By George & Josh Bate
In his opening statement at the Nuremberg Trials on November 21, 1945, Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.” Eighty years after the trials, James Vanderbilt’s historical drama Nuremberg illustrates that Jackson’s words hold disturbing contemporary relevance.
Based on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, Nuremberg chronicles the origins of the unprecedented trials that saw the men responsible for the Holocaust prosecuted on the world page. U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) is tasked with assessing the mental state of high-ranking Nazi officials, in particular Hitler’s second-in-command Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), and to prevent their suicides ahead of the trials. As Kelley’s fascination with the psychology of evil grows, so does his strange bond with Göring, culminating in devastating revelations that reshape his views on humanity.
Even those with only a cursory understanding of World War II history will likely know something about the importance of the Nuremberg trials. That there have been so few cinematic depictions of this monumental event in human history never ceases to surprise but gives writer/director James Vanderbilt the fairly unique opportunity to craft a definitive dramatization of the matter. For the most part, Vanderbilt succeeds in this regard by crafting an informative and stirring film destined to generate much-needed conversation and reflection.
Vanderbilt, who has a number of impressive writing and producing credits under his belt, steps into the director’s chair for just the second time with confidence and composure. The filmmaker finds an accessible entry point into the story, a daunting task given just how complex and multifaceted the world events preceding and surrounding the Nuremberg trials were. With pointed dialogue and not a moment wasted in the film’s first act, Nuremberg presents an easily followable story that strips the historical events down to their essentials, while never losing the meanings and potency of these events.
As the film proves engaging in tracking Justice Robert H. Jackson’s (Michael Shannon) attempts to set up the trials, Nuremberg soon establishes Malek’s Douglas Kelley as the protagonist of this story, a decision that yields mixed results. The bulk of the film (~the first half) hones closely on Kelley as he conducts and subsequently dissects a series of sessions and interviews with Crowe’s Hermann Göring. Pitting two Academy Award winners against one another in a cat-and-mouse struggle seems like it would be a sure-fire success, but, unfortunately, isn’t nearly as interesting as one would think. The film goes to great lengths to tell the audience just how close Kelley and Göring are becoming, with Kelley on numerous occasions confidently stating that he knows Göring better than any person on the planet. Frustratingly, however, Vanderbilt fails to actually show the intricacies of Kelley and Göring’s battle in any meaningful or thought-provoking way. What results is the crux of the film, that being the duo’s bond and conversations, ultimately being less interesting than other pieces of the story, namely the lengths it took to establish the trials.
Given the lack of strong material at their disposal, Malek and Crowe deliver performances that fall somewhat short of some of their best work. Crowe bolsters a distracting and inconsistent German accent that detracts from his otherwise solid portrayal of Göring. The film doesn’t try to hide the parallels between the narcissistic Göring and the similarly narcissistic Donald Trump, with Crowe clearly leaning into these similarities to make the story feel all the more urgent and timely. It’s a shame though that the bounds of Crowe’s performance are restricted by surprisingly restrained dialogue.
The same can be said for Malek as the film’s lead character. The Academy Award winner known for his performances in Mr. Robot and Bohemian Rhapsody is one of the industry’s most immediately gripping actors, delivering an array of performances that command the screen and demand the audience’s attention. Unfortunately, his turn in Nuremberg is not one of those performances. Due to shaky writing, the motives and inner-workings of Malek’s Douglas Kelley always seem to be elusive, especially as Kelley’s relationship with Göring and even Göring’s family evolves. This leads to Malek’s big, dramatic scene in the third act of the film missing its intended mark as, despite an impassioned performance, there isn’t enough depth to Kelley to really get behind why he is so surprised when certain revelations come to light.
The actual trials in the film are handled well by Vanderbilt and his performers, although one can’t help but want to see more of the actual legal battle, especially as the preceding Malek and Crowe material feels so monotonous.
Eventually, however, everything suddenly and unexpectedly falls into place for Nuremberg. As the film arrives at its conclusion, it becomes clear what Vanderbilt is aiming for with this story, which makes the prior missteps to lay the groundwork for this ending simultaneously more forgivable and frustrating. The film converges on a sobering conclusion that comes from a man who spent significant time with the Nazi regime’s highest-ranking officials – that the people who committed these atrocities are just people. Attempts to explain the psychology of evil, label them as inhumane monsters, or identify some common trait or failing are all mute points as Kelley, and in turn the audience, conclude that anyone is capable of doing what the Nazis did – that, given the right conditions, anyone could be pushed to do the abhorrent acts that they did – that the people who did these things had human qualities, like families and interests. It all makes for an intentionally uncomfortable concluding message to leave the audiences with that reminds people the atrocities committed during World War II happened before the Nazis and will continue to happen long after the Nazis, one must only take a quick glance at the news to see this.
VERDICT: 7/10
Nuremberg adapts the groundbreaking trials that saw the Nazi regime answer for its atrocities with approachability and urgency, albeit with a misguided focus as well. Writer/director James Vanderbilt finds an accessible entry point into a complex historical event and manages to craft a story that simultaneously strips the event to its most integral barebones without ever losing its gravity or emotional weight. While scenes led by Michael Shannon chronicling how the trials came to be prove engaging, the crux of the film, which sees Rami Malek’s psychiatrist character Douglas Kelley and Russell Crowe’s former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, misses the mark with a series of uninteresting conversations and reflections that squander the acting talents of Academy Award winning duo. The trials that unfold in the film’s second half certainly compel more so, although they play a disappointingly small part in the runtime given to prominence of the monotonous Malek and Crowe material. Upon its conclusion, however, Nuremberg suddenly and unexpectedly falls into place by converging on a sobering and uncomfortable concluding message that invites the audience to reflect on and discuss the extraordinary evils ordinary men can commit and how history disturbingly keeps repeating itself.