MovieChat Forums > Die Macht der Bilder: Leni Riefenstahl (1994) Discussion > Fundamentally dishonest whitewash

Fundamentally dishonest whitewash

posted 11 years ago by fenugreek
2 replies | jump to latest

What was the point of this movie, really? Mueller knew full well that Riefenstahl, then 91, was going to repeat every well-rehearsed fabrication and unself-critical observation she'd been spouting for more than half a century.

Instead of challenging them, he let most of them stand. Unbelievable.

For example, he lets her get away with the ridiculous claim that her Jewish colleague and screenwriter, Bela Balazs, volunteered to work on her movie Das Blaue Licht (1932) for free. Why didn't Mueller so much as mention the screenwriter's lawsuit?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022694/board/thread/209004744

Second, Mueller misrepresents the circumstances surrounding the production of Tiefland. He seems to downgrade Riefenstahl's moral responsibility by stating that the "production" enlisted the help of the employment office [in Nazi Bavaria] to "hire" (!) extras. In fact, slave laborers were procured from a slave labor camp, which Riefenstahl probably visited herself (as judges later concluded).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046431/board/thread/209004927

Third, Mueller seems to consider it in bad taste to call the racially-motivated massacre of Jews in Konskie, Poland anything more than a "violent clash" between the "Wehrmacht and Polish civilians." Um, no. It was a race war and war crime for which no soldiers were ever disciplined. There now. Was that so hard, Mr. Mueller?

Fourth, Riefenstahl lied when she said she had made enough money from her Olympia films that she could finance Lowlands on her own. Wrong. It was financed by the Nazis, some of that money coming from Hitler himself. She spent 7 million RM on it at a time when most other films cost about half a million RM.

Fifth, Mueller had plenty of opportunities to ask her how her admiration for Nazis influenced her relationship with Jews before and after the war. But he remains silent, content to listen to her regurgitated comments about Hitler's mystique and her willingness to see only his bright side.

Disgraceful.

Mueller made a valuable documentary which should be seen by all who value Riefenstahl's talent as a director, but ethically, he dropped the ball. This is a deeply flawed production that raises more questions than it answers about Riefenstahl's moral sensibilities... and the director's own.

[–] TrangPak2 10 years ago

I agree with every word. I actually shut the film off half way because I got tired of listening to her lies and watching her ridiculously childish tantrums.

Leni was a brilliant filmmaker but a hustler and an opportunist.

[–] mickeeteeze 10 years ago

I believe it's reasonable to assume the tantrums we saw were 'the tip of the iceberg'. In other words, no film would've been made at all had the 'focus' been a 'political call out' concerning 1932-1945.

She wasn't going to sit down and debate Errol Morris like McNamara or Rumsfeld.

I'll bet the farm her 'understanding' going in was this was to be a film about a film maker, and touching on the politics was unavoidable in making a complete overview. She probably agreed to answer them with a stubborn understanding "no documentary on her would be complete' without some reference to it.

I first saw this documentary when it came out: and was somewhat angered by her 'dismissive denials' of what Hitler and the Nazi's appeared to be about, circa 1934. But having lived another 20 adult years, and seen a few more things? It's a little more complicated than that, IMO.

I believe Leni was a German Nationalist who was undoubtedly ecstatic to be asked (and funded) by her government to make a 'big film'. She brought all her knowledge and technique to the table to do her 'best work' possible. And she did.

But? And this is important. The films stand as iconic more for what the government did 'afterward', even years afterward. In other words, if Hitler got voted out by his own somehow, say around 1938, would we even care about her politics?

Supposing in say, 1998, the US government would have given me unlimited funds to film George W Bush's ascendency in politics? I make as a good a film as i can, for my sponsers.

If you would have asked me in 1997? We are going to be attacked by Saudi Nationals trained in Afghanistan, and will react by going after Iraq? I wouldn't have believed it. I was never for it. I am an American.

Would you hold me as complicit?

There is no doubt in my mind Leni 'minimizes' her relationships with the Nazi hierarchy. She was hired by them, and willingly answered to them. There is also no doubt in my mind she enjoyed her 'celebrity status', even reveled in it, along with all the wealth and perks that came with it.

Did she know there would be death camps? Would she have dropped gas pellets into showers?

Those are unanswered although my first guess would be 'no'.

The most frightening thing about the history of the third Reich isn't how 'different' it was from us. It's how similar it was.

And how a small, but not insignificant 'philosophy' can run away with an entire society.

I do not feel sorry for Leni at all, she made her bed and slept in it, for another 60 years. That's life.

I think Mueller made his point however he could. Her denials make points in and of themselves.

I'll say this in closing. Sure, she believed my country 'right or wrong', hoped the Germans would win, etc. She undoubtedly enjoyed rubbing shoulders with the leaders of Nazi government and society. She filmed political rallies and Nationalist sporting events with undeniable style, innovation and panache.

However? If she had been brought into the innermost circle, say, a propaganda piece on Heydrich? Given 60 cameramen, unlimited resources, etc, and sent to 'politically spin' the situation at Aushwitz? I'm not sure she could make that movie.

I do believe there is a difference between 1934 and 1944, and it's decidedly not insignificant.