In spite of all the awards, this is Holocaust porn

Rating: 5/10 (15 December 2016)

So this won the Cannes Grand Prix and the Golden Globe and Oscar for foreign film. So this must be a truly excellent film, especially since so many people here seem to be of that opinion, right? I admit: technically, this is a new approach to the theme, in which the face of the protagonist reflects all what is happening around him, and in which an excellent, well-thought sound design carries over the horrors that remain at the edges of the frame. And yet, I'm one of the handful of reviewers who are rather disappointed.
I admit this is because of my partial Romani heritage. At this point, especially with what's been going on in Europe (and particularly Hungary) over the past years, a film that manages to give passing reference to gay and Soviet Auschwitz inmates - and STILL ignores the presence of Sinti and Roma - isn't just unconsciously overseeing the issue. Romani organizations weren't happy with "Schindler's List" back in the day, pointing out that the realistic approach Spielberg chose eradicated an essential part of Romani history. I thought that critique too harsh - "Schindler's List" is a masterpiece of storytelling and it would not have been part of the story to include references to Birkenau II. This film, however, could have easily avoided this negligence, and if you find it hard to understand why anyone should be mad about that, I suggest you watch another Hungarian film, "Just the Wind" (2012). That one gives you an idea of the perpetual hell of Romani existence.
Yet like a number of German critics also pointed out, what really gives me the creeps about "Son of Saul" is the frame composition, with ample use of naked bodies out of focus, and an extensive use of nudity as a symbol of helplessness. I cannot help but agree that this constitutes Holocaust pornography. The images are carefully constructed to elicit shock, yet do not contribute to the story - as was the case in "Schindler's List". The film is carried by the structural idea, which is not at all an original one, but reminiscent of classic Hungarian cinema - particularly "Red Psalm" (1972) by Miklós Jancsó and the work of Béla Tarr, whom this director assisted.
The story, simple as it is, is in fact unrealistic if you go by the memoirs of Roman Frister or Lucie Adelsberger (to name just a few) since there was no freedom of movement corresponding to what you see in this film. The pointlessness of the protagonist's actions, clear to all around him as well as himself, also run contrary to what I've read from survivors, who very clearly describe what animated them and what the dynamics within the inmates were. So if you've not read any books and haven't watched any testimonials or documentaries, I'm afraid this film can easily misguide your perceptions of what the Holocaust was, and deliver and imprint so strong that it may be hard to challenge by more factual depictions. Yet this is of course an extremely important work in the negative sense, in that it shows just how easily content can be styled to elicit a specific response and garner an avalanche of awards.
Perhaps my judgment would not be this harsh if this wouldn't ring so close, and if Hungary wouldn't have the human rights record it has under Orbán. But considering the film culminates in an uprising - if you've devoted some time to the study of Auschwitz, you may understand why I cannot help but wonder when, finally, will there be a film about May 16th, 1944 in Birkenau II. It's very much needed, and the story is so powerful that it wouldn't require as much technical finesse.