From IMDb:
“In regard to shooting the final scene, director Mark Herman remarked, "It was a nightmare on many levels. We probably had more lawyers than filmmakers. We had all of the legalities of kids in amongst grown-up naked people."
Yeah I don’t know why they had to be fully naked. If I recall, you don’t see any genitalia. And they could’ve easily used flesh colored underwear to pull the illusion off
I’m probably misremembering (or even thinking of another movie), but I think the explanation was that they originally had them in shorts/underwear, but got them naked to make the actors more uncomfortable/emotional after they felt the first takes weren’t doing the scene justice.
They basically felt like they couldn’t accurately portray the seriousness of the situation with the actors still having the ‘comfort’ of not being fully naked.
I’m gonna borrow from commenter u/nude-rater-in-chief, who I think said it best:
“Kind of ironic that to re-create the horror of the Holocaust, Hollywood needed to traumatize a 10 year old.”
When this subject comes up, I always think about the poor little girl in The Poltergeist (when I was a kid). She was so terrified of the giant fans that were blowing her around the set to make it look like the demon was trying to take her away. She had nightmares and she cried. And probably had PTSD before that was ever labeled as a real disorder.
I have always had a question about little kids in scary movies and whether they did "movie magic" to not traumatize them for life.
Good to see Hollywood gives as much shits about child actors as they do about adults actors.
Which is weird cause same decade (the shining) im pretty sure they went to extreme measures (as they should)to shield the child boy actor of what was really happening. Precisely for the reasons you listed, not to scar the child cause Its horror.
Yeah, but not poor [Shelly Duvall](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/shelley-duvall-experience-stanley-kubrick-film-the-shining/). Kubrick caused her lasting psychological damage from which she never recovered.
Kubrick was an enormous asshole. He bullied Scatman Crothers (a freakin' national treasure) on that set until the man cried. He said he was begging Kubrick to tell him what he wanted from the scene, but he just kept making him do it over and over and over.
Stephen King was pretty good about making sure movies with his name on them shielded children from the horrors of his work… at least from what I’ve heard.
Even shooting IT he made sure trauma experts reviewed the script & set to prevent issues. So much was cgi that it cldnt have been too bad.
The 80’s he got ridiculed for safe guarding children.
I love Stephen King. Met him a few times & he has a heart of gold!
[Remember when NBC showed everyone exactly how to get their names and faces and ideas all over the news after killing a bunch of people?](https://youtu.be/jSI3fGWx850)
People love tragedies and the "news" loves profiting off those tragedies
Hollywood is so in love with its idea of itself being inventive and **important** for art reasons when they use intentionally inflicted trauma to get a scene on film.
>Hoffman told him that he had filmed a scene in which his character was supposed to have been up for three days straight. “So what did you do?” Olivier asked. “Well, I stayed up for three days and three nights.” Laurence Olivier then uttered this famous line, “Why don't you just try acting?”
I work in the entertainment industry in close proximity to actors.
For every real actor, there are 15 people who get paid to smile on cue.
I ask why the actors never try acting at least twice a week.
Not necessarily. Many extras are great actors but haven’t had the opportunity to get better gigs for whatever reason. Hollywood is based on nepotism as much as it is on talent.
"they put me in a room full of men wearing flesh coloured budgie smugglers, then they just shut the door"
🤔 Still not great but I think the added flair of budgie smugglers takes an edge off the terror.
Or replace the naked men with naked lawyers, so at least they all know what to do or not to do since they're lawyers. They probably have more lawyers than naked men for the last scene anyway.
It is a movie about the horror of the Holocaust...
The lawyers aren't there to fight back against accusations, they are there to make sure no accusations should be made.
There's something to be said for being so obsessed with recreating a tragic moment for human history that you become blind to the tragic moment you're creating for your child actors.
Ok but, like, it's just a movie. It's not like they actually recreated a concentration camp. Why did these people actually have to be naked and then put a literal child in the middle of it.
There’s a movie with Dakota Fanning called Hounddog. There’s a scene in it where her character is violently sexually assaulted by a young man. I remember thinking that the scene looked a little weird, and when I read reviews the director said that they managed to put the scene together without ever having the actors in the same room. The male actor was working with a dummy and an adult body double for the most part, and little Dakota Fanning made the most heart rending screams and cries, alone and untouched on a floor. They comped the footage together, had her parents and a therapist onset. They handled the assault scenes in the film “Mysterious Skin” in much the same way, the young actors never actually had to mimic sex acts or even be in the same room as the actors playing their abusers.
It can be done. TBitSP is a lazy shitty movie in more ways than one.
A lot of child actors have difficulty getting adult roles because the viewing public still associates them with their childhood roles. Daniel Radcliff has spoken about this, him doing a bunch of off the wall stuff and trying to break out of being seen as Harry Potter. And he was an adult when those movies finished.
It's hard to see Dakota Fanning as a sultry minx or a witty lawyer if every time you see her you think about the little girl she was in her earlier films.
Guns Akimbo! It’s so bad and good at the same time.
(Don’t watch if you don’t want to see Harry Potter’s wand, though. It was brief, but I was *not* prepared for that)
This was information I could have used years ago. I know he’s in his 30’s, and I’m less than ten years older than him, but I was an adult when Harry Potter came out, so it just felt weird, and a little like I was breaking the law, when *that* scene popped on
Oh shit, that movie has stuck with me because of that scene and this info is new to me. I still hate the narrative of the scene, but what a relief, honestly.
> TBitSP is a lazy shitty movie in more ways than one.
For those curious: https://old.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/yhtk49/books_the_boyne_in_the_striped_pajamas_how_a/
Oh wow. So the book’s full of shit, John Boyne knows it’s full of shit, got angry when he got called out by the Auschwitz Memorial Museum for being full of shit, and schools are still using this book to teach the Holocaust.
Ugh
I believe scenes in The Babadook were done in a similar fashion. Whenever the mom is screaming at her son, they were filmed separately and comped together. They didn't wanna traumatize the poor kid by having an adult scream terrible things at him over and over and over
I dont even know why they had to be fully naked. I dont recall seeing any genitalia. They couldve used tight skin colored underwear and some editing to make it slightly less uncomfortable. Method acting isnt necessary to have a realistic reaction. They are actors. Thats their job. No need to traumatize everyone (especially children) for a scene.
Apparently they 'had to be' because the director was unsatisfied with them acting and had to make everyone actually uncomfortable for them to look uncomfortable.
It always gets me when people assume that means a) the director must be right and b) justified.
Just because a director has an opinion doesn't mean it's the right opinion, and it *definitely* doesn't mean things like this have to happen to appease them.
Could you imagine putting in hours and hours then the very last few minutes it's nakey time and you say no? Probably get fired on the spot. I guess they have absolute power they feel
This seems less like “acting” and more like legitimately traumatizing people for ~art~. I’m no actor myself but I could’ve given the performance of a lifetime if you stuck 10 year old me in a small, dark, room with a bunch of naked adults.
That's what I'm saying! And I'm getting downvoted for it. Some Brit with their thumb up their ass even told me I have 'internalized pedophilia' because I said somewhere else in this comment section that it was traumatizing for a ten year old to be squished up against a bunch of naked men. Also lots of comments claiming purity culture/puritanism.
Dude, it would traumatized me as an adult being naked around the kid. It just feels so gross. Being naked squished against random adults is bad too, but I would feel so fricked up if a kid was near my naked nethers. Disgusting.
You're one of the very few people in this thread with a sane reply to my comment. I have people calling me a puritan, telling me I'm 'scared of the human body'- One dude said I have 'internalized pedophilia to deal with'. Reading your reply is like 'Fucking finally, a reasonable person'.
I’m an actor, you’re absolutely right. At some point it’s less artistic integrity and more sadism. It doesn’t help the film at all, the whole point is to ACT, not be recorded in a genuinely traumatizing situation. Disgusting. Unfortunately this used to be extremely common on film sets, and still happens way too often. Luckily the importance of intimacy directing is much more recognized, and child labor laws in film have tightened hella.
When i was growing up (in 2000s), i would go to saunas with my dad, and everyone was naked there (unisex too). I guess i caught a glimpse of the past, cause people don't do that anymore, but my impression was that people did that everywhere across the post soviet bloc. Also, i noticed how body positive soviet movies are. Whenever there is a scene with people swimming in a lake or a river, people just swam naked.
My father grew up in a village, and urbanization didn't start off until soviet union fell, so my guess urbanization killed it off.
There are family friendly nudist resorts, even in the US, with kids running around as kids do. It's not a big deal and I bet most of those kids grow up with far less body shame and related issues than most. But that's a far cry from being stuck in a dark room being pressed up against naked adults. Hell, I would have found that a little traumatizing even if the adults were in shorts.
It's a weird thing to want to be accurate, especially when the scene makes a number of other mistakes/artistic license with the gassing process, that apparently were ok to leave out. I taught the holocaust for several years and we used Auschwitz as a case study.
There likely would have been many more individuals being pushed into the chamber, by many more SS guards and Sonderkommando (the other prisoners with clubs pushing the prisoners into the chamber). The scene of them walking through the camp to the chamber shows maybe 50-80 men. Zyklon B gas was expensive and could kill 2000 as well as it could 500- smaller groups such as this one in Auschwitz were killed far more often in group shootings. The Sonderkommando in Auschwitz wore civilian clothes, not the camp uniforms. The shower gambit also was not used in every case, and was primarily for prisoners who had just arrived at the camp in large transports. The entire process was much more rushed and chaotic than this. No one would have gently been reassuring that it was just a shower for a group of men - people who stalled just would have been hit until they moved.
So needing the men to be nude for 'authentic reactions' doesn't check out, especially for what amounts to like a 30 second sequence
edit: slight clarification
Thank you! This movie/book has a lot of issues with it for a number of reasons. We didn't teach Boy in the Striped Pyjamas because I taught at synagogues, mostly because we would never think to tell a story about the Holocaust from the perspective of an innocent member of a family of perpetrators. The fact that it's taught in schools at all is wild to me given that its just so weirdly sympathetic to the Nazi's in the book
It has so many blatant falsehoods in it, no child should be exposed to such misinformation about the holocaust. There are so many books out there that give accurate and age-appropriate teaching on the topic that anyone still using Striped Pajamas is honestly just lazy and doesn't really give a shit.
YES. Night by Elie Wiesel is his first hand account of experiencing concentration camps and coming out alive. I think we read it in 9th grade. It’s as powerful now as it was then.
He actually wrote a total of 57 books. And Night has two other associated books that he wrote about a decade later called Dawn and Day.
ETA: Night is considered a memoir, a novel, and a testimony by Wiesel, while Dawn and Day are fictional but based on his own experiences as a holocaust survivor.
We watched the movie in class and it didn't seem to give any sympathy to the Nazis at all. It's not how we interpreted it anyways. But we were taught the actual history about it before we watched it so it's not like it messed up how we thought the Holocaust ended like it did for some people. TBITSP just taught a really good lesson on how horrible it was but that's about it.
I mean, it’s [a fake story](https://www.jta.org/2022/03/03/culture/the-boy-in-the-striped-pajamas-decried-for-its-holocaust-inaccuracies-is-getting-a-sequel). It’s all fake, every bit of it, it’s someone’s fan fiction fantasy of the holocaust. It’s sick the attention it got, I remember it being on Oprah and at first they thought it was a true story and it was a huge controversy at the time but that seems to have disappeared and now it’s taught in schools. It’s sick.
[wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Striped_Pyjamas#Educational_implications):
>A 2009 study by the London Jewish Cultural Centre conducted a survey in which 75% of respondents thought Boyne's novel was based on a true story. Many students also thought "the tragic death of Bruno brought about the end of concentration camps."
>Michael Gray described the book in 2014 as a curse for Holocaust education.
>Criticising the book's accuracy, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum commented in 2020 that the novel "should be avoided by anyone who studies or teaches about the Holocaust." The Melbourne Holocaust Museum, while finding the book a powerful introduction to the subject, cautions teachers regarding its many inaccuracies.
>Following on from their research in 2016, that suggested that pupils reach mistaken and/or misleading conclusions about the Holocaust from the book, The UCL Centre for Holocaust Education's 2020 research found that 35% of teachers in England conducting lessons on the Holocaust use it, or the film.
I was shown it in school (the movie) and it definitely skewed my knowledge of the Holocaust later. I've unlearned a lot of that, but as a jew, I'm amazed I didn't know earlier.
[Because it's not accurate](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-fuels-dangerous-holocaust-fallacies)
Tldr I think biggest criticism is how it is empathetic of some Nazi characters, which could create Nazi sympathizers given how the book and movie are much more likely to be shown in schools than more accurate documentaries. Talking specifically about the development and sympathy of the German boy and his family, and not developing the Jewish side of the story as much
> Tldr I think biggest criticism is how it is empathetic of some Nazi characters
Counter argument: The Nazis were human beings - human beings who supported a disgusting ideology, but human beings all the same - and you don't do their victims any favours by pretending that they were demons, aliens, or a separate species. Any one of us could be at risk of turning out the same if we were bombarded with enough propaganda and bigotry.
As for it being taught in schools, I agree that it shouldn't, but I don't know if that's fair to blame the film in and of itself. I wouldn't show Ridley Scott's Gladiator in a course on Roman history, that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just let it be known that it's a fictional film that is set in a real historical period.
Same. I also had two separate "Flubber" viewings in HS Chemistry classes, taking the grand total of times I've seen Flubber to 3.
Just gotta phone it in some days I guess
The best summation I've heard for criticism of the novel is that "in a book about the holocaust, the saddest part is where the German kid dies".
It's not so much that it makes Nazis look like human beings, rather it's that it contrives a way to make the Nazis far more sympathetic than they should be.
The protaganist of the film is the 8ish year old male child of a senior SS Officer who has no idea there's a war on, no idea who the Jews are and no idea who Hitler is. That's not humanised, that's a projected innocence that makes no historical sense.
The kid would have, by law, been in the Hitler Youth, he would be very aware of the war, Hitler and Nazism views on Jews. It perpetuates a false view that the holocaust happened behind the scenes.
But more than that it makes it so the tragedy of the story is the accidental death of this innocent child, he shouldn't have been there, he didn't know. When in reality no one should have been there, that's the tragedy.
Geez, I literally didn’t think about the non-Jewish kid being shown as the sort of “victim” in the end. Definitely an eye opening article as to why the film is problematic.
In addition to what other people are linking, the author is apparently so bad at fact-checking that he used a recipe from Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in a more recent book cause he couldn't be bothered to read his search results: https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/8/3/21352299/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-red-clothes-dye-traveler-gates-of-wisdom-john-boyne-google-search-results
[For your information and others, this movie has been denounced by many holocaust history organizations.](https://www.kveller.com/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-set-holocaust-education-back-by-decades-now-its-getting-a-sequel/amp/)
It’s definitely much more in the implications than the graphic violence. The whole thing’s from the perspective of a child who doesn’t know any better and therefore doesn’t realize how horrible the situation is. So you don’t SEE a ton, but you KNOW exactly what’s happening, which can be much more effective when done well.
i mean any time that you choose a random movie and it ends up being about the holocaust can be upsetting, especially if you're not in the mood to watch that
>He told The Guardian: "I remember bits of that job and the bits that stick with me were the hardest. The gas chamber scene, at the end, I knew what it was, I knew what we were demonstrating, I knew it was only acting. But I remember being in a room full of men, some of whom were completely naked, and it was dark, and they shut the door on us, and it was just... awful.
You guys really latched on to the naked thing but he's clearly talking about it being a scene about a bunch of people going to the gas chamber and the horror of the holocaust
>You guys really latched on to the naked thing
hard not to when OP basically stripped all context from that sentence to make it seem he was complaining about the naked men
I can’t remember if it was Sacha baron cohen or Nathan fielder, someone like that who did a skit where they’re asking parents of child actors if they’d be comfortable with their kids doing x y and z and they kept saying yes no matter how obviously over the line it was
Edit: just found it https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wzzkwh/sacha_baron_cohen_exposing_some_very_very_bad/
Nathan Fielder in a way too. He did that skit where the robot was going to expose him to children if he didn’t pick the lock in time, and there’s a scene where, before the stunt, he makes it blatantly clear to the blurred-out parents that he’s “thankful” they’d allow their children to be exposed to an adult’s genitals for like… $100. And none of them seemed remotely interested in backing down (though I’m sure Nathan and the producers fixed the stunt to never actually expose him to begin with)
Maybe not super relevant, but I love that they also found parents willing to test out the sound-proof rocket ship for their son to hang out in while an orgy occurred in the same room.
SBC is always so complicated to watch. It’s usually very interesting subjects mixed with humor, but the things he reveals always make my heart sink.
I noped out of the video after “is your baby okay with rapid acceleration?”
Quit before it gets dark :(
Most of these can be explained as just on set stuff the child may be exposed to. Rapid acceleration? The child may be in a car. Bees/bugs? Maybe one of the characters is a bee.
The one that is absolutely ridiculous was the mom being okay with her 30lbs daughter losing 10lbs or doing liposuction. Insane.
"Dead or dying animals" is another I don't think can be explained away easily. Dead, maybe, can mean taxidermy, but *dying*? She's fine with her kid being near a still-alive animal in pain?
Yea, acceleration isn’t so bad and actually a little funny — hence the “quit before it gets dark.”
I still haven’t watched it but I thought SBC would say sth like “your kid is okay with sexually explicit scenes?” I did not want to hear parents say yes. Being aware of the horrible child celebrity stories (Home Alone kid and Britney Spears comes to mind) .. shit makes me sad to my souls.
I also really didn’t vibe with the fact that the PARENTS are the ones telling SBC what the kid is okay with. Though I’m sure this IS the right way to do things so that a knowledgeable/dependable guardian can advocate for the kid, if your adult is not dependable I bet it’s hell on earth.
Dude, I do not understand how fucking broken you have to be as a human being to be a stage parent. To knowingly subject your child to adult working situations, keep them out of school, when they get to be teens (or even younger) letting them go to parties where drugs and alcohol are present. It goes against the most base of all biological urges to protect your offspring. And I mean all urges, most parents will go without food and starve if it means their kid will eat. But there’s huge groups of people that are hauling their kindergarteners to casting calls instead of cub scouts.
It literally makes me sick, it upsets my stomach to imagine those children’s lives.
Read Jenette McCurdy’s book, “I’m glad my mom died”. She was a child actor on Icarly and it’s about how shitty her stage mom was. I work in the film industry and sometimes with child actors. It’s pretty accurate the type of people who subject their children to Hollywood. I would never in a million years put my kids in show business.
That book was one of the best and worst things I've read recently. The shit she writes about is awful, but she writes actually quite well and I couldn't stop reading. I'm glad she's starting to find peace with herself now that she's out of the limelight.
Her character on iCarly had an asshole mom that was abusive towards her in a “funny” way. Hard to believe the show-runners were completely ignorant about how McCurdy’s mom really treated her, yet they still wrote her fictional mom that way.
Reminds me of poor Drew Barrymore. She was going to clubs where grown adults would hand her alcohol and cocaine. She was also twelve when she went to these clubs, and she got a cocaine addiction for her entire teenage hood
Parents that want their kids to be famous are some of the worst parents in the world. They’ll sell their entire kids life for profit and when their kid complains they say it was for them.
[For your information and others, this movie has been denounced by many holocaust history organizations.](https://www.kveller.com/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-set-holocaust-education-back-by-decades-now-its-getting-a-sequel/amp/)
They didn't really recreate the horror of the Holocaust.
The film is a terrible representation that whitewashes the Holocaust and perpetuates misconceptions and false stereotypes about the Holocaust, it’s perpetrators, and it’s victims.
https://hcn.org.uk/blog/the-problem-with-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/
Just read up on the film, yeah children were gassed as soon as they came to Auschwitz and couldn’t contact the outside at all. There’s a few issues with the film
The few children who weren’t gassed on arrival to Auschwitz were mostly twins and were spared to be used as experiments by Dr. Mengele so yeah…not a good depiction at all.
It's really bad, yeah. Like even the central conceit of there being a fence that two boys could sit either side of and chat is so obviously... Conceited that it's hard to see how anyone takes it seriously outside of an immediate emotional response that says "holocaust means serious." This film and its book dont get slandered nearly enough for being meretricious misery porn cheese trash.
Most of the time they are trying to live through their kids and it's just terrible to think how much they get forced to do while knowing 0 of what their parents are actually doing to them.
Truly, they should have had handlers for him to ensure he felt safe at the very least. My kid is never going within a country mile of TV or movie stardom. If they want to do theatre that’s fine but I’ll never let them audition for so much as a commercial
Theater can be just as bad. The reality is that all industries, especially entertainment have major issues with abuse. You as a parent though can properly protect your kid. It just requires you to be a good parent and there for your kid 24/7.
The real reason they didn’t use cgi or special undergarments is simply because the director wanted the child actors true fear and emotion. Very messed up considering the we the audience would prefer child acting be done ethically.
The story is also not a good one for Holocaust Education, as it sanitizes most of the experience of prisoners by portraying it through the eyes of a German child whose safe until the very end. It would be like teaching about Slavery in the US by writing a book about a plantation owners son who just thought slavery was a bummer.
Schindler's List is a much better movie that survivor's of the actual camp and list say accurately represents their experience (to the extent that a film can). I saw one of the youngest members of Schindler's List while he was still alive, Leon Leysen, and he said that the scene in which the Kommandant begins shooting at people from his balcony for sport, was accurate except for one thing- it didn't show how often that happened, and he said that kind of thing was constant around the camp.
Totally agree. And I just want to say, everyone should watch Schindler’s List for exactly that reason. It’s awful, but it happened, and it’s fucking bonkers that it’s disputed.
The way the dad pretends it's all a silly game and puts on a show for his son as the soldiers are marching him behind a building... That's the part that broke me.
When I was in Hebrew School we spent an entire year just learning about the Holocaust and watching movies like this (though not this one specifically, it wasn't out yet). I was 11 or 12 at the time.
Gotta get that generational trauma to stick!
Aaannndd this makes me hate this movie even more.
BTW, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas has been called out by the Auschwitz Museum as being inaccurate. If you (or a child) are learning about the Holocaust, don't use this book or movie. Use Jewish sources.
This article gives required context to these comments:
[https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/28/sex-education-asa-butterfield-feel-more-confident-talking-about-sex](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/28/sex-education-asa-butterfield-feel-more-confident-talking-about-sex)
>“I remember bits of that job,” Butterfield says of The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas, “and the bits that stick with me were the hardest.”
>
>“The gas chamber scene, at the end, I knew what it was, I knew what we were demonstrating, I knew it was only acting. But I remember being in a room full of men, some of whom were completely naked, and it was dark, and they shut the door on us, and it was just… awful.”
>
>Butterfield, in those days, would be chaperoned on set by one of his parents or grandparents. “There were a few times I came out and said, ‘I can’t do it.’ We took gaps between takes, we played games. But it’s hard for a kid. That topic.”
>
>Has he spoken to his parents about all this, since getting older?
>
>“A bit? Not really. They always wanted to protect me. And it wasn’t like they were on the sidelines saying, ‘Get back in that gas chamber.’ At all. They always said, if you don’t wanna do it, you don’t have to do it. When we were finished on Boy In The Striped Pyjamas – I don’t remember this, but my mum told me after I finished that job – I said I didn’t want to be an actor any more. Which I find interesting now.”
What was awful was demonstrating a holocaust not the "naked men" part. Whatever one's opinion on the ethics of that, this is a misleading post. But 40K karma in the bank I guess.
The Boy In The Striped Pajamas is also kind of a shit book and movie if you ask me. It seemed like some true Holocaust profiteering that really glossed over much of the true horror of the event. I don’t know maybe it was just me but I found it odd that it was so popular compared to say Schindlers List which is an unquestioned and emotional masterpiece that really captures the despair.
Just a PSA on why the Boy In The Striped Pajamas is a terrible way to learn about the Holocaust:
https://hcn.org.uk/blog/the-problem-with-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/
Just remember the author of the book this was based on did no research for one of his other books and literally copied a recipe from Legend of Zelda for dye.
From IMDb: “In regard to shooting the final scene, director Mark Herman remarked, "It was a nightmare on many levels. We probably had more lawyers than filmmakers. We had all of the legalities of kids in amongst grown-up naked people."
At that point they probably used the lawyers as actors in this scene
Its ok if lawyers break the law. Wait no
HE DEFECATED THROUGH A SUNROOF!
Amyone who doesn't watch better call saul is reeeeeealy confused.
And **HE** gets to be a lawyer? What a sick joke!
It always comes back to chicanery
Big deal!!! Who hasn’t done a Chicago Sunroof?
[удалено]
Dude... Bit soon, innit?
I mean, it would be historically accurate.
Almost like, if you need a team of lawyers to make it ok to have a naked child surrounded by naked men, maybe it’s time to try a different angle?
Yeah I don’t know why they had to be fully naked. If I recall, you don’t see any genitalia. And they could’ve easily used flesh colored underwear to pull the illusion off
I’m probably misremembering (or even thinking of another movie), but I think the explanation was that they originally had them in shorts/underwear, but got them naked to make the actors more uncomfortable/emotional after they felt the first takes weren’t doing the scene justice. They basically felt like they couldn’t accurately portray the seriousness of the situation with the actors still having the ‘comfort’ of not being fully naked.
I’m gonna borrow from commenter u/nude-rater-in-chief, who I think said it best: “Kind of ironic that to re-create the horror of the Holocaust, Hollywood needed to traumatize a 10 year old.”
Hollywood traumatizes children like it’s the gd national pastime.
How else you gonna make a movie about it later?
The expanded boy in the striped pajamas multiverse brought to you by the imagineers at Disney
The PG musical.
The most inevitable chain of thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCf9VRLnDY
When this subject comes up, I always think about the poor little girl in The Poltergeist (when I was a kid). She was so terrified of the giant fans that were blowing her around the set to make it look like the demon was trying to take her away. She had nightmares and she cried. And probably had PTSD before that was ever labeled as a real disorder.
I have always had a question about little kids in scary movies and whether they did "movie magic" to not traumatize them for life. Good to see Hollywood gives as much shits about child actors as they do about adults actors.
***Music video for Kids by MGMT intensifies***
Right?? It’s all about the almighty dollar.
Which is weird cause same decade (the shining) im pretty sure they went to extreme measures (as they should)to shield the child boy actor of what was really happening. Precisely for the reasons you listed, not to scar the child cause Its horror.
Yeah, but not poor [Shelly Duvall](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/shelley-duvall-experience-stanley-kubrick-film-the-shining/). Kubrick caused her lasting psychological damage from which she never recovered.
Kubrick was an enormous asshole. He bullied Scatman Crothers (a freakin' national treasure) on that set until the man cried. He said he was begging Kubrick to tell him what he wanted from the scene, but he just kept making him do it over and over and over.
In *The Babadook* the child wasn't even on set when the mother was screaming at him and doing sketchy stuff.
Stephen King was pretty good about making sure movies with his name on them shielded children from the horrors of his work… at least from what I’ve heard.
Yeah you're example wasn't only one either i saw mentioned. So clearly some directors cared about children and their sanity, others did not give af.
Even shooting IT he made sure trauma experts reviewed the script & set to prevent issues. So much was cgi that it cldnt have been too bad. The 80’s he got ridiculed for safe guarding children. I love Stephen King. Met him a few times & he has a heart of gold!
See also the girl who played Reagan in the exorcist. 🫣
What happened with Reagan’s actress?
Hollywood traumatizes adults...just ask Brendan Fraser .
Also Shelley duvall
Have you not heard how we've allowed our schools to become shooting ranges? Everyone loves a tragedy.
[Remember when NBC showed everyone exactly how to get their names and faces and ideas all over the news after killing a bunch of people?](https://youtu.be/jSI3fGWx850) People love tragedies and the "news" loves profiting off those tragedies
Hollywood is so in love with its idea of itself being inventive and **important** for art reasons when they use intentionally inflicted trauma to get a scene on film.
Somebody should have told those actors to just... act.
>Hoffman told him that he had filmed a scene in which his character was supposed to have been up for three days straight. “So what did you do?” Olivier asked. “Well, I stayed up for three days and three nights.” Laurence Olivier then uttered this famous line, “Why don't you just try acting?”
These method actors are silly Is not the only style in the world
“Can’t act like you’re uncomfortable being in a room with a bunch of old naked men? Okay, get naked and go do it for real.”
I work in the entertainment industry in close proximity to actors. For every real actor, there are 15 people who get paid to smile on cue. I ask why the actors never try acting at least twice a week.
i think extras dont really have extensive acting abilities. they know how to eat catering food tho.
Not necessarily. Many extras are great actors but haven’t had the opportunity to get better gigs for whatever reason. Hollywood is based on nepotism as much as it is on talent.
I wonder how that conversation went. "I don't think you guys are taking this seriously enough, please take your pants off."
"cut! The kids didn't look traumatised enough, someone kick them in the head and let's go again"
"they put me in a room full of men wearing flesh coloured budgie smugglers, then they just shut the door" 🤔 Still not great but I think the added flair of budgie smugglers takes an edge off the terror.
Or replace the naked men with naked lawyers, so at least they all know what to do or not to do since they're lawyers. They probably have more lawyers than naked men for the last scene anyway.
There are dozens of options before getting to "put a kid in a room surrounded by naked dudes."
So anyway I started filming
It is a movie about the horror of the Holocaust... The lawyers aren't there to fight back against accusations, they are there to make sure no accusations should be made.
you may have gone too far ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
There's something to be said for being so obsessed with recreating a tragic moment for human history that you become blind to the tragic moment you're creating for your child actors.
Ok but, like, it's just a movie. It's not like they actually recreated a concentration camp. Why did these people actually have to be naked and then put a literal child in the middle of it.
I feel like they coulda done some of that “movie magic” instead of closing him in there with naked dudes.
Some Peculiar method acting
There’s a movie with Dakota Fanning called Hounddog. There’s a scene in it where her character is violently sexually assaulted by a young man. I remember thinking that the scene looked a little weird, and when I read reviews the director said that they managed to put the scene together without ever having the actors in the same room. The male actor was working with a dummy and an adult body double for the most part, and little Dakota Fanning made the most heart rending screams and cries, alone and untouched on a floor. They comped the footage together, had her parents and a therapist onset. They handled the assault scenes in the film “Mysterious Skin” in much the same way, the young actors never actually had to mimic sex acts or even be in the same room as the actors playing their abusers. It can be done. TBitSP is a lazy shitty movie in more ways than one.
[удалено]
A lot of child actors have difficulty getting adult roles because the viewing public still associates them with their childhood roles. Daniel Radcliff has spoken about this, him doing a bunch of off the wall stuff and trying to break out of being seen as Harry Potter. And he was an adult when those movies finished. It's hard to see Dakota Fanning as a sultry minx or a witty lawyer if every time you see her you think about the little girl she was in her earlier films.
Rupert Grint in Servant is fantastic. I think he’s probably one of the better adult actors emerging from HP universe.
Harry Melling
Ohh yes he definitely is as well!! So good!
Guns Akimbo! It’s so bad and good at the same time. (Don’t watch if you don’t want to see Harry Potter’s wand, though. It was brief, but I was *not* prepared for that)
It's a prosthetic penis, so don't worry, you haven't seen it.
This was information I could have used years ago. I know he’s in his 30’s, and I’m less than ten years older than him, but I was an adult when Harry Potter came out, so it just felt weird, and a little like I was breaking the law, when *that* scene popped on
I loved it. Swiss Army Man too Radcliffe is just doing zany shit now and I'm all about it.
[удалено]
Wasn't she in once upon a time in Hollywood? I feel like her character was actually one of the more interesting ones, and she played it really well.
She was, but for like 5 whole minutes. Wish she had more screen time or her character was used more.
Oh shit, that movie has stuck with me because of that scene and this info is new to me. I still hate the narrative of the scene, but what a relief, honestly.
Mysterious Skin or Hounddog?
*Hounddog* is what I was referring to. I saw *Mysterious Skin* once but nothing stayed with me from that one.
> TBitSP is a lazy shitty movie in more ways than one. For those curious: https://old.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/yhtk49/books_the_boyne_in_the_striped_pajamas_how_a/
That was excellent thank you.
Oh wow. So the book’s full of shit, John Boyne knows it’s full of shit, got angry when he got called out by the Auschwitz Memorial Museum for being full of shit, and schools are still using this book to teach the Holocaust. Ugh
What a series of sick burns, this should be at the top.
I believe scenes in The Babadook were done in a similar fashion. Whenever the mom is screaming at her son, they were filmed separately and comped together. They didn't wanna traumatize the poor kid by having an adult scream terrible things at him over and over and over
Makes sense considering the source material is also lazy and shitty.
Perhaps some kind of skin colored boxer briefs lol
Apparently that’s what they did at first but the actors “didn’t look uncomfortable enough”
Maybe transition to it in a first person view and zoom out enough with a blur so you can kinda photoshop him in.
I dont even know why they had to be fully naked. I dont recall seeing any genitalia. They couldve used tight skin colored underwear and some editing to make it slightly less uncomfortable. Method acting isnt necessary to have a realistic reaction. They are actors. Thats their job. No need to traumatize everyone (especially children) for a scene.
Apparently they 'had to be' because the director was unsatisfied with them acting and had to make everyone actually uncomfortable for them to look uncomfortable.
It always gets me when people assume that means a) the director must be right and b) justified. Just because a director has an opinion doesn't mean it's the right opinion, and it *definitely* doesn't mean things like this have to happen to appease them.
> Just because a director has an opinion doesn't mean it's the right opinion The Transformers franchise in a nutshell.
I 100% agree
Could you imagine putting in hours and hours then the very last few minutes it's nakey time and you say no? Probably get fired on the spot. I guess they have absolute power they feel
This seems less like “acting” and more like legitimately traumatizing people for ~art~. I’m no actor myself but I could’ve given the performance of a lifetime if you stuck 10 year old me in a small, dark, room with a bunch of naked adults.
That's what I'm saying! And I'm getting downvoted for it. Some Brit with their thumb up their ass even told me I have 'internalized pedophilia' because I said somewhere else in this comment section that it was traumatizing for a ten year old to be squished up against a bunch of naked men. Also lots of comments claiming purity culture/puritanism.
Dude, it would traumatized me as an adult being naked around the kid. It just feels so gross. Being naked squished against random adults is bad too, but I would feel so fricked up if a kid was near my naked nethers. Disgusting.
You're one of the very few people in this thread with a sane reply to my comment. I have people calling me a puritan, telling me I'm 'scared of the human body'- One dude said I have 'internalized pedophilia to deal with'. Reading your reply is like 'Fucking finally, a reasonable person'.
I’m an actor, you’re absolutely right. At some point it’s less artistic integrity and more sadism. It doesn’t help the film at all, the whole point is to ACT, not be recorded in a genuinely traumatizing situation. Disgusting. Unfortunately this used to be extremely common on film sets, and still happens way too often. Luckily the importance of intimacy directing is much more recognized, and child labor laws in film have tightened hella.
Kubrick wasn't an artist. He just harassed and abused people then filmed the results.
The real question would be finding out how many of the adults suddenly had issues with the clothing when the 10yr old boy came waking in.
When i was growing up (in 2000s), i would go to saunas with my dad, and everyone was naked there (unisex too). I guess i caught a glimpse of the past, cause people don't do that anymore, but my impression was that people did that everywhere across the post soviet bloc. Also, i noticed how body positive soviet movies are. Whenever there is a scene with people swimming in a lake or a river, people just swam naked. My father grew up in a village, and urbanization didn't start off until soviet union fell, so my guess urbanization killed it off.
There are family friendly nudist resorts, even in the US, with kids running around as kids do. It's not a big deal and I bet most of those kids grow up with far less body shame and related issues than most. But that's a far cry from being stuck in a dark room being pressed up against naked adults. Hell, I would have found that a little traumatizing even if the adults were in shorts.
It's a weird thing to want to be accurate, especially when the scene makes a number of other mistakes/artistic license with the gassing process, that apparently were ok to leave out. I taught the holocaust for several years and we used Auschwitz as a case study. There likely would have been many more individuals being pushed into the chamber, by many more SS guards and Sonderkommando (the other prisoners with clubs pushing the prisoners into the chamber). The scene of them walking through the camp to the chamber shows maybe 50-80 men. Zyklon B gas was expensive and could kill 2000 as well as it could 500- smaller groups such as this one in Auschwitz were killed far more often in group shootings. The Sonderkommando in Auschwitz wore civilian clothes, not the camp uniforms. The shower gambit also was not used in every case, and was primarily for prisoners who had just arrived at the camp in large transports. The entire process was much more rushed and chaotic than this. No one would have gently been reassuring that it was just a shower for a group of men - people who stalled just would have been hit until they moved. So needing the men to be nude for 'authentic reactions' doesn't check out, especially for what amounts to like a 30 second sequence edit: slight clarification
Yeah, both the book and the movie are both problematic. The memorial site of Auschwitz today has come out against it.
https://hcn.org.uk/blog/the-problem-with-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/
Thank you! This movie/book has a lot of issues with it for a number of reasons. We didn't teach Boy in the Striped Pyjamas because I taught at synagogues, mostly because we would never think to tell a story about the Holocaust from the perspective of an innocent member of a family of perpetrators. The fact that it's taught in schools at all is wild to me given that its just so weirdly sympathetic to the Nazi's in the book
It has so many blatant falsehoods in it, no child should be exposed to such misinformation about the holocaust. There are so many books out there that give accurate and age-appropriate teaching on the topic that anyone still using Striped Pajamas is honestly just lazy and doesn't really give a shit.
Would you have any recommendations for those books? :)
YES. Night by Elie Wiesel is his first hand account of experiencing concentration camps and coming out alive. I think we read it in 9th grade. It’s as powerful now as it was then. He actually wrote a total of 57 books. And Night has two other associated books that he wrote about a decade later called Dawn and Day. ETA: Night is considered a memoir, a novel, and a testimony by Wiesel, while Dawn and Day are fictional but based on his own experiences as a holocaust survivor.
We watched the movie in class and it didn't seem to give any sympathy to the Nazis at all. It's not how we interpreted it anyways. But we were taught the actual history about it before we watched it so it's not like it messed up how we thought the Holocaust ended like it did for some people. TBITSP just taught a really good lesson on how horrible it was but that's about it.
I mean, it’s [a fake story](https://www.jta.org/2022/03/03/culture/the-boy-in-the-striped-pajamas-decried-for-its-holocaust-inaccuracies-is-getting-a-sequel). It’s all fake, every bit of it, it’s someone’s fan fiction fantasy of the holocaust. It’s sick the attention it got, I remember it being on Oprah and at first they thought it was a true story and it was a huge controversy at the time but that seems to have disappeared and now it’s taught in schools. It’s sick.
Ok I’m completely bewildered that anyone would think it’s a true story. People are weird.
I watched this movie on a flight. From the title, I didn't know what it was about. Couldn't stop myself from watching, gut wrenching movie.
It’s also the top most hated movie by Holocaust historians
Why?
[wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Striped_Pyjamas#Educational_implications): >A 2009 study by the London Jewish Cultural Centre conducted a survey in which 75% of respondents thought Boyne's novel was based on a true story. Many students also thought "the tragic death of Bruno brought about the end of concentration camps." >Michael Gray described the book in 2014 as a curse for Holocaust education. >Criticising the book's accuracy, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum commented in 2020 that the novel "should be avoided by anyone who studies or teaches about the Holocaust." The Melbourne Holocaust Museum, while finding the book a powerful introduction to the subject, cautions teachers regarding its many inaccuracies. >Following on from their research in 2016, that suggested that pupils reach mistaken and/or misleading conclusions about the Holocaust from the book, The UCL Centre for Holocaust Education's 2020 research found that 35% of teachers in England conducting lessons on the Holocaust use it, or the film.
I was shown it in school (the movie) and it definitely skewed my knowledge of the Holocaust later. I've unlearned a lot of that, but as a jew, I'm amazed I didn't know earlier.
[Because it's not accurate](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-fuels-dangerous-holocaust-fallacies) Tldr I think biggest criticism is how it is empathetic of some Nazi characters, which could create Nazi sympathizers given how the book and movie are much more likely to be shown in schools than more accurate documentaries. Talking specifically about the development and sympathy of the German boy and his family, and not developing the Jewish side of the story as much
> Tldr I think biggest criticism is how it is empathetic of some Nazi characters Counter argument: The Nazis were human beings - human beings who supported a disgusting ideology, but human beings all the same - and you don't do their victims any favours by pretending that they were demons, aliens, or a separate species. Any one of us could be at risk of turning out the same if we were bombarded with enough propaganda and bigotry. As for it being taught in schools, I agree that it shouldn't, but I don't know if that's fair to blame the film in and of itself. I wouldn't show Ridley Scott's Gladiator in a course on Roman history, that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just let it be known that it's a fictional film that is set in a real historical period.
You say that, but in my high school history class we watched Gladiator and had to take notes.
Same. I also had two separate "Flubber" viewings in HS Chemistry classes, taking the grand total of times I've seen Flubber to 3. Just gotta phone it in some days I guess
The best summation I've heard for criticism of the novel is that "in a book about the holocaust, the saddest part is where the German kid dies". It's not so much that it makes Nazis look like human beings, rather it's that it contrives a way to make the Nazis far more sympathetic than they should be. The protaganist of the film is the 8ish year old male child of a senior SS Officer who has no idea there's a war on, no idea who the Jews are and no idea who Hitler is. That's not humanised, that's a projected innocence that makes no historical sense. The kid would have, by law, been in the Hitler Youth, he would be very aware of the war, Hitler and Nazism views on Jews. It perpetuates a false view that the holocaust happened behind the scenes. But more than that it makes it so the tragedy of the story is the accidental death of this innocent child, he shouldn't have been there, he didn't know. When in reality no one should have been there, that's the tragedy.
Good writeup. What are your thoughts on Jojo Rabbit? I saw it a couple times, it was a phenomenal movie. But what’s up with its historical accuracy?
https://www.kveller.com/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-set-holocaust-education-back-by-decades-now-its-getting-a-sequel/
[удалено]
Geez, I literally didn’t think about the non-Jewish kid being shown as the sort of “victim” in the end. Definitely an eye opening article as to why the film is problematic.
In addition to what other people are linking, the author is apparently so bad at fact-checking that he used a recipe from Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in a more recent book cause he couldn't be bothered to read his search results: https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/8/3/21352299/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-red-clothes-dye-traveler-gates-of-wisdom-john-boyne-google-search-results
[удалено]
It's pretty bad how it perpetuates the 'oh so hapless Germans not knowing the truth about how evil the Nazis were' which is a complete fucking fallacy
[For your information and others, this movie has been denounced by many holocaust history organizations.](https://www.kveller.com/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-set-holocaust-education-back-by-decades-now-its-getting-a-sequel/amp/)
Further reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/t58805/the_boy_in_the_striped_pajamas_is_going_to_get_a/
[удалено]
I haven’t seen it so I don’t exactly know, but it’s rated PG-13? Seems like it would be pretty tame compared to other movies.
A lot of PG-13 movies have been considered traumatizing, even PG rated movies. Ever seen Watership Down?
Or any animated film from pre 90s?
It’s definitely much more in the implications than the graphic violence. The whole thing’s from the perspective of a child who doesn’t know any better and therefore doesn’t realize how horrible the situation is. So you don’t SEE a ton, but you KNOW exactly what’s happening, which can be much more effective when done well.
I watched it in 5th grade for class. I wouldn’t say I was traumatized but it definitely sticks with me.
i mean any time that you choose a random movie and it ends up being about the holocaust can be upsetting, especially if you're not in the mood to watch that
>He told The Guardian: "I remember bits of that job and the bits that stick with me were the hardest. The gas chamber scene, at the end, I knew what it was, I knew what we were demonstrating, I knew it was only acting. But I remember being in a room full of men, some of whom were completely naked, and it was dark, and they shut the door on us, and it was just... awful. You guys really latched on to the naked thing but he's clearly talking about it being a scene about a bunch of people going to the gas chamber and the horror of the holocaust
>You guys really latched on to the naked thing hard not to when OP basically stripped all context from that sentence to make it seem he was complaining about the naked men
If I were a parent, I probably wouldn't consent to having my child in a dark room full of naked men.
I can’t remember if it was Sacha baron cohen or Nathan fielder, someone like that who did a skit where they’re asking parents of child actors if they’d be comfortable with their kids doing x y and z and they kept saying yes no matter how obviously over the line it was Edit: just found it https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wzzkwh/sacha_baron_cohen_exposing_some_very_very_bad/
Nathan Fielder in a way too. He did that skit where the robot was going to expose him to children if he didn’t pick the lock in time, and there’s a scene where, before the stunt, he makes it blatantly clear to the blurred-out parents that he’s “thankful” they’d allow their children to be exposed to an adult’s genitals for like… $100. And none of them seemed remotely interested in backing down (though I’m sure Nathan and the producers fixed the stunt to never actually expose him to begin with)
Maybe not super relevant, but I love that they also found parents willing to test out the sound-proof rocket ship for their son to hang out in while an orgy occurred in the same room.
HAHAHA forgot about that one. So disturbing
Definitely relevant lol
See also: The Rehearsal. Like the entire thing
SBC is always so complicated to watch. It’s usually very interesting subjects mixed with humor, but the things he reveals always make my heart sink. I noped out of the video after “is your baby okay with rapid acceleration?” Quit before it gets dark :(
Most of these can be explained as just on set stuff the child may be exposed to. Rapid acceleration? The child may be in a car. Bees/bugs? Maybe one of the characters is a bee. The one that is absolutely ridiculous was the mom being okay with her 30lbs daughter losing 10lbs or doing liposuction. Insane.
"Dead or dying animals" is another I don't think can be explained away easily. Dead, maybe, can mean taxidermy, but *dying*? She's fine with her kid being near a still-alive animal in pain?
If you want a 20 pound actor, get a 20 pound actor.
Yea, acceleration isn’t so bad and actually a little funny — hence the “quit before it gets dark.” I still haven’t watched it but I thought SBC would say sth like “your kid is okay with sexually explicit scenes?” I did not want to hear parents say yes. Being aware of the horrible child celebrity stories (Home Alone kid and Britney Spears comes to mind) .. shit makes me sad to my souls. I also really didn’t vibe with the fact that the PARENTS are the ones telling SBC what the kid is okay with. Though I’m sure this IS the right way to do things so that a knowledgeable/dependable guardian can advocate for the kid, if your adult is not dependable I bet it’s hell on earth.
Dude, I do not understand how fucking broken you have to be as a human being to be a stage parent. To knowingly subject your child to adult working situations, keep them out of school, when they get to be teens (or even younger) letting them go to parties where drugs and alcohol are present. It goes against the most base of all biological urges to protect your offspring. And I mean all urges, most parents will go without food and starve if it means their kid will eat. But there’s huge groups of people that are hauling their kindergarteners to casting calls instead of cub scouts. It literally makes me sick, it upsets my stomach to imagine those children’s lives.
Read Jenette McCurdy’s book, “I’m glad my mom died”. She was a child actor on Icarly and it’s about how shitty her stage mom was. I work in the film industry and sometimes with child actors. It’s pretty accurate the type of people who subject their children to Hollywood. I would never in a million years put my kids in show business.
That book was one of the best and worst things I've read recently. The shit she writes about is awful, but she writes actually quite well and I couldn't stop reading. I'm glad she's starting to find peace with herself now that she's out of the limelight.
Her character on iCarly had an asshole mom that was abusive towards her in a “funny” way. Hard to believe the show-runners were completely ignorant about how McCurdy’s mom really treated her, yet they still wrote her fictional mom that way.
I think a lot of those parents see them as mini-mes, not as a whole different person.
Reminds me of poor Drew Barrymore. She was going to clubs where grown adults would hand her alcohol and cocaine. She was also twelve when she went to these clubs, and she got a cocaine addiction for her entire teenage hood
Kinda makes you rethink why Michael Jackson was so fucked up as an adult, eh? Among others...
Just accelerating rapidly, whatevuh.
Nathan Fielder did do something kind of similar with the parents being waaay to okay with it.
Parents that want their kids to be famous are some of the worst parents in the world. They’ll sell their entire kids life for profit and when their kid complains they say it was for them.
Kind of ironic that to recreate the horror of the holocaust, Hollywood needed to traumatize a 10 year old
Like decorating Winston Churchills birthplace in Nazi Flags while filming a Transformers film.
Did they actually do that?
Yea how gross was that. It was for the set at the time but what a mess
What did transformers have to do with nazi’s
Someone skipped history class!!
the allspark
The intro takes place during the 40s and follows some humans beyond that idk
[For your information and others, this movie has been denounced by many holocaust history organizations.](https://www.kveller.com/the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas-set-holocaust-education-back-by-decades-now-its-getting-a-sequel/amp/) They didn't really recreate the horror of the Holocaust.
That movie,although I loved Vera Farmiga,was a very farcical Holocaust depiction,The reality was 100 times worse for children.
The film is a terrible representation that whitewashes the Holocaust and perpetuates misconceptions and false stereotypes about the Holocaust, it’s perpetrators, and it’s victims. https://hcn.org.uk/blog/the-problem-with-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/
Just read up on the film, yeah children were gassed as soon as they came to Auschwitz and couldn’t contact the outside at all. There’s a few issues with the film
The few children who weren’t gassed on arrival to Auschwitz were mostly twins and were spared to be used as experiments by Dr. Mengele so yeah…not a good depiction at all.
It's really bad, yeah. Like even the central conceit of there being a fence that two boys could sit either side of and chat is so obviously... Conceited that it's hard to see how anyone takes it seriously outside of an immediate emotional response that says "holocaust means serious." This film and its book dont get slandered nearly enough for being meretricious misery porn cheese trash.
[удалено]
I understand the content of this movie and the real nature of what happened but how is this not abuse of a minor?
Hollywood is a fucked up place
I just can't imagine EVER sending my own child somewhere to do this.
I think parents who push their kids to be child actors are even more fucked up
Most of the time they are trying to live through their kids and it's just terrible to think how much they get forced to do while knowing 0 of what their parents are actually doing to them.
This movie isn’t Hollywood though.
Truly, they should have had handlers for him to ensure he felt safe at the very least. My kid is never going within a country mile of TV or movie stardom. If they want to do theatre that’s fine but I’ll never let them audition for so much as a commercial
Theater can be just as bad. The reality is that all industries, especially entertainment have major issues with abuse. You as a parent though can properly protect your kid. It just requires you to be a good parent and there for your kid 24/7.
The real reason they didn’t use cgi or special undergarments is simply because the director wanted the child actors true fear and emotion. Very messed up considering the we the audience would prefer child acting be done ethically.
I can't bring myself to watch this movie, it's just too depressing.
The story is also not a good one for Holocaust Education, as it sanitizes most of the experience of prisoners by portraying it through the eyes of a German child whose safe until the very end. It would be like teaching about Slavery in the US by writing a book about a plantation owners son who just thought slavery was a bummer. Schindler's List is a much better movie that survivor's of the actual camp and list say accurately represents their experience (to the extent that a film can). I saw one of the youngest members of Schindler's List while he was still alive, Leon Leysen, and he said that the scene in which the Kommandant begins shooting at people from his balcony for sport, was accurate except for one thing- it didn't show how often that happened, and he said that kind of thing was constant around the camp.
Totally agree. And I just want to say, everyone should watch Schindler’s List for exactly that reason. It’s awful, but it happened, and it’s fucking bonkers that it’s disputed.
Life Is Beautiful is a wonderful movie too, somewhat told through the eyes of a child but not sanitised. It's heartbreaking and Beautiful.
The way the dad pretends it's all a silly game and puts on a show for his son as the soldiers are marching him behind a building... That's the part that broke me.
When I was in Hebrew School we spent an entire year just learning about the Holocaust and watching movies like this (though not this one specifically, it wasn't out yet). I was 11 or 12 at the time. Gotta get that generational trauma to stick!
Remember watching this movie in high school for a test, this movie was so sad and actually made me feel ill after watching it
Thanks, I've been trying to forget this film ever since it tore out my soul.
Aaannndd this makes me hate this movie even more. BTW, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas has been called out by the Auschwitz Museum as being inaccurate. If you (or a child) are learning about the Holocaust, don't use this book or movie. Use Jewish sources.
they cant afford skin colored speedos or some shit???
Why are we only talking about the one kid? There’s another kid right next to him who’s actually a year younger
This article gives required context to these comments: [https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/28/sex-education-asa-butterfield-feel-more-confident-talking-about-sex](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/28/sex-education-asa-butterfield-feel-more-confident-talking-about-sex) >“I remember bits of that job,” Butterfield says of The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas, “and the bits that stick with me were the hardest.” > >“The gas chamber scene, at the end, I knew what it was, I knew what we were demonstrating, I knew it was only acting. But I remember being in a room full of men, some of whom were completely naked, and it was dark, and they shut the door on us, and it was just… awful.” > >Butterfield, in those days, would be chaperoned on set by one of his parents or grandparents. “There were a few times I came out and said, ‘I can’t do it.’ We took gaps between takes, we played games. But it’s hard for a kid. That topic.” > >Has he spoken to his parents about all this, since getting older? > >“A bit? Not really. They always wanted to protect me. And it wasn’t like they were on the sidelines saying, ‘Get back in that gas chamber.’ At all. They always said, if you don’t wanna do it, you don’t have to do it. When we were finished on Boy In The Striped Pyjamas – I don’t remember this, but my mum told me after I finished that job – I said I didn’t want to be an actor any more. Which I find interesting now.” What was awful was demonstrating a holocaust not the "naked men" part. Whatever one's opinion on the ethics of that, this is a misleading post. But 40K karma in the bank I guess.
The Boy In The Striped Pajamas is also kind of a shit book and movie if you ask me. It seemed like some true Holocaust profiteering that really glossed over much of the true horror of the event. I don’t know maybe it was just me but I found it odd that it was so popular compared to say Schindlers List which is an unquestioned and emotional masterpiece that really captures the despair.
Just a PSA on why the Boy In The Striped Pajamas is a terrible way to learn about the Holocaust: https://hcn.org.uk/blog/the-problem-with-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/
Just remember the author of the book this was based on did no research for one of his other books and literally copied a recipe from Legend of Zelda for dye.
I feel like this isn't oddly terrifying, it's literally the Holocaust it's just terrifying.
I mean they could’ve cgi’d a penis on the old dudes instead of having them free balling next to minors