Final Rating: 3/5
Drawing from the fertile cinematic ground that is World War II, countless films have depicted Nazis as soulless demons–villains who thrive on the pain and suffering of non-Aryan people. Fewer are the films that try to understand them. And who can blame filmmakers for their lack of scrutiny? Many people aren’t interested in sympathizing with the personification of cruelty. As James Vanderbilt’s Nuremberg posits, maybe we should blame them.
There have been a handful of exceptions to depicting Nazis as inhuman monsters in cinema. Bruno Ganz’s layered portrayal of Adolf Hitler in Oliver Hirschbiegel’s Downfall stands as one of the most impressive presentations of the German leader. More recently, Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest put viewers into the minds of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss as he struggled to make the concentration camp more efficient. Vanderbilt hopes to achieve a similar level of exposition with Nuremberg, an examination of Hermann Göring in the weeks and months leading up to the Nuremberg Trials.
In the pivotal first meeting between Michael Shannon’s Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, prosecutor for the United States in the trials, and Rami Malek’s Lt. Colonel Douglas Kelley, psychiatrist at Nuremberg Prison, the two clash over what measures should be taken to bring the Nazi leaders to justice. Jackson is seeking information to assist him in preparing for the upcoming trial and examination of Göring, whom Kelley has spent a lot of intimate time with. When Kelley challenges him regarding his ethics in the matter, Jackson tells him, “I don’t know if we can beat [Germany] a third time,” because to not convict them could lead to a resurgence in Nazi ideology.
Shannon’s performance as Jackson is straightforward and manner-of-fact. He’s a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders and the pressure to perform under the most unique and consequential circumstances. When many people wanted to execute the Nazi leadership, he knew that it wasn’t just about stopping them, it was about getting them to admit to everything they did on a national stage.
The narrative problem at hand, however, is that for all of Jackson’s well-meaning plans, he is up against Russell Crowe’s wolfish Hermann Göring. As much good as could be achieved by admonishing Göring on the stand, it’s a risk to put a microphone in front of a charismatic man who holds the remaining power of the Third Reich.
Crowe is best in show in the film, managing to walk the line between conniving supervillain and sympathetic father. His relationship with Malek’s Kelley is the heart of the story, playing out at times like a jovial version of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter. Despite their first scene together appearing to be a prelude to a battle of wits, the two spend most of the film quite chummy, sharing their thoughts and feelings openly with each other.
This is why the film starts to unravel as it unfolds. Kelley is searching Göring for the truth behind why the Nazis are so evil. He’s also befriending Göring and Göring’s family. As the movie balances the idea of man and evil co-existing in the same body, it’s also examining Kelley’s psyche as he experiences this contradiction. This leads Nuremberg to spend an imbalanced amount of time on Göring and Kelley, leaving Jackson unable to develop beyond more than a figurehead. The movie relies on Jackson’s presence, though, which can leave parts of it feeling somewhat hollow.
Furthermore, while Göring is the star of the show, there are twenty-one other prisoners facing the same trials as him who the film mostly ignores. Side plots revolving around army translator Howie Triest (Leo Woodall) and Jackson’s colleague Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (a scene-stealing Richard E. Grant) are also underserved. Despite nearly two and a half hours of runtime, there’s a frustrating lack of depth to many of the characters who play pivotal roles in the film’s events.
James Vanderbilt’s message is a pertinent one. Through Douglas Kelley, he–as many others have–argues that there’s nothing special about Göring or Hitler. They aren’t unique. Their personalities and potential for cruelty are present all around us. Many students have probably had a teacher challenge them on how they’d act if they’d been a German citizen during the Holocaust. It’s easy ninety years later to say you wouldn’t go along with it–that you’d resist. But it’s not that simple.
As Vanderbilt draws a connection between the events of the Nazi regime and modern day, it’s hard to argue that he’s wrong. For all the films that have been made about WWII, the majority of them present the regime as heartless others, whereas an international trial before receiving the noose can show the world that there is humanity behind the names attached to those despicable events. They aren’t faceless boogeymen.
Nuremberg succeeds in showing Hermann Göring’s humanity as it questions whether Douglas Kelley will comply with Robert Jackson or honor the confidentiality he has with his patient. We’ll never know if the trials prevented a third world war involving Germany as Jackson feared. As a whole, the film is a compelling and well-shot interrogation of the reasoning behind the Nuremberg Trials that gets bogged down at times by an overstuffed story and murky characterization.
Thank you to Mongrel Media, Sony Classics and Star PR for the screener.
