Can evil ever truly be understood, let alone put on trial? This haunting question lies at the heart of Nuremberg, James Vanderbilt’s gripping post-WWII drama that dares to dissect the minds behind one of history’s darkest chapters. But here’s where it gets controversial: what if the architects of evil weren’t monsters, but shockingly ordinary? Vanderbilt’s screenplay, now available to read in Deadline’s Read the Screenplay series, pulls back the curtain on the Nuremberg trials—a landmark moment in history where justice collided with the complexities of human nature.
Adapted from Jack El-Hai’s nonfiction book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, the film centers on Army psychiatrist Lt. Col. Kelley (brought to life by Oscar winner Rami Malek). Kelley’s task? To evaluate the mental fitness of Nazi officials, including the charismatic and powerful Hermann Göring (played by fellow Oscar winner Russell Crowe), for the trials that would redefine international law. And this is the part most people miss: Kelley’s findings were so unsettling—revealing Göring and others as disturbingly normal rather than psychopaths—that they ultimately cost him his career. It’s a twist that challenges our black-and-white view of good and evil.
The star-studded cast, featuring Michael Shannon, Leo Woodall, Richard E. Grant, Colin Hanks, Mark O’Brien, and John Slattery, premiered the film at the Toronto Film Festival in September before its theatrical release by Sony Pictures Classics in October. With a worldwide gross of $23.4 million, Nuremberg has sparked conversations far beyond the screen.
Vanderbilt admits he became obsessed with making this story resonate for younger audiences, fearing the lessons of Nuremberg might fade into obscurity. While El-Hai’s book focused on Kelley, Vanderbilt expands the narrative to include the creation of the unprecedented tribunal—a coalition of the U.S., Soviet Union, France, and the UK, led by U.S. Supreme Court Judge Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon). This dual focus transforms the drama into a two-pronged exploration: the birth of the international court system and the chilling psychological duels between Kelley and Göring.
But here’s the real kicker: Vanderbilt argues that evil isn’t always obvious. “It’s not always going to announce itself,” he says. “It can be insidious. It can be the nicest guy at the dinner party.” This unsettling idea forces us to confront the possibility that evil isn’t confined to history books—it could be sitting right next to us. Is Vanderbilt right? Or does this interpretation oversimplify the complexities of morality? Let us know in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
Read the screenplay below and join the conversation. Because when it comes to understanding evil, the questions are just as important as the answers.
