A film about the Nuremberg trials is unlikely to achieve near-perfection; the task is too great. For a start, a director has to encapsulate the unprecedented feeling of the era: the Nazis were judged in a unique and new judicial arena that warranted international cooperation and applied laws not yet created. And of course, the film needs to understand the tone of the present: what do the Nuremberg trials mean in the 21st century?
Malek vs. Crowe
Director James Vanderbilt (writer behind Fountain of Youth) makes a good stab at it, following U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (played brazenly by Rami Malek, as seen in Oppenheimer and Amsterdam), who is tasked to psychoanalyze Nazi war criminal Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe, incredible here). This leads up to and includes the trials in an intense psychological showdown.
The premise is deserving of a respectful viewing, similar to what we experienced with Schindler’s List, but I did find myself at a loss in the first half, making me wish I had more patience. Malek’s interpretation of Douglas Kelley is interesting, though without the context of the deceased psychiatrist’s book, I was left wondering if the writing was going to take the atrocities of the Nazis seriously.
Kelley moves casually, with an air of arrogance. His first scene sets the stage for his arc as he flirts with a beautiful journalist on a train by performing a magic trick for her. He’s shown as opportunistic; a man at the top of his field, excited by the chance of “understanding” the second Nazi-in-command, Hermann Göring.
The Narrative Trick
“Understanding” is in speech marks because Nuremberg plants seeds where Kelley engages with Göring on a sympathetic, human level through the first two acts. This confuses his acquaintance and soldier, Sgt. Howie Triest (Leo Woodall, who finally shows scope in his acting here, seen recently in Prime Target and One Day), who does not understand why Kelley is putting in a personal effort, to the extent that he engages frequently with the war criminal’s wife and daughter.
This is the trick that Vanderbilt plays on the audience: a disarming shift in tone. When Hermann Göring is captured in the film’s opening, the soldiers are petrified by his mere presence as he stands arrogantly, radiating a monster aura. Yet, the film spends the next hour humanizing him.
Confronting the Atrocities
All this effort to dissuade the audience is purely for impact, and many will disagree with the approach. However, the third act stunned me into a feeling of emptiness. The dramatised Nuremberg trials eventually show real-life footage of what the Allied forces found at several concentration camps; it’s uncomfortable, it’s tragic, it’s inhumane, and it’s beyond belief. It’s not just a few seconds of clips; the film plays out what was shown at the trial for an excruciatingly long time. A morally upright mind can’t be at peace after viewing this.
The point, I think, is two-fold. First, it demonstrates a shift for Douglas Kelley: he goes from a career-ambitious psychiatrist befriending a war criminal for gain, to understanding the weight of what he is dealing with—a man capable of ordering decrees that led to the extermination of a race of people. Nuremberg becomes the film it’s supposed to be at this stage, and I ask audiences to be patient purely because of this payoff.
The second point is to remind audiences that this history must not be forgotten. We cannot forget the acts of evil disregard for human life.
The Mask Slips
This brings me on to Russell Crowe, who plays the part of an arrogant, narcissistic, and psychopathic war criminal: every conversation is a game of chess. Crowe puts a mask on Göring—“a man that wanted to only bring back glory for the German people,” “a family man that loved his wife and daughter”—only for this mask to slip once the atrocities of the concentration camps are revealed in their enormity.
Crowe doesn’t get an inch of his performance wrong as he toys with Malek’s interpretation of Douglas to precision, solidifying this as a film that conveys a truly psychological standoff.
A Necessary Emptiness
Nuremberg will undoubtedly be questioned for how it tells the story of the Nazi trials. Some will praise the approach, while others will deem it grotesque. There is no middle ground. Regardless, you will walk away from the film feeling empty and lost —and that’s the point: what happened at the Nuremberg trials should only evoke a sense of loss and indescribable sadness.
Closing Arguments
The Good:
- Russell Crowe delivers a terrifying performance that anchors the film.
- The third act uses archival footage to create a necessary sense of hollowness that lingers long after the credits roll.
- Leo Woodall shows great scope, and Malek provides an interesting, if complex, foil to Crowe.
The Bad:
- The first half can feel slow and confusing, leaving viewers unsure of the film’s direction until the final act.
- The narrative decision to “humanize” Göring early on is a risk; while it pays off in the end, it may feel jarring to some viewers.