Historical Perspectives Santa Clara University Undergraduate - PDF document

1 Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara Uni
Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of Histo Kate Chopin, Unfiltered She was invited to speak at a women’s luncheon in St. Louis, where she gratulationsite this encourage- her ambition began to decline. She concentrated misguided their interpretatmotives as a writer, Chopin’s feminist ad remained undiscovered a public not interested in regionalthors. But it a disservice to the cmplex and many facetedforces that shaped this unconventional woman andChopin exhibited in 1899 what wewould call a feminist consciousness today, not becausof precognition, but rather owing to her that rescued Chopin from obscuri Chopin took what she saw around her women, a rich French heritage, and Catholicnces, and transformed all those forces stories that remain powerfuand timeless. Tonist” is to miss the profound universal themes diminish the of her circumstances andHistorical PerspectivesThe Many Leni Riefenstahls:Ashley Bunnell RitchieLeni Riefenstahl, an aspiring German actressturned director/producer is best known for her re-markable skills in directing documentary films forAdolph Hitler before World War II. After the war, hersuccess as a director faltered as the public and thefilm community shunned her for her involvementwith the Nazi regime. Many of those attending orwatching the 2003 Academy Awards, whereRiefenstahl was honored as one of the greatest film-makers of her time, failed to understand how theheavily involved with Hitler. The anger some ex-pressed raises the issue of how people need to re-about her genius as a filmmaker, but the contro-public opinion since, in their view, her artistic de-mise after World War II was a punishment adminis-tered by a public outraged at her Nazi sympathy.Yet, the enigma of her career before and after theWho was the Leni Riefenstahl? Was she aNazi collaborator or an unassuming victim? Was shea naive film genius who did not foresee the conse-quences of her actions or an ambitious woman whodid not mind sweeping her morals under the carpetWould she have continued to create masterpieces 1Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Leni Riefenstahl: The seduction of genius(London: Continuum, 2002), 11.had she not been shunned? To arrive at a fair assessment of the woman andher talents is not easy. In the literature surroundingthis enigmatic presence in film history, several LeniRiefenstahls appear. To judge from current scholar-ship about her, it is evident that she meant differentthings to different people. However, few question herabi

2 lity. Though commentators almost univers
lity. Though commentators almost universallyattribute the demise of her artistic career to hernotorious reputation, this may not have been thecase. Perhaps the failures of her post-World War IIfilms are better explained by her inability to adapt tothat was inflicted on her had no role in the down-ward spiral of her career. Leni Riefenstahl, “the lim-ited talent,” is one possible depiction of this contro-versial woman very few individuals have con-structed, but it will be a serious consideration in thelatter part of this paper. How Riefenstahl came to be known as a ‘cine-tion of Riefenstahl, it is crucial to examine how sheRiefenstahl was fascinated with the entertainmentindustry at an early age. Relentless in her pursuit ofgetting what she wanted, Riefenstahl was convincedshe could do anything and everything. Thus, shepursued dancing as a child, even when though ithorrified her father. When she suffered a knee in-Historical Perspectives acting, a dream she would carry for the rest of herclassical moment of revelation,” and after gainingnotoriety for her work in smaller budget films, shegot the chance to work for a director whom she hadlong admired: Arnold Fanck. She used her time withFanck to familiarize herself with every aspect of filmbehind the camera to explore directing. tor, she quickly established herself as a householdname. Her two documentaries, “Triumph of the Will”and “Olympia,” brought the standards of documen-tary films to a level never seen before and surpassedany of the artistic works she had created or everwould create in the future. “Triumph of the Will,”Riefenstahl’s best known film, gained its reputationfor its original and brilliant techniques. However,today it is judged for its effectiveness in promotingthe Nazi regime. Riefenstahl got her chance to direct “Triumph ofthe Will” after Hitler saw her film, “The Blue Light,”and was impressed with her original style. He askedher first to film a small Nazi party meeting. The re-when the Nuremberg rally was in the works, Hitlerknew just whom to call on. Although she lackedexperience with documentary films, Leni Riefenstahldisplayed artistic techniques Hitler had not seen inother directors. As with everything he did, Hitler wasunremitting in his pursuit of her as a director. In 2Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Leni Riefenstahl: The seduction of genius(London: Continuum, 2002), 11.had she not been shunned? To arrive at a fair assessment

3 of the woman andher talents is not easy
of the woman andher talents is not easy. In the literature surroundingthis enigmatic presence in film history, several LeniRiefenstahls appear. To judge from current scholar-ship about her, it is evident that she meant differentthings to different people. However, few question herability. Though commentators almost universallyattribute the demise of her artistic career to hernotorious reputation, this may not have been thecase. Perhaps the failures of her post-World War IIfilms are better explained by her inability to adapt tothat was inflicted on her had no role in the down-ward spiral of her career. Leni Riefenstahl, “the lim-ited talent,” is one possible depiction of this contro-versial woman very few individuals have con-structed, but it will be a serious consideration in thelatter part of this paper. How Riefenstahl came to be known as a ‘cine-tion of Riefenstahl, it is crucial to examine how sheRiefenstahl was fascinated with the entertainmentindustry at an early age. Relentless in her pursuit ofgetting what she wanted, Riefenstahl was convincedshe could do anything and everything. Thus, shepursued dancing as a child, even when though ithorrified her father. When she suffered a knee in-Historical Perspectives acting, a dream she would carry for the rest of herclassical moment of revelation,” and after gainingnotoriety for her work in smaller budget films, shegot the chance to work for a director whom she hadlong admired: Arnold Fanck. She used her time withFanck to familiarize herself with every aspect of filmbehind the camera to explore directing. tor, she quickly established herself as a householdname. Her two documentaries, “Triumph of the Will”and “Olympia,” brought the standards of documen-tary films to a level never seen before and surpassedany of the artistic works she had created or everwould create in the future. “Triumph of the Will,”Riefenstahl’s best known film, gained its reputationfor its original and brilliant techniques. However,today it is judged for its effectiveness in promotingthe Nazi regime. Riefenstahl got her chance to direct “Triumph ofthe Will” after Hitler saw her film, “The Blue Light,”and was impressed with her original style. He askedher first to film a small Nazi party meeting. The re-when the Nuremberg rally was in the works, Hitlerknew just whom to call on. Although she lackedexperience with documentary films, Leni Riefenstahldisplayed artistic techniques Hitler had not seen inother directors. As with everything he did, Hitler wasunremitting in his pursuit of her as a director. In 3Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Sch

4 olar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefens
olar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Leni Riefenstahl: The fallen film goddess.York: Crowell, 1976), 62.fact, when initially petitioned to direct the movie,someone she thought could do a better job. This wasunacceptable to Hitler. Eventually, through power oftance to work with Hitler on the film, Riefenstahlknew that she would open up doors she neverRiefenstahl her first opportunity to direct as if shewere making a “big studio production.”The brilliance of Riefenstahl’s film of theNuremberg rally liess in the authenticity of her cine-matic techniques and their tremendous effect uponthe audience. According to author Rainer Rother,Riefenstahl’s “stylistic ideal” was remarkable in twoways. “On the one hand, she employed cuts modeledon narrative films in an attempt to place the audi-ence in the position of the ‘ideal spectator’.” On theother hand, Riefenstahl made certain to “heroize” themain subject of her film. In “Triumph of the Will,”this “subject” was none other than Adolph Hitler.Riefenstahl perfected the idea of placing the viewerin the location of an “ideal spectator” at the begin-a way that it appeared to be inside Hitler’s head as ifhe descended from the clouds onto the Nurembergrally. The audience saw through Hitler’s eyes as hedescended closer to the people and witnessed “theHistorical Perspectives A portrait of Leni RiefenstahlJonathon Cape, 1996), 140.relinquish[ed] minds and individuality to a single,mesmerizing fanatic.” This technique becameknown as seeing through the “eye of the Fuhrer: thesame buildings, the same misty atmosphere of a new Seeing the rally through the eyes of theirhero allowed the audience to feel a closer connectionand more intimate relationship with Hitler.The film’s journey from the airport to the hotelRiefenstahl displayed truly remarkable originality.This specific sequence “ends with an emphatic fade,and includes approximately ninety shots withinabout five minutes.” Thus, the shots are only aboutbetween Hitler and members of the cheering crowdto construct the idea of their bonding. However, “thehierarchy of the eye contact” remained uniformthroughout the film. “The ‘people’ are always shownin high-angle shots; Hitler from a low or eye-levelangle…Their function is one of orientation, clarifyingthe distance already covered.”Riefenstahl wanted to portray Hitler as the saviorof the people and did so by constructing the framingof her shots carefully and closely considering whowas in them. One example of this placement is seenin the abundance of

5 women and children in “Tri-umph of
women and children in “Tri-umph of the Will.” Rother notes the prevalence of 4Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Leni Riefenstahl: The fallen film goddess.York: Crowell, 1976), 62.fact, when initially petitioned to direct the movie,someone she thought could do a better job. This wasunacceptable to Hitler. Eventually, through power oftance to work with Hitler on the film, Riefenstahlknew that she would open up doors she neverRiefenstahl her first opportunity to direct as if shewere making a “big studio production.”The brilliance of Riefenstahl’s film of theNuremberg rally liess in the authenticity of her cine-matic techniques and their tremendous effect uponthe audience. According to author Rainer Rother,Riefenstahl’s “stylistic ideal” was remarkable in twoways. “On the one hand, she employed cuts modeledon narrative films in an attempt to place the audi-ence in the position of the ‘ideal spectator’.” On theother hand, Riefenstahl made certain to “heroize” themain subject of her film. In “Triumph of the Will,”this “subject” was none other than Adolph Hitler.Riefenstahl perfected the idea of placing the viewerin the location of an “ideal spectator” at the begin-a way that it appeared to be inside Hitler’s head as ifhe descended from the clouds onto the Nurembergrally. The audience saw through Hitler’s eyes as hedescended closer to the people and witnessed “theHistorical Perspectives A portrait of Leni RiefenstahlJonathon Cape, 1996), 140.relinquish[ed] minds and individuality to a single,mesmerizing fanatic.” This technique becameknown as seeing through the “eye of the Fuhrer: thesame buildings, the same misty atmosphere of a new Seeing the rally through the eyes of theirhero allowed the audience to feel a closer connectionand more intimate relationship with Hitler.The film’s journey from the airport to the hotelRiefenstahl displayed truly remarkable originality.This specific sequence “ends with an emphatic fade,and includes approximately ninety shots withinabout five minutes.” Thus, the shots are only aboutbetween Hitler and members of the cheering crowdto construct the idea of their bonding. However, “thehierarchy of the eye contact” remained uniformthroughout the film. “The ‘people’ are always shownin high-angle shots; Hitler from a low or eye-levelangle…Their function is one of orientation, clarifyingthe

6 distance already covered.”Riefensta
distance already covered.”Riefenstahl wanted to portray Hitler as the saviorof the people and did so by constructing the framingof her shots carefully and closely considering whowas in them. One example of this placement is seenin the abundance of women and children in “Tri-umph of the Will.” Rother notes the prevalence of 5Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls women and children cheering in the crowd. Onlyoccasionally did the film show any other kind ofonlooker. Such emphatic moments in the film wouldhelp promote its object “as the champion of womenand children,” an untapped resource for many politi- Noteworthy also is the fact that the film nevershowed Hitler’s reaction to the loyalty of his follow-ers; instead it “reflects the devotion evident in thereactions of other onlookers.”The political repercussions from “Triumph ofWill” were profound. To put it concisely, “Triumph ofthe Will” was an “effective way of sponsoring enthu-siasm for military service.” The documentary, moreoften called a Nazi propaganda film, had a tremen-dous impact on the German people. Through thefilm, many came to see Hitler as their God, theirsavior. Debate over whether or not Riefenstahl in-tended to create such a powerful piece of propa-ganda loomed over the filmmaker until her death.Audrey Salkeld found it hard to believe thatRiefenstahl did not see the ramifications of herhighly successful film. In her portrait of the filmmak-er, she wrote that Riefenstahl’s initial intention maynot have been to glorify Hitler, but her feelings forhim at the time were so full of adoration that shecould portray him in no other light. “For Riefenstahl,in 1934, as for millions of her countrymen andwomen, the Fuhrer represented the savior whowould restore Germany to some (imagined) formerHistorical Perspectives glory. This is what she filmed.”Riefenstahl got another chance to flex her docu-mentary muscles when the Olympics came to Berlinin 1936. Because of the incredible success of “Tri-again to profile the athletes throughout the competi-tion. From the beginning, she designated certainevents for special treatment. In “Olympia,” she chosethe marathon and the decathalon for their epic qual-visual potential. But more importantly, she lookedfor individual human effort. “Physical strain depictedthrough pulsing temples, bow-tight muscles” becamea favorite visual theme for Riefenstahl.was more on people performing greatly, rather thanhow great their performances may have been. Hence,she produced a film appreciated by fans of s

7 portsand cinema enthusiasts alike. Altho
portsand cinema enthusiasts alike. Although “Olympia” had obvious artistic quali-ties, its intrinsic political influence for the ThirdReich was perhaps the film’s strongest accomplish-ment. Masked behind the glistening bodies of Olym-pic athletes was a recipe for German nationalism.“Olympia” celebrated a community spirit in which nosubordination seemed apparent, the spirit of happybetween itself and the Fuhrer.Where “Triumph ofthe Will” emphasized the necessity of creating a newGermany, “Olympia” presented Hitler, the party, andthe people in a way that celebrated the ‘new Ger- 6Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls women and children cheering in the crowd. Onlyoccasionally did the film show any other kind ofonlooker. Such emphatic moments in the film wouldhelp promote its object “as the champion of womenand children,” an untapped resource for many politi- Noteworthy also is the fact that the film nevershowed Hitler’s reaction to the loyalty of his follow-ers; instead it “reflects the devotion evident in thereactions of other onlookers.”The political repercussions from “Triumph ofWill” were profound. To put it concisely, “Triumph ofthe Will” was an “effective way of sponsoring enthu-siasm for military service.” The documentary, moreoften called a Nazi propaganda film, had a tremen-dous impact on the German people. Through thefilm, many came to see Hitler as their God, theirsavior. Debate over whether or not Riefenstahl in-tended to create such a powerful piece of propa-ganda loomed over the filmmaker until her death.Audrey Salkeld found it hard to believe thatRiefenstahl did not see the ramifications of herhighly successful film. In her portrait of the filmmak-er, she wrote that Riefenstahl’s initial intention maynot have been to glorify Hitler, but her feelings forhim at the time were so full of adoration that shecould portray him in no other light. “For Riefenstahl,in 1934, as for millions of her countrymen andwomen, the Fuhrer represented the savior whowould restore Germany to some (imagined) formerHistorical Perspectives glory. This is what she filmed.”Riefenstahl got another chance to flex her docu-mentary muscles when the Olympics came to Berlinin 1936. Because of the incredible success of “Tri-again to profile the athletes throughout the competi-tion. From the beginning, she designated certainevents for special treatment. In “Olympia,” she

8 chosethe marathon and the decathalon fo
chosethe marathon and the decathalon for their epic qual-visual potential. But more importantly, she lookedfor individual human effort. “Physical strain depictedthrough pulsing temples, bow-tight muscles” becamea favorite visual theme for Riefenstahl.was more on people performing greatly, rather thanhow great their performances may have been. Hence,she produced a film appreciated by fans of sportsand cinema enthusiasts alike. Although “Olympia” had obvious artistic quali-ties, its intrinsic political influence for the ThirdReich was perhaps the film’s strongest accomplish-ment. Masked behind the glistening bodies of Olym-pic athletes was a recipe for German nationalism.“Olympia” celebrated a community spirit in which nosubordination seemed apparent, the spirit of happybetween itself and the Fuhrer.Where “Triumph ofthe Will” emphasized the necessity of creating a newGermany, “Olympia” presented Hitler, the party, andthe people in a way that celebrated the ‘new Ger- 7Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls The Amazon Queen: A dramatic portrait ofLeni Riefenstahl.many’ that had been created. longer did men dominate the making of documentaryfilms. If film professionals wanted to seek guidanceon how to create a profoundly moving documentaryfilm, they consulted the works of Leni Riefenstahl.What set her apart from other filmmakers were herunique style and her techniques. She approachedthe camera in ways no one else had, and she knewhow to manipulate it in order to create whateverhad an eye for images. She knew how to pick andin her films resemble photographs. In the long run,this filming style would work against her. But, forthe time being, it made her a cinematic genius. The manifestation of a self-proclaimed geniusThe image of Leni Riefenstahl as a genius was notone that she refuted. On the contrary, Riefenstahlembraced the idea quite whole-heartedly. Fromchildhood, Riefenstahl had been confident of herselfand her abilities. On countless occasions she re-marked on her ability to do anything that she puther mind to, as if to explain her ventures into danc-ing, acting, and other forms of entertainment.When repercussions from “Triumph of the Will”position. Suddenly, people were attacking her forHistorical Perspectives Leni Riefenstahl, The sieve of time: The memoirs of Leniand legitimize the Third Reich. She was ostracized bycinematic professionals and none of her post-Warworks achieved either popularity or real success. Inresponse, Riefenstahl assumed the role of the artisticgenius whose career suffered from the effects

9 ofpolitical hatreds. According to Riefen
ofpolitical hatreds. According to Riefenstahl, nothingshe ever did was fairly judged after 1945. Because ofthe attacks, she was doomed to a career with littleartistic recognition. In her memoirs she used a num-ber of examples to explain the negative effect hersocial exile had on her filmmaking efforts. After theWar she no longer had available the most advancedfilm equipment the Third Reich had provided for her,Even worse, the professional and social isolation shefaced reached across continents. When she traveledto America to promote her films, she met resistanceat every turn. Hollywood producers and studios toldher that neither she nor her films were welcome. Itquickly became apparent that her only supportersfending herself in her autobiography, Riefenstahleven went so far as to claim that her film, “Tiefland,”sies from Auschwitz had been used in the film. Shestated that response to the film was overwhelminglypositive at its screening, but then the “adversariesstruck” and made hateful attacks in newspapers that 8Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls The Amazon Queen: A dramatic portrait ofLeni Riefenstahl.many’ that had been created. longer did men dominate the making of documentaryfilms. If film professionals wanted to seek guidanceon how to create a profoundly moving documentaryfilm, they consulted the works of Leni Riefenstahl.What set her apart from other filmmakers were herunique style and her techniques. She approachedthe camera in ways no one else had, and she knewhow to manipulate it in order to create whateverhad an eye for images. She knew how to pick andin her films resemble photographs. In the long run,this filming style would work against her. But, forthe time being, it made her a cinematic genius. The manifestation of a self-proclaimed geniusThe image of Leni Riefenstahl as a genius was notone that she refuted. On the contrary, Riefenstahlembraced the idea quite whole-heartedly. Fromchildhood, Riefenstahl had been confident of herselfand her abilities. On countless occasions she re-marked on her ability to do anything that she puther mind to, as if to explain her ventures into danc-ing, acting, and other forms of entertainment.When repercussions from “Triumph of the Will”position. Suddenly, people were attacking her forHistorical Perspectives Leni Riefenstahl, The sieve of time: The memoirs of Leniand legitimize the Third Reich. She was ostracized bycinematic professionals and none of her post-Warworks achieved either popularity

10 or real success. Inresponse, Riefenstah
or real success. Inresponse, Riefenstahl assumed the role of the artisticgenius whose career suffered from the effects ofpolitical hatreds. According to Riefenstahl, nothingshe ever did was fairly judged after 1945. Because ofthe attacks, she was doomed to a career with littleartistic recognition. In her memoirs she used a num-ber of examples to explain the negative effect hersocial exile had on her filmmaking efforts. After theWar she no longer had available the most advancedfilm equipment the Third Reich had provided for her,Even worse, the professional and social isolation shefaced reached across continents. When she traveledto America to promote her films, she met resistanceat every turn. Hollywood producers and studios toldher that neither she nor her films were welcome. Itquickly became apparent that her only supportersfending herself in her autobiography, Riefenstahleven went so far as to claim that her film, “Tiefland,”sies from Auschwitz had been used in the film. Shestated that response to the film was overwhelminglypositive at its screening, but then the “adversariesstruck” and made hateful attacks in newspapers that 9Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls destroyed any chance the film had had for success.set the record straight. Almost sixty years after com-pleting “Triumph of the Will,” she made the decisionto publicly address the issues that had been “punish-ing” her since the War. At the end of her lengthy lifestory she claimed her motive for writing was to dis-pel “preconceived ideas and to clear up misunder-standings” about her art and her life. She admittedthat it had not been an easy task since the life she Throughout these memoirs she maintainedshe had been cheated by society and in so claimingshe reinforced the idea that the public had some-thing to cheat her of, namely recognition of her cine-matic brilliance.The many different Leni RiefenstahlsLeni Riefenstahl is a popular subject for biogra-phers. Her controversial and fascinating life enticesone biographer’s interpretation does not make acomplete Leni Riefenstahl. Instead, similar to thejects in different contexts, biographers of Riefenstahluse various aspects of her life and depict her accord-ing to their individual interpretations. To some, sheis a vixen, while to others she is a naïve victim. It isalmost as if authors are creating a character for aday time soap opera, and in a way, they have. Manyof the biographers who have chosen to write aboutHistorical Perspectives Williams, 75.her life have done so by writing screenplays for theirdissertations. Mos

11 t, who are working to get theirMaster

t, who are working to get theirMaster’s degree in Theater Arts, find Riefenstahl tobe an intriguing figure that provides an excellentframework for a juicy play. In real life there is notone accepted version of Riefenstahl. Therefore, theplethora of screenplays and books on Riefenstahl layout a number of portrayals, each one contradictingthe other. Indeed, the many selves attributed to thisThe sexualized Leni RiefenstahlOne version of Leni Riefenstahl turns her into aseductress who relied on sexual appeal to find pro-fessional opportunities. Lisa Williams’ dissertation,“The Amazon Queen: A dramatic portrait of LeniRiefenstahl,” fosters this notion of Riefenstahl. Inone scene where two men discuss the up and com-else.” His comrade replies by recalling having heardshe was a “nymphomaniac.” In Williams’ script,Riefenstahl never met a man who did not have some-thing to give her and she was willing to use anymeans necessary to get it, even if it meant enticingmen with her body. Williams also calls attention toRiefenstahl’s relationships with Hans, her marriedboyfriend and her cameraman. Although Hans andRiefenstahl often had differing views on the way a 10Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls destroyed any chance the film had had for success.set the record straight. Almost sixty years after com-pleting “Triumph of the Will,” she made the decisionto publicly address the issues that had been “punish-ing” her since the War. At the end of her lengthy lifestory she claimed her motive for writing was to dis-pel “preconceived ideas and to clear up misunder-standings” about her art and her life. She admittedthat it had not been an easy task since the life she Throughout these memoirs she maintainedshe had been cheated by society and in so claimingshe reinforced the idea that the public had some-thing to cheat her of, namely recognition of her cine-matic brilliance.The many different Leni RiefenstahlsLeni Riefenstahl is a popular subject for biogra-phers. Her controversial and fascinating life enticesone biographer’s interpretation does not make acomplete Leni Riefenstahl. Instead, similar to thejects in different contexts, biographers of Riefenstahluse various aspects of her life and depict her accord-ing to their individual interpretations. To some, sheis a vixen, while to others she is a naïve victim. It isalmost as if authors are creating a character for aday time soap opera, and in a way, they have. Manyo

12 f the biographers who have chosen to wri
f the biographers who have chosen to write aboutHistorical Perspectives Williams, 75.her life have done so by writing screenplays for theirdissertations. Most, who are working to get theirMaster’s degree in Theater Arts, find Riefenstahl tobe an intriguing figure that provides an excellentframework for a juicy play. In real life there is notone accepted version of Riefenstahl. Therefore, theplethora of screenplays and books on Riefenstahl layout a number of portrayals, each one contradictingthe other. Indeed, the many selves attributed to thisThe sexualized Leni RiefenstahlOne version of Leni Riefenstahl turns her into aseductress who relied on sexual appeal to find pro-fessional opportunities. Lisa Williams’ dissertation,“The Amazon Queen: A dramatic portrait of LeniRiefenstahl,” fosters this notion of Riefenstahl. Inone scene where two men discuss the up and com-else.” His comrade replies by recalling having heardshe was a “nymphomaniac.” In Williams’ script,Riefenstahl never met a man who did not have some-thing to give her and she was willing to use anymeans necessary to get it, even if it meant enticingmen with her body. Williams also calls attention toRiefenstahl’s relationships with Hans, her marriedboyfriend and her cameraman. Although Hans andRiefenstahl often had differing views on the way a 11Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls scene should be shot, Riefenstahl knew that by sex-ually tempting her boyfriend, she could get her way“The Amazon Queen” makes numerous refer-ences to an alleged romantic relationship with Hitler.Williams is not alone in her opinion. Many authorshave implied there was such a relationship. How-ever, Williams is more explicit. In one scene of herplay Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propa-ganda and public information, has a conversationwith Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun, about the closerelationship between Hitler and Riefenstahl. He tellsBraun that Riefenstahl “circumnavigated” him andcovered something in the other they could use.Just what that something might be became apparentin another scene where Riefenstahl and Hans aremaking love and instead of looking into the eyes ofher boyfriend as he kisses her, Riefenstahl’s eyeslock onto the portrait of Hitler hanging next to herThe naive Leni RiefenstahlRiefenstahl, as a naïve woman who really had noidea of what she was getting into, provides anotherpossible scenario for her biographers. In this versionof the woman, she appears an innocent and un-knowing accomplice to an evil she fails to grasp. Inthe screenplay that became her

13 dissertation, LauraConover Wardle creat
dissertation, LauraConover Wardle creates this Riefenstahl. In the playRiefenstahl defends herself from the charges of herHistorical Perspectives Leni Riefenstahl: Art andpropaganda in the Third Reich. (Brigham Young University:Dissertation, 1985), 5.enemies by arguing that in 1934 no one knew whatcome of Hitler’s Germany. Conover has Riefenstahlrefute allegations with the claim that preoccupationwith her work absorbed all of her time and made herlose contact with the outside world. She did notmonths (from 1935-1936) that she was in the editingSince she remained a strong supporter of Hitler longafter world opinion had shifted, however, this excusefails to convince anyone in the play and, most of all,the playwright who created her. In the opening scene of Wardle’s screenplay,Riefenstahl stands in front of the International Mili-tary Tribunal to testify at the Trial of Nazi War Crim-and reflects on her life after the war and on thetreatment she received from the public. In a directquote from the transcript Riefenstahl tells the tribu-nal that she had been stripped of everything. “Theyhave taken all of my things, my equipment, my cam-eras, my films, my house, everything. My friendshave turned against me and they have murdered Ultimately, she claims responsibility for allow-ing her connections with the Nazi regime to get outof hand and makes herself responsible for her isola-tion and ignorance. In this version, Riefenstahl 12Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls scene should be shot, Riefenstahl knew that by sex-ually tempting her boyfriend, she could get her way“The Amazon Queen” makes numerous refer-ences to an alleged romantic relationship with Hitler.Williams is not alone in her opinion. Many authorshave implied there was such a relationship. How-ever, Williams is more explicit. In one scene of herplay Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propa-ganda and public information, has a conversationwith Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun, about the closerelationship between Hitler and Riefenstahl. He tellsBraun that Riefenstahl “circumnavigated” him andcovered something in the other they could use.Just what that something might be became apparentin another scene where Riefenstahl and Hans aremaking love and instead of looking into the eyes ofher boyfriend as he kisses her, Riefenstahl’s eyeslock onto the portrait of Hitler hanging next to herThe naive Leni RiefenstahlRiefenstahl, as a naïve woman who really had noidea of what she was getting

14 into, provides anotherpossible scenario
into, provides anotherpossible scenario for her biographers. In this versionof the woman, she appears an innocent and un-knowing accomplice to an evil she fails to grasp. Inthe screenplay that became her dissertation, LauraConover Wardle creates this Riefenstahl. In the playRiefenstahl defends herself from the charges of herHistorical Perspectives Leni Riefenstahl: Art andpropaganda in the Third Reich. (Brigham Young University:Dissertation, 1985), 5.enemies by arguing that in 1934 no one knew whatcome of Hitler’s Germany. Conover has Riefenstahlrefute allegations with the claim that preoccupationwith her work absorbed all of her time and made herlose contact with the outside world. She did notmonths (from 1935-1936) that she was in the editingSince she remained a strong supporter of Hitler longafter world opinion had shifted, however, this excusefails to convince anyone in the play and, most of all,the playwright who created her. In the opening scene of Wardle’s screenplay,Riefenstahl stands in front of the International Mili-tary Tribunal to testify at the Trial of Nazi War Crim-and reflects on her life after the war and on thetreatment she received from the public. In a directquote from the transcript Riefenstahl tells the tribu-nal that she had been stripped of everything. “Theyhave taken all of my things, my equipment, my cam-eras, my films, my house, everything. My friendshave turned against me and they have murdered Ultimately, she claims responsibility for allow-ing her connections with the Nazi regime to get outof hand and makes herself responsible for her isola-tion and ignorance. In this version, Riefenstahl 13Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls acquires a certain amount of poignancy in the role ofan artist completely overtaken by the situation inwhich she had unwittingly found herself.The “fictitiously naive” Leni RiefenstahlAudrey Salkeld’s biography presents a fictitiouslyplay dumb as a means of getting others to help ad-vance her career. Although not quite a collaboratoror outright supporter of the Nazi party, thisRiefenstahl indirectly contributed to the regime forpersonal gainUnconcerned with the politics of theThird Reich, she looked on the regime as an oppor-tunity to achieve her professional goals. Hence,Salkeld’s Riefenstahl is more self-serving than vin-dictive. Salkeld repeatedly alludes to Riefenstahl’stendency to play the “Hitler card” in order to main-tain her artistic freedom. By merely alluding to herclose association with Hitler, Riefenstahl could countwhich others were denied. This Riefenstahl thor-oughly

15 enjoyed the privileges that Hitler’
enjoyed the privileges that Hitler’s favorbrought her. similar interpretation of Riefenstahl. Gillespie’sRiefenstahl chooses to ignore atrocities occurringright in front of her in order to further her career. Inthis script Hans warns Riefenstahl about what theNazis are up to. He tells her to educate herself, butHistorical Perspectives Leni: A screenplay based on the career of. (Dissertation: 1988), 42.Gillespie, 31.Riefenstahl to stop looking only through a lens andto remember that another world exists that does notquite fit into the frame. Salkeld underscores thisdo another movie for Hitler, Riefenstahl was initiallyreluctant and claimed not even to know the differ-ence between SA and SS or anything about politics.The vindictive Leni RiefenstahlPerhaps the most common interpretation of thiswoman, and the one shared by many of those out-vindictive Leni Riefenstahl. This Riefenstahl was aninherently evil woman who knew exactly what wasgoing on the entire time and compromised whatevermoral values she had for fame. Authors who takethis interpretive slant tend also to gravitate towardGillespie, who toyed with the idea of Riefenstahlas fictitiously naive, also suggests the possibility ofRiefenstahl’s inherent wickedness. She draws atten-tion to her need to be in constant control and hertoward the Jews pertinent to the character she cre-ates. According to Gillespie’s interpretation, themore favors Riefenstahl’s received from Hitler, the 14Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls acquires a certain amount of poignancy in the role ofan artist completely overtaken by the situation inwhich she had unwittingly found herself.The “fictitiously naive” Leni RiefenstahlAudrey Salkeld’s biography presents a fictitiouslyplay dumb as a means of getting others to help ad-vance her career. Although not quite a collaboratoror outright supporter of the Nazi party, thisRiefenstahl indirectly contributed to the regime forpersonal gainUnconcerned with the politics of theThird Reich, she looked on the regime as an oppor-tunity to achieve her professional goals. Hence,Salkeld’s Riefenstahl is more self-serving than vin-dictive. Salkeld repeatedly alludes to Riefenstahl’stendency to play the “Hitler card” in order to main-tain her artistic freedom. By merely alluding to herclose association with Hitler, Riefenstahl could countwhich others were denied. This Riefenstahl thor-oughly enjoyed the privileges that Hitler’s favorbrought her. similar int

16 erpretation of Riefenstahl. Gillespie

erpretation of Riefenstahl. Gillespie’sRiefenstahl chooses to ignore atrocities occurringright in front of her in order to further her career. Inthis script Hans warns Riefenstahl about what theNazis are up to. He tells her to educate herself, butHistorical Perspectives Leni: A screenplay based on the career of. (Dissertation: 1988), 42.Gillespie, 31.Riefenstahl to stop looking only through a lens andto remember that another world exists that does notquite fit into the frame. Salkeld underscores thisdo another movie for Hitler, Riefenstahl was initiallyreluctant and claimed not even to know the differ-ence between SA and SS or anything about politics.The vindictive Leni RiefenstahlPerhaps the most common interpretation of thiswoman, and the one shared by many of those out-vindictive Leni Riefenstahl. This Riefenstahl was aninherently evil woman who knew exactly what wasgoing on the entire time and compromised whatevermoral values she had for fame. Authors who takethis interpretive slant tend also to gravitate towardGillespie, who toyed with the idea of Riefenstahlas fictitiously naive, also suggests the possibility ofRiefenstahl’s inherent wickedness. She draws atten-tion to her need to be in constant control and hertoward the Jews pertinent to the character she cre-ates. According to Gillespie’s interpretation, themore favors Riefenstahl’s received from Hitler, the 15Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls more indifferent she became to what was going on.She would not allow the boycott of the Jews orthreats of violence against them to interrupt her owncareer. Other artists, such as Fritz Lang could seewhat was going on and when asked by Hitler to cre-ate films for the party, he refused to do so.perfectly aware of Hitler’s determination to strip theJews of their social power and wealth and deny themthe opportunity to earn a living, and she still sent inher request to be a member of the Reich Film Associ- Gillespie claims the “lure of artistic freedomand unlimited resources Hitler dangled in front ofher were great enough to make her ignore the moralconsequence of supporting him and his regime.”Embedded in this interpretation is the idea thatRiefenstahl placed art above anything else. Whateverthe moral repercussions, if something benefited artin any way it was justified. According to Gillespie,“The threat of war, the Jewish problem, the brutalpolicies of Hitler- all were ignored. Art, not moralresponsibility, was her goal.” When the accusationsurfaced that Riefenstahl used gypsies bound forAuschwitz in her film “Tiefland,” she denied in

17 herautobiography that the extras had bee
herautobiography that the extras had been executed.not. In Gillespie’s account, during the filming theinmates of the concentration camp received cleanclothing and were forced to pose in front of a hugeHistorical Perspectives eat. After the film came out rumors circulated thatOnce the gypsies’ actual fate was learned, Gillespie’sRiefenstahl maintained she did not know at the timeand did not want to know about it now. “They hadserved her purpose.” Of course, in her autobiogra-phy she denies ever using as extras gypsies whoThe fabrication of a geniusLeni Riefenstahl became an accredited directorafter the release of “Triumph of the Will” and “Olym-pia.” There is no questioning her unique and giftedstyle in both documentaries, and it is easy to under-stand how her reputation as a cinematic geniuscussion about Riefenstahl’s work either before orafter the two documentaries. Riefenstahl insistedthat her work was not given a chance after the War,which explains her later failure. But, this assertiongenius after all. Apart from her famous documenta-ries, her films attracted little interest and a goodamount of artistic criticism. Riefenstahl’s first real chance at directing camein 1932 with the film “The Blue Light.” Releasedbefore the War, it did receive enthusiastic reviews atthe time of its release, but it also met harsh criti-cism. Riefenstahl’s biographer, Rother, finds the filmnaive, the meager “realization of a girlish dream.” 16Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls more indifferent she became to what was going on.She would not allow the boycott of the Jews orthreats of violence against them to interrupt her owncareer. Other artists, such as Fritz Lang could seewhat was going on and when asked by Hitler to cre-ate films for the party, he refused to do so.perfectly aware of Hitler’s determination to strip theJews of their social power and wealth and deny themthe opportunity to earn a living, and she still sent inher request to be a member of the Reich Film Associ- Gillespie claims the “lure of artistic freedomand unlimited resources Hitler dangled in front ofher were great enough to make her ignore the moralconsequence of supporting him and his regime.”Embedded in this interpretation is the idea thatRiefenstahl placed art above anything else. Whateverthe moral repercussions, if something benefited artin any way it was justified. According to Gillespie,“The threat of war, the Jewish pr

18 oblem, the brutalpolicies of Hitler- all
oblem, the brutalpolicies of Hitler- all were ignored. Art, not moralresponsibility, was her goal.” When the accusationsurfaced that Riefenstahl used gypsies bound forAuschwitz in her film “Tiefland,” she denied in herautobiography that the extras had been executed.not. In Gillespie’s account, during the filming theinmates of the concentration camp received cleanclothing and were forced to pose in front of a hugeHistorical Perspectives eat. After the film came out rumors circulated thatOnce the gypsies’ actual fate was learned, Gillespie’sRiefenstahl maintained she did not know at the timeand did not want to know about it now. “They hadserved her purpose.” Of course, in her autobiogra-phy she denies ever using as extras gypsies whoThe fabrication of a geniusLeni Riefenstahl became an accredited directorafter the release of “Triumph of the Will” and “Olym-pia.” There is no questioning her unique and giftedstyle in both documentaries, and it is easy to under-stand how her reputation as a cinematic geniuscussion about Riefenstahl’s work either before orafter the two documentaries. Riefenstahl insistedthat her work was not given a chance after the War,which explains her later failure. But, this assertiongenius after all. Apart from her famous documenta-ries, her films attracted little interest and a goodamount of artistic criticism. Riefenstahl’s first real chance at directing camein 1932 with the film “The Blue Light.” Releasedbefore the War, it did receive enthusiastic reviews atthe time of its release, but it also met harsh criti-cism. Riefenstahl’s biographer, Rother, finds the filmnaive, the meager “realization of a girlish dream.” 17Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Gillespie, 229.He calls attention to the striking parallel between thelife of Riefenstahl and that of the main character,Junta, who is ostracized by her village for climbing amountain none of the local boys could conquer.According to Gillespie, Riefenstahl blamed the film’sunfavorable criticism on the Jews. For her, saysGillespie, Jews were foreigners who did not under-stand her art and sought to wreck her career. Rotherimplies that Riefenstahl’s reaction to her film’s fail-ures was a likely response to Hitler’s anti-semiticlaws. Riefenstahl forecasts that when Hitler came topower, he would not allow Jews to slander her workand determine the fate of her career.A decade and a half after the war began in 1954,Riefenstahl finally released “Tiefland,” a film that shehad been working on for 20 years.

19 Measured against“Triumph of the Wil
Measured against“Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia,” “Tiefland” wasmet with much disappointment. Critics panned it atthe time and it goes largely unmentioned today indiscussions of Riefenstahl’s work. In Rother’s opin-ion, and in this he was not alone, the “stylisticagenda overwhelms the material” creating a “discor-dant impression.” He characterizes the plot of thefilm as “over-stylized”. In the face of criticism,Riefenstahl blamed all the film’s shortcomings onher limited resources when compared with what shehad had at her disposal working under Hitler.Riefenstahl’s problems, however, went beyond theloss of her earlier resources and her professionalostracism. There were limitations to her brilliance.Historical Perspectives One of her major problems seemed to be her story-telling ability. Riefenstahl was accused of being an“unoriginal storyteller” and of having “creative uncer- Of Riefenstahl, Rother says she did nothave the “artistic temperament capable of conjuringup successful films from variations of her ideas.”Put blatantly, she did not have the creative capabili-ties to tell a compelling story. Rother argues thatafter the War, Riefenstahl lost her touch and “lackedconvincing ideas for a film.” Documentaries re-mained her favorite and only successful genre offilm. In documentaries she did not have to writescripts or tell stories, and was left to focus on hertrue passion: photography. But, one critic findsunoriginality even in one of her most famous docu-mentaries: “Olympia.” According to Willy Zielke, thecameraman who shot and actually created the pro-logue for the documentary on his own, the prologuewas the most artistic part of the film, andRiefenstahl never even admitted that he authoredNo matter how “brilliant” her prior documentarieswere, if Riefenstahl could not advance with contem-porary film techniques she could not remain a favor-ite in the public eye, regardless of her involvementwith the Nazis. Photography played a central role inRiefenstahl’s life. In fact, the genius displayed in hertwo famous documentaries lay in her photographicability, but this passion for photography could not 18Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls Gillespie, 229.He calls attention to the striking parallel between thelife of Riefenstahl and that of the main character,Junta, who is ostracized by her village for climbing amountain none of the local bo

20 ys could conquer.According to Gillespie,
ys could conquer.According to Gillespie, Riefenstahl blamed the film’sunfavorable criticism on the Jews. For her, saysGillespie, Jews were foreigners who did not under-stand her art and sought to wreck her career. Rotherimplies that Riefenstahl’s reaction to her film’s fail-ures was a likely response to Hitler’s anti-semiticlaws. Riefenstahl forecasts that when Hitler came topower, he would not allow Jews to slander her workand determine the fate of her career.A decade and a half after the war began in 1954,Riefenstahl finally released “Tiefland,” a film that shehad been working on for 20 years. Measured against“Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia,” “Tiefland” wasmet with much disappointment. Critics panned it atthe time and it goes largely unmentioned today indiscussions of Riefenstahl’s work. In Rother’s opin-ion, and in this he was not alone, the “stylisticagenda overwhelms the material” creating a “discor-dant impression.” He characterizes the plot of thefilm as “over-stylized”. In the face of criticism,Riefenstahl blamed all the film’s shortcomings onher limited resources when compared with what shehad had at her disposal working under Hitler.Riefenstahl’s problems, however, went beyond theloss of her earlier resources and her professionalostracism. There were limitations to her brilliance.Historical Perspectives One of her major problems seemed to be her story-telling ability. Riefenstahl was accused of being an“unoriginal storyteller” and of having “creative uncer- Of Riefenstahl, Rother says she did nothave the “artistic temperament capable of conjuringup successful films from variations of her ideas.”Put blatantly, she did not have the creative capabili-ties to tell a compelling story. Rother argues thatafter the War, Riefenstahl lost her touch and “lackedconvincing ideas for a film.” Documentaries re-mained her favorite and only successful genre offilm. In documentaries she did not have to writescripts or tell stories, and was left to focus on hertrue passion: photography. But, one critic findsunoriginality even in one of her most famous docu-mentaries: “Olympia.” According to Willy Zielke, thecameraman who shot and actually created the pro-logue for the documentary on his own, the prologuewas the most artistic part of the film, andRiefenstahl never even admitted that he authoredNo matter how “brilliant” her prior documentarieswere, if Riefenstahl could not advance with contem-porary film techniques she could not remain a favor-ite in the public eye, regardless of her involv

21 ementwith the Nazis. Photography played
ementwith the Nazis. Photography played a central role inRiefenstahl’s life. In fact, the genius displayed in hertwo famous documentaries lay in her photographicability, but this passion for photography could not 19Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls “Triumph of the Will.”Hampshire: Longwood Academic, 1991), 67.October 18, 1993. V142, 91.sustain her cinematic career. As time progressed,Riefenstahl could not adapt with the pacing of main-stream cinema. To view “Triumph of the Will” is tosee essentially a series of pictures. The pacing wasappropriate for the film’s purpose and for someonewho had this kind of ability. Each still image in herfilms tended to linger on the screen too long. In“Triumph of the Will,” which was a very successfulattempt at Nazi propaganda, the lingering shots wereeffective for captivating the minds of viewers. “Theimages of boys climbing up on barriers and eachother, straining, on tip-toe, to get a good vantage Richard Corliss notes that the film’s pulse,“accelerating from stately to feverish,” is inRiefenstahl’s master editing. She needed no narra-tion to tell you what to think or feel; her images andediting were persuasive enough.” However, in a filmsuch as “The Blue Light,” where a story line needed, Riefenstahl’s images could not overcome thebland plot. In an age where popular cinema involvedto Riefenstahl’s style, which was more like flippingthrough a picture book. In fact, “Last of the Nuba,” acollection of pictures Riefenstahl took of an Africantribe, was intended to be a film before producersAnother problem Riefenstahl encountered wasHistorical Perspectives Riefenstahl, 317.that she was unable to “limit” her artistic ambitionsto her real talent. She still had a deep passion foracting and dancing and refused to put that all be-hind her when she transitioned into a career behindthe camera. It was not uncommon to see Riefenstahlstarring in one of her films. Because Riefenstahlcould not disassociate herself as an actress, herfilms suffered. After watching “Tiefland,” she calls In her documentaries Riefenstahl did nothave to worry about acting and directing, she justtook pictures with her camera. Thus, the documen-taries displayed her tremendous ability in takingpictures. Her other films were compromised by herattempt to be more than she was. Despite the public’s outrage at the Academy’srecognition of Riefenstahl, some people remain de-voted to the idea of her brilliance. Several membersof the feminist movement are committed to keep

22 ingpowerful woman in history who, accord
ingpowerful woman in history who, according to them,paved the way for women in cinema. Infield narratesthat Riefenstahl’s popularity continues to grow evenafter her death because she is praised by this femi-nist movement. In his view, Riefenstahl was the“only important woman director in the history ofcinema, and as such, regardless of her ethics ormovement.” 20Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls “Triumph of the Will.”Hampshire: Longwood Academic, 1991), 67.October 18, 1993. V142, 91.sustain her cinematic career. As time progressed,Riefenstahl could not adapt with the pacing of main-stream cinema. To view “Triumph of the Will” is tosee essentially a series of pictures. The pacing wasappropriate for the film’s purpose and for someonewho had this kind of ability. Each still image in herfilms tended to linger on the screen too long. In“Triumph of the Will,” which was a very successfulattempt at Nazi propaganda, the lingering shots wereeffective for captivating the minds of viewers. “Theimages of boys climbing up on barriers and eachother, straining, on tip-toe, to get a good vantage Richard Corliss notes that the film’s pulse,“accelerating from stately to feverish,” is inRiefenstahl’s master editing. She needed no narra-tion to tell you what to think or feel; her images andediting were persuasive enough.” However, in a filmsuch as “The Blue Light,” where a story line needed, Riefenstahl’s images could not overcome thebland plot. In an age where popular cinema involvedto Riefenstahl’s style, which was more like flippingthrough a picture book. In fact, “Last of the Nuba,” acollection of pictures Riefenstahl took of an Africantribe, was intended to be a film before producersAnother problem Riefenstahl encountered wasHistorical Perspectives Riefenstahl, 317.that she was unable to “limit” her artistic ambitionsto her real talent. She still had a deep passion foracting and dancing and refused to put that all be-hind her when she transitioned into a career behindthe camera. It was not uncommon to see Riefenstahlstarring in one of her films. Because Riefenstahlcould not disassociate herself as an actress, herfilms suffered. After watching “Tiefland,” she calls In her documentaries Riefenstahl did nothave to worry about acting and directing, she justtook pictures with her camera. Thus, the documen-taries displayed her tremendous ability in takingpictures. Her o

23 ther films were compromised by herattemp
ther films were compromised by herattempt to be more than she was. Despite the public’s outrage at the Academy’srecognition of Riefenstahl, some people remain de-voted to the idea of her brilliance. Several membersof the feminist movement are committed to keepingpowerful woman in history who, according to them,paved the way for women in cinema. Infield narratesthat Riefenstahl’s popularity continues to grow evenafter her death because she is praised by this femi-nist movement. In his view, Riefenstahl was the“only important woman director in the history ofcinema, and as such, regardless of her ethics ormovement.” 21Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2005 The Many Leni Riefenstahls William Cook, “Shooting Hitler: William Cook on theNew Statesman, February 11, 2002, v131, 40. filmmakers of her time at the 2003 Academy Awards,Hollywood divided art from politics saying the twocan coexist independently. But, can the two reallycoexist peacefully? Infield doesn’t think so. He saysRiefenstahl cannot be recognized without drawingattention to her involvement with the regime. Infieldmakes artists particularly responsible for the mes-sage they send out with their art. In his words, “anartist’s skill, imagination, and the creativity give himmore easily than the less talented person.”artist can ignore their need for an “ethical compass.”He says, an aesthetic of mass murder is not possi-ble. William Cook holds a different viewpoint andfinds that it is art that determines whether or notsomething is immoral. According to Cook, “Triumphthat art is amoral. “Its morality depends purely onits context. In a moral context, it is moral. In animmoral context, it is immoral.”political ramifications, Riefenstahl was still not nec-essarily deserving of the honor the Academy be-stowed upon her, as only her documentaries playeda prominent role in cinematic history. And, manyeven question the prominence of that role. SusanSontang writes, “Triumph” and “Olympia,” are un-doubtedly superb films, but they are not really im-portant in the history of cinema as an art form. No-Historical Perspectives body making films today alludes to Riefenstahl.”Marcus Ophuls agrees with Sontang and says hedoes not think she is one of the greatest filmmakersIn reality, Leni Riefenstahl was little more than agifted documentarian. She had an eye for cameraangles and a good sense of how to tell a story with acamera. But, when it came to producing a film thatcalled for prose, she was an amateur. There is noquestion of her ostracism from the cinematic com-munity after the Wa

24 r, but had she been allowed tocontinue f
r, but had she been allowed tocontinue filming without the scornful eyes of thedisenchanted public upon her, it is probable shedirected two spectacular documentaries and lived offthe notoriety of these films for the remainder of her 22Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 10 [2005], Art. 7http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol10/iss1/7 The Many Leni Riefenstahls William Cook, “Shooting Hitler: William Cook on theNew Statesman, February 11, 2002, v131, 40. filmmakers of her time at the 2003 Academy Awards,Hollywood divided art from politics saying the twocan coexist independently. But, can the two reallycoexist peacefully? Infield doesn’t think so. He saysRiefenstahl cannot be recognized without drawingattention to her involvement with the regime. Infieldmakes artists particularly responsible for the mes-sage they send out with their art. In his words, “anartist’s skill, imagination, and the creativity give himmore easily than the less talented person.”artist can ignore their need for an “ethical compass.”He says, an aesthetic of mass murder is not possi-ble. William Cook holds a different viewpoint andfinds that it is art that determines whether or notsomething is immoral. According to Cook, “Triumphthat art is amoral. “Its morality depends purely onits context. In a moral context, it is moral. In animmoral context, it is immoral.”political ramifications, Riefenstahl was still not nec-essarily deserving of the honor the Academy be-stowed upon her, as only her documentaries playeda prominent role in cinematic history. And, manyeven question the prominence of that role. SusanSontang writes, “Triumph” and “Olympia,” are un-doubtedly superb films, but they are not really im-portant in the history of cinema as an art form. No-Historical Perspectives body making films today alludes to Riefenstahl.”Marcus Ophuls agrees with Sontang and says hedoes not think she is one of the greatest filmmakersIn reality, Leni Riefenstahl was little more than agifted documentarian. She had an eye for cameraangles and a good sense of how to tell a story with acamera. But, when it came to producing a film thatcalled for prose, she was an amateur. There is noquestion of her ostracism from the cinematic com-munity after the War, but had she been allowed tocontinue filming without the scornful eyes of thedisenchanted public upon her, it is probable shedirected two spectacular documentaries and lived offthe notoriety of these films for the remainder of her 23Ritchie: The Many Leni RiefenstahlsPublished by Scholar Commons, 2