The Diary of Anne Frank

source: The Diary of Anne Frank

How to criticise such a well-intentioned film on such a worthy subject? Anne Frank has come down the ages as a universal symbol of youthful innocence in the face of inhuman oppression and must therefore in any cinematic telling of her tale be accorded proper respect, all the more so when unlike other near-historic "sacred cows", for example Winston Churchill or Gandhi, she was destroyed even before she came to adulthood. Not only that but the film-maker has another major problem in holding the viewer's interest with a narrative which by dint of its content must include periods of inaction and in a greatly confined space at that. Therefore in judging the film on purely cinematic terms, I have to say I found the movie overlong and also guilty of some uneven acting, although the latter point is excused somewhat by the youth of the perpetrators, of which more later. George Stevens's later work tends to long-playing at the best of times ("Giant" anyone?) and here again, perhaps as I said out of over-respect for its source material, the film runs to a draining 170 minutes, a good hour too long I would say. Of course with all that time at his disposal, the director delivers lots of characterisation but there's little he can do to inject genuine action and tension and as we know in advance that the moment of discovery has to come at the film's finish, attempts to heighten tension at other points are weakened accordingly, also by their being drawn out inordinately over several overlong minutes. I also have a major problem with said moment of discovery coinciding with Anne and Peter's kiss, for me a distasteful Hollyood bowdlerisation of events as of course no such event ever occurs in the diary itself. Which leads me to the acting... The "seniors" are all very good and believable, particularly Joseph Schildkraut playing Otto Frank and Shelley Winters in one of her first older character parts, but the "juniors" are inconsistent, not even trying to adopt a Dutch accent and therefore jarring on the soundtrack. Again I hesitate to be over-critical of Millie Perkins in the title role but I did find her too, certainly old and also dare I say it, almost cute and subsequently unconvincing in her attempt at realism, despite the care and camera-friendly treatment the director gives her. It's no great surprise to me that adult stardom seems to have evaded her. It would be easy to sign off and just point everyone at the book itself but clearly this is a great story which will live forever and no doubt be re-told again and again on TV and on the big screen, as it deserves to. This first portrayal seems to me too much a child of its era, the black and white, stolid, 1950's and with a director too much in thrall to his subject. That said everyone should watch the film, especially if they haven't read the book, but your time will pass slowly and I don't think you'll be moved as much as you should be at the conclusion.

Having seen Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam, I felt disappointed by this 'classic' film. It does just not stand up and at one point I felt it inspired Mel Brooks 'The Producers.' Anne Frank recorded her story of hiding in a loft with her family as well as others, living for several years in cramped harsh conditions hoping to evade the Nazis. What we get is an overlong, mawkish film that wants to concentrate more in the love interest between Anne and a boy called Peter from the other family. We get little of the terror that these families would had felt. The film lacks the claustrophobia that should be presented to the audience. It really is a film of its time stripped of all the harshness of war. Worse the actress playing Anne looks too old and is rather bland.

Based on the play, the movie is about two families that go into hiding in Amsterdam during World War II. This movie has Millie Perkins starring as Anne Frank who has an excellent performance and a brilliant narration. Anne Frank also has chemistry with Peter Van Daan, a boy from the other family. The cinematography is great. I especially like how the camera moves up from floor to floor. The film is very suspenseful and keeps your eyes glued to the screen to see what happens next. The final reason why this is great is that it shows spirit and hope in dark times. I'm surprised that no one watches this movie that much today. It seems that it is a forgotten gem.

This worthwhile cinematic tribute to "The Diary of Anne Frank" offers a solid cast, some very effective settings, and a generally well-considered selection of episodes. No mere movie could convey the full force of the original diary, which no one who has read it can forget. But this movie version is good in its own right, and it does add some memorable, if sometimes non-historical, images to the story. The script does alter some details, and it's hard to see why they could not simply have filmed a selection of actual events, since that could have been more than effective enough. But, as a movie in its own right, it works well. The Diary is most important for its record of the daily lives of real individuals who lived in constant fear because of the Nazis and their irrational persecutions. It puts names and faces on the kind of human disaster that is all too often described in terms of mere numbers. The movie does well in bringing out this aspect of the diary, making the characters come to life in settings that are interesting, detailed, and believable. The photography also makes good use of the settings and the details. The other significant aspect of the Diary is its portrait of Anne herself. Her writings combine observations on the overall situation with observations about her own life and self, with a surprising degree of perception. This does not come out so much in the movie, though of course this would be much harder to accomplish. Millie Perkins projects a rather different image from the original Anne, but then again, there is nothing really wrong with her performance in itself. She does make a sympathetic and generally believable heroine. The supporting cast generally does a good job. The fine character actor Joseph Schildkraut gives the best performance, as Anne's father Otto. Overall, if viewed with reasonable expectations and evaluated apart from the book, this adaptation is an interesting and worthwhile movie.

''The Diary of Anne Frank '''is not a bad movie, but I expected more from it. I think the version with Ben Kingsley and Hannah Taylor Gordon is much more interesting then this one. Millie Perkins could not be the Anne I imagined, but the funny thing is that I found her looks very similar to Audrey Hepburn, and when I read in trivia's part that ''Audrey Hepburn was first offered the role of Anne Frank'' I was surprised with the coincidence. I was almost positive that the actors filmed in the real Anex, but I discovered reading the Trivia that it wasn't possible for the crew to be there.[ too many people in a very small place] One of the last scenes, were the the phone keeps ringing and nobody answers it, never happened in the real story. It was in the script to make some tension in the audience.

Throughout the movie, it's the hopefulness that is constantly being expressed that makes this all the more sad to watch - because, of course, we (the viewer) know the hopelessness of the situation; we know how it's going to end. The story is based on a stageplay which was in turn based on the actual diary of Anne Frank, whose family (being Jewish) went into hiding in Nazi-occupied Holland in 1942, sharing a very small space with several others. As the title implies, the movie is largely about Anne. We watch her grow up in this claustrophobic setting - starting at age 13 and spending more than two years there until the group was discovered. Starting out as a child with a natural rebellious streak, Anne grows into a young woman, falling in love with a young man sharing the living quarters. Millie Perkins was excellent as young Anne, and I was impressed with Joseph Schildkraut as her father Otto, who was in the end the only survivor. The movie begins and ends with his post-war visit to the place where they were hidden, and his grief at being the only survivor among his family is powerfully portrayed. In general, all the performances in this were quite good, and there was a believable portrayal of the difficulties involved in so many people sharing so little space under such stressful circumstances, and there are a number of very suspenseful moments involved. It's a very moving story.

A classic in its day, "The Diary of Anne Frank" sadly does not have the same impact today in light of the more recent and far more powerful "Schindler's List". Anne's story is a well known and common one about two Jewish families taking refuge in the loft of a warehouse owned and run by a compassionate Dutch couple whose hatred of the Nazis is shared by many. Two rather glaring faults let George Steven's film down, one being excessive over-length. At more than two hours, forty minutes, "The Diary of Anne Frank" asks a lot of the audience in the way of concentration. So many scenes are dragged out far too long, while others seem simply unnecessary. And unlike the more recent, hard hitting holocaust films, we see nothing of the dreadful death camps that were the lot of so many Jews. The other weak link is the cast, none of whom are able to truly inspire with a strong portrayal as was needed. Especially disappointing is Millie Perkins in the pivotal role of Anne, Miscast, she never quite captures the heart of the spirited young girl made famous by her diary. The music featured is far too melodramatic also. Certainly watchable and somewhat educational, though screenwriters Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett are never quite able to captivate as they perhaps could have with a more tense, forceful script. Friday, February 14, 1997 - Video

Director George Stevens started this film with two big liabilities: the total miscasting of 19 year old model Millie Perkins as Anne Frank and the directive that the film be made in Cinemascope. Perkins gives it the old college try, but she is totally unbelievable as Anne Frank. She is too old for the role and just can't seem to add any depth to the character. To add insult to injury, the makeup department gives her ridiculously made up eyes. The widescreen format of this film is totally inappropriate for a film that should be making us feel the claustrophobia of Anne's hiding spot. Director Stevens tries to work around this, but clearly this is a film that should have been made using a 4:3 ratio. The screenplay of the film is not bad, although it is overlong and not always historically accurate. Anne's last diary entries are totally made up, and it is not true that Mr. Frank knew the fate of his daughters when he returned to Amsterdam. Also, nobody really knows for sure how the Nazis found out about them. The supporting cast is generally fine, and the film has good moments (the scenes with the burglar are well done), but overall this film is a failure

No words are adequate enough to express the emotion that I feel each time I see this harrowing account of Jewish people hiding from Nazi terror in Holland. I read that Director George Stevens assembled his cast to live in those quarters for a certain amount of time so as to get the idea of what confinement might actually mean. Joseph Schildkraut gave a memorable performance. Where was his Oscar nomination? Were Academy voters afraid that if he had been nominated, he might have defeated Charlton Heston in "Ben-Hur?" Ed Wynn brought comic relief with a gem of a dramatic performance as the condemned dentist. His losing the Oscar for best supporting actor was a slap in the face, especially for his many years in show business. Similarly, Lou Jacobi gave a tremendous performance as Shelley Winters' long suffering husband.(Who remembers Hugh Griffith in "Ben-Hur?") Few remember that he was the best supporting actor that year for the latter film. What a great musical score reaching its height as the "fugitives" are about to be rounded up. That farewell kiss between Richard Beymer and Millie Perkins was wonderful.