The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

 

           When I arrived at the AVR-B during the day we watched it for our ethics class, I immediately recognized the film. Of course Remus Lupin is very easily distinguished for the big role he played in the production, especially baby Asa Butterfield who was the reason I watched that movie in the first place four years ago, while in MAPEH class, at the back of the classroom. I was in 9^th grade, then, and it was the era of another book adaptation entitled Ender’s Game. From that film, one cannot help but hype over Asa Butterfield so, naturally, a young girl like me would be very interested in watching other films of his. I enjoyed Hugo and Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang but after watching The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, I totally forgot about Asa Butterfield.

            It was very easy to be caught by the film since the events focused on the period of Nazi Germany where it’s easy to choose a side to put your heart at—at the side of the innocent people. I realized that what was really powerful in the film is how the Nazis are perceived through the lens of innocence. That’s what movie producers also did in The Book Thief and that innocent kid wearing a red scarf in Schindler’s List. From the eyes of an unbiased kid, everything seems to be simple and not as much as complicated as adults would think situations to be. The simple rule is this: Don’t do bad things. It’s that simple, really. And what seems to be more bizarre about it all is that the kids understand. Although adults do, they just have reasons to stray away from it. Don’t do bad things. We have reasons. Don’t kill innocent men. They are Jews. Don’t. The government rules.

            Really, what is it about the government that exempts it from the laws of human life? They hold power and authority but the lives of men must be set apart from it. The Nazis, for instance, had a vision which is very much prolific for them. They ended the lives of innocent Jews because according to the Nazis, the Jews killed their culture. Not really an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is it? More like an eye for nothing. An innocent life for a wrongly perceived culture-killing.

            Now before I talk about Bruno and Shmuel, I first want to talk about Pavel. Sweet, old man. I cried just writing about him. Personally, I always have a soft heart for old people. They are heads full of wisdom and hearts full of compassion. But like over anything else, the Nazis fail to see that. They only see the filth of the Jews. Pavel was kind, educated, and industrious. But most importantly, he did nothing wrong. He was a doctor in his homeland, a slave in Nazi Germany, and human ash later on—the last two he never decided for himself.

            Bruno and Shmuel are star-crossed friends. The main character of the movie, who I decided to be innocence, was portrayed by those two kids. Like what I previously stated, in their eyes, the world is simple. But unbeknown to them, some people made it complicated. Those two kids are set apart not by their religion, not by their social status, and not by their ethnicity, but by the electric fence the Nazis put up. Nonetheless, friendships can cross boundaries and it can be simply done by digging a hole below the fence. That’s how easily they crossed the distance between them, because there was practically nothing. There is nothing that made them different from each other. They’re both people. They even died the same way. The Nazis just enjoy building fences.

            Lastly, I want to talk about the dad—the commandant. He is a mystery to me. He was good father and a husband who did his best to make his wife happy, however he was a Nazi soldier very much under the influence of the Fuhrer. On the first layer of understanding, truly, he was a man that failed to let social justice prevail because of the wrong scheme that he was voluntarily a part of. But if we look for the main character (which I decided for myself)—innocence—I think it would be safe to say that he is equally as innocent as Bruno and Shmuel, with the tiny difference of him being an adult. Of course, I am not saying that the things he committed against human lives are exempted from criticism. What I am trying to say is that, when I looked closely at his character, I saw a Hitler puppet whose heinous hard work was aimed towards pride and admiration from their supreme leader. He was there probably not by the choice of his heart, but by the choice of his pride to achieve really big things in his career. I could be wrong, but that’s how I saw it. Throughout the duration of the movie, he was a despicable Nazi soldier who lost his compassion as a human being because he was hypnotized by his professional greed. But during the finale, when the camera focused on him for a very long time just staring at the gas chamber where he knew his son died, it made me think that beyond his being a soldier, he was a father too. He was a man with a heart, naturally born with the goodness of a human. He strayed towards the wrong way when he chose to see evil as part of a job rather as a sin against his fellow human beings.

The Adventures of Bruno and Shmuel led them to a mysterious chamber with walls high up that completely secluded them from the world. That place is where Shmuel’s dad was, for sure. Was. Their exploring and adventure was successful after all. They completed their journey, they found him, and they joined him. They did a good job exploring. The Nazis just made a big part of the world unpleasant. Never stop exploring, Bruno and Shmuel.