EDITORIAL

ON THE LIFE AND WORK OF LENI RIEFENSTAHL

by 

Patrick Zarate

Das Blaue Licht. Net

PAGE 4

Life in History is Not a Sin

So what is the responsibility of the artist ? For context, lets look at two other seminal film artists of the same time period, Griffith and Eisenstein. 

Eisenstein was a Soviet film director who created some of the most powerful sequences and movies in history. The Battleship Potemkin, and its Odessa Steps scenes are amazing in every artistic sense. Yet, the corrupting Soviet ( Communist ) government, took the inspirational events of Eisenstein' s pro-revolutionary dramas and used them to their own ends. So should Eisenstein be held accountable for propping up the USSR , for Stalin and his genocidal practices , for the eventual Cold War and all the money, misery, paranoia and fear it brought along with the Cuban missile crisis ? Did he not realize what evil lurked, what a terrible and hateful regime he was helping to instill into power ? 

Eisenstein's  Battleship Potemkin . Great Art or  A Propaganda Tool that Helped to Install     a murderous Regime ?

D.W. Griffith was an American film director, best known for the first film epic Birth of the Nation. It was film that defined much of the cinematic language we continue to utilize today. It was tremendously successful and continues to be referenced in every film history book. Griffith was honored with a US Postage stamp and he is accepted as a great artist of the silent film era. Yet, Birth of a Nation was based on a racist text called The Klansman ( the film actually was titled The Clansman for part of its release ) and is about the genesis of the Ku Klux Klan, heroes of the South. 

D.W. Griffith's Glaringly Racist Depictions go unnoticed. D.W. remains the "father" of American movie making.

Throughout the film, the devastation the South faced during and after the Civil War is played to a hysterical tumult. The Klan is the only thing that can" save" the South (and Southern women) from the newly freed slaves. In actuality, the KKK was one of a multitude of post Civil War hate groups festering in the United States; its membership small. After the release of the film though, KKK membership went up over one thousand percent. 

Of course, Americans are now aware that the Klan is responsible not only for unrelenting bigotry against Black Americans (and other "undesirable" groups); they have kidnapped,  raped, whipped and lynched innumerable men, women and children and firebombed or driven them off their land and homes. 

Should Griffith not be held historically accountable for these outrages against humanity ? Without his film, the KKK probably never would have amounted to much, many black families would have been spared nights of terror and murder, churches would not have been firebombed or viscous hateful litanies not voiced.  Why was Griffith allowed to work? Why has he continued to be seen as one of the Fathers of modern cinema ? Is it not apparent that his film, regardless of its artistic merits, is a dangerous propaganda instrument of anti Black racism ? 

So should Griffith or Eisenstein suffer the same fate as Leni Riefenstahl. Not at all. Rather, it seems that if you can see the historical context in which these other films were made, one can understand (even if we can't stomach their now known impact). We acknowledge for decades that no artist (and they were not the only ones to produce work esteemed in artistry, with a travesty inherent in the content) would be able to have the clairvoyant ability to anticipate what Riefenstahl's detractors claim she "should have seen coming." 

Legendary American director, John Ford eventually attempted to absolve himself from the hateful (now called "classic" Western) he helped to establish in films like The Searchers with Cheyenne Autumn. Most of the artists never had to  or acknow- ledge the need to make such amends. Most I would dare say, could not perceive       the error of their vision. 

It is possible that terrible outcomes have no one source of accountability ? That there is no black or white solution to the issue ? What is clear however, is that the context of Riefenstahl's working life in Nazi Germany is untenable to most. That era, even weighed against the genocide of Stalin or the apartheid of the deep South in America is beyond discussion. The art, the artists and the "contribution" or any need for serious artistic analysis of any remaining works seems to be beyond or worthy of attention.  

It is clear that Riefenstahl's presence and work within Nazi Germany needs to be accepted as a fact, not an irredeemable sin. This has rarely occurred, though some have ventured into this territory of late. 

Unlike the above noted "dramatic" films , though, Riefenstahl's ostracized place in history is even more puzzling in that her NSDAP sponsored films merely documented the events over which she had no control. Unlike Griffith or Ford, she never fed a line to an actor, suggested an alternate "set" or demanded lighting alterations. For example, Triumph of the Will is plagued by night shots that are practically indecipherable, were it not for the last minute idea to give some of the participants flares to hold. Not exactly the discriminate or precision required, desired  or present in a real propaganda effort.

Yet neither  Griffith or Eisenstein (even in this post Soviet Union world) have had to "pay" the film world, Black America, Russian ethnic Jews or other minorities back. Their reputations and films remain held in the highest esteem and no screenings of their works are blocked, boycotted or forbidden. 

Well some say, "anyone associated with the Nazis should be held accountable". Riefenstahl was part of the "inner circle" within the Third Reich and her film, whether she designed it that way or not , had a negative impact. Perhaps. Lets look at the facts about two other artistic individuals who had collaborations within Nazi Germany.

Viet Harlan directed films like Jud Suss  which clearly had a hateful agenda in mind and hoped to provoke German people into hating all Jews after they saw it. Oddly enough Harlan was eventually de-nazified and allowed to re enter a lucrative career in the post war German cinema. 

Herbert von Karajan, the best selling conductor of the 20th century was a card carrying Nazi party member. He related that he needed to do this to further his career. He eventually was cleared of collaboration and began a longstanding career with British recording giant EMI.  Mr. Karajan did suffer some protests to his American concerts in the 1950's yet in 1990 it was noted by Gramophone magazine that one out of every four classical recordings purchased was conducted by Karajan. 

©DASBLAUELICHT.NET

NEXT PAGE