I found it a bit annoying and arty for the sake of low production costs.
It is a good trick to keep down production costs by just fudging the goings on around him, and letting the viewer use there imagination.
I actully think Hardcore Henry takes the cake for new camera style... First person is difficult, and they seem to have got it to work pretty well.
I respect what they tried to do and it gave a claustrophobic feeling, but also a nauseating one. Also made it hard to follow the plot at times.
I'm really on the fence regarding this movie. It was unique and it was an original way of showing the hopelessness and cruelty of the concentration camps, but all in all I cannot say I would recommend it. At least not to the vast majority of people. I'd still call it a good movie. If that makes any sense. lol
Nope this was just experimental camerawork that just didn't work. The director should have shot a few scenes or a portion of the movie and shown it to others in the industry and taken their input.
The fact that we just see the "back of Saul" basicallyl throughout the movie in extreme closeup looked like a video game. And the background was always blurred and only Saul was in focus. This gave a headache sort of feeling. What was happening in the background was very important and shouldn't have been blurred. It's like a failed artwork.
Nope this was just experimental camerawork that just didn't work. The director should have shot a few scenes or a portion of the movie and shown it to others in the industry and taken their input.
The fact that we just see the "back of Saul" basicallyl throughout the movie in extreme closeup looked like a video game.
And the background was always blurred and only Saul was in focus. This gave a headache sort of feeling.
What was happening in the background was very important and shouldn't have been blurred. It's like a failed artwork.
In the months since I've written my above post I read more about "sonderkomandos" and my views of the film have changed. Holocaust movies cannot show the full extent of the holocaust because it will just cause the audience to get up and leave. Think about the scene in Schindler's List where all the kids in the camp are rounded up to be taken to the gas chamber. Spielberg showed the kids to be happy and singing and waving goodbye to the adults whereas in reality the kids were rounded up and screaming and crying when they were put on the trucks. Spielberg chose to show the kids as singing and happy to reduce the effect of the holocaust just a tad for the audience because if the holocaust was shown on screen in its full horrific form it would just have a bad effect on the viewers. I'm not saying Shindler's list is totally toned down.
Now my view on Son of Saul is that the background was intentionally left like that to reduce the effect of the holocaust for the viewers. Now I feel that Son of Saul is the most authentic movie about the holocaust ever made because it accurately shows the inside workings of the gas chambers and how the "sonderkomandos" had to burn each body one by one. It was very gritty. Other movies just show the Jewish people entering the building and hardly more than that.
So in other words, Son of Saul fully captures the grittiness and horrific nature of the holocaust but to "tone it down" the background is blurry every now and then. It was probably the correct choice by the director. It also shows the exact same replica of what happened when some sonderkomandos tried to escape. Sauls ordeal in escaping is almost exactly or exactly how it went down (even though Saul is a fictional character). People with a very very in depth knowledge of the holocaust will be able to tell the accurate nature of this film.
Saul wanting to bury his son correctly was a macguffin. What is going on in his surroundings is the real story. I know it contradicts my earlier post.
[deleted]