PopSyndicate.com

On October 23rd, 3 Stars Cinema was treated to a sneak peak of the new Miramax film, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas at the Angelika Film Center in Dallas,TX with special guests John Boyne and Mark Herman in attendance. Irish novelist John Boyne is the author of six novels, one novella and over seventy short stories.  The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was his first work to be adapted to the screen. It was published in 2006 has sold more than 3 million copies worldwide and is a New York Times bestseller. The novel has won several literary awards and has been translated into 35 languages. Below is a transcript of our discussion with the audience.

Susan Kandell:     Welcome! I read somewhere that you wrote this book in a very short period of time.  Tell us how you came to this story.

John Boyne:    The book came together in quite a strange way. I published a number of novels before and in 2004, I was just finishing a first draft of another novel and taking a little break before going back to it. During that break I had an idea for this novel. I had an idea of the two boys sitting at the fence. I knew where the fence was. I knew it was a place where nobody should be, let alone two little boys and I was interested in writing a story that would bring them there. I had been a student of Holocaust related literature since I was about fifteen when I read The Periodic Table by Primo Levi and that book lead me to dozens and dozens of books over the years. I read all those books, not with the intention of writing a story myself. Just really because I was interested. I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to know more about the Holocaust. I suppose all that reading fed into the writing of the story. But when I had the idea on a Tuesday night, I just started writing until Wednesday morning to see where it was going to take me. I didn’t sleep on Wednesday, I didn’t sleep on Thursday and I finished it on Friday, which was my birthday. But that was just the first draft. I had to do more work and I was pretty tired as you can imagine. And I had a full head of hair before I started. It took about eight months to get it right.

SK: It’s not really a children’s book, but you initially wrote it as a children’s book.

JB: I wrote it and presented it to my agent as a children’s book. I had never written for children or younger readers before, but I thought that this book would be read by children, although I didn’t see any reason why adults wouldn’t come to it as well.  But I thought if it was going to reach both audiences, it needed to start with children. It’s got a character who sees everything and he is only eight (years old).

SK: The book has been criticized by some Holocaust scholars. Let’s talk about Bruno’s innocence. You really wondered how innocent he was, how much was he shielded by his parents. Was Bruno a metaphor for adult Germans of the day who refused to acknowledge what was going on?

JB: The criticism that is usually aimed at the book is the question about how could he (Bruno) not know what was going on. My response to that is always this; this is a kid who has grown up in a house where his father has always worn a uniform, where soldiers have always gone to and fro, and he doesn’t really know much about what’s going on inside. When he does go to the camp, I think people say that he should understand what’s happening there. I can’t imagine a nine year-old child would walk to a fence and look across and come up with the idea and actually understand what was taking place on the other side. When the camps were liberated, the Holocaust had been going on for a number of years, in front of the whole world and no one had seen it or noticed it happening. Yet it was happening.  So I don’t think Bruno would have known. He doesn’t really stand as a metaphor to be honest, I can see how he might.  But I think it would be sort of forcing a meaning onto him. He’s just a really an innocent little kid.

SK: Did you ever think of making Bruno more Aryan looking? When I read the book, I pictured him that way - blonder.

MH: I wanted to steer away from cliché. And I suppose the casting of Asa was one way to do that. In casting I’m always looking for the best actor, as opposed to what they look like.

SK: How about their parents, what were the children told prior to filming?

MH: Very little. It’s not my job as a film director to explain the Holocaust to these kids and all these kids were between the ages of eight and twelve. Obviously at that age it was quite sketchy. That was very useful to the film, their innocence was very valuable.  We didn’t teach them anything more than their parents wanted to tell them

At this point, they entertained questions from the audience.

One audience member commented that he liked the film very much, but that it was interesting that many Holocaust films spark empathy and sympathy by showing someone who is not Jewish.

John Boyne: When I wrote the book I decided that Bruno would be the central character instead of Shmuel.  I had a very simple reason for doing that.  You could probably tell from my accent that I’m Irish, and I’m not Jewish.  I didn’t have any family member thankfully who suffered during those times.  I didn’t have a personal story to tell, but I didn’t think I could put myself as the narrator inside the camp. Most Holocaust novels are set from that perspective and I didn’t think I could do that.  And I didn’t think I should do it.  I thought it would be inappropriate. What I did think I could do was create a character that happens to be German, who walks to a fence every day looks across and asks questions about what’s happening there.  I think I mentioned earlier all the reading that I’ve done over the years to understand the subject.  And that’s kind of where I was coming from - walking to a metaphorical fence and looking across and asking questions that might make me understand the subject more. I do understand, of course, that people come to the end of the book and feeling this great sympathy towards both Bruno and Shmuel. But, but I can’t direct peoples responses.  I do want you to feel sympathy towards Bruno, certainly because he’s done nothing wrong.  He’s entirely innocent, but I want you to feel it for Shmuel. And I think one thing that Mark did in the film, which perhaps I overlooked a bit in the book was the closing shot. When the camera pulls out and you see all the striped pajamas there, it’s telling you - it’s not just about Bruno and Shmuel, it’s about everybody and everyone in those uniforms.

Audience member: I was really struck by the way you layered the indoctrination and mind control to reinforce what was a very unreal situation. How conscious a process was that in the novel?

JB: It was very conscious, particularly with Gretel, I think that her character was very important. There’s a very good book some of you may have read called Hitler’s Willing Executioners about the way that otherwise normal, decent people can be sucked into something like this and be indoctrinated. I wanted Gretel to be that person who starts off playing with dolls – very girly and being a nice decent kid and then the simplest things – a crush on a young lieutenant, books, a teacher she respects and admires, and then we see her sitting down on the floor with Bruno and saying all those terrible things she says and you think that this is not what a little girl should be saying. And she believes it. She absolutely believes it 100%. Same as Bruno’s mother. She starts off every bit as racist as everybody else, every bit as anti-Semitic and she’s not a good character.  Sometimes people think that she seems quite good – but she’s awful – she’s terrible. She stands up to nobody. The only decent adult person in the film is Grandmother. She’s the only one who can stand up and isn’t afraid to say what might happen. But her personal voice is silenced quite early on.

MH: It was very important for the film to show just what people were being fed. The youngsters in the form of the teacher, but also the adults in the form of the propaganda which was something I did in the screenplay, which is based on a real piece of footage.

Audience member: Was the rain planned?

JB: In the book, because Bruno knows the day before that he’s going to go on this last adventure, he’s really excited about what’s going to happen later and looks out the window and that’s when the rain starts. That’s a novelists ploy. You see the heavens open and it starts to get dark and the rain comes and then off the story goes on its final journey.

MH: I tell you that my agent has visited every set of every film I’ve made and every time it’s rained (laughter). But when he turned up in Hungary, it was beautiful sunshine, so we had to get the machines going.

Audience member: How did the children feel after the film? What was their reaction towards the Holocaust? 

MH: They had a very emotional ride. The shoot was very difficult for them, just in pure filmmaking terms. We kept the final scene of the film until the final day of the shoot. The final day of any shoot is emotional anyway, since you form so many relationships. But for them, that day was a simply hard. But there was no acting required there, you were pushing these two in a room full of naked Hungarian actors – it’s scary enough. (laughter). It was scary for me! I was scared! In regards to their reaction to the film, obviously the first time an actor sees a film, the only thing they look at is themselves on the first screening. They’ve seen it four or five times now and only now are they seeing it as a movie instead of looking at their own faces. And like I said, the movie has made them want to learn more about the subject matter.

The day after the screening, I had the opportunity again to sit down with John Boyne, the writer of the novel upon which the movie is based and Mark Herman, who directed and wrote the screenplay. Below is a transcript of our talk.

Susan Kandell:    What lessons are to be learned from Bruno’s story?

John Boyne: I’m always a little leery about forcing lessons, by telling people what they should learn. Rather than telling people what the lesson is, I’m more interested in, particularly younger readers, finding their own lessons, educate themselves on the subject and learn about it.  And I think in a novel, it shouldn’t be didactic in that sense. The power of the story and the emotion of the story, which would lead you to understand and to question and to want to learn about it.  Otherwise, it could be quite dull, couldn’t it?

SK: As far as the story is concerned, you have to suspend belief a little bit - otherwise there are movies that would never been made and books that would never be written - if you didn’t.

JB:  That’s true, you do (need to suspend belief) There was a phrase someone used in another one of the cities (where the film was screened), who said, “Improbable, but plausible.” That’s a good way of phrasing it.  There are some instances of children being at the camps, being left alive, and there are instances of the children with the commandants being there. It’s not very likely, but I always feel like so what?

Mark Herman: If you really analyze it, you’re going to find holes.  Like John said, it’s all highly unlikely, but it is possible.

JB:  It’s kind of a mistake to intellectualize it.  It’s not copout; it’s not away making up for any flaws that are in the novel. 

It may be noted here, that the book is quite different from the film, and that the location is never mentioned in the film, unlike the novel where it is alluded to.

MH: I took out every reference to Auschwitz, this isn’t Auschwitz, it’s never mentioned (in the film). This is any camp - a generic version that we created. It’s a fictional story. So we took real references out.

SK: The scene where Bruno watches the propaganda film is not in the book, is that right?

MH: That’s right. I wanted to have an instance in the film where Bruno’s journey regarding his father; losing faith in his father, and having a moment where that faith is restored. The propaganda film did that.  Then the secondary thing comes in, where you think that you have an opportunity to do something very visual - the stepping stones.

SK: People are going ask, should I bring my child to see this? What age are you recommending?  For some, I would imagine it’s too intense. It’s rated PG-13, but there may be some younger children who may be ready to see this. Especially those who have studied the Holocaust in school or read Anne Frank’s diary who can watch this film without being traumatized. Any recommendations?

MH: There is no age that shouldn’t see it, really.  There’s no violence on the screen.  There is no bloodshed on the screen. The worst thing on screen is shocking.  But I don’t think being shocked is too bad a thing. Certainly in Europe, I’ve been to schools screenings where the effect of the movie has been very powerful and it sparks discussion. Traumatized is too strong a word.  They’re shocked.  They are surprised.  They’re shocked enough to want to learn more.

SK: Which is the point, really. Discussion and education.

JB: What part of this film would you not want your child to know about? Or to identify with? Or to think about? They’re going to learn about the Holocaust at some point in their life.  Which way do you want them to learn about it?  Would you rather start with something like this?  I think it should get a universal rating, I think everyone should see it.

MH: You’re never too young to learn about racism and prejudice.

SK: I did inform one woman in line, who had a young child in tow who was about six or seven years old, that the film was intense.  She decided to bring her in and I left the decision up to her.

MH: You can always see worse on television every day.

SK: I did have one adult inquire about violence on the screen. I informed him that only your imagination will harm you.

JB: Which is so much scarier!

SK: Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Have a safe journey. And good luck with the film.

0