Anne Frank Goodrich And Hackett Character Analysis

1507 Words4 Pages

Anne Frank: The Biography, by Melissa Muller, proves that Goodrich and Hackett are not justified in using dramatic license in The Diary of Anne Frank because they changed the character roles, removed the emotions of the SS officer, and removed the characters from the play from real life. Goodrich and Hackett changed Mr. Van Daan’s and Mr. Frank’s role, and this allows the readers to see who they really are not. Mr. Van Daan’s role is not shown as a helper, but a man who does not care about anyone. In the play, he was shown as a selfish man who loves to eat food. He made sure he got the most food , even though there are seven more people to feed. When Mr. Van Daan goes downstairs, “He goes to the food safe and again lights a match. Then he …show more content…

But in the play by Melissa Muller shows that he cared about others in the Secret Annex and his family, which shows the readers that he is completely different then who Goodrich and Hackett made him because they wanted to make more tension. Although Goodrich and Hackett changed Mr. Van Daan’s role to a selfish man to add tension to the Secret Annex, this gives humanity a different view of him in a negative way for years on. From the biography by Melissa Müller, Mr. Frank’s role was to help the others, but Goodrich and Hackett made him a leader instead. When the SS officers went through the Secret Annex, Mr. Frank talked about him being in World War I. Mr. Frank says, “I was a reserve officer in the First World War” (Müller 9). This quote means that Mr. Frank was in the First World War and tries to help the others by talking to the other SS officer [Silberbauer]. Also, he is trying to help the others by reasoning with the officers that he was helping in the war, but this war made them go into the Great Depression. Müller says that he was helping the others through the arrest to prevent it, or save more time before they were taken away to the concentration camp. Another thing is that he was shown better at …show more content…

Kraler and Miep were taken out of the arrest scene, which does not allow the readers to see how they actin real life when they arrest the jews. Mr. Kraler was taken out of the arrest scene which makes the readers wonder what happened to him after the others were taken away. When they were in the Secret Annex, he was downstairs working with the other resistance members or workers when the Nazis barged in. He was shocked that they found out they were hiding jews as he lead up the Nazis to them. The SS officers order Kugler [Mr. Kraler] to lead the way and “Kugler obeys…the men follow them, their pistols drawn” (Müller 6). This means that the SS officers came into Mr. Frank’s building and asked Kugler where the jews were. He obeyed the SS officers by taking them up the flight of stairs to the people in the Secret Annex while he has a pistol behind his body. The reader see how different the arrest scene was because Mr. Kraler was sick in the Annex because he didn’t have a doctor to treat himself because most jews were doctors. He also left before the arrest scene, but in the biography he was there working with the other resistance members. Although Mr. Kraler was shown as a ill man to add tension in the Secret Annex, he was perfectly fine while working downstairs in Mr. Frank’s building. From the play, Miep was not in the Secret Annex when the others were arrested. When Miep spreads the news about the liberation, she soon left before the SS officers took them. She went to

Open Document