Film, The boy in the striped pajamas BBC i player - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
26Expired

Film, The boy in the striped pajamas BBC i player

£0.00 @ BBC.co.uk
10 / 10 The tale of an unlikely friendship between Bruno (Asa Butterfield), the son of a Nazi commandant, and Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), a Jewish boy held captive in a concentration camp. Read More
miles136 Avatar
3m, 5d agoFound 3 months, 5 days ago
10 / 10

The tale of an unlikely friendship between Bruno (Asa Butterfield), the son of a Nazi commandant, and Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), a Jewish boy held captive in a concentration camp.
More From BBC.co.uk:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
miles136 Avatar
3m, 5d agoFound 3 months, 5 days ago
Options

All Comments

(26) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
A hard watch but worth it, so confused how to feel at the end?
4 Likes #2
Not free.
1 Like #3
Silurianxx
Not free.

o yes it is
#4
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is

The Murdoch fanboi is correct, you have to have paid for a TV licence.

Also why single out one title from iPlayer?
#5
trevordavies0629
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
The Murdoch fanboi is correct, you have to have paid for a TV licence.
Also why single out one title from iPlayer?

no you do not have to have paid the licence fee, but I do insist you do

Many on here highlight a good film on i player do a quick search and you will see
#6
miles136
trevordavies0629
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
The Murdoch fanboi is correct, you have to have paid for a TV licence.
Also why single out one title from iPlayer?

no you do not have to have paid the licence fee, but I do insist you do

Many on here highlight a good film on i player do a quick search and you will see


you do need a TV license to watch iplayer.

Edited By: cmncomp on Apr 21, 2017 01:28: spelling
1 Like #7
cmncomp
miles136
trevordavies0629
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
The Murdoch fanboi is correct, you have to have paid for a TV licence.
Also why single out one title from iPlayer?

no you do not have to have paid the licence fee, but I do insist you do

Many on here highlight a good film on i player do a quick search and you will see


you do need a TV license to watch iplayer.


Incorrect - you are required to have a licence (paid for or not) but you do not need one. You are merely asked whether you possess one - a bit like pub websites that ask whether you are over 18 by inputting your DOB or answering "Yes/No".
#8
trevordavies0629
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
The Murdoch fanboi is correct, you have to have paid for a TV licence.
Also why single out one title from iPlayer?
Am I the Murdoch fanboy you're referring to? What a strange jump in logic particularly when the exact opposite is true.
1 Like #9
If you use the Get IPlayer software, it can be downloaded and kept indefinitely.
2 Likes #10
The correct British English spelling is pyjamas, a word originating from Urdu. Pajamas is the etymologically incorrect Americanised spelling. Yuk!

BTW, the film is based on a preposterous set of circumstances. Appalling.
gabesdad
If you use the Get IPlayer software, it can be downloaded and kept indefinitely.

Which is what I do as it allows me to watch aired programmes when I have the time. I delete the file once viewed and never pass it on.
https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/39019/get-iplayer-automator


Edited By: loiterer on Apr 21, 2017 09:23
#11
Pyjamas :{
#12
loiterer
The correct British English spelling is pyjamas, a word originating from Urdu. Pajamas is the etymologically incorrect Americanised spelling. Yuk!

BTW, the film is based on a preposterous set of circumstances. Appalling.
gabesdad
If you use the Get IPlayer software, it can be downloaded and kept indefinitely.

Didn't see your post before I posted mine. Yes totally agree with the first part. Second part I half agree, it is rather preposterous but I certainly didn't find it appalling.
2 Likes #13
Very harrowing viewing. I've seen this once and tho I enjoyed it, never again.
#14
xenophon
Yes totally agree with the first part. Second part I half agree, it is rather preposterous but I certainly didn't find it appalling.

I meant the use of ignorant childhood innocence to create an ironic twist. It was a cheap choice of emotional exploitation set within a subject that had really dark origins. Perhaps the screenplay could have had the commandants wife engaged in an illicit affair with a Jewish Kapo (male or female) who finds her fate substantially altered by an envious inmate... ?... Just thoughts...

BTW, I have reached a point where I feel every aspect of the Shoah has been "done to death" on film, in fictional books, factual books, via documentaries, colour supplements, TV dramas, etc., etc.


Edited By: loiterer on Apr 21, 2017 16:20
3 Likes #15
MissGoldie
Very harrowing viewing. I've seen this once and tho I enjoyed it, never again.

Try "Threads" (nuclear strike in Sheffield) or the English subtitled Russian Film "Come and See" (young Russian patriot) avoid the American voice dubbed version, it ruins the flow of the film.
#16
MissGoldie
Very harrowing viewing. I've seen this once and tho I enjoyed it, never again.
I agree. I saw that it was on and avoided a second viewing.
#17
loiterer
xenophon
Yes totally agree with the first part. Second part I half agree, it is rather preposterous but I certainly didn't find it appalling.
I meant the use of ignorant childhood innocence to create an ironic twist. It was a cheap choice of emotional exploitation set within a subject that had really dark origins. Perhaps the screenplay could have had the commandants wife engaged in an illicit affair with a Jewish Kapo (male or female) who finds her fate substantially altered by an envious inmate... ?... Just thoughts...
BTW, I have reached a point where I feel every aspect of the Shoah has been "done to death" on film, in fictional books, factual books, via documentaries, colour supplements, TV dramas, etc., etc.

I think that was done so as to appear to a younger audience. It's essentially a family friendly Holocaust film, if you can have such a thing.

Of course there are far more powerful and disturbing films out there on the subject. As someone who has had a fairly deep referential interest on the Holocaust for many years, I can concur that you can get to the stage where you've seen and read so much that fatigue can set in.
1 Like #18
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is

Cost me £147
1 Like #19
Thanks for the heads up - have always wanted to watch this film.
Here is an interesting article about the author (John Boyne) and the writing of the book and his other writing projects in general....it's all hard work!!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/01/john-boyne-my-writing-day
#20
Graham1979
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
Cost me £147

Good

xxxx
1 Like #21
Graham1979
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
Cost me £147

Yep. Our BBC is a bargain, especially when one considers the diverse output it produces. Infinitely better than skinny latte's or SKY.
#22
A bargain lol , now that's funny
#23
loiterer
Graham1979
miles136
Silurianxx
Not free.
o yes it is
Cost me £147
Yep. Our BBC is a bargain, especially when one considers the diverse output it produces. Infinitely better than skinny latte's or SKY.

Sky is free of course. The BBC is not only the government propaganda arm but proven liars and well need we mention OPERATION YEWTREE?
1 Like #24
Graham1979
Sky is free of course. The BBC is not only the government propaganda arm but proven liars and well need we mention OPERATION YEWTREE?

I stand corrected if SKY is free. I've never seen a SKY channel programme on my list of Freeview channels. Then again I may have deleted it years ago.

The BBC is no more an agent of government than any other media company; Murdoch, it could be said, almost runs our governments directly. And, if not directly, they are too often functionally steered via his right-wing media juggernauts. Even "New" Labour's once leader, and our PM for years, was a ventriloquists dummy for Murdoch's personal politics.

The BBC has been a vast institution for decades. Given the prevalent misogyny of a patriarchic population it was bound to have some bad apples in its baskets. Then again, the same could be said for religious and charitable organisations. "Proven liars" is a term applicable to every corner of every organisation. So, why single out the BBC?
#25
loiterer
Graham1979
Sky is free of course. The BBC is not only the government propaganda arm but proven liars and well need we mention OPERATION YEWTREE?
I stand corrected if SKY is free. I've never seen a SKY channel programme on my list of Freeview channels. Then again I may have deleted it years ago.
The BBC is no more an agent of government than any other media company; Murdoch, it could be said, almost runs our governments directly. And, if not directly, they are too often functionally steered via his right-wing media juggernauts. Even "New" Labour's once leader, and our PM for years, was a ventriloquists dummy for Murdoch's personal politics.
The BBC has been a vast institution for decades. Given the prevalent misogyny of a patriarchic population it was bound to have some bad apples in its baskets. Then again, the same could be said for religious and charitable organisations. "Proven liars" is a term applicable to every corner of every organisation. So, why single out the BBC?

Sky news?

The BBC is an organisation "WE" are forced to pay for by watching other channels.

The BBC being a VAST INSTITUTION is the precise problem. It was not designed to be "nanny" but yet the billions "WE" are forced to pay them and the dozens of staff earning more than the PM. You love the BBC you pay for it through subscirption, I don't pay Ford to drive a Ferrari, I don't pay Warbutons to eat Hovis yet I have to pay the BBC to watch re-runs of Bullseye made for ITV from 1982!
2 Likes #26
Graham1979
Sky news?
The BBC is an organisation "WE" are forced to pay for by watching other channels.
The BBC being a VAST INSTITUTION is the precise problem. It was not designed to be "nanny"...I have to pay the BBC to watch re-runs of Bullseye made for ITV from 1982!

Though I've never watched it, you offer up Sky news as a (solitary) example of free Sky TV viewing...? Precisely how politically unbiased do you think that little number is from Murdoch?

Amongst other goals the BBC was designed to educate and stimulate the British Public and beyond. So, in some sense, it was both nanny and teacher.

You do not have to pay the BBC to watch re-runs of Bullseye (whatever that may be). The BBC offers a wealth of material for public consumption; you are not restricted to TV productions, new or old. The choices you make about what you watch, listen to or read are your choices. However, if you peruse the BBC web-sites you will find a massive archive of information covering myriad aspects of life.

A 40p per day tax, I you so consider it, is, in my opinion an absolute bargain. I would far rather pay for the upkeep of the BBC than fund munitions production or HS2 railway projects. We are all paying considerably more than 40p per day in recompense for the criminal activities of a mere handful of bankers, failed IT schemes and environmental cleansing.

You are free to gripe about the BBC if you must. But consider the pleasure it brings to millions of people young or old, day in, day out.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!