April 11, 2026

This really is a tour de force from Maximilian Schell and though it is verbally theatrical in the extreme at times, it is possibly up there with his equally empassioned effort from 'Judgement a Nuremberg' (1961). Initially, we meet the eccentric millionaire 'Goldman' living in his Manhattan penthouse discussing his extensive business interests with his assistant 'Charlie' (Lawrence Pressman). This is a man who is clearly intelligent, opinionated … read the rest.

This really is a tour de force from Maximilian Schell and though it is verbally theatrical in the extreme at times, it is possibly up there with his equally empassioned effort from 'Judgement a Nuremberg' (1961). Initially, we meet the eccentric millionaire 'Goldman' living in his Manhattan penthouse discussing his extensive business interests with his assistant 'Charlie' (Lawrence Pressman). This is a man who is clearly intelligent, opinionated and that sharpness and flamboyant exuberence isn't exactly underplayed by Schell. Then he has some visitors to his high-rise apartment who turn out to be Mossad agents and who spirit him to Jerusalem where he is to be put on trial under his true identity. SS Colonel Karl Dorff; a man responsible for the slaughter of thousands during the war. Somewhat to the suprise of prosecutor 'Rosen' (Lois Nettleton) he openly admits everything. Not only that, but once he is safely ensconced within the triplex bulletproof booth in the courtroom, he regales a shocked assemblage with tales of the most horrendous brutality. His storytelling is vulgar and even when facing what he must realise is death, he shows not the slightest degree of remorse for his crimes. Why? Well the answer might lie with his purported dentist and doctor - and that answer is not one we are in any way expecting. I will admit that after about half an hour of this, I had all but given up. The relentless and over-the-top dialogue frankly got on my nerves. Once we move to Israel, though, the plot thickened and we lost a little of the stagey theatricality of the first part. We ask questions about this arbitrary impostion of justice - or 'abduction'; we see an accused man in a goldfish bowl where his rights to speak and hear are controlled by a judge who openly admits he is not without prejudice, and we see a legal process play out before us that does seem to have long since arrived at it's verdict. I wasn't prepared for the denouement, and honestly I felt that somewhat rushed and under-developed - especially given the extended nature of the characterising preamble. This is also not without it's humour, either, and the pitch blackness of that does, at times, make you wonder if it is at all appropriate to even smile, much less laugh at some of the outrageous things that come from the mouth of this odious character. This has a power to it that I felt sat with me for a while after I watched it, and there is a perplexing psychology here that breaks the mould. In hindsight, the first half hour probably was essential, but once it gets going it's charismatic stuff.

show less