Review of “Son of Saul”

Christian Gays Forums Movie Reviews Review of “Son of Saul”

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  DaytonaTom 3 years, 3 months ago. This post has been viewed 694 times

  • Author
  • #15121


    Film Critic, New Church Family, Daytona Beach
    ”Son of Saul” is rated R for violence and nudity; critic’s rating: 4 1/2 out
    of 5 stars. 

    Death and desolution are hallmarks of ”Schindler’s List.” Yet it was a life-
    affirming film. Not so ”Son of Saul,” which is haunting, mesmerizing and
    often abhorent. Not to say it’s a bad movie. Being viscerally honest, though,
    doesn’t equate to entertaining.
    This 107-minute debut of co-writer/director Laslo Nemes is also the first
    acting gig for its star, fellow Hungarian and renowned poet Geza Rohrig. The
    film is in Hungarian, German and Yiddish with subtitles. Oh, and it’s the first
    Hungarian film ever to win the Academy Award.
    Like ”Schindler’s List,” ”Son of Saul” follows the plight of European
    Jews in World War II. In the former film, they find salvation in the efforts by
    a life-risking German who shelters and feeds them while finding ways to send
    them out of Nazi Germany.
    The populace of ”Son of Saul” have no such savior. They are in the
    concentration camp Auschwitz in October 1944 as Germany is losing the war and
    hurriedly extinguishing as many targeted lives as it can, then covering the
    tracks of this genocide.
    To enhance the efficiency of its fatal gas chambers, the Nazis conscript
    Sonderkommandos, Jews who assist in funneling their own people into ”showers”
    while promising them food, clothes and jobs when they emerge. Amid the screams
    and cries of the panicked mobs, they rummage through the discarded clothing for
    valuables to be turned over to the guards.
    Membership in the Sonderkommandos yields more and better food along with other
    meager bonuses. It also buys time, as these Jews remain outside the gas chambers
    while herding their fellows inside. However, as keepers of grave secrets about
    the camps’ operations, they often are spontaneously exterminated.
    ”Son of Saul” never questions the motives or morality of those who
    cooperated with the Nazis in this Faustian deal that may have bought them an
    hour, a day, a month.
    Instead, the film focuses, quite literally on Saul himself, whose sharp
    features stay in sharp definition while the horrors around him are generally
    softened. Most of the tale is told through his expressive face and covers two
    days in his life. While fictional, it parallels an actual rebellion by
    Sonderkommandos at Auschwitz.
    It begins when a young boy is found alive when all those who went into the gas
    chamber with him died. A doctor is summoned to dispatch the stubborn teen.
    Saul, working nearby, looks at the lad and immediately claims him as his son,
    even though the film never establishes if any relationship actually exists.
    He secrets the canvas-wrapped corpse while he tries to persuade one of the
    rabbis to preside over the boy’s burial. One offers to privately say the Kaddish
    prayer for the dead. Another refuses to risk retribution for such action, since
    it could mean his own death.
    Saul is accused of ignoring the living to dignify the dead. Other prisoners
    are documenting the war crimes and plotting to smuggle photos out of the camp as
    well as escape themselves as Saul fanatically works to properly inter his
    ”We’ll die because of you,” challenges one fellow prisoner.
    ”We’re already dead,” Saul responds.
    In the final scenes, the prisoners’ resistance turns into a bloody battle,
    fought incongrously on a cheerful, sunny day.
    There are no dolly or crane shots, no studio set-up scenes here. Handheld
    camerawork is in constant motion, recording the pain and humiliation with death
    lurking in the slightly fuzzy background at every instant.
    ”Son of Saul” has no soundtrack. Gunshots, shrieks and body blows are the
    rhythms that drive this raw nerve of a film. To experience it is to gain a
    better sense of the times it depicts. Avoiding the Hollywood conventions of
    ”Schindler” and others, it nonetheless burrows into the conscience and
    provokes questions and reactions that won’t go away soon. Nor should they.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.