Anne Frank's Family

by Mirjam Pressler

  A week later, he wrote: “Yesterday I went out to eat with Dina (the new Anne). So enchanting. Very religious, and a burning patriot for Israel. When I think that this delicate little creature was in the Israeli army, carrying a gun—just unbelievable.”

  The play’s great success also ignited Meyer Levin’s anger. He could not be dissuaded from thinking that his version of the play was the one that deserved to be performed, not the “Broadway hit.” In late 1956, he filed a lawsuit against Otto Frank and Kermit Bloomgarden in New York Supreme Court. He, Levin, had been assigned to write the play, he attested, and had suffered serious losses due to fraud and breach of contract. He had settled with Otto Frank in 1952 only under duress, therefore their previous verbal agreement was still valid, he claimed, otherwise his rights to a production in Israel were in jeopardy as well. Furthermore, he claimed that the Hacketts had used Levin’s ideas in their version, and sought damages.

  Otto Frank declared in writing that Levin was wrong on every point and asked for the case to be dismissed. In addition, he said, Levin had no further rights with respect to the production in Israel because he had taken no steps in the meantime to realize his plan. In short, the situation with Meyer Levin was far from over. However, until a judicial decision was reached, Otto’s royalties for the stage production remained frozen. With the help of wise men from the Jewish community, an agreement was eventually reached on October 26, 1959: in return for a payment of fifty thousand dollars, Otto Frank would receive from Meyer Levin all copyright in Levin’s stage adaptation. But that resolution lay far in the future.

  As Buddy had predicted, the success of the play had consequences for the sales of the book. Fischer published a paperback edition in Germany in 1955 that went through more than a dozen printings in the following years. Anne Frank’s diary had touched people, had gotten them to stop and reflect on their own memories of the catastrophe, which was not yet far in the past. It had awakened questions of guilt and responsibility, which most people would have gladly avoided but which were unavoidable once they read the book. To that extent, it really had changed people’s lives. Its effects remain visible to this day.

  Of course the diary that had influenced and changed so many strangers also had effects on Buddy, as is clear from this letter he wrote from South Africa in February 1957:

  So now I’ve seen The Diary here too. When you take into account that Cape Town is not exactly the theater capital of the world, the production here is remarkably good … The best thing about the production was without question the young man who played Peter. He is sensational and belongs on Broadway. Absolutely phenomenal. One of the greatest talents I have ever seen onstage. He was so mature and at the same time so touching, childish, awkward, and shy, just what the role requires … In general there were good directorial decisions throughout, e.g. when Miep came in and Anne said she could smell the fresh air in Miep’s coat. She stuck her little head in Miep’s coat and stayed there for a few seconds like that while Miep looked sadly at Kraler [Kugler]. It was not a very important scene in the script, but thanks to the direction it turned into one of the most impressive and moving scenes … We had a very unpleasant incident backstage that’s typical of how things are here. Some negroes work for us as stagehands and we always have hot tea during the break. I overheard one of our white African musicians tell another: “That bloody nigger tried to get a cup of tea, but I showed where his place was, I threw that tea right in his face!” I turned beet red of course but didn’t say anything. Just then another negro came up and I didn’t know if he wanted some tea or was just walking by. In any case this white musician suddenly grabbed the negro by his collar and threw him to the ground. I jumped up of course and yelled at him to stop, and he answered: “We have to do this in this country, it’s the rules and if I wouldn’t do it you wouldn’t be here.”

  You can imagine what I wanted to tell him, that I spit on his rules of the country, that I follow the rules of humanity and see no reason to spend any time in a country where these conditions etc. etc. And what did I actually say to him? Nothing! I thought about how it might cause problems not just for me but for Steve and for the whole show and I would be acting thoughtlessly, but I could have kicked myself for my own cowardice and I swore a vow if anything like that ever happened around me again not to keep silent whatever the consequences. Too many people have put blinders on in recent times and shut their eyes when human beings were persecuted and damn me to hell if I do it too. I couldn’t live with my conscience. Brotherhood of man is more than an empty phrase for me.

  Earlier, before his tour of Egypt, Buddy had written that it was probably better to say he was Protestant during his stay there; now he was taking an unambiguous stand. And leaving aside the word “negro,” which was still used at the time, in 1957, this letter shows another effect that Anne Frank’s diary had and, hopefully, still has today—namely, awakening a sense of the consequences that follow when people only look out for their own well-being, their own comfort. Without these—in Buddy’s word—“blinders,” the Nazis would never have been able to carry out their program of exterminating so many human beings.

  14.

  Our Reason for Being Here

  Otto and Fritzi traveled to New York in 1957 to be present at the trial that Meyer Levin had instigated. Now it was Fritzi’s turn to write long, detailed letters to the family from on the road. On November 18, 1957, she wrote to the house on Herbstgasse:

  All my darlings, The time flies by, tomorrow it’ll already be two weeks that we’ve been here and even though I’ve seen a lot of beautiful and interesting things we haven’t made the slightest bit of progress when it comes to our reason for being here. We now hope that things will start happening on Wednesday. In any case, the jury selection will take at least a day, if not two … Yesterday morning we were at the lawyer’s again and he told us that he could not understand why Levin’s lawyer had not requested a pretrial hearing with Otto, which he had the right to do and which is always done. He could have also insisted on seeing all the documents and files that we have and he doesn’t have, but he didn’t do that either. They think he will still try to settle out of court, today or tomorrow. I personally don’t believe it, I’m afraid that instead it will mean that tomorrow there might still be another delay. Levin is giving a public lecture today, “Authors and Producers,” and our case is sure to come up … At 2 this afternoon we are supposed to go back to the lawyer’s and Crawford’s lawyer will be there too. Otto will get his final instructions and will go through answering all the questions again that the opposing lawyers might ask. But he is already very well prepared. You know how he can always hold everything exactly in his head. Stay healthy and very warmest wishes and kisses from Your Fritzi.

  Fritzi wrote unbelievably long, elaborate letters with many precise descriptions of the people she saw, how their apartments looked, how their children behaved, and so forth. She had a lot to report and ultimately had more than enough time to report it, since everything was proceeding “at a snail’s pace.” On December 14, she wrote:

  Levin began his testimony on Wednesday, continued on Thursday and Friday, and only now has he gotten to August 1952. It goes like this: His lawyer asks him a question that he is only allowed to answer completely concretely and specifically. If he doesn’t, our lawyer says “Objection” and the judge usually agrees. Meanwhile, letters are read out loud, there is a whole procedure for that and it takes a long time. Sometimes the lawyers disagree about something and then they go up to the judge and quietly talk it over & so nothing moves forward. He’s telling the same old story that we also already have in writing, the alleged meeting in fall ’50, with the verbal agreement, etc. We are already looking forward to his being unmasked.

  On December 30, she sent news of the breakthrough in a telegram to Basel: “Judge rejects claim as baseless in all particulars Plagiarism and countersuit will take another week Regards Fritz Ott.”

  Of course, the satisfactory conclusion of the a
ffair with Levin still lay far in the future. Fritzi wrote on January 4 in reply to the congratulatory letters she had received: “Only the plagiarism case is a very dangerous matter, because if Levin wins he could sue the Hacketts and Foxfilm and the damages would be incalculable. The lawyers and we ourselves are very optimistic, since we know for a fact that no one told the Hacketts the slightest thing about Levin’s script, but you can’t imagine the methods the other side is using, it’s exactly what you’re used to seeing in gangster movies. Our lawyer catches most of it, he’s wonderful, and counteracts it, and also the jury is very much on our side, which is also important.”

  Otto was on the witness stand for only half an hour, and Fritzi wondered if it was worth traveling all the way to New York for that. He came across well, very calm and dignified, but they had asked him hardly anything, only whether or not he had shown Meyer Levin’s script to the Hacketts or to Kanin. The situation looked very good, from Fritzi’s point of view. All the more unexpected was the verdict, which hit them hard. She wrote to “All our darlings” on January 9:

  I’m sure you got the telegram with the bad news, we are still utterly stunned about this outrageous injustice, and I will quickly tell you how it happened.

  Tuesday morning all the way until 3 in the afternoon our lawyer gave a fabulous speech and we were all convinced that everyone would understand that the Hacketts had no direct or indirect knowledge of the Levin script and that every similarity between the two scripts came from the book. Levin’s lawyer started from 3 to 4 and continued the whole next morning, & really in such a nasty way that you’ve only ever seen in gangster movies. He called the Hacketts skillful thieves who had done what a car thief does: given the car a new paint job and license plate so that it couldn’t be recognized. In other words, they changed his ideas so that they were not technically identical but only similar … So the lawyer claimed that either Otto or Bloomgarden or Kanin or someone else had told them about it. They couldn’t prove it, of course, but they deduced it from the similarities between the scripts. And that was enough to award Levin, the so-called collaborator on the script, $50,000, which of course Otto has to pay on top of his legal fees.

  Not only our friends were crying—they were all with us until half past midnight in the court while we were waiting for the jury’s verdict—but our lawyer too, who is hardly a child. He is hardened enough, but he was as stunned at the injustice as we were. We don’t know what will happen next. The lawyers are looking into the possibility of an appeal. But it’s possible that Levin will also appeal the other decision, or try to get more money from this, we have no idea. We also think that the Hacketts will have to do something, since it’s their honor at stake too. We also don’t know to what extent the film is involved too now.

  The news struck the family in Basel like a bomb, of course. Fifty thousand U.S. dollars was an amount of money that sent a chill up the spine of everyone who heard it—the times of shortages and hunger, when you had to count every penny, were not that long ago.

  Buddy was furious too. On January 22, 1958, he wrote “Dear everyone: I just got your horrifying letter with the enclosed letter from Ottel and Fritzi. I already saw the news in Time magazine but had no idea that it was that bad, and that Otto has to pay $50,000. I very much hope that an appeal will be granted. Justice must be done!… You can’t imagine how deeply I feel the news. Poor Otto and Fritzi, who are totally innocent and who want to do so much good with the money … Is the movie jeopardized?”

  Otto and Fritzi stayed another couple of weeks in the States. George Stevens, the director of the planned movie adaptation of the diary, had arranged everything for their visit to Los Angeles. “We are traveling by train and will have a sleeping car as well as a lounge car in the train, all paid for by Fox [Twentieth Century Fox].” Financially, Fritzi wrote, they were in bad shape. The film company withheld the installment of their payment that would have been due in January, which was within their rights according to their contract. “It doesn’t make any difference for our personal, modest life,” Fritzi wrote, “but it makes things difficult for the Foundation and so Otto will definitely try to pry loose some money while we’re here. It is all very stressful and I would really like to know when we will ever have any peace.”

  But there was not to be any peace for some time. Buddy’s comment that Otto and Fritzi wanted to do so much good with the money, like Fritzi’s saying that Otto would definitely try to get some of the money while they were still in the United States, was in reference to the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam.

  After Pectacon and Gies & Co. were sold, the companies moved from the Prinsengracht into new office spaces, and the Anne Frank Foundation was established, on May 3, 1957, with the goal of “preserving the Prinsengracht 263 building in Amsterdam and in particular the Secret Annex thereof, as well as advancing the ideals that Anne Frank left behind for the world.”

  Otto Frank had never forgotten the idea that Joseph Marks from Doubleday had expressed in 1952: that they should buy the house at Prinsengracht 263 and establish a library for youth in the Secret Annex. He decided to set up a foundation that would manage the house. With many donations, state support, and the help of the City of Amsterdam, they were able to buy the building and the adjoining houses, although they were in dilapidated condition and first had to be thoroughly renovated.

  Otto planned to use the front of the house—the former office rooms—for exhibitions on Nazism and various aspects of the Holocaust and the German occupation, and to keep the Secret Annex empty. After the arrest on August 4, 1944, the Nazi officers had hired the Puls moving company to empty the Annex and confiscate all clothing, furniture, and personal belongings for distribution to bombed-out families in Germany. That is what happened to all the apartments of arrested Jews. Luckily, before the moving company arrived, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl saved Anne’s diaries and notebooks.

  Johannes Kleiman represented Otto Frank on the new foundation’s board of directors until his death on January 28, 1959. From then on, Otto Frank would devote much of his time and energy to the Anne Frank Foundation.

  Three years after the foundation was established, the Anne Frank House opened its doors. The Anne Frank House organizes traveling exhibits, develops educational material, and designs activities for the advancement of tolerance and mutual respect in society; houses a documentation center on Holocaust pedagogy, racism, discrimination, and the radical right; and hosts seminars and workshops for schools, businesses, and associations. The Secret Annex itself receives countless visitors year after year. Nine thousand people visited the Anne Frank House in the first year, 1960; ten years later the number was 180,000; and in 2007, for the first time, there were more than a million visitors: 1,002,902, to be exact. Along with the Madame Tussauds wax museum in London, the Louvre, and the British Museum, the Anne Frank House is one of the ten most visited museums in Europe.

  Otto Frank was guided by the idea of doing something in memory of his daughter to promote the mutual understanding of young people and tolerance between different religions. He never wanted anything else, and he dedicated all his energies and all the time that remained to him to this task.

  “Otto never wanted anything for himself, he was always there for others,” Buddy and his wife, Gerti, say today. “He devoted the rest of his life to his daughter’s work. The success of the diary was also a business, of course, but the money was not important to Otto, it wasn’t about that. He always said, ‘The money isn’t my money, it’s Anne’s money,’ and he never kept it for himself. He lived modestly his whole life long. The only thing that mattered to Otto was spreading Anne’s message.”

  15.

  The Movie

  Filming began on the movie version of the diary in the spring of 1958, and kept not only Otto and Fritzi busy but the whole family on Herbstgasse and of course Buddy as well, who was kept informed about everything. The Hacketts had again written the script, and to produce and direct the film, Bloomgarden had gotten Georg
e Stevens, who was famous for many films, including Shane and Giant. From South Africa, Buddy wrote that it was totally unbelievable what was happening: “I am on the edge of my seat to hear about Ottel’s meeting with Stevens. I hope Stevens is sensitive enough not to turn it into a Hollywood blockbuster … Please keep me up to date on the latest developments. I can hardly wait for your letters. You can’t imagine how involved I feel with everything that has to do with Anne.”

  Audrey Hepburn originally intended to play the role of Anne, and Buddy was enthusiastic: “I’m glad Audrey Hepburn will be playing Anne. I’m convinced she’ll be good for the part.” She even visited Otto and Fritzi on Herbstgasse—there is a postcard from Hepburn to Leni, and one from Mel Ferrer, who was married to Audrey Hepburn (his fourth marriage), to Otto and Fritzi. But in the end Audrey Hepburn withdrew from the project, saying that she had too many doubts about whether she could withstand the emotional burden of the part. And in her late twenties (she was born in 1929, the same year as Anne Frank), she was in truth too old for the role. Buddy was very disappointed. He wrote: “I didn’t know that Ottel and Fritzi met Audrey and Mel Ferrer. I’m jealous … So who will play Anne, if Audrey can’t?”

  A letter that Otto Frank wrote to George Stevens in English on October 21, 1957, about the curtains in the Secret Annex, shows how important every detail was to Otto:

  Dear Mr. Stevens,

  Through our dear friends Frances and Albert [Hackett] we heard how busy you were all the time working with them on the script und preparing the picture.

  In their last letter they have asked some questions concerning our curtains in the hiding-place you had and I want to give you my answer directly. Please don’t hesitate to ask me whatever details you want to know. I am only too pleased to be of help whenever I can.