Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo

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.

There's not much else left to say. Cinematography is decent, some of the actors deliver a pretty good performance (Angeline Häntsch, Bruno Alexander, Gerhard Liebmann, Bernd Hölscher) - the main character's, however, is not really convincing at times. Other than that, it's completely overproduced, drifting away from reality since minute 1. A rather cringeworthy take on David Bowie, massive overuse of soundtracks, it just feels like a never ending music video, picking up overly idealized stories of the character's lives. The "Sound" Disco looks more like a high-priced elite club of the 21st century in the US.

It's like they tried to take the whole Stranger Things fictional 80's retro vibe filter featuring fantasy content and apply it to a surprisingly uncritical story about drug addiction of Berlin's troubled youth in the 70's experiencing a mild existential crisis.

They lost me for good when they actually muted Bowie's song Heroes, the masterpiece that was carrying the atmosphere throughout the 1981 film "Christiane F.", after a few seconds just to fade in some somber piano cover of Sia's Chandelier. Not a bad song, but completely misplaced!

And that's one of the problems I have with this adaptation. It's a total overkill of dramatic elements, fake snow, wind machines, close-up shots and fake tears. It's similar to what happens to a good photo when you start tweaking and using Instagram filters...

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.

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.

..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.