Moi, Christiane F., 13 ans, droguée, prostituée

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.

If I could say just one thing about the series, it would be: This will find its audience in those who don't know the story. That is why it would be impossible to finish any analysis with just that, after all, what is the potential audience that is over 12 years old and has never even heard of Christiane's story, especially among Germans, Austrians and Swiss, who is the initial audience to which the series was redirected and where will much of the strength of the analysis come from? It is logical that there will always be people who will not know, but the series makes us believe that there is an entire audience thirsty for knowing a story that has only been heard, and that will not be disappointed to find, at most, 30% of the original story. The series goes beyond creative freedom: take what is, put what is not and model biographies that, I imagine, obligatorily a large part of people will watch each other to appreciate, even if different ... and will not find. But we need to be frank: the look is not a problem! This is critical of those who have not yet seen or have in the 1981 book and film a very solid base of expectations that are not supposed to be broken. The costume is incredible within the proposal in which the whole story was put together. If it is analyzed in isolation, it sucks! It is extremely difficult to go through pain and suffering with addicted young prostitutes dressed in fabulous fashion. Because someone with historical lace and golden boots would prostitute himself, or, you don't need to know that Christiane's jacket is Valentino (and it is!), Just know that, being what it is, a Mongolian goatskin jacket, it would never be in hands of an addict! This is not even analysis, it is consistency! How far does the lack of consistency go to make things beautiful? In fact, is there beauty at this point in history? So, everything is very pointless in favor of what is cool. Anyone could refute my comments by saying that the series has a less moralizing intention. I agree, not only with this with the intention, to offer a new look, that the characters are less zoo animals and more human ... But there is no suffering, not enough, there is no solid counterpoint. And to what extent is it possible AND ACCEPTABLE to make such a strong story without any moral weight? No story is made simply to tell. This does not count either the real one or any other with enough weight. Would I still advise to attend? I would advise, without a doubt, as long as the focus is maintained: The first step is to totally forget that it has the same name as a real story. Forget about it entirely and enjoy the series, because it is possible. It is perfect in creating your own universe and all the value spent is possible to see yourself at all times. It allows a superficial contact with Christiane F. and unlike the 1981 film, you can sleep (and don't tell me that Uli Edel's film tells more about her, because it doesn't! I love the film, but it shows pain and suffering and It may be better, but the series should not be neglected for that reason, comparisons of this type should not be made because they do not translate anything.) And finally, the third and last reason: it is light, clean and beautiful, and on that again fall the criticisms made above.

I believe this series is supposed to happen in a parallel universe, in a fantasy land. Not because of the intentional anachronisms (modern music even though the action is set in the 70s, for example); but because I highly doubt the Berlin shown here has ever existed.

All club scenes seem to be made for people who have never set foot in a techno party. The club itself looks immaculate and everybody has space to dance; nobody is dripping with sweat; and the music is laughably tame (come on, at least play stuff with some edge! This is Berlin!).

The series looks great. Obscenely great. People wear the most wonderful clothes, even though they have no money. A character is about to commit suicide and the scene could be framed and hanged on a wall. There's an orgy party more baroque than the one in Eyes Wide Shut. It's almost admirable, as if the creators have decided: "let's do a story about teenagers getting addicted to drugs and turning to prostitution, but the whole thing will be LIT." Had this been a dare, I could perhaps admire the audacity. But the creators wanna have their cake and eat it, too: so here and there you'll have someone from the young cast looking horrible, beaten, destroyed. It never lasts long though: soon after there'll be more glamorous shots (no pun intended) for the viewer. I kept myself thinking about the incredible make-up abilities of the characters: they manage to go from scabs-in-the-face ugly in one scene to breakfast-with-mom-looking-fresh in the next.

And who's the audience for this? Teenagers who will be scared by the drug world, but might be seduced by the fabulous clothes and cool attitude of the young cast? Adults who want to see an aseptic version of Christiane F.'s story? I honestly don't know. I watched the whole thing wondering that. And now I wonder if there is any reason for this series to exist.

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.

..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.