Artificial Intelligence and the Anne Frank Case

The bookcase that camouflaged the door to the “Secret Annex” where Anne Frank and seven others hid from the Nazis during World War II.

If you didn’t know there was a door camouflaged behind the bookcase pictured above, would you ever suspect it?  I certainly wouldn’t have.  And that was the whole idea behind the building of this bookcase in the first place: it was created to hide the door behind which Anne Frank and seven other Jews hid from the Nazis during World War II in Amsterdam.  Along with Anne, there were her parents, Otto and Edith, and sister Margot; Otto’s co-worker Hermann van Pels, his wife Auguste and son Peter; and Fritz Pfeffer, a dentist.

I first came across the story of Anne Frank when I was eleven years old.  What puzzled me then, as now, was first and foremost the layout of the office building where Anne and the others were hidden.  It sounded like the strangest building imaginable.  The place where the eight people hid was called “Het Achterhuis” in Dutch – “the back house” – and it was such an odd concept to Americans that the closest English equivalent anyone could come up with when Anne’s diary was translated into our language was “The Secret Annex.”

The house was on a canal.  Apparently canal houses in Holland often were structured sort of like two-family homes, yet vertically rather than horizontally.  A “back house” was attached to a “front house.”  Or something along those lines.  It’s very strange, make no mistake about it.

The canal house in question had empty back rooms in the “back house” part of it, but the business run by Anne’s father was operational in the “front house.”  There was a storeroom, offices, workrooms – and employees going in and out during regular business hours.  All happening in the same structure, which featured four floors plus and attic, with those in hiding on the third and fourth floors.  Oh, and the eight Jews just happened to be stuck trying to stay silent during working hours as they hid in the “back house” while regular daily business action went on in the front, not to mention on two of the floors in the back, right below where the people were hiding.

Four of the office employees helped those in hiding, Miep Gies, Bep Voskuijl, Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleinman.  Miep Gies’s husband also knew about the situation, as did Bep Voskuijl’s father, who also worked in the same company.  In fact, it was Bep’s father who constructed the bookcase that hid the doorway to the back house.

To make matters even riskier, the windows of the “back house” faced a courtyard with forty, yes, FORTY other structures.  A boy who lived in one of the other houses once saw a dark-haired girl looking out of one of the windows.  Then she stepped back when she saw him looking at her.  After the diary was published, he recognized her as Anne.  If he could see her, and presumably any of the other seven who may have been unable to resist the temptation to go too close to a window, how many of the people in the other forty houses around the courtyard could?  And how many did?

The Nazis paid rewards to those who tipped them off about Jews in hiding, since on Hitler’s orders, they wanted to make Europe “Judenrein” – free of Jews.  Ultimately the group in the back house was betrayed.  The Nazis  raided the building on August 4, 1944, and to this day it’s not clear who betrayed them with a phone call.

There are a lot of theories.  A man who worked in the warehouse and was leaving little traps because he knew there were people hiding in the building.  A cleaning lady who also worked in the building and was related to another man, who also worked in the warehouse.  Right there, that’s three in the building who weren’t part of the “inner circle” of helpers.  Another suspect: a Nazi who had some sort of business dealings with Anne’s father prior to the war, later bragged he was the betrayer, and even went so far as to claim he had “let” the family go into hiding.  His story contains more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.  Even if he had let them hide, would he have known precisely where they had secreted themselves?  It’s a ridiculous story!

There have been inquiries about the betrayer before, in the 1940’s after the war, in the 1960s, and yet again.  A former FBI agent, Vince Pankoke, is now on the case.  He will be utilizing artificial intelligence to pour through all the accounts, suspicions, documents, etc. and try to come up with the solution that way.  It’s intriguing and wonderful and I can’t wait to find out the name of the creep who turned the eight hiders in.

Here’s my theory.  The other day I was watching a documentary about Anne Frank and it was said that when the Nazis raided the hiding place, they made straight for the bookcase that hid the doorway to the back house.  Take a look at the photo above again.  Were all of the canal houses in Amsterdam constructed with sections in the front and back?  Did they all feature an entrance from one part of the houses to the other in the same exact place on the same floor?  Every one of them?  Because if not, who would know about that bookcase being a ruse to cover the doorway, save for those involved with helping those hiding behind it?

Bep Voskuijl, the office worker who helped hide the family and whose father made the bookcase to conceal the door to the back house, had a sister, Nelly, who was a Nazi collaborator.  There’s a book in Dutch about Bep and the possibility of Nelly having been the one.   I’m told that in it, Nelly reportedly made snide remarks about her father and sister helping “their Jews.”  Bep’s other sister and  fiance claimed that they witnessed Nelly making the call.

Nelly Voskuijl is therefore my favorite suspect for the crime of betraying Anne Frank, especially if the Gestapo went directly to the bookcase.  If that’s true, the betrayal could only have been made by someone with inside knowledge.  Nelly Voskuijl had it.  Beside, the courtyard people didn’t know about the bookcase.

Let’s see what the artificial intelligence comes up with!  Their progress can be found at: www.coldcasediary.com.  If you have information, you can submit it there, so in this age of disclosure, please don’t hold back!  If you know something, say something.

The eight people in hiding. Only Otto Frank, top right, survived the concentration camps.

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Movie I, TONYA – Was the World Wrong about Tonya Harding?

Margot Robbie as Tonya Harding, left, and the real Tonya, right.

Tonya Harding was considered one of ice skating’s “bad girls,” but after seeing the movie, “I, TONYA,” I’ve got to wonder about that.  I came home from this movie yesterday wondering about everything I’d ever heard regarding Tonya Harding.

Obviously, the movie is very pro-Tonya, helped by Harding herself, who participated in numerous interviews to help get her side of the story covered correctly.  Maybe it’s time people started to pay attention.

Harding came from a very poor background, but in my humble opinion, that in and of itself does not render a child who wants to skate as much as Tonya did either “bad” or “trashy.”  She couldn’t afford the same costumes as the other skaters.  She couldn’t afford a fur coat.  She wasn’t a little rich girl.  Personally, I couldn’t care less what kind of socioeconomic background an athlete hails from.  The girl was a great little skater from the age of four, period, and that should count for a lot more than what kind of an image she might project if she, heaven forfend, wasn’t coming to and from competitions in some certain “approved” coat.

Please note: this is hardly the first time I’ve heard less than stellar things about the powers that be in the skating community.  They weren’t too fond of another terrific skater, Surya Bonaly, either.  She was also branded “bad,” and also didn’t fit their preferred image of a sweet little skater.  This is ridiculous!  If these kids can skate, they can skate!

Margot Robbie is wonderful in her role as Tonya Harding.  The movie portrays Tonya’s mother Lavona as a real monster, one of those awful parents who believes if they belittle and smack the child around, they’ll make her care more about her performance.  Allison Janney won a Golden Globe Award last night for the role, and she certainly deserved it.  The movie is excellent, and even has lots of funny parts to it, believe it or not, given it’s not only about skating but child abuse, spousal abuse, and criminal behavior.

For those who may be too young to remember, Tonya Harding was an Olympic Team hopeful back in 1994, as was her rival, Nancy Kerrigan.  All hell broke lose when a man attacked poor Kerrigan at the rink where she was practicing by hitting her in the knee with a baton.  It soon came to light that Harding’s husband, Jeff Gillooly, and his ultra-whacked best friend, Shawn Eckhardt, had hired two idiots, Shane Stant and Derrick Smith, to carry out the attack.  Watch for the scenes with Eckhardt, played by Paul Walter Hauser, in them.  I won’t add spoilers, but whoa…!  What a performance!

Harding claimed to be innocent, although the FBI alleged that her handwriting was found on a plan of attack written on a restaurant napkin…

According to this movie, Tonya had no knowledge of the attack.  But it was her career that was ended over it, just the same.  Following an Olympic competition where she came in 8th, a show that went on because the ratings were through the roof when Nancy and Tonya had a skate-off, Tonya wound up banned from skating.

So I’m thinking…did the world view Tonya correctly way back when, or did every reporter who covered this admittedly strange story make a horrible mistake?  Was the FBI right or wrong about the notes on the napkin they said were written by Tonya?  Perhaps the world should take another look at the whole situation.

I, TONYA: one excellent movie!

 

A Must-See Movie: FIRST THEY KILLED MY FATHER

FIRST THEY KILLED MY FATHER: Loung Ung’s book has been powerfully brought to the screen by Angelina Jolie.

Loung Ung’s fascinating yet horrific book about her survival of the brutal and sick Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, First They Killed My Father, has finally become a movie.

I really have to hand it to Angelina Jolie.  I don’t know her personally, so I’m not shilling, but she’s someone who became a goodwill ambassador to the UN awhile back, which, by the way, was also chronicled in her fascinating book, Notes from my Travels.  She has been raising awareness of the problems in nations like Cambodia ever since.

So it was no surprise when I read the good news online that First They Killed My Father was being made into a movie and that Angelina Jolie was producing it.

The movie follows the story of Loung Ung, age five in 1975 at the beginning, whose happy life with her military man father, mother and several loving siblings in Cambodia is completely disrupted, then destroyed, by the Khmer Rouge takeover of the country.  It’s brilliantly done by showing the bizarre story unfold through Loung’s young and disbelieving eyes.

Wait.  Let me amend that.  Loung is hardly the only one who cannot make sense of what went on when the Khmer Rouge took over.  Neither could the adults who were there at the time, let alone all those of us who weren’t there, thank God, and only heard about the insane events later.

Loung’s gentle father is not the only one the rogue Rouge regime kills.  A quarter of the population of Cambodia did not survive the Khmer Rouge’s psycho system of starving, overworking, and outright murdering anyone who didn’t appear to be in line with their “revolutionary” philosophy, whether they be from the military, educated, in the upper classes, etc.  As seems to be the norm with a lot of the more brutal regimes of the Twentieth Century, this one was obsessed with making everyone into “equals.”  It never works, but those who want it to can go pretty crazy with their ideas of implementation.  The Khmer Rouge went more berserk with that “equality” crap than most.  The entire population becomes enslaved by the Khmer Rouge, who have guns pointed at them as they force them to give up their homes, possessions, former lives, and so on, putting them to work in work camps.  Question, though: how “equal” can people be if one group has guns on the other, then forces them to do all the work?

Sareum Srey Moch does a spectacular job at playing Loung Ung, a child fed with more propaganda than food who somehow manages to hold onto her humanity in spite of every insane thing that is happening around her.  This is a performance worthy of an award, and so is Angelina Jolie’s vivid direction.  As many times as someone can read  about the Khmer Rouge’s takeover of their own beleaguered nation, seeing it played out on the screen packs a wallop.

Get the movie, folks.  It’s on Netflix.  You can see the trailer here:

What a Book! THE SYMPATHIZER by Viet Thanh Nguyen

A cautionary tale about a double-agent.

THE SYMPATHIZER by Viet Thanh Nguyen is more than just a book.  It’s like a force of nature.

The unnamed narrator is the illegitimate son of a North Vietnamese teenager and a priest.  He’s of “two minds,” as a result, or rather, he thinks he is, “torn” between two different cultures, Vietnamese and French, Asian and Caucasian, etc.  He grows up with a whole lot of ridicule and bullying, due to his mixed heritage, and believes it makes him someone who can understand situations from “two sides.”

Oh, really?

He may believe so, but he also aligns himself, secretly and wholeheartedly, with one side over the other.  One of his best friends trains him as a North Vietnamese spy for the Viet Cong.  Meanwhile, he also makes a big but fake show of spying for the CIA…

I won’t say any more, since I don’t like to add spoilers, but I will say this.  The story may be set in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s, and is fascinating in and of itself, as a result, but it can also serve very well as a cautionary tale for today’s polarized Americans.  Careful, folks!  Don’t base your entire identity on your politics.  You may be in for a rude awakening.

 

 

 

Broadway Musical Fans, Here’s a Book Recommendation for You!

SHOWSTOPPERS! by Gerald Nachman: one singular sensation of a Broadway book!

If you love musicals – and I’ve loved them my whole life – then have I got a book for you!  Run, don’t walk, to the nearest bookstore, or better yet log onto your Amazon account, and check out SHOWSTOPPERS! by Gerald Nachman.

I’ve always enjoyed hearing about the back story of how theatrical works are put together.  In this book, Gerald Nachman presents a fascinating, detailed, beautifully researched account of Broadway hit songs and the legions of people who made them happen.

For example, have you ever heard of a 1964 Broadway show called A Damned Exasperating Woman?  Of course not.  That’s because, after Jerry Herman wrote a song that Louis Armstrong liked so much he recorded and released it before the show in question opened.  The song became such a hit it was decided that the show should be named for the song.  Its title?  Hello, Dolly!    The new revival that just opened, starring Bette Midler,  is breaking box office records right now, 53 years later, and while Louis Armstrong is long gone (and missed), we’re all still singing that song.

The back story of the music of Hello, Dolly! is just one of the dozens of fabulous behind-the-scenes-to-before-the-floodlights chapters in this book.  Ever wonder about the differences between the partnerships of Richard Rodgers & Lorenz Hart, and Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein?  Curious about the real Annie Oakley, who inspired the Irving Berlin musical Annie, Get Your Gun, which was written with Ethel Merman in mind?  Want to find out more about another Annie, the one who was adopted by Daddy Warbucks?  Then this is the book for you.

The chapter that I personally found the most interesting is the one about the song “Wilkommen” in Cabaret.  But let me back up here.  I found the record one day when I was home sick from school as a kid, played the songs and adored them from that point on.  I’ve always particularly loved “Wilkommen,” where the Emcee of a Weimar Berlin cabaret, played by Joel Grey, welcomes the guests in German, English and French.  The song is at once a great show tune and a miniature language lesson in the bargain.  But keep in mind, the first time I played the song, I heard it.  I did not see it acted on a stage.  I didn’t know Joel Grey came out on the stage wearing bizarre make-up.  Until reading SHOWSTOPPERS!, I did not realize that the number, the first in the show, was staged to deliberately set a creepy tone for the audience and let them know what kind of theatrical evening they were in for.  Those who missed seeing many of these classics performed live  the first time around will surely welcome the chance to hear these stories.  They’re certainly giving me a new appreciation of many of my old cast albums.

This book is a treat.  Love Broadway?  Go for it!

 

IN ORDER TO LIVE by Yeonmi Park

IN ORDER TO LIVE by Yeonmi Park. Eye-opening on so many levels!

Want to know details on what’s going on in North Korea?  Read IN ORDER TO LIVE: A NORTH KOREAN GIRL’S JOURNEY TO FREEDOM by Yeonmi Park.

This is a horrifying book.  It begins in North Korea, where Yeonmi’s family cannot get ahead because they’re in the wrong political “caste,” and where their straits are increasingly  dire.  There’s a famine.  There’s the arrest of Yeonmi’s enterprising father, who was utilizing some unorthodox methods to make ends meet.  There are problems regarding the bribing of officials, medical staff, train conductors, and all sorts of people.  North Korea is a country where just about everybody who works anywhere has got their hands out in some direction, often, as in the case of the medical personnel little Yeonmi had to contend with when she was in the hospital, expecting a payoff simply for doing their jobs.

But just when you think the girl’s problems might be over after she crosses a frozen river on a cold winter night and escapes to China, they don’t!  It’s when she and her mother leave North Korea behind, and wind up in China as illegal aliens, that even more horrors begin…

As always, I don’t want to add any spoilers and reveal too much of the rest of the story.  I just want to recommend it, and add that it’s a “doozie.”  Read it if you’re not faint of heart and want to find out more about what the North Koreans go through.

God bless Yeonmi and her family, and the people they left behind in North Korea as well.

And P.S.: Shame on China for not doing a whole lot more to help North Korean economic refugees!  The horrors the illegal North Koreans were put through would not exist if China would have the balls to show them some mercy.  Come on, China – step up to the plate!

Lucille Ball Would Have Been Perfect in a Non-Musical Remake of “AUNTIE MAME”

Lucille Ball as the lovable character “MAME.”

Lucille Ball, they say, was terribly miscast in the title role of the movie MAME.  It’s been uttered so many times you’d think it was a universal truth.  “Lucy was too old.”  “Lucy couldn’t sing.”  “Angela Lansbury played it better on Broadway.”  I could  recite the list of reasons why they say she shouldn’t have done it the way she did it in my sleep.

And yet…

If you take away the distracting, and ridiculous, soft-focus shots they used to film her close-ups, which the movie could well have done without,  and if the singing numbers had been dubbed, what would you have?  The lady’s acting in the role of irrepressible, unconventional “Mame Dennis” can hardly be faulted.  She nails every scene, and not as a “Lucy Ricardo” type, either.  If I hadn’t grown up on “I Love Lucy” reruns, I never even would have guessed this part was played by the same actress.

Take the scene where she’s fired from the department store.  She’s tried on the roller skates to demonstrate them for her handsome customer, “Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside.”  She gets fired from the job.  She can’t get out of the skates because she’s knotted the laces.

What does Mame do?  Well, first let’s look at what she ought to do, what anyone else in her position back then would have done.  After all, it’s a scene set in 1929, she’s broke, the world is a different, stuffier place, and to be a lady accidentally on skates out in public in a store is supposed to be mightily embarrassing.  Yet watch the scene.  The character holds herself up high, as if being stuck in those skates is an honor, not a disaster.  She makes it look deliberate, a matter of pride, yet it’s all subtly done.

I imitated her stance for years, after seeing this movie as a child, whenever I got myself into a bit of a jam.  If life gives you lemons, stand tall, even if you’re five foot one, like me, and make some lemonade, folks.  Wherever you are, Lucy, thank you so much for that scene!

I only wish that Lucy had tried to make a remake of AUNTIE MAME, the non-musical movie version of the same basic story that was made in the 1950’s and starred Rosalind Russell.  Yes, Lucy in the musical was a mistake, but if she had starred in AUNTIE MAME, sans the unnecessary gauzy close-ups and songs, I think she’d have been remembered well for it, and rather than going down in motion picture history as something of a bad joke, it would be remembered as a good movie.

And let me add this: I hate it that Lucy took abuse for this movie!  Her version was the very first one I saw of this story, so Lucy was “my Mame.”  The joy and love and fun of this movie gave me a whole new perspective – and even got me through several godawful years at a terrible, abusive school.  Wherever you are, I say, BRAVA, Lucy!  Just wish I could have told you in person.

 

Stunning in every outfit: Lucy as MAME.