In response to the following:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/0,,1267862,00.html
For me, Leni Riefenstahl has always been a very difficult persona to come to terms with, both artistically and historically. Her work has value in that it contains creativity, but it is her intentions that give me so much trouble. In high school, I wrote a research paper on the topic of National Socialist art and propaganda in Germany in the 1930s, and I have to admit that Leni Riefenstahl's films and photographs are probably the most creatively rich bodies of work to come out of that country in that decade. Most of everything else was either propaganda or trite amalgamations of earler art movements whose values were in line with the Party-endorsed cult of the volk. That does not mean Riefenstahl's work was completely unfettered. I have seen "Triumph of the Will," her 1935 documentary of a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, and it definitely treads the line between art and propaganda. At that point, it's all a matter of intention, and I cannot trust her post-war claims of ignorance. From the New Yorker article, she seems to have been something of an opportunist, if not exactly a sympathizer. Her personal relationship with the Hitler could not have been a bigger boon to her career. The production values of "Triumph of the Will" are incredibly high. For a documentary made in 1935, it exhibits a veritable wealth of camera angles and shots. Riefenstahl must have had a small army of camera operators and assistants to create such a grandiose work. No doubt Hitler planned to use her film as propaganda, but I still wonder as to Riefenstahl's own intentions.
1 comment:
If I'm recalling correctly, "Triumph of the Will" was a documentary in the same way that "the Hills" is a reality show. They both purport to be, but I think Riefenstahl's movie was actually highly staged. It did its job, giving the appearance of perfect party unity without betraying what a rally might actually have looked like.
Post a Comment