In recent days I’ve made two journeys back into the dark heart of Auschwitz courtesy of a book and a film. But You Did Not Come Back is Marceline Loridan-Ivens’ moving memoir addressed to her father. Aged fifteen, she survived the death camp, but her father did not return. The acclaimed film Son of Saul was my second encounter with the horrors of Auschwitz. Despite the praise heaped upon László Nemes’s film, I have my reservations.

Son of Saul is the first film from young Hungarian director László Nemes. His great-grandparents on his mother’s side were deported to Auschwitz and murdered there, and his mother’s accounts of the Holocaust were a major influence on the choice of subject for his first feature. The film is seen almost entirely from the perspective of Saul Auslander (‘alien’ in German), a member of the Sonderkommando (Special Squads) in Auschwitz, Jewish prisoners who were tasked with escorting their fellow Jews into the gas chambers and then disposing of their corpses afterwards. Amidst the turmoil and horror of camp routines, Saul goes to extreme lengths to find a rabbi who will provide a proper Jewish burial for the corpse of a child he believes to be his own son.

Nemes’s decision to place the Sonderkommando at the centre of his film is an interesting one. Temporarily privileged by the Nazis, the Sonderkommando were entrusted with the maintaining the permanent running of the gas chambers and crematoria: it was their task to to maintain order among newly-arrived prisoners, escort them to the gas chambers, and afterwards enter the gas chambers to to extract the corpses, pull gold teeth from the jaws, cut the women’s hair, sort and classify clothes, shoes and the contents of suitcases, transport the bodies to the crematoria, oversee the operation of the ovens, and extract and dispose of the ashes.

As Primo Levi wrote in The Drowned and the Saved, ‘these Special Squads did not escape everyone else’s fate’:

On the contrary, the SS exerted the greatest diligence to prevent any man who had been part of it from surviving and telling. Twelve squads succeeded each other at Auschwitz; each one remained operative for a few months, then it was suppressed, each time with a different trick to head off possible resistance, and as its initiation the next squad burnt the corpses of its predecessors.

Nemes’s idea for the film was, according to interviews with the director, initially triggered when he came across the ‘scrolls of Auschwitz’, texts written by Sonderkommandos and buried in the grounds of Auschwitz which were discovered after the war. But the central device of his narrative is surely inspired by a story recounted by Primo Levi in The Drowned and the Saved. The incident was first recalled by Miklos Nyiszli, a Hungarian doctor who was one of the very few survivors of the last Special Squad in Auschwitz. He remembered how his squad, sorting through the tangle of corpses in the gas chamber one day, found a young woman of sixteen still alive. They warm her, bring her broth, but know that she is doomed. An SS officer arrives and orders one of the Sonderkommando to kill her.

In his film, Nemes translates the young woman into a boy, and the brief flicker of humanity on the part of the brutalized Sonderkommando into Saul’s conviction that the boy is his son, and that he must ensure that he receives a proper burial.

The Sonderkommandos have tended to be regarded negatively as collaborators by most survivors. Primo Levi is less judgemental, emphasising that most did not serve by choice and that:

It is illogical and to demand of them, and it is rhetorical and false to maintain that they all and always followed he behaviour expected of saints and stoic philosophers.

In light of the controversy surrounding the actions of the Sonderkommando, it is interesting that the first words spoken by Saul, some ten minutes into the film, are ‘I will’. These words might simply reflect the acquiescence of the enslaved (or, if you will, the collaborator), the acceptance of yet another appalling duty. But Saul speaks these words just after witnessing the discovery of the boy who has not died in the gas chamber and then his death at the hands of a Nazi doctor. Impulsively, he volunteers to take responsibility for the corpse of the boy regards as his own son and sets in motion a plan – which becomes the central thread of the film – to spare the boy from the ovens and give him a proper Jewish burial. In this context, his words become a gesture of humanity and defiance.

Géza Röhrig as Saul Auslander in 'Son of Saul'
Géza Röhrig as Saul Auslander in ‘Son of Saul’

In The Drowned and the Saved, Primo Levi describes the shock of the arrival at Auschwitz as being precipitated into a world which was terrible, yes, but also indecipherable:

It did not conform to any model, the enemy was all around but also inside, the ‘we’ lost its limits, the contenders were not two, one could not discern a single frontier but rather many confused, perhaps innumerable frontiers, which stretched between each of us. […] This brusque revelation, which became manifest from the very first hours of imprisonment […] was so harsh as to cause the immediate collapse of one’s capacity to resist.

As many reviewers have noted, the most striking feature of Nemes’s cinematography in Son of Saul is how effectively it translates that sense of subjective confusion into film language, a perfect visual representation of a mental state that has come to terms with the unthinkable. Throughout the film we see only what Saul sees, and Nemes films in long, unbroken hand-held shots that can last for minutes. Everything is in shallow focus, while the use of the almost square frame Academy aspect ratio has the effect of placing Saul’s face or the back of his head at the centre of every shot means that the terrible violence taking place around  him remains an out-of-focus blur. Meanwhile, the soundtrack is loud, clear and explicit. This is how Christopher Orr, writing for The Atlantic, expresses it:

Most of all, we watch Saul. The camera hugs him close throughout almost the entire film, peering over his shoulder such that it presents the camp from his perspective while keeping his face (and the large red X on his back that marks him as Sonderkommando) in the frame. Nemes uses shallow focus both to keep the audiences’ eyes on his protagonist and to keep the horrors surrounding him—the arbitrary executions, the ever-present corpses—at a slight remove that’s simultaneously humane and disconcerting. The narrow, box-like frame of the film emphasizes a profound sense of claustrophobia and containment. The movie is at once clinical in its accumulation of small details and dreamlike in its execution, a waking nightmare through which Saul somnambulates, the audience right alongside him.

In an interview with Nemes in the Guardian, Andrew Pulver wrote that ‘Nemes’s film has allowed audiences to enter the consciousness of the Sonderkommando like nothing else’, while in Son of Saul, Kierkegaard and the Holocaust’, a remarkable essay in the New York Times, Katalin Balog, an associate professor of philosophy argued:

“Son of Saul” directly engages the viewer’s subjectivity by its style and mode of presentation; its achievement is to embody the dynamic that is its very subject matter. Kierkegaard called such communication — the only sort he thought befitting a subjective thinker — “double reflection.” He thought this is the only way that the authenticity of the message can be guarded — the only way to avoid being a town crier of subjectivity. In this way, “Son of Saul” is both art and philosophy: It makes inwardness visible. Through its depiction of death and destruction it reminds us how to live.

There is no doubt that everything we see in Son of Saul (or half glimpse at the edge of the frame or in the shallow depth of field blur before Saul’s eyes) is truthful in the sense of being based on historical fact: the child that survives the gas chamber, the Sonderkommando revolt in Auschwitz in October 1944, even the final scene in which Saul and fellow prisoners who have fled the camp shelter in an old barn.

In the Guardian interview, Nemes stated, ‘You have to approach it as a documentary’, arguing that classical storytelling in the death camps doesn’t make sense. ‘Mainstream Holocaust films project emotions on to a story that just didn’t have them.’

Yet, in the end, I was not entirely convinced. There is a classical story-telling arc in Son of Saul, and there is something very close to a Spielberg redemptive moment near the end – even if it is immediately erased by the nihilism of its final frames. Speaking to the Guardian, Nemes insisted:

There is a hope there, I think: not the hope of survival, but the hope of the inner voice that might still exist, when everything, including God and religion and sanity, is gone.

My feelings about Son of Saul are conflicted. On the one hand, like just about everyone who has reviewed the film, I emerged from the gruelling experience of watching Nemes’s film impressed by his immersive cinematography and the meticulous care that had gone into ensuring that everything we saw had an historical basis.

At the same time, I couldn’t escape a sense of being manipulated – if only more subtly – in the same manner as the mainstream Holocaust films which Nemes decried in his Guardian interview. Although most critics have related Son of Saul to the intellectual tradition of documentaries like Resnais’ Night and Fog (1955) and Lanzmann’s Shoah (1985), I was disturbed by the way in which the film’s unrelenting use of close-ups pushes the horrors being perpetrated on condemned men, women and children into a background blur. Moreover, the steadfast focus on Saul and his fellow Sonderkommando means that what results is a Holocaust film in which the Nazis are almost entirely absent.

Noting that Son of Saul has been praised by Claude Lanzmann, Richard Porton wrote in Cinemascope:

It is slightly odd that Lanzmann manages to overlook Son of Saul’s quite palpable sentimental underpinnings. Despite the austere veneer of a style influenced by Béla Tarr (Nemes spent two years as Tarr’s assistant), there’s an undeniably Hollywood-like impetus to the narrative. The crux of the central ‘conflict’, in a narrative arc that would easily have pleased [screen-writing guru] Syd Field, involves Auslander’s discovery that the corpse of a young boy is in fact his son. This catalytic event convinces Saul that he must, despite the threat of retribution from his Nazi tormentors, provide his son with a proper Jewish burial.

Porton concluded that Nemes ‘artfully disguises his film’s sentimentality with a plethora of distancing devices. It’s of course up to the viewer to decide whether this mongrel aesthetic yields any new insights or merely recycles old Holocaust tropes in shiny new packaging.’

I certainly wouldn’t describe the ‘packaging’ of Nemes’s film as ‘shiny’. But, pondering this film in the week since I saw it, I have wondered whether the only valid approach to the Holocaust is through documentary. Despite Nemes’s claim, his film is not a documentary even though it has the look of one. It has a storyline that leads us to a moment in which Saul’s soul is literally illuminated, before slamming us up against a brick wall of nihilism. I wonder what purpose such a work serves. I worry that someone might leave a film that offers no context for the events it depicts confused and uncertain of their significance.

See also

2 thoughts on “Son of Saul: Auschwitz in unrelenting close-up

  1. Hi Gerry. If you were not aware (though you may be) there is a National Holocaust Centre near the village of Laxton, not too many miles north of Mansfield in Nottinghamshire. I paid a visit last Sunday. £8 is all they charge and you can go back as many times as you wish in 12 months. There are some beautiful remembrance gardens, outside exhibitions and a wonderful ‘museum’ which lays out the full story of Anti-Semitism to Hitlers rise and The Final Solution and the after effects, with harrowing testimony on film, in books etc. But the real reason for my visit was because a survivor of Auschwitz and much much more was there to talk of his survival as a boy. Arek Hersh was just a teenage boy caught up in the Nazi’s extermination. About 100 of us sat in silence, fighting back tears, as a short film showed Arek recounting his experiences on one of his many visits back to Poland and Germany. Afterwards, Arek himself sat and talked through much more and took questions and answered them as best he could. There were many and varied questions and I could only ask a question which I thought would not possess an answer, ‘Knowing all we do about what happened and the genocides since, how do we stop it happening again?’.’ Remember, was one word he used. Bring your children here to me and let them watch, listen and learn what tolerance is. (About 25,000 children a year come here on educational visits) But, there is something in the heart of man that can and will arise from time to time that will make this happen again, it is very hard to prevent it.’ He has a book he wrote after 30 years of nightmares and not talking about it. ‘A detail of history’ is its title and thereby lies a clue as the Nazis and even the West at the Avian conference when the world turned its bacs on a group of people who were ‘different’. Someone to blame for all the ills of the world, monsters, rats, less than human. What Joseph Campbell called the action of turning a ‘thou’ into an ‘it’. I spoke with the mentor of the session, an ex-lawyer volunteer, after Arek and his wife had signed copies of his book and spoken some more in the wonderful tea room and tolerance came up time and again. Tolerance in the face of difference, as hard as it is at times, and in the face of violence sometimes tolerance is not possible, though MLK found ways, but at the cost of great suffering for himself and his supporters. If you have not caught it, it is worth seeking out David Eaglemans series ‘The Brain’, in one chapter he examines the latest research on how this happens, how the hard-wired systems lie there waiting to be activated. Maybe to counter all this current division that seems to have spread around the world since 2001 we should learn to hard-wire tolerance into our minds, our hearts too and go and listen to men like Arek, there are precious few left, though they will be preserved in holograms when they pass, (Thanks largely to Spielberg I believe_ but nothing can reach us like the testimony of a man who survived to find love and peace and leave his testimony. After Arek had signed his book, I found myself instinctively reaching down to where he was sitting and giving him a long hug, he whispered ‘thank-you”. Maybe that’s it, maybe we should hug more.

    1. Good to hear from you, Les; it’s been a while. Thank you for a moving account of your visit to the National Holocaust Centre and encounter with Arek Hersh (intrigued, I googled his name and found that Holocaust Learning have made a series of five short videos entitled Arek’s Story which can be viewed on Vimeo: I remember reading about the Centre sometime ago, and must visit there one day.

      I think it was Elie Wiesel who said, ‘To forget is to deny’. Today the death camps – perhaps the ultimate in human suffering – are graveyards, museums or monuments to the memory of what happened in the heart of Europe. But what will these places mean to visitors fifty years from now? With all the survivors and eye-witnesses like Arek dead, how will the Holocaust persist in the collective memory? It is a necessity, an obligation, to keep the memory of the Shoah alive, and, as you write, to place the emphasis when teaching future generations on the importance of tolerance and mutual respect.

      I’m glad you mentioned Spielberg – he tends to get a bad press these days, at least in respect of Schindler’s List. But the Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education which the founded in 1994 ( is doing the essential work of preserving the memories of survivors and witnesses for future generations of teachers and learners. The lessons they learn will be crucial because (although for some this is a controversial statement) the Holocaust should not be viewed as a unique event in history. It has universal implications. If it happened once, it could easily happen again, anywhere. Indeed, genocides continue to occur, while in Europe we seem to be sliding inexorably towards suspicion, resentment and hatred of the refugee, the outsider, the other. Walls are being erected, desperate people being refused entry and transported out of sight and out of mind, their individual worth unrecognised. There were many hugs last summer, but now it seems winter has set in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.