Did Otto Frank have ANY other means of supporting himself that we know of? I mean, he lost everything. I don't begrudge him trying to survive in a world that literally took everything from him.
Okay The primary criticism of the adaptation is of Goodrich and Hackett, both Gentiles, for actually writing it, and the studio for making it Otto didn't personally come up with any of the new ideas in it
-
-
The issue is that people tend to use "Otto himself approved all this" as a universal shield for the Anne Frank cottage industry, and I think it's an insufficient one The primary creative force behind most of it has been non-Jews selling media to non-Jews
-
I can't pretend to know all the reasons he had for making the decisions he did, but he was just one man in the end anyway If the respectful thing is to leave him out of it because of what he endured in his life I think that means not using him as a shield either
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think that's fair. Though Otto Frank would be far from the first or final rights holder of a written work for giving "experts" permission to twist an adaptation for higher profitability. The dude was a freaking spice merchant. He didn't know shit about the stage.
-
In the correspondence between Otto and G/H he does express some distress initially at how far they went making the van Daans into villains ("Isn't this going a bit far? I feel bad") but ultimately approves it It's kind of painful to read
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.