In my last post, I discussed the controversy surrounding a theatre director who donated money in support of Proposition 8. Since then, some new and very interesting drama has surfaced in the world of theatre. My internet investigations have led me to the case of El Diario de Ana Frank: Un Canto a la Vida-- a musical currently running in Spain (see poster, right), based on the Jewish girl named Anne Frank who hid with her family from the Nazis for two years during WWII and recorded her account in a diary. Eventually, her family was betrayed, discovered, arrested and trained off to a concentration camp where all but her father died. It is a tragic true story that lacks anything remotely close to a happy ending, which begs the question, is a musical of her short life appropriate, especially when musicals are generally known to be a happy and light form of theatre? In the search for this answer, I found that even though I understand the points that supporters of the production make, there is something that is just plain unsettling about turning the The Diary of Anne Frank into a musical spectacle.One of the most interesting details in this situation is that the writer/director, Rafaelo Alvero, was actually given support to use Frank's story. According to the Guardian UK, Jan Erik Dubbelman who is the head of the international department of the foundation said, "The Anne Frank Foundation, which jealously guards the rights to the diary - it once turned down Steven Spielberg when he wanted to make a film - has given its support." One would assume that surely Spielberg, the founder of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation and director of the critically acclaimed film Schindler's List, would be granted the rights over some theatre company in Spain. In defense of his vision for the musical, Alvero says, "When I first came here they had this doubt, about how somebody can do a musical of a story like this. The thing we want to do is... through the music, to understand the story better." Dubbelman says, "This production respects the message of tolerance, within the tragedy, that we want to keep alive. Being in Spanish, it can also help to take the message of Anne Frank to Latin America." While I think it is great that musicals are being done in Spanish, I have to argue that without a doubt The Diary of Anne Frank (the book) is printed in Spanish and can be shared with Latin nations that way and more accurately for that matter. It so happens that none of the actual words from the diary were allowed to be used in the show, because contradictory to Dubbelman's statement, the "rights to the diary" belong to the Anne Frank Fund. The Fund is headed by Anne's only surviving relative, Buddy Elias.
Elias is a cousin of Anne's and strongly disagrees with the musical production, as he is quoted saying, "The Frank family was living in hiding for two years, which ended in tragedy - that's no theme for a happy evening of song and dance." Because the Fund is calling the shots, El Diario could not use any of the words from el diario. While the general story of Frank is free game, I have to wonder about the integrity of a production that was not approved by her family. Writer Alvero, who is also a movie producer, says, "It is emotional, within the sadness and the happiness of the life of Anne Frank. I have no doubt that it will be educational and entertaining." I am very skeptical that "education" is this movie man's main objective. The budget for the musical is a reported 4.5 million dollars; this is a huge investment which has to be aimed at making a large profit. Speaking of profit, where are the proceeds going? I wonder if any of the money is being donated for a good cause benefiting the legacy of Anne Frank, or are the proceeds being kept as reward for investors and producers?
I am a firm believer that every story deserves to be told. However, I do not agree with Anne Frank's life being reduced to a musical soundtrack. The young girl wrote about her life and first love in a diary she thought would be for her eyes only. There is something intimate and romantic about a diary and for it to be transformed into large scale Broadway worthy numbers is inappropriate and unbefitting. I especially disagree with the transformation of the actual diary into a character by the pet name of "Kitty," which Frank often referred to her diary as such. Steve Kingstone, a reviewer for BBC News, writes, "The human diary first appears in a red chiffon dress with a fat sequined belt and big hair - much like Wonder Woman going to a black-tie event." They might as well have given her a cigarette and a martini glass. The personification of Kitty is a perfect example of the the mess that can be made of fact when left up to artistic interpretation. This is not the way Anne Frank should be remembered and this is not the way someone should make money.
We live in an age of remakes, proving that the majority of writers have for the most part lost their edge on originality, but that does not make it alright to remake Anne Frank's life set to a fancy tune. Her cousin, Buddy Elias says, "How can I support this when my cousin Anne Frank who died in a concentration camp, who had a terrible destiny, is used for a happy musical with singing and dancing and I don't know what else?" While there was no dancing in the show, he does have a point. I think the greater question here is: would Anne approve? I'm sure the 13 year old girl would have been bubbling over with excitement had someone told her she would be famous one day with people vying for permission to tell her tale. Yes, I would venture to say that Anne would have loved the idea, until she heard the end of her tragic story.
