In the publishing of the book Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, many
aspects of Anne’s diary were manipulated and altered for marketing purposes in
America. The genre of a diary in literature is used to bring authenticity to the
work. A diary by definition is “a book in which you write down your personal
experiences and thoughts each day” (Merriam-Webster). A diary includes your
unfiltered and unedited “reflections [and] feelings” (Merriam-Webster) which
ultimately reflect who you are. However, it is questionable to whether this was
the case for the diary of Anne Frank. The story “of a young female victim” (Ravitis
5) was selected amidst the millions of stories of other victims and published in
America as a memoir of the Holocaust. It was published in America since its
themes “corresponded well to American ideals” (Ravitis 5). Instead of being
published in America as Frank’s original title of her diary, Het Achterhüis [The
House Behind], it was altered to The Diary of a Young Girl in order to publicize
her as “an innocent child distanced from … adult ideology” (Ravitis 5). Due to the
fact that America was in a “time of recuperation, materialism, and dull
conformity” (Ravitis 5), they did not want to promote Frank’s ambitious and
confident view of herself (Ravitis 6). When the diary was planned to be made into
a play, Frank’s father, Otto Frank feared that it would be “rather different from
the real contents of her book” (Stalnaker 15) —and as it turns out, he had all the
right to be. The goal of the production team was to make the “most universal
version … of Anne possible” in order to “meet the social and political constructs
of their target audience” (Stalnaker 16). Instead of being true to the authenticity
of the diary and the reality of a young German Holocaust victim, they made her
character relatable to the “average American citizen of the mid-1950s.” (Stalnaker
16) It seems as though Anne frank has been fabricated into yet another fake
Hollywood star. Twenty-one-year-old actress and model, Millie Perkins played
Anne Frank in the movie “The Diary of Anne Frank” in 1959. It is obvious that the
much older and glamorous girl was used to portray Frank to satisfy the
standards of the American audience. What once was the raw diary of a true
victim of the Holocaust is now a production of entertainment to American culture
norms. When such a raw form of documentation, such as a diary, can be
transformed and projected to us in such deceptive ways, we should really start to
question all information that is displayed to us through literature, productions or
any type of media. Can authenticity truly exist past the process of editing? Was
the narrative of a young girl chosen as the voice of the Holocaust to elicit pathos
from the audience? Was the voice of a child was used due to the common
tendency of interpreting youth as innocent and uncorrupted sources? There is no
way to be sure that the information being presented to us through these tools is
with genuine intention. The way situations are displayed to us plays a major role
in how we perceive information. Ultimately, it is up to us to avoid falling into
naivety by asking questions and being critical about what is placed in front of us.
Works Cited
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.
Ravits, Martha. “To Work in the World: Anne Frank and American Literary
History.” Women’s Studies 27.1 (1998): 5-6. Web. 17 Sep. 2016.
Stalnaker, Whitney Lewis. “Good at Heart: The Dramatization of the Diary of Anne
Frank and its Influence on American Cultural Perceptions.” Order No.
10115758 Kent State University, 2016. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. 15-16 Web. 17
Sep. 2016.
“The Diary of Anne Frank (1959).” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.