MovieChat Forums > The Diary of Anne Frank (1959) Discussion > Seriously, Millie Perkins was terrible

Seriously, Millie Perkins was terrible

posted 15 years ago by liamforeman
22 replies | jump to latest

Just finished watching this again after 25 years. I was taken aback by how horribly miscast Millie Perkins was as Anne. Someone please correct me, but Millie looks as Jewish as Lana Turner, just wrong. Would it have been too much to ask for someone who looked somewhat Jewish or eastern European to be cast as Anne? Millie was also way too old. Her breathy 50s Americana teen voice was irritating. It was just impossible to find this movie passable after having read the book. Breathy Millie did not seem to have even read Anne's diary, since she absolutely failed in capturing Anne's spirit/essence.
I liked this movie when I was 13, but I found Millie excruciating to watch this time around. Fail.

[–] rorysa 15 years ago

Her miscasting was a big flaw, granted, but I think the only significant flaw in an otherwise outstanding film. In my book, she makes an A+ film into an A- film.

As I have said on other posts, the rest of the cast is pretty amazing, Stevens' direction (besides his failed effort at casting the lead character) is in peak form, and Alfred Newman's exceptional score is one of the greatest in film history.

[–] rgcustomer 15 years ago

I agree with what you said. It's strange that I think so highly of this film when I can't stand the casting of the title character, and she grated on me for the whole 170 minutes.

[–] schmitty074 15 years ago

i wouldnt say she was terrible. i thought overall she was weak.though i think in the more quiet scenes with Peter she did a good job.but it was a weak performance for the most part.probally her performance and Richard Beymer's kept this movie from being a 10.the Miss Quack-Quack scene was pretty cringe-worthy.but i think the scene in Peter's room when they are on their "date" was good and even the end scene when the Gestapo arrives was good.

[–] eamonn7 15 years ago

Would it have been too much to ask for someone who looked somewhat Jewish or eastern European to be cast as Anne?

She was born in Germany, and as far as I aware Germany was never classed as East Europe but west Europe

Western Europe

* Austria
* Belgium
* France
* Germany
* Liechtenstein
* Luxembourg
* Monaco
* Netherlands (Holland)
* Switzerland

Eastern Europe

* Belarus
* Bulgaria
* Czech Republic
* Hungary
* Poland
* Republic of Moldova
* Romania
* Russian Federation
* Slovakia
* Ukraine

[–] mark-1589 14 years ago

Sorry eamonn7, but you are confused, as the Western/Eastern Europe divide you propose was a construct that only came about as a result of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain. The traditional view, and the one that applied during the period in question, included other parts of Europe, including Central Europe (Mitteleuropa in German), which included Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia. Eastern Europe would include the countries in the former Soviet Union (Russia, Moldavia, Ukraine). There was also the Balkans, which included the rest of Yugoslavia, Greece, Rumania, Albania, and Bulgaria. Jews were all over Europe, but they lived in greatest numbers in Poland and the Soviet Union. Germany actually had a relatively small number of Jews. That is why the poster suggested the actress playing Anne should look Jewish or Eastern European.

[–] doug7347 15 years ago

I wonder why they didn't give the role to Susan Strasberg, who starred as Anne on Broadway? She was the same age as Millie Perkins ( actually 10 days younger ).

[–] mandrake62 13 years ago

Susan was so perfect for the role. She had a wonderfully musical voice that would bring so much to the role especially compared to that flat monotone of Millie Perkins.
I remember the pre-production hype about finding exactly the right girl to play Anne. Supposedly there was nation wide talent search auditioning thousands of young girls in high school drama classes. Years before there was a similar "search" for the perfect actress to play Scarlet O'Hara in Gone With The Wind which I think they were trying to replicate that publicity success.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mandrake62 12 years ago

Yes, Susan had a wonderful poetic quality which would have been so perfect for Anne. I think she could have saved the film. For some reason George Stevens lost his touch and good judgement toward the end of his career. His last films after Giant just were not very good. A sad ending for a great veteran director.

[–] arman0612 14 years ago

I strongly disagree, I think she was perfect and was able to convey all the emotions she was asked for, she was a brilliant part of this perfect film and she helped to make it work the way it did.

[–] Jaycey 13 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more - I watched this film this morning, having never seen it before. Millie Perkins has the acting talent of a waterlogged plank of wood (hardly surprising, since she wasn't an actress). I read up a bit on this and discovered that the director was intent on casting an unknown and saw Perkins' face on a magazine cover (says it all really). Audrey Hepburn was gagging for the part, but lost it to this squeaky dead-eyed model - he must have been mental!

This film falls into all the 1950s movie traps - around that time, they had NO IDEA of how to make anyone up to look part of the period they were meant to be shooting, hence Perkins (already 20 years old!) has 50s makeup (including caterpillar eyebrows), 50s hair, 50s clothing, 50s speech - as does pretty much everyone else. Look at Shelley Winters - pinning a plait onto the back of a 50s hairstyle is just plain lazy and looks nothing like the 1940s! - and Richard Beymer with his teddyboy quiff. Unfortunately, when a film is 'Hollywoodised' as much as this one, I tend not to take it too seriously! (For the real Anne Frank story complete with a believable Anne, watch the UK TV version.)

[–] g_dekok 13 years ago

Audrey Hepburn was NOT "gagging for the part". She had been approached, thought about it, and turned it down, as she had seen Belgian families taken by the Nazis. Please read World History and understand.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gus-69 13 years ago

What do you mean, "you are right"? Everybody in this thread is saying she did NOT look Jewish at all.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] thistledown-2 13 years ago

I thought Millie Perkins was superb in the part of Anne...she briged the gap between child and teen perfectly..she also had great stage presence (no matter what else was going on you couldn't take your eyes off her)..at times she remeinded me of a young Elizabeth Taylor..BRAVO Millie Perkins!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bill3-1 13 years ago

I agree, Millie Perkins just about ruins this otherwise excellent movie, what was George Stevens thinking when he cast her? The only thing she has going for her in this part is being skinny and flat chested, she can't act, her looks are all wrong, a horrible voice, nothing endearing whatsoever about her, and being too old is a given. Her Anna Frank had no spirit, she doesn't come off as intelligent enough to write much more than a sentence, let alone a diary, I feel no sympathy for her at all. Why in the hell was Perkins cast in this? It makes no sense! I could rationalize maybe if she was really well known and had box office draw, but that's not the case. Honestly, Millie Perkins is awful!

[–] EJverh 13 years ago

I agree completely and anyone who says otherwise has no clue about acting, whatsoever. She was ok (tolerable) in some parts but she failed as an actor and almost ruined the film. Let me clarify about the acting (or lack of): she failed to believably portray her character one way or another. But she did memorize her lines, so I guess that's ok...

[–] larkpraise 12 years ago

I agree totally with the majority here. I love this film but I cannot stand Millie Perkins as Anne. She was indeed terrible. I cannot feel any sympathy for her character at all because Perkins doesn't convey what she should to make one feel empathy for her plight. She is annoying and grating....especially that whiny voice....uggh!! Her dreary reading of her diary in the flashback sequences is terrible and her chemistry with Richard Beymer is non-existent. Does anyone know how accurate this relationship was....I mean....were Anne and Peter romantically involved in real life or was this another of example of Hollywood taking free dramatic license?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

Saw the film for the first time last night. Too "Hollywoodish" for me, but I didn't Ms. Perkins was THAT bad. I thought she was more credible as a 13-year-old than Julie Harris was in MEMBER OF THE WEDDING. Harris came off as a mentally disturbed adult, IMHO.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?