My outline:

Topic: Cultural Perspectives on War

Select one non-American war film from the film list and one American war film that depict the same historical conflict or theme.

Compare and contrast the representation of war, soldiers, civilians, and the broader socio-political context in each film. Analyze how cultural, historical, and ideological factors influence the portrayal of war in non-American and American cinema. Discuss common themes, perspectives, and the impact of national identity on cinematic narratives. Speak on the reception of these films within their own cultural contexts and their contribution to public discourse on war and nationalism.

Technicalities – MLA guidelines, 12 point font, double spaced, 5-8 pages

Two Framings of the Holocaust: Schindler’s List (Speilberg, 1993) and Son of Saul László Nemes (2015)

Main Characters & A bit of background:

Schindler’s List – Oskar Schindler (Protagonist (good guy)) – Amon Goeth (Antagonist(bad guy))

Son of Sal – Protagonist- Saul Ausländer – note: protagonist is not the “good guy” in the stereotypical portrayal (Hollywood style) while the Antagonist is the entire system (aka the mechanisms of Genocide)

• “In this sense, Saul’s “I will,” is merely the acquiescence of the enslaved, the acceptance of yet another in an endless series of grotesque duties. Yet given their context, the words are also a gesture of quiet defiance. Saul has seen the dead body of a boy he believes to have been his son: In volunteering to take responsibility for the corpse, he is setting in motion a plan—one which will serve as the central thread of the film—to spare the boy from the ovens and give him a proper Jewish burial.”
• https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/son-of-saul-review/424503

1. Intro

*Introduce the main event (The Holocaust) and the different approaches both directors took on the event*

*Emphasize the difference between American approach vs/ Hungarian Approach

A. Schindler’s List (1993) and Son of Saul (2015) both depict the horrors of the Holocaust, yet they do so in very different ways. While Spielberg’s film follows a more traditional, structured narrative, Nemes’ approach is raw, immersive, and intentionally disorienting.

B. The way each film represents war, soldiers, and civilians is shaped by cultural and ideological factors—especially the difference between an American and a European perspective on history.

C. Thesis: Schindler’s List and Son of Saul both aim to capture the atrocities of the Holocaust, but their polarities in storytelling, cinematography, and character focus reflect the larger disparities between American and European approaches to war films.

** make sure to go through the prompt and focus on specifically portrayal of the conflict

**add reception and how the film was received

**compare how the soldiers/civilians were represented

**compare and contrast filmmakers

1. Cultural & Historical factors

A. Why the Holocaust Continues to Be a Major Cinematic Subject

• Films about the Holocaust are not just about history; they shape how people remember and understand these events – especially those who were affected whether that be through ancestral connections for the Holocaust or first accounts such as the Vietnam War
• The challenge of portraying real suffering without exploiting or simplifying it through the lens of filmmakers – continuous decision making (strategic and emotional basis that can be tricky to navigate) ** to counter back to our first day of class on what classified as a “Masterpiece” I did not have the tools to classify which films were masterpieces yet until further research for this paper I understood what the content of a “Masterpiece” consisted of

B. How Schindler’s List has an American perspective

• Directed by an American-Jewish filmmaker, Spielberg, the film fits into Hollywood’s tradition of focusing on heroism and moral lessons through the acts of one individual
• Schindler, a flawed but ultimately redemptive protagonist, embodies the idea that individual actions can make a difference – the main shift and only color embodiment in the black and white film portraying “the girl in the red coat” later found dead was the main shift for Schindler in the role he played as a Nazi party member and German industrialist
• Traditional Hollywood cinematic techniques like black-and-white cinematography with selective color—help create a balance between realism and storytelling– capture intensity of Holocaust

C. How Son of Saul Reflects a European Perspective

• László Nemes takes a more stripped-down, ambiguous, personal approach, rejecting typical narrative structures (such as that of American films).
• Up close filming technique used
• The film avoids sentimentality such as an unfiltered, claustrophobic look at life inside Auschwitz.
• Instead of a hero’s journey, Son of Saul presents a world where survival is random and resistance is often futile – which is displayed in the protagonist Saul Ausländer, whose efforts displayed the atrocities of war through the efforts of burying his son properly (already dead)

III. Comparing the Films’ Portrayals of War and the Holocaust

A. How Soldiers and the Nazi Regime Are Depicted

• Schindler’s List paints a clear picture of Nazi evil, especially through Amon Goeth, a brutal and sadistic antagonist.
• Son of Saul avoids focusing on any one villain, instead depicting the system as a cold, faceless machine of destruction.

B. How Civilians and Victims Are Represented

• In Schindler’s List, the audience gets to know individual victims, like the famous girl in the red coat, making their suffering deeply personal.
• Son of Saul keeps the victims almost anonymous, mimicking the way the Nazis dehumanized them. The focus is on Saul’s limited perspective, not on individual backstories.

C. Resistance and Survival in Each Film

• Schindler’s List focuses on active resistance—Schindler’s work to save Jews, acts of defiance, and survival through human connections.
• Son of Saul takes a different approach: Saul’s personal mission (to give a child a proper burial) is more about personal meaning than fighting back against the Nazis

IV. Filmmaking Styles and Their Emotional Impact

A. Cinematic Techniques: Hollywood vs. Art House

• Schindler’s List follows a more traditional visual style—black and white with some artistic flourishes (like the girl in the red coat).
• Son of Saul uses a handheld camera, shallow focus, and long takes to create an immersive, first-person experience – immerses the watcher in the visual sensation of what it would be like to be in the position of one in the Holocaust

B. How These Styles Shape the Audience’s Experience

• Schindler’s List allows the audience to process the events from a safe distance, building toward an emotional catharsis.
• Son of Saul offers no such relief—it keeps the viewer trapped in Saul’s immediate reality, mirroring the chaos and horror of Auschwitz.

V. The Influence of National Identity on These Films

A. What Schindler’s List Says About American Storytelling

• The film aligns with classic Hollywood themes: individual heroism, moral clarity, and a structured narrative.
• The focus on Schindler suggests that even in the darkest times, one person can make a difference—a hopeful, American-style message.

B. What Son of Saul Says About European Storytelling

• The film is more existential, portraying the Holocaust not as a story of good vs. evil but as an inescapable, dehumanizing event.
• Instead of offering closure, it leaves viewers unsettled, a common trait in European art films.

C. How These Films Were Received in Their Respective Cultures

• Schindler’s List was widely praised in the U.S. and used as an educational tool in schools.
• **How opposing countries saw the films as well
• Son of Saul was critically acclaimed in Europe, especially for its refusal to sentimentalize the Holocaust.
• **How did it age?*

VI. Conclusion

• Schindler’s List and Son of Saul both depict the Holocaust, but their different approaches reveal much about the ways American and European filmmakers tell stories about war and history.

• One film offers a structured, redemptive narrative, while the other embraces ambiguity and chaos

• Ultimately, both films contribute to the public understanding of the Holocaust, showing how cinema shapes historical memory in different ways.

**Analysis of the Films in the Order of covering all the prompts