‘Nuremberg’ Review
Stars: Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Lydia Peckham, Colin Hanks, Richard E. Grant, John Slattery | Written by James Vanderbilt, Jack El-Hai | Directed by James Vanderbilt
A story about the complexity of international law, the evil humanity is capable of, and a deep psychological study into what kind of personality could create a Nazi.
Nuremberg begins with the aftermath of Germany’s surrender after World War II and the subsequent capture of their highest-ranking officers, including the most powerful after the Führer himself, Hermann Göring. The Allies decided to prosecute them as the world watched, instead of executing them and making them martyrs. What follows is a sequence of conversations between a psychologist (Rami Malek) and Göring, who was, at the very least, a fascinating brain to examine.
It was Russell Crowe’s task to create this human cocktail of authority, charm and pure evil. He was MAGNETIC. I wasn’t watching Crowe anymore; it was an hour into the runtime before I remembered he was an actor. It was a totally relaxed but immersive performance.
However… What I found very interesting was the tone of it all, and how much presence Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command had on screen. Glammorising perhaps? Hm, the jury is still out. But this was a filmmaking choice.
Admittedly, for the most part, it actually worked very well as a piece of entertainment. I think director James Vanderbilt wanted to recreate the feeling of awe that a historian would feel if they ever encountered such a huge historical figure. But there were moments I felt a flicker of embarrassment.
And listen, I love the overdramatisation of history,but watching Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command walk through a tunnel and into a courtroom like a darts player (with the blaring music too)… well, that did raise an eyebrow. If it had been filmed in slo-mo, then I’d have assumed they were taking the mick.
On the flip side, Nuremberg’s handling of the Holocaust, along with the very real, very graphic subject matter, was spot on. It could also be enough to put some people off going to see it. In my opinion, it was utterly necessary to show us real footage at the same time as the characters. The cinema mirrored the courtroom’s shock, dismay and horrible realisation. It might be the hardest it’s ever hit me emotionally…
I also think it went a little too heavy on the psychiatry scenes. You spend time as an audience member watching some brilliant acting, but also reading a lot of subtext. I think there was a lot of strength in the real history, and it was neglected a tiny bit. The same with the court scenes. Lots of acting, camerawork and close-ups, but it seemed like the script was a little simplified.
Overall, I was thoroughly entertained, and I yearn for more historical films about a fascinating period of human history. I just wonder if it could have been a little more detailed.
**** 4/5
Nuremberg is in cinemas now.
