Great art/Evil regime... the Riefenstahl Dilemma?

[rasputin1963]

Take somebody like Leni Riefenstahl.

 

She was this brilliant, intrepid German filmmaker of the 1930's. She was smart, beautiful, a masterful outdoorswoman... and an innovative, seminal, crackerjack filmmaker.

 

In his book The Story of Film film scholar Mark Cousins claims, "Next to Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, Leni Riefenstahl was the most technically talented Western film maker of her era."

 

Ol' Adolf-baby thought she was swell, too, and appointed her his "official" filmmaker. He financed her lifestyle whilst she lived in Germany, and had her do some very ambitious works designed to add untold Art Deco glamour and magnificence to the burgeoning Third Reich. One of her most celebrated films is OLYMPIA, which depicted, in glorious, silvery B&W, the 1936 Olympic Games, held in Munich that year.

 

KwmYFz01MxA

 

Riefenstahl survived WWII, and years later, greatly played down her attachment to Der Fuehrer and the Third Reich.... she was just the right person in the wrong place, wrong time, right? but it didn't take Dick Tracy to find out she had been lavishly supported in her work by the regime until the demise of the Third Reich.

 

She died a very old lady in 2003, in Germany, and the world's art appreciators don't know quite what to do with her, historically:

 

She was a brilliant artist, at the service of an evil regime.

 

Questions:

• Can one appreciate the art of an artist who served under, and on the payroll of, an evil regime?

• Could Riefenstahl have defected the Third Reich based upon her conscience, and worked profitably elsewhere (as did, let's say, Marlene Dietrich, Otto Klemperer)

• Should she have been strung-up at Nuremberg with the other henchmen? She was just a movie maker, and art is just a pleasant bagatelle, an innocuous cheap thrill, right?

• She was a woman, and wars are men's affairs.... women are soft creatures, easily swayed, and must be forgiven, right?

• Are there brilliant artists working at the behest of evil regimes today, as we speak? Do you know any?

• Can we forgive artists who "just settle", knowing where their bread is buttered? Being an artist can be a tough row to hoe, and would you flip off such a good gig?

[Lee Knight]

You've got to draw a line. Toscanini did.

 

In 1931, Toscanini was slapped across the face for refusing to perform the Fascist party hymn before a concert in Bologna. He vowed not to return to Italy until the fall of Fascism and the monarchy. He remained in exile until 1946, when he returned to reinaugurate the newly restored La Scala.

 

Maybe some didn't have the choice he did. I don't know... I've always admired him for his stand though.

[Anderton]

This is a very, very interesting topic.

 

I think "Triumph of the Will" was, from a cinematic standpoint, absolutely stunning. What some don't know is that much of it was smoke and mirrors. For example, there really weren't crowds in some of the crowd scenes, but through clever staging and shooting, she made it look like the crowd was much bigger than it was.

 

Yet it was all in service of a regime so evil and twisted that we can hardly imagine how something like that could come about in the 20th century, "civilized" world. The Nazi regime would have done its thing without her, but there's no doubt she helped. AFAIC, helping promote evil causes makes you evil. That doesn't diminish her talent, but her talent doesn't diminish the evil. So to answer your questions...

 

* Can one appreciate the art of an artist who served under, and on the payroll of, an evil regime?

 

Yes, you certainly can appreciate the art, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the artist.

 

* Could Riefenstahl have defected the Third Reich based upon her conscience, and worked profitably elsewhere (as did, let's say, Marlene Dietrich, Otto Klemperer)

 

I'm sure she could have found a gig, she was very talented.

 

* Should she have been strung-up at Nuremberg with the other henchmen? She was just a movie maker, and art is just a pleasant bagatelle, an innocuous cheap thrill, right?

 

Well, at some point you have to draw the line. At one extreme, you could say that only those directly responsible for the death of others deserved to die. At the other extreme, you could say anyone who supported Hitler was complicit and deserved to die. She's somewhere in between, and it all depends on where you draw that line...

 

* She was a woman, and wars are men's affairs.... women are soft creatures, easily swayed, and must be forgiven, right?

 

Forgiveness is a good thing. I don't think the death penalty solves anything. If people like Eichmann had been allowed to live, perhaps they would have realized just how wrong they were, and written some incredibly eloquent treatise that would serve as a warning. Or maybe they'd just be twisted a-holes to the very end. But if they're dead, there's no chance, however slight, for redemption. As to Riefenstal, I don't know how sincere her distancing was from the third Reich, and how much she was just an opportunist. I get the feeling she was probably pretty amoral, and just figured "hey, I got a great gig, the money's flowing, so what if people are being gassed?" To forgive someone like that would take a little more than her saying "Well, I wasn't really THAT tuned in to the whole Nazi thing..."

 

* Are there brilliant artists working at the behest of evil regimes today, as we speak? Do you know any?

 

Not that I know of...

 

* Can we forgive artists who "just settle", knowing where their bread is buttered? Being an artist can be a tough row to hoe, and would you flip off such a good gig?

 

It's easy to look back and say "Of course I wouldn't support that kind of regime!" But the impression I got about the whole WWII thing was that it was sort of like killing a lobster, where you just turn up the temperature a degree at a time, and the lobster never really notices it's dying until it's too late. So I can see where someone could get hung up in a movement, and keep rationalizing that things aren't that bad, or that they'll get better, and basically decide to be willfully ignorant.

 

But more importantly, it's also the role of the artist to say the things others can't say. Riefenstal's documentaries definitely helped the Nazis. However, had she defected at some point due to her conscience and devoted her art to bringing down the regime from the comparative safety of someplace like the US, she would be hailed as a heroine instead of being the poster girl for "sellout." Maybe she was just afraid the Nazis were going to win, hunt her down, and kill her...maybe she was just a coward, and the ideology was a minor part of it.

[philbo]

Take somebody like Leni Riefenstahl.

 

 

Questions:

 

Just look at Madison Avenue - - it's full of people who are willing to use their art to profit. Every speech-writer working for 'W' might also fall into this category.

 

Should they be killed for their evil-doing? Not by me... Not until I can bring the innocent dead back to life as well. Karma will provide them everything they need or deserve.

[rasputin1963]

Someone else with a similar story was the great graphic artist, Ludwig Hohlwein (1874--1949)

 

 

 

 

Any modern graphic artist who does any studying at all cannot help but fall in love with the beautiful, stylish posters that guy did...

 

But the artist who gave us this:

 

 

....and this:

 

 

....and this:

 

 

....also cheerfully gave us THIS:

 

[Dean Roddey]

Why don't we ever get the other direction? Like if Hitler had cut a version of "Honey" or Osama bin Laden cutting a version of "Puff the Magic Dragon" or something like that?

[rasputin1963]

Why don't we ever get the other direction? Like if Hitler had cut a version of "Honey" or Osama bin Laden cutting a version of "Puff the Magic Dragon" or something like that?

 

Didn't Kim Jong Eel write some kind of theatrical musical or something? I think Saddam Hussein wrote a novel as well, no?

 

I'm sure both pieces of art are edge-of-your-chair grippers. (not)

[nat whilk II]

In time, the artists become largely separated from the taint of their era's politics and chauvenism, etc.

 

The Roman Empire was a pretty nasty political institution, but we don't blacklist the Aeneid for it now. Some people in modern times may think Bach's religion was a blot on civilization, but we don't spend much time worrying about that listening to Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring.

 

It's only when there are still echoes of the political issues still in people's minds that the taint still operates. Understandable. But I like to see, eventually, art appraised on artistic criteria, not on political associations.

 

So many artists have had idiotic personal philosophies, questionable politics, offensive personalities, bigotries, prejudices, unsavory alliances, etc etc etc. In the long run we all lose if we don't put these aside and evaluate the art as art.

 

But in the short run, it can be too much to take, too close to home. Discretion advised.

 

nat whilk ii

[rasputin1963]

So many artists have had idiotic personal philosophies, questionable politics, offensive personalities, bigotries, prejudices, unsavory alliances >

 

 

Sinatra with his wiseguys

[Dean Roddey]

 

The Roman Empire was a pretty nasty political institution

 

 

They made the Nazi's look like a bunch of pansies, actually. They were incredibly brutal, both in terms of their entertainment choices an in their military conquests. Some military leaders were better than others, but it was not unusual for them to just kill all to most of the men of a conquered capital and then of course sell off all of the children and women as slaves. They'd line the road leading into the conquered city with the corprses of the men they'd executed, which was a pretty unambiguous statement. The Nazis never even came close to that, but of course we are more unsettled by the Nazis because they were so clinical and business-like about it, and were doing it 3 or 4 centuries after the so-called Enlightenment, not 1200 years before.

 

Later on they got a little smarter about this, and actually were generally better about it mostly during the reign of the emperors than they were back during the Republican era.

[mcmike100]

 

They made the Nazi's look like a bunch of pansies, actually. They were incredibly brutal, both in terms of their entertainment choices an in their military conquests. Some military leaders were better than others, but it was not unusual for them to just kill all to most of the men of a conquered capital and then of course sell off all of the children and women as slaves. They'd line the road leading into the conquered city with the corprses of the men they'd executed, which was a pretty unambiguous statement. The Nazis never even came close to that, but of course we are more unsettled by the Nazis because they were so clinical and business-like about it, and were doing it 3 or 4 centuries after the so-called Enlightenment, not 1200 years before. Later on they got a little smarter about this, and actually were generally better about it mostly during the reign of the emperors than they were back during the Republican era.

 

 

World War II was the darkest moment in human history. Let's leave Germany a second and think about the rape of Nanking. Thousands of people used for live bayonet practice. Contests, that were covered in Japanese newspapers, on a duel between two soldeirs as to how many people they beheaded in the shortest time. Ancient city walls lines with severed heads.

 

Now let's look at Europe; the list of whom to eliminate when Poland was invaded: nobles, mayors, teachers, clergy, landowners, intelligentsia (anybody who could think). They were killed by summary execution. And when the Warsaw uprising ended in fall 1944, everyone left alive in this once beautiful capital was either killed or sent to a concentration camp, where most died. Then the city was, for all practical purposes, razed.

 

And then the Russian invasion. And this includes Russia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Was it clinical? No. As soon as EVERY town was taken, Einsatzgruppen members followed the army. All Jews were rounded up and shot. If they were old or sick, they were shot where they lay. The favorite way was to stack them like sardines, with the living laying on top of the dying and then shot.

 

The reason the gas chambers happened was because shooting caused blood and brain material to splatter on the executioners. Morale among the murderers was being affected, so wholesale death camps were used. Generally the entire trainload was executed upon arrival.

 

In Bucharest, more than a thousand gallows had bodies hanging at one time. Similar scenes occured all across eastern Europe.

 

And if the enemy is getting too close, just hold a death march across Germany in front of civilians. Stumble, and it's a bullet in the head.

 

I don't think the Romans were worse.

 

Don't let me start about Stalin.

 

And I don't want to appreciate a movie that is pure propaganda for evil.

[nice keetee]

^

 

^^^^^^^^

Maybe Riefenstahl had to do what had to do to stay alive but is this madness over now??? NO. Probably an evil deal going down right now somewhere. Feel shamed to be a human being when we talk of this.

[Anderton]

 

World War II was the darkest moment in human history.

 

 

Can't argue with that. The Romans may have been cruel, but when you look at what else was going on, they actually improved the lot of many of the places they conquered. The Pax Romana was not always involuntary on the part of the conquered. But it didn't take long for them to blow it...

 

 

And I don't want to appreciate a movie that is pure propaganda for evil.

 

 

But that I can argue with, because the issue isn't about the content, but about the style. I believe you can separate the two. I'm sure I've learned some great guitar licks from heroin addicts...doesn't mean I condone heroin.

 

One can easily have contempt for Leni Riefenstal, but one can learn a hell of a lot from her lighting techniques. I guess part of me is just looking for any kind of good that can be salvaged from that kind of a situation.

 

Remember, it was Hitler's egomania that made him want to be heard everywhere, at any time, which led to the invention of the tape recorder. The tape recorder was invented specifically to convey pure propaganda for evil, but I can certainly appreciate what tape recording has done for me.

 

That said, I've never been able to watch "Triumph of the Will" all the way through, and doubt that I ever will. 15 minutes was enough for me. It reminds me too much of living in Europe as a little kid with Italian widows still dressed in black, tank traps across the roads in Switzerland, the town squares in France with name after name after name of the dead from that town etched in stone near the fountains, the bombed-out cities in Germany, and the spooky feeling you'd get going into the London underground.

 

I defy anyone to visit where Anne Frank hid out in Holland and not feel crushed under the weight of what human cruelty can do. She was just a little girl, and she deserved...what? Certainly not being hunted down like an animal.

[nice keetee]

I recommend you continue your adventure. I for one enjoy your writings.

[Dean Roddey]

 

I don't think the Romans were worse.

 

 

I'd put my Romans up against your Nazis any day of the week :-) I mean taking the kids for a fun day at the Colliseum to watch whole families eaten alive by wild animals, thousands of gladiators killing each other, and whatnot. It wasn't just militarily that they were serious brutal. It was considered good entertainment as well, and it was like the NFL of the day. And they would also line up thousands of corpes on polls along the roads leading into the cities they conquered. Probably the Nazis got the idea from them, since they were heavily influenced by Rome (the third Reich and all that.)

[indigo_dave]

You have to separate the artist from the art. If you don't you have to carry this particular flavor of political correctness to it's illogical conclusion. Would you dismiss Gauguin's work for abandoning his wife and children. Picasso for his treatment of women in his personal life. I've even read posts of people who want to dismiss Keith Jarrett's music because he sometimes berates audiences for coughing.

[rasputin1963]

 

You have to separate the artist from the art. If you don't you have to carry this particular flavor of political correctness to it's illogical conclusion. Would you dismiss Gauguin's work for abandoning his wife and children. Picasso for his treatment of women in his personal life. I've even read posts of people who want to dismiss Keith Jarrett's music because he sometimes berates audiences for coughing.

 

 

 

I think Grace Slick has also stopped her show to tell the audience to STFU on a number of occasions....

[nat whilk II]

It's interesting in an era in which the majority of people would say that art can't be "moral or immoral", it's just "art", is the same era in which people routinely judge or blacklist art because of the bad morals of the artists.

 

Personally, I find little as boring as political analyses of art, literature, music. But the academics, at least in the USA are so heavily engaged in this kind of analysis - I often wonder, "Why did you get that English degree in Literature when all it seems you are really interested in are politics and civil rights?"

 

Oh, I suppose it's not a bad thing to have your consciousness raised about implicit sexism or racism in Victorian novels etc etc ...but eventually I want to read Victorian novels as literature, not as complex tracts with hidden social agendas that MUST BE EXPOSED (even hidden from the authors in many cases apparently).

 

nat whilk ii

 

nat whilk ii

[Magpel]

In the "mass media" age and beyond, yes, personal life, politics, and art are all part of some supra-work. Mel Gibson, his father, his, skewed take on Christianity, his drunken berating of that cop--"are you JEWISH??"--His ridiculous pleas to the Jewish community: "please HELP me understand!" Yeah, to me that's all part of one, uh, multifacted work of "art" that I want no part of...F*&ing idiot.

 

Personal choice as a "consumer" of art is part of the cultural process.

 

It's funny, but I tend to apply a bit of a different standard to older, high art. I can tolerate the complexity of an Ezra Pound, for example. Great poet (well, "Mauberly" at least), supporter of Mussolini and a bit of an anti-semite. I don't condone that, but, you know, the point of great art is not to celebrate the artist...

[Hard Truth]

I can be more tolerant of dead artists because I can feel confident that they will not profit from my interest in their work. In general, I think an artist's world view is reflected in their work, so I am rarely artistically attracted to people with reprehensible views.

 

I did stop buying anything from Devo, who I used to like a lot, after they included a racist poster with one of their albums.

 

I have stopped buying Rolling Stones and Lou Reed records due to their occassional racism (although supposedly ironic), and in the case of the Stones, sexism. Its not a big deal to me, because I think they are trying to be ironic, portray a character, or be shocking, not promoting a bigoted point of view. I just think their approach is counter-productive and I've heard enough of them by now anyways.

 

 

David Allen Coe sold (may still sell) racist albums from his website, I don't like his music anyways, so boycotting him is easy.

 

I really enjoyed Ted Nugent live and bought his live album before he was so public with his politics. I don't like his politics, but I don't think he is deserving of a boycott.

 

Kid Rock supported the current war, but at least he admitted that he didn't know much about politics. Again, I don't think he is deserving of a boycott.

 

I would boycott Toby Keith, but I'm not interested in his music anyways.

 

I have minimal interest in Mel Gibson, but I don't think I would make a point of boycotting him, because he seems to be a confused, disturbed person more than an activist for bad causes.

[Lee Flier]

 

Sure. Lots of great art has been created by really screwed up people on the payroll of evil empires - like record labels.

 

But seriously, if the only art we could appreciate was art created and funded by good and pure people, there wouldn't be much left to appreciate. And a lot of us may be in denial about this, but most musicians have played in a venue that was at least partially funded by drug money or organized crime. Or done business with a shady promoter and looked the other way because we didn't really want to know just how shady he was. Etc.

 

And there are all sorts of artists, athletes etc. sponsored by the Chinese government... are all these folks evil for accepting the gig? Do you think they all really support everything their government does?

 

Could Riefenstahl have defected the Third Reich based upon her conscience, and worked profitably elsewhere (as did, let's say, Marlene Dietrich, Otto Klemperer)

 

I don't think it's my place to judge that... and keep in mind my family is Jewish and lost relatives under that evil regime. But I don't honestly think that most people knew how bad it was until after the fact. It's easy to say with hindsight, but I think a lot of people played the game at the time because they didn't realize the extent of the evil.

 

Whether this particular person knew, I can't say. But I tend to doubt it.

 

Should she have been strung-up at Nuremberg with the other henchmen?

 

Heavens no.

 

She was a woman, and wars are men's affairs.... women are soft creatures, easily swayed, and must be forgiven, right?

 

Uhh no. I think some forgiveness is due a lot of people who seem on the surface to have been "involved" in the Nazi regime, as I mentioned. But that applies whether the person is a woman or not.

 

Are there brilliant artists working at the behest of evil regimes today, as we speak?

 

Sure. See above about China... same in many African countries with evil regimes who have many brilliant musicians and athletes that are sponsored by the government.

 

Can we forgive artists who "just settle", knowing where their bread is buttered? Being an artist can be a tough row to hoe, and would you flip off such a good gig?

 

I'd like to think I would personally - I HAVE turned down work with companies whose ethics I don't approve of. Whether I'd be able to do that if I had a family, I don't know. In any case yes, I think we can forgive artists who get funding for their work from places we may not approve of. The money would be spent anyway, probably for some more nefarious purpose than art. And we can't really assume that the artist accepting money from an evil person means they condone the evil or even are fully aware of it, unless they make that obvious in their art. Now if she was making films about how great it is to kill Jews, that's another story.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Uhh no. I think some forgiveness is due a lot of people who seem on the surface to have been "involved" in the Nazi regime, as I mentioned. But that applies whether the person is a woman or not.

 

 

There was just a story on NPR about two women who were arrested recently. They were getting homeless people to sign life insurance policies leaving them as beneficiaries, and then was whacking them in hit-n-run type 'accidents', and getting the payout. So they have their days on the evil front as well.

[rasputin1963]

 

And a lot of us may be in denial about this, but most musicians have played in a venue that was at least partially funded by drug money or organized crime.

 

 

 

Who, me? (tee-hee).

 

In the 1980's, I played cocktail piano in a very elegant nightclub. Every afternoon, these gorgeous young women, twentysomethings, dressed and coiffed expensively, would come sit down on the couches near my piano. I was only about 20, 21 years old.

 

I never could figure out why these ladies would, over the course of an evening, leave their drinks and cigarettes on the table, disappear for about 45 minutes, trudge into the darkness behind this suite of office buildings, then come back later, resume their drinking.

 

Lots of prominent businessmen showed up there, too. Golf celebs. Politicos.

 

I thought they were all coming to see me. I was so flattered. I had to be about 35 years old before I looked back and realized that there had been a whole 'nother industry going on at this club besides booze and jazz.

[Anderton]

 

But I don't honestly think that most people knew how bad it was until after the fact. It's easy to say with hindsight, but I think a lot of people played the game at the time because they didn't realize the extent of the evil.

 

 

I've done a little anecdotal research, and it seems that was indeed the case for the population at large. A lot of the atrocities were going on behind the scenes and by the time people realized what was happening, it was too late. All they saw was Germany getting some self-respect, inflation getting under control, and don't forget, Hitler was a VERY persuasive sociopath because he believed what he said. He didn't say "Hey! Let's invade Poland!" He always expressed things in terms of righting wrongs that had happened to Germany. And I bet few Germans were aware that many of Hitler's inner circle were drug addicts until after the war was over.

 

This is not to say there weren't people who weren't complicitous, or who, for example, ratted on their Jewish neighbors; but I think a lot of Germans just trying to make ends meet after carting wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread sincerely believed what the government was saying. You can blame them for being ignorant, but you can't really blame that kind of person for being evil.

 

Don't know if Leni Riefenstal fell under that category. I suspect she was young, naive, and dug the attention and power. One can rationalize a lot under those circumstances.

 

I will say one thing: Of all the countries in the world likely to embrace a fascist government, Germany is waaaaaaaay down on the list. They know first-hand how much that can screw up a country.