Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo

..and thats the only real-life 70'ies about this. I get the fact that young people today have to be able to relate, but why make it more appealing? It's all way too glamorous. The argument that Christiane herself is a writer on the series doesn't impress - she may have just been outlining the story. It's annoying that the actor mother and Christiane are about the same age and that they put in the sound of a canary bird and not a budgie. The actors are ok though. She has definitely written the book herself - read that, also read the second one.

I totally understand, that if you have seen the Original movie from the 80s, you won't feel comfortable with this. Or it is very likely that you don't feel this movie at all. You are missing the grittiness, the dirtiness of the original. This actually is a more modern and more smooth looking approach and retelling of the source material.

That being said, it does not mean it shies away from some very irritating and disturbing things that happen to the characters here. And because this is a show, that spans 8 episodes, it is able to dive further into those characters. Which gives them more motivation and gives them more background. It works in the shows favor.

The actors really do their best and this new take will either enlighten you (better to try something different than just copy something 1 to 1, yes?) or annoy you. Be open minded if you can and you get more in depth - since I have not read the source material, I can't say how much is still probably missing from it. But it does look like we get a lot more than the original film was able to convey - just due to running time issues alone

In the original book Christiane F is a 13 year old child and in the original movie she is played by a little 13 year old girl. so it seems odd that in this version Christiane is played by a 18 year old woman, dressed and groomed like an adult and wearing makeup like a grown woman and yet seems oblivious to the fact that women have periods. it is not a bad show but if you expect anything like the original you will be disappointed.

When the original book about Christiane F's live as a teenage drug addict and prostitute in West Berlin was released in the late seventies it shocked a whole nation that had turned a blind eye to some of its most vulnerable people. It's still a stunning read that lost none of its power, a lurid and detailed description of a youth lost, of love and death, hope and despair. Despite its graphic content it's become a classic that is still being read in schools. The 1981 film version was a bit sanitized by comparison, still effective in showing the grime and dirt of West Berlin's drug scene at the time, often filmed at the real locations guerilla style. Unfortunately it plays a bit too sensationalist and ditched much of the nuance and details of the book in favor of a more classic cautionary tale narrative. I'm not a big fan but admittedly it still retained a lot of the core strengths of the book.

To me the interesting question in regards to this new modern loose adaptation of Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo is: who thought it was a good idea to make heroine use, addiction and survival sex so glossy, stylish, sexy, hip and palpable to a current teenage audience?

Many movies that deal with addiction like Trainspotting, Spun, Requiem for a dream and even the 1981 Christiane F. version have been accused of accidentally or intentionally glorifying elements of drug use with its creative visuals and stylish filmmaking. I would personally disagree with a lot of these assessments, I think it's necessary to show the highs of drugs so an audience can more easily understand why people would destroy themselves for such substances, but it's a fair point to argue. However the remake of Bahnhof Zoo just goes so far that I can't in good conscience defend any of it. The overwhelming success of the book and original movie inadvertently turned many of its real life protagonists into counter culture icons with devastating personal results, especially for main protagonist Christiane F herself, the Amazon Prime series seems to try to do that intentionally. The constant glamour shots, slow-mo walking, stylish outfits, driving EDM beats, the cool and swagger of heroine chic. While the series eventually touches some of the darker aspects of these kids' lives, even that abyss is illuminated mostly with gloss and a sense of exciting danger rather than introspection and gravitas. Given the harrowing real life tales the original story is based on all the stylistic choices to make this an entertaining coming of age show first and foremost, strike me as tone-deaf at best and cynical at worst.

There are huge issues with the direction of this show. In any other circumstance the mixing of different time periods could be an interesting idea. We have a 70s esque city scape, lots of 80s and 90s fashion, contrasted with modern electronic dance music in the countless club scenes that are populated with current age looking appealing young people. The makers explained in interviews that they wanted a more timeless tale that younger people could more easily relate too but setting it fully in modern times would change the story too much. The problem with that is: the original story isn't timeless by any means. Its themes and psychological underpinnings are, but Christiane F's story is a time capsule, a distinctly West German tale from the late seventies. Even less than a decade later the drug scene in Berlin had already changed completely and no longer aligned at all with the book, let alone now 40 years later. If you want to do it justice you either have to do a detailed period piece or a complete modernization based on the current situation in the same scene (which would require lots of research and that sounds like too much work, I agree). Sadly they ended up doing a bad mixture of both. Borrowing whatever West Berlin chic and David Bowie cool they could afford, to ride on the enduring brand appeal of Bahnhof Zoo and the current wave of retro Berlin fascination, mixing it with 2020s advertising aesthetics for mass international appeal. The next may sound like a minor point but it illustrates the larger problem: I personally love Bowie dearly but the ubiquitous presence of his music and likeness is completely at odds with the modern sound and visuals of the show, but because it is such an integral part of the Christiane F. brand they of course couldn't not use it. I'm sorry but I just can't see anything but cynical marketing decisions behind every creative choice made in this show.

And it's such a bummer too. There is a lot of amazing fresh acting talent on display here. The extended length of a series compared to a film means you could have more faithfully adapted the book. Had they committed to a better thought out period play the high budget could have lead to a detailed and charming resurrection of 1970s West Berlin, a remarkable city now long gone.

Even if you ignore the exploitive nature of the series (remember: this is all based on real people, most of them children or youths at the time) it's just not a well-told show. It's boring, it lacks structure and even the aesthetics that try to be the main draw are recycled from much better movies. This is a dud all the way through and surprisingly tasteless in more than one way.

Uli Edel's originale movie is better than this show, but, however I find Philipp Kadelbach did a good job of telling an intense and painful story, but what I appreciated most is the performance of the young actors, all very talented, in particular Jana MacKinnon, who is truly exceptional in the role of Christianne.

In collective this new version of the story is not great, but not bad either, it is good and this is enough for me and advances.