Son of Saul: Feel history and faith with fictional micro-characters.

Claude Lanzmann, the director of the masterpiece Holocaust, which discussed the tragic experience of Jews in World War II, expressed his intuitive feelings after watching Saul's Son in Cannes. Claude Lanzmann is widely regarded as opposed to the Hollywood classic drama model because of his rigorous historical view and strong testimony collision in the 9-hour documentary Holocaust. He does not agree with the production concept that pessimistic humanity hopes to bring objective and cruel history. When Landsman was invited to watch the first film "Son of the Sun" by the new Hungarian director Laszlo Nemes, he unexpectedly expressed his love for the film. As Thierry Fumao, head of Cannes, said, "The era of witnessing history directly has passed. Should we just be content with archiving history instead of making new images? The younger generation, as well as the film itself, are not qualified to make creative attempts on the story in order to avoid the risk of getting lost? " Landsman agrees with this historical reappearance.

Starting from the unreasonable behavior of Saul, a member of the concentration camp task force, who tried to bury his "son" in the death zone with dignity, The Son of Saul, which focuses on the protagonist's behavior, provides a possibility of historical re-creation, that is, approaching the truth with the attitude of prototype history and rebuilding a rational understanding of history. This is contrary to the model of Hollywood drama. Schindler's List, Pianist, Black Book and other films. Establish an emotional relationship between the characters and the audience, and bring the audience into the creative logic through hatred, pity and injustice. With the deepening of the plot, the emotions of the characters or the audience will be raised and the audience will be happy. It is this psychological pleasure that disagrees with another kind of creator with a solemn view of history. They believe that the film creation about history should be more rigorous and face the rough and humid side of history. The view of history in movies should not be wishful thinking to avoid evil and promote good, but should be almost real, inescapable and adulterated with human nature. The feeling of dark history is like Landsman's view of "Cataclysm": the dead have no graves, and this movie is their graves. History is not only the story of the living, but also the memorial of the dead.

Therefore, watching Saul's Son is different from the surprise of watching a movie, and it is a way to abandon the feelings of * * * and cut into the plane. The way the camera followed Saul made the audience unable to be moved by human nature after experiencing the tragedy of life and death in the concentration camp, and their disgust with the content presented in the picture occupied most of their impressions. It cannot be said that this is the correct way to open history, but at least it pushes away the usual imagination about the beauty of history. For the well-known history that already exists in our minds, we are used to defining it with the view of history, jumping out of the cage of the past, objectively evaluating it with the past perfect tense, and looking at the past with the attitude of God. God's perspective requires us to get a feeling beyond the objective existence from the well-known whole, to perceive human nature and to hate the behavior that destroys human nature. The above is the best answer written from the reading comprehension of macro panorama.

If most modern movies are doing this kind of reading understanding about history, then how to write this understanding is not important. However, it seems that Laszlo Nemes's first film director doesn't care about the answer to reading comprehension, and his son Saul is more concerned about how reading comprehension happens. It can be said that Saul's Son is an answer to historical creation and a more exquisite supplement to the way of historical reproduction.

But history happened in the past after all, and modern people can't accurately copy that state and the background, especially the concentration camps of that era. When onlookers extract praise for human nature or compassion against human beings, only survivors still look back at the past from the perspective of experiencers, which belongs to the memories of the living and is also a comfort to the dead.

Taking Saul's perception as perception and Saul's will as will, the telephoto lens focuses on the individual and blurs the field of vision. In fact, the development of personal perspective has a premise when watching this story, that is, all the audience felt by Saul must feel the same, and the emotional factors of the audience need to follow Saul's internal changes to better understand this story, which is an important premise for Laszlo Nemes to explain to the audience how to produce this reading understanding. However, when Saul was absent-minded about the fate of a group of people in order to understand the children who were not his "sons" in the concentration camp from the audience's point of view, this behavior contrary to the thinking logic of ordinary people forced the audience to suspend the viewing mode of advancing and retreating with Saul and think about why Saul attached so much importance to "sons". This kind of tangled emotional logic can easily make the audience get entangled in the plot and give up the historical experience of Laszlo Nemes's structure.

This is indeed a story that is difficult to understand under the background of modern society. It can be inferred from the story before and after that Saul did not have a "son", so why did Saul risk betraying the team and bury his son with dignity in the name of "son"? Burying a son will drag down his teammates, and he may die. This kind of behavior without any benefit is totally undesirable in 2 1 century, so the logic is incomplete.

The most profound thing is the surface. The photography, soundtrack (no music) and scene scheduling of Saul's Son all interpret this attribute. The superficial depth expresses Laszlo Nemes's caution about this untouchable history and his sincere respect for history. On the contrary, the narrative of the film from the core, according to the requirements of current values, is not so profound and even difficult to justify.

Sol actors are not professional actors. The poet Gezo Rogelig talked about why he played this role. He said, "I took this role because Saul's unconventional behavior aroused my interest." I really want to explore Saul's inner world. "

What does Saul think of the world, war, oppression and victims? Judging from the performance of Gezo Rogelig, we still know nothing about the internal influence of past private experiences on Saul, and we can't analyze why Saul hesitated against oppression like his teammates. But what is certain is that everything in the concentration camp is extremely disgusting, revolving around execution and killing. Except for criminals who can get abnormal and twisted pleasure, others are praying for suffering to leave.

How to leave here is everyone's extravagant hope. For a long time, it was faith. Devout Christians can bear the unbearable weight of life for the noble Lord, and the victims of concentration camps can give up everything and leave, even if they abandon the only carrier of life-life; Real living is perception, possession and the victim's unquestionable belief.

But Saul questioned, or that under such inferior and extreme conditions, Saul had no illusion of struggling, and he should realize how lucky he was to run out. He doesn't live by clinging to escape. His greatest wish in life runs counter to others when it is time to be unified with others.

What did Sol insist on, which dragged down his teammates' escape plan, until the smile at the end of the film, which was in sharp contrast with reality, might be Sol's answer. When risking his life to find the priest, he did not hesitate to abandon the rigidity and numbness of the child's body when he fled, which imperceptibly became the only purpose of Saul's behavior. That smile is nothing compared with a stable life. Smile reflects a temporary state of mind, a temporary satisfaction, a perceptual experience and an incomprehensible subtle state of mind. What Saul pursues is also a kind of sensibility, a kind of existence beyond matter. When the spirit of the victims was dragged down by all kinds of hardships, Saul's existence gave people the possibility of rebuilding their spiritual world. The more suffering, the nobler people's faith.

As far as the film itself is concerned, although Laszlo Nemes deliberately creates objectivity, the emotional clues hidden in the story show that the director still vaguely shows his attitude, buries the dead children and gives the dead the final dignity. This dignity comes from Saul's incomprehensible and absurd firm belief, but it highlights the humanitarian comfort hidden in the darkness by the film controller.

Excavating the history of persecution from the perspective of the deceased will only deepen the resentment against the perpetrators, not to mention a past I don't want to mention.

When history is gone, how should history be recreated? The Son of Saul uses a long lens to follow the characters, and constructs the historical state of a specific scene in the eyes of small people, which is different from the other side of Schindler's List. It is appreciated by the industry because of its ontology of facing catastrophe directly. The significance of artistic branding is greater than historical records. Sol's situation belongs to a movie rather than history, but how to make a story that relies on historical feelings and does not shape the feelings of the characters? People's faith? The attitude of blurring vision and focusing on personal practice may be a noble belief beyond the secular world.