In any year prior to this one, there would have been nothing controversial about “Nuremberg.”
Indeed, writer-director James Vanderbilt’s historical drama, based on Jacques Elhay’s book about the relationship between Nazi second-in-command Hermann Göring and the American psychiatrist tasked with studying him in advance of his 1945 international war crimes trial in the storied German city, would probably seem like a safe middle-of-the-road bet for a studio “prestige” project. It’s about winning awards and at the same time reinforcing American values that almost everyone can reasonably agree with.
But this is 2025. We no longer live in a culture where condemning authoritarian ideologies that are blatantly racist and inherently cruel feels like something we can all agree on. And the tension that arises from this dizzying reality (can we still call the Nazis “evil”?) gives the film not only an air of radical rebellion, but also a sense of timely urgency. Even though the true story told in this film took place 80 years ago.
Constructed as an ensemble story, the film intertwines the stories of multiple characters as it follows the behind-the-scenes efforts to bring to justice the surviving leaders of Hitler’s collapsed Third Reich after World War II. Among them is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon), who is spearheading the case despite the lack of established international law enforcement precedent. However, its central focus is on Douglas Kelly (Rami Malek), a psychiatrist working for the Military Intelligence Corps. He is tasked with researching former Nazi leaders, particularly Goering (Russell Crowe), Hitler’s right-hand man and the top surviving official of the defeated regime, and assessing their ability to stand trial during the early stages of the Nuremberg hearings.
His interpreter, Sgt., helped. Howie Triest (Leo Woodall), Kelly’s advisor and sidekick, develops a relationship with the highly intelligent and highly arrogant Goering, hoping that his insight into Nazi thinking may help prevent the atrocities committed by him and his fellow defendants from ever happening again, but he is thrust into a dangerous psychological cat-and-mouse game that could jeopardize his position and undermine the chances of success in an already precarious trial.
For those who already know the history and outcome of the Nuremberg trials, there will be less suspense. But most of us born in the post-World War II generation probably aren’t. These were radical concepts at the time, and a bold effort to hold world leaders accountable at the international level when they violate human rights and commit atrocities for the sake of power, profit, and control. They were widely viewed with distrust, and many saw it as an opportunity for the surviving Nazi regime to change the volatile course of world opinion by portraying itself as victims of persecution. It included an undeniable desire for closure. The world was eager to leave this tragedy (a multinational war that claimed more lives than any other conflict in history) in the rearview mirror and embrace the comforting illusion of a unified world that had already begun to disintegrate into a decades-long “Cold War.” “Nuremberg” captures a tenuous sense of the uncertainty of success or failure, giving us a portrait of the court’s key players as flawed, burdened, and far from united in their individual national agendas. These trials were an experiment in global justice, and even though they were met with deep mistrust around the world, they ushered in half a century’s worth of international cooperation.
But despite the political and personal undercurrents underlying its story, Vanderbilt’s film holds fast to its higher mission. Justice Jackson may have ambitions to become SCOTUS’ Chief Justice, but his determination to oppose authoritarian brutality trumps all other considerations. Kelly’s own ego may cloud his judgment in dealing with Goering, but his ultimate goal of tripping up the Nazi Reich Marshal never wavers. Ultimately, “Nuremberg” remains unambiguous in its goal of combating institutionalized racism, fetishized nationalism, and the amoral brutality of power-hungry dictators.
Yes, this is a “feel-good” film of the era (if such a term can be used for a film that includes harrowing, real-life footage of the atrocities of the Holocaust), one that reinforces fundamental values that are now jarringly outdated in the face of clear and present danger. With all the high-priced immersion that Hollywood can offer, it offers a period piece that only hints and comments on the ongoing currents of history, evoking the old spirit of American humanism while grappling with the complexities of politics, ethics, and justice that continue unabated today. At the same time, it reminds us that justice is shaped by force and is never a sure bet that it will prevail.
But while “Nuremberg” is every inch a Hollywood-style take on history, it doesn’t provide the kind of definitive conclusion we all long for in these troubled times. Despite classical bravado and heartfelt idealism, it cannot provide us with the comforting reassurances we desire because history itself does not provide them. The trial was not a clear victory. They may have set a precedent for holding those in power accountable on the world stage, but it is still not fully realized 80 years later. Director Vanderbilt doesn’t try to rewrite the facts to make them more satisfying or soften the blow of their harsh lessons, and while his film certainly feels conscious of the volatile times it’s coming into, he doesn’t try to give us the wish-fulfilling ending we might long to see. It ultimately gives the film a ring of bitter truth, reminding us that our world continues to suffer from the evils of corrupt people, even if they are defeated.
It’s a movie full of great acting. Crowe gives his most memorable turn in years as the chillingly malevolent Goering, and Malek channels all of his intensity into Kelly, creating a flawed hero we can root for and empathize with. Shannon plays the idealistic but pragmatic Jackson, and Woodall provides a likeable, folksy solidity that counters Malek’s volatile intensity. It may feel premature to talk about awards, but it wouldn’t be surprising to see some of these names join this year’s nominees.
Is Nuremberg the anti-Nazi movie we need now? It certainly seems to be positioning itself as such, and is certainly clearly condemning the fascist and inhumane mindset that allows such extremist ideologies to seize power. Ultimately, however, we are left with the realization that any victory over such evil is only contingent on the loss and tragedy that remains in its wake. And the best victory of all is to stop evil before it begins.
In 2025, that feels like a small consolation, but it’s enough to make Vanderbilt’s sophisticated historical drama a worthy piece of inspiration to propel us into the battles we face in 2026 and beyond.
The post Nazis Are Still the Bad Guys in Solid ‘Nuremberg’ appeared first on Washington Blade: LGBTQ news, politics, LGBTQ rights, gay news.
Source: Washington Blade: LGBTQ News, Politics, LGBTQ Rights, Gay News – www.washingtonblade.com
