Karim Ghantous Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I was given this book today. I haven't really looked at it carefully yet but here are some observations and thoughts. It's a big, heavy book, approx. 27cm wide by 34cm high when closed. It's about 3.5cm thick. The book consists mostly of photos by and of Riefenstahl and stills from her films. Most of it is b&w while there's a colour section at the end with pics from her work with the Nuba tribe and her very nice underwater pics. What strikes me the most in terms of production values is that the b&w reproductions are done on uncoated (that is, not glossy) paper while the colour stuff is all glossy. This is not a bad thing I suppose. The images seem to be reproduced faithfully enough as far as I can tell. However the tonal values in some images seem lacking in range. A book of this calibre should not fall short in this department. However the paper is nice and it's stitched. And overall the book has a nice feel to it while it's being carried. Its appearance is nice, too. Layout is classy while not trying too hard to be 'hip'. The editor collaborated with Riefenstahl on the book. The bulk of the book consists of images: there is introductory text at the beginning and there are brief notes to each image at the back. Also included is a list of her films with a summary of their plots. Don't expect anything close to a detailed biography here. It's a photo book - pages are not numbered and images are not captioned. It's a tri-lingual book but the notes in the back are all English (for the edition I bought anyway). 'Five Lives' worth having but it depends on what you're willing to pay and how much you appreciate Leni Riefenstahl.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helenbach Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 "However the paper is nice and it's stitched. And overall the book has a nice feel to it while it's being carried. Its appearance is nice, too." Hitler would be so proud, so glad that people still appreciate Leni Riefenstahl's work, such as Triumph of the Will. You don't have any problems with the fact that she created Nazi propaganda? That Triumph of the Will, which you select for iconic inclusion, was Nazi propaganda? Best, Helen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnilssen Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Please don't let us start another Nazi/Riefenstahl debate now. This has been debated on several threads earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Karim, do you think you're ready to quit your day job & become a book reviewer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Helen, a work of art can be appreciated on many different levels. For instance, the Deerhunter is a pack of lies and slanders about the Vietnamese, probably one of the most dishonest films ever made, and yet it is still a masterpiece that never fails to move me deeply whenever I watch it. Art works beyond its merely political dimensions, although I would be the last to say that it is apolitical. That said, I haven't seen Triumph of the Will, so I don't know whether I'd appreciate it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Helen, a work of art can be appreciated on many different levels. For instance, the Deerhunter is a pack of lies and slanders about the Vietnamese, probably one of the most dishonest films ever made, and yet it is still a masterpiece that never fails to move me deeply whenever I watch it. Art works beyond its merely political dimensions, although I would be the last to say that it is apolitical. That said, I haven't seen Triumph of the Will, so I don't know whether I'd appreciate it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 "However the tonal values in some images seem lacking in range" I find this a bizare critisism due to the fact of the age of her work and the fim emulsions and paper available at that time, unless you want them doctored and not a real representation of her work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0078CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Great book.. I gave it away to a good friend, and considered instantly to buy a 2nd.. Alas, politics... Remember photographer Helmut Newton, who has to immigrate from Nazi-Germany as a jew, was a good friend of Leni Riefenstahl... We appreciate her art since she was a great actress, movie maker, photograph, not as a political person. The allied denazification tribune found out that Riefenstahl wasn't member of *any* political group or Nazi-organisation. Because she did that propaganda-film for Hitler she was famed as a Nazi in post-war Germany for 50 years, didn't get any engagement yet (in opposite to others) because of this one terrible film at a time 4 years before the war when 95% of all Germans were pro-Hitler. It took half a century for the people here to understand that 80 years of an artist was more then "Triumph of the will", which is after all a brillant made film appealing two issues: peace and work, which turned out totally wrong afterwards. This film shows what people (42.7% in Jan.1933) moved to vote for Hitler. History shows how they were mislead. The last one responsible for that crime and tragedy are artists. just my 2c, Frank (Germany) Thats a great book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidfink_photography Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 As has been exhaustively discussed over the years, "Triumph of the Will" is a visual masterpiece, despite its sinister political context. Interesting, too, how its emotional impact remains undiminished, though transformed from "triumphant" to "chilling". Perhaps inevitably, Riefenstahl's post-war reputation as a still photographer has suffered greatly from her Nazi-connected past. Some of her African work is outstanding, and deserves to be considered on its own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 David, you are absolutely true about the "Nuba" pictures... I clearly remember these pictures published in the STERN magazine (mid. 70's) - first German magazine who dared to print Riefenstahl pictures, 30 years after the war... About 10 years old, these pictures impressed me so much that I started reading all I could get about African people, "primitive"(?) cultures and ethnographic stuff... These were STRONG pictures indeed, full of beauty, but no Nazi work whatsoever.. discovered it again in that book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_zet Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 and, holy moly, ernst leitz himself gave her her first leica as a gift before the olypic games 1936. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 ..and Carl Zeiss invented the "Olympia-Sonnar"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Leni was involved with the Nazi party. This is self-evident as she even admitted to this while claiming not to be a Nazi (Clintonian word parsing...) Did she ever apologize or condemn the crimes the Nazis perpetrated on tens of millions of people. Did she ever speak out and use her influential position? Did she make any attempt to save a victim.? The answers are all no. To her dying day, she DENIED any knowledge, involvement or complicity in any evil deed. We should not honor her in any way. If we do, then by the same twisted logic, someone should say a few nice words about Hitler's watercolors or architectural sketches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I have to admit that I was quite surprised by Hitler's watercolours - not bad, although he was no Picasso. Albert - since the vast majority of Germans were pro-Hitler in the thirties, do you think they should preface everything in the rest of their lives with apologies for what that monster and his henchmen did? Maybe all Brits should apologise personally for the atrocities perpetrated in the name of civilisation by the British Empire? Or Americans for the genocidal war on South East Asia? Did Riefenstahl personally take part in any massacres or killings? If not, she is as blameless of them as any conscript, no matter what her political standpoint or convictions. I refuse to take you seriously, Albert, as a human being or doctor, until you publically apologise for Abu Ghraib and the Contra atrocities. In the meantime, allow me to kick off this cathartic round of self-purification by proffering my apologies for the Great Bengal Famine. That feels so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 Albert wrote: "We should not honor her in any way. If we do, then by the same twisted logic, someone should say a few nice words about Hitler's watercolors or architectural sketches." If we think Hitler's art was good, we shouldn't hesitate to say so. However, art critic and historian Robert Hughes's comments seem to be accurate: of Hitler's work, he describes it as technically semi-competent but overall rather kitch. Personally I think the fact that people can paint and draw at all is wonderful. I couldn't paint or draw to save my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Albert, of course she was "involved" somewhat to make that party congress film. Yes it costs her much to say "sorry", but I think at least in her last years she could do it to some extend.. There is a 3 hours-documentary film about her work which ends with *at least* a word of regret and sorry. She also admitted that she was convinced to Hitler until the war. I think this is honest. It is well known that she cancelled her job as war reporter immediatly after she saw the cruels oft the Wehrmacht in Poland. Maybe it was her tragedy she was too weak, ambitious, opportunistic to opposit against Hitler. About "Triumph des Willens", this film was made 1935, received a documentary film medal in Cannes 1936 (free France!). Hitler got a good reputation all over the world, notably at conservatives people since he jailed Communists... Leni ever denied this as a "propaganda" film because it lacks commentary. I saw that film hair-rising but at least it is excellent made. It has to be looked at to understand Hitlers seductive power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preston_merchant Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 In 20 years, we'll be having this same discussion about DVD box sets from FoxNews and whether or not Roger Ailes, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and all the other goons bear responsibility for Bush's war crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuel_dilworth Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I literally cannot believe how many people can even today tar the entire Hitler-voting German population with the same brush that sane people reserve for the Nazi core. I look forward with interest to see if Chinese history books will be so simple-minded about today's Bush-voting America. (Though I gather Hitler was a slightly more sophisticated wooer of the public: can't remember Leni Riefenstahl's films making fun of grown men on bicycles...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuel_dilworth Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 You beat me to it, Preston... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preston_merchant Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 It's too easy, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Going back in time, don't forget that Beethoven originally dedicated his Eroica symphony to Napoleon. Yes, he later chucked that proposal, but does any of that history have any effect on our liking the piece or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidfink_photography Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 It is obvious, I hope, that no one would assert a moral equivalence between Bush and Hitler. Still, the point remains that artists living under *whatever* regime should have the merits of their work judged independently of the political rulers of the time. Where propaganda is a primary objective of the art, then of course that becomes part of the criteria to be weighed in evaluating the artistic merits. But, as in Riefenstahl's case, if additional work lies outside the realm of propagandistic intent, then I think it highly unfair to dismiss the lot based on political motives from a half century earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Unfair is the right word. Living in countries with free speech is no own merrit.. Oppinion is cheap nowadays. It wasn't so in the "3rd Reich". Some people did crimes and cruels. Some people did whatever they were told. Some pretend to know nothing, said nothing and did nothing. And some, few, at least made art. Fortunatly I wasn't in this situation, so I cannot convict artists for making art instead of helping people (as, how I read, Leitz did for his jewish workers). Alas... Leni did not. Maybe she did what she could best... does that affect her art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_vickers1 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 We are all products of the times in which we live. Leni Riefenstahl, like most Germans, was clearly swept up in Hitler's vision of a "Gross Deutschland" rising from the ashes of World War I, the Versailles Treaty, and economic depression. She never joined the Nazi party, but she glorified it in her films. Hitler gave the German people optimism for a while even though he was driven by hatred and overreaching personal ambition, traits which eventually led to genocide, military defeat, and phenomenal destruction. World War II killed many millions and also left many millions of "survivors" with damaged bodies, psyches, and, yes, reputations. Compared to most, Leni Riefenstahl got off lightly. In the post World War II period she tried to rationalize her life and her existence as best she could. But there was no explanation that was fully satisfactory or acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now