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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.”

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.