Talk:Leni Riefenstahl
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Leni_Riefenstahl".

content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leni Riefenstahl article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

Was Riefenstahl really in a French detention camp?

I'm not sure if the following sentence is accurate: "After World War II, she spent four years in a French detention camp" I've been reading about this part of her biography here: http://www.germanhollywood.com/rief_2.html and it seems the issue of what happened to her after the War is more complicated. Thanks, Cgrimm 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shown in Oscar clips?

I seem to remember that there was some controversey when she died, whether or not to include her in the Oscar clip commemorating filmmakers who died the privious year. Someone should include this information in the article, and say whether or not she was included in this clip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

She was included as Leni Riefenstahl Documentary Filmmaker.

concentration camp labor?

Were there concentration camps in 1934 (commment in article says she used concentration camp labor for a film at that time). Seems an anacronysm to me and also a bit of an akward attempt to slip a slam in.TCO 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were. See this page. By 1934 thousands had been interned, hundreds murdered in them. On the other hand, the Tiefland story may need clarification: most of the work on the movie, including all the shooting done by Riefenstahl, happened between 1940 and 1944. She used Sinti/Roma concentration-camp inmates as Spanish-looking actors.RogerLustig 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi propogandist?

I couldn't remember her name, but I figured I would have no problem finding a link to her article from Goebbels; I'm not that bothered that his article doesn't mention her, but I'm surprised that she isn't included in the category "Nazi propagandists" Mulp 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


On the documentary by History Channel showing L.R. being "acutely aware" she is a propagandist

An Encyclopedia must refrain from any kind of moral judgement and must not try to depict historical features under any subjective light, whether good or bad. The insertion regarding the documentary film showing great consideration by the highest nazi propaganda officers and Hitler himself for Riefenstahl work is interesting and could be quoted in the interest of showing said importance, but must not be used as a way to depict a person as "morally bad" or, even worse, morally bad because close to Hitler. The way the insertion keeps on reappearing on W. is instead clearly biased toward applying a moral judgement on L.R.. The insertion's author makes a kind of implicit logic link between being a nazi propagandist and being a criminal, and tries to "demonstrate" that L.R. was a propagandist (which is self-evident) in order to implicitly state she is a criminal BECAUSE she is a propagandist. The espression used, i.e. that the documentary demonstrates L.R. as being "acutely aware" (sic!) of being a nazi propagandist, is the demonstration of the obvious. This is like saying that a documentary showed Stalin being "acutely aware" he was a Communist, you know there is incontrovertible evidence he was at table with Lenin at Communist Party dinners, we have the pictures! The article expression "In later interviews Riefenstahl maintained that she was "fascinated" by the National Socialists but politically naïve and ignorant about the war crimes of which they were subsequently found guilty." CORRECTLY and impartially states the role of L.R. in the making of the nazi propaganda and the denial by L.R. of any complicity in the nazi crimes. That is well written because it is not trying to attribute moral qualities to L.R. or to make an "historical judgement" which would not be historical at all being L.R. of our age. The point about the use of the Gipsy prisoners in her film and their successive destiny is certainly object of interest and could be used in an impartial manner. In any case it should never be implied that L.R. is somewhat indirectly or morally responsible for the imprisonment and the killing of said Gipsies.

 --151.41.237.180 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be informative if the disputed comment about L.R. being "acutely aware" of being a "Nazi Propagandist" should be changed. Perhaps quote her in context to show how she might be doing this. A properly done quote should prove the point the writer is claiming - in a neutral way.Victorianezine (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Festliches Nürnberg

Festliches Nürnberg ist not a film by Leni Riefenstahl. She was never involved in the production, since she was still working on editing her Olympia documentary. None of her biographers mention that film, besides some untrustworthy sites selling the video only the English Wikipedia (and others copying the filmography) mentions the film. The IMDb recently corrected the entry for Festliches Nürnberg, crediting Hans Weidemann as director. Sadly I've found only German websites proving Weidemann's authorship: [1], [2], [3]. Since I am newly registered at en: (I am a regular contributor at de:), I do not want to corerct this article without presenting my references here. Furthermore I wonder how the article for festliches Nürnberg can be rewritten, since most parts of the article are about Riefenstahl's contribution and her previous works. --Andibrunt 13:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The term 'propaganda film' is correct, using the term 'documentary' is distorting the facts

Triumph des Willen is a 'propaganda film'. It was commissioned and paid for by Joseph Goebbels head of the Propaganda department of Hirlers government. In any scholarly publication on propaganda film in the Third Reich you will find Triumph des Willen described as such. There are many publications about the film analysing its propaganda features. Describing it as a 'documentary' gives the false impression that the film justs reports the events at the Parteitage. Riefenstahl has made a concerted effort of white-washing herself of any responsibility for her nazi past. Consistently referring to Triumph des Willen as 'documentary' has been part of that effort. Using the term 'documentary' is distorting the facts and POV. Using the term 'propaganda film' is true to the facts and NPOV.S711 07:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A few of scholarly publications defining Triumph des Willens as a propaganda film:

  • Daniel Knopp, NS-Filmpropaganda (Marburg, 2004) in German, dealing with Triumph des Willens; in this book Triumph des Willens and Veit Harlan's Jud Süss are compared as propaganda films.
  • Rolf Giesen, Nazi Propaganda Films - A History and Filmography (Jefferson, 2003) with a chapter about Triumph des Willens .
  • Martha Diane Herzik, Triumph of the Will as a persuasive instrument (University of Texas, 1972) Triumph of the Will is seen by this author as a powerful and effective instrument of persuasion;
  • Andrew Gaskievicz, Leni Riefenstahl, a filmmaker in the Third Reich, (Western Washington University,1990) according to this scholar, Triumph des Willens was an effective propaganda film.

The Wikipedia article on Triumph des Willens also calls it a propaganda film:

Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a propaganda film by the German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening credits. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.

See also the section "Themes" "[Triumph of the Will is] the supreme visualisation in cinematic form of the Nazi political religion. Its artistry, reinforced by the grandeur and power of the Nuremberg decor, is designed to sweep us into empathetic identification with Hitler as a kind of human deity. The massive spectacle of regimentation, unity and loyalty to the Führer powerfully conveys the message that the Nazi movement was the living symbol of the reborn German nation." -- Professor Robert Wistrich. S711 09:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This are all specious arguments. The fact is that anyone wanting to direct or produce a film between 1933 and 1945 in Germany had to have permission from Goebbels and his "Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment" (the actual title). The real issue here is whether Riefenstahl had a choice between having the film produced by Goebbels or having it produced elsewhere; she clearly did not have a choice as all media was controlled by Goebbels. We must also all remember that another film that is viewed as "Nazi propaganda", i.e. Olympia, was awarded a gold medal by the International Olympic Committee and by the French. Its star is an African American. There is no doubt that Riefenstahl was enthralled by Hitler and the Nazis - but so was over 90% of the German population in 1934. And given the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis that were discovered after 1944 it is easy to see why the German population would be eager to get themselves off the hook by blaming Riefenstahl for having "seduced them" with her films, rather than admit their own complicity in those crimes. Montydad (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Montydad I agree more or less 100% with your take on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Untrue

In the article there is this paragraph:

"Impressed with her work, Hitler asked her to film the upcoming 1934 Party rally in Nuremberg. Riefenstahl turned down the project at first because she did not want to make "a prescribed film" and instead began making another film titled Tiefland. Meanwhile, she hired Walter Ruttmann to direct the documentary but she fell ill and Tiefland was cancelled. When she recovered Riefenstahl reviewed Ruttmann's footage and didn't like it. At Hitler's urging she took on the role of director and was given unlimited resources, camera crews, budget, complete artistic control and final cut of the film."

In recent biographies (Kinkel, Trimborn and Steven Bach) this version of the events has been proved to be false. Riefenstahl did not turn down the offer, she was involved in all the preparations, there was no Ruttmann footage which was turned down. However that may be, the paragraph is not supported by any (reliable) source. Therefore I propose to delete it.S711 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Gwen Gale 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen.S711 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From the moderate amount I have read or seen about or by her, the charming media manager Leni Riefenstahl just isn't a trustworthy source (unless her statement is backed up by a quality source). So I'm glad to see lots of different sources cited here to disprove (or sometimes to prove) her many, many assertions.Victorianezine (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Leni is not a reliable source about herself. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to dispute any of the above - in particular Leni's tendency to "edit her past", but I think we might put all of this into somewhat better context by also pointing out that other prominent Germans involved in the arts such as Elizabeth Schwarzkopf and Herbert von Karajan also repeatedly denied accusations of collaboration with the Nazis, even though they (unlike Leni) joined the party and had successful careers in post-war Germany. In Schwarzkopf's case, when she finally admitted that she had in fact joined three different Nazi organizations, she justified it by saying all her colleagues had done it for the sake of a job (see article in the Guardian "Triumph of the wilful" 2006). 70.53.131.235 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

In the article there is the sentence: "She became a photographer and later photographed rock star Mick Jagger and his wife Bianca as a couple after they were married." This would suggest that this photo-session had a certain relevance to her career as a photographer. That is not the case. It was only a society event. The only notability of it is that it concerned Jagger and Riefenstahl (trivial). I propose to delete it and connect: 'she became a photographer' directly to the Nuba sentence.S711 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Jagger's rather notable and the event provides context to her post-war life. Gwen Gale 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Then should the article not also mention Keith Richards appearing in a SS-uniform at the same photo-session? Rather futile. Be that as it may, Riefenstahl certainly did not make a career as a photographer of celebrities. So mentioning this event direcly after "she became a photographer" gives/gave the wrong impression. S711 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it had anything to do with her professional career. I said "the event provides context to her post-war life." As for KR showing up in an SS uniform for the same event, even if it could be supported with a citation from a reliable source, which I guess could happen, it would stray way too far from WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It suggests it had something to do with her professional career because it is the first thing that is mentioned after "she became a photographer". The brackets just make it seem extra odd.S711 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) However, I do agree with you that the sentence flow could still easily and wholly mislead a casual reader into thinking Jagger professionally commissioned her to take pictures. I've tried to fix this by placing the text after Nuba, wording it more clearly and adding that the whole thing's still controversial. Gwen Gale 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on these Jagger photos: I've been able to find only two photos of this event, both of which seem to originate from "her" German website, which may have (a bit misleadingly) swapped the chronological order. In the photo where he has his arm drapped about LR's shoulder, Jagger looks very much "under the influence" (to me anyway). The snap of LR taking a pic of Jagger posed in a wicker chair with his then-wife shows LR in the same dress with the same camera and very likely the same garden on the same afternoon, but Jagger has changed all of his clothes (and shoes too) into a mostly white coloured getup which matches other photos taken of him at the time of his wedding to Bianca Pérez-Mora Macías, which strongly hints at some effort by him to quickly set up a more formal shot. I suspect and speculate he thought it would, at the least, make for an interesting personal keepsake and truth be told, wouldn't read much more into it than that. Gwen Gale 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote

The footnote: See also Gypsies' Fate Haunts Film Muse of Hitler, The Guardian, August 17, 2002. does not refer to the massacre in Konskie but to the fate of the gypsies who acted in Tiefland and many of whom subsequently were killed in Auschwitz. S711 10:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. Thanks again, for bringing this one up too. Also, it's not much of a citation even about Tiefland: Given LR (like many Germans along with others throughout history in like settings) at her very most helpful only stood by and cried whilst folks around her were dragged off and criminally slain, the Guardian article consists mostly of a single assertion made decades later with no evidence of independent confirmation. Which is to say, I'm ok with bringing up Tiefland accusations in the article but the sources should be reliable and verifiable. Gwen Gale 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Married twice

According to TZ online ([4]) Riefenstahl was married to Horst Kettner shorly before she died. S711 08:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The original source is Die Bunte. The date is unknown. According to some under water magazine they married in New Guinea, but I don't think that information is reliable.S711 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nude bodies

In the article was the sentence: "Riefenstahl is widely noted in film histories for developing new techniques in film, including the photography of nude bodies." That is not correct. Riefenstahl first film appearance was in: Wilhelm Prager, Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit — Ein Film über moderne Körperkultur (Ways to Strength and Beauty — A Film About Modern Physical Culture), Germany 1924/1925. Thát is the film noted for the introduction of "Körper Kultur" (body culture) in film history, not Riefenstahl's Olympia .

A quote: "The stature that this film (Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit) would attain as the most important Kulturfilme of the era is also clearly reflected in the literature of the period, such as Oskar Kalbus' two-volume retrospective of German film, Vom werden Deutscher Filmkunst, in which this film is referred to as "a revelation, a work of art with a very innovative film style." Kalbus, Oskar. Vom werden Deutscher Filmkunst - 1. Teil: Der stumme film. Altona-Bahrenfeld: Cigaretten-Bilderdienst, 1935; pages 92-93."

By the way: (from the same site riefenstahl.org) "There is a distinct similarity between certain film styles which we see in Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit and Riefenstahl's own 1938 masterpiece, Olympia, and concern over being accused that her film was not quite as original as generally thought may also have played a role in Riefenstahl's decision to not mention any connection with the former film. While Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit is unfortunately still not readily available (on VHS or DVD) in order to facilitate any thorough analysis and comparison of these two films, even from the various production stills for both these similarities can be observed — for example, in how some of the athletic scenes were shot or, even more strikingly, with regard to the opening dance scenes in Olympia." For a comparison see:[5]

Photography of nude bodies was clearly not something Riefenstahl intrduced in the cinema. Therefore a deleted the last part of the sentence. S711 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says she developed the technique (which she did), not that she introduced it. Gwen Gale 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gwen. Thanks for the improvements. Nude photography in Riefenstahl's work was not new and it's not a technique, but a genre (Kulturfilme). The phrase "developing" is rather ambiguous. It can mean: "make, bring to an active state" or "make better/elaborate etc." (In: We have "developed" a new weapon, it does not mean "improve on", but "introduced") May be there should be a reference in the article to the fact that she is known by many for the nude bodies in Olympia. Some other way.S711 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is her use of nude bodies had an international effect. I agree there is likely some other way to put this. I wonder what it is. Gwen Gale 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Nude' bodies" concerns only Olympia. Maybe it would be best to put that infomation in where Olympia is discussed. Perhaps also some reference to Mary Wigman and Bess Mensendieck. [6]) and to Freikörperkultur. There are also many people who write about Riefenstahl use of (perfect, abstract object) bodies in general (not just nudes). That includes also Triumph dW and could be in the introduction, but is even more difficult to explain in a short phrase.S711 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Something about her use of the body as an abstract object on film. Gwen Gale 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actress/Actor

I don't believe that Wikipedia should be used to advance a minority political agenda. Unless there is evidence that Leni Riefenstahl called herself an actor, we should follow standard usage which favours actress.

I would also question whether it is entirely acceptable to cite a Wikipedia article in support of your changes and then edit it to bolster your claim.

I am changing the heading back to actress. Misodoctakleidist 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a minority political agenda, it's a dicdef. The wikipedia article actor contains a verfiable external citation supporting the gender neutral usage. You've been warned in the past about tenditious editing and you are now on the edge of 3rr, either of which could get you blocked. Gwen Gale 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not "tendentious editing." The fact that "actor" can be used to mean he same thing as "actress" does not make it acceptable for people pushing a political agenda to insert it into every article about an actress. It is very much a minority usage which is vastly over-represented on wikipedia due to politicised editing. The insistence on using "actor" to mean "actress" IS a minority poltiial agenda. Misodoctakleidist 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Film techniques

She did not develop them. If you want to know who did develop them see History of film.S711 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is likely a question of semantics and language. Please note, develop in English does not mean innovate or invent.[7] The wording in the article is wholly supported by citations following WP:V. If you can provide citations which clarify this, or note some controversy along these lines, please do add them. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

She did not develop these film-techniques. Neither in the sense of "to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve." or "to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state". She was one of the first to use them a lot. Your source uses the expression "pioneering". S711 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the dicdef is in line with what the citation(s) has to say about it. Truth be told, the BBC citation goes even further, implying she did indeed innovate these techniques (the word groundbreaking can go along with either invention or development). Please have a look at WP:V for why the citation is so meaningful to this discussion. This said, if you have citations which offer other PoVs or further clarifications, let's put them in the text. At this time, futher assertions about what she did or did not do, without citations, have little or no sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"develop" in not in the source.S711 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've added two more citations supporting use of the word pioneer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Crane shots or tracking shots as such are not called visionary or groundbreaking in the citations. The authors are writing about the way these techniques are used. An important difference.S711 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is English your native language? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yessum. And what might yours be? You're changing the sources you use. The techniques were not new (let alone groundbreaking or visionary) as such. Slow motion was widely used in sports documentaries in the twenties and thirties, rhymtic editing can be seen in Eisenstein's Potemkin, tracking shots had been there for more than 30 years when Riefenstahl used them. Riefenstahl borrowed heavily from Fritz Lang and other directors of the Weimar Expressionist era German Film 1919-1954, Did experimental ideas and techniques pioneered by Weimar German expressionist filmmakers survive in the Nazi period? With special reference to the work of Leni Riefenstahl, article by Greg Tinker. It was the special use she made of these techniques that was appreciated by the historians you cite, not that she invented them. So please be precise.S711 (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't say she invented these techniques (we've been through these dicdefs already).

The article follows the cited sources, WP:V. Perhaps an RfC is the only way to get through this though. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The source: "Her Nazi documentaries were hailed as groundbreaking film-making, pioneering techniques etc."

Your text: Riefenstahl is widely noted for pioneering new techniques in film, which have been characterized as visionary and groundbreaking. The difference: the source says the documentaries were hailed as ground-breaking, your text says the techniques were groundbreaking etc. My edit corrects this difference.S711 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are 6 sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Riefenstahl's pioneering influence in film

Wholly apart from the repulsive content of documentaries like Triumph of the Will, many sources credit LR's techniques as pioneering and widely influential. There is a low-level but persistent dispute between two editors over how the sources might be dealt with. The statement...

Riefenstahl is noted in many film histories for pioneering new techniques in film, which have been characterized as visionary and groundbreaking.

...has been repeatedly changed to...

Riefenstahl is noted in many film histories for pioneering new techniques in her films, which have been characterized as visionary and groundbreaking. by the other editor.

Since I have characterized this change as disruption (of the "PoV warring in good faith kind"), I'll now step back from this in the hope other editors will comment and collaorate on building a consensus for the article header based on WP:V. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Technically, there is a tiny semantic difference between the two versions. Not really enough to argue about. I don't really see what the big deal is here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I've taken the insistence of that editor on inserting her into the text as mild disruption/PoV warring: However, it does imply the innovation was relative only to her films, which is not what the 6 cited sources say. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the best compromise would simply be to briefly quote one of the sources, thus rendering the specific semantical argument moot? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does not make one whit of difference - It is 100% absolutely inconsequential which version is used. Both sides should find something more important to worry about. MilesAgain (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it seems utterly trivial. Happily, by using direct quotes now, perhaps the lead narrative can avoid any editorial iterpretation of the sources regarding this very controversial film director. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The difference is slight.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Slight, but "pioneering in film" is both more accurate and better prose. Regardless, it looks like the new material takes care of it. --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

jagger quote

The current text is a bit vague; it reads:

Pictures taken at a 1971 social event showing a camera-wielding Riefenstahl with rock star Mick Jagger (including one of her snapping a photo of him and his wife Bianca) remain somewhat controversial.

Can we spell out the controversy, or rewrite for clarity? I can imagine that it would cause a controversy for Mick & Bianca to associate with Riefenstahl, but this says the the photos themselves are controversial. Help? --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lack of sources. It's clearly a social event, some editors have mistakenly interpreted this as a formal, paid sitting commissioned by Jagger. The current wording as been rather much a compromise, hoping more sources show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but it's unclear just what, precisely, is controversial. If you can confirm that the controversy was really with the Jaggers' association with LR, or explain what it is, then I'll try to do a rewrite that maintains the flavor of the compromise but is clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the only controversy I know of has been among editors here so the word "controversy" may not even be supported. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent): Okay, well then, how about we do a minor rewrite to that paragraph to strike the "controversy" bit, which appears to be unsourced, and to give some context. It currently reads:

Riefenstahl became a photographer and developed an interest in the Nuba tribe in Sudan where she sporadically lived among them. Her books with photographs of the tribe were published in 1974 and 1976. Pictures taken at a 1971 social event showing a camera-wielding Riefenstahl with rock star Mick Jagger (including one of her snapping a photo of him and his wife Bianca) remain somewhat controversial. Years later she was similarly photographed with Las Vegas entertainers Siegfried and Roy. At age 72 Riefenstahl lied about her age (saying she was 52) to get certified for scuba diving and pursue underwater photography. She survived a helicopter crash in the Sudan in 2000. On August 22, 2002 (her 100th birthday) Riefenstahl released a film called Impressionen unter Wasser (Underwater Impressions), an idealized documentary of life in the oceans.

and we could rewrite to:

In her later years, Riefenstahl took up photography, documenting a diverse array of subjects. She developed an interest in the Nuba tribe in Sudan where she sporadically lived among them. Her books with photographs of the tribe were published in 1974 and 1976. Pictures taken at a 1971 social event show a camera-wielding Riefenstahl snapping photos of rock star Mick Jagger and his wife Bianca. Years later she was similarly photographed with Las Vegas entertainers Siegfried and Roy. At age 72, Riefenstahl began pursuing underwater photography, after lying about her age to gain certification for scuba diving (she claimed she was 52). On August 22, 2002 (her 100th birthday) Riefenstahl released a film called Impressionen unter Wasser (Underwater Impressions), an idealized documentary of life in the oceans.
She survived a helicopter crash in the Sudan in 2000.

Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I conjugated a verb (showing>show) above but it looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'll put this version in, then. --Lquilter (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Der Sieg des Glaubens

So Der Sieg des Glaubens was withdrawn from theatres in May 1933 - about four months before it was even filmed??? Please try to get the dates right in these articles, it is infuriating for those of us who use them for research! Gadsby West (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Olympia deserves mention in the introductory comment

While I am amazed that this page rates a B-class rating, I would question the NPOV of this article. I do agree that the term propaganda film is correct terminology for Triumpth, but I would take issue with citing it has her most famous film. It is certainly influential but I think that Olympia deserves mention and striking "most." I have read Wonderful, Horrible Life, and I've also examined the German language wikipedia page for LR which does mention Olympia in the introductory section, and I can only conclude that the English language version lacks NPOV. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Final (NPOV?) comment from a film historian

I was reading this article for the first time tonight, as well as much of the conversation here, and I'm troubled by a quote from a film historian that's used to close the article:

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."

I take no issue with the quote per se appearing with the others at the top, but coming as it does immediately after the details of Riefenstahl's death, it smacks of a nasty sort of POV that's popped up in a lot of documentaries of late: the single, defining statement from a historian that puts the subject's legacy in some sort of poignant context. Please understand: It's not the statement but the placement of it with which I take issue.

I'd like to either move the quote so that it appears with the others, or eliminate it altogether. Thoughts? PacificBoy 02:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its being there is a relic of older discussions and questions about how to source and build the article. I'm ok with the quote being either there or elsewhere in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
© jGames.co.uk 2007 (some content from Wikipedia under GDL ) !-- ValueClick Media 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jgames.co.uk -->
Your Ad Here