Emotions are an afterthought in this timely but surface-level historical dramatization
The biggest challenge facing Nuremberg, the historical drama about the post-World War II Nazi trials, is that audiences can take a brief glimpse into today’s newspaper and read about an abundance of unchecked war crimes still taking place across the globe. Despite the precedent of individual accountability that the trials established, history tends to repeat itself. The second biggest issue facing Nuremberg is the script’s lack of emotional sincerity. Attempts at clever scene transitions and a tone aiming for a suspenseful courtroom drama feel excruciatingly inappropriate. Despite a strong performance from Russell Crowe and the film’s timely release, Nuremberg fails to capture the tragedy, the sensitivity, and the momentousness of its subject matter.
Nuremberg follows Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody), the military intelligence officer assigned the task of analyzing the mental states of Hermann Göring, one of the top Nazi commanders under Adolf Hitler, and twenty-one other Nazi inmates awaiting trial at Nuremberg prison. In his best performance since 2016’s Nice Guys, Crowe plays Göring, imbuing the captured officer with unnerving menace, immense physical presence, and incorruptible self-aggrandizing. The film also spends time with the associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon, Knives Out), who President Truman appointed as U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg trials. As each character prepares for the trial, the global implications and personal stakes involved are laid out clearly, but ineffectually. Part of the script’s problem is that there are too many moving pieces, so the central philosophical question at the film’s core – how could people resort to such evil and how can the world hold them accountable? – is unable to be properly explored. Additionally, Malek is either miscast or unsure how to play his character, cycling through awkward egotistical charm and hiding behind a veil of ignorance while eventually coming to a ridiculous ah ha moment.
While Nuremberg is the type of historical drama that proliferated in the 1990s, the new film lacks emotional resonance, a characteristic that would be blended well (if not manipulatively) into the narratives of Nuremberg’s predecessors (Schindler’s List, Amistad, Malcolm X, Nixon, etc.). Instead, as the trial commences in Nuremberg, we are shown the same horrific Holocaust footage that was shown in the actual trial (this was the first time such atrocities of the Holocaust were made public). The footage is horrific and absolutely sickening. Unfortunately, because of the more “light-hearted” tone leading up to this point, the filmmaker’s decision to include the footage so unceremoniously and thoroughly feels calculating and aimed at shock value. Our reaction to the footage is powerful, but it hasn’t been earned.
Is it better for a film like Nuremberg to exist or not exist if it falls short of appropriately capturing its subject matter? Often, Nuremberg feels like the script has taken the most interesting facts on the Wikipedia pages of all the individuals and courtroom proceedings, and then stitched them together. This scattered feeling is made worse by off-putting scene transitions, like when one scene ends in a character exclaiming, “As long as we don’t experience a problem” and cutting to the next scene with a character saying, “We have a problem.” This writing cheat happens five or six times. So, again, is Nuremberg approachable and factual enough to warrant its existence, since it could be shown in classrooms to spark discussions, and noticed on streaming platforms as a starting point for young adults interested in learning more on the subject? The answer, arguably, is yes. In today’s world, where history is beginning to repeat itself, any form of warning helps.
—–
Nuremberg opens in theaters on Friday, November 7th.
