Films set in Nazi extermination camps are always confronted by certain production problems. Will the Jews look thin enough? Will they look like they're eaten by lice and other vermin? How to convey their interaction in such a wretched and desperate place? A place that most of us cannot begin to imagine. This drama succeeded (against my expectations) because it doesn't feel naturalistic. Of course Anthony Sher and Stellan Skarsgård and the others look like well-fed actors. But this does not detract from their performances because the emphasis in this film is on the arguments. How can anyone affirm a belief in God in Auschwitz? It's a good question, and many approaches and interpretations of God's actions are offered. The production could be criticised for feeling a little like a stage play. A bit wordy with many monologues. But the acting, the direction, and, above all, the writing are first class.
27 Reviews
Remarkably gripping and unsentimental ensemble piece
v-jung-14 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I decided to watch this TV Drama with some apprehension, worried that it would be unbearably depressing to watch, as the outcome is so predictable. We know most inmates were killed in Auschwitz and we know that the trial ended in a guilty verdict. All praise to the writers and performers of this drama therefore for constantly surprising us, those who are meant to argue for the defence often give the most surprising argument for the prosecution and vice versa. Hats of also to all the actors for never stealing each others limelight. Seldom have I seen as balanced a piece of acting, Eddie Marsan and Anthony Sher are there all the time, with very little impact until their chosen moment, whereas others like Stellan Skarsgard are visible all the time but only get to have major influence later on in the drama. The idea of having modern tourists interact with the inmates is used well and sparingly. I thoroughly recommend this drama for anyone willing to engage in thought experiments, it is not really yet another description of what happened in the Second World War in Auschwitz but a novel and complex discussion of evil, guilt and suffering that is most persuasive by not coming up with one right answer.
compelling TV drama
billcr121 March 2010
Most television dramas are a complete waste of time. This is not the case with God on Trial which is one of the best films I have ever seen on TV. The questions asked throughout the 84 minutes are right on target. A group of prisoners at Auschwitz; some of whom are awaiting execution, the others unsure of their fate, debate the meaning of God's supposed covenant with the Jewish people.
I am not Jewish & I don't believe any one group of people are chosen above all others because of their religion. I was told that the Catholic Church was the one true one in my childhood. Muslims are taught that Allah is the true path. Hindus believe in another God. It leads us all on a dangerous path.
This film is made for people not afraid to search within themselves no matter what they believe. I was very impressed.
I am not Jewish & I don't believe any one group of people are chosen above all others because of their religion. I was told that the Catholic Church was the one true one in my childhood. Muslims are taught that Allah is the true path. Hindus believe in another God. It leads us all on a dangerous path.
This film is made for people not afraid to search within themselves no matter what they believe. I was very impressed.
A masterpiece of TV drama
drew-campbell4 September 2008
In a freezing, filthy, overcrowded hut in Auschwitz a group of emaciated Jewish prisoners await their fate. Around half of them will be selected for the gas chamber within a couple of hours and most seem paralysed by fear, hunger and despair - but one angry inmate rails against God. His anger provokes reactions and soon the men - they are all men - agree to put God on trial, quickly organising a kind of tribunal in the traditions of their religion.
This drama confronts one of the central issues of human existence - the basis of faith - and sets it in a time and place that has become a by-word for inhumanity. With writing that is emotive, intelligent and unflinching throughout complimented by a series of utterly convincing and moving performances from all the principals, this was one of the most absorbing and challenging pieces of TV drama I have witnessed in years. In fact I would go further: This ranks as one of the finest TV productions I have ever seen.
For me the almost real time context lifted this play beyond another testimony to the Holocaust. The characters all know the past - indeed, they acknowledge several hideous near genocidal atrocities by their Jewish ancestors - but they don't know the future.
I won't spoil the outcome but, please, seek this out. If it doesn't make you think and doesn't touch your heart, you may not be alive.
This drama confronts one of the central issues of human existence - the basis of faith - and sets it in a time and place that has become a by-word for inhumanity. With writing that is emotive, intelligent and unflinching throughout complimented by a series of utterly convincing and moving performances from all the principals, this was one of the most absorbing and challenging pieces of TV drama I have witnessed in years. In fact I would go further: This ranks as one of the finest TV productions I have ever seen.
For me the almost real time context lifted this play beyond another testimony to the Holocaust. The characters all know the past - indeed, they acknowledge several hideous near genocidal atrocities by their Jewish ancestors - but they don't know the future.
I won't spoil the outcome but, please, seek this out. If it doesn't make you think and doesn't touch your heart, you may not be alive.
An excellent televisual drama
tracyellis7447 September 2008
I watched the TV drama not knowing anything about the story of the trial of God. I found the writing to be emotive, considered and intelligent. The acting was of the highest quality, and the setting was perfectly geared to make the viewer feel, as much as possible, the oppressive environment in which the men found themselves. The way the story unfolded and the polarising views to be found were impressively handled. There are a lot of references made to Jewish history, however, when taken as a whole the need to know and understand Jewish history is not essential to the telling of the story and the explanation of our beliefs. I thought the drama was excellent. I would like to see this drama shown to pupils in school, I believe it would be an excellent educational tool, not only about the holocaust but about religion in general and where we place God in our lives.
Excellent drama
susan-serendipity12 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I recently visited Auschwitz and Birkenau and was deeply moved by the whole experience it was life changing, so when I saw this drama advertised I was compelled to watch it. It certainly did not disappoint and further cemented the feelings I had following my visit to the camps.The setting for the drama was the hut where the prisoners lived crammed into spaces to overcrowding, five to a bunk, although the drama portrayed the terrible discomfort endured by the men, nothing can compare with actually standing in one of those huts and feeling such unimaginable despair, even in the 21stC. You cannot fail to be moved by the whole experience.The drama was excellent, sensitive and truly thought provoking and should be included in our school curriculum. It is not hard to see why these events provoked great tests of faith borne with great dignity.
a mind occupying debate
Consistency_Check6 November 2013
This is not a movie you need popcorn for, neither doubly surround nor a big screen. But it is the movie I chose to make an IMDb account for.
Indeed, "movie" is somewhat the wrong term, "play" is more accurate.
Facing their death in Nazi gas chambers, a group of Jews put God on trial. The charge: violating the covenant. The story portrays differing characters, from the fearful believer, to the scholar, from the scientist to the simple man - everyone with differing views and arguments. The lively debate with strong arguments on all sides in front of this horrible setting is what makes this film so great. To get the most out of the play one probably should have a (little) knowledge about the Jewish faith or the Old Testament and allow oneself to enjoy a religious-philosophical debate.
Indeed, "movie" is somewhat the wrong term, "play" is more accurate.
Facing their death in Nazi gas chambers, a group of Jews put God on trial. The charge: violating the covenant. The story portrays differing characters, from the fearful believer, to the scholar, from the scientist to the simple man - everyone with differing views and arguments. The lively debate with strong arguments on all sides in front of this horrible setting is what makes this film so great. To get the most out of the play one probably should have a (little) knowledge about the Jewish faith or the Old Testament and allow oneself to enjoy a religious-philosophical debate.
Worthwhile but wordy
tonyjackie4 September 2008
I watched his TV drama with interest and felt as though I understood a little bit more about Jews and their beliefs.Based on a true story,it tells of imprisoned Jews in Auschwitz awaiting death and deciding to have a trial to decide if God is guilty for their living hell.It is pretty compelling and also a history lesson as various men argue their case for or against God.I did struggle at times to follow the stories the men told as they related moments from Jewish history but there can be no doubt that there was a lot of research done.
There is an impressive cast including Jack Shepherd,Stellan Skarsgard and Stephen Dillane.All of the cast act their roles very well and special mention must go to Eddie Marsen as Lieble who tells the heartbreaking story of his three boys being taken from him by Nazis and giving him the impossible choice of saving one of them.Very impressive also is Antony Sher as Akiba.He says nothing for well over an hour but it is well worth the wait when he decides to speak.What he has to say comes as a shock and pretty much decides the outcome of the trial.
This is a well made drama.Perhaps there is a too much to take in and it is a bit too long.But it does show the agonies of men nearing certain death,desperate to make some sense of the horror they have lived through.
There is an impressive cast including Jack Shepherd,Stellan Skarsgard and Stephen Dillane.All of the cast act their roles very well and special mention must go to Eddie Marsen as Lieble who tells the heartbreaking story of his three boys being taken from him by Nazis and giving him the impossible choice of saving one of them.Very impressive also is Antony Sher as Akiba.He says nothing for well over an hour but it is well worth the wait when he decides to speak.What he has to say comes as a shock and pretty much decides the outcome of the trial.
This is a well made drama.Perhaps there is a too much to take in and it is a bit too long.But it does show the agonies of men nearing certain death,desperate to make some sense of the horror they have lived through.
questions, doubts, duties
Kirpianuscus3 July 2017
an expected film. because it propose a solution to an old doubt. Where was God in the Shoah time ? the film does not gives answers. but it is an impeccable solution of the question who defines the conscience of humanity after the WWII. and this is the huge virtue of film. the realism. the exposure of doubts and slices of certitudes. the need of answer. the entire Jew tradition front to one of the basic fears. and the trial. as a form of prey or as form of exorcism against fear. it is one of films who must be seen by everyone. not for understand. not for know. but for remind. to feel. and to discover the Holocaust more than a Jew problem.
Humanity at its Hour of Despair
evegalewitz11 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a fine theatrical work filmed for television. It asks the question where does man stand in his darkest hour. And each cast member answers for a different aspect of the human experience. We are selfish, kind, accepting, desperate, lost, fearful, at peace and maybe everything all at once. We want to know what the meaning of our life and the purpose of our existence in this greater universe. Are we here by chance or by grand design. Did a supreme being pull the strings or was everything by our own choosing and happenstance. Did God create us for his delight or did we create him to comfort us that we are not alone and we will live beyond our natural life.
Even if you are staunch in your beliefs. You cannot help but to see the beauty in the humanity of this piece. I believe the questions are what make us humans and our common humanity unites us.
Even if you are staunch in your beliefs. You cannot help but to see the beauty in the humanity of this piece. I believe the questions are what make us humans and our common humanity unites us.
fine performances by fine actors
AgustinCesaratti31 October 2019
The best thing about this movie is that is claustrophobic, it's everything set in one place to feel what they are feeling.
The performances are fine with good actors, but sometimes this is very hard to watch, you have to be patient because it's not fast. It's all about argue between them and sometimes it gets though
The performances are fine with good actors, but sometimes this is very hard to watch, you have to be patient because it's not fast. It's all about argue between them and sometimes it gets though
Excellent look at men pondering why they have been chosen to die
dbborroughs22 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Inmates at Auschwitz put god on trial for breaking the covenant.
This was run earlier in the season as part of Masterpiece's (theater) modern block of tales. Based on an actual trial it is a deeply effecting story about a group of men attempting to find out why God has abandoned them and whether he has broken the agreement that he made with their forefathers. It is set entirely within one barracks during the time that then are waiting to have their numbers called when those chosen will go off to die, for it seems that a train has arrived early and there is no place for the new arrivals.
It is a heady discussion of despair and hope. Has god abandoned them? Does god exist? What is the nature of god? These are the thoughts of men waiting to die, men with little left to lose. It is a discussion that will get your mind working. The answers they come up with might surprise you.
The film will also touch you. I tend to be immune to Holocaust tales with name stars in it since the pretty faces never seem to be in anything more than a dress up tale, but here I was moved. The cast which includes Dominic Cooper, Stephen Dillane, Rupert Graves, Anthony Sher and Stellan Skarsgård is first rate with only Skarsgård recognizable under the dirt and bruises. In most films of this sort the filmmakers hit certain cliché marks, but none of that is here, it is simply men waiting to be chosen, pondering their existence and their humanity. I should point out that the film is cross cut across time with a tour of the barracks and the gas chambers now. The modern story is not intrusive and in its way it actually helps move things along with one of the final scenes very likely to bring tears to your eyes.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who wondered about god and the death of 12 million people or just about god in general
This was run earlier in the season as part of Masterpiece's (theater) modern block of tales. Based on an actual trial it is a deeply effecting story about a group of men attempting to find out why God has abandoned them and whether he has broken the agreement that he made with their forefathers. It is set entirely within one barracks during the time that then are waiting to have their numbers called when those chosen will go off to die, for it seems that a train has arrived early and there is no place for the new arrivals.
It is a heady discussion of despair and hope. Has god abandoned them? Does god exist? What is the nature of god? These are the thoughts of men waiting to die, men with little left to lose. It is a discussion that will get your mind working. The answers they come up with might surprise you.
The film will also touch you. I tend to be immune to Holocaust tales with name stars in it since the pretty faces never seem to be in anything more than a dress up tale, but here I was moved. The cast which includes Dominic Cooper, Stephen Dillane, Rupert Graves, Anthony Sher and Stellan Skarsgård is first rate with only Skarsgård recognizable under the dirt and bruises. In most films of this sort the filmmakers hit certain cliché marks, but none of that is here, it is simply men waiting to be chosen, pondering their existence and their humanity. I should point out that the film is cross cut across time with a tour of the barracks and the gas chambers now. The modern story is not intrusive and in its way it actually helps move things along with one of the final scenes very likely to bring tears to your eyes.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who wondered about god and the death of 12 million people or just about god in general
Yes, God is On Trial!
insankg1 May 2023
A movie running in the length of 90 minutes from almost a single set with a strong message. I would recommend it to those in a dilemma about the existence of God and HIS actions. God was put on Trial in Absentia. In day-to-day life, many questions why God did do that or Why God didn't do certain things for them. The film is based on Wiesel's book by British writer Frank Cottrell-Boyce. The discussion put forward by the Jewish Prisoners who were terrific and, without spoiling it, certainly changed your thoughts about the existence of God and their actions.
Only challenge you might face is that Movie is not available on most OTTs. It took me a while to find it out.
Only challenge you might face is that Movie is not available on most OTTs. It took me a while to find it out.
It would work on stage
grahamf-5554223 November 2021
I only watched the first 30 minutes but gave up because it was clearly a play not a film. I accept that films can be set as plays, but it wasn't what I wanted. A valid theme, to be putting god on trial, but it just didn't work for me.
The actors looked and sounded perfectly healthy, and nothing like the reality of a concentration camp.
The stage would be a much more suitable medium.
The actors looked and sounded perfectly healthy, and nothing like the reality of a concentration camp.
The stage would be a much more suitable medium.
Not as perfect as some have suggested here but still a very good piece of television drama
bob the moo25 November 2008
Despite opening with a rather clumsy narrative device for framing the story, this film is almost entirely set in a dormitory block in Auschwitz. The Jewish men in the block have already been divided into who will die tonight and who will not, while new arrivals are poured into the block a day earlier than expected. What comes out of this environment is a sort of trial where God is in the dock accused of breaking his covenant with the Jewish people a debate about his actions, inactions and motivations if you will. It doesn't sound like a lot of fun to watch and indeed it sat on my HDR for quite some time before I recently got round to being in the mood for it (on a Saturday night weirdly enough, which probably says a lot about me). Seeing for myself I must admit to not being as won over by it as most other viewers seem to have been and I'm not sure if it me "not getting it" or others reviewing their feelings on the Holocaust generally rather than this film.
You see, the film is moving towards the end for reasons that should be obvious given the subject but for the vast majority the focus is on the discussion/trial between the men. This aspect is not as emotive but it did have the potential to be challenging and insightful. Mostly it is, and I found my attention easily held as different opinions were raised and evidence examined. The problem with it is that it is never as good or thought-provoking as I expected it to be. At times it is challenging but at others it seems less coherent and the "trial" structure weakens at these points. It is very good at times though and it was a shame that in some regards the final bookend scene felt like too neat a summary of the questions considering the emotion that had gone before, not quite a cop-out perhaps but not a million miles away from it either.
Where the film doesn't have a single problem is with the cast because every one of them is excellent. To pick one out would be unfair and Skarsgård, Dillane, Sher, Sheppard and all others are passionate and convincing. DeEmmony directs well within such a tight space keeping it part of the story of course, but not letting it constrict the ability of the camera to get in and around the characters; although the material remains the feel of a play in regards the dialogue, the film certainly doesn't look like filmed theatre.
So mostly God on Trial is excellent, full of passionate performances, engaging dialogue and a real sense of place. It is not a massive problem that it feels like it doesn't deliver in the end and that the final scene itself just feels weak and convenient, flying in the face of everything that had gone before. Not as perfect as some have suggested here but still a very good piece of television drama from BBC2.
You see, the film is moving towards the end for reasons that should be obvious given the subject but for the vast majority the focus is on the discussion/trial between the men. This aspect is not as emotive but it did have the potential to be challenging and insightful. Mostly it is, and I found my attention easily held as different opinions were raised and evidence examined. The problem with it is that it is never as good or thought-provoking as I expected it to be. At times it is challenging but at others it seems less coherent and the "trial" structure weakens at these points. It is very good at times though and it was a shame that in some regards the final bookend scene felt like too neat a summary of the questions considering the emotion that had gone before, not quite a cop-out perhaps but not a million miles away from it either.
Where the film doesn't have a single problem is with the cast because every one of them is excellent. To pick one out would be unfair and Skarsgård, Dillane, Sher, Sheppard and all others are passionate and convincing. DeEmmony directs well within such a tight space keeping it part of the story of course, but not letting it constrict the ability of the camera to get in and around the characters; although the material remains the feel of a play in regards the dialogue, the film certainly doesn't look like filmed theatre.
So mostly God on Trial is excellent, full of passionate performances, engaging dialogue and a real sense of place. It is not a massive problem that it feels like it doesn't deliver in the end and that the final scene itself just feels weak and convenient, flying in the face of everything that had gone before. Not as perfect as some have suggested here but still a very good piece of television drama from BBC2.
Artus shone!
southern-star-16 September 2008
A very engaging piece of work, I was particularly impressed by the outstanding performance by Ashley Artus playing Ricard. Artus performance shone above the rest, who although good actors seemed less committed to their characterization, some of them a little too healthy and composed looking to be in a concentration camp in Auschvitz. Ashley Artus in particular displayed both immense talent and dedication to his craft, with clear signs that he was fully immersed in the character of Ricard from the edgily moving displays of varying levels of emotion right down to the weight loss undergone. Somebody ought to give this man the recognition he deserves!
Is there God in Auschwitz?
Petey-101 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It's WWII and the place is Auschwitz aka Hell on Earth.A group of prisoners, who were sent there for no other reason than that they were Jews, put God on trial.He seems to have abandoned the Jewish people.The question is: Why does God let this happen? God on Trial (2008) is a television play written by Frank Cottrell Boyce and directed by Andy de Emmony.The play is based on an event described by Elie Wiesel in his book The Trial of God.I haven't read that, but I am reading Dawn by Wiesel.This movie has got just the right actors to play their parts.Joseph Muir plays Kapo.Joseph Altin is Isaac.Ashley Artus plays Ricard.Alexi Kaye Campbell portrays Doctor.Dominic Cooper plays Moche.Rupert Graves plays Mordechai.Lorcan Cranitch is Blockaltester.Francois Guétary plays Jacques.David de Keyser plays the part of Hugo.Eddie Marsan is Lieble.Blake Ritson is Idek.Jack Shepherd plays Kuhn.Stellan Skarsgård portrays Baumgarten.This is a very intelligent drama about people in a situation not they all anyone else for that matter can understand.It's almost haunting to listen to Baumgarten telling his story.He tells how he was an anti-Semite, until he became a Jew because of his Jewish father he didn't know.And the ending is sad and haunting.The prisoners sent to their death say a Jewish prayer, and we see them among the people of our day, who are visiting Auschwitz as tourists.If you want to watch something that will make you think, you should watch this.
Such a wonderful play, well executed for the cameras (with one criticism)
littleamos27 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There are so many reasons that this is a play everyone should see. The soliloquy by Antony Sher, who played the mysterious tzaddik "Akiba" was so powerful! I can't watch it without crying.
The only criticism I have is the way the last line was directed and played.
Andre Oumansky as Jacob has the very last line in the play... the crucial line that answers the accusation presented by the tzaddik Akiba and the verdict handed down (or up) by the court.
Emily: And was their prayer answered? Jacob: (referring to the Jewish people) They're still here...
"They're still here!" The Jewish people are still here! God IS true to His promise! Those lines should have been carefully set up, slowed down, well pronounced, and emphasized. Instead, they are hurriedly mumbled as the two get on the bus. Those two lines were the whole play.
Am Yisrael Chai!
The only criticism I have is the way the last line was directed and played.
Andre Oumansky as Jacob has the very last line in the play... the crucial line that answers the accusation presented by the tzaddik Akiba and the verdict handed down (or up) by the court.
Emily: And was their prayer answered? Jacob: (referring to the Jewish people) They're still here...
"They're still here!" The Jewish people are still here! God IS true to His promise! Those lines should have been carefully set up, slowed down, well pronounced, and emphasized. Instead, they are hurriedly mumbled as the two get on the bus. Those two lines were the whole play.
Am Yisrael Chai!
As magnificent and mesmerising as it is mournful
jrarichards19 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Male-only gatherings are mostly pretty dismal affairs, rapidly descending into trivia, boorishness, rivalry, ribaldry, or in general the lowest common denominator. But each of us men has probably experienced - maybe just once or twice in our lives - a memorable-for-life meeting made up solely of members of one's own sex in which the superficialities are for once forgotten, and we get down to talking and thinking seriously on what really matters. And there is something truly meaningful and memorable about that - so much so that it explains why veterans of World War One (some of whom I spoke to myself) said they "wouldn't have missed it" despite all the unending horror.
Why does it mostly take such extreme circumstances to bring out something so worthwhile?
That's just one of many conundra that "God on Trial" has to offer us from its corncuopia of amazing things...
The disgrace, evil, shame, hideousness that was Auschwitz was surely the most extreme circumstance ever engineered in which a down-to-earth discussion of the above kind could have taken place, yet it is potentially a true story that a mix of educated and less-educated, devout and less-devout, decent and less-decent men there really did decide to put God on trial.
They were the people supremely entitled and supremely qualified to do it...
And whether the above in real life was as mesmerisingly brilliant as in Frank Cottrell-Price's TV play is hard to know, and seems perhaps unlikely. For what we have here is erudite genius and nuance on a level rarely encountered on the screen. Of course, it features men surrounded by death and about to die, and those are the circumstances that should generate paranoia, mania and psychopathy, apathy or evil, rather than something of lasting beauty.
How fair is it that the original "trial" took place, and how fair is it to make a work of art out of that in 2008?
Hard to say, but here we are...
"God on Trial" is something magnificent and it is indeed a work of art. Actors (mostly still looking wellish-fed, it must be admitted) are shaved and (for much of the film) dressed uniformly in their Auschwitz stripes. They have nothing left to rely on but their skills, and boy are those ever on show here! Rarely, if ever will you have seen ACTING like this. It's a breathtaking treat, offered to us (on a one-time only basis in this configuration) by actors British and Irish, Swedish, French and Polish. If you want their (mostly very famous) names it's no problem to find them, but each and every one gives a performance of LIFETIME-BEST INTENSITY AND QUALITY.
Wow!
WOW!
Yet as they deliver their lines of erudition and exasperation, fear and faith, we somehow get a flickering (and presumably authentic) vision of mercy, gentleness, decency, openness, willingness to communicate, desire to understand that is transfixing in the middle of all the fear and awfulness. There is an intense beauty in it and it's utterly surprising.
Amazingly, Jewish-style wisecracks are not entirely absent, so you will get the odd laugh out of this, which is just right for such a group of men even in an 11th-hour circumstance. But the searching questions asked, the observations made, will bring out the tears in the toughest watcher - and again that is as much a matter of the gravitas of those eternal questions as it is of the harrowing stories people have to tell, and their dreadful current and upcoming experiences at the infamous Auschwitz.
The ending here is only one (this is an extermination camp), yet the film takes a remarkable last-scene turn, and there is so much subtlety to this that you would watch 5 times before picking it all up. Although I warn about spoilers, and usually have no scruples about emphasising key details, here I am less inclined. But the way our heroes and heroic anti-heroes react at the last is a remarkable encapsulation in film of how good the very best of human beings and HUMAN behaviour can really be.
Long ago I noticed the secret of Michelangelo's (Christian rather than Jewish) depiction of the Old Testament figures of God and Adam, in which God strains and stretches out to the hand of Adam, whose relative nonchalance is made plain by the slight limpness of his wrist. God is doing most of the work here, clearly needing something from his creation. In the same vein, "God on Trial" puts a line into one of its characters to the effect that maybe God needs the best of what humanity can offer to be complete. Later, "God on Trial" goes (pseudo-blasphemously) further in suggesting - through both words and actions - that the very best and most beautiful things human beings can do (seen so rarely and yet by no means never; and certainly on show in this final concentration-camp scene) might complete God, and actualy round off some of those rougher edges regularly visible in the Old Testament and quoted at length here.
The master shapes the pupil in the hope that the latter might one day and in some way exceed the former. Being good (or merciless) comes with equal ease to an omnipotent being, but to a human being goodness may require a more supreme effort - and all the more so when faced with unmitigated evil.
But that might leave it looking like a still-greater achievement!
So "God on Trial" is not "The Ten Commandments", but something vastly more nuanced, real, full of doubts, assertions, rebellious accusations and real thought-through meaning and worth. It's ultimate conclusion - if I receive it as I believe I was intended to - is remarkable, revolutionary, humanist in the extreme, yet also PROFOUNDLY religious and "Godly".
Immense food for thought, and just SUPERB. If I could, I would give it 11 out of 10...
Why does it mostly take such extreme circumstances to bring out something so worthwhile?
That's just one of many conundra that "God on Trial" has to offer us from its corncuopia of amazing things...
The disgrace, evil, shame, hideousness that was Auschwitz was surely the most extreme circumstance ever engineered in which a down-to-earth discussion of the above kind could have taken place, yet it is potentially a true story that a mix of educated and less-educated, devout and less-devout, decent and less-decent men there really did decide to put God on trial.
They were the people supremely entitled and supremely qualified to do it...
And whether the above in real life was as mesmerisingly brilliant as in Frank Cottrell-Price's TV play is hard to know, and seems perhaps unlikely. For what we have here is erudite genius and nuance on a level rarely encountered on the screen. Of course, it features men surrounded by death and about to die, and those are the circumstances that should generate paranoia, mania and psychopathy, apathy or evil, rather than something of lasting beauty.
How fair is it that the original "trial" took place, and how fair is it to make a work of art out of that in 2008?
Hard to say, but here we are...
"God on Trial" is something magnificent and it is indeed a work of art. Actors (mostly still looking wellish-fed, it must be admitted) are shaved and (for much of the film) dressed uniformly in their Auschwitz stripes. They have nothing left to rely on but their skills, and boy are those ever on show here! Rarely, if ever will you have seen ACTING like this. It's a breathtaking treat, offered to us (on a one-time only basis in this configuration) by actors British and Irish, Swedish, French and Polish. If you want their (mostly very famous) names it's no problem to find them, but each and every one gives a performance of LIFETIME-BEST INTENSITY AND QUALITY.
Wow!
WOW!
Yet as they deliver their lines of erudition and exasperation, fear and faith, we somehow get a flickering (and presumably authentic) vision of mercy, gentleness, decency, openness, willingness to communicate, desire to understand that is transfixing in the middle of all the fear and awfulness. There is an intense beauty in it and it's utterly surprising.
Amazingly, Jewish-style wisecracks are not entirely absent, so you will get the odd laugh out of this, which is just right for such a group of men even in an 11th-hour circumstance. But the searching questions asked, the observations made, will bring out the tears in the toughest watcher - and again that is as much a matter of the gravitas of those eternal questions as it is of the harrowing stories people have to tell, and their dreadful current and upcoming experiences at the infamous Auschwitz.
The ending here is only one (this is an extermination camp), yet the film takes a remarkable last-scene turn, and there is so much subtlety to this that you would watch 5 times before picking it all up. Although I warn about spoilers, and usually have no scruples about emphasising key details, here I am less inclined. But the way our heroes and heroic anti-heroes react at the last is a remarkable encapsulation in film of how good the very best of human beings and HUMAN behaviour can really be.
Long ago I noticed the secret of Michelangelo's (Christian rather than Jewish) depiction of the Old Testament figures of God and Adam, in which God strains and stretches out to the hand of Adam, whose relative nonchalance is made plain by the slight limpness of his wrist. God is doing most of the work here, clearly needing something from his creation. In the same vein, "God on Trial" puts a line into one of its characters to the effect that maybe God needs the best of what humanity can offer to be complete. Later, "God on Trial" goes (pseudo-blasphemously) further in suggesting - through both words and actions - that the very best and most beautiful things human beings can do (seen so rarely and yet by no means never; and certainly on show in this final concentration-camp scene) might complete God, and actualy round off some of those rougher edges regularly visible in the Old Testament and quoted at length here.
The master shapes the pupil in the hope that the latter might one day and in some way exceed the former. Being good (or merciless) comes with equal ease to an omnipotent being, but to a human being goodness may require a more supreme effort - and all the more so when faced with unmitigated evil.
But that might leave it looking like a still-greater achievement!
So "God on Trial" is not "The Ten Commandments", but something vastly more nuanced, real, full of doubts, assertions, rebellious accusations and real thought-through meaning and worth. It's ultimate conclusion - if I receive it as I believe I was intended to - is remarkable, revolutionary, humanist in the extreme, yet also PROFOUNDLY religious and "Godly".
Immense food for thought, and just SUPERB. If I could, I would give it 11 out of 10...
God and evil
hof-414 October 2023
The scenario is a stinking, overcrowded unheated blockhouse in Auschwitz during the war. Earlier in the day the prisoners have been divided in two groups by a smiling doctor; the next morning, the group of those deemed fit for work will presumably be allowed to live, at least for a while, while the others will be taken to the gas chambers (to complete the horror, prisoners are not told which group will survive). New inmates arrive; their bunks will be those left by the condemned.
One of the prisoners proposes to convene a rabbinical court where God is accused of doing nothing to prevent the horrors in which they live and of betraying the covenant with His people. Some prisoners like the devout Kuhn find the idea senseless and blasphemous, (Gods's ways cannot be questioned) but his secular son Mordechai offers his services as chief prosecutor. Arguments are put on the table in favor and against. Among the first, a French scientist suggest that there may be uncountable planets where life exists and that God cannot pay much attention to all; among the second, God is accused of abandoning His people and making a covenant with their enemies. The discussion proceeds, first rambling and unfocused (the three judges keep it on subject) and ends with a spirited argument by the prosecution that decides the trial.
The film opens in modern times, with a group of tourists whose guide flippantly explains what ticket is necessary to visit this or that part of the camp. Auschwitz is now tidied up. The guide tries to interest his group in the happenings during the war but we sense some polite skepticism; somebody comments how human beings could do this to each other.
I was enthralled by this film. I find arguments on religion fascinating, if rarely conclusive; at the end, we are left with more questions than the ones we began with. The movie is filmed theater, but of the best quality. Acting is first rate, cinematography does justice to the squalid settings and direction paces the tale flawlessly. Highly recommended.
One of the prisoners proposes to convene a rabbinical court where God is accused of doing nothing to prevent the horrors in which they live and of betraying the covenant with His people. Some prisoners like the devout Kuhn find the idea senseless and blasphemous, (Gods's ways cannot be questioned) but his secular son Mordechai offers his services as chief prosecutor. Arguments are put on the table in favor and against. Among the first, a French scientist suggest that there may be uncountable planets where life exists and that God cannot pay much attention to all; among the second, God is accused of abandoning His people and making a covenant with their enemies. The discussion proceeds, first rambling and unfocused (the three judges keep it on subject) and ends with a spirited argument by the prosecution that decides the trial.
The film opens in modern times, with a group of tourists whose guide flippantly explains what ticket is necessary to visit this or that part of the camp. Auschwitz is now tidied up. The guide tries to interest his group in the happenings during the war but we sense some polite skepticism; somebody comments how human beings could do this to each other.
I was enthralled by this film. I find arguments on religion fascinating, if rarely conclusive; at the end, we are left with more questions than the ones we began with. The movie is filmed theater, but of the best quality. Acting is first rate, cinematography does justice to the squalid settings and direction paces the tale flawlessly. Highly recommended.
Ramnagel....
DarthKahless10 August 2020
a misplaced "debate drama"
mesere3 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In an interview the writer said he wanted to create a "debate drama" and he was wary of exploiting the "emotional petrol" of the Holocaust. In that he was very successful I must admit, if you expect anything else you will be utterly disappointed, especially if you have ever read accounts of Holocaust survivors. Spoiler alert!
A group of prisoners put God on trial: why did God turn against the Jews, but has he? It goes on like this for 90 minutes. It seems the writer didn't do his research properly, there are plenty of silly mistakes, the "Jews" don't wear stars, you think there were only British Jews (one French) in Auschwitz, everything makes an unrealistic or even worse fake and cheap impression. I read it was shot in two weeks and no wonder it's such a poor production. I'm sorry but as a viewer I just don't expect long and quite boring academic speeches from starving prisoners. Interesting questions are raised but sometimes you get the impression the writer didn't want to dig too deep, sometimes the characters seem to be detached from the Holocaust, he created a "debate drama" but setting it in Auschwitz was a mistake.
A group of prisoners put God on trial: why did God turn against the Jews, but has he? It goes on like this for 90 minutes. It seems the writer didn't do his research properly, there are plenty of silly mistakes, the "Jews" don't wear stars, you think there were only British Jews (one French) in Auschwitz, everything makes an unrealistic or even worse fake and cheap impression. I read it was shot in two weeks and no wonder it's such a poor production. I'm sorry but as a viewer I just don't expect long and quite boring academic speeches from starving prisoners. Interesting questions are raised but sometimes you get the impression the writer didn't want to dig too deep, sometimes the characters seem to be detached from the Holocaust, he created a "debate drama" but setting it in Auschwitz was a mistake.
scenes from a trial
Vincentiu1 July 2013
at first sigh, a lesson. about Shoah, faith, Judaism, resistance, hope. at the second - seductive film with a splendid performance of each actor. in fact - only a form of definition of sense in a Nazi camp. a form of fight for survive. the atmosphere, the dialogs, the tension of acting. all as parts of an admirable circle. a story who may be a parable. but, in essence, it is only slice of reality. and not just reality of Holocaust but measure of each day from each life. a terrible film. for its questions and for the images from a hell. and for precise - delicate manner to remember one of many trials in which God was not only defendant but, in same measure, prosecutor.
Watch It
Ramnagel24 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I would recommend you not read this post if you have yet to see "God On Trial". This movie is essentially a philosophical inquiry so any review of it is almost bound to be a "spoiler" of some sort.
This movie sucks big time. Why? Because its writer was deeply dishonest. The question posed by the movie is the question of evil. If there is human suffering (and who could deny that) then is God responsible? The unthinking assumption in this movie is that "God" refers to the tribal god of the Jews. But this is not the greatest sin of the script writer. The movie (the script) moves back and forth between two ideas: God exists and has our best interests at heart, and God exists but does not seem to care about our welfare. The script pretends to examine this question fairly, considering both sides with equal interest. But here is where the script fails dismally: it assumes one common denominator to both "sides". God. When God's possible culpability in allowing millions of Jews to be eradicated is discussed - the obvious answer (that God does not exist) is not entertained. No, the debate, rather, is about whether God is good or not in light of all this suffering. About whether God's so-called Plan can encompass all this misery in a way that still allows a thinking being to hold simultaneously in their mind the idea that "God is good, blameless, and kind" and the idea that "God is all-powerful but somehow impotent in the face of human free will". The entire movie is basically an argument that it is OK to blame the victims (victims of divine non- intervention) because there might conceivably be a Plan our feeble minds cannot appreciate.
But that is not the problem I have with the movie. Blaming the victims of an all-powerful supernatural being is one argument an intelligent person can make. An opinion to have. I support the notion that people need to be free to air their opinions, no matter how unconsidered or how much I personally disagree with them. After all, I can only disagree with opinions that are allowed to be expressed and to reach my ear.
My real problem with the movie is that the script writer was deliberately dishonest with the audience. The writer had to have been relatively well educated, above averagely educated I would argue, in matters of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore he would have to have known what the Bible clearly says about the ten plagues that ended supposed Jewish enslavement in Egypt. Ignoring the latest scholarship that shows such enslavement never actually happened, the most salient of points about the Moses myth is that GOD "hardened" the heart of Pharaoh and ensured the continued enslavement of the Jewish people throughout the ten plagues, culminating in the slaughter of the first born Egyptians. Most comfortable Christians believe the Pharaoh "hardened" his own heart, that he and his people's young were somehow deserving of punishment, even in the form of the murder of children. Today it is a quite common moral lesson that one should not "harden" one's heart and be therefore uncharitable. Whoever does the "hardening" of heart is to blame, the perpetrator of moral evil. But God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. God is the perpetrator of moral evil as judged by today's juries. And why did He do this? Merely to show the Jews (not any other human beings) how awesome He was.
And after wandering aimlessly about the desert for decades, they still didn't get it. Even divinely inscribed stone tablets were destroyed because the Jews were not convinced of God's awesomeness. These stories have an obvious point: to show people (Jews and their local enemies in those necessarily parochial times) that God is awesome. Frightening. Powerful. These ideas require, at some point in their relating, someone to suffer and die. In fact, the more, the better. Hence the plagues which culminated in the arbitrary death (supernatural murder, in fact) of children, even those of Jews who for some reason had failed to mark their houses with the blood of sheep. (Did God not know whom to kill?) Hence the requirement that Jews, even after their supposed slavery in Egypt, after witnessing life-giving water being struck from a stone in the killing desert, after the parting of an entire ocean's water for their own sake, apparently still could not believe in God's power, or in God.
These stories are myths and moral tales, and their purpose, by the very "facts" they relate, is obvious to any scholar of religion. But not, it seems, obvious to the script writer of this movie. Or rather, obvious, but then concealed. This script writer relates the entire story of the ten plagues while paying lip service to the popular idea that the Pharaoh "hardened" his heart, and that God did not in fact manufacture the end result. There is no way a script writer so well versed in Western religion would not know that God, in fact, did the "hardening". Power apparently equates somehow (for some people) to a valid argument for divine supremacy and the requirement for unconditional worship. Stupid, I know, today, but quite valid several thousands of years ago.
So, in summary, I think the script writer of this movie was biased toward a "religion positive" position. He deliberately, in the course of his propaganda, avoided relating crucial theological facts that could be seen to harm people's belief in the god of the Western bible. He sold out, in other words, to a specific religion and tried to cover his guilt.
The only good thing to come out of this movie as far as I am concerned is that I was motivated to write this unfavourable review. I do enjoy the irony of that. So, watch it but watch it.
This movie sucks big time. Why? Because its writer was deeply dishonest. The question posed by the movie is the question of evil. If there is human suffering (and who could deny that) then is God responsible? The unthinking assumption in this movie is that "God" refers to the tribal god of the Jews. But this is not the greatest sin of the script writer. The movie (the script) moves back and forth between two ideas: God exists and has our best interests at heart, and God exists but does not seem to care about our welfare. The script pretends to examine this question fairly, considering both sides with equal interest. But here is where the script fails dismally: it assumes one common denominator to both "sides". God. When God's possible culpability in allowing millions of Jews to be eradicated is discussed - the obvious answer (that God does not exist) is not entertained. No, the debate, rather, is about whether God is good or not in light of all this suffering. About whether God's so-called Plan can encompass all this misery in a way that still allows a thinking being to hold simultaneously in their mind the idea that "God is good, blameless, and kind" and the idea that "God is all-powerful but somehow impotent in the face of human free will". The entire movie is basically an argument that it is OK to blame the victims (victims of divine non- intervention) because there might conceivably be a Plan our feeble minds cannot appreciate.
But that is not the problem I have with the movie. Blaming the victims of an all-powerful supernatural being is one argument an intelligent person can make. An opinion to have. I support the notion that people need to be free to air their opinions, no matter how unconsidered or how much I personally disagree with them. After all, I can only disagree with opinions that are allowed to be expressed and to reach my ear.
My real problem with the movie is that the script writer was deliberately dishonest with the audience. The writer had to have been relatively well educated, above averagely educated I would argue, in matters of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore he would have to have known what the Bible clearly says about the ten plagues that ended supposed Jewish enslavement in Egypt. Ignoring the latest scholarship that shows such enslavement never actually happened, the most salient of points about the Moses myth is that GOD "hardened" the heart of Pharaoh and ensured the continued enslavement of the Jewish people throughout the ten plagues, culminating in the slaughter of the first born Egyptians. Most comfortable Christians believe the Pharaoh "hardened" his own heart, that he and his people's young were somehow deserving of punishment, even in the form of the murder of children. Today it is a quite common moral lesson that one should not "harden" one's heart and be therefore uncharitable. Whoever does the "hardening" of heart is to blame, the perpetrator of moral evil. But God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. God is the perpetrator of moral evil as judged by today's juries. And why did He do this? Merely to show the Jews (not any other human beings) how awesome He was.
And after wandering aimlessly about the desert for decades, they still didn't get it. Even divinely inscribed stone tablets were destroyed because the Jews were not convinced of God's awesomeness. These stories have an obvious point: to show people (Jews and their local enemies in those necessarily parochial times) that God is awesome. Frightening. Powerful. These ideas require, at some point in their relating, someone to suffer and die. In fact, the more, the better. Hence the plagues which culminated in the arbitrary death (supernatural murder, in fact) of children, even those of Jews who for some reason had failed to mark their houses with the blood of sheep. (Did God not know whom to kill?) Hence the requirement that Jews, even after their supposed slavery in Egypt, after witnessing life-giving water being struck from a stone in the killing desert, after the parting of an entire ocean's water for their own sake, apparently still could not believe in God's power, or in God.
These stories are myths and moral tales, and their purpose, by the very "facts" they relate, is obvious to any scholar of religion. But not, it seems, obvious to the script writer of this movie. Or rather, obvious, but then concealed. This script writer relates the entire story of the ten plagues while paying lip service to the popular idea that the Pharaoh "hardened" his heart, and that God did not in fact manufacture the end result. There is no way a script writer so well versed in Western religion would not know that God, in fact, did the "hardening". Power apparently equates somehow (for some people) to a valid argument for divine supremacy and the requirement for unconditional worship. Stupid, I know, today, but quite valid several thousands of years ago.
So, in summary, I think the script writer of this movie was biased toward a "religion positive" position. He deliberately, in the course of his propaganda, avoided relating crucial theological facts that could be seen to harm people's belief in the god of the Western bible. He sold out, in other words, to a specific religion and tried to cover his guilt.
The only good thing to come out of this movie as far as I am concerned is that I was motivated to write this unfavourable review. I do enjoy the irony of that. So, watch it but watch it.
Miss the word GOD correctly!!!!!!
levelat414 March 2014
Can the idiots who wrote the initial introduction to the movie, "God on Trial" actually spell the word--G.O.D. There is no dash between G and D it's spelled GOD. Do these bastards placed dashed in Muha-mad?
What is it about these idiots that they fear even mentioning GOD and now that feared that turned to fear in spelling name GOD? This reminds of the Cold War when the educational system in America would literally have school districts CUT OUT THE MADE OF CHINA so kids would not recognize the communist nation. The end result was the more they did this the more China was recognized because of the questions from kids as to what was cut out. The same thing is taking place with misspelling it. It is the same scenario of the idiots of the Cold War.
GOD, HOW I MARVEL AT YOUR GLORY AND WONDERS. Lord, there is no more wonder and puzzling than those you forgot to bestow a brain to, like the democrats and liberals. Please for give them for they know what they do, these must be the missing linking evolutionists are searching for. The reason they cannot find is because it is they, 'Ask now for whom the bells toll....they toll for thy.'
Amen
What is it about these idiots that they fear even mentioning GOD and now that feared that turned to fear in spelling name GOD? This reminds of the Cold War when the educational system in America would literally have school districts CUT OUT THE MADE OF CHINA so kids would not recognize the communist nation. The end result was the more they did this the more China was recognized because of the questions from kids as to what was cut out. The same thing is taking place with misspelling it. It is the same scenario of the idiots of the Cold War.
GOD, HOW I MARVEL AT YOUR GLORY AND WONDERS. Lord, there is no more wonder and puzzling than those you forgot to bestow a brain to, like the democrats and liberals. Please for give them for they know what they do, these must be the missing linking evolutionists are searching for. The reason they cannot find is because it is they, 'Ask now for whom the bells toll....they toll for thy.'
Amen
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
