Leni Riefenstahl Essay

  • Category: Film
  • Words: 1905
  • Published: 09.26.19
  • Views: 589
Download This Paper

Some people happen to be swept along by events. Some individuals work with events to advantage. How accurate is this statement regarding the persona you have examined? “Leni Riefenstahl exploits situations and other people to serve her own egotistical, obsessive and selfish ambition. ” Leni Riefenstahl was created on the twenty second of Aug 1902 in Berlin. Her full name was Helene Amalie Bertha Riefenstahl.

She completed a lot during her 101 years of living. She had successful careers as a dancer, actress, movie director, producer, manager, photographer, writer, and hill climber, and also one of the world’s oldest lively scuba technical scuba divers. Furthermore, this wounderful woman has been induced as one of The 100 Most Influential Women ever. However her accomplishments will always be frowned upon offered her affiliation with Adolf Hitler plus the Nazi Party. Riefenstahl had been known to change scenes from her life, alter information and omit events to fit her reasons.

She did this and so others might see her as perfect. This has been confirmed by her quote “reality doesn’t fascination me”. When contemplating the above thesis statement, a couple of differing points of views arise. The first supports the thesis and is that Riefenstahl was so powered to be life famous and recognised that she didn’t care what the cost.

The 2nd objects the thesis and is also that Riefenstahl could not include possibly forecasted the purpose and effects of her films, or perhaps Hitler’s intentions for universe domination. An historian who also supports the first perspective is Steven Bach. In ‘The life and operate of Leni Riefenstahl’ this individual argues that Riefenstahl was obsessed with her career and moulding her image, and that these things will be the keys to understanding her behaviour through her existence.

He is convinced she knew more regarding Nazism than she would include liked visitors to believe. An historian who supports the 2nd view is Audrey Salkeld. In ‘A portrait of Leni Riefenstahl’ she states that much of the condemnation of Riefenstahl came from hindsight. According to Salkeld, Riefenstahl could not have regarded of the horrors that happened under Nazism.

Three influential events during Riefenstahl’s life time that create debate in relation to the thesis will be; the way of “Tiefland”, The Nuremburg rallies videos (Victory of religion, and Success of the will), and her documentary of the Berlin Olympics (Olympia). Tiefland Tiefland can be described as 1954 film that Leni Riefenstahl dropped, directed, was seen in, and edited. The lady began expanding the script in 1934, and taken the movie between 1940 and 1944.

The film, however , was not completed by the end of World War II and finally was finalized and released on Feb 11, 1954. The film was occur Spain, and so Riefenstahl needed people who appeared of The spanish language decent to play extras in the film. The girl cast a team of gypsies that have been being in a camp.

These Gypsies had been destined for Auschwitz, and several that appeared in the film were later on murdered in concentration camps. Riefenstahl’s decision to use these kinds of extras formulates a debate. It once again links to the thesis and the parts of views which will arise via it. 1 perspective is support in the thesis and it is that Riefenstahl used the Gypsies inhumanly or immorally as she knew of their destiny, although used them anyway to develop some sort of realism or authenticity to her film.

Steven Bach is support on this perspective and points out in the feature document ‘The problem of Leni Riefenstahl’, that Riefenstahl experienced publicly said to have seen ‘all the Gypsies who worked on Tiefland after the war. Nothing occurred to a one one of them’. However , this is simply not true.

In fact, of forty eight Gypsies who are able to be documented, 20 perished in Nazi concentration camps, most of them in Auschwitz where they were carried almost directly from the film set. The other point of view objects for the thesis and it is that Riefenstahl had no choice in using the Gypsies as extras plus the decision to work with them is that of the SS and was out of her control. It also says that Riefenstahl did not know their lives.

This point of view is supported by the fact any time the warfare, in 1949, the cortege that investigated Riefenstahl’s activities during the battle declared your woman was faithful. The court docket stated that although there had been rumours that Leni Riefenstahl used Gypsies from concentration camps for her film Tiefland, ¬and that a majority of of them had been killed in gas rooms, the judges found zero reason to think this and Riefenstahl was acquitted in this point once and permanently. However , not any gypsy who served since an extra was present during those times in the the courtroom and eventually some started to talk.

Without a doubt, there were couple of survivors; a large number of stated that family members who had played in the film had been gassed in Auschwitz right after having worked with Riefenstahl. The Nuremburg Rallies Films Success of Faith was your first documented film Leni Riefenstahl aimed. She was hired in spite of opposition by Nazi representatives who resented employing a woman and a nonparty member for that matter. Her film recounts the Sixth Party Rally of the Fascista Party, which usually occurred in Nuremberg from 35 August to 3 September 1933. Triumph in the Will was your other Nuremburg rally promocion film made by Leni Riefenstahl.

It stories the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film consists of excerpts by speeches given by various Nazi leaders on the Congress, especially, portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler. The central theme of the film is a return of Germany like a great electricity, with Hitler as the real German Leader who will bring glory towards the nation. Sucess of the Can was released in 1935 and rapidly became one of the best-known examples of promocion in film history. After many years of people looking at the two Nuremburg rally movies ‘Victory of Faith and Triumph of the will’, two views arise in relation to Riefenstahl’s contribution and goal.

The 1st perspective, which usually supports the thesis, is that Riefenstahl came up with the films learning of their promocion intent and potential. Your woman took advantage of the accomplishment and popularity of the Nazis during the time, and voluntarily and purposely created the divulgacion films to increase her qualifications as a film maker and to make her name well known. Creator Ken Webb is in support of this perspective and in his book ‘Leni Riefenstahl 1902-2003′ (part with the ‘everything you wanted to understand about… yet were to scared to ask’ series. ) makes the discussion that, “Riefenstahl’s film was obviously a clear promo of the Fuhrer Cult.

A significant piece of Fascista propaganda was your presentation of Hitler as a special kind of leader, able of ending the depression, restoring German born pride and leading the nation into a wonderful future. The film’s only star is definitely Hitler. His adoring followers are there to merely worship and look in reverential awe.

The other point of view that emerges, objects to the thesis, which is that the motion pictures were not manufactured under the motives for Nazi propaganda, but rather just excellent documentaries with skilful camera and film techniques that inspired persons. Audrey Salkeld is in support of this look at and argues that it is unfair to judge Riefenstahl through the benefit of hindsight. In 1934, no-one knew that Hitler’s regime would eliminate 6 million people. Riefenstahl’s films declare next to nothing about racist assioma and politics persecution, and Salkeld argues that it is because the rally did not do this.

Salkeld also identifies Riefenstahl’s statement in Ray Muller’s 1993 film that ‘Triumph in the will’ could hardly be promozione because there was not a commentary informing people what you should think. Nevertheless , this just means that the photographs speak for themselves, and what do it is said? Well in accordance to Salkeld “She may well not have attempt to glorify Hitler… but her feelings to get him at that time were so worshipful that she can portray him only through the shining eyes of admiration… the Fuhrer represented… this is just what she shot. ” Olympia The International Olympic Committee naturally Berlin the 1936 Olympic Games in 1931.

Once Hitler started to be chancellor in January 1933, his initial reaction was going to condemn the Olympic Games while an evil invention by simply Jews. The minister of propaganda and enlightenment, Josef Goebbels, on the other hand convinced and informed Hitler of the media potential, plus the chance in promoting to the community the successes of the new Nazi plan. This bring about the delivery and was the foundation Riefenstahl’s sports documentary/propaganda film ‘Olympia, ‘ which started in Berlin on the twentieth of Apr 1938. Like Riefenstahl’s additional documentaries underneath the Nazi program, this one strikes debate whether it was propaganda for Fascista ideology, or just another harmless documentary which usually others interpreted it because propaganda.

The angle that ‘Olympia’ was no doubt a piece of Fascista propaganda is in support with the thesis mainly because it debates that Riefenstahl sacrificed her moral integrity on her own benefits and success. Author Tobey maguire Webb is within support with this view and his book ‘Leni Riefenstahl 1902-2003′ (part of the ‘everything you wanted to know about… ut were to afraid to ask’ series. ) the actual argument that, ‘ inspite of its specialized brilliance, it had been really simply a piece of Fascista propaganda.

The goal of the film was to present the essence of the Fascista message, that was the primacy of contest. ‘ The point of view that it was just another documentary, preserves that it was simply a film looking to capture the essence of Aryan superiority and the magnificence of the people. This perspective is in distinction to the thesis. Rainer Rother is one that believes that the film is definitely not of Nazi promocion. He states that the “fascist aspects of Riefenstahl’s films tend not to necessarily adapt to the definition of fascist fine art as, especially, ‘a utopian aesthetics’ – that of physical perfection. ” Rother issues the view the fact that film is usually fascist skill.

He claims that although Riefenstahl definitely commemorates beauty and athleticism, that’s exactly what asks, that don’t the photographs appear as well smooth? He then argues which the images as a result of being ‘too smooth’ suppress any genuine effort. He questions “Can Riefenstahl’s motion pictures really lead much to the ideologization of events that happen to be already empathically ideological in their own right”? In refute to the previously mentioned argument, certainly the idea of the filming was going to capture the advantage of the human competition, and this was your prime push behind the Nazi regime.

Further evidence to rebut the argument in the previous passage, is that the loans of her film came under the control over Goebbels’ divulgacion ministry. Therefore , it makes no sense that the Nazis would give Riefenstahl 1 . five million represents to finance a film, except if the film was to get Nazi functions, which was to create a propaganda film for them.

Need writing help?

We can write an essay on your own custom topics!