Could a friendship between an Army psychiatrist and a Nazi leader ever be possible? The shocking truth behind 'Nuremberg' might just challenge everything you thought you knew about history and humanity.
Rami Malek and Russell Crowe headline Nuremberg, a gripping new film now in theaters that revisits the post-World War II trials of the Nazi high command. But how much of this cinematic portrayal actually aligns with historical facts? We dive deep into the movie’s accuracy, separating fact from fiction in a way that even beginners can grasp.
Spoiler alert! We’re about to unpack some key moments from Nuremberg (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2025/11/05/nuremberg-movie-review/86978536007/), so proceed with caution if you prefer to experience it firsthand. Yet, here’s where it gets intriguing: screenwriter and director James Vanderbilt, known for his eclectic filmography, channeled his inner historian to bring this complex story to life. As he puts it, ‘I’m drawn to tales of obsession and the depths of human evil.’
The film draws inspiration from Jack El-Hai’s book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, which explores the unlikely relationship between Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Malek) and Hermann Göring (Crowe), the imprisoned Nazi leader, during the lead-up to the Nuremberg trials. But Vanderbilt didn’t stop there. He expanded the narrative to include Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson’s (Michael Shannon) relentless fight to prosecute Nazi war criminals—a stance that clashed with the Army’s desire for swift, brutal justice. Additionally, the emotional backstory of Kelley’s translator, Howie Triest (Leo Woodall), adds depth to the story, giving it a broader scope beyond the confines of a prison cell.
And this is the part most people miss: Vanderbilt meticulously weaves fact and fiction, raising questions that spark debate. For instance, did Kelley genuinely form a bond with Göring and his family? The film portrays Kelley’s role as Göring’s mental health caretaker, during which they developed a complex rapport. Vanderbilt explains, ‘They probed each other’s minds but also found common ground, sharing advice and reflections on life.’ Historically, Kelley did interact with Göring’s family, even delivering letters to his wife. A cut scene reveals Göring asking Kelley to take his daughter to America, fearing for her safety in post-war Germany—a detail that underscores the depth of their connection, at least in Göring’s eyes.
But here’s where it gets controversial: The film’s courtroom scenes feature harrowing footage of Nazi concentration camps, a pivotal moment that exposed the world to the horrors of the Holocaust. Vanderbilt included six minutes of the actual 52-minute film (https://www.upi.com/Archives/1945/11/29/Concentration-camp-film-makes-one-defendant-ill-another-turns-back/9791934115082/) shown during the trials, projecting it for the actors to ensure raw, authentic reactions. Woodall reflects, ‘It was a tough day, but necessary.’ This raises a thought-provoking question: How should filmmakers balance historical accuracy with emotional impact?
Another debated moment involves British prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe (Richard E. Grant), who steps in during a tense cross-examination to challenge Göring’s claims of ignorance about the scale of Jewish deaths. Vanderbilt confirms this exchange is historically accurate, adding, ‘I hope historians appreciate our commitment to truth.’ But does cinematic dramatization ever risk overshadowing historical nuance?
Finally, the film highlights Kelley’s warning about the potential resurgence of Nazi-like fascism, a sentiment echoed in his book 22 Cells in Nuremberg. Vanderbilt notes, ‘His views were unpopular then, but they remain chillingly relevant.’ As the film contrasts the jubilation of Allied troops with the despair of Germans, it leaves us with a lingering question: Have we truly learned from history, or are we doomed to repeat it?
What do you think? Does Nuremberg strike the right balance between entertainment and education? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep the conversation going!
