Nuremburg

[Sausagenbacon]

Has anyone else seen this?
I was disappointed- there's a good film to be made on the subject, and this isn't it.
Too many incidents that wouldn't have happened and I find it distasteful that they show real footage of the camps.
A decent director could have got the effect by showing people's reaction to the film. Co-opting this into a fairly poor film is disrespectful, IMO.
Plus I find Malik irritating.
On the other hand, Crowe is always a magnetic screen presence.

You know it's lovely to debate the merits and techniques of movies but this is not about " the bare bones of history". It is a very real and ongoing situation.

I'm glad someone has started a thread on this. I feel very uneasy when a historical film is based on real people and mixes fact with pure invention. I don't mind some dramatic licence, such as invented conversations as a way of conveying information quickly or a fictional "neophyte" character who is a proxy for explaining the basics to the viewer. But many films take it much further than that.

After seeing Nuremberg, I did some background reading and I think this film took too many liberties with the truth, especially regarding Dr Kelley.

I thought it was a good film though, with great acting throughout. Russell Crowe was brilliant.

Yes, Russell crowe's performance was almost the only thing that kept me watching. The music was great too.

You know it's lovely to debate the merits and techniques of movies but this is not about " the bare bones of history". It is a very real and ongoing situation.
Again. I was very clear that I was responding to a poster saying the the film portrayed what really happened. When it patently doesn't.

You KNOW what I am talking about! We're not talking about embellishments of stories - we were talking about the inclusion of actual footage of the concentration camps.

You have commented 4/5 times about the footage.

Thank you for your acknowledgment. ♥️

I'm in an information management role and was at a conference where Michael Rosen (the author) was keynote speaker. He spoke movingly about when he was in an induced coma during COVID and the power of the written record, that the medical team had kept a daily diary for him, as he progressed to his eventual recovery. Had they not kept that record, he would never have known fully what had happened.

Members of his family died at the hands of the Nazis, so it is for people like Michael Rosen that the record of these terrible events gives some degree of closure and recognition.

Crowe really should have tried to shift a bit of weight to play a more convincing Göring. Kinda spoiled the immersion a little bit.

You KNOW what I am talking about! We're not talking about embellishments of stories - we were talking about the inclusion of actual footage of the concentration camps.
For the nth time (and I am aware that it is the nth time) I am saying that posters are claiming that the film is some kind of documentary-style coverage, so it's appropriate to include 1the footage.
I think that's right?
But it's just a reasonably entertaining film, full of events that would never have happened, using filming of one of the world's greatest tragedies for dramatic effect.
But I don't mind if posters disagree with me, this isn't AIBU, it's just a subjective view of a film.

I must be reading a different thread from you as I don't see people saying that the film is a documentary style. No matter. As I said though whether this is embellished with visits to the family etc there is no denial of the Holocaust. It is not the " bare bones of history". You didn't like it being included - fair enough but don't denigrate the subject matter. I won't be commenting on this topic again with you as you seem intent on minimising this.

I won't be commenting on this topic again with you as you seem intent on minimising this.
You seriously think i'm minimising the Holocaust, just because I don't think footage should be included in a mediocre film?
It's the reverse. I believe it was so terrible that film makers have no right to use the footage this way.

Anything involving the Nazis is going to contain some shocking segments, I think. I went in expecting to be shocked. The footage was relevant and reasonable in the context of the film imo (just back from seeing it).

I thought Russell Crowe was excellent. I'm not a huhe Malik fan but he was good here, I think.

I found the translator character preposterous though. The idea he could speak perfect English with no hint of a German accent after just 4 years in the US, arriving as a young man (old enough for an apprenticeship).....it's bizarre.

Many children could do this, but I agree it's harder for an adult to become fluent and lose their original accent in four years.

I've seen similar concentration camp footage in documentaries and one of our history textbooks at secondary school even had a photo of a vast pile of bodies. So, whilst the footage in the film is disturbing and confronting, it didn't really seem out of place to me.

I saw this with DH today and thought it was excellent. It took the audience along with the psychiatrist on a journey where Göring becomes humanised, then the footage was shown and it brought the focus straight back to the atrocities of the Holocaust, ending with absolute certainty that he was responsible for them.

I saw this last night with my adult DS. We both loved it.

I don’t agree with the OP on any points made, especially the numerous assertions that the film is mediocre - it’s anything but mediocre IMO.

All the actors were brilliant (and I’m also not normally a fan of Rami Malek). I’m a bit surprised no mention here of Michael Shannon who I think is superb in everything, particularly ‘Nocturnal Animals’.

So a big thumbs up from me.

I saw it last night and wouldn't recommend. So much overacting! Rami Malek was terrible! And really weirdly paced without much drama. Real disappointment

I can see where the OP is coming from. Its almost like the film didnt deserve the footage.

We said this! Such a stupid plot point.

And i know its a small thing, but it really annoyed me that, supposedly at the end of WW2, all these American soldiers were wandering around Nuremburg in uniforms that looked as though they were fresh out of the packet.

I haven’t seen this yet, but I don’t disagree with you in principle, OP. The Zone of Interest managed to be a powerful and disturbing film about the Holocaust with a just-offscreen Auschwitz suggested entirely via sound and, in a single scene, via lighting, before a final flash-forward to modern-day cleaners cleaning the exhibits of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. I feel similarly about the use of real footage.

I've done quite a bit of googling since seeing this ( although the Jewish side is something I know a great deal about). I watched an interview with the young 20 year old prosecutor and one of the young men who were the guards in the court room. All very interesting. There was a great deal of work which led up to the trial. Malik's character did go on to be subjected to much ridicule because he didn't come up with a definition of " evil" and that it could happen anywhere.

The guard

But the film presents a representation of the trial and they showed this particular footage in the trial, so why not include it in the film? Goring's defence was that he didn't know about the death camps, that any camps were similar to what other countries would have for forced labour, political prisoners. He had to be confronted with the truth and we had to see that.

Kevin Mahler's review in the Times while praising the film knocked it back to three stars largely because of the inclusion of real footage which he found distasteful, I understand.

Kevin Mahler doesn't have a great reputation as a film critic.

Neither does Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian tbf
I used to avidly listen to Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo's film reviews on r5, but I find Kermode tiresome now.

I don't follow your argument that they shouldn't use the footage because (you think) the film is mediocre OP. Do you think they set out to make a mediocre film? Or should they, upon realising that they had made a mediocre film, have removed the footage in the edit?