by Rosa Parra
Historical war dramas, especially courtroom dramas, possess the ideal elements to attract Academy voters. This year, the spotlight is on Vanderbilt’s historical court drama, “Nuremberg.”
“Nuremberg” is directed and written by James Vanderbilt. It features a talented cast, including Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Michael Shannon, Leo Woodall, Richard E. Grant, Colin Hanks, Mark O’Brien, and John Slattery. The film is based on the book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai.
Set in the immediate aftermath of World War II, as the world comes to terms with the horrifying realities of the Holocaust, U.S. Army psychiatrist Lt. Col. Douglas Kelley (played by Rami Malek) is tasked with assessing the mental state of Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), the infamous former Reichsmarschall and second-in-command to Hitler, along with other high-ranking Nazi officials. As the Allies—led by the determined chief U.S. prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon), alongside Sgt. Howie Triest (Leo Woodall), David Maxwell-Fyfe (Richard E. Grant), Gustave Gilbert (Colin Hanks), Col. John Amen (Mark O’Brien), and Burton C. Andrus (John Slattery)—navigate the monumental task of establishing an unprecedented international tribunal to hold the Nazi regime accountable for its atrocities, Kelley finds himself drawn into a psychological battle with Göring. The latter’s charisma and cunning reveal a sobering truth: ordinary individuals are capable of extraordinary evil.
Unfortunately, this historical political court drama falters due to its pacing, writing, and overall execution. The film’s runtime of 2 hours and 28 minutes feels excessive, and the pacing drags, especially toward the end. Some subplots fail to develop fully due to generic writing and a lack of chemistry between specific actors. Additionally, the film’s tone is inconsistent. While the courtroom drama should be the centerpiece, it ultimately falls short of delivering a compelling narrative due to a lack of substance that fails to build on the serious nature of the subject matter. The film attempts to evoke sympathy from both courtroom attendees and viewers by showcasing heart-wrenching footage; however, this approach often feels more like a shock tactic than a genuine portrayal of the horrific acts.
The standout aspect of the film is Russell Crowe’s commanding performance as Göring. He presents a layered interpretation of the character, combining menace with charisma and interwoven shades of humanity. His portrayal convinces the audience that he is capable of committing atrocious acts while evading consequences through his charm and manipulation. This performance deserves recognition and consideration for awards. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Rami Malek, who feels out of place in his role. Every time he appears onscreen, I’m reminded that I’m watching Rami Malek; his facial expressions are more distracting than moving. While Michael Shannon also delivers a decent performance, he seems somewhat underwhelming in comparison to Crowe. Ultimately, this film belongs to Russell Crowe.
Another reason the film struggles to make the intended impact may be its connection to contemporary sociopolitical issues. Although it addresses events from the 1940s, the characters hint at the potential consequences of repeating history if we do not learn from it. The film does not shy away from showcasing the atrocities of the Holocaust, serving as a stark reminder that such events were allowed to happen because of inaction. It emphasizes that what is occurring in the world today is often the result of our indifference. Current political figures echo various characters in the film, reminding us that if humanity fails to learn from its past, it risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
In conclusion, “Nuremberg” strives to deliver a thrilling and emotionally compelling narrative about the events that took place in Nuremberg. However, it ultimately falls short due to its generic writing, lackluster performances (with the exception of Crowe), and a subject matter that doesn’t provide new insights or lessons.
Rating: 6/10