Noi, i ragazzi dello zoo di Berlino

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 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

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.

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.