We know the horror of the Nazis and the Holocaust. But what's so sordid? We hear many stories about him: Hitler, concentration camp, torture, genocide, etc. We have studied the outline through several films; Schindler's List, for example. But he is a story whose scope is so great to be caught. Kebrilianan Son of Saul is through the selection of narrow narrative framework but on the other hand also provides context to the breadth of the scope of events. A story will have a greater impact when told personally. And because the events involving the Nazis were terrible, then the film is pretty heavy to watch.
We were brought into the Nazi concentration camp. I mean, really into it, to the point that we rarely see in other Nazi-themed movies. Initially, we will not know yet. We just look at what seems like the beginning of a regular clean-shift work. The men whose clothes were scribbled on the "X" on the back seemed to organize a new entourage. The delegation was ordered to strip clothes, was forced to take a bath, and we already know how their final fate will be.
The people marked X are actually Sonderkommando, Jews employed in Nazi concentration camps. Sonderkommando was tasked with leading fellow Jews to their deaths, taking their relics, and clearing the butchers after they were killed. When the Jews were slaughtered, Sonderkommando waited outside, hearing the hysterical screams of the men being deprived of their lives. In return for his work, they will be given a death sentence by the Nazis.
We are in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Who guides us is a Sonderkommando named Saul (Geza Rohrig). Director Lazlo Nemes glued his camera with an extreme close-up on Saul's face and on the things around that Saul only saw. The camera never left Saul. As if we were looking at everything at the scene with Saul. But we really do not really see it, because Nemes blurs the image in the background, whether the Jews were poisoned in the gas chamber, Sonderkommando dragged lifeless bodies on the floor, or when the ashes of the corpse were shoveled to be thrown in the river. We do not see it directly, but we know what happened, then imagine it ourselves. This is more frightening. It sounds contradictory; we seem to be "away" with the event, but indirectly even more "brought near".
In the Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg skillfully utilizes class-leading cinematography, grappling and grammar manufacturing techniques to present the dreadful nuances of the Holocaust. Nemes's approach is more minimalist, which plays more of our imagination. The image ratio is an Academy 4: 3 ratio, providing a claustrophobic atmosphere. The picture moves unstable because the camera is handheld, so it seems intimate and real, ala-ala-documentary.
The blurring of the background image also conforms to Saul's characterization, whose face portrays his already indifferent mental situation, ignoring what's going on around knowing that he can not do anything about it. Saul hardly reacted to anything. Perhaps his emotions have been dull to see this nightmare-but-real dream every day or indeed he deliberately dull his emotions. Rohrig, in his first big screen role, is the very right choice actor. His rigid appearance is hard to read but his screen presence is strong.
However, all that changed when he found a child who almost survived the gas chamber, if only not "cleared" by the Nazi doctors. He claims that it is his son, even if logically examined, it is impossible. Saul is so attached to this child that he feels the need to bury him properly. The main plot of the film is Saul's attempt to bury his son, from dodging autopsy and cremation, to finding a rabbi for prayer.
His ambiguous script did not say whether this child was really Saul's son or not, or even why Saul's determination was so strong as to bury him. Probably because it gave him a sense of purpose in his nihilistic life. It is through Saul's business that we are guided to peek at the corners of concentration camps. With high urgency, Saul made several secret transactions, either by bartering or appealing to the various parties there.
I think the main purpose of the film is the exploration of the setting of the Holocaust rather than the story of Saul. You can see that this is a plot mechanics, and this is an ingenious mechanics. At Auschwitz there has been an uprising, and Saul's story will cross with the rebellion. From the beginning, we have heard the whispers about the planned rebellion. This subplot culminates in an intense scene at the climax, where a major event takes place while we still see it through a personal perspective. In its simplicity, this sequence feels powerful.
Movie
Pilom