Selena Truong ASTU 100A

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.