the calm before the storm, and immediately switches to beginning of the trial. The film manages to grab the viewer as they realize what is actually going on, the points of the early part of the film and the message of what goes on during the trial. I am not much of a connoisseur on me politics of Eastern European countries during this time, but I managed to be engrossed after a while and found the characters engage in, seeing Sean Penn in a completely different light after watching this. It might help to know a little bit of the history of the period, but that's absolutely unnecessary because the script reveals enough to give to viewer an indication of the intensities of that time. Great performances aide the slow spots, although the direction could have been a bit more fast-paced. An important film if not a classic.

Judgement in Berlin is not a great movie, but it is enjoyable to watch even if flag waving. Splendid performances by Sam Wanamaker and Martin Sheen as well by a young Sean Penn.

Having been stationed at Tempelhof Central Airport in the 1980s, this movie had particular significance. The book is a difficult read--full of legal terminology and political machinations, but in short--the story of a Jewish judge, sent to Berlin not-so-many years after WWII to try East Germans for hijacking an aircraft to freedom in the West. The movie misses a lot of the subtleties, but is detailed enough to give a good picture of the political climate at the time. A federal prosecutor, Judge Stern was selected to head this trial after many other judges resisted taking on this political "hot potato". The theory is that a Jewish judge in post-war Germany would go along with what was originally envisioned as a sort of "sham" trial intended to lead directly to convictions. Stern insisted that the defendants receive, according to the American Constitution, a trial by a jury of their peers --fellow Germans. An interesting concept for our country, which offically occupied West Berlin until the 1990s. Could conquerors try the conquered in occupied territory with a jury of their (conquered) peers? For anyone who is cynical of our position in the world arena as the unofficial "watchdog" of freedoms, this is a wonderful drama showing that justice will, if given the chance, win out. Highly recommended for anyone interested in our legal system or our nation's post-WWII history.

NOTE: THIS REVIEW GIVES AWAY PART OF THE ENDING. I HAVE PUT THREE ASTERISKS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT PART OF THE REVIEW. I just found a copy of "Judgment in Berlin" (1988), which stars Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, and Carl Lumbly (Syney Bristow's partner in the TV-series "Alias"), among others. It's an excellent story, co-written and directed by Leo Penn (Sean's father). Synopsis: Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, an East German man hijacks a plane bound for East Berlin and diverts it to West Berlin. Because he did not merely escape but committed hijacking, which the US government claims is "terrorism," he must stand trial in West Berlin in a specially-constituted American court. Sheen plays the judge. (Penn plays a young German who testifies for the defense; Lumbly a prosecutor.) The government argues, among other things, that constitutional rights do not apply since the court is an "occupation court" which is a tool of the Department of State in its exercise of foreign policy, not an independent "Article 2" federal court. ((DON'T READ THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE END!)) ***The judge disagrees and in the end refuses to allow the defendant to be put into the hands of the government at all since he says he believes them when they say they won't respect his rights.*** Many of the legal arguments and aspects in the film mirror those being used today in US detentions and prosecutions both in the US and overseas. (For example, "unlawful enemy combatants" held in the US in military brigs, Guantanamo detainees, and several cases being prosecuted in Iraq.) In other words, the film is accurate in its legal and political framework. The film, moreover, raises the same moral questions often NOT being raised or considered now in cases analogous to the one in the movie. The film is an excellent teaching tool about these issues. Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. Author of: "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" (Common Courage Press, 2004), and other books and articles on issues of law and human rights.

Being a sucker for courtroom dramas, I found this to be a very enjoyable movie. It's legal question marks were interesting to follow, and Martin Sheen's pivotal performance was very good. [I loved this actor from the time I first heard him laugh. It starts right down in his boots and just bubbles over in a very infectious manner.] Sean Penn's role was very small but crucial, and it shows what an incredibly talented actor he is. His use of a German accent was masterful. This isn't a great movie, but I think that most people would find it enjoyable.

What does a bad movie feel like when you strive to be free from it, or a slow movie that somehow builds and finally gets you to enjoy it in spite of it's flaws? That is the situation with this film, a movie that starts off slow and builds once you get into the court case, but at times seems stagnant and lifeless. It's the story of a plane that is hijacked from poland, supposed to land in East Berlin and ending on the west side instead. That puts the hijacker (Heinz Hoenig) on trial, having held one of the passengers at gunpoint to make his move, and put the case in the gavel of American judge Martin Sheen under the defense of the tough Sam Wannamaker. Like other films set in West Berlin, this is quite intense as it shows the impact of the hijacking for everybody involved. The film opens up with the actual hijacking, showing the calm before the storm, and immediately switches to beginning of the trial. The film manages to grab the viewer as they realize what is actually going on, the points of the early part of the film and the message of what goes on during the trial. I am not much of a connoisseur on me politics of Eastern European countries during this time, but I managed to be engrossed after a while and found the characters engage in, seeing Sean Penn in a completely different light after watching this. It might help to know a little bit of the history of the period, but that's absolutely unnecessary because the script reveals enough to give to viewer an indication of the intensities of that time. Great performances aide the slow spots, although the direction could have been a bit more fast-paced. An important film if not a classic.

Having been stationed at Tempelhof Central Airport in the 1980s, this movie had particular significance. The book is a difficult read--full of legal terminology and political machinations, but in short--the story of a Jewish judge, sent to Berlin not-so-many years after WWII to try East Germans for hijacking an aircraft to freedom in the West. The movie misses a lot of the subtleties, but is detailed enough to give a good picture of the political climate at the time. A federal prosecutor, Judge Stern was selected to head this trial after many other judges resisted taking on this political "hot potato". The theory is that a Jewish judge in post-war Germany would go along with what was originally envisioned as a sort of "sham" trial intended to lead directly to convictions. Stern insisted that the defendants receive, according to the American Constitution, a trial by a jury of their peers --fellow Germans. An interesting concept for our country, which offically occupied West Berlin until the 1990s. Could conquerors try the conquered in occupied territory with a jury of their (conquered) peers? For anyone who is cynical of our position in the world arena as the unofficial "watchdog" of freedoms, this is a wonderful drama showing that justice will, if given the chance, win out. Highly recommended for anyone interested in our legal system or our nation's post-WWII history.

Judgement in Berlin is not a great movie, but it is enjoyable to watch even if flag waving. Splendid performances by Sam Wanamaker and Martin Sheen as well by a young Sean Penn.

NOTE: THIS REVIEW GIVES AWAY PART OF THE ENDING. I HAVE PUT THREE ASTERISKS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT PART OF THE REVIEW. I just found a copy of "Judgment in Berlin" (1988), which stars Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, and Carl Lumbly (Syney Bristow's partner in the TV-series "Alias"), among others. It's an excellent story, co-written and directed by Leo Penn (Sean's father). Synopsis: Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, an East German man hijacks a plane bound for East Berlin and diverts it to West Berlin. Because he did not merely escape but committed hijacking, which the US government claims is "terrorism," he must stand trial in West Berlin in a specially-constituted American court. Sheen plays the judge. (Penn plays a young German who testifies for the defense; Lumbly a prosecutor.) The government argues, among other things, that constitutional rights do not apply since the court is an "occupation court" which is a tool of the Department of State in its exercise of foreign policy, not an independent "Article 2" federal court. ((DON'T READ THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE END!)) ***The judge disagrees and in the end refuses to allow the defendant to be put into the hands of the government at all since he says he believes them when they say they won't respect his rights.*** Many of the legal arguments and aspects in the film mirror those being used today in US detentions and prosecutions both in the US and overseas. (For example, "unlawful enemy combatants" held in the US in military brigs, Guantanamo detainees, and several cases being prosecuted in Iraq.) In other words, the film is accurate in its legal and political framework. The film, moreover, raises the same moral questions often NOT being raised or considered now in cases analogous to the one in the movie. The film is an excellent teaching tool about these issues. Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. Author of: "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" (Common Courage Press, 2004), and other books and articles on issues of law and human rights.