I rarely talk about movies that I don't like, but I really hated The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas.
The movie is about Bruno, an 8 year-old boy whose father is a Nazi officer in charge of a concentration camp. One day, Bruno discovers the camp and becomes friends with Shmuel, a Jewish boy his age who is a prisoner at the camp.
Now, I know most movies that focus on a past age end up having some historical inaccuracies. They are, after all, fictionalized accounts and not documentaries.
But still, where do we draw the line between historical inaccuracies and blatant lies? Can a movie with several historical inaccuracies still be good? In the case of The boy in the stripped pajamas my answer is no.
Certain essential facts in the story are not
simply small, unimportant, historical mistakes. For example, children were not
taken to concentration camps to work alongside adults. Another movie that deals with the Holocaust, Life is beautiful, has a child in a camp, but he was hiding from the Nazis all the time and not working there.
It even crossed my mind that Shmuel might not be real, that he was Bruno’s imaginary friend. If this was the case, I think the story would have been much more interesting.
Here's something else that bothered me: Bruno was gone for hours every day and nobody noticed. There was an armed guard with a dog in the front entrance, but there wasn't so much as a lock in the back door that led to the camp. And the most appalling of all: if an 8 year-old managed to crawl under the fence in minutes, how come nobody else in the camp did it?
It even crossed my mind that Shmuel might not be real, that he was Bruno’s imaginary friend. If this was the case, I think the story would have been much more interesting.
Here's something else that bothered me: Bruno was gone for hours every day and nobody noticed. There was an armed guard with a dog in the front entrance, but there wasn't so much as a lock in the back door that led to the camp. And the most appalling of all: if an 8 year-old managed to crawl under the fence in minutes, how come nobody else in the camp did it?
All this may seem irrelevant and maybe I’m being picky. But some of these mistakes, like saying even children could escape the camp, are actually insulting. These mistakes also create two problems.
For one, they make the story seem too implausible in itself. The way the movie portrays the camps makes it difficult to believe that a prisoner would manage to talk to an outsider for several days or that a child would manage to enter the camp at will.
Secondly, the movie is about WWII. All these details create confusion about the real events that occurred. The prisoners didn't escape because the fences were electrified in real camps, which isn't shown in the movie.
To make matters worse, the movie and the book in which it was based are aimed at teenagers. Young readers don't have enough historical background to spot these inconsistencies and might take everything in the movie as real.
For one, they make the story seem too implausible in itself. The way the movie portrays the camps makes it difficult to believe that a prisoner would manage to talk to an outsider for several days or that a child would manage to enter the camp at will.
Secondly, the movie is about WWII. All these details create confusion about the real events that occurred. The prisoners didn't escape because the fences were electrified in real camps, which isn't shown in the movie.
To make matters worse, the movie and the book in which it was based are aimed at teenagers. Young readers don't have enough historical background to spot these inconsistencies and might take everything in the movie as real.
But don't take it from me, because I'm no expert in WWII. A Rabbi wrote a review of this movie and he says he lent the book to one of his friends who is an Auschwitz survivor. According to the Rabbi, his friend "wept, and begged me tell everyone that this book is not just a lie and not just a fairytale, but a profanation."
Remember the other day we were talking about The Producers? Many people consider this comedy to be insulting, because the Holocaust is not a subject that should be dealt lightly. I understand this but I believe movies like The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas are the ones that deal with the Holocaust lightly.
Remember the other day we were talking about The Producers? Many people consider this comedy to be insulting, because the Holocaust is not a subject that should be dealt lightly. I understand this but I believe movies like The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas are the ones that deal with the Holocaust lightly.
The initial concept of the movie is indeed very original and promising: to tell the story of the Holocaust as seen through the naive eyes of an 8 year-old boy. But the movie's merits stop there.
Is "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas" still good, despite its inconsistencies?
UPDATE: While I was checking some college information for my sister, I found an article in an educational website talking about movies that can help students learn. One of the movies was The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas and the article says that this movie "helps discuss the concept of eugenics and exemplifies Nazi concentration camps." (Source in Portuguese)
UPDATE: While I was checking some college information for my sister, I found an article in an educational website talking about movies that can help students learn. One of the movies was The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas and the article says that this movie "helps discuss the concept of eugenics and exemplifies Nazi concentration camps." (Source in Portuguese)