Son of Saul, the 'real time' wartime film that 1917 is not

While Sam Mendes’ award winning World War I tale 1917 got rave reviews for its ‘single take’ structure and thrilling camerawork, the rest of the film never quite rises above the gimmick of its impressive cinematography. If you are looking for something that has the visual gravitas of 1917 with content that is as emotionally and intellectually complex as its style, look no further than Hungarian director Laszlo Nemes’ harrowing first person take of Auschwitz in his debut film Son of Saul. Son of Saul also had a successful Awards run, winning the Best Foreign Film Oscar and making lots of noise at the Cannes film festival. But the film has much more than awards trophies to its credit. 1917, on the other hand, is an undoubtedly impressive film that combines the talents of Skyfall’s Mendes and the immense capabilities of cinematographer Roger Deakins, but the film gets so lost in its technical grandeur of accomplishing the one take effect, that it seems cold, more like a thrilling action film than a reflection on the grueling events it is depicting.

In 1917, with the radio lines cut, two British troops are sent across enemy lines to meet up with another group of soldiers to warn them of a German secret attack. Deakins’ camera expertly follows them with editing cuts digitally hidden. The soldiers walk through the trenches, cross no man’s land and have various encounters with allies, enemies, and civilians on the way. What should be a very personal account of a wartime mission turns out to be little more than spectle. The dialogue is weak, the performances are one dimensional, and the only part that reaches beyond the surface achievement is a beautiful scene in the forest when one of the soldiers happens upon another British battalion. They are sitting between the trees, and the only audible sound is the soldiers footsteps and a sweet voice quietly singing a folk song called The Wayfaring Stranger. It is an almost spiritual scene where the protagonist, and the audience, can finally rest and take in this sorrowful moment of beauty between scenes of madness.

I expected the madness of the war itself to have more impact, but nothing really sinks in. Deakins may be a genius, but the camera skims over dead bodies, mud, and barbed wire so quickly that it feels as if we are just watching a video game. It is understandable that the idea to shoot the film in this real time point of view sort of way sounds intriguing, but having no cuts really serves no point besides pulling off a cool trick. A cut here and there when needed perhaps would have helped the storytelling. I honestly believe it would not have hurt it.

While Son of Saul may not have any scene as epic as the final dash across the trench in 1917, it achieves everything 1917 set out to do, but with interesting themes, complicated ideas, and a real humanity, greatly surpasses Mendes’ film in every way. Instead of employing the one take effect, Nemes composes the film of very long takes, almost all tracking close ups of Saul, brilliantly played by Geza Rohrig, and occasionally panning away to show us what he sees. Like 1917, the scenes are very carefully orchestrated and executed, but unlike it, Saul is our main focus, not the background action. Almost all of what we see of the Holocaust we see in the often times blurred periferies of the screen. Saul’s dedicated, nervous, yet determined face is nearly always front and center.

The film is also a much more complicated watch than 1917, which is, above all else, a patriotic feel good war film. First of all, Saul is a member of the Sonderkommando, a work unit of Jews who collected objects of value from dead bodies after victims had been gassed and who then subsequently dragged the bodies away and cleaned the chamber for the next group to be brought in. He is a victim of the Holocaust, but not one we are so used to see represented in film. He is forcefully charged with helping the Germans exterminate his own people. His fate could not be more disturbing. Would it not be better to die than to carry out such a task? In the end someone else would just end up doing the job. We see Saul perform all these duties, his face concentrated. He digs through the clothes of the dead as the Germans explain to a terrified group of naked prisoners that they are about to take a shower. He fixedly keeps his eyes down or on his work, and when he drags dead bodies to be buried, he does it in the same rushed, emotionless manner. To work in the Sonderkommando you have to be fast, fit, useful, and above all accept the fate of the victims standing next to you.

The second aspect of Saul that makes him a controversial and mysterious protagonist revolves, as the title suggests, around his son. We know nothing about Saul the man as no background information is ever given to us, and all we can learn about him is written on his aged, empty, rushed yet determined face. His face is a mask that has been drawn by unimaginable memories and is now all but unreadable. While cleaning the gas chamber Saul sees a young boy and takes it upon himself to separate him from the other bodies, to take it to a doctor and try to give him a proper burial. His eyes plead the doctor for help as he explains it is the body of his son. But as the film goes on and he continually insists and looks for help to give the body a religious burial, several of his fellow prisoners, who we assume know him, bluntly ask him what he’s talking about, telling him that he has no son. As Saul continues in his efforts he puts his comrades in more and more danger causing one person to tell him he is sacrificing the lives of the living for one that is already lost. Again we are forced to pose ourselves questions. Are Saul’s actions moral no matter how honorable his intentions? And is this his son, or does it matter? It seems Saul was simply moved by the loss of a beautiful young man who in a better world would be in the prime of his life and wanted to ensure that at least he would would have a proper end that perhaps represented a burial for all, or at least gave Saul some sort of hope that some God would see that they lived a less painful afterlife if that afterlife exists.

We follow Saul’s face as he goes through his endeavors. The camera flawlessly weaves and scrambles just as he does, following with quick movements effortlessly and revealing the different parts of the camp and the despicable actions occurring around him. As we follow him we learn how the camp works, simultaneously observing his subtle expressions and the background action at the same time. While many directors are tempted to show the horrific crimes of the Holocaust by recreating them for the big screen, Nemes does this but without making a show out of it. The horrors nearly occur off screen. We witness them, but only partially. The snippets we see of background action behind Saul and the horrifying sounds on the soundtrack give us an idea of how the concentration camp works and what happens in it without really showing us. This is the antithesis to 1917 where dead bodies are shown in focus in close up with the most technologically advanced cameras available. They are shown, but they do not do more than shock. The dead bodies, violence, ashes, and blood in Son of Saul shock too, but they also move the audience. We sense that even the dead are representations of real people who were tragically murdered. They are not just shocking props.

In the end of the film, as the Nazi defeat becomes obvious and the SS move quickly to exteeminate as many prisoners as they can, there is a revolt and some escape. Saul is among them and he carries with him the body of the dead boy. Forced to cross a river Saul nearly drowns and is saved by a comrade, yet loses the boy who floats downstream. Saul and the others reach the other side and cross a forest until they come to a cabin. Saul looks tired, defeated. Then suddenly he looks up and sees a young boy in the door of the cabin. He stares at him and a wide smile stretches across his face for the first time in the film. The boy then runs away, and for the first time we follow him instead of Saul. German soldiers catch the boy and shoo him away. As the boy runs home through the lush green forest, shots are heard in the distance as the Germans massacre Saul and the other prisoners. With the escape and Saul’s smile it seemed as if we were going to get some sort of a happy ending. Yet it was not to be. But in the end, perhaps it is not entirely hopeless either. Saul’s friendly grinning face will certainly live on in the boy's memory forever. And the boy, with his simple appearance showed Saul that there is a world of young people out there who have yet to be poisoned by this hate. The boy gives Saul hope in his last moments of life, hope that the next generation will be free of the atrocity he has lived through.

Writing this article I am moved by the very memory of Son of Saul. It’s camerawork is undoubtedly impressive, but so is the incredible performance by Geza Rohrig, and the complex story and themes brought forth by the powerful direction of Laszlo Nemes. The film is proof that the human face can be more interesting than a shot of anything else, no matter how technologically incredible. Son of Saul may be spectacular, but it is so much more than spectacle.