The Book Thief: A protagonist in an antagonistic world ( WARNING: SPOILERS)

The Book Thief (2014) film adaptation of the book written by Markus Zusak, is based in Germany during the 2nd World War, and is set on a street called Himmel Street, Himmel translates as Heaven. Which is filled with irony as the book and film are narrated and told from Death's perspective. The story follows the life of Liesel Meminger who is entrusted to the care of Hans and Rosa Hubermann after her mother (who is revealed to be a communist) has to give up Liesel in order to protect her from the Nazi party and Heir Hitler. The film is filled with many dramatic ironies which Death at times vocalises such as:

"I've seen so many young men over the years who think they're running at other young men. They are not, they're running at me."(Zusak:2006)

Throughout the film the audience creates relationships with the different characters, you come to love the residents of Himmel Street that are depicted in the film and you are allowed an insight in to understanding that not all members of the Nazi party were radical extremists, but that many joined the Nazi party in order to survive, which is shown through the character of Hans who is short of work due to his not being a member of the party.

The film ends tragically with Himmel Street being bombed and only Liesel and Rudy's father survive. Death talks rather lovingly about collecting each of their souls, and what is a credit to the construction of the film is that you do not come to hate Death, Death is not the enemy, rather the soldiers who were ordered to drop the bombs are the enemy. And this is where for me a slightly paradoxical event occurs. The airmen that dropped the bombs were most likely British, or someone fighting on the opposing side to Germany. For me being someone who has been taught about the 2nd World War, from an English perspective it is difficult to realise that the winning side also had to take civilian lives in the fight for victory. This leads to, the idea that protagonist and antagonist are broad definitions when you compare the film world (which is based on true events) and the real world. This then opens up the question as to how we justify violent acts, I think that this leads to looking at 3 key areas;

1. The world that the film/book creates
2. The audience member watching
3. The violence that occurs.

These 3 things are forever changing and varying. Violence in the media is not decided by a judge and jury as to the justification of the act but by the audience who watch. Meaning in my view that fictional media violence justification is not blind justice but circumstantial.