Key Highlights
- Film “Nuremberg” directed by James Vanderbilt explores the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg trials.
- The movie features Rami Malek as Douglas Kelley, a chief psychiatrist tasked with interviewing Nazi leaders.
- Russell Crowe plays Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Göring, in a role that resonates with current political climates.
- Vanderbilt’s film critiques the ease with which societies can lose their moral compass.
Review: “Nuremberg” – A Mirror to Our Current Era of Authoritarianism
Film “Nuremberg,” directed by James Vanderbilt and based on Jack El-Hai’s 2013 book, delves into the aftermath of World War II through the lens of the Nuremberg trials. The film is a poignant reminder of the historical significance of these events and their relevance to contemporary politics.
Historical Context
The film opens at the close of World War II, where Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek), a chief psychiatrist at Nuremberg Prison, is tasked with interviewing surviving members of the Nazi high command. The task is not only to gather information but also to understand the psychological motivations behind their actions.
Key Performances and Themes
Russell Crowe delivers a powerful performance as Hermann Göring, Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command. His portrayal is both seductive and unsettling, embodying the complexity of human nature in its darkest moments. Crowe’s Göring is slippery, soft-spoken, and seductive—an all-too-human monster that can hold all the contradictions the film is turning over in his hands.
The film also features notable performances from John Slattery as Burton C.
Andrus, the prison’s commandant, and Leo Woodall as Sgt. Howard Triest, a translator for the Allies during the trials. While Woodall’s performance is ably executed, the characterization of Triest feels somewhat one-dimensional and emotionally manipulative.
Directorial Vision
Vanderbilt’s script largely allows dialogue and theme to be born in naturalistic ways, though there are moments when the film’s seriousness is kneecapped by a distinctly Hollywood-ese snappiness. Despite this, Vanderbilt’s clever sleight of hand humanizes Göring so as to allow us to see the folly of history.
The director wants us to ruminate on the thousands of small, individual, and collective decisions that lead societies to disaster. “What if we could dissect evil,” says Kelley early on. “What sets these men apart from all the others? What enabled them to commit the crimes that they did?”
Conclusion
While the truth is apparent from the start, “Nuremberg” remains impactful in its conclusion. As the trials conclude and the question of moral rectitude is deflated by the grim business of hangings and voided bowels, we’re left less with a stern warning than a resigned sigh: “Never again,” the film seems to assert, was never a promise.
Nuremberg is a must-watch for those interested in historical dramas that hold a mirror to our current era. It serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of upholding human rights and the dangers of complacency.
