Nuremberg: I had recently rewatched the excellent 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg in anticipation of going to see the latest movie Nuremberg being released with the excellent cast of Russell Crowe, Michael Shannon, Leo Woodall and Remi Malek. The prior all-star cast movie addressed the secondary trials that were undertaken after WWII in bringing judges and other notable people to justice for their participation in the atrocities of the war. This movie deals with the trial of the Nazi High Command still living just after the war was over in May 1945. The trial was of second-in-command Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, and others. In total there were 23 defendants. As part of the team overlooking the inmates, there was brought in a psychiatrist, Douglas Kelly (played by Remi Malek) who was to ensure the mental stability of those to be tried.

The US had pressed for a formal trial to be undertaken by the victorious Allied forces for the actions of the Nazi government, which the Allies had just realized had been unlike anything ever done in human history. The death camps with the extermination of 6 millions Jews, plus many others was outside any action previously done. The world wished to ensure that an independent body founded in international human rights laws could bring to justice people who were responsible for such unspeakable acts.

Within this film there is footage from 1945 of the conditions at these camps as found by the Allies when they were being liberated. This footage is disturbing, but necessary for everyone to see. To his credit General Eisenhower made a point that film, pictures and eyewitness accounts should be taken of the concentration camps as they were and ordered that the US Army Signal Corps, along with other politicians and prominent people, see the camps for themselves and report on them. He foresaw that in the future there could be those who would deny that any of this had ever taken place.

For me the story with Malek and his efforts muddies the story unnecessarlily, and he takes actions that I find quite surprising (especially when interacting with Goering’s wife and child). The focus should not be him, but rather the prosecution and defense of the Nazi commnd. Sadly, unlike Judgment at Nuremberg, we do not see the defense lawyers and their arguments. Those are addressed early by the wife of Robert Jackson, the lead US prosecutor. For me, another couple aspects that stood out include that unlike Goering, Hess did not receive a sentence of death by hanging. Rather he received a life sentence, and he lived until he was 93 years old. Also, the underlying view that the world was changing, and the power dynamics had shifted from Germany to the Soviet Union and that the Western Allies realized that Germany would be an important future allie against the Soviets one day, which tempered the retribution potentially of the Nazis. I will say that it was important to bring home the point that the Nazis were human, and they didn’t have any particular gene or trait that made them monsters versus others. Rather it is pointed out that the victors get to judge the vanquished, and the Americans in bombing Japan with two nuclear weapons on women and children were unable to take a high ground and judge what the Nazis had done. Moreover, in a recent visit to Dachau concentration camp in September near Munich, the actions and propaganda of the Nazi party are eerily similar than what we are seeing from the majority authoritarian Administration in the US. Yes, it’s not Hitler, but most of the marks of a fascist regime in setting up such a system are well under way.

After the movie was over, I wanted to see whether the examination of Hermann Goering actually took place, and you can see from below that it did. For the movie, rather than showing the interplay with lawyers, it becomes the psychiatrist against the narcicisst (Goering) who believed that he would be walking free from the proceedings.

This is not an awards movie. But I do think that this is a good reminder in these times that we set up International Laws and Tribunals to review the actions of States that act like they are above review and reproach. The Rule of Law internationally is as important as it has ever been, and yet no one seems to be stepped up and looking to have it review current worldwide conflicts. This is a movie that people should see, if for nothing than a reminder of how shocking The Final Solution really was.

Sentimental Value: I had seen some positive buzz about this movie, released just a short time ago in limited theatres. It stars Stellan Skarsgard (who seems to be getting better and better at his craft as he ages despite suffering a stroke in 2022 which impacts his memory and ability to remember lines), Renate Reinsve (from The Worst Person in the World) and Elle Fanning. The movie is split between English and Norwegian with subtitles. I welcome quality acting and storytelling like this, which reflects on real, authentic human relationships, and in this instance family relationships. It covers themes like father and daughters, family trauma, communication and very real dynamics which are universal. For me, being an older person, it impacts me (I think) more deeply as there is more history in my wake, with marriages, children and notably a daughter.

The very beginning of this story speaks to a quaint, distinctive old house in Oslo. This has been a home for generations of the Borg family. We learn about some of those previous owners. Presently in the house, Skarsgard plays a well known director, Gustav Borg, who is attending the wake of his ex-wife, and his two estranged surviving daughters (Nora the elder, played by Reinsve, and Agnes the younger). Dad wishes to reconnect with his eldest daughter, who is an actress by bringing to her a new project which he says was “written for her” and would be perfect for her career. She flatly refuses to work with him, and continues performing on the stage, where she can struggle with her stage fright and emotions at times that we see. Younger daughter Agnes has a husband, and a 9yo boy. With Agnes, who had acted in Gustav’s last film project from 15 years ago as a child, Dad wants to have some more family participation. His new screenplay is very family focused, yet not completely autobiographical. The movie continues.

What I liked best about this film, and I really liked it, is that it shows the family details with conversations that are stilted and superficial and never addressing the underlying issues. There are smiles and knowing glances between those watching an interaction but there is tension. It doesn’t seem to get better. The hurt continues. Gustav is a director focused on his own needs and wants and paying little attention those around him. He is charming to strangers and persists strongly with his girls to pressure them to do what he wants. The women daughters are pleasers, who suffer while generally being compliant. They keep many thoughts to themselves, even when then strongly object to an approach. Elle Fanning plays an American Hollywood star who attends a viewing of the previous Gustav film at a Festival and approaches him about doing something “more substantial”. Fanning plays a surrogate to daughter Nora for the movie project, which Gustav is also planning on shooting in the house where the girls and the family had lived. This movie isn’t for everybody, and I think younger viewers could struggle with the pace. However they might gain some insight into how they perceive their own parent. This remains a really good film and I am glad that I saw it. It sticks with me as I think through the ways that it reflects back on my own life. Good cinema does this. It can mirror circumstances that you may have experienced before and allow you to see them for different angles. There isn’t really a “truth” per se in family situations, but different perspectives. Ultimately your parents are still your parents, and as the saying goes “blood is thicker than water”. Family carries on and the hope can be that it may cause pain, but still also provide love and support which can carry one through tougher challenges.

Black Mirror: I am steadily working my way through this series. I was least enthused about Fifteen Million Merits, which addressed a Britain’s Got Talent, X Factor like game show where participants are vying for a chance to be offered a dream job. The story addresses people who ride bikes to earn merits, and then an enormous amount of merits are needed to go on the show. The twist was surprising by the payoff didn’t really work.

However, I was very excited about two further episodes entitled Be Right Back and San Junipero which were both very good. Be Right Back stars Hayley Atwell and Domnhall Gleeson and addresses grief. Once again technology is used to provide a backdrop for a moral dilemma. But the technology they speak about isn’t too far distant in the future (at least initially in this episode). I thoroughly enjoyed this from the performances to the story and the dilemma involved.

I also enjoyed San Junipero starring Canadian Mackenzie Davis and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. This is another relationship story with an awkward woman (Davis) meeting up with a more wild woman. Together they build a bond in a unique place, as Davis learns to come out of her shell and be her authentic self. Well worth seeing.

I actually rewatched Mackenzie Davis in Terminator Dark Fate and once again was pleased with the story in this franchise. It takes an off ramp on the original John Connor story, and becomes more about the strong women involved in this time including of course Sarah Connor, being played once again by Linda Hamilton. I still stand by my review of this movie from back from November 4, 2019.