Son of Saul – A highly successful cinematic risk

Son of Saul had its solitary showing at the Chicago International Film Festival (CIFF) Thursday evening.  Saul is the first feature-length film for director László Nemes and the first acting performance for the star Géza Röhrig, a poet by trade.  Sony is set to release the film in the U.S. on December 18th with a Chicago opening on December 25th.

The film follows a day and a half in the life of a Hungarian Jewish prisoner who is a Sonderkommando at Birkenau death camp.  Saul’s group had responsibility for the gas chamber area including guiding the people in to the chamber, taking the clothing away and searching it,  removing the bodies and moving them to the ovens., and cleaning the blood off of the floor of the chamber.  One of the bodies he finds is that of his son (or as director/co-writer Nemes states, “the boy he thinks is his son”).  The boy initially survives the gassing but dies of other causes shortly after. Saul  decides he wants him to have a proper Jewish burial and runs around trying to find a Rabbi to help accomplish this.

Sonderkommandos have often been portrayed as traitors to their own people.  Where do they fit in  a study of crimes against humanity such as is shown in Son of Saul?  Do they avoid guilt because of being forced to do their jobs or be killed?  Should they have refused knowing they would be executed sooner?  Nemes makes no attempt to answer these moral dilemmas leaving it up to the viewer.

Although there was a certain amount of teamwork exhibited by the Sonderkommandos, there was also blatant turf wars. “How dare you come into my area?”  “Don’t cut in on my job.”  Everyone has their own agenda even while trying to band together to break out.  A very disturbing theme for viewers to decide what is proper.

Certainly one of the prime themes is determining why Saul insists on getting the boy a proper Jewish burial, even at times risking the lives of his fellow prisoners to do so. At one point a fellow prisoner, even accuses Saul of “failing the living for the dead”.  Is it his own guilt of not having been a real father since the boy was not from his wife?  Or is it his guilt for what he has been doing in carrying out his duties. Some have theorized that the boy is a symbol and is Saul’s way of doing something moral for one person to offset the wrong for the others.  This notion is offset, however, by the quote I mentioned earlier from the director.  As part of his preparation, Röhrig read Gideon Grief’s book “We Wept Without Tears” which details interviews with Sonderkommando members.  One of them, a Czech Jew tells that there was a consensual rule among them that even though they “schlepped” most of the bodies along the floor, when it came to a child the carried the child to the ovens in their laps.  This story sheds some light of realism on the primary premise here.

The film is shot  in its entirety with a hand-held camera, primarily with a 40mm lens and using analog 35MM film.  Nemes used a square format to limit the frame’s focus on the man and what he saw.  This is the way the film was shown at Cannes. Those that saw Ida will remember how effective this format was keeping the viewers eye directed at what the filmmaker wanted to be the focus of the shot.  Unfortunately since few theaters have 35MM equipment any more a digital widescreen version is what most U.S. viewers will experience and what we were shown at CIFF.

With only a few exceptions, the film is shot in soft focus close-up.  It is the best use of soft focus I have ever seen.  Scene after scene only has Saul’s face alone or with the person to whom he is talking in focus.  Everything else in the frame is in varying degrees of blurring.  Because of the wide format the eye can wander a little but is bought back to center very quickly.  This focal method also helped to provide strong hints and minimize the number of full depictions of the horrors occurring.

Another result of the soft-focus use is that the surrounding sounds play a more predominant role in communicating the story to the viewer.  Through these sounds the filmmakers convey the chaos, the frantic pace, the anguish of those led to death, the attitudes of the Sonderkommandos and that of the Germans.  It is highly effective.

As my study group members were quick to point out to me following the viewing, there was very little music.  It was not needed.

Röhrig’s facial expressions convey both his emotions and what is going through his head.  He is constantly looking around him to be sure he knows who is lurking nearby and their intent.  He assumed the grave responsibility of his character easily.  One could feel Saul’s frantic concern and his determination, and the compassion  he was suppressing for those he helped lead to death.  He was definitely well prepared.  A top notch job.

An absolutely fabulous interview of Nemes and Röhrig by Terry Gross of NPR’s Fresh Air can be found at http://tinyurl.com/son-of-saul-NPR-interview.  I recommend that all read it.

UPDATE:  Confirming my belief of the change of cinematic effect, Penelope Steiner of Peneflix who saw the film in its original format at Cannes reports that “In the original, the viewer was trapped in the camp and the crematoriums; I felt suffocated.  In this version, just a silent witness.”

I will update this post again in December after I get a second viewing of the film.