The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

[RDMorrell]

I've read the book, and also watched the movie on DVD. Enjoyed both, but the movie has a lot less word play than the book (and the word play is one of the most enjoyable and clever aspects of the novel). It's a few months now since I did this, so my memories are not crystal clear, but I remember being a little disappointed that the verbal humour of the book wasn't brought out in the film more. One memory that chilled me in the movie (and this was mentioned in the audio commentary too) was the way the soldier who had distributed the poison gas then tidied up his gear in a very matter-of-fact way, like it was "just another job". That was really creepy.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I read The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas some months ago and saw the film shortly afterwards.

The film crawls along at too slow a pace for the first 80 minutes, then springs to hectic parallel action for the last 10 minutes or so. In it, we see a young boy begin to discover what's going on around him in Nazi Germany, but he never really makes sense of it.

The book too is slow-paced, which is essential as the story shows Bruno gradually experiencing a number of things that puzzle him and putting them together bit by bit (and, as you say RainbowJude, never really seeing the whole picture). I felt that the film captured that slow revelation and realisation as well as it could, but a film is of course a visual experience, making it almost impossible to effectively retain all the incidences of word-play and surprise elements of the book.

All of this leads to what is meant to be and what is so obviously signaled as a Very Moving and Disturbing Climax. This is my main problem with the film: how incredibly manipulative it is, something I mentioned in my original post above. It sets out to make the ending very sad and very distressing and seems to have little point beyond that, other than to set up situations where the audience can be affirmed in in traditional attitudes towards the Holocaust...The only major difference between this and watching, say, a film about Anne Frank's experience in the camps is in what this film does next - it asks the audience to have sympathy for a Nazi soldier who though his own actions causes the tragic events at the end of the film. Having set up what our attitude to the Nazis is supposed to be so thoroughly in the 90 minutes that precede that moment, I don't know how the film expects its audiences to make that jump.

I suppose most authors set out to make a point of some kind or at least to explore issues and, in doing so, endeavour to involve our emotions. Perhaps it would have helped if we had seen a little more of what was going through the minds of Bruno's parents, especially his father. That would have been easier to do in the film than in the book (because in the book things are presented from Bruno's point of view). Once Bruno's mother realises exactly what is going on she does feel shocked and disturbed by it but chooses to keep silent and run away rather than take action. If she had spoken out, I assume the consequences for her family would have been grave? What would most wives/mothers do under those circumstances, I wonder? In reality, vast numbers of people did go along with the Nazi regime. How many of them truly embraced the Nazi philosophy, how many were fully aware of all the horrors taking place, and how many agreed to do terrible things through fear, ignorance, a misplaced sense of duty, self-preservation or a desire to protect their families? Probably we'll never know, but other films like The Reader (an adult film, again based on a book though I haven't read it) explore how feelings of guilt and blame permeate a society as it faces up to atrocities committed.

I was left with the feeling that what happened was possibly the only thing that could ever bring Bruno's father to reflect deeply on the consequences of his actions. What I felt for him wasn't sympathy, but regret that only something as shocking as that might have the power to shake him and his family out of themselves and make them realise that they were destroying the lives of fellow human beings - individuals, families and communities.

For me, reading The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas had more impact than viewing it. After finishing the novel, I couldn't start another book for a couple of days. But then, like Tony, I read the book before watching the film. Both experiences were moving, but while reading the story I was swept along by the deliberately simple, naive prose and liked the way we saw things through Bruno's innocent eyes while being all too aware of the chilling implications of many of the boy's observations.

A few things struck me as hard to swallow, such as the apparently completely unguarded stretch of fence and the fact that what happened at the end did so on that particular day. Had it happened even just a day earlier or a day later, things would never have turned out the way they did. It also struck me that, while the "Fury" and "Out-With" puns might work in English, they probably wouldn't in German. Various other odd details, such as Bruno supposedly being capable of forgetting the names of his three best friends in a matter of months, made me think that the narrative needed to be read as a sort of fable, with story elements deliberately being pared down to the essentials and coincidences being brought into play in order to point up the contrasts and similarities which are so important to the story.

One detail made me think of an Enid Blyton book - Gretel getting rid of her dolls, which reminded me of Shirley putting away her dolls in The Family at Red-Roofs . Though of course, in Gretel's case the whole thing was deeply disturbing.

Despite the simple narrative style, this is definitely a book for older children/young adults. My daughter saw the film aged fourteen and I'd be happy for her to read the book, but I'd prefer my ten-year-old son to be older before reading or watching The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.

[dolly]

Well, I have to admit I was a little bit disappointed when I read this book ...

Bruno was described as a spoilt and pampered naive boy - but seemed to me as a selfish and stupid rat! He smelled the smoke of the burned corpses, he met a boy prisoner behind the fence - this friendship took one year or longer - and during this time they did not talk about the things which happened in this camp? Maybe Bruno was frightened to hear the truth?

I have not seen the movie yet, but I read in the last chapter that Bruno had actually NO problem to get beyond the fence - he got a shovel or something like this - I am really sorry to say that this "author´s solution" is an insult for all concentration camp prisoners - a nine-year-old boy longed to see the "strange farm" and could easily overcome the barb wire, but the prisoners made no effort to overcome the fence to save their life although it seemed so easy?! There was no opportunity to escape - and it was not the reason that the prisoners were less brave or stupid!

I was born in 1968, I was not grown up during this horrible time but I learned (by books, movies or at school) that EACH kid knew who "the Führer" was - especially kids from fathers being members of SS-community!

It is true that SS-families lived near Auschwitz and their kids were brought up there. This part of the story could be true. This story is an allegory. I don´t deny that the author´s idea is excellent and his writing style is exciting and thrilling, but ...

[Anita Bensoussane]

This story is an allegory.

Yes, I think it has to be viewed in that way - otherwise certain aspects of the story are unconvincing. What we have is a meeting of two children about the same age who happen to have been born into very different circumstances which, if they understood the situation, would make them enemies. Bruno has led an extremely sheltered life with material comforts whereas Shmuel has experienced horrors and has nothing to call his own, yet they meet as young boys who feel a bond of friendship and come to consider themselves alike. Such irony, and yet they are responding to one another on the most fundamental level - as human beings who accept one another and share things against all odds. And of course that's hugely significant. Some of the details that seem improbable serve to sharpen the notion of contrast yet similarity (e.g. Bruno's almost unbelievable lack of experience/knowledge contrasts with the hardships Shmuel has to endure - yet the boys somehow find common ground in spite of their differences). Even the fence is ultimately more important as a symbol than as a physical entity - a separation between people that the two boys in their innocence manage to transcend.

[dolly]

Even the fence is ultimately more important as a symbol than as a physical entity - a separation between people that the two boys in their innocence manage to transcend.

Well-said, Anita, you are totally right.

My judgement was a little bit too hard, I have been reading several books about the holocaust-theme, my most favourite books were "A square of sky" and "A touch of earth" by Janina David, but these books were real autobiografies which has nothing in common with such a fictional story.

I want to tell you a "real story" about this horrible time: A former colleague of mine spent a part of his childhood in Lodz (Poland) during the war, his stepfather was a so-called "property administrator" in Poland - you know what that means - and he told me that he was faced every day with "the truth" - they used to take the tram passing the Jewish Ghetto of Lodz without stopping, so he saw the unbearable and horrible circumstances there - and his mother told him: "These are very bad people, therefore they are kept in prison there". At this time he was nine years old, like Bruno.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I want to tell you a "real story" about this horrible time: A former colleague of mine spent a part of his childhood in Lodz (Poland) during the war, his stepfather was a so-called "property administrator" in Poland - you know what that means - and he told me that he was faced every day with "the truth" - they used to take the tram passing the Jewish Ghetto of Lodz without stopping, so he saw the unbearable and horrible circumstances there - and his mother told him: "These are very bad people, therefore they are kept in prison there". At this time he was nine years old, like Bruno.

The real-life testimonies are important, and people's stories must be told and not forgotten. I think what John Boyne wanted to do was explore a hypothetical situation (a deliberately extreme one) in order to highlight certain issues, bring out contrasts and similarities between the two boys and cause readers to reflect. Personally I feel he has succeeded in creating a story which, however unlikely in some respects, nevertheless seems curiously apt, resonating with readers and bringing into sharp focus the poignancy, horror and irony.

[dolly]

but seemed to me as a selfish and stupid rat ..

I just want to write "selfish and stupid BRAT" as Gwendolyn has been described (Malory Towers) in this forum.

I did not want to refer him as a kind of vermin, I am sorry!