The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas
A comparative essay focusing on the similarities and differences between the film adaptation and original novel of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
Introduction:
Repeatedly, ambitious directors and filmmakers have taken on the vast challenge of adapting previously created works to film, choosing to add, omit, retain, and alter a number of key sections to better appeal to a viewing audience, and to truly immerse viewers in the story of the characters’ portrayed. One such example of this is The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas, a novel written and published by author John Boyne in 2006, adapted to film two years later in 2008 by director Mark Herman. It follows the story of a young German boy and his family being relocated to Auschwitz under orders from the Fuhrer to his father. There, he secretly befriends a Jewish boy his own age, and over time learns more of what happens on the other side of the fence. This intense, heart wrenching, and incredibly powerful story underwent numerous changes whilst being adapted to film, many scenes being added, omitted, retained, and altered. This was done to better engage the audience in the story, grasping their emotions and immersing them in the emotionally articulate story of these characters.
Added:
Throughout the production of the film adaptation of the novel by John Boyne, directed by Mark Herman, several scenes were added to the script in order to make the story appealing for a motion-picture audience. The use of numerous different perspectives in the film illustrates this perfectly. From the beginning of the movie, we are fed the gradual deterioration of Mother’s mental stability and relationship with father firsthand. Multiple scenes depict her unrest at Auschwitz and detail her arguments with father not only from one character’s view, but instead that of the entire family. (Herman, 2008). In contrast of this, the novel only allows us to view these events through the eyes of Bruno; forcing us to interpret a world so adult and mature in its calamity, with nothing but the external stimuli received by a sheltered, and somewhat oblivious 9-year-old boy. This can be seen shortly after Mother tells Bruno that they must move away,
“’oh my,’ said Mother with a laugh, although it was a strange kind of laugh because she didn’t look happy and turned away from Bruno as if she didn’t want him to see her face.” (Boyne, 2006, Pg-6)
Mother’s discomfort regarding moving away is still present here, but is not spoken of openly, but is instead told through small bouts of emotion that are systematically let through to toward Bruno, and by proxy, the audience, despite the fact that he didn’t know what it meant. This paired with her/ perceived closeness to Kotler, especially when father is away implies that the same distain is present between these two both in the book and in the film. This leads to a highly diversified experience for the audience between both formats. As the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of characters other than Bruno are made far clearer and are moreover forced upon the viewer in the film, whilst they are only hinted toward the reader in the novel. The ability to understand the events of the story from multiple perspectives shifts the viewing dynamic in a manner such that the audience is made to sympathise with those placed in a difficult position other than Bruno’s. For instance, in the novel, Mother is relatively closed off to father, whereas in the film she is very blatant regarding her discontentedness in light of herself and the children being at Auschwitz.
Omitted:
During creation of the film adaptation of the boy in the striped pyjamas, Herman omitted a selection of story themes that were present in the novel. Namely, references toward any sort of, “Connection” between Mother and Kotler were entirely removed from the film, leaving very few clues toward their existence. In the novel, Boyne created strong references to there being a “Friendship” between Mother and Kotler, with a specific emphasis on one strongest when father was absent.
“’Oh, Kurt, precious, you’re still here,’ said Mother, stepping out of the kitchen and coming towards them. ‘I have a little free time not if — Oh!’ She said, noticing Bruno standing there. ‘Bruno! What are you doing here?’ ‘I was going into the living room to read my book,’ said Bruno. ‘Or I was trying to at least’ ‘well, run along into the kitchen for a moment,’ she said. ‘I need a private word with lieutenant Kotler.’ And they stepped into the living room together as lieutenant Kotler closed the doors in Bruno’s face. “(Boyne, 2006, Pg-165–167)
This quaint and rather tame interaction tells multitudes of what had been unfolding between Mother and Kotler, both figuratively and literally. It is strongly implied that behind closed doors, Mother, and Kotler had engaged in somewhat frequent, private meetings, in which anything could have happened. This likely refers to Mother’s metal wellbeing progressing downward significantly after her arrival at Auschwitz, due to her seeming powerlessness to father, being forced to support him in decisions she didn’t necessarily agree with. Here this seems to be shown through her subtextual relationship with Kotler, which given the nature of the language and circumstances it takes place under is likely an affair, in which Mother is seeking love with someone who is present in her life more often. In order to simplify the viewing experience, Herman omitted the entirety of Mother and Kotler’s “Friendship” To decomplexify the story and appeal to a viewing audience. Instead of featuring lengthy sub-plots that would have distracted from the story, the film dulls down the implied parts of the text and attempts to add dimension to the characters without over complicating them. That is, in the film whilst Mother and Kotler exchange friendly glances and pleasantries on occasion, they do not leave hints toward a relationship blossoming between them. (Herman, 2008). This helps to focus the viewer on the main plot; Bruno’s quest to befriend and learn more about Shmuel, whilst still allowing Mother to be a character rich with her own traits and characteristics. This is why in the film, Mother and father are more open about their thoughts, and argue openly on multiple occasions. This allows the story of the parents to coalesce with that of the children, as they both tackle the idea that it is not a suitable place for living, and moreover not suitable place children nonetheless, despite the ridiculous number of children there truly were. It can hereby be noted that whilst adapting the Boy in The Striped Pyjamas to film, Herman omitted unnecessary points from the story to not only appeal to a viewing audience, but also to focus the story to its most important themes, in order to simplify the viewing experience and keep the audience from becoming confused.
Retained:
Whilst adapting media to film, directors are encouraged to maintain the original plot points of important moments written by the original author. This is done specifically in order to preserve the integrity of the work, and to stop it from losing the content that gives it its character. These scenes are also retained in order to allow essential plot points and storylines to flow and adapt naturally, in the way the author intended. During adaptation of Boyne’s 2006 novel: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, Herman chose to retain several key plot points to best appeal to a viewing audience in this way. One of the most notable points where this is seen is when father talks to Bruno in private about the Jews. In this conversation, as Bruno goes on and on about these other people at Auschwitz: hoping to befriend the other children, as he had been soullessly ripped from his three best friends for life in Berlin. In Boynes highly acclaimed novel, father quiets down and assumes a serious tone, the cadence of his voice emitting both the purest of sincerity, and the gruelling seriousness of reality.
“’Ah, those people,’ said father, nodding his head and smiling slightly. ‘Those people…. Well, they’re not people at all, Bruno.’” (Boyne, 2006, Pg-53)
This single line, in all its brevity, remains one of the most intense and powerful lines in the entire novel, encapsulating the mental and political opinion of the Nazis, showing in clear detail the lengths to which they went in order to exterminate anything or anyone they deemed inferior. This lines raw meaning, and the systemic, ideological history it carries led to it being retained in Herman’s 2008 film adaptation of the boy in the striped pyjamas. This story, without it, would cease to gather the sheer power and gravity that it covers. Herman chose to write this scene verbatim, following Boyne’s writing exactly. It blatantly forces upon the viewer exactly what Father is thinking, and why he is willing to go to such great lengths to exterminate the Jews and other minorities held at Auschwitz, and sets up discourse between himself and Mother, due to his obsession with status in disregard for his relatives, and her presence in their children’s lives allowing her to better see how the move effects them individually. (Herman, 2008). These similarities help to immerse the audience in the original story and can be skilfully adapted to tie in with other plot points created by the director of the adapted piece. The unadulterated intensity of what is placed in front of the viewer dissipates the fog between the audience and the characters. It shows us the ethical and moral position that the characters are dropped into, and allows us to attempt navigating it alongside them, empathising with their innate differences. This can amplify a viewer’s understanding and comprehension of a story by being given what seems to them firsthand information about the characters and allowing them to independently relate the situations they face to themselves. A viewer that is entirely immersed in a story will inherently feel more care and compassion for its characters and the situation they are in. This has repeatedly allowed directors to strengthen the relationship between viewers and major historical events, namely the Holocaust. Herman has intentionally retained this scene along with many others to appeal to a viewing audience in a way that immerses them with both the story of Bruno at Auschwitz, and the vile events that took place there between the 1940’s.
Altered:
To properly intertwine new story elements with ones from the original novel and grow characters in desirable ways, Herman intentionally altered a number of scenes in the production of his film adaptation of The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas. This helped to coerce the story into a streamlined interpretation of the original, whilst adding nuance to the plot and characters, all while maintaining a viewing experience designed to ease the pressure placed upon the audience, making it a spirited ride viewers could comfortably follow, rather than an arduous journey they were forced to trek. One of the most significant places this technique was employed was in the character development of Bruno’s older sister, Gretel. Though maintained as a side character in both versions of the story, she remains an interesting character who is never fully represented as an individualised person and exists almost purely to either analogise or antagonise various other character’s experiences, although this is usually limited only to Bruno. Boyne’s novel, however, tackles Gretel’s character development very differently to the film adaptation. This can be seen very clearly at a certain point around the second third of the novel, in which Gretels personality, demeanour, and interests change drastically, as she seemingly pushes away from her old life in Berlin. At the beginning of the story, it is made abundantly clear that Gretel adores her dolls, something unsurprising and relatively mundane for a twelve-year-old girl. Her connection to these dolls in this case seems to mirror her thought process before, during, and after moving to Auschwitz, and she moves through the grief of having to leave her home, the place she grew up in, and the place from which her entire world revolved. Soon after moving to Auschwitz, she seemingly denies having lost anything, happily moving into her new, considerably smaller room, and playing with her dolls as she would on any day, only now, they were her only friends, and it would be only a matter of time before she would have to leave them too. This is to say that Gretel’s attachment to the dolls represents her mental state in regard to her moving to Auschwitz, and the consequent loss of her friends, home, school, and other loved ones, namely her grandparents, who a scarcely scene with either of the children. Eventually, after around a year at Auschwitz, Gretel begins to accept the fact that she may not be returning to Berlin and would likely have to build a life for herself at Auschwitz. This leads her to leave behind her original life, bagging up her dolls and throwing them away, replacing them with maps and newspapers, following their stories of the ongoing war.
“Gretel’s room had changed quite considerably since the last time he had been there. For one thing there wasn’t a single doll in sight. One afternoon a month or so earlier, around the time that Lieutenant Kotler had left Out-With, Gretel had decided that she didn’t like dolls anymore and had put them all into four large bags and thrown them away. In their place she had hung up maps of Europe that Father had given her, and every day she put little pins into them and moved the pins around constantly after consulting the daily newspaper.” (Boyne, 2006, Pg-180)
Whilst Gretel may not have done this entirely to move on from her original life, and may have done it to impress Lieutenant Kotler, it remains that this shows a drastic shift in her character. However, Gretel never entirely manages to move on. It is likely here that the maps she hangs up are her means of tracking the war, waiting for the day that she can finally return home. This is similar to her progression in the film, but not identical. Herman chose to paint a slightly different picture within his adaptation of the story, in which she chose to hold on to her past, while embracing a new way of life. That is, instead of choosing to throw out her dolls, she piles them up and hides them away in the cellar, a place she can access quickly and easily to return to her original life. Additionally, instead of following the war’s steps obsessively, she hangs up propaganda posters, and alters her own political expression in a way that makes her seem more adult, and as though she is comfortable in Auschwitz. (Herman, 2008). Instead of living in denial, and snapping at a point of no return, in the film, Gretel embraces her new life, but clings to the comfort of the one she once adored. This small and seemingly insignificant change may not be quintessential for the story to function perfectly, but adds to the experience, and is a shining example of minor changes that directors can make to better the piece in their opinion while adapting media. The film depicts Gretel as a young girl, eager to follow the lead of those she admires, however misguided they may be, and as one who struggles to remain her own person, constantly striving to individualise herself amongst her peers. Whereas the novel depicts her as someone ripped from what made her happy and gave her meaning: someone dropped in a world in which she had to find her own way. This is why she chose to cling to her past, as it was her only true source of individualisation in her life, given her unfortunate situation in regard to her location and social whereabouts at that time. Audiences presented with character choices like these are likely to relate to certain characters in diverse ways, and it is these small alterations that allow people to find themselves in characters, and relate themselves to the story they read, and form meaningful connections between hardships of the characters and hardships of their own. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that alterations to characters, plotlines, and story elements are used to add nuance and depth into situations that may lack the integrity necessary to bond with members of a viewing audience.
Conclusion:
It can therefore be seen that whilst adapting John Boyne’s 2006 novel The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas, Mark Herman intentionally added, omitted, retained, and altered several scenes throughout the entirety of the film in order to intensify, decomplexify, and focus the viewer’s experience, grasping their emotions and immersing them in a world rich with love and innocence, but also hatred and deceit. It forces us to empathise with the characters and gives us a window into the very lives they live. For instance, the introduction of numerous scenes covering the experience of characters other than Bruno in the film relates the story to multiple characters, and intertwines their opinions, allowing them to interact and clash, speaking their mind, rather than the mind of their oppressor. It is hereby seen that Herman intentionally adapted several scenes in The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas, creating a highly engaging, well produced, and historically accurate film that successfully appeals to a viewing audience, and has likely touched the hearts of many across the planet.
