EDITORIAL

THOUGHTS ON THE LIFE AND WORK OF LENI RIEFENSTAHL

by

Patrick Zarate

Das Blaue Licht. Net

Riefenstahl checking a camera site above Luitpoldhain arena. triumph des willens.

PAGE 2

The Case For and Against Triumph of the Will

Let's start with the frequented idea that Riefenstahl has contributed to the Holocaust, that her film Triumph des Willens was a conscious propaganda effort and that she should be accountable for being in collusion with the Nazis and their "final solution." 

Actually, all three of the documentaries that Leni Riefenstahl completed for the NSDAP (and at Hitler's behest) were in the can before 1935. It is a fact that Hitler's power base was shaky, even at the time he insisted she make Triumph des Willens (the second film of three). It is also noted that all historians have reported that Himmler did not administratively set into motion the mass executions (aka "Final Solution" )in the concentration camps of Jews until after 1940. 

So, there was no possibility that Riefenstahl would or should ( another issue to be addressed here further on ) have known that any element of her work would be used to propagate anti Jewish sentiment, let alone the "final solution" ; a series of events that would be formulated over 6 years after the Reich Party Rally she filmed.

Obvious in the simple examination of its content, Triumph is mostly about the constructive elements of a "new Germany", with new leadership and rallying to work, comradeship, ritual and a desire or will that shall see Germany renew itself out of the worst depression of the 20th century. This claim, made by the director herself is a sore spot with those that would read much into the film in the future. Certainly, as Riefenstahl has stated, the elements and the people in the film, now viewed by posterity as criminal could be objectionable. At the time they were documented, no such perspective did or could have existed.

When this chronology of historical fact is presented to those who would continue to vilify Riefenstahl and her work, the quick retort is well, she "should" have known. That "there were indicators" in that the Nazis were even then, resorting to persecution and violence. The level of intolerance for others should have been a tip off that this was not a government worth working for. 

Factually, both the American and British governments were in ongoing negotiations with Hitler, he being the legal and legitimate head of state at the time. The Nazi parades, shtick military reviews and barbarous political ploys were duly noted in American news articles/magazines of the day, but all without any warning or call to alarm over a coming genocide. Both Hitler and Riefenstahl made the cover of America's Time magazine. Riefenstahl's Time ( 1936) article being hardly negative or condemning. 

Although when Hitler and the Nazis came into power, many artists did flee anticipating an intolerant artistic and political climate, little if any mention was made of the despicable acts so many years off. Many stayed, despite this. 

No, it is not possible to see such terrible events when you are living your life, when you are in a country that has legitimacy throughout the world. Could we in America not foresee the terrible conflict and devastation of Vietnam when Kennedy and Eisenhower got us into it ? Why did the our people not act on getting us out of there until the late 1960's ? Obviously , hindsight is 20/20. 

When Riefenstahl was assigned to film the Reich Party rally in Nuremberg she did so under much protest. Knowing that Hitler would eventually allow her to return to mainstream filmmaking, she acquiesced. She reports in much detail her own political naiveté and the uninformed way she was stuck approaching the events.

Interestingly that this leads to the idea that the films, especially Triumph des Willens is a "propaganda" film. That it was conceived as such, it was staged as such and it remains held hostage in the negatively perceived propaganda genre. 

Factually , we know that the Minister of Propaganda did not care for Riefenstahl, He had tried to have then and future filming stopped or administratively suspended and  made repeated attempts to obstruct the productions. We know too that factually , Hitler was fond of playing opponents within his inner circle off each other. The fact that he allowed Riefenstahl direct access, gave the green light to her film projects or gave orders that she was to be placed in charge, irritated and angered Goebbles to no end. This claim by Riefenstahl is completely within the factual scope of how we know Hitler operated. 

So, how do you create "the most notorious propaganda film ever made" without the support of the Minister of Propaganda in a totalitarian environment ?  

Additionally we know that the true designer of the Reich rally's Albert Speer ( with Hitler ) has stated in his memoirs that, yes the events were "staged" by him, not a film director.  Riefenstahl was a pest to him, as would any modern day documentary film crew in such a situation. 

From the genre standpoint, we know that Triumph des Willens follows a documentary process. No propaganda film of its day was lacking for dramatic depictions, histrionic politics, an overbearing narration, and audience motivating hate engendering messages/images. In Triumph, all these elements are missing.  Rather, there are filmed highlights of speeches (not scripted by the director), filmed events (not choreographed by the director), which occur on parade routes and fields (not constructed or altered by the filmmaker), with no plot save the beginning and ending of the multi day political gathering (with no input on how those events will unfold by the artist). 

As a propaganda film , it fails totally. Compared to other more powerful (and hatefully directive) German movies of the day like Jud Suss and The Eternal Jew,   Triumph is pretty dull. As a documentary however, it is incredible. 

Again, the brilliance of the film lay not in the "staging" of events, though true the imagery is powerful. Rather its genesis and finalization lies in the months and months of editing (what Kubrick called film's only true artistic endeavor) which Riefenstahl documents in her autobiography. It is the revelatory and unique  vision of the director who lays down the rhythm of the film, months after the events are over. This seems to further my claim that no predetermined or malicious intent can continue to be falsely promulgated; the most important artistic effort (or at least one on an equal footing with the camera work itself) occurred months after the designers of the event (Hitler and Speer) have long since left Nuremberg.

©DASBLAUELICHT.NET

NEXT PAGE