Short Film Analysis - Toyland

Spielzeugland (Toyland) is a war drama by German filmmaker Jochen Fredank. Set in

1942, and co-written with Johann Bunners, Toyland is the name a German mother invents
when her son asks where his Jewish neighbours are going. The son wants to go with his
friend and follows his neighbours, getting caught up in the Nazi action, before his mother
comes to get him, explaining to the officers that there has been a mistake. Its a film that
leaks theory about film. Being a 2007 film, it has an ideology that suggests it is okay for
these different ethnicities to mix and so the representation ideas promote that. Castells said
that ethnicity is a founding structure of social differentiation and social recognition, as well
as discrimination, Fredanks film reflecting the 40s discrimination of Jewish people. The film
proves the theory of genre zeitgeist to be correct as the different ethnic groups in this (set in
the 1940s) film, mix (through the two boys) as they do in the 21st Century.
The framing of this shot is reminiscent of the
rule of thirds, while the positioning of each
character is that to show the viewer all the
characters in one early shot. This is
beneficial for the short film as it isnt feature
length, not having the time to introduce us
individually. The diegetic dialogue over this
establishing shot of the characters foreshadows the events of the film and leaks the films
ideology; the director showing the tragedy of how Jewish children were sent off to be killed.
The children in the foreground of this shot shows they are the focus of the film, and its
ideology, setting the viewer up to follow what the producers want you to see and believe.

The handheld camera when the mother

realises her son is missing (gone with his
Jewish friend to what he thinks is Toyland)
represents her fear and nervousness of not
being able to find her missing son, though not

particularly ours. The search is not accented with dramatic effect: The lack of music in nondiegetic sound throughout the search effectively doesnt make us care that much about the
German mother. I dont think the maker particularly wants us to sympathise with the German
characters as there were so many Jewish children taken, representing an ideology that we
shouldnt care anymore about this particular ethnicity than we do about the Jewish children
taken. This also links well with the end of the film, where when she finds her son in the
carriage of Jews, nothing feels accomplished and the mood of the film, representing the
ideological zeitgeist, is still pessimistic with a dystopian narrative. The lack of non-diegetic
music at the end of this film when she finds her son also helps weaken our care for these
characters, the director not particularly wanting us as an audience to root for anyone, though
simply present a divergence in ethnicity in the time of the Second World War, representing
the zeitgeist of today in that ethnicity is not important in a person. Critically speaking, I think
this ideology is a good thing for the film and is perhaps why it was critically successful.
The mother of Heinrich, the boy who wants to
go to Toyland with his Jewish friends, alerts
the Nazi officers that her son is in one of the
carriages. When they open the carriage, the
camera shots focus on the height that Heinrich
would be at, filming only the lower bodies of the
imprisoned Jews. This is something the director has
done on purpose the present an ideology of how this
ethnicity didnt matter at the time, the handheld
camera almost acting as the Nazi officers and
Heinrichs mother as they search for the boy as if hes
the only human life that matters. By doing this, the filmmaker has created a clear
juxtaposition in ethnicities and proves to link with Castells theory.
When Heinrich is found amongst the groups of people, he is being held by the Jewish carers
of his friend, and the camera pans up to become a tilted shot. The mother and the Jewish
parents of Heinrichs friend exchange no words as they take back the boy wanting to go to

Toyland.