I liked "With a little patience" as much as "Son of Saul".
As films, both are masterpieces.
But how accurate is the history we see in it represented?
In "WALP" we see mass murders organized by SS staff happening right next to
an 'office' where observers, like ordinary working women, could see
what was going on.
I asked myself: Where did this scene possibly happen in real-life?
Then I checked out the plans of Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau
and it didn't fit: This closeness between the buildings / camp functions didn't exist & such an observation would have been impossible for a simple working woman.
Since "WALP" doesn't give you any information on the location or time,
you could argue, that this is supposed to take place at another camp?
But which one?
It can't be Chelmno or Treblinka, because those camps were designed
in a totally different way & AFAIK no women, especially no simple working
women had any access.
My good knowledge of the vast camp system of the Holocaust is limited,
but AFAIK, something like the scene shown in the short film
could have never happened at a major camp, because the 'killing places'
were out of sight or hidden.
Now, this is a work of art, not history, and, I guess, Laszlo Nemes
wanted to make a point about the indifference of people to inhuman acts.
He made that.
But I have trouble accepting this short film as 'history'.
"Son of Saul" has similar problems, but not to the extend of "WALP",
where the whole plot wouldn't work without the closeness of the building.
It's good that filmmakers try to show the horrors of WWII and of the Shoah,
but I'm not sure, if it's necessary to invent scenes like this.
Filmmakers that deal with this delicate subject should stay true to the events
and don't use any artistic licence.
Stick with the raw facts, they are astonishing enough.
Make a movie about Chelmno, Treblinka and the others - as accurate as possible -
not always about Auschwitz or 'imaginary camps' like the one in "WALP"
BTW: I don't like your user picture. You look like a Nazi
reply
share