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
Iran Opposes Grossi’s UN Secretary-General Candidacy, Accuses Him of Failing to Uphold International Law
UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi holds a press conference on the opening day of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) quarterly Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, Austria, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl
Iran has publicly opposed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi’s potential appointment as UN Secretary-General next year, accusing him of failing to uphold international law by not condemning US and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June.
During a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, sharply criticized Grossi, calling him unfit” to serve as UN Secretary-General next year, Iranian media reported.
“A candidate who has deliberately failed to uphold the UN Charter — or to condemn unlawful military attacks against safeguarded, peaceful nuclear facilities … undermines confidence in his ability to serve as a faithful guardian of the charter and to discharge his duties independently, impartially, and without political bias or fear of powerful states,” the Iranian diplomat said.
With UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ term ending in December next year, member states have already begun nominating candidates to take over the role ahead of the expected 2026 election.
Since the start of the war in Gaza, Israel’s relationship with Guterres has spiraled downward, reaching a low point last year when then-Foreign Minister Israel Katz labeled the UN “antisemitic and anti-Israeli” and declared Guterres persona non grata after the top UN official failed to condemn Tehran for its ballistic missile attack against the Jewish state.
Last week, Argentina officially nominated Grossi to succeed Guterres as the next UN Secretary-General.
To be elected, a nominee must first secure the support of at least nine members of the UN Security Council and avoid a veto from any of its five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France.
Afterward, the UN General Assembly votes, with a simple majority needed to confirm the organization’s next leader.
As head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog since 2019, Grossi has consistently urged Iran to provide transparency on its nuclear program and cooperate with the agency, efforts the Islamist regime has repeatedly rejected and obstructed.
Despite Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes rather than weapons development, Western powers have said there is no “credible civilian justification” for the country’s nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
With prospects for renewed negotiations or nuclear cooperation dwindling, Iran has been intensifying efforts to rebuild its air and defense capabilities decimated during the 12-day war with Israel.
On Monday, Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), declared that the IAEA has no authority to inspect sites targeted during the June war, following Grossi’s renewed calls for Tehran to allow inspections of its nuclear sites and expand cooperation with the agency.
Iran has also announced plans to expand its nuclear cooperation with Russia and advance the construction of new nuclear power plants, as both countries continue to deepen their bilateral relations.
According to AEOI spokesperson Behrouz Kamalvandi, one nuclear power plant is currently operational, while other two are under construction, with new contracts signed during a recent high-level meeting in Moscow.
Kamalvandi also said Iran plans to build four nuclear power plants in the country’s southern region as part of its long-term partnership with Russia.
During a joint press conference in Moscow on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated Iran’s commitment to defending the country’s “legal nuclear rights” under the now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal, noting that Tehran’s nuclear policies have remained within the international legal framework.
Iran’s growing ties with Russia, particularly in nuclear cooperation, have deepened in recent years as both countries face mounting Western sanctions and seek to expand their influence in opposition to Western powers.
Russia has not only helped Iran build its nuclear program but also consistently defended the country’s “nuclear rights” on the global stage, while opposing the imposition of renewed economic sanctions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has described the reinstatement of UN sanctions against Iran as a “disgrace to diplomacy.”
In an interview with the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN), Lavrov accused European powers of attempting to blame Tehran for the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, despite what he described as Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
Prior to the 12-day war, the IAEA flagged a series of Iranian violations of the deal.
Uncategorized
Eurovision Host Says It Will Not Drown Out Any Boos During Israel’s Performance
ORF executive producer Michael Kroen attends a press conference about the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria, Dec. 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
The host broadcaster of the next Eurovision Song Contest, Austria’s ORF, will not ban the Palestinian flag from the audience or drown out booing during Israel’s performance as has happened at previous shows, organizers said on Tuesday.
The 70th edition of the contest in May will have just 35 entries, the smallest number of participants since 2003, after five national broadcasters including those of Spain, Ireland, and the Netherlands said they would boycott the show in protest at Israel’s participation.
What is usually a celebration of national diversity, pop music, and high camp has become embroiled in diplomatic strife, with those boycotting saying it would be unconscionable to take part given the number of civilians killed in Gaza during Israel’s military campaign following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
“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.,” the show’s executive producer, Michael Kroen, told a news conference organized by ORF.
“We will not sugarcoat anything or avoid showing what is happening, because our task is to show things as they are,” Kroen said.
AUSTRIA SUPPORTED ISRAEL PARTICIPATING
The broadcaster will not drown out the sound of any booing from the crowd, as happened this year during Israel’s performance, ORF’s director of programming Stefanie Groiss-Horowitz said.
“We won’t play artificial applause over it at any point,” she said.
Israel’s 2025 entrant, Yuval Raphael, was at the Nova music festival that was a target of the Hamas-led attack. The CEO of Israeli broadcaster KAN had likened the efforts to exclude Israel in 2026 to a form of “cultural boycott.”
ORF and the Austrian government were among the biggest supporters of Israel participating over the objections of countries including Iceland and Slovenia, which will also boycott the next contest in protest. ORF Director General Roland Weissmann visited Israel in November to show his support.
This year’s show drew around 166 million viewers, according to the European Broadcasting Union, more than the roughly 128 million who Nielsen estimates watched the Super Bowl.
The war in Gaza began after Hamas-led terrorists killed 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and seized 251 hostages in an attack on southern Israel.
Uncategorized
Antisemitism Allowed to Fester in Australia, Says Daughter of Wounded Holocaust Survivor
Victoria Teplitsky, daughter of a Holocaust survivor who was wounded at the Bondi shootings, stands at a floral memorial in honor of the victims of the mass shooting targeting a Hanukkah celebration on Sunday, at Bondi Beach, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jeremy Piper
Government authorities have not done enough to stamp out hatred of Jews in Australia, which has allowed it to fester in the aftermath of Oct. 7, said the daughter of a Holocaust survivor who was wounded at the Bondi shootings on Sunday.
Victoria Teplitsky, 53, a retired childcare center owner, said that the father and son who allegedly went on a 10-minute shooting spree that killed 15 people had been “taught to hate,” which was a bigger factor in the attack than access to guns.
“It’s not the fact that those two people had a gun. It’s the fact that hatred has been allowed to fester against the Jewish minority in Australia,” she told Reuters in an interview.
“We are angry at our government because it comes from the top, and they should have stood up for our community with strength. And they should have squashed the hatred rather than kind of letting it slide,” she said.
“We’ve been ignored. We feel like, are we not Australian enough? Do we not matter to our government?”
The attackers fired upon hundreds of people at a Jewish festival during a roughly 10-minute killing spree, forcing people to flee and take shelter before both were shot by police.
RISING ANTISEMITIC ATTACKS
Antisemitic incidents have been rising in Australia since the war in Gaza erupted after Palestinian terrorist group Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis in an attack on Oct. 7, 2023.
A rise in such incidents in the past sixteen months prompted the head of the nation’s main intelligence agency to declare that antisemitism was his top priority in terms of threat.
“This was not a surprise to the Jewish community. We warned the government of this many, many times over,” Teplitsky said.
“We’ve had synagogues that have been graffitied, graffiti everywhere, and we’ve had synagogues that have been bombed,” she added, referring to a 2024 arson attack in Melbourne in which no one was killed.
Teplitsky’s father Semyon, 86, bled heavily after being shot in the leg, and now is facing several operations as doctors piece bone back together with cement, then remove the cement from the leg, which he still may lose, she said.
“He’s in good spirits, but he’s also very angry. Angry that this happened, that this was allowed to happen in Australia, the country that he took his children to, to be safe, to be away from antisemitism, to be away from Jew hatred.”
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese “did nothing” to curb antisemitism.
Albanese repeated on Tuesday Australia‘s support for a two-state solution. Anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protests have been common in Australia since Israel launched its offensive in Gaza.
At a press briefing on Monday, Albanese read through a list of actions his government had taken, including criminalizing hate speech and incitement to violence and a ban on the Nazi salute. He also pledged to extend funding for physical security for Jewish community groups.