Do you think it was Saul's Son or not?
I don't think it was his Son. I think the job he did made him go crazy and he needed something to cling to
shareI don't think it was his Son. I think the job he did made him go crazy and he needed something to cling to
share[deleted]
I'm not fully sure how I feel about it.
It can go both ways. It's reasonable to believe what you do, but I also think it's reasonable to believe that the child really is Saul's son. There are subtle hints in the film that allude to this being true.
Either way you look at it, it works. I think it's best that the film left it ambiguous.
The practice of gluing the performances of two different actors together needs to come to an end.
There are subtle hints in the film that allude to this being true.
Ella, the women who gives him the gunpowder. Their interaction is a subtle hint that he might have had the child with her.
The practice of gluing the performances of two different actors together needs to come to an end.
No, I think definitely not his son. He feels so much guilt about his role in the camp that this is his way of compensating.
shareI don't think he was. He stood and watched him be smothered but then decided he had to bury him. I think the "son" was a very good tool used by the film makers to get us to see many different parts of the camp and the different work crews of the sonderkommando. Someone else said that it works wither way, and I agree but my personal opinion is the boy was not Saul's biological son.
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
No father could stand and watch his son smothered!!! Even if it meant the father would be killed trying to save him. Besides ... it seemed to me that the boy at the end of the film became the next son ... after he lost the boy in the river. Remeber the gradual smile?
shareIt wasn't his son, he wanted to bring some normality among all the madness. Given the circumstances this doesn't seem very likely at all but it made for a captivating film.
shareOf course it wasn't.
I do not think it was his son.
If it were he would have reacted when they smothered the boy. Indeed, he would have reacted when he found the kid still breathing in that heap of corpses.
For whatever reason, he didn’t feel a kinship until the boy was dead. I like what others have suggested, Saul knew he was a lost cause, and he had let his humanity go in effort to survive, this was one last futile effort to reclaim his own soul.
I believe Saul latched on to the claim that the boy was his son because even in his damaged mind he knew if he could plead a fraternal link that it made his irrational behavior more plausible. Even in a place like that, people will excuse the insanity of a grieving father more so than they will for just another prisoner.
(Gavin from the DA board, I did not expect to see you here, it is nice to see a familiar user name once in a while).
WOW, are there people who still believe he was his son?
Raylan Givens: I'm going to need an ambulance, and a coroner.
Whether the boy was 'really' Saul's son is like asking....If Jesus is 'the son of god', who was his mother?
In the movie, it doesn't make any difference if it IS his son, it ISN'T his son, or he is suffering from a delusion. The objective and thematic purpose of the film is unchanged.
Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can't
I agree. It symbolized the loss of his son and how he never got the closure of a proper burial. He had numbed himself to the horrors around him to survive, but it also robbed him of a reason to live. Upon hearing that the Sunderkommandos could be next, the will to live and a reason presented itself in the form of the boy who survived the gassing. Saul may have been part of the resistance and he was definitely a cog in the Nazis Final Solutiin, but for this brief moment he did something completely for himself in spite of it all.
share[deleted]