I believe the consensus now is that her analysis of Eichmann was wrong, he had fooled her (and others). Personally I still think the concept of the “banality of evil” overall still has merit.
I don't think any culture has fully digested the implications or had the courage to approach the questions Nuremberg and subsequent trials posed 80 years ago; where does the law run out? When does it become not just okay but morally necessary to defect/rebel/rise-up against your own side, and its so-called "laws" when it's become degenerate and run by criminals ?
In this way I don't think the difficult issue is that evil is banal (as in C. R. Browning's "Ordinary Men" [2]) but that it's "everyday, procedural and institutionally backed". It's defended by social organisations held dear, right up until a point of collapse and pivot of history when those institutions themselves become seen as evil.
Eichmann and Göring went beyond "Kadavergehorsam" [1] and were indignant that anyone dare judge them. Göring tried to school the judges in moral philosophy.
I don't think anyone is comfortable revisiting this topic, especially as it's still relevant and playing out today in at least two theatres of war.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Dead_(TV_series)