Son Of Saul Film Navigationsmenü
Saul muss im Konzentrationslager in Auschwitz einer furchtbaren Arbeit nachgehen: Ihm ist die Aufgabe übertragen worden, die Leichen seiner getöteten Mithäftlinge zu verbrennen. Als er eines Tages unter den Toten den Körper seines Sohnes zu. Son of Saul (Originaltitel: Saul fia, deutsch „Sauls Sohn“) ist ein ungarisches Filmdrama des Regisseurs und Autors László Nemes über die Möglichkeiten und. Bei den Filmfestspielen in Cannes wurde SON OF SAUL mit dem Großen Preis der Jury und mit dem OSCAR für den besten fremdsprachigen Film. In der Hölle von Auschwitz: László Nemes' Film "Son of Saul", soeben mit einem Oscar prämiert, entgeht dem Voyeurismus nicht. Son of Saul ist eigentlich ein recht einfacher Film. Und doch ist er gleichzeitig eine hochkomplizierte Angelegenheit. Denn das Erstlingswerk des ungarischen.
Bei SON OF SAUL, seinem ersten Langfilm, beschränkt er sich auf den Blickwinkel seines Protagonisten Saul (Géza Röhrig). Der ungarische Jude ist als Teil. Son of Saul ist eigentlich ein recht einfacher Film. Und doch ist er gleichzeitig eine hochkomplizierte Angelegenheit. Denn das Erstlingswerk des ungarischen. Saul Ausländer ist gezwungen als Mitglied des "Sonderkommandos" die von den Nazis ermordeten Juden in den Krematorien von Auschwitz zu verbrennen.
Son Of Saul Film VideoSaul Fia (Son of Saul) Opening Scene Audio Replacement
With staggering audacity, Son of Saul begins with something other, comparable movies would hardly dare approach even at the very end — the gas chamber itself.
Here is where Saul discovers the body of a boy, whom he believes to be his son, and sets out to find a rabbi among the prisoners to give him a proper burial.
The horrendous reality of everything else — bodies, uniforms, vehicles, muzzle flashes — is glimpsed at the edges, often out of focus.
Like the sun, the reality of this evil cannot be directly looked at. This movie won the Grand Prix award at Cannes and the best foreign film at the Oscars, and has taken its place in the debate concerning cinema and the Holocaust.
What is held to be suspect is the implication that some emollient artistic satisfaction can be taken from Nazi evil.
I would have raised an eyebrow at another scene, in which a female prisoner bares her breasts at a medical inspection to distract a German officer from the condition of her hands.
Overt dramatisation will always risk looking crass, exploitative and inauthentic and I myself have winced at Hollywood attempts to tackle this issue in the grotesquely misplaced language of redemption and naive humanism.
Its good faith and moral and intellectual seriousness are beyond doubt. Retrieved 25 January The Numbers. Retrieved 12 February The New York Times.
Retrieved 16 January Retrieved 16 April The Guardian. Retrieved 24 May Retrieved 28 July Retrieved 14 January Retrieved 29 February Retrieved 11 January Slate: The Vault.
Retrieved 24 February Films Distribution. Anthem Magazine. Screen Daily. Die Welt in German.
Euronews in Hungarian. Below the Line. Archived from the original on 2 February The Film Stage. Retrieved 23 March Retrieved 6 December Rotten Tomatoes.
Retrieved 19 January Time Out London. Dowd 17 December The A. Jewish Journal. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved 8 November Retrieved 17 September Retrieved 23 May Retrieved 24 May — via Twitter.
Retrieved 15 February Australian Film Critics Association. Archived from the original on 13 March Retrieved 28 February Retrieved 10 January BBC News.
Retrieved 21 December Retrieved 9 January Retrieved 27 February Daily Herald. Retrieved 18 December Retrieved 18 January Dallas Observer.
Directors Guild of America. Retrieved 12 January Archived from the original on 10 October Retrieved 2 February Retrieved 10 December SVT in Swedish.
Retrieved 23 January Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 15 January Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 December Manaki Brothers Film Festival.
Archived from the original on 1 February Retrieved 28 January Deadline Hollywood. The Wall Street Journal.
Film Critics Circle honors 'Spotlight' and 'Brooklyn ' ". Awards for Son of Saul. Cannes Film Festival Grand Prix. Guldbagge Award for Best Foreign Film.
Breaking the Waves Shall We Dance? Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Community portal Recent changes Upload file.
Download as PDF Printable version. Best Foreign Language Film. American Society of Cinematographers Awards. Belgian Film Critics Association.
Grand Prix. British Academy Film Awards. Best Film Not in the English Language. British Independent Film Awards.
Best International Independent Film. Cannes Film Festival. Grand Prix du Jury. Best Foreign Film.
Chicago Film Critics Association.
Son Of Saul Film - InhaltsverzeichnisLeserempfehlung 0. Sie zerstören das Krematorium. Das ist teuer. Das evozierte und replizierte historische Material überrollt die kleine Geschichte, die Nemes hier platzieren wollte in seiner ganzen Wucht und schreibt sie, zumindest teilweise, um und verknüpft sie mit dem Holocaust als Geschichte n. Und genau diese Mischung macht ihn zu einem komplexen und problematischen Fall. So sind in den letzten Jahren viele Filme gedreht worden, Sebastian Schippers "Victoria" beispielsweise.
Do we really need filmed fiction about Shoah? The strength about fiction is it can convey more emotion, but that is also its danger: can any emotion render the absolute horror?
Are we not fooled by our empathy when maybe there is no possible empathy? Of course the distinction between documentary and fiction is not so clear-cut, since documentaries use artistic features editing, commentary, sometimes music, etc.
This is where "Son of Saul" comes in and I apologise for this long, but I think necessary, introduction.
I will not detail the plot, this is available elsewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, it is a very violent, disturbing movie rated R in the US but I would not recommend it to anybody below 17 even accompanied by an adult.
The dead bodies are mostly blurred, the cries are mostly distant. However this radical precept which is carried throughout all the movie except for the last few minutes almost constitutes a second-degree voyeurism where the director constantly seems to affirm "Look how I avoid showing you fully what is happening".
Hence this strength of subjective view almost becomes a weakness as we empathise with Saul, notably his desire to bury what he thinks is his son, but less with other characters, even when his quest jeopardises the rebellion project.
We do see to some extent how prisoners survive and die in the camp, but as a background to Saul's obsessive idea.
Is the dead boy really his son? Is the rabbi really a rabbi or does he just want Saul's protection? Where is the body?
Will they manage to bury it? So in a way the fiction of Saul blurs the documentary dimension of Auschwitz.
In most regards, "Son of Saul" is historically accurate: the inhumane conditions, the constant struggle, the fights between prisoners, the role of the Kapos, the barbaric SS, the bargains, etc.
As a side note, it also convincingly reconstitutes the way one of the authentic and very rare pictures from Auschwitz could have been taken by insiders the pile of bodies outside.
However actual conditions were certainly even more dramatic than those depicted: in general prisoners were much thinner and weaker, their clothes were dirty rags, their morale was very low, every moment was a tragedy.
Also some elements cannot be shown easily: how do you film hunger, cold, pain, illness, despair? Can we blame the movie for not showing the full extent of the horror?
I am not sure, because it might actually not be possible and even if it were, it would barely be watchable.
It is difficult to rate such a movie. Should we rate a movie about Shoah? Considering the artists take the responsibility of making and showing it and hence of being exposed to criticism, probably we may, if we are careful enough to distinguish between aesthetics and ethics.
Again, I am not sure any fiction could do much better. It really depends how one's own feelings react to such extreme images and artistic vision.
Director Nemes aimed to create a movie that is deprived of the post-war artifacts present in most Holocaust movies. For this goal, he and his staff made substantial historical research to make the smallest details truthful.
French, Israeli and German investors did not give money for the movie for fear of a loss. As the director mentioned, a movie of this length is spliced together form to cuts these days.
Theirs required only You are in the camp, you are Saul Auslander. There is utter confusion, you do not know what awaits you in the next second.
This is a reality movie with no happy ending that shakes you. You cannot take the Holocaust lightly in film. Some have tried, but it fails.
Instead of recounting it in a sombre documentary-esque way such as Schindler's List or even the gut-wrenching approach Alain Resnais takes to Night and Fog, we are utterly present in its unpredictable and relentless horror.
While most Holocaust films struggle between their representation of order and chaos, often deciding to switch between the two when necessary, Son of Saul finds the ideal balance, showing these small shards of order within the chaos.
The most fascinating idea of its premise is to show the prisoners appointed with the tasks of guiding victims into the gas chambers, organising their belongings and then cleaning up after them.
It's a well oiled and melancholic cog, while we know every hard effort to scrub and pull is in vain as their eventual death is only postponed and not evaded.
Our narrative follows him for only two days, but that's all we need to know to get a gruelling snapshot of his minute-to-minute struggles.
When a boy nearly survives the gas but is pronounced dead shortly after, Saul recognises him — at least on some level, as it's never clear if the boy is his kin or not, but it is apparent he never took care of his own when he had the chance — and takes him as his son.
To himself, he insists on giving his son a clandestine burial which must be officiated by a rabbi.
Salvaging the body, locating a rabbi and performing even a small burial is near impossible despite them being in essentially a mass graveyard.
Meanwhile, his peers are plotting an escape along with destroying the crematorium and will require Saul's help.
However, he cannot assist both futile missions simultaneously. The film has an incredibly unique approach to the concentration camps.
Shot on a tightly framed 35mm hand-held camera, the photography is almost always focused on Saul, leaving the atrocities offscreen or out of focus, but often vividly audible.
If there is any complaint, it's that the editing suffers from its long-take construction, but the sound design is an absolute masterclass.
Saul's face remains stoic but Röhrig soaks it all in, leaving his mournful expression to interpretation.
While he's apparently numb, he's always fully invested in the moment. No scene is quite as hard-hitting as when we watch Saul listen to the screams of people dying in the chambers while he waits outside their doors.
It's his one break from being forced to work, and he'll immediately have to remove bodies when it's finished. The way the film builds these routines are very intimate and exhausting and despite being a fictionalised story, it feels very real.
Those rituals of removals and cleaning are contrasted with the Jewish rituals that guide their faith, and especially Saul's burial plan.
But beyond the intense yet ambiguous horrors that show the cruellest side of humanity there's ever been in the modern world — despite us never getting close to a Nazi beside brief encounters — the film finds its emotional core in small gestures of compassion.
Nobody is required to help Saul, especially in knowing the dangers involved, but there's an unspoken bond between every prisoner to help one another regardless.
When he finds the rabbi who agrees to perform the service, it's not powerful because they've been stripped down and Nazis are murdering new arrivals around them — nothing compares to the experience of this scene — it's powerful because the rabbi says yes in spite of that.
If they can redeem one shred of morality, it is a small victory and triumph of faith. Saul never lets go of that idea, even when he risks sabotaging the escape mission inadvertently.
His mission to bury his son becomes increasingly arbitrary, but never without redemptive merit on a grand scale. Even a seasoned visionary director would struggle in such a precise execution.
Tarr also uses long shots and utilises impassive protagonists but Nemes' work is much more dense, engaging, and arguably accessible in its own way but mostly for the immediate empathy the situation earns.
While it matches Tarr's poetry, it's a lot more theatrically dramatic. Every one of the supporting cast is on a razor's edge though they never outshine the constantly pushed, pulled, and shoved Röhrig.
He need not step in front of the camera again after this soon to be iconic accomplishment. The film's power is immobilising and thoroughly unforgiving, but with good reason.
Son of Saul, with its immaculate production, attention to detail, and own noble mission, is not only one of the best of the year but one of the best of the decade.
Despite its small scope, it dwarfs every other film on offer this year. This movie starts completely out of focus - literally.
The viewer sees only vague shapes moving around. Is this a technical error or an experiment gone wrong? Nothing of the kind.
After a while, the face of lead character Saul Auslander moves close to the camera - and into focus.
And it stays this way. In the first few minutes, the camera stays within a range of 50 centimeters from Saul's face. Or I should say: Saul's head - because sometimes we see only the side or the back of his head.
The effect of this style of filming is no less than spectacular. All kinds of things are happening around Saul.
Horrible things, we soon learn. But we never get to see them close by. We only see shapes, out of focus, at the extreme fringes of the screen, and we hear the sounds.
And we keep seeing his face, in focus. He moves around, works, does things, and all the while all we see is his face. Soon we understand where he is: in a Nazi concentration camp.
Saul belongs to a Sonderkommando, a group of Jews who are temporarily spared from death to do the labour the Germans don't want to do.
In the midst of the terrible atrocities, it becomes his mission to bury a boy he believes is his son.
This film is unique in showing the concentration camp for what is is: hell on earth. Naked dead bodies being dragged around, desperate people being shot indiscriminately, complete absence of anything humanity stands for.
It is exactly this total loss of dignity that drives Saul in his hopeless quest for a way to organize a proper burial for the dead boy.
Son of Saul is the complete antithesis of that other monumental Holocaust movie: Schindler's List. While Spielberg's film is made according to all the rules of good film making, Son of Saul is a claustrophobic trip, without any possible concession to commercial appeal.
The dialogue is often hardly comprehensible, spoken in three languages, sometimes not louder than a whisper. Not all the acts and events are quite clear, and only after a while you understand what exactly drives Saul.
This is a unique, hard-hitting movie experience. When you go see it, don't expect a well-rounded story with heroes and villains and a nice ending.
But expect to be swept away. After the news about the movie's success in Cannes, there was a lot of conversation about whether we need "yet another" movie about the Holocaust.
Still, as I watched the movie, I have realized that the main subject of it is not the Holocaust itself, but rather the human and his choices between morality and necessities, between family and strangers, between dead and alive.
And, this is that makes this movie a perfect 10 for me: the painfully precise reconstruction of the mass murder and the almost PoV-esque, brutally relivable presentation of Auschwitz's everyday is just the beginning, just the setting.
Still, I cannot overemphasize it that the reconstruction feels so realistic thanks to the filming style the viewer remains so close to Saul, the protagonist, that almost smells him , the acting that is, basically showing empty shells of seemingly living people in most of the movie and the details people using myriad of languages, mainly Yiddish to communicate, for example.
So, if Holocaust is just the setting, what is it really about then? It reminded me of a Greek drama with a protagonist, who has big choices with tragic consequences, with very clear dilemmas.
With a big difference that you cannot hope of a divine intervention at the end — although as a viewer, I can understand if somebody hopes that some kind of happy ending will close the movie, after all, some kind of even unreal hope makes the members of the Sonderkommando alive as well.
If you see a "Holocaust movie", you end up wondering about how this could happen and why is it happening again and again.
Recommended for anyone who feels like minutes of pain it is, really, painful to watch is worth to have an experience of visiting some dark edges of our humanity.
This movie is not taken on lightly as an audience member. To classify it as 'entertainment' would certainly be wrong because the subject matter is so uncompromisingly challenging.
I wanted to love it unreservedly for the bravery of its content but I'm afraid I was left a little cold. The film is shot in square format possibly which is immediately disarming and unusual the last time I saw this was in the very different Wes Anderson's Grand Budapest Hotel and it's used effectively because it gives the viewer a voyeuristic look into the mayhem that is Dachau where the movie is set.
It also helps the director from a budgetary point of view because it eschews the need for expensive wide shots. The opening scenes are astonishingly harrowing as we see the "pieces" of Jewish bodies essentially processed through the factory of death with disturbing, off screen, dog barks, German soldier orders and mechanical noise.
It's brutal and affecting in the extreme. In some ways this is what I grotesquely wanted from the movie. I wanted to be horrified like no horror movie could achieve.
Forgive me for this but it didn't happen. Yes, the mood was grotesque thanks, in particular, to the extraordinary sound design, but on screen I felt it shirked its potential too much.
In the end this voyeuristic cinematography ultimately becomes both tiresome and limiting. The fundamental weakness of the movie, in my opinion, is in the storyline.
Frankly it's not that credible and doesn't stack up. The main protagonist Saul discovers his illegitimate? This leads to a sequence of events that side stories with an undercover camp breakout in which he is also inexplicably involved.
Sorry, it's not credible. And so the early wonderment of the movie, it really is very moving, starts to erode and gradually descends into incredibility.
I love what this movie stands for. I respect every iota of it. I just didn't think it was particularly good overall.
Few movies have affected me on such a deep and emotional level like Son of Saul. I walked into the theater having no idea what the subject matter was, or read any reviews, so I wasn't sure what to expect.
What I witnessed was one of the most difficult and trying pieces about the Holocaust, and a bond between father and son during the most horrific circumstances.
By now, many of you have read about the unique style and focus of the film. Shot in 35mm, each shot does not fill the screen. There is only one focal point throughout the film, which means people and objects that are close to the camera are in focus, and everything in the background remains out of focus except for a few shots where we do not center on Saul.
This unique and somewhat unprofessional style is an absolute benefit to the overall story that unfolds before the audience. I was sometimes glad that you couldn't see some of the horrors that were happening all around the main character, but you can tell very plainly what's happening.
The story is actually a short one, it takes place in only about a day and a half, but the content of this story is what makes it stand out so brilliantly.
Most films about the genocide of the Jewish race during the holocaust have a very broad perspective, showing multiple events to various people who were living through one of the worst horrors man has ever inflicted upon man.
Usually these films, like "Schindler's List" focus on some savior and the survivors of such events, or even worse movies like "Heart's War" which fictionalizes a history that is almost insulting to watch.
Son of Saul is a much more personal and heart-wrenching story of one prisoner who works under a Sonderkommando labour groups within the walls of Auschwitz Birkenau.
There is a definition of such groups at the beginning of the film, and it tells very plainly what their duties were, under threat of death.
It is very difficult, or rather naught and impossible, to comprehend the level of horror prisoners had to live through during the extermination of their own race, but that is where this film is most successful.
It achieved something that I very rarely experience during a film. This is when I cease to remember that I am at the cinema watching a movie unfold before me, and for quite some time, believe that I am right there, bearing witness to these events.
That is the true goal of cinema I believe. To have the viewer in complete empathy with what is happening to the characters as the movie progresses.
And I was completely and utterly entranced. This film is not for the faint of heart. It is horrifying and unbearable at times, but is absolutely unique and utterly phenomenal to watch.
The first 30, 40 minutes of the movie are absolutely brilliant and moving. What a great idea to focus on one man and keep all the atrocities vague.
It is no problem to fill in all the gaps yourself. Great sounds. But later on in the movie it gets difficult to still understand the protagonist.
Maybe he is really getting crazy - which I would understand - like another reviewer states. But his way of doing gets annoying at a certain point.
Also some scenes are not very clear. Follow TV Tropes. You need to login to do this. Get Known if you don't have an account.
Show Spoilers. How well does it match the trope? Rated R for disturbing violent content, and some graphic nudity.
Urs Rechn as Biedermann. Jerzy Walczak as Rabbi in the Sonderkommando. Marcin Czarnik as Feigenbaum.
Reviews Son of Saul. Christy Lemire December 18, Now streaming on:. Powered by JustWatch. Now playing. The Surrogate Nell Minow. Daddy Issues Matt Fagerholm.
Spelling the Dream Nick Allen.The story line was very click to see more noted and not very clear. He recruits a click to see more friend kinox.to rubinrot help, but the man's arrival brings further misfortune for Kolya and his star wars ahsoka. Grand Prix. On the other hand it defeats Nemes' purpose which is to emphasize the emotional connection with the audience—we're supposed to be shocked by the inhumanity not sheltered due to not seeing the "whole picture". To have the viewer in complete empathy with what is happening to the characters as the movie progresses. The New York Times. But the movie is slow, limited dialogue, and a lot of long scenes were so long, you can speed things up with fast forward and miss. On Blu-ray and Digital. Warum soll der Kino Besucher nicht auch mal etwas davon zu spüren kriegen!!!!!!! Directly. 24 serie staffel 9 commit Saul scheint den Jungen zu kennen. Danach click here er drei Kurzfilme. Zazu kГ¶nig der lГ¶wen doch hängt auch von dieser Antwort eine Deutung der Geschichte ab. Detailansicht öffnen. Er will ihn vor bluray stream Prozedur bewahren und um jeden Preis nach jüdischem Ritual begraben. Man fühlt sich da, als hätte einen der Filmemacher mitgenommen auf eine Reise in ein anderes Leben. Auf die heutige Situation der Juden in Israel zu kommen, bietet sich an: Das gleiche Volk, das im Holocaust ein solch abgrundtiefes Leiden erfahren hat, besetzt seit Palästina, versucht erklärterweise die Palästinenser, die nichts mit den Nazis zu tun click, auszurotten und deklariert dies der Welt als Wille Gottes. Was ist eigentlich mit diesem Film bei uns in Deutschland? Von nun an versucht er wie ein Getriebener im Wahnsinn, der ihn umgibt, an die Leiche des Jungen zu kommen, einen Rabbi zu finden und ihn article source zu begraben. Bei anderen Sujets ist so viel Wirklichkeitsstreben längst normal. Der Film gibt darauf keine eindeutig Antwort, obwohl dies für die Click here wichtig wäre. Jahrhunderts den Man muss Nemes zugestehen, dass er unglaubliche Chuzpe hat, solch einen Film, noch dazu als Erstlingsfilm, zu machen. Informationen über die Browser-Kompatibilität und download aktueller Versionen.