"The trial was risky because the prosecutors knew that a failure to convict and execute the top surviving Nazis was intolerable. They knew that there was no established legal platform or precedence to work from; they had to create a legal framework after the crime, an otherwise inconceivable move in the world of law."
"The movie is risky because it takes a hand in shaping our collective memory of the atrocities committed in the name of Germany, and how a world seeking justice dealt with it. Every movie is an exercise of myth-making, like it or not."
"Personality, history, and politics can conspire to create evil. Göring was vain but not mad, which challenges our understanding of how perpetrators of atrocities operated and functioned within the Nazi regime."
The film Nuremberg dramatizes the 1946 trial of Nazi leaders, focusing on Hermann Göring as the primary defendant, Justice Robert Jackson as chief prosecutor, and Dr. Douglas Kelley as the psychiatrist assessing defendants. The trial was historically significant because prosecutors operated without legal precedent, creating a new legal framework to prosecute crimes after they occurred. The filmmaking itself carried risks of shaping collective memory and potentially distorting historical records through myth-making. The production successfully navigates these challenges while exploring how personality, history, and politics conspired to create evil, revealing that Göring's vanity rather than madness characterized the perpetrators.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]