Where is Anne Frank (2021) – 2/5

Ruined by the ending

„Where is Anne Frank“ is a co-production between a total of five European countries, including the entirety of Benelux, and, as a consequence, this is a film in the English language like most others coming out these days. This premiered already back in 2021, so the movie is getting closer to the age of two years now. The big name attached to it is of course Israeli writer and director Ari Folman. It has been almost a decade now since his previous theatrical release „The Congress“ and even longer since the Oscar-nominated „Waltz with Bashir“. I liked the latter and loved the former, so I was surely curious about the quality of his newest release. As you can see from my rating, I found it underwhelming. I will go into detail soon what I disliked about it or actually you can already see it from the title of my review, but for now, let’s look at the basics: This is of course an animated movie, just like Folman’s previous two were. Given the subject, he left out big special effects this time, but kept the looks fairly essential. As a consequence, the outcome looks like a film that could have been from several years ago, if not decades. The movie runs for 95 minutes including credits. It looks as if it might have been a pretty personal subject for Folman. The time gap between this film and his last can be explained by him working on this movie for a long, long time. He was present during the German premiere last night and talked a bit about it. Also, you will read in the closing credits that there was a close connection between Anne Frank and his own parents back in the day during the latter days of World War II. As for Folman, with this project being always in production over the last decade, he was working a lot on television content as well.

There are beautiful women, but no big international names part of the voice cast here. This should surprise nobody really. Folman has had success in the United States, but this is not even an American co-production, let alone a Hollywood movie. As of now, maybe the biggest name from the cast is Emily Carey thanks to the recent Game of Thrones spinoff. Obviously, this was not safe though when she recorded for this one here, but good for her. She voiced the title character here, even if Anna is only the biggest supporting player in the movie or you could probably also make a case for her being a lesser lead than Kitty too, even if the latter was Anne’s own creation. The film scored solid awards recognition mostly in Europe, especially with the nomination for a European Film Award. It is a very European movie indeed. As a consequence, it should not really surprise that it crucially elaborates on one of the tensest European subjects for years now: the refugee crisis. I wish it wouldn’t have. As a consequence, it felt like mainstream, but sacrificed artistic integrity for it and for me the ending ruined the film pretty much. Major disappointment. The message there was in an even more unpleasant manner what you are constantly served by the mass media etc. Here for years now. I feel bad for the legacy of Anne Frank that her name was used for this and especially questionable also that this is supported by the Anne Frank Fonds and the museum depicted in this film. Quite a travesty if we put things into perspective in terms of refugees: Back then, millions of people, even millions of kids were murdered because of misguided ideology. A contender for the darkest hour in human existence. What we have today with the refugee crisis is nothing to be proud of either, but the dimensions are just the absolute opposite and should not be mentioned in reference to each other, especially with people not fleeing from anything, but moving towards a better life are declared fugitives nowadays too. No offense to the actual refugees though, the ones whose lives or at least whose freedom is threatened. They are the ones I actually feel for. This is why such an inclusion at the end was just a very negative factor for me.

What was even worse, was the idea of how crime is depicted as justified if it serves a certain purpose. I cannot agree there. Stealing the book to overcome existing regulations in terms of immigration is a complete no-go. Okay, we can make the argument that Kitty herself is the book and she left by choice, but still there is a sour aftertaste, especially if we look at how this is about culture. The film itself calls the book the country’s biggest cultural treasure since Rembrandt. I would also be very careful with depicting the idea of burning books in a movie that is dealing with this subject. It was ironic in a really uncomfortable fashion and in my head there was also a connection to these self-proclaimed environmentalists ruining priceless cultural treasures in museums nowadays. Okay, that is another subject, but the agenda these days is the same and is fueled by the same people. In the light of all this, I feel almost generous when giving the outcome here two stars out of five. Just one would not have been inaccurate either. Luckily, the film only goes really to the dogs in the last 20 minutes. Everything before that was okay and worth seeing for the most part and I would have given a positive recommendation without this drastic final decline. One thing I liked quite a bit for example was the idea that she is invisible inside the museum. I am also fond of the idea of Kitty being Anne Frank’s diary in the flesh. This rare animation effect when she transforms was pretty cool. Essential, yet magical. I also liked her looking for Anne early on and that she only knows what Anne told her. She keeps exploring and finding out more, for example about Anne’s death and what happened to her entire family except her father. The depiction of the book he wrote got me a bit curious too and I might wanna read it at some point. But as they said: First you should read the diary of course. Maybe then you will also understand how awesome it is that Anne’s dream of becoming a famous writer really came true.

On a more neutral perspective, this film was almost a bit of a travelling commercial for Amsterdam here and there with the locations mentioned, some named after the girl. A trip to Bergen-Belsen, so back to Germany was also a factor towards the end. Important inclusion and I think it was the right choice. After this trip, the film turned into a mess then. The little romance story with the male refugee, oh well I could have done without it as he was another character supposed to be seen as likable despite having zero respect for law and police in a country that offers him a better life. You could split this film up into two parts, the now and the then, but the action keeps jumping back and forth between the two, so it is hardly a movie with clean structure. Not really an issue though. Even if Kitty (apparently an ice-skating prodigy) looks the same during both eras, despite 70 years or more between them, it was easy to understand where/when we are right now. The romance aspect back in the 1940s I liked more when Anne talks about the boys in her life and eventually grows closer to the „suicidal“ one, even if she states it was no love from her side. The moment they are looking at the sky was still kinda sweet and romantic. This was also when the sleazy aspect from Anne’s writings came a bit into play. We hear brief talking about male genitalia. It is still kept very kids-friendly as these are the audience the film is mostly going for. Which makes it even more despicable what the movie does in the very end, but I shared my thoughts on that already sufficiently I think. In any case, these segments from the old were also infinitely more memorable because they are linked closely to Anne’s words from the book and just more factual, for example how she had to share her room with a dentist. The now is fairly fictitious and good moments there are more of a rarity and when they come, then they are usually linked crucially to the past, like the scene with the video of the crying woman who elaborates on the day that Anne died.

Two more things I would like to mention before the review ends have to do with of romance and destruction. The idea of getting with somebody less desirable who comforts you after the one you really wanted ditches you is questionable. It is more of a depressing thought, no matter if it is reality or not, but people should not want to live this way just to avoid being alone. Love matters. And as for destruction, pay attention to how the East is mentioned on a few occasions here, like really worrying inclusions and dark moments. It is what scared kids back then as they couldn’t be sure what is really going on there. The moment early on with the teacher and the disappeared male students that Anne elaborated on right before that was also depressing. Finally, look at how Nazis are depicted in this video, as big faceless creatures, almost monsters with their size that are void of all human traits. They move like robots, they do not talk. I planned on asking Folman about this depiction of evil after the film, but sadly the Q&A was not extended to the audience. It was a mess anyway with the horrible interviewer and the absence of chairs that left Folman baffled too. But that is just a side story. As for the film at hand, I guess you can also call it a cartoon and I liked the style, I have to give it a thumbs-down overall because of the abysmal ending and I suggest you instead the German Anne Frank live action film from a few years ago instead. That one was really good. Or if you decide to watch this one here, then turn it off after around 80 minutes, especially for the sake of your children. And I write that as somebody who never supports discontinuing the watch of a film. But here it became just unbearable.