[LEN-E] Bach etc

[Luc Deneulin]

> This has been a problem with so many publications on Riefenstahl,  

> and PhD's  as well. Sometimes to create a false positive image of  

> Riefentahl (D. Hinton, Ch; Ford) , sometimes a negative one.

I think Rother eg should be read at the same time as Kinkel and  
Trimborn.


Riefenstahl in her Memoiren and in the so many interviews in  
magazines, on TV, in Die Macht der Bilder, has also contributed to  
create a kind of selective, polished reality with many contradictions  
over time.


There are many books now on Riefenstahl, in French, German, English,  
and a few to be published next year.
At a certain moment a honest scholar should say: this we do no know,  
X says this, Y says that and Riefenstahl someting else in stead of  
giving interpretations.

On  the other hand, one should be careful, "believing" some of  
Riefenstahl sayings, means - since they are contradictory - to say  
"Luise Brooks, Lotte Eisner, Josef von Sternberg, Harry Sokal, G. W.  
Pabst, Hans Schneeberger, Arnold Fanck, Carl Mayer, Jean Cocteau all  
made false statements about Riefenstahl, sometimes about the same  
subject without knowing each other.


Lotte Eisner eg, is partially positive on Riefenstahl (she saved  
Jews) on the other hand, she states that Riefenstahl told her "Lotte,  
you must meet my new Hitler, I'll introduce you to him". This is all  
very difficult... and should be handled with care.

Sometimes, translations problems, lack of knowledge of German (or of  
English or French)from some scholars  has lead to many  
misunderstandings.

David Hinton, Charls Ford are certainely exagerating in the positive  
direction, others in the negative direction. Bach added something to  
the research but his reflextion on the facts is sometimes  
overinterpretation.

Bringing this all together, the too positive interpretations, the too  
negative interpretations, Riefenstahl's own sayings and the facts  
remains a challenge for the future.








> It seems almost as though his method (and goal) is to provide a  

> voluminous amount of

>

verifiable references for so many things which we do know to be true,  
and in the process
he can then throw in the odd opinion (presented as "fact")

Luc Deneulin
luc.deneulin at skynet.be