Quick Read
- James Vanderbilt’s ‘Nuremberg’ was released in January 2026 on VOD and Sky Cinema.
- The film centers on the psychological interplay between Hermann Göring and psychiatrist Douglas Kelley during the Nuremberg trials.
- Some scenes take dramatic liberties, prompting critique from historians.
The release of James Vanderbilt’s “Nuremberg” in early 2026 has reignited public interest in the moral and psychological complexities that defined the post-World War II Nuremberg trials. Available on VOD platforms such as Amazon Prime Video and featured on Sky Cinema Premiere, the film departs from the standard courtroom drama formula, zeroing in on the fraught relationship between Nazi leader Hermann Göring and American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley.
A New Lens on Old History
Unlike previous cinematic treatments of the Nuremberg trials, Vanderbilt’s “Nuremberg” draws its narrative backbone from Jack El-Hai’s non-fiction book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist. Rather than retreading familiar legal proceedings, the film immerses viewers in the psychological chess match between Göring, played by Russell Crowe, and Kelley, portrayed by Rami Malek. Their interactions are tense, intimate, and at times unsettlingly cordial, as Kelley attempts to determine the mental fitness of the Nazi officials for trial and to unravel what motivated their crimes.
The story opens in May 1945, immediately after Göring’s capture in Austria. Göring’s status as Hitler’s designated successor and Luftwaffe chief made him a prized captive. The film captures the historical moment when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, played by Michael Shannon, learns of Göring’s custody and insists on a formal legal process rather than summary execution—a stance that would lead to the first international tribunal for crimes against humanity.
Psychological Duel: Kelley and Göring
The heart of “Nuremberg” lies in the evolving relationship between Kelley and Göring inside the prison walls. Kelley, a confident and sometimes brash U.S. Army psychiatrist, uses psychological tests—including the famous Rorschach inkblots—to evaluate Göring and other Nazi defendants. Göring, a morphine addict with a sharp intellect and grand ego, challenges Kelley with wit and manipulation. Their exchanges blur the line between adversary and confidant, raising disturbing questions about empathy and responsibility.
Kelley’s willingness to help Göring overcome his addiction and to deliver letters to Göring’s family further complicates the dynamic. The film draws parallels to iconic psychological duels in cinema, such as the relationship between Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling in “The Silence of the Lambs.” As the trial approaches, Justice Jackson seeks insights from Kelley about Göring’s defense strategies, but Kelley resists, citing doctor-patient confidentiality—a tension that highlights ethical dilemmas at the heart of the proceedings.
Colin Hanks appears as Dr. Gustave Gilbert, another psychiatrist whose assessments of Göring diverge from Kelley’s. While Gilbert describes Göring as an “aggressive psychopath,” Kelley concludes that Göring, though cruel and egotistical, is not clinically insane but is fully accountable for his actions.
Fact, Fiction, and Historical Liberty
While striving for emotional impact, “Nuremberg” takes notable dramatic liberties. Scenes such as Jackson’s fictional confrontation with Pope Pius XII and Kelley’s supposed sharing of confidential notes with Jackson are inventions for narrative effect. Historians, including John Q. Barrett of the Robert H. Jackson Center, have criticized these embellishments as misleading and ethically questionable, noting that Jackson was in reality negotiating with Allied representatives in London, not the Vatican.
Despite these departures from the historical record, Vanderbilt’s direction aims to make the story feel “alive” for modern audiences, balancing the demands of historical accuracy with the imperatives of drama. The film’s depiction of courtroom scenes—including the harrowing evidence of concentration camp atrocities—remains faithful to the emotional gravity of the actual trials.
Legacy, Performance, and Enduring Questions
The performances anchor the film’s impact. Crowe’s Göring is a study in contradictions—at once monstrous and devoted to his family, capable of evoking both revulsion and fleeting empathy. Malek’s Kelley is a charismatic, troubled figure, grappling with the psychological toll of his work. Shannon’s Jackson provides a moral anchor, embodying the legal rigor and ethical conviction that defined the Nuremberg prosecution.
The supporting cast, including John Slattery, Richard E. Grant, and Leo Woodall, round out the ensemble, with Woodall’s translator character offering glimpses of untold stories within the prison setting.
In its coda, “Nuremberg” acknowledges the lasting effects of the trial on Kelley, whose later fascination with criminology and evil led to personal tragedy. Kelley’s suicide by cyanide—mirroring Göring’s own escape from execution—serves as a chilling reminder of the psychological scars left by proximity to atrocity.
“Nuremberg” ultimately stands as an absorbing, visually rich docudrama that provokes reflection on justice, accountability, and the unsettling ordinariness of evil. Its historical embellishments, while controversial, do not obscure the film’s core achievement: prompting viewers to grapple with the uncomfortable truth that monstrous acts can be committed by seemingly ordinary individuals.
Based strictly on the presented facts, “Nuremberg” is a thoughtful, if imperfect, cinematic exploration of the psychological and ethical complexities behind one of history’s most significant legal reckonings. Its dramatic liberties may frustrate historians, but its ability to provoke questions about the nature of evil and responsibility remains its lasting contribution.