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.
Goering on the stand; the second half of the film becomes a courtroom drama. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
“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.
Crowe’s Goering is slickly charming, as most accounts say the real man was, but lacks any real depth of motivation. Photo by
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.
In the film’s opening scene, Hermann Goering turns himself into U.S. soldiers who aren’t quite sure who he is, giving the movie a chance to tell, rather than show, his importance. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
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.
At Least 20% of Mamdani Transition Appointees Have Radical Anti-Zionist Ties, ADL Report Finds
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
Scores of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s transition and administrative appointees have histories of antisemitic rhetoric, support for terrorist groups, or affiliations with organizations hostile to Israel and the Jewish community, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
In a detailed document released this week, the ADL said it reviewed more than 400 individuals appointed on Nov. 24 to serve on 17 transition committees responsible for staffing the incoming administration and shaping its policy agenda. The ADL said at least 20 percent of these appointees have either a “documented history of making anti-Israel statements” or ties to radical anti-Zionist organizations that “openly promote terror and harass Jewish people.” Among these groups are Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and Within Our Lifetime (WOL), all of which routinely glorify the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas terrorist group, harass Jewish students on campus, and stage protests outside synagogues.
According to the ADL, Mamdani’s appointees include individuals who have promoted classic antisemitic tropes, vilified supporters of Jewish self-determination, sought to undermine the legitimacy of Israel, expressed sympathy for Hamas, and celebrated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre carried out by the Iran-backed terrorist group. Several appointees were also flagged for alleged connections to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has compared Jews to termites, described Judaism as a “dirty religion,” called the Jewish people “Satan,” publicly questioned the Holocaust, shared anti-Israel conspiracy theories, and blamed Jews for pedophilia and sex trafficking. Others, according to ADL, dismissed reports of Hamas atrocities as “propaganda” or publicly justified the Oct. 7 atrocities as a form of justified “resistance.”
The ADL said, for example, that Gianpaolo Baiocchi, who was recently appointed to the Committee on Community Organizing, participated in an anti-Israel encampment at New York University (NYU). He defended the encampments, claiming that “there was no expression of anti-semitism [sic], bigotry, or any hate speech.” However, previous reports of these encampments reveal that demonstrators often used slogans such as “Destroy Zionist business interests everywhere,” “Death to Israeli real estate,” “Enough with de-escalation trainings; where are the escalation trainings?” and “Death to America.”
Zakiyah Shaakir-Ansari, who was tapped to the Committee on Youth & Education, posted a picture of herself posing in front of a banner displaying an inverted red triangle — a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies used by the Palestinian terrorist group in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked — and the words “long live the resistance” written in large font.
Alina Shen, who was selected to serve on the Committee on Housing, was an organizer for the anti-Israel organization CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities. During her tenure, CAAAV labeled Israel a “settler colonial” entity and affirmed that “resistance” against the country is justified.
“We support the Palestinian revolt against the zionist [sic], colonial power of israel [sic]…CAAAV stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine, the freedom fighters who are fighting for their future,” the organization wrote during the 2021 Israel-Hamas war.
Additionally, several transition appointees have expressed vocal support for Farrakhan. Jacques Léandre, tapped to join the Committee on Legal Affairs, attended a 2022 Saviours’ Day conference in which Farrakhan lambasted “the Jews and their power.” He also lauded Farrakhan for displaying “courage, integrity, and compassion.”
Tamika Mallory, the former Women’s March co-chair who was forced out of the organization amid allegations of antisemitism, was also appointed to Mamdani’s transition team, to serve on the Committee on Community Safety. She has faced ongoing criticism for her praise of Farrakhan.
Mysonne Linen, appointed to the Committee on the Criminal Legal System, also maintains a personal relationship with Farrakhan, according to the ADL.
“Many of Mayor-elect Mamdani’s Transition Committee appointments are inconsistent with his campaign commitments to prioritize the safety of New York’s Jewish community,” the ADL wrote in its report. “The composition of these Transition Committees will directly influence the administration’s policies and approach to Jewish community concerns, and the current appointments raise serious questions as to whether those concerns will not be adequately represented or addressed.”
At the same time, the ADL acknowledged several steps taken by Mamdani that it described as positive. Following a deadly antisemitic shooting at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, Australia earlier this month, Mamdani condemned the attack as “a vile act of antisemitic terror” and pledged to keep Jewish New Yorkers safe. He also visited the resting place of Chabad-Lubavitch leader Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in Queens and met with leaders of the Satmar community and the New York Board of Rabbis.
Still, Jewish leaders remain concerned. After meeting with Mamdani, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of New York’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue warned that the mayor-elect’s anti-Zionist rhetoric could endanger Jewish safety in the city and strain relations with the Jewish community.
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s victory, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.
A Sienna Research Institute poll released in early November revealed that a whopping 72 percent of Jewish New Yorkers believe that Mamdani will be “bad” for the city. A mere 18 percent hold a favorable view of Mamdani, according to the results, while 67 percent view him unfavorably.
Belgian Musicians, Italian Broadcast Union Pressure Their Countries to Boycott Eurovision Over Israel’s Participation
A photographer takes a picture of a TV screen in Wiener Stadthalle, the venue of next year’s Eurovision in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger
Two collective groups in Belgium and Italy are pressuring their respective countries to withdraw participation in the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel’s involvement in the competition, which is set to take place in Vienna, Austria, in May.
A group of 170 Belgian artists and cultural figures signed a petition that called on the country’s national broadcaster RTBF to “honor its public service mission” and pull out of the 70th edition of the Eurovision Song Contest “as long as a state trampling underfoot the very foundations of our common humanity is welcome.” They accused Israel of conducting a “war of extermination waged against the Palestinian people” in the Gaza Strip and of using cultural events to “art-wash” its military actions.
“In our view, this constitutes a serious breach of the ethical and moral obligations of public broadcasters,” read the petition, as reported by French-language Belgian daily La Libre. “Participating in Eurovision allows Israel to maintain the illusion that it is a modern and exemplary Western democracy, and thus to more easily conceal its criminal actions.”
The signatories also claimed that “for years, the Israeli government has used major artistic and cultural events for propaganda purposes in order to divert attention from its regime of occupation, colonization, and apartheid against the Palestinian people.” They further denounced the Belgian broadcaster VRT, which nominates Belgium’s representative who will compete in the Eurovision, and claimed the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the competition, of displaying double standards for allowing Israel to compete while excluding Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The national broadcasters of Spain, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Slovenia have already announced they will not participate in the 2026 Eurovision or broadcast the final on their national television channels, after it was confirmed in early December that Israel will be allowed to compete in next year’s contest.
The union group USB-RAI Coordination, at Italy’s state broadcaster RAI, launched a petition that urged RAI to join the countries “making the courageous decision” to boycott Eurovision 2026 because of Israel’s involvement. The union branch was founded two years ago and has currently around 50 members at the state broadcaster, according to Euronews. Their petition already has more than 7,000 signatures.
“By withdrawing Italy from Eurovision and deciding not to broadcast the event, RAI would not only be taking an ethically and empathetically justifiable stance, but would also be setting a moral example on the international stage,” the USB said in a statement. “Such a gesture would demonstrate how much Italy values human dignity, equality, and justice for all peoples. We would make our voice heard globally, showing that we do not turn a blind eye to injustice.”
Italy is one of the “Big Five” countries (with France, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom) that have supported the Eurovision Song Contest since the first competition in 1956. In a statement on Dec. 5, RAI confirmed its participation in the contest and said Italy has “always been among the countries that believed in and invested in the Eurovision Song Contest, contributing significantly, including financially, to its development and international success.”
“In recent years our commitment has grown steadily, testifying to the value we attach to an event that is the longest-running international music show, capable of uniting diverse cultures in a shared celebration,” the broadcaster added. “RAI’s involvement in the competition confirms the determination to strengthen Italy’s role in the promotion of music, culture, and entertainment at international level. RAI supports the participation of the Israeli public broadcaster Kan in the next edition [of the Eurovision].”
On Dec. 11, last year’s Eurovision winner Nemo announced on social media they will return their trophy to the EBU in protest of Israel’s participation in the Eurovision. A day later, Charlie McGettigan, who won the 1994 Eurovision with fellow Irish singer Paul Harrington with the song “Rock ‘n’ Roll Kids,” said he was returning his trophy to the EBU for the same reason.
The Austrian public broadcaster ORF, host of the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest, confirmed last week that it will not prohibit the Palestinian flag in the audience nor censor any booing directed at Israel’s performance.
“We will allow all official flags that exist in the world, if they comply with the law and are in a certain form – size, security risks, etc,” said the show’s executive producer, Michael Kroen. “We will not sugarcoat anything or avoid showing what is happening, because our task is to show things as they are.”
In an effort to pressure Portugal to boycott the 2026 Eurovision, several Portuguese artists announced in a joint statement that they would not go to Vienna to take part in the event because of Israel’s participation.
Iran Accuses Israel of False Flag Attacks on Jews Abroad as Regime’s Executions Reach Record Levels
People walk near a mural of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 23, 2025. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran continues to accuse Israel of orchestrating false-flag attacks against Jews and Israelis abroad to stoke fears of antisemitism in the wake of the Bondi Beach massacre, even as the regime escalates its own domestic crackdown, with public executions reaching record levels.
Speaking to commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Sunday, Iranian military chief Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi referred to the deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, which killed 15 people and wounded at least 40 others, as “not the first time that Jews have been targeted in an attempt to portray Israel as a victim,” accusing the Jewish state of committing similar crimes in the past.
“The Zionist regime has assassinated members of the Jewish community and their affiliates in other countries to prevent reverse migration, escape internal turmoil, and instill antisemitism,” Mousavi said.
However, as the Islamist regime in Iran continues to issue baseless accusations, Australian and Israeli authorities are actually investigating whether Tehran had a role in orchestrating the mass shooting targeting Sydney’s Jewish community, citing the regime’s long history of plotting terrorist attacks abroad.
According to Iranian media, Mousavi also accused the United States and Israel of wrongdoing, saying “the events of the past two years have exposed their criminal nature to the world.”
“Enemies of the country are lawbreakers, warmongers, and deceivers, and they do not adhere to any international law or humanitarian norms,” he said.
In the immediate aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Bondi Beach, the Iranian Foreign Ministry publicly condemned the “violent attack” in Sydney, though tje statement was vague and made no mention of antisemitism, the local Jewish community, or any specific target.
However, Iranian state and semi-official media pushed a starkly different narrative, spreading conspiracy theories that framed the attack as a plot orchestrated by Israel. Other outlets expressed support for the attack, even praising it, claiming that the rabbi who was killed during the massacre, Eli Schlanger, was a “staunch advocate of genocide in Gaza.”
The Iranian news agency Mehr openly called “the Zionist regime” the main suspect, portraying the attack as a “false flag” operation allegedly designed to serve Israeli interests.
Earlier this year, Britain, the United States, France, and 11 other allies issued a joint statement condemning a rise in Iranian assassination and kidnapping plots in the West, as a new report warned Tehran has been intensifying efforts to target Jewish communities abroad.
With a surge in assassination, kidnapping, and harassment plots targeting individuals in multiple countries, Western allies urged Iranian authorities to halt these illegal actions, noting how the regime continues to promote antisemitism abroad and recruits criminal networks to carry out attacks against Jews.
Iran is facing mounting international pressure not only over its terror operations abroad but also for its escalating brutal internal crackdown amid growing domestic tensions and crises.
According to Iran Human Rights Monitor (IHR), a Norway-based NGO that tracks the death penalty in the country, at least 1,791 people have been executed this year, marking a staggering rise from the 993 executions recorded in 2024.
Most of those executed were accused of collaborating with Mossad — Israel’s national intelligence agency — and aiding covert operations in Tehran, such as assassinations and sabotage targeting the country’s nuclear program.
Last week, a group of survivors, together with the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), filed a criminal complaint in Argentina accusing Iranian authorities of crimes against humanity committed during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests.
In a first-ever legal action of its kind, survivors of the regime’s atrocities filed a criminal complaint against 40 named Iranian officials, alleging gender persecution, murder, torture, and other brutal acts, including targeted blinding, in response to the regime’s brutal 2022 crackdown.
With this lawsuit, plaintiffs are asking the Argentine court to investigate senior figures in Iran’s intelligence services, military, police, the IRGC, and civilian government for their roles in a widespread and systematic assault on civilians.
Among those filing the complaint is Mahsa Piraei, one of Minoo Majidi’s three children, seeking justice for her 62-year-old mother who was shot dead in September 2022.
According to autopsy reports, more than 167 metal pellets were fired into her back at point-blank range.
“In our own country, we could not find justice for my mother’s killing, as the judiciary is neither fair nor independent,” Piraei said. “But today, I am happy that this crime has not crushed our hope for justice, and that our efforts are finally bearing fruit.”
“With the help of human rights lawyers, we are taking our case to courts outside of Iran,” she continued. “I believe that our perseverance as families seeking justice, and our commitment to upholding human dignity, is a global cause that knows no borders.”
The 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests erupted nationwide after Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, died in a Tehran police station following her arrest for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules, igniting a nationwide uprising calling for human rights and individual freedoms.
