Son of Saul (2015)

                “Son of Saul” is an addition to the Holocaust subgenre of war movies.  You may be wondering what more can be done with this prolific subgenre, but “Son of Saul” proves there is still life left in Holocaust films.  It is a Hungarian film by Laszlo Nemes, who co-wrote the screenplay.  Although the movie is fictional, he did extensive research, especially from “The Scrolls of Auschwitz”.  That work is the first person accounts of Sonderkommandos.  He also had Holocaust experts as technical advisers.  The movie was lauded by Elie Weisel and Claude Lanzmann, the director of “Shoah”.  The movie was awarded the Grand Prix at Cannes and won for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards.  It also won the Golden Globe.

                The movie opens with a definition for “Sonderkommando” for those who aren’t familiar with this Holocaust term.  Or for those who have not seen “The Grey Zone”.  Each death camp had these units which consisted of male prisoners who were allowed to live a little longer and given preferential treatment in exchange for working the gas chambers.  The movie focuses on one of them, Saul Auslander (Geza Rohrig).  He is on screen almost all the time.  The movie is very intimate.  The movie opens with a sensory-assaulting scene of the Jews being loaded onto a train.  Not original, but in this case the cinematography is disconcertingly out of focus.  The blurriness is balanced by a cacophony of sounds realistic to the scene.  A baby cries, a dog barks, the train lets out steam, there is a band playing.  This style continues into the gas chamber.  We have to use sounds to fill in for what is not shown.  This movie expects a lot from its viewers.  Saul’s job is to check the corpses for valuables, remove the bodies, and then clean the floor.  He is dispassionate about it. He has stowed away his humanity, but then it returns when he witnesses a Nazi doctor suffocating a young boy who had miraculously survived the gas.  Saul makes it his mission to work around the system to give the child a decent burial.  This will require a rabbi.  Saul takes incredible chances and goes through a series of adventures to try to achieve his goal.  His quest for a rabbi results in his involvement with shoveling ashes into the local river and the disposal of a shipment of Jews via a pit.  This scene in particular is one of the most realistically horrific in Holocaust film history.  The sounds and glimpses of sights set it apart.  While he is on his quest,  Saul is also caught up in a rebellion led by the Sonderkommandos.

                “Son of Saul” is mesmerizing tour de force of cinematography and sound.  The sound design took five months and included eight different languages.  Cinematographer Matyas Erdely mixes shallow focus with deep focus and liberal use of out of focus.  The gas chamber scene features a two minute take followed by a three minute one.  There are a lot of close-ups, especially of Saul.  Rohrig is great with facial expressions.  It was his feature film debut and he dominates.  He should have been nominated for Best Actor at the Academy Awards.  His Saul is no saint.  You have to wonder if his obsession is detrimental to the greater good.  No other character makes much of an impression although there are some interesting people that Saul encounters.  The movie has no villain.  The Holocaust is the villain.  Saul is put in a Hell on Earth and fights it as best he can.  Through Saul we see some aspects of the Holocaust that are rarely seen in a Holocaust movie.  However, when it comes to the two historical incidents covered in the film  (the finding of a live child in the gas chamber and the rebellion of the Sonderkommandos), the movie does not instruct much.  It uses those true events to tell the story of the fictional Saul.  The movie is so focused on him that it is hard to figure out what the bigger picture is.  For that reason, the movie needs to be paired with “The Grey Zone”.  Don’t watch one without seeing the other.  Watch them back to back if you want to overdose on depressing.

                “Son of Saul” falls just short of being a great movie.  It does have some predictability in its unique plot.  Saul is unrealistically lucky and his quest seems too easy at times.  It loses some credibility towards the end.  However, those are minor quibbles for a movie that is a must-see.

GRADE  =  A

PICTURE, QUOTE, MOVIE QUIZ #84

1.  What movie is the picture from?

2.  What movie is this quote from?

“A story. A man fires a rifle for many years. And he goes to war. And afterwards he comes home, and he sees that whatever else he may do with his life—build a house, love a woman, change his son's diaper—he will always remain a jarhead. And all the jarheads killing and dying, they will always be me. We are still in the desert.”

3.  What movie is this?

It is a WWII aviation picture based on the best seller and Pulitzer Prize winning novel by John Hersey.  It was filmed in England and directed by Philip Leacock.  Two RAF bases were used for the exterior shots.  The producers found three B-17s in America.  Famous aviation writer Martin Caidin helped restore them and flew one across the Atlantic to be used in the film.  He wrote a book about the experience entitled Everything But the Flak.  A stuntman died during a stunt when he drowned parachuting into the English Channel.  Warren Beatty was first choice for the lead role but he turned it down because he had recently caused the breakup of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood.  Another leading man got the part and was his usual difficult self.  He did not get along with Shirley Anne Field and once pushed so hard she went over a sofa and cut her lip.  In a subsequent kissing scene, she bit him on his lip in revenge.  Director Leacock was lenient with star’s contractual stipulation that he avoid racing cars during the filming.  He proceeded to get into an accident, so those injuries from his fight with the Bolland character are not the result of make-up.

PT-109 (1963)

                Joseph Kennedy had been a Hollywood producer and still had connections to the studios.  He convinced Warner Brothers to buy the rights to Robert Donovan’s PT-109:  John F. Kennedy in World War II.  He saw a film about his son as a political plus.  Jack Warner took a personal interest in the project.  There would be some problems.  Kennedy had input on casting and the script.  He insisted on historical accuracy and that the profits would go to the men and families of PT-109.  (Unfortunately, there were no profits as the movie got a lukewarm reception.)  He sent his good friend and war buddy Alvin Cluster as liaison to the studio.  Cluster had been a PT boat commander during the war and had been Kennedy’s commanding officer for a while.  Several actors were considered for the lead.  Jackie wanted Warren Beatty, but he did not like the script.  The studio suggested teen idol Edd Byrnes, but JFK did not want “Kookie” playing him.  Cliff Robertson got the job, even though he was 40 years old playing a 26 year-old.  Robertson got approval to not attempt the accent, but he did change the part in his hair.  The studio wanted Raoul Walsh to direct, but after the White House screened his “Marines, Let’s Go!” and JFK hated it, he was out.  Lewis Milestone of “All Quiet…” fame landed the job, but he didn’t last either because he did not like the script or the studio did not like his cost overruns.  Leslie Martinson, a career TV director, was a big step down.  However, he was a safe choice who did not make waves about the standard, unchallenging story.  The filming was done in the Florida Keys using Air Sea Rescue boats modified to look like patrol torpedo boats.  They did not bother to paint them the wartime dark green.  The movie was released five months before the assassination and became the first movie about a President to be released while he was in office.

                Narration by Andrew Duggan tells the audience that the setting is the Guadalcanal campaign in the Solomon Islands.  The mission of the PTs is to harass the enemy and buy time for “a navy that was still on the drawing board.”  The craft were fragile wooden boats that were described as “wooden coffins”.  Kennedy (Robertson) pulls strings to get a combat assignment.  He is given a lemon with a motley crew.  It has just survived an attack by Zeros (actually AT-6 Texans, of course) dropping bombs they don’t have.  The boat will need fixing and the crew will need firm leadership.  This will be easy as the crew has no dysfunction and a future President in charge.  Their first mission is to rescue a Marine raiding unit from an island.  It gets hairy with some suspense and plenty of noise.  Later, the boat is buzzed by a Zero that doesn’t bother to strafe them.  I guess it just wanted some screen time.  (In a head scratcher, PT-109 shoots down the plane, but does not fire a torpedo in the whole movie.)  This all leads to the dark night when the boat gets rammed by a Japanese warship.  Two of the crew are killed, but Kennedy helps get the survivors to a nearby island.  Now it’s a matter of maintaining morale and arranging a rescue.  The future President will be up to the tasks.

                Kennedy supposedly enjoyed the movie, but later told Warren Beatty that he had been right about the inadequacies of the script.  Of course, what could he have expected?  A warts and all biopic like “Patton”?  The studio chose well when it tabbed Martinson to direct.  The movie has the vanilla flavor of a 1960’s TV movie.  It is a standard small unit movie with the requisite leadership arc for the main character.  Unfortunately, since JFK obviously had fond memories of his crew, none of the characters rock the boat.  There’s no tension.  There’s some minor grumbling when they are shipwrecked, but nowhere near a mutiny.  Normally, in a picture like this, the leader makes some mistakes to learn from.  But this is Kennedy.  He’s basically a saint in the movie.   And his crew is bland.  With that said, the movie does not lay his story on thick.  Nothing happens that is ridiculous.  Kennedy is no superhero.

                The cast is full of familiar faces.  Ty Hardin is the exec, Robert Culp plays a Ens. Barney Ross.  (The real Ross has a role as a CPO who chews Kennedy out.)  We also get Robert Blake and Norman Fell.  James Gregory plays Kennedy’s a-hole commanding officer because someone had to.  They are all competent and manage to take the dialogue seriously, no mean feat.  Luckily for their thespian efforts, the music was put in during the editing stage.  This movie has some of the most generic, lame war movie music you will ever hear.  It’s not often you can say that a score is the biggest flaw of a movie.  The action scenes are well done, especially the ramming.  That reenactment is fairly close to reality.  Overall, the movie is as accurate as you could expect.  Kennedy was a legit hero and his story was entertaining enough without enhancement.  Speaking of heroes, the movie gives some recognition to the coast watchers.

                I remembered “PT-109” fondly from my childhood.  It is the kind of movie that had an impact on teenage boys in the 1960’s.  It does not hold up well under scrutiny as a war movie, but it is not an embarrassment and I don’t question myself for having liked it.  The more war movies I have seen, the more the generic elements stand out.  Like the music and the dialogue.  Plus since the trend has been to deal with personality flaws in biopics, this movie has the feel of hagiography.  There is not even a hint that Lt. Kennedy screwed up that fateful night.  There’s no irony that a Presidency may have been launched from a mistake.   But then, we would not have had the movie if questions were raised or character was questioned.

GRADE  =  C+

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Kennedy’s father pulled strings to get him into the Navy.  His son suffered from a bad back, ulcers, and asthma.  And then he convinced Lt. Commander John Bulkeley (of “They Were Expendable” fame) to take him into PT boats.  He did well, in spite of his health problems.  Next, a senator used his influence to get JFK transferred to combat in the Solomons.  On the transport on the way over, an attack by a number of Japanese planes killed the captain.  Kennedy helped pass shells to an anti-aircraft gun.  When he arrived at Tulagi, he was given PT-109, but it was not a bad boat.  It had been in combat for several months and the crew was veteran.  Kennedy did help with routine repairs.  There was a big attack on the base.  The incident involving the rescue of the Marines actually happened a few months after the sinking of PT-109 when Kennedy was captain of the PT-59.  The boat did run out of gas and had to be towed, but the Japanese firing on it was probably Hollywood.  The mission when the ramming occurred involved more than a dozen boats attempting to intercept four Japanese destroyers.  Although numerous torpedoes were fired, none hit.  PT-109 did not fire any.  The ramming occurred as the Japanese were egressing.  The official version is Kennedy attempted to evade the warship, but the boat did not maneuver quickly enough.  This could have been slow response from Kennedy or possibly a mess-up by a crewman that Kennedy took responsibility for.  The Amagiri probably did not even know it had sliced through the little boat.  PT-109 was cut in two and two crewmen were killed instantly.  They swam four hours to a nearby island with Kennedy towing a badly wounded man.  Unfortunately, the island was devoid of food or water.  The next night, Kennedy swam into the passage to try to contact another PT boat.  Two nights later, the crew swam to another island where they found coconuts, but still no water.  Then JFK and George Ross swam to a third island where they encountered two natives.  Unlike in the movie, the natives were not typical.  They worked with a coast watcher who had been searching for Kennedy’s crew since he had seen the explosion of the boat.  Kennedy sent a note carved on a coconut shell by way of the natives and a PT was sent to pick them up.  

CONSENSUS #42. Battle of Britain (1969)

SUMMARY: This all-star epic is a dramatization of the Battle of Britain from WWII. It concentrates on the RAF pilots, but gives some coverage to the Luftwaffe. There are some soap operaish elements to it. The movie has excellent aerial combat.

BACK-STORY: “Battle of Britain” was released in 1969 and was specifically meant to be a tribute to “the few”. The movie fits into the sub-genre of old-school all-star epics with vignettes supporting the main story line. It’s sisters are “The Longest Day” (1962) and “The Battle of the Bulge” (1965). In some ways it can be viewed as England’s response to those earlier films. It was directed by Guy Hamilton of “Goldfinger” fame. The screenplay is based on the book The Narrow Margin by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster. The book gives a traditional retelling of the Battle of Britain and thus the movie stands as the definitive film treatment of the battle. It is not a revisionist film.  The film was big budget and it shows. Not only did the producers round up most of the great British actors of the time, but they went to a lot of trouble and expense to round up military hardware appropriate for a 1940 air battle. During the filming, more bullets (in the form of blanks) were fired than in the actual Battle of Britain.  The movie has a very impressive list of technical advisers which included famous aces Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford Tuck. Several airfields that were part of the battle were used in the film. The scenes at RAF Fighter Command were filmed at the headquarters of Fighter Command. Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding's original office was used.

TRIVIA:  wikipedia, imdb,TCM

1.  Technical advisers included three of the greatest aces of WWII:   Robert Stanford Tuck, Ginger Lacey, and Adolf Galland.  Lacey was the main adviser.  He shot down the second most German planes in the battle and finished with a total of 28 for the war.  Tuck shot down 29 and was captured and imprisoned for much of the war.  Galland became head of Luftwaffe fighters and was famous for speaking his mind to authority.  He is portrayed in the film as Major Falke who gets to say Galland’s famous line about Goring giving his squadron some Spitfires.  Galland wondered why they did not use his name for the character.  So do I?  Tuck and Galland became close friends because of the experience and Tuck became Galland’s son’s godfather.

2.  The movie had the use of over 100 aircraft including 12 flyable Spitfires and 3 Hurricanes.  The Germans were played by 32 Spanish versions of the He-111 and 27 versions of the Me-109.  This “air force” was the 35^th largest in the world at the time.  The Ju-87 Stukas were models.  Models that dropped their bombs AFTER they dropped their bombs.

3.  The main filming platform was a B-25 Mitchell.

4.  Queen Elizabeth II attended the premiere at Leicester Square in London.

5.  Two samples were used in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”.  The noise of the Stukas diving and the phrase “Where the hell are you, Simon?”

6.  The aerial footage was reused in “Midway”, “Dark Blue World”, “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, “Piece of Cake”, and in the video for “Skeet Surfing” in the movie “Top Secret!”.

Belle and Blade  =  2.5

Brassey’s              =  3.0

Video Hound       =  3.8

War Movies         =  3.1

Military History  =  #90

Channel 4             =  #29

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  yes

Rotten Tomatoes  =  no 

OPINION: “Battle of Britain” is a good movie, but probably does not deserve the fondness many war movie buffs have for it. As a tutorial, it does a fine job in informing about this important event in history. It is fair-minded and does not treat the Germans as evil and the British as saints. In fact, it is not even very patriotic, which is surprising considering it was made in England in the 30th anniversary of the beginning of WWII. It covers both strategy and tactics so you get the pilots perspective as well as what the commanders were thinking.  Unlike “Midway”, BOB makes better use of its cast. The heavy-weights (with the exception of Olivier) are put in officer rather than high command roles. This allows Shaw, Plummer, and Micheal Caine (Squadron Leader Canfield) to put their stamps on their roles. They are all effective.  The dogfights are spectacular, but tend to be repetitive as the movie goes along. The stand-out is the “silent” scene which is almost surreal. Interestingly, the score for this scene is from the original composer and differs from the more bombastic, patriotic music that backs the rest of the movie.
                In conclusion, “Battle of Britain” is the best movie on its subject. It could have been better, but it could also have been much worse. The producers tried hard and deserve to be credited with a game effort. You can learn a lot from this movie and if you hate to read it’s the best tutorial you will get.