"I'm not so Jewish. Anne was hardly Jewish. ... Don't make the play too Jewish." Those were the words of Otto Frank, the father of renowned diarist Anne Frank, in a letter to Hollywood playwrights Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. According to David Barnouw, coeditor of the The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, Otto wanted the diary to become a "universal" play: "Suffering is universal. ... What Anne has suffered is not only suffering from Jews but suffering from everybody," Barnouw said during a lecture called "Anne Frank: An American Heroine" held in Olin-Sang last Monday.
The event, cosponsored by the University Writing Program and the International Center for Ethics, Justice, and Public Life, focused on the controversy surrounding the 1955 play The Diary of Anne Frank and the legitimacy of her diary.
Prof. Dawn Skorczewski (ENG) invited Barnouw to speak to her "ENG 18B: Writing the Holocaust" class.
Barnouw, a member of the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, addressed Jewish playwright Meyer Levin's protest that a story Jewish in nature was not written by a Jew.
As Barnouw explained in his lecture, Levin motivated the diary's publication in English in the United States. He wrote to Otto about turning the diary into a play, after which Otto gave Levin authorization to draft it. After it was complete, however, Otto denied Levin the rights to the play and turned to Broadway playwrights Goodrich and Hackett because he believed Levin's version did not focus on universal suffering. Levin sued Otto and received damages. His main problem with the play was that he believed only a Jew could do her suffering justice. Levin criticized Goodrich and Hackett for not discussing hiding-an aspect that he deemed central to the Jewish Holocaust.
Levin believed that this break with Judaism was anti-Semitic. He saw the play as Otto's retaliation against him. Otto represented "Jews from the East coast, those Jews from Germany, those educated Jews who were not Jews anymore," according to Barnouw.
Visiting Prof. and Fulbright Scholar Pawel Wolski (NEJS), however, did not think that Jewish identity was the main point of controversy in the play: "It's not a diary anymore. It's not a book, or it's not a play anymore. It's a Holocaust diary. A Holocaust play." Wolski suggested another lens to evaluate The Diary of Anne Frank-one that emphasizes Holocaust literature. If the play is viewed through this framework, Levin's critique may have value.
Barnouw reasserted the theme of universality in explaining the diary's popularity. Because Anne is young and forthright, her audience can come away with what it wants-whether it's Christian or Jewish, liberal or conservative. The Holocaust is in the background because, according to Barnouw, Holocaust literature did not exist upon the diary's publication. Therefore, Anne's diary does not occupy "a special place in the Holocaust literature," said Barnouw.
Twenty years ago, the diary was perceived as a girl's book. Anne could not have written about the Holocaust because she died before it was labeled as such. Still, Wolski said that some people credit Anne as the first Holocaust writer. If she is to be a true representative of the Holocaust, the problem lies in the authenticity of her diary. If her diary is not genuine, the same would follow for the play, according to Barnouw.
In publishing the Revised Critical Edition, the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies introduced another account, the voice of the 13-year-old Anne that Otto had not made public. After Otto's death in 1980, the Institute received Anne's diaries, as predicated in Otto's will. Before then, few people knew that two diaries existed-the one Anne started at 13 years old and the rewritten version from 1944. Otto primarily used Anne's second diary but took excerpts from her first one as well.
The Institute released a press statement indicating its desire to publish Anne's complete diary, which was met with criticism. "How is it possible that the Institute is going to publish a diary that Otto Frank didn't want?" people asked. But to that question, Barnouw responded, "You can say that we did what Otto Frank didn't want, but ... there is not a good interview with Otto Frank because he was kind of-almost-the father of a saint. You don't ask difficult questions to fathers of saints." The Secretary of Education in the Netherlands at that point in time agreed that the new publication would be beneficial and considered "a monument for the Jewish children that were killed," according to Barnouw.
For Theresa Fuller '13, a student in Skorczewski's class, the discussion gave her a new perspective on the diaries. "I thought that the original versions hadn't been released because Otto, Anne's father, didn't want them released for privacy reasons. I didn't realize that it was just ... not known that it existed."
Another of Skorczewski's students, Allie Belfer '15, was equally impressed with the lecture. "I thought it was interesting that we got not just Anne Frank but ... her writing and her writing style. ... This wasn't focused on the Holocaust per se but on how people perceive the Holocaust in literature."