Uncategorized
Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now?
Holocaust movies have become such a genre of their own that it is hard for them to find anything new to say. Yet directors keep trying — perhaps out of a sense of duty, or the assumed prestige of the subject matter — to keep the atrocities front of mind.
Nuremberg, a star-studded new film written and directed by James Vanderbilt (the writer of Zodiac and both installations of the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Anniston hit Murder Mystery), focuses on the trial of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second-in-command. The drama distinguishes itself from previous treatments of the trial by centering Douglass Kelley, the psychiatrist charged with assessing Nazis’ readiness to take the stand. Based on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, the film stars Russell Crowe as Goering and Rami Malek as Kelley.
But Nuremberg’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime attempts to take on more than Kelley’s observations about the nature of evil; the entire second half is a courtroom drama, which follows the beats of the unfolding trial. The movie fits in the backstories of some of Goering’s co-defendants, the establishment of a new model of international law and a romantic subplot touching on the media circus surrounding it all. A late reveal in this overcrowded movie shows Kelley’s translator to be a German Jew, and we hear the story of his escape from the Nazi regime.
It’s a big project, with the cast to match, and it’s full of factoids designed to make its message about the horrors of the Nazis unmistakeable. But Nuremberg is an entry into a field crowded with Holocaust content. Is this the new Holocaust movie we needed?
Why now for a Nuremberg movie?
On the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the start of the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis and their crimes remain topical. In October, a leaked group chat of the Young Republicans showed members openly joking about gassing Jews and proclaiming their “love” for Hitler; many of the members of the chat worked in state governments. (Vice President JD Vance defended them as “kids” making “edgy, offensive jokes.”) Tucker Carlson just interviewed avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes, legitimizing a man whose extremist rhetoric once relegated him to the fringe, and moving him into the mainstream. The current administration is engaged in a campaign of deportations, at least some of which have caught citizens in their dragnet.
The movie was in production long before any of these stories broke. But the rise of antisemitism, neo-Nazism and fascism in the U.S. — and Europe — has been apparent for at least a decade, fueled by social media and online forums where conspiracy theories and a resurgent white nationalism and nativism fester, sometimes breaking the internet’s containment to appear on political daises and in white supremacist marches.
“I think it’s important to not forget the past,” James Vanderbilt offered in an interview with The Catholic Review, adding that, “we have to be able to look backwards in order to move forwards.”
In this context, Nuremberg feels more like an urgent history lesson than a work of cinema, despite its aspirations to artistry; its clumsy exposition doesn’t help its schoolmarmish tone.
Why the psychiatrist?
In the film, Douglas Kelley arrives in Nuremberg hoping to discover what made the Nazis, and Germans, uniquely predisposed to, and capable of, great evils. “If we could psychologically define evil, we could make sure something like this never happens again!” he asserts. What Kelley found, in lieu of a diagnosis, was normal people. It’s the banality of evil, years before Arendt coined the phrase — and presents an opportunity for the movie to tee up a clear moral message.
Given that the Nuremberg trials lasted years and were extremely complex, narrowing the focus to Kelley and Goering’s dynamic could have helped to prevent overwhelming the audience while offering viewers a window into the minds of the Nazi leadership.
But we walk away with little insight into Goering’s own motivations. Kelley repeatedly emphasizes the Reichsmarschall’s manipulativeness and exhorts Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor played here by Michael Shannon, to prey on the Nazi’s narcissism in his cross-examination. But we don’t see Goering do much manipulating beyond initially pretending not to speak any English, nor do we see much narcissism beyond remarking that he thinks he will escape the hangman’s noose.
Kelley mostly comes off as incompetent and eager for a book deal, not a masterful observer of the human condition, so we are given little reason to trust his insights.
How does this compare to other portrayals of Goering? Of the trial?
The most famous narrative film about the Nuremberg trials is Stanley Kramer’s 1961 Judgment at Nuremberg. Its characters are fictionalized and the action takes place at a later stage of the trial, years after Goering has escaped his hanging via a cyanide pill. Its focus is not on the high command, but the Nazi judicial system and everyday Germans. (It’s rooted in the 1947 Judges’ Trial, but reduces the number of defendants in the dock considerably.)
Much closer to Nuremberg is a 2000 TV miniseries, also called Nuremberg, starring Alec Baldwin as Jackson, the American prosecutor, and Brian Cox as Goering. Cox’s Goering is quite a bit more brash than Crowe’s, but, with his charm and chattiness with the guards, hits many of the same beats.
The main difference between the two Nurembergs comes in the portrayal of Goering’s motivations. In the movie, the Reichsmarschall displays no antisemitism and speaks only of his patriotic duty to Germany; he insists he had no knowledge of the Final Solution. His weakness, it seems, and his evil, is encapsulated in his devotion to Hitler.
In the miniseries, though Kelley does not feature, the psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert — who also briefly appears in Vanderbilt’s film played by Colin Hanks — serves much of the same function. In one memorable scene, Goering calls out the hypocrisy of America, with its segregation, trying Nazis for their race laws, and explains how Jews exploited Germans.
When Gilbert doesn’t see his logic, Cox’s Goering barks back: “You will never understand antisemitism. Why? Because you are a Jew.”
The moment implies, more than any scene in the movie version, that Goering could have been a true believer, rather than a career military man and opportunist.
How did the movie deploy its archival footage?
Despite the subject matter, the film mostly dodges direct discussion of the Holocaust — until it inserts archival footage of the concentration camps.
During the actual Nuremberg trials, a 52-minute film, directed by John Ford, showing the crematoriums, death pits, and abysmal conditions of the camps was played for the courtroom. The film uses an excerpt of the film in the trial scene. Vanderbilt chose to show the footage to the actors for the first time on set, wanting to capture their real, unfiltered reactions.
The use of archival footage reminds viewers that this story is not some Hollywood fantasy, but the rest of the film lacks this emotional power. Even when Kelley’s German-Jewish translator, Howard Triest (Leo Woodall), reveals his heritage to Kelley, a scene meant as an affecting turning point for the protagonist, its execution gives it the feel of something out of an afterschool special. The documentary footage gives the movie weight, but feels out of place in a film that otherwise has the sheen, waxy makeup and shallow characterizations of a Hollywood blockbuster.
What was the movie trying to do?
Nuremberg tries, often didactically, to spread the warning Kelley himself hoped to convey in his book, 22 Cells in Nuremberg: A Psychiatrist Examines the Nazi Criminals that all men have capacity for heinous deeds.
Highlighting the banality of evil has become a trend in recent Holocaust dramas like Zone of Interest. But unlike that film, Nuremberg relies on didactic expository dialogue. (“Jesus Christ, that’s Hermann Goering!” says an American soldier in the opening scene, before his comrade asks “Who?” and he responds with a Wikipedia precis.) It is much less interested in setting up a compelling story with deep characters than it is in lecturing the audience.
And though, by the end, the movie disavows the idea that morality — or immorality — is inherited, it gives more airtime to Kelley’s pursuit of a diagnosis of evil than it does to his conclusion that such a thing does not exist. Though a brief final scene shows the psychiatrist on a radio show warning that evil is just as possible in the U.S., we don’t see him arrive at that conclusion in the movie.
Is this an effective Holocaust movie?
At their best, Holocaust movies are able to force audiences to feel the horror of the concentration camps or make the inhumanity of the Nazis palpable. The Zone of Interest‘s most impactful scenes showed Rudolph Höss’ children playing cheerfully in the garden with the smoky plumes of Auschwitz’s crematoria in the background.
Vanderbilt tries to pack too much information into Nuremberg, leaving us with a movie that has to tell rather than show. The result is something more educational than evocative, providing a hurried overview of how the Nuremberg trials came about and a crash course on the Third Reich’s hierarchy. Its lack of focus makes it, at times, feel like a slog, and the movie depends on its star-studded cast and the inherent solemnity of its subject matter for viewers’ attention.
For those hoping to understand more about Goering’s psyche, Kelley’s own book — or The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, on which the movie was based — might be a better resource. For those hoping to delve into the entire history of the Holocaust, no one movie can capture it.
The post Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Ritchie Torres Faces Multiple 2026 Challengers Attacking His Support for Israel
US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) speaks during a rally to mark 506 days in Hamas captivity at Naumburg Bandshell at Central Park on Feb. 23, 2025, in New York City. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat and one of the US Congress’s most outspoken supporters of Israel, is facing multiple challengers seeking to unseat him in New York’s 15th Congressional District, a race that is shaping up to be in large part a referendum on his pro-Israel advocacy.
Former New York State Assemblyman Michael Blake, who also served as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced his 2026 Democratic primary campaign last week, taking direct aim at Torres’s support of Israel. In his launch video, Blake accused Torres of caring more about Israel than his Bronx district, claiming the congressman has prioritized foreign policy over the district’s economic struggles. Blake has even accused the incumbent of supporting a so-called “genocide” through his support of US military aid to Israel.
“I am ready to fight for you and lower your cost of living while Ritchie fights for a genocide,” Blake said in an announcement video.
“I will focus on affordable housing and books as Ritchie will only focus on AIPAC and Bibi,” he continued, referring to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and using the nickname for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I will invest in the community. Ritchie invests in bombs. I want to end credit scores for housing. Ritchie only wants to take credit.”
The district, one of the poorest in the nation, has a child poverty rate of 37 percent, according to the US Census Bureau, the highest in the country and a figure Blake has cited to argue for redirecting attention to the needs of working families.
Blake’s attacks have prompted backlash of their own. As reported by the New York Post, the challenger appears to have deleted years of social-media posts praising Israel and AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobbying group he once openly supported. Between 2014 and 2017, Blake attended AIPAC events and heaped praise on the Jewish state. Blake subsequently deleted photos of himself at AIPAC events after receiving criticism.
Torres’s other declared challenger, Andre Easton, a Bronx teacher running as an independent backed by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has called for cutting all US aid to Israel and replacing it with domestic social spending. Blake and Easton’s campaigns underscore an ideological rift inside the Democratic Party between the progressive far left, which has been largely hostile to the Jewish state, and the more moderate wing.
A campaign video launched by Easton showed pictures of the candidate sporting a keffiyeh — a traditional Arab headdress repurposed during the Gaza war to signal support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel, while decrying capitalism and poverty rampaging the district. He argued that “billionaires” are corrupting politicians to vote in support of a so-called “genocide in Gaza.” Easton also outlined a litany of promises, including free childcare and guaranteed jobs.
Torres, 37, a Bronx native who is both Afro-Latino and openly gay, has not shied away from the fight. He has long framed his support for Israel as part of a broader belief in liberal democracy and human rights and is known in Washington as one of the few progressive Democrats willing to challenge the party’s left flank on Middle East issues. Torres’s campaign dismissed Blake’s challenge as opportunistic, and the incumbent has vowed to continue his vocal support for Israel.
Allies of Torres argue that since his election in 2020, he has secured federal funding for affordable housing, local infrastructure, and small-business relief while being instrumental in directing pandemic recovery aid to neighborhoods hardest hit by COVID-19.
New York’s 15th District, encompassing much of the South Bronx, remains overwhelmingly Democratic and majority black and Hispanic.
Uncategorized
Dutch Jewish Writer Recounts Being Denied Care by Pro-Palestinian Nurse
March 29, 2025, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands: A pro-Palestinian demonstrator burns a hand-fashioned Israeli flag. Photo: James Petermeier/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
A Jewish columnist from Amsterdam has publicly denounced yet another example of rising antisemitism in health-care settings, saying she was denied medical care by a nurse who refused to remove a pro-Palestinian pin shaped like a fist.
On Monday, Jonath Weinberger, a dual Belgian-Israeli citizen who moved to the Netherlands in 2024, described how a visit for urgent medical care quickly turned into an unsettling experience, in a column for the Dutch Jewish news site Jonet.
Two months ago, Weinberger required urgent medical attention and was taken to a local hospital, the name of which she chose not to disclose.
“As I stepped into the room with the doctor and nurse, I was shocked. The nurse was wearing a large pin shaped like a fist in the colors of the Palestinian flag,” she wrote in her column.
Feeling uncomfortable with the situation, Weinberger told the paramedic that she was uneasy about the nurse’s pin. The paramedic then “gently [or cautiously, depending on the translation]” asked the nurse if she could remove it.
“I didn’t feel safe being treated by someone displaying such a political statement,” Weinberger said.
But the nurse “reacted indignantly, muttered that she no longer wished to treat [her], and walked out of the room.”
Weinberger recalled having to wait for another nurse to arrive, despite her medical emergency, before she could finally receive treatment.
Now that she has almost fully recovered, Weinberger is considering taking legal action against the hospital.
The experience “was outrageous, as health-care professionals are legally and ethically required to treat all patients equally, no matter their background, religion, political views, or sexual orientation,” she said. “I hope that this nurse is held accountable for her irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.”
Weinberger explained that her fears were driven by the rising tide of antisemitism in health-care settings across several Western countries, including the growing number of medical professionals openly voicing antisemitic views and even outright death threats against Israelis.
“Many staunch anti-Israel protesters hide behind the term ‘anti-Zionist,’ but in reality, they are often simply antisemites,” she wrote. “That’s why I found it completely inappropriate for a health-care professional to display such a political statement while I was receiving urgent medical care.”
“It wasn’t even a small Palestinian flag, but an actual fist — a symbol of militant resistance — and that doesn’t belong in a hospital. A hospital should be a neutral, safe space for everyone,” she continued.
This antisemitic incident reflects a wider pattern across the West, where rising antisemitism within health-care settings in recent months has left Jewish communities feeling unsafe and marginalized.
Elsewhere in the Netherlands, local police opened an investigation into Batisma Chayat Sa’id, a nurse who allegedly stated she would administer lethal injections to Israeli patients.
In Italy, two medical workers filmed themselves at their workplace discarding medicine produced by the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals in protest against the Jewish state and the war in Gaza.
In Belgium, a local hospital suspended a physician after discovering antisemitic content on his social media, including a cartoon showing babies being decapitated by the tip of a Star of David and an AI-generated image depicting Hasidic Jews as vampires poised to devour a sleeping baby.
The same doctor came under fire after he recently diagnosed a nine-year-old patient by listing “Jewish (Israeli)” as one of her medical problems on his report.
Several such incidents have occurred in the United Kingdom, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled a new plan last month to address what he described as “just too many examples, clear examples, of antisemitism that have not been dealt with adequately or effectively” in the country’s National Health Service (NHS).
One notable case drawing attention involved Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, a trainee trauma and orthopedic surgeon, who police arrested on Oct. 21, charging her with four offenses related to malicious communications and inciting racial hatred.
Aladwan’s arrest followed the UK’s top medical regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC), clearing her to continue treating patients. She had made antisemitic social media claims such as labeling the Royal Free Hospital in London :a Jewish supremacy cesspit” and asserting that “over 90% of the world’s Jews are genocidal.”
Aladwan wrote on April 29 that “I will never condemn the 7th of October,” referring to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
In September, a North London hospital suspended a physician who was under investigation for publicly claiming that all Jews have “feelings of supremacy” and downplaying antisemitism.
In Australia, two nurses filmed themselves bragging online about refusing to treat Israelis, making throat-slitting gestures, and boasting of killing Jews. Both lost their licenses and now face criminal charges.
Weinberger referenced the Australian example in her column when discussing her mindset in the hosptial.
“Let me assure you: as a Zionist Jew with Israeli citizenship, you feel very unsafe at a time like this,” she wrote. “So much was going through my mind at that moment. I’d also seen TikTok videos where nurses threatened to kill Zionist patients. And there’s already been a case in Australia.”
A US-born Jewish woman who moved from Israel to Australia six years ago told The Algemeiner earlier this year that she no longer feels safe in hospitals given the atmosphere of heightened antisemitism.
“In the past year alone, my little boy has witnessed many hostile protests where ‘anti-Zionists’ have actually come into the Jewish community without permits to intimidate us. Time and time again, instead of [authorities] dispersing and arresting anyone in the crowd for screaming racial slurs and threats, Jews are asked to evacuate and told if they don’t run away, they are inciting violence,” the woman said.
“Now they actually brag online about killing Israeli patients,” she continued, referring to the case in Australia. “I don’t know how safe I would feel giving birth at that hospital.”
Uncategorized
Pope Leo names Italian Holocaust film ‘Life is Beautiful’ as one of his 4 favorites of all time
Pope Leo XIV included the 1997 Holocaust movie “Life Is Beautiful” among his four favorite films of all time.
“Life Is Beautiful,” a melodrama by Italian filmmaker and comedian Robert Benigni, follows an Italian Jewish father and his son as they are sent to a Nazi concentration camp. There the father uses humor and misdirection in an effort to hide the truth of the camps from his son.
The film was a global box-office hit and received seven Oscar nominations, winning three. Another movie set during Nazi rule, the 1965 musical “The Sound of Music,” also made the pope’s list, which was rounded out by the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” and Robert Redford’s stark family drama, “Ordinary People.”
Pope Leo did not elaborate on his reasons for the selections in the truncated video posted by Variety announcing a convening of filmmakers at the Vatican that will begin Saturday.
“Life Is Beautiful” has long been a controversial film among Jews. While some embraced it as a fable of spiritual resistance, critics recoiled at the juxtaposition of broad humor with the Holocaust and said it distorted the experience of concentration camp victims and survivors. Among its critics is Mel Brooks, who also objected that Benigni was not Jewish and couldn’t fully understand the Holocaust. (The actor-director’s Catholic father reportedly was held prisoner in Bergen-Belsen during the war.)
The Vatican also announced that several global filmmakers would be attending the upcoming cinema convening, to begin Saturday. Those include Jewish comedy director Judd Apatow; Pawel Pawlikowski, a Polish filmmaker of Jewish descent and the director of the Oscar-winning Holocaust film “Ida”; and Marco Bellochio, the Italian director of a historical film about the 19th-century kidnapping of Italian Jewish boy Edgardo Mortara by the Catholic Church.
The pope, who formerly studied under a Catholic leader of Jewish-Catholic relations in the U.S., recently held an event marking the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the declaration that overturned centuries of Catholic doctrine by absolving Jews of killing Jesus. At the event, a member of the pope’s Swiss guard allegedly made a spitting gesture toward a Jewish woman guest; the Vatican recently announced an internal investigation into the matter.
—
The post Pope Leo names Italian Holocaust film ‘Life is Beautiful’ as one of his 4 favorites of all time appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.