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

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...

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.

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.