StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 093154.stm


Good riddence. I'm sure the worms will find her tasty.

I don't think she ever apologized.

She will not be missed, in any case.

Meh, just a propagandist. The world is no better, nor worse place without her.

I haven't seen it, but I have heard that her film on the Olympics was one of the first true sports films and was actually quite a work of art.

Never seen it myself though, so I don't really know.

She was, from all I have heard, a film maker of genuine talent. I've even heard the word genius used. Unfortunately, she chose to use her talent in the service of one of the most vile ideologies in human history. It's a pity, for her influence is still felt today. Just take a look at the ending scene from Star Wars Ep. IV, and you can see some eerie similarities with Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". They're a little too close for coincidence, especially given that Lucas almost certainly saw "Triumph of the Will" in film school. Not that that means Lucas was a Nazi sympathizer. I think he was just borrowing a little powerful visual imagery from a film that is still influential for its style and methods, even while it is abhorred for its subject matter.

Go here and you can see what I mean:

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~jbfF95/swtotw.htm

But how much choice did she really have? As she put it, there was one Hitler, one party, one government. If she was already an established film maker and Hitler specifically requested her talents, and if she really didn't know much about the evils of the Nazis, was she really so wrong? I don't really know much about her, so I am honestly asking.

Johonebesus wrote:But how much choice did she really have? As she put it, there was one Hitler, one party, one government. If she was already an established film maker and Hitler specifically requested her talents, and if she really didn't know much about the evils of the Nazis, was she really so wrong? I don't really know much about her, so I am honestly asking.

The fact that she never apologized for it is what bothers people, I think. Regardless of whether she knew what she was dealing with, she should've apologized for her actions.

What did she do that requires apology?

The images of millions of soldiers at a party rally comanded by a scant 3 men is a powerful image. Lots of assholes, but the organization and coordination.. Simply beautiful.

Howedar wrote:What did she do that requires apology?

Existing, duh. I mean, clearly it's wrong to make films on the single most important thing in every Germans life at that time. ESPECIALLY if you're a German film maker! It's a silly idea that she somehow was making propoganda. Documentaries on the military and sports in Germany during the 30s was guaranteed to have Nazi's, just like documentaries of the American military and olympics teams will have Republicans. That doesn't mean that its promoting anything. You can't film a documentary without seeing reality.

Johonebesus wrote:But how much choice did she really have? As she put it, there was one Hitler, one party, one government. If she was already an established film maker and Hitler specifically requested her talents, and if she really didn't know much about the evils of the Nazis, was she really so wrong? I don't really know much about her, so I am honestly asking.

Ask Fritz Lang. He left when the Nazis offered him a job.

Perinquus wrote:She was, from all I have heard, a film maker of genuine talent. I've even heard the word genius used. Unfortunately, she chose to use her talent in the service of one of the most vile ideologies in human history. It's a pity, for her influence is still felt today. Just take a look at the ending scene from Star Wars Ep. IV, and you can see some eerie similarities with Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". They're a little too close for coincidence, especially given that Lucas almost certainly saw "Triumph of the Will" in film school. Not that that means Lucas was a Nazi sympathizer. I think he was just borrowing a little powerful visual imagery from a film that is still influential for its style and methods, even while it is abhorred for its subject matter.

Go here and you can see what I mean:

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~jbfF95/swtotw.htm

I always heard that was intentional. And that he purposefully took a lot of WWII movie and imagery in SW. Like the guns on the Falcon shooting at Ties flying past looks pretty much like the guns on a bomber shooting at planes flying past.

Durran Korr wrote:The fact that she never apologized for it is what bothers people, I think. Regardless of whether she knew what she was dealing with, she should've apologized for her actions.

See, that's the attitude that bothers me. If she was not aware that Hitler was evil, then she committed no crimes. Did the folks at WB apologize for the nasty racist propaganda they did for the U.S.? I don't mean the corporation, but folks like Franz Frieling or whoever actually created the films. I'm uncomfortable with the attitude that one must apologize even if one was not aware of doing wrong and had little reason to think one was doing wrong. You apologize for knowingly committing a crime or for willingly turning a blind eye. You don't apologize for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Like I said, I don't know a lot about her, so if she was in Hitler's inner circle of personal friends and really did know what was going on, then you're right.

I recall reading in a newspaper that Leni Riefenstahl directed porn during the 1960s and 1970s. Is this just an urban legend?

See, that's the attitude that bothers me. If she was not aware that Hitler was evil, then she committed no crimes. Did the folks at WB apologize for the nasty racist propaganda they did for the U.S.? I don't mean the corporation, but folks like Franz Frieling or whoever actually created the films. I'm uncomfortable with the attitude that one must apologize even if one was not aware of doing wrong and had little reason to think one was doing wrong. You apologize for knowingly committing a crime or for willingly turning a blind eye. You don't apologize for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's nice. But I highly doubt she was totally unaware of the Nazi agenda. If she wasn't she turned a deliberate blind eye. Hitler didn't hide his agenda, despite revisionism to the contrary.

And even if she didn't know she could have admitted that it was a mistake to glorify the Nazis. They were propoganda peices and helped glorify a murderous regime. Even if she did it in ignorance she could have acknowledged it. Instead she remained unrepentant. That's what people condemn her for.

Actually she refused to make movies after the 1940's

She did Photo stills for National Geographic & Joques Coustue during that time.

She refuses to appologize for using death camp children for actors/extras when her SS officer husband later killed them after the shooting was done.

I saw the first 40 minutes or so of a silent (save for music) propaganda film of hers.

The scenes from the Hitler Youth camp had very obvious homoerotic undertones.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Actually she refused to make movies after the 1940's

There goes the urban legend that Riefenstahl wound up as a porn directress...

Although the National Geographic photos might qualify in some minds. (Rather interesting and Ironic considering her previous movies that she was taking nude photo's of African Men & Women)