Nuremberg, Movie, Narcissism, Psychopathy, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Goring, Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Evil, Good, Ambivalence
If you haven’t seen this movie – go see it, or, by the time
you read this, stream it. And tell your
friends to see it. This film is not a
great movie, but it is a pretty good one and it is an important one. It describes a particular kind of toxic narcissism,
but one that is, at least to my mind, more noble than the current narcissism
that we are seeing in the White House.
Yes, I am maintaining that Trump’s narcissism is more toxic than Hermann
Göring’s (Russell
Crowe) and, for that matter, than Hitler’s.
That said, if you are reading this review and you have or
intend to view the movie, you are unlikely to change your mind about the current
political situation. Like Conclave
last year, I think those who are opposed to the current regime will see the value
in art that warns us about it, but those who are in favor of the regime will
likely see neither the review nor the movie.
When Casablanca
had an impact on our engagement in the Second World War, movies were the
dominant form of national entertainment.
Movies’ role in determining our national identity has been declining since
the advent of television, then the internet, and I don’t think they have
recovered from the little sway they had left after COVID and our fear of being
in public spaces with others emerged.
And if you show this at a family gathering, be prepared for those who
disagree to leave long before the credits.
As depicted in this film, Goring was a self-involved,
grandiose individual who had essentially no regard for the negative impact of
his actions on others and whose fealty to Hitler was central to his official
functioning. (By the way, Russell Crowe’s
depiction of Goring is masterful – the movie could have been great, but Malik’s
depiction of Kelley is not at that level).
That said, Goring’s grandiosity was tied to recreating the grandness of
his country (OK, because it is available, Make Germany Great Again) – and he
saw Hitler as the best vehicle for making this happen. He would appear to be the political equivalent
of Russell Vought or Stephen Miller.
Each of them appears to be loyal to Trump and each suggests that their vision
will Make America Great Again.
I have no idea what the family life of the Voughts and
Millers are like, but the Goring’s family life, as depicted in this film and
apparently, at least to some extent, in reality – is positive. Goring was a loving, perhaps even doting
husband and father. If we are going to
see him as a psychopath, which I think we will, he is what was once known as a
type II psychopath. That is, he treats
those not in his family or his tribe as objects towards whom he has no
feelings, but is empathically connected to those he cares about. The type I psychopath cares about no one, including
his family members, except in so far as they can help him achieve his own
ends.
My concern is that Trump, unlike Hitler, is so focused on enriching
himself and his family (though not, I don’t think, loving them – he is disdainful
towards them and thus falls more into the Type I category of psychopath) and
enjoying the perks of the office, including attacking those he believes have
wrongly attacked him, that he is a pawn being manipulated by the likes of Vought
and Miller, whose ends are murkier. Pete
Hegseth’s ends are clearly in line with the Christian Nationalists. Vought and Miller’s vision of a better America
is, at least to me, unknown. Hitler, for
all his faults (and Nuremberg clarifies, as if we need it, that they are
unforgivable), at least genuinely shared his personal narcissism with his love
of country, as did Goring. And,
according to the film, Goring was genuinely attached to Hitler – something that
I wonder about in terms of Vought and Miller.
But the drama in this film involves two additional characters. One is the United States Supreme Court
Justice, Robert H. Jackson (Michael
Shannon), who believes that American style Justice – where no man is above
the law (could the message be heavier handed in today’s world?) – should be
implemented on a global stage. The Nazi
leadership should be executed, not because they had been vanquished by a
superior power, but as the result of being found guilty of crimes against
humanity by an impartial court with a fair defense; something never before
attempted in the history of the world.
This was not to be a show trial of enemies, but a genuine objective evaluation
of the motivations and punishable guilt of members of a political regime (this,
too, seems to be a warning – that if the Supreme Court is not going to hold a
president accountable, some other body may, at some point…).
One point of drama in the film, then, is whether Jackson, having
convinced the world that a fair trial is needed and who then becomes the lead
prosecutor, can win the case. It would
seem to be a straightforward prosecution, but Goring turns out to be a worthy
adversary. He did not become the number
two man in the Reich by being a dummy.
He is a very smart man who knows a thing or two about the law and about
justice. Serving as his own defense attorney
he proves to be a match for one of the best legal minds the United States can produce.
Jackson makes the case that crimes against humanity have
been committed. We see the films that
were shown in the Nuremberg trials – the brutality that was committed against
Jews and others considered undesirable, and, when we recover from being
sickened, we are convinced that those who are responsible for this genocide
should be held accountable. Jackson
clarifies that a crime has been committed and everyone in the courtroom, and
everyone in the theater is convinced of this.
The other character?
A psychiatrist named Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek)
tasked with keeping Goring and the other Nazi high command members on trial
alive. In his first interview with
Goring, Goring peeps Kelley out as an ambitious guy, one who is going to make
his name by writing about being the psychiatrist who worked with Goring. This leads Goring to suggest that he and
Kelley are not that different – in fact they are same: ambitious men who will
do what it takes to promote themselves into positions of power.
The second point of drama, then, is whether Kelley is,
indeed, simply a reflection of Goring – and then whether we – the audience, the
United States, people in general, are vulnerable to the influence of a strong
man like Hitler because of our wish to narcissistically share in his vision of
unlimited power – and our desire to ride his coattails – worse than that, to be
part of the apparatus that propels him to power through any means possible –
and maintaining him in power despite our knowledge that he is orchestrating
evil actions, because we, on some level are both on his side and also enamored of
him.
The fatal flaw of Jackson is that he is scrupulous. He believes in the law. He believes that the Second World War itself
and the Holocaust are crimes and the perpetrators of these atrocities should be
brought to justice. He is blind sided by
Goring’s legalistic reading of the orders that Goring has signed – they are
written euphemistically and never, for instance, refer to a final solution, but
instead to exploration – which turns into the final solution, but is not
traceable directly to orders from Goring.
The trial teeters for a moment as Jackson realizes his error and is
dumbfounded about how to hold this monster accountable. It is Jackson’s British co-counsel who supports
him and gets Goring to implicate himself on the stand using information that is
provided by Kelley.
That Kelley has informed Jackson and his co-counsel of the material
that Goring has told him as his patient is an ethical violation – a violation
of the Hippocratic oath. As a
psychologist, I wonder about the ways in which Kelley’s training as a physician
mirrors the kinds of training that Goring had as an administrator, but I want
to be clear that psychologist’s, too, make ethical – and legal – violations –
see my notes on psychology’s role in committing torture, something that the
United States and Psychology as a science and a humanistic service profession are
opposed to here,
here
and here. But I think that the training of physicians –
they are taught to be in charge in life and death situations, and they are
selected as the best students in the most difficult science classes to become
members of a highly compensated profession – leads to a certain kind of
selection and training that mirrors that of a Government official of Goring’s
stature – and that can lead to resonating with Goring – and recoiling at the
similarities – having chosen to go into a profession aimed at saving lives, not
ending them – leading him to choose to compromise himself and his professional
credentials in order to save a sense of his personal integrity.
But the violation of the Hippocratic Oath is but one
indication of Kelley’s putting himself above the law. He also secretly takes notes to Goring’s wife
and daughter and offers them comfort.
Again, I think this is partly an attempt to reassure himself that he is
a healer – a concerned and caring physician, not an unscrupulous, power hungry
and needy individual who will exploit his relationship with Goring for personal
gain. He is reaching out to Goring and
demonstrating his concern. But he is
also earning Goring’s trust. He
recognizes something that won’t enter the research literature for another fifty
years – to get a good outcome in a treatment – which in this case means keeping
Goring alive so that he can be executed by the state – it is important to build
an alliance with the patient. But, in
order to do this, he must disobey orders and the law and act as a go between with
Goring’s family.
Kelley becomes enmeshed here in an existential
quagmire. He uses his alliance with
Goring not to help him, but to harm him (The first and greatest rule of the
Hippocratic Oath is: First, do no harm.).
This is his charge. When he fails
to prevent the suicide of one of the other prisoners, an officious psychologist
is brought in to “assist” him – but he recognizes that he has been displaced for
failing to do his duty. His “friendship”
with Goring is both real, but also not – it is a professional relationship and,
like all such relationships, it inhabits an ambiguous space based firmly in the
human connections and bonds of family and friendship and yet is something other
– a generalized concern for the patient borne out of professional, not
personal, concern. And he is engaged in
a political reality – Goring has been responsible for a government that has
committed atrocities.
It is unclear how historically accurate the violation of the
Hippocratic oath is. I think the
courtroom scenes are pretty consistent with the actual trial – there are both
transcripts of the testimonies and there are films of the proceedings, but
Kelley’s role is not part of those transcripts.
The film is based on a book that seems to be more focused on Kelley’s experiences
after the war. Kelley became increasingly
dissolute as he used his experience of interacting with Goring to try to warn
the American people that we are (as he assumed that we are a narcissistic
extension of himself) vulnerable to the kind of madness that had gripped the
German people.
Kelley’s failed attempt to convince us that American
Exceptionalism would not save us from the German fate was an extension of the
existential quagmire. He was trading on
his relationship with Goring, just as Goring promised that he would. He was trying to do that selflessly – to sound
an unpopular reverse siren call – to keep people from going aground on the
rocks of totalitarianism and fascism – but his selflessness, he knew, was, at
best, partial. He was acting as a leader
– an unpopular leader trying to convince the world of something that it didn’t
want to hear. He, like Goring, needed a
Hitler – someone with the ability to communicate clearly and get people
enthused about his ideas – someone who was not ambivalent.
If we are to get anything accomplished in this world – at least
in the western hemisphere – we need to create a structure – whether it is a
hospital, a corporation, or a University – that will carry out a mission – and we
need to get people on board to do that.
If we create a hospital, we need to triage – to figure out who gets
treated most quickly, who gets to use which resources and who does not –
ultimately, who gets to live and who must die. We need an administration or a profession –
defined by principles that we ascribe to – both as employees and also as
consumers – and we need to trust that those principles are being applied by
people we trust. And yet those people,
whether they are administrators, managers, or employees, are human and will
inevitably be biased in their application of the principles, however well
conceived those are.
Part of Kelley’s dilemma is that he cannot trust others
because he cannot trust himself. He does
not experience himself as a reliable leader.
In his failure to trust, he may be more honest than those of us who do
trust ourselves – and our peers. He may also be less able to manage ambivalence
and ambiguity. We are both loving and
hating of those we are close to and those whom we experience as others. Figuring out how to manage this ambivalence
is important as we enter into ambiguous situations. If we don't trust ourselves to embrace others
while holding in reserve the tools we will need to protect ourselves and/or
attack them if that proves necessary, we can reductionistically simplify our
evaluation of situations. Psychopaths
simplify all social situations by classifying all others as enemies who need to
be defeated lest they defeat me. Of
course, Goring and Kelley mirror each other – they are both human – and they
both have a narcissistic streak – a self-protective streak – that they use to
navigate the world.
There is not a little irony that fascists use the tool of
blaming others to motivate a populace to take responsibility for themselves. The alternative, I suppose, would be to
acknowledge our humility but to recognize that, by forging relationships with
others, we become stronger. At our best,
we use this latter strategy. That strategy
is part of the traditional version of American Exceptionalism. Perhaps we will be able to find leaders who
can help us imagine ourselves, once again, as being able to operate with strength
from a position of humility. If we can
actually do this, even if only partially, we could begin, once again, to move
towards living in an exceptional world.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index, link here.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.
