How??? (Millie Perkins)
How exactly was Millie Perkins not nominated for a single award for this film... she should have gotten an oscar for her portrayal of Anne. She was fantastic.
shareI felt her performance was misguided there are moments when she’s fine especially when she’s being an annoying brat; she captures that perfectly since she is supposed to be one in the beginning. However, she falls flat in other scenes where she’s supposed to convey other emotions. She stares off into space with the same blank expression unable to convey through her face what she’s saying. Another problem is that she’s too pretty to have played Anne Frank and there’s no way she can pass for a 13 year old. It doesn’t end there while the other cast members are made to look beaten and down, Millie’s beauty remains up until the end despite being malnourished and stuck in an attic for two years (Richard Beymer doesn’t change much either). Therefore, I feel she was terribly miscast, I loved the film but it likely would have been better if they had given the role to a more capable actress.
share"She stares off into space with the same blank expression "
I noticed this as well. Her Anna Frank comes off a little 'touched' or mentally retarded (and I'm not joking and I mean no disrespect). It's horrible, especially as this was an incredibly intelligent and gifted girl.
I totally disagree with you. As a child when I first saw this movie I had read the book and was mesmerized by Millie Perkins' portrayal. Enough realism already... They didn't have to show her dirty and disheveled and downtrodden to make the film more realistic. The mounting tension had my stomach in a knot and my head aching as it was... any more realism and I would have had to leave. Part of the reason Anne looked that way compared to the others was to show her optimism. She was an eternal optimist... even her last words in the movie were that in spite of everything she still thought people were good at heart. What I am curious about is why you used your title (Dr.) in your post. Do you think it gave you more credibility? I am also curious as to what the link is at the bottom of the post... is it an ad? I hope not because that would be very poor taste....
shareWhat I am curious about is why you used your title (Dr.) in your post. Do you think it gave you more credibility? I am also curious as to what the link is at the bottom of the post... is it an ad? I hope not because that would be very poor taste....
My screen name has nothing to do with my profession it's simply the name and title of a character; using your logic if my screen name was King Schultz (from Django Unchained) would you assume I was a king? As for the link it was my old myspace account (I no longer use it). share
LMAO
Ever heard of a nickname? Ever learn that they don't have to coincide with the user's real name?
----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/
"there’s no way she can pass for a 13 year old" & "she’s too pretty to have played Anne Frank" & "it likely would have been better if they had given the role to a more capable actress"
Dr, Dr.... multiple inconsistencies in your logic -- I don't think you can have all three or maybe even two conditions you state above. That is, 13-year-old actresses, who at least in those days were picked mainly on their looks and "cute" appeal, wouldn't have developed the capability at acting by that age.
I Think too she was best as the brat, she was Lovely toherwise too but she is nothing on Hannah Taylor, who is Anne.
share