Documentary Film March 23
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
THE WONDERFUL HORRIBLE WORLD OF LENI RIEFENSTAHL
She seemed to be very “real” in that she did not try to portray herself as something she wasn’t.
It was very interesting to watch her be “herself” and also watch her in the behind the scenes footage. It was very obvious that she was acting, in a way, when they were filming the documentary. During the behind the scenes footage, it came off that she was very difficult, picky, and challenging to work with. It can be understandable, because this is her big shot to clear her name, So I feel this statement isn’t entirly wrong because I think there are aspects in “both” sides to her that are true.
Was this something that she was okay with letting people see? If it were me, I am not so sure that I would want to be seen as being so difficult or is that apart of what makes her special?
Yes, the film does support the conclusion of “the wonder horrible world of Leni Riefenstahl.” It showed a very different side of her that is not typically displayed to the public on her accord. We see her being extremely particular about how she wants to be filmed. She also embodied a tone of annoyance when she is not being filmed the way she wants.
Yes the film does support this conclusion. Throughout the film you see her many moods and requests. Often times acting the way she wanted to be portrayed on camera. This want led to a need and that need led to further witnessing how she wanted to be filmed.
Right we see hoe she becomes aggressive at presentation sometimes
I think that through this film, it is shown how Riefenstahl dealt with the repercussions of her early work. It is interesting to see how Riefenstahl talks about things and than also see behind the scenes footage of her. I don’t think the documentary shows her ‘better’ or in some sort of propaganda way (which is ironic), but really like how she is. I liked it a lot.
This documentary had a great amount of perspective coming from Leni Riefenstahl. Who she was in real life seemed to reflect how she was in film; adventurous and committed. She seemed to portray herself in a way that suggests that she loved art, and the seriousness of it. All these films she was in have a lot of nature scenery and action, and her dedication to complete those roles as an actress proved that she was honest with everyone, not portraying herself as something she wasn’t.
Honest with everyone in terms of her dedication to perform hard scenes such as the avalanche one.
I think the film did support this conclusion. She showed various emotions of hers in the film and trying not to be controlled by. It gives us the sense of how she consider the consequences of her work.
I think the film accurately portrays the complexities of her day to day dispositions. The film showed her being playful, as well as serious. She couldn’t hide this because she wasn’t the one directing or editing the film.
Because some techniques that were used, were in favor of a decent image and perception of her.
Riefenstahl tried her best to try to hide her very controlling personality when making this film. It was the side of her that she didn’t want anyone to know. Everyone hides something about themselves from the world. She was trying to sell herself as someone who wanted to give this new director his big shot, but was used instead to show film is only what the director lets you see.
I believe her when she says she had no part in the Nazi agenda but all she wanted to do was make great films.
I also believe that she had no part in the Nazi party. When she said that she wanted to make great films, I believe that she just knew where to find great footage for her great films. Obviously, during her time, Hitler was a topic to make great films. I believe that this film does promote that because she goes on to say that they were very dark times in her life and she had a very dark past. When she was talking about that, she seemed to have been bothered to have been considered apart of the Nazi party.
After the film was aired, do we ever find out if she was happy and felt that she “cleared her name?”
Very Difficult job to do and I don’t believe she did. Even when she died the media still framed her as “Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favourite film Propagandist dies at 101”
I believe she intended to have no agenda although from our modern viewpoint it would be tough to tell if there was a hidden one or not. Just based on some of her clips themselves it seemed she was more captivated with the subject at hand like the grandeur of the Olympic games, and experimenting with styles of film than promoting the Nazi propaganda.
I believe that she had no part in the Nazi agenda. Although she was bothered as an image maker of the Nazi, the film attempts to recover Riefenstahl’s reputation as a great artist. The film addresses Riefenstahl’s achievements as a filmmaker, which is her life and representation of nature and beauty of human body.
I do not believe her stance regarding the nazi party. I believe she wanted to make great films and in order to do that she needed a great topic with even greater importance on the world stage. However in order to get this access she would of needed to be favored by the Nazi officials and more so Hitler who a long with Joseph Goebbels had final say on all things multimedia and propaganda. I can not say if she was proud of being associated with the party but it is clear she did what she had to in order to make a name for herself and pieces of work.
I believe that she didn’t partake in the Nazi party. In terms of her making great films, Hitler seemded to have been the popular topic of discussion at that time.
I think it’s difficult. On the one hand I would say you can’t judge someone his whole life for the eight years she worked for the Nazi regime. On the other hand, she did agree with making films that eulogized a man that was responsible of the death of so many people. It is hard to forget that. I think the film does not really promote such belief, since it also shows her working under the Nazi-regime but it kind of leaves it up to the viewer whether they should believe Riefenstahl or not. I don’t know enough about this subject to say something about it I guess but I do think she had a part in it. If she shouldn’t have paid for that her whole life, is another story.
Although it seems very clear to us, I think she believes she had no part in the Nazi agenda. It’s no lie that she wanted to make a great film, but it doesn’t change the fact that her film help glorify Hitler. It’s also mentioned many times in class about her gravitation to those with power, regardless of who they are. I think it is plausible to believe she would support a man who seemingly had Europe in his grasp.
We are suppose to believe her but when you get your self in messes such as this one its really hard to get out. It appears that Riefenstahl was having the best of both worlds. doing what she likes and having a powerful figure behind her helping.
I think Riefenstahi was more like trying to make good film. Perhaps she thinks that having such an incredible character as the central character like Hitler plays a part in the movie’s appeal. And in order to get the character, she needed to show them respect in her way.
I don’t think that Riefenstahl had part in the execution Nazi Agenda, but I do believe that she influenced pro-Nazi sentiments that led to the support of the Nazi agenda with her films. Her films romanticized Hitler and Nazi Germany in a way that condoned what they did. Her films also promoted the idea of strength in the form of the aryan race. (She would film young, strong, blonde aryan men in Triumph of the WIl.
I think that all she wanted to do was make boundless films about the world and Germany. I think in order to do so at that time; she had to associate herself with Hitler and his regime. They gave her the access she needed in order to do the work that she needed to do. I cant very well say if she was pleased with being allied with the party but it is obvious she did what she had to do in order to forge a legacy for herself and her work.
I really like her underwater stuff too. She’s so cool, and she’s petting the stingray. I like her. And Susan Sontag should seriously stop trying to read too much into it and just get over herself.
The film does not justify her comment. Any amount of hours and work on a documentary of Hitler would still not shed to light everything that Hitler is. The same concept goes with Riefenstahl, it is important to scrutinize the work she put forward because her work is a part of who she is.
Well, in some sort of way it does. It shows Riefenstahl as true as possible. I think she’s a smart woman, probably presenting herself more innocent then she is. She’s a smart, powerful woman which kind of shows it in the stingray scene because in some sort of way, she’s being dominant there. She knows what she wants so I guess Sontag has a point. By not following Riefenstahl’s opinion or things she’s saying but showing which direction Riefenstahl kind of wants the viewer to take, it automatically makes you see the opposite, so Riefenstahl being a smart woman that knows what she wants and how to get it (if that makes sense).
Yes I do think Sontag is reading into it too much. This scene of her petting the stingray was intended to depict the human elements of Riefenstahl by showing her hobbies and interest. This occurs more naturally to her since it depicts her in her natural element. This also helped perceive her in a different light instead of the public brand that she’s developed as this big time director for Hitler. Showing her underwater hobbies also spoke alot about who she is—adventurous.
feel that the punishment of an outcast, unable to produce anything over half a century of her life after the WWII because there had been a time in her life when she used to hang out with the wrong kind of people, was too severe. After all, she wasn’t a part of any crime; she just expressed her political opinions as many Germans at that time did, believing that there was nothing wrong in their worship for Hitler.
I feel that this film does justify the defense of her because I think at that time no one really knew just how dangerous Hitler really was. I can see how people would think that she would be considered to be a Nazi or a Nazi worshiper, because of how close she was to him. Just because she was fascinated by him and his behavior does not mean that she fully believed what he was preaching. I think the film does support those actions.
Oh no, quite harsh professor, I think there’s some truth to what being stated here. To add on, she could have limited his influence on her, despite her involvement. And Mr. Jeremy is right when explains that not because she was involved with Hitler means that she subscribes to every single one of his beliefs and values. I think is analysis is quite reasonable. Even though its evident that she’s a liar and even though all these facts stands against her, she didn’t have to necessarily believe in everything Hitler did
I think the film justifies defense of Riefenstahl because Hitler and Goebbels had administered the German culture to control the Germans, and thus she and her colleague Germans had little choice that time. It is hard to say that she was part of the German public who were suffered from dictatorship, but she was a Nazi worshiper just like others.
It doesn’t matter if she did or did not commit any crime. The bigger crime was convincing the people of the importance of a nationalistic Germany under the regime of Hitler’s “thousand year Reich”. By using her talents she was able to persuade others to the glory that was being portrayed at the time in regards to both Hitler and the Nazi’s. As someone with access to many aspects of Hitler’s Germany she was bound to hear and witness more information regarding the state. Despite the previous claim not being confirmed, it should be implied and if accepted as implied, Riefenstahl was bound to also listen to the atrocities being committed and hence never spoke or acted on them. Instead she just distanced herself following the end of the war.
I think it’s interesting how Riefenstahl is trying to compose this strong image of herself throughout the movie, giving the viewer a better chance to draw his or her own conclusions about it. I think the film does justify this defense of Riefenstahl because although it is trying to give a fair representation of her, it also shows, in my opinion, the mistakes she made (working for the Nazi-regime) and how naive and weird she acted about it afterwards.
I feel like this film justifies the defense of Riefenstahi. She was the one of only few people, who gets access to Hitler but that was to make better film. By seeing many aspects of Germany she made a choice of getting distanced from them.
I think the film does a good job in defending Riefenstahl involvement with the Nazi party. She said many times that she did not admire Hilter because of his physical strength, but the strength of his presence when he spoke. Probably like many Germans did during the time. The scenes of her directing the film show that she likes to be in control and probably like to support those who keep control as well.
Leni Riefenstahl was a remarkable woman. She presents herself as a very naive and innocent person, but we, who’ve seen her movies and films, know that she isn’t. She knows what she wants and she gets it.
I think the film supports this statement and pretty well. First, you can take a look at her tactics in Olympia, where she would cry to get what she wants. Taking that knowledge and applying it to this film, it became especially relevant when the archive footage was being shown. The film also showed her to try and get what she wants when she was asked to walk and talk and she could not do that. She has never been asked to do that before and she couldn’t do it here; so much so that she at one point shoved the director. I think this was very indicative of her always trying to get what she wants.
Has she always been known as controlling or is that a trait she developed over time?
When director want to shoot a scene of Riefenstahl walking and talking at the front film studios, she strongly refuses because walking and talking is not what she wants to do. She is not acting. She reveals her real personality, which is quite strong. In this regard, I believe that she actually wants to continue her glory days, of course, when she was a great filmmaker.
From her directing the director to her putting her input into the shots being taken, it is clear she is used to being in charge and getting her way. By viewing her work and her personality you can tell she is not who she tries to present herself.
Yes. She really wants to get her way. You can see it in the way she directs the director (in the behind the scenes footage) but also, ironically, in how she is directing the documentary itself we’re watching, because she’s trying to convince people to see this side of her.
She doesn’t like to do what is being told to do. She has her way to act and very consistent about it. And when I see her work and her character, I feel like she is presenting “fake” her – but that is still “her.”
The many scenes of Riefenstahl directing how what shots should be used, how she should speak and where they should film all show that Riefenstahl like to be in control. She wants a film to turn out the way she wants it to turn out.
From the parts she directed, she makes herself out to be this innocent artists who became successful through the skills of her craft. The other parts that Muller chose to add shows exactly what the paragraph mentions “She knows what she wants and she gets it.”
She denies that she was a fascist, saying that she was never a member of the Nazi party. But at the same time she was closer to Hitler than most people; she even admired him in the beginnings. She gets very upset when the interviewer asks her about her relationship with Goebbels. She is outraged to learn what Goebbels wrote in his diaries. Even the thought of her being Goebbel’s lover makes her furious. I think that she never felt she had to apologize to the world for her film about the Nuremberg Rally. She just made it purely for the sake of art. But how can an artist be so blind?
Leni Riefenstahl’s portrayal of herself of being naive and innocent is misleading given the scenes we’ve seen of her in the film. She is definitely aware of what other people intends to do and she gets what she wants by being adamant in her decisions. For example, in the scene of when she was talking to the director and staff about how she wanted to be filmed, she was adamant about particular camera shots/angles since she knows that different shots/angles will make he be perceived differently.
Being an artist posses one self to try to do what they have to in order to create the piece of art the want to create. It is no easy task to create art the way she did but the way she went about obtaining it is questionable. Her ability to demand, question and put forth her ideas to the director and workers allows her to essentially control the way the film will be digested by the audience. Her refusal to claims by Goebbel’s in his diaries and not apologizing for work goes to show how she truly did not want to be associated with the Nazi party because if she did admit Goebbel’s claims it would show her true intimacy with the party and by apologizing for work also shows how she may of lied about all her other claims, especially in scenes where she tries to be innocent and humble.
I remember your comment in class that when she was denied something (I’m not sure what it was but I think it was filming the athletes from very close or something like that), she cried until she got her way. This is exactly the skepticism expressed in this statement that the film justifies I guess. Leni presents herself as being innocent and naive, but she isn’t, which makes her very smart (by fooling people with it).
I think the film shows Riefenstahl tries to manipulate her actions and the filmmakers to represent “I’m innocent and naive.” But, when she strongly rejects to be filmed walking and talking at the same time. She does not look like naive. she looks a dominant woman.
The way she controlled her acting is the skepticism expressed I guess. She tries to give the sense of herself of being innocent but from the film, we all know that her personality is she pursues whatever she want until she gets it.
Her delirious defense of her work as separate from politics is beyond ignorant and inexcusable.
Her claim that is politics and art are separable is like saying church and state are separate in the United States. Despite the U.S. tug of war between the two it still exists, you cannot be an elected official by not first proclaiming your faith in God. So the same on some levels applies to Riefenstahl. In an authoritarian and fascist government such as Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the possiblity of work receiving recognition and national coverage would of never been possible unless she infused both politics and art, as evident by her works that show the glory and triumph of Nazi’s.
I don’t know if this is the answer you’re searching for but I think, you can separate it when you’re making an independent film. For instance, if you’re working on your own and you want to make a film about Nazi-Germany, that kind of makes sense (leaving the fact out that you probably won’t get as close as Riefenstahl did but that’s another point). When you’re making a film about Nazi-Germany while you’re working for the Nazi-Regime, it’s not independent and you can’t really separate the art you’re making from politics anymore. There’s always a connection because you made it in a certain way and by working for certain people and making a propaganda movie, it’s more connected than it will ever be. So I do agree with the quote that it’s inexcusable.
In a way yes politics and art can be separated however in the public’s view, after one’s image and intent is being questioned, it is ridiculously hard to do so. But its possible.
I think it is difficult to separate arts and politics. This is because Riefenstahl’s artworks are highly linked to the political party, which is Nazi party, even though she uses her great cinematography techniques.
I believe it is hard to separate politics and art because art always occurs across historical eras and cultures. In fact, the film is already an art and Riefenstahi is making one to portrait the political aspect.
I am skeptical of Riefenstahl’s comment that politics and art can be separated. Especially because of the political nature of her content (Nazi Germany- pro-Nazi government), any way she portrays her content will send a particular message. Art is used to send a message through visuals. It is very hard to separate art and politics just because art is driven by an incentive and message that the artist wants to portray whether it is subliminally or explicitly.
Right and this is what makes it so harder. Its true professor. Your saying how could be so the essence of her work is based on all this political stuff
if they didn’t in some way agree with his thinking.
I don’t think politics and art can be separated. Triumph of the Will was like Riefenstahl showing the world the Hitler she saw. Someone strong and beloved by his people. Some of that admiration had to come from a place of sincerity. This film doesn’t make that separation either. Muller knew what he was doing when making this film. Some part of him wanted to expose the real Riefenstahl and find out if what everyone thinks she was is true.
I think the real Riefenstahl was just as much the person she was trying to portray as she was the person Muller was revealing. She was trying to show that she was this amazing, sweet person, but Muller showed she had this aggressive side to her. She showed you what she wanted you to see to seem more likable, but the combination of the two create a more honest picture of her.
The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl was one of the best documentaries that I have ever seen. It showed who she really was and how she came to be who she was. The fact that she denounces knowing anything about Hitler’s ideals and his plans seems to me very naive and seems like she is lying through her teeth.
General Document Comments 0
I don’t think the film was intended to present Riefenstahl as a liar. Instead, I think it was intended to show the different sides of her. We are only used to seeing the intelligent “director” oriented side of her, but the film was intended to depict her in different lights. The film showed Riefenstahl to be stubborn and picky (ex. when she chooses shots of herself), but maybe thats why she was able to produce nationally-acclaimed films.
I did not see this but thanks for pointing that out professor
I kind of feel the same way Tracy does. It was not aimed at making her look like a liar. Atleast that’s not what I got. For me it was suspense in the sense that i couldn’t wait to hear the responses and see what was being communication. Her associations with the wrong people doesn’t necessarily make her a liar and so on
Okay Professor, your are so funny, (in a good way). I am just imagining how you would say that in class and I cannot stop laughing. Yes but I just didn’t get that from the section
The film in its innocence, I believe was created to show her innocence and solidarity not with Germany but with humanity as a whole. She tries to appear as someone who was a victim and is only trying to advance her work by showing someone who is adamant of being innocent by circumstance and caring. But by releasing this film she only provides a benchmark of how to evaluate her and her claims, and thus crucifies herself.
I think it’s really straight-forward to put it that way, but yes, it does. They show the different sides of her, the film uses a quote and then shows something else by using her documentaries to show she’s isn’t speaking the truth. By showing these different sides the documentary gives a fair representation of Riefenstahl’s life. I think she really was just a person that wanted to make great films, but she made some wrong decisions by doing so and working under the Nazi-regime and being so naive about it afterwards, are some of them.
She dabble with the devil, the devil will take you down to his cell. The devil in this case was Hitler and her willingness to present him as a hero, even if she didn’t have a say in the final cut/release of the film.
The film did present the scene that Riefenstahi didn’t speak the truth. So I guess the film present Riefenstahi as a liar? But presentation of different sides of hers reveals the real side of her life. She was just passionated about making good film.
make her a liar, but she’s definitely being dishonest.
I don’t think this film presents Riefenstahl as a liar, but as someone enthralled with capturing power. Control and Power had been the basis of her artistic career. Whether being a ballerina, rock climbing for a film, or making films herself, these two ideas are what represented Riefenstahl as a person. She seemed more ignorant of her own involvement and did not want to come across as a villain.
Ok I see, there goes an answer to my question. Was this part emphasized enough though? was that its intention?
I think the intention of the film was to tell a story untold. She got to tell her own side of her story. I’m guessing Muller exposed her on her lies to tell the audience not to take her words for fact.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments