Talk:Anne Frank: The Whole Story

message: * In the scene where Otto tells Miep that he plans to go into hiding, he mentions the date of their moving as July 16th. Miep mentions that the date is "less than a month away." In a later scene, it is Anne's birthday, but Anne's birthday is June 12th, and therefore, Miep was talking about the actual date the Franks moved (July 5th). However, the July 5th date was a complete surprise (due to Margot's summons) and not at all anticipated. 
* Throughout the film, the relationship between Anne and Margot is depicted as very sisterly and close. However, in Melissa Muller's book, she describes their relationship as not nearly being that close. 
* During the Miep and Jan wedding scene, Margot is absent from the scene and the following party scene. However, there is a well-known photograph of Anne, Otto, the van Pelses, and other guests walking to the wedding, and Margot is clearly present, walking just behind Anne. 
* In the film, Anne arrived in Auschwitz in early September 1944. According to the dated subtitles, 6 weeks later she was sent to scabies block and transported with Margot to Bergen-Belsen. When they arrive, another subtitles says "Early November, 1944". Therefore, there is an approximate 2 week period hole in the film. 
* Peter van Pels' cat in the film is orange in white. In real life, his cat was black. 
* In the film, Anne begins paying attention to Peter in January 1943. In real life, she didn't notice him until a year later.
(added by User:74.71.148.154)
* I think it has to be borne in mind that "Anne Frank: the Movie" is a drama, not a documentary and that for the purposes of turning actual events into a television movie some things - like most of the dialogue - would be approximated. 
It should also be remembered that The Anne Frank Foundation did not endorse the production and refused them permission to quote from Anne Frank's Diary.
Perhaps the most significant 'mistake' in this production was the identification of the Frank's betrayer, who has in fact never been discovered.
Yallery Brown 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronisms and Mistakes

message: :Image:Afm 001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Afm 001.jpg