Comparisons are inevitable. Any film ever made about the war crimes trials after World War II, and the one at Nuremberg in particular, will not be able to avoid reference to Stanley Kramer’s 1961 masterpiece. Just as those trials were a historic milestone in establishing international law on crimes against humanity, Kramer’s film is an inevitable reference. ‘Nuremberg‘, James Vanderbilt‘s docu-drama, addresses a specific aspect of the trial and focuses on the figure of one of those who sat in the dock at that trial, Hermann Göring, number two in the Nazi hierarchy, and his relationship with the American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, tasked with profiling the accused and preventing them from committing suicide before trial and sentencing. Vanderbilt was only on his second film as a director, but he is an experienced screenwriter and the adaptation of Jack El-hai’s book for the screen belongs to him.
The filmmakers’ ambitions were high. The documentation is meticulous and the reconstructions are truthful, from the opening scene of the film – the one in which the Nazi dignitary surrenders to American forces – to the scenes of the trial, for which a 1:1 replica of the room where the debates took place was made. The historical part tries to bring to the screen the legal and political dilemmas of those who decided to conduct the trials of war criminals and the way in which the foundations of a legal procedure that did not exist until then in international law were laid. I cannot say that the decision-making process was sufficiently argued and justified, because the plot advances quickly and in depth towards the relationship between the young American psychiatric officer and the charismatic Nazi dignitary. The relationship between the two evolves towards trust and even more than that. Trying to understand the psychological mechanism and motivation of the Nazi leader, Kelley made apparent concessions, facilitating communications between Göring and his family, but at the same time helping the prosecution by providing information about the psychological profile of the defendants. Who won this mental duel? Was the Nuremberg trial fair, commensurate with the crimes committed by the regime whose dignitaries were in the dock? These questions remain open.
Cinematographically, I think the film succeeds very well in depicting the way the relationship between the two begins and develops. Russell Crowe manages in ‘Nuremberg‘ to create a magnificent role, of a personality who despite being very public remained an enigma from many points of view. Rami Malek convinced me much more in this role than in others, including the one for which he received the Oscar, but I felt that something was missing from the character’s motivations. The fault may be more with the script than the actor. The most impressive scene, as with Kramer, is the one in which documentary sequences from the death camps are projected in the courtroom. The script allows itself a few historical licenses, which are usually excusable, but contrast with the investment in the authenticity of the details. The references to current events are a little too thick, and precisely because of that they lose their effectiveness. Too bad, because they are important. For those who have not seen Stanley Kramer’s ‘Judgment at Nuremberg’, I recommend that they seek out the film, and for those who saw it many years ago to watch it again. James Vanderbilt‘s ‘Nuremberg‘ is not a remake but a footnote or at most an annex chapter.