Is The Footage In Nuremberg Movie Real
So, you’ve watched Nuremberg—the one with Alec Baldwin looking appropriately grim. And now you’re wondering: is that courtroom footage actually real? Did they just splice old...
So, you’ve watched Nuremberg—the one with Alec Baldwin looking appropriately grim. And now you’re wondering: is that courtroom footage actually real? Did they just splice old newsreels into a Hollywood movie? Grab your coffee, because we’re diving into this historical rabbit hole together.
The Short Answer (Spoiler: It’s a Mess)
Yes, some of it is real—but not all of it. And the “real” stuff is often tweaked, trimmed, or totally out of context. Think of it like a really obsessed fan edit, but with a bigger budget.
The filmmakers used actual clips from the 1945-46 International Military Tribunal. But they also shot new scenes to match the old footage, which is where things get sneaky.
Must Read
Your brain sees grainy, black-and-white footage and thinks, “Ah, this must be authentic 1940s.” Your brain is a liar.
What’s Actually Real? (And What’s a Hollywood Fairy Tale)
The most famous “real” bits are the Nuremberg defendants themselves—Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Albert Speer. Those are the actual men, captured on film by U.S. Army Signal Corps cameramen.
But here’s the kicker: the movie often speeds up, slows down, or crops that footage to fit its narrative. It’s like seeing a photo of your ex and pretending they smiled at you—technically the photo is real, but the vibe is manufactured.
For example, the famous shot of Göring smirking during testimony? Real. But the camera angle that makes him look like a Bond villain? Entirely chosen by the editor.
The “Re-created” Courtroom (Aka, Sets and Lies)
If you watch carefully, you’ll notice the Nuremberg movie has a weird, polished look to some scenes. That’s because they built a replica courtroom in Prague.
The real Nuremberg Palace of Justice was a drab, war-ravaged building. The movie version has dramatic lighting and clean wood paneling. It’s the difference between a Motel 6 and a Ritz-Carlton—both have beds, but one has a mint on the pillow.
Nuremberg Review: Nowhere Close to the 1961 Masterpiece, But At Least
So when you see Alec Baldwin speaking from the bench? That’s a set. The actual judges were slouching in folding chairs under harsh fluorescent lights. Not quite as cinematic.
The Footage of Executions (Oof, This Is Morbid)
Here’s where it gets really tricky. The movie includes shots of the condemned men—like Göring—in their prison cells. Those are real.
But the actual hangings? No. The U.S. Army didn’t film those. The movie uses stylized, shadowy recreations. It’s ethically weird to mix real death with fake death, but that’s exactly what they did.
If you feel a little queasy watching those scenes, good. Your gut is smarter than the filmmakers.
Why Did They Do This? (The Art of Historical Gibberish)
Director Yves Simoneau wanted the film to feel “immersive.” Translation: he wanted you to forget you’re watching a movie.
It’s a clever trick. By mixing real footage with re-enactments, your brain stops asking questions. You just sit there, nodding, like a chicken watching a magic show.
Nuremberg Movie True Story: The WWII Trial That Changed Justice
But history nerds (like me) get huffy because it blurs the line between fact and fiction. Was Göring really that smug in court? Yes, actually. But was the judge that dramatic? No, he was just a guy with a headache.
What Historians Say (And Why They’re Grumpy)
Most historians agree: don’t use this movie as a primary source. Please.
The actual trial footage is available online. It’s slow. It’s boring. Lawyers stammer, translators pause, and defendants look sleepy. The movie edits out 93% of that boredom and adds dramatic music.
So yes, the real footage is in there—but it’s like finding a single raisin in a giant loaf of banana bread. It’s technically present, but you wouldn’t call it “raisin bread.”
So, Is It Real? (The Final, Unhelpful Answer)
Yes and no. It’s a collage of real and fake, like a Frankenstein monster stitched together from historical scraps. And like Frankenstein, it’s kind of amazing and kind of terrifying.
If you watch it for entertainment? Go for it. Just don’t cite it in a term paper, or your professor will roast you alive.
And if you really want the truth? Watch the original black-and-white trial footage. It’s less exciting, but at least your brain isn’t being tricked by a movie studio’s lighting budget. Now pass the coffee.