MovieChat Forums > Saul fia (2015) Discussion > Did I miss something???

Did I miss something???


I wish I would have loved this movie. I was very much looking forward to it, mainly because of the critics I heard of it. The first five minutes were astonishing and I thought it would be a great film. Then, nothing. The story was so boring I didn't feel anything during the 2 hours. The main character shows great humanism, it is well filmed, well acted. But that's it. All you see is men shouting to each other, grabbing each other, et some rabbin. The quest of Saul was just of none interest for me, I suppose. Did I miss something? Why is this considered one of the best movies of the 21st century?

P.-S.: English is not my first language

reply

The quest of Saul was just of none interest for me


You hold the film responsible for your own ignorance and disinterest. That's wrong. It takes a certain soul and mindset to appreciate arthouse films like this one. "Did I miss something?" Yes, clearly, but it's been missing from you, not the film.




---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing

reply

Of course, everyone who dislikes this movie is ignorant. Sure.

reply

Of course, everyone who dislikes this movie is ignorant. Sure.


Will, yes, probably, and I say this with the highest possible respect for opinions of others. But there comes a time...

It's hard to not feel that way about anyone who thinks this movie is 'boring', while you're actually looking at what may be the most realistic film ever about the daily on-goings in the German concentration camps of WWII.

It's been 2 1/2 months since I first saw "Son of Saul during a family visit to Belgium, and I still can't stop thinking about this movie. Boring? Harrowing and haunting is more like it.

reply

How superior of you to agree that anyone who was disappointed in this movie is ignorant. I may be misinterpreting the OP but I think what he/she was saying is that, although seeing the barbarism of the Nazis was "astonishing", the movie was slowed down a lot by the quest of Saul to give the boy a decent burial. If that's not what the OP meant then that is what I mean.
Seeing those bodies dragged across the floor will be an image I will never forget. And then there is the part where the animals couldn't even schedule the train arrivals to coincide with the availability of empty ovens so they reacted by hastily making the people strip naked outside in the night and watch themselves being led to the burning ditches. Those images will also stay with me.

But that brutality is not all that this film was about. The script has several stories. There was not only the story of the horror of the camp but there was the story about one man's obsession to do something decent under threat of his own demise and then there was the story about the way the Sonderkommando interacted with each other (the pecking order, their own discrimination with each other, etc.) There was also the story of revolt and how Saul played such an important (and fatal) part in that.

Even though it gave the title to the film, I personally found the story line of burying the boy to be too overwritten and it distracted me from the other stories. It would have been so much more credible if the boy were actually Saul's son or someone he at least knew. After a while that story became, well,"boring". Were we supposed to be sympathetic to Saul because of his quest? If so, then I eventually got frustrated and tired of his bravura because it was at the expense of the true heroes in the film, the men who stood tall and revolted

Yes, I know people do crazy things under such extreme stress and I suspect that something like this could really have happened. But focusing on that part of the story for so long, in my opinion at least, made this potential great movie just a good movie. I would have liked to have known so much more about Sonderkommandos such as, how they were chosen, how their kapos were chosen, how were they killed after 4 months, what about the women in that scene? Were they also sonderkommandos? What was the women’s life like.

There is another movie waiting to be made on those topics for those of us that are "ignorant".

reply

Agreed.
Also, the other "stories", as you called it, are hidden by a headache-induncing cinematography.
This made me very uncomfortable and dragged the movie down.







reply

i completely agree with you. i can't stand this style of camera work where alsmot every shot is a hand held close up. so annoying. the subject matter is a hard enough watch as it is. too many lingering shots that had no purpose too.

reply

So many times the camera perspective was 12 inches behind Saul's head while he was running through the rooms and corridors. I found that very obnoxious. It also made it hard to make out what was happening ... besides the fact you were following Saul too close. The next thing you know the camera takes the perspective of his eyes???

reply

It also made it hard to make out what was happening ... besides the fact you were following Saul too close. The next thing you know the camera takes the perspective of his eyes???


I think that has an important meaning. Saul was "protecting" himself from the horrifying scenes around him. He was in his own shell. That's what the filming tried to show.

Very succesfully in my opinion.

reply

potential great movie just a good movie

Agreed, and for the reasons you've articulated so well.

Some brilliant conceptual cinematic devices at play, but their relentless reassertion gradually wore down my empathy.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

"And then there is the part where the animals couldn't even schedule the train arrivals to coincide with the availability of empty ovens so they reacted by hastily making the people strip naked outside in the night and watch themselves being led to the burning ditches. Those images will also stay with me."


*Animals. An apt quote about animals.



'I said it was a brutal thing.

"No, it was a human thing. You should not insult the brutes by such a misuse of that word; they have not deserved it," and he went on talking like that. "It is like your paltry race—always lying, always claiming virtues which it hasn't got, always denying them to the higher animals, which alone possess them. No brute ever does a cruel thing—that is the monopoly of those with the Moral Sense. When a brute inflicts pain he does it innocently; it is not wrong; for him there is no such thing as wrong. And he does not inflict pain for the pleasure of inflicting it—only man does that.'

Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

reply

rarely does someone express my own thoughts so completely...

I respect this movie, but at the same time, I can't recommend it to anyone. For these reasons. From watching other far superior films on this topic, I was already aware of most of the brutality. The film was in dire need of dialog, even if it was Saul narrating the inhumanity of the camp. This film reminds me of "survivalist" another film that suffers from a lack of words... lol. I mean, come on! Give us something besides hellish images a few nazis speaking and a quest for a rabbi that is restricted to one word questions and answers...

I add it to the long list of "art" films that could have been something besides moving images.

reply

"and I say this with the highest possible respect for opinions of others"

No, you very clearly don't.

reply

[deleted]

Agree 100%

reply

Reading this douchey comment has convinced me to skip the film, thanks.

reply

Well I think the OP has a point.
Of course it is harrowing , but he meant 'boring' in the sense that no real plot is shown or followed through.

I think this movie can be considered "boring" if we compare it with The Pianist or Schindler's List, for instance.

reply

most realistic film ever about...

now who is the one who is ignorant? lol...

reply

Thanks for this reply.
"Yes, clearly, but it's been missing from you, not the film. "
Couldn't agree more.

Marton

reply

[deleted]

gregorik -

you are Rude.

and your rudeness shows your own ignorance.

Disliking something does not make one 'ignorant'.

reply

I saw this film and really liked it, but this answer is just the worst, the rudest and crassest response to someone, as well as unhelpful and alienating to those looking for answers.

It's a tough film. It's not for everyone. Get over yourself.

reply

I agree with you - here is what I wrote earlier today after seeing the film: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/43l1fp/my_take_on_son_of_saul_spoiler_city_baby/

reply

Thanks for your well-considered and thoughtful review. I also preferred The Grey Zone, which earned my respect for not indulging in "Auschwitz-porn" (that Saul fia seems to wallow in) while delving into the compelling mystery of the Sonderkommando revolt. For me also, this was the main reason I watched this film - and there were some well-delivered moments regarding that subject, but just too few. As to the unique style of the film, I was reminded of the first few minutes of Costa-Gavros' Amen - a brief, horrifying, blurry glimpse into a hell that we could never truly grasp without having lived it and had no business gawking at. It's a view that we are immediately denied in order to spend the balance of the film looking at the extraordinary ethical and moral questions surrounding the holocaust- which is what really matters here, right? Saul fia in many ways is just a feature length expansion of those first few minutes of Costa-Gavra's film that doesn't seem to go anywhere at all or have anything to say.

I confess, I watched the whole thing, because I wanted to see where it was going. But I felt a little dirty afterwards. I understand that these are not images that should ever be exploited as entertainment or as art. I hate to think that people are now getting their history from films like this, rather than going to the sources first, like Night and Fog, Shoah, or George Steven's documentary or from first hand written accounts like the eye opening "This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen".

reply

i agree. didnt care about the story. just rabbi this rabbi that. good filming although the first person pov is pretty tedious at times

reply

Predictable thread. Someone posts some actual good reasons for not liking the movie and of course people show up screaming, "You're too ignorant to like good movies." I'm just surprised we didn't get a, "Stick with your Michael Bay movies, philistine!" comments.

I'm in agreement with many people here in that it's technically a very well made movie, I respect the movie's style giving you a, "You are there" feeling to witness all the horrors, but still...the movie was kind of boring.

There's another movie that also deals with the Jews that worked for the Nazis and about the revolt called THE GREY ZONE directed by Tim Blake Nelson, and I think it was a much better film that really stuck with me a lot more than this one.

reply

As someone once said, every book has two authors: the writer and the reader.
As for the story of Saul's quest, consider what happened: Saul found the boy still alive amongst a pile of corpses. Essentially, he brought the boy to life, becoming his second father in a sense. Thus Saul felt a sense of responsibility once he saw the boy killed by the SS doctor. And if his quest to see him buried according to Jewish law makes no sense, consider where he was.
The movie is great because it faces the facts: there was nothing life-affirming about the extermination camps, there was no happy ending, no feel-good for the spectator, just the gas and the crematorium.

reply

I don't understand why some people refuse to offer arguments, they instead resort to calling you ignorant.
THAT is why I will explain why I felt this movie was excellent.
It was about a Jew in a concentration camp, always fearing for his life. He also has anobsession with burying a boy he calls his son. There is also a revolt in the making, because they are all going to be executed.

Captivating stuff right?

Combine that with excellent acting, directing, framing, blocking and many unique stylistic choises.

I am an *beep* but my friends compensate for that.

reply

Don't pay attention to the people calling you ignorant, this movie is definitely not for everyone and it's completely valid if you dislike it or find it boring.

I liked it because before this one, I haven't seen a film that painted such a visceral and real picture of the Holocaust. Every single movie that deals with the subject seems to sugarcoat it, even the ones that really try delve into it. This film held absolutely nothing back and the unique style it was filmed in, entirely in close up and in that square aspect ratio, not always being aware of what's happening around you with lot of the action happening off screen, it creates a sense of desperation and hopelessness that no other film about the Holocaust had. That's my take on it.

"Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

reply

The shaky nauseating handheld camera ruins everything for me. Can't really concentrate on anything; the cinematography only makes me wanna puke.

reply

I totally agree with you. It is an overrated film. I am really dissapointed.

ps: I normally like boring films

reply

I really, really wanted to like this movie too. The filmmaking itself is incredible. I haven't felt this horrified and claustrophobic since I watched 12 Years a Slave. Nightmarish atmosphere. Top notch acting. But the problem for me is the plot itself is so dull and repetitive. I got so sick of hearing the word "rabbin" or whatever. I feel like the movie was missing an actual story, that it only teased at one. But that doesn't mean the story doesn't work well for others either. More power to them.

reply