From ron at psymon.com Thu Jan 3 14:36:01 2008 From: ron at psymon.com (Ron Koster) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:36:01 -0500 Subject: [LEN-E] Happy "News" Year! Message-ID: <20080103193611.5EBD42BD4A@mailwash40.pair.com> Hi everyone! Happy New Year to one and all! Hope everyone had a nice holiday (no matter what tradition you might follow)! I do have some other stuff to share (which I hope to do within the next couple of days), but in the meantime I just updated the latest online news articles about Leni... http://www.riefenstahl.org/resources/news/ ...in fact, I did a *slight* bit of restructuring of that whole section (although overall it's still basically the same format as before). Not a lot of news over the last month (of December, since the previous update for November), although within the articles for December (2007) you'll find one for an exhibit currently being shown at the "Kunsthalle Bielefeld", in Bielefeld, Germany (wherever that is???), in case anyone lives near there. I'll be back soon (within a couple of days) with some other interesting (non-news) stuff! In the meantime, best wishes to everyone for the new year! Ron :) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca From ron at psymon.com Mon Jan 7 09:16:43 2008 From: ron at psymon.com (Ron Koster) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:16:43 -0500 Subject: [LEN-E] Leni's Silk Stockings Message-ID: <20080107141654.0343E2BD45@mailwash40.pair.com> Hi folks! Over the holidays, I received a rather curious old book (published in Vienna in 1929) that I got off of eBay, called "Das L?sterne Weib: Sexualpsychologie der Begehrenden, Unbefriedigten und Schamlosen Frau" -- to the best of my abilities, I think that translates as "The Lustful Woman: Sexual Psychology of the Desirous, Unsatisfied and Shameless Woman". Perhaps someone can give a better translation (if there is one)? I'm not sure about the difference between "Weib" and "Frau", for one thing -- they both seem to translate as "Woman". Unfortunately my German isn't good enough to really read it, but I think the title(!) speaks for itself, and the book is *full* of rather bawdy (and often quite titillating) artistic depictions of women (drawings, paintings, etc., in addition to photographs) on almost every page, plus numerous "tipped-in" plates on heavy card stock. I'm sure that the book in all likelihood takes a very early psychoanalytic (Freudian) -- perhaps even somewhat misogynistic -- approach to examining this supposed "phenomenon" (no doubt influenced by the decadence that was prevalent in Berlin and other larger cosmopolitan areas of Europe during that period), but what spurred me to get it was that the seller described the book as including a photograph of Leni (although he didn't include a scan of the pic in his auction description), and I was naturally only quite curious what-on-earth she would be doing in a book of that nature. So I got the book, and sure enough, I quite easily managed to find the photograph in question. It is, indeed, almost instantly recognizable as a photograph of Leni, although I can find no specific mention of her name anywhere in the text. The caption to the photograph reads "Die Seidenstr?mpfe" ("Silk Stockings"), and is located in a lengthy chapter entitled "Die Begehrende Frau" ("The Desirous Woman"???). What makes this photo even more interesting -- in addition to the fact that I've never seen this photo, or any particularly similar photo, anywhere else before -- is that although the book was published in 1929, this is clearly a much earlier shot of her, probably from somewhere around 1920-22 or so, I would guess. Check it out yourself... http://www.riefenstahl.org/downloads/pics/DasLuesterneWeib.zip ...(about 1.2 megs). In that zip file you'll find relatively hi-res scans of the frontispiece/title page (with the former giving one a pretty good idea of what most of the artwork presented in the book is like), plus the copyright notice (from the verso of the title page), and a scan of page 113, which has the photo of (supposedly) Leni. Apart from just wanting to share this with you all, I guess my question is: what do *you* think? We discussed a couple of months ago about Steven Bach's conclusions regarding his "proof" (via frame enlargements) that Leni was in Wege, but it would certainly seem that he sees her where he does because -- one can only assume -- he *wants* to see her where he does (when it's obviously not her). I'd hate to be doing the same thing myself (as, apparently, the seller of this book did as well), that is, seeing Leni in this photo because I "want" to see her in it. However, when I look at that pic, it's very distinctly an immediately recognizable early photo of her from her earlier dancing years (definitely not later, and certainly by no possibility as late as 1929, when the book was published) -- but that's not to say, of course, that she didn't have a "twin" out there somewhere. ;) Anyway, there you go -- I'm quite curious, naturally, what others think! Ron :) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca From josechan1 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 21:53:39 2008 From: josechan1 at yahoo.com (josechan1 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [LEN-E] Leni's Silk Stockings Message-ID: <332171.19276.qm@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Ron, greetings from cold Boston! I think it wicked looks like Leni! ....great find! Cheers! Jose ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From easternwindow at freenet.de Tue Jan 8 07:04:28 2008 From: easternwindow at freenet.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_K=F6hler?=) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:04:28 +0100 Subject: [LEN-E] Leni's Silk Stockings In-Reply-To: <20080107141654.0343E2BD45@mailwash40.pair.com> References: <20080107141654.0343E2BD45@mailwash40.pair.com> Message-ID: <478366CC.9050903@freenet.de> Hi Ron, most fascinating! I also think it might well be Leni, and she looks most titillating. In any case, I think it's much likelier that this is indeed Leni than the gril in the excerpts from "Wege". Great find! Best Thomas > From ron at psymon.com Wed Jan 9 09:01:43 2008 From: ron at psymon.com (Ron Koster) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:01:43 -0500 Subject: [LEN-E] Leni's Silk Stockings In-Reply-To: <478366CC.9050903@freenet.de> References: <20080107141654.0343E2BD45@mailwash40.pair.com> <478366CC.9050903@freenet.de> Message-ID: <20080109140209.802282BD1A@mailwash40.pair.com> Hi Jose, Thomas, and everyone! Thanks for... well, confirmation! I'm glad it's not just me that thinks it's Leni in that pic. ;) And, indeed, it was a great find -- but I have the seller to thank for that, of course, because he's the one who apparently recognized Leni in that photo. That's surprising, actually -- I mean, I can understand that most of us, here, would recognize that it was her, but for the "average" person it would probably just look like one more photo of an anonymous woman, amongst dozens and dozens of other photos (and artwork) of other anonymous women in that book. Apart from that, it is nice to have yet another early photo of Leni (especially one that's quite unlike anything else I've ever seen, anywhere else, before), although this particular one is quite the mystery! With the book having been published in 1929 (when Leni was well-established and well-known as a "movie star"), it's very strange for such an early pic of her to show up there, especially without any caption or anything indicating that it's her. Well, I can only suppose we'll never know -- very curious indeed, though! Ron :) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca From ron at psymon.com Tue Jan 22 10:19:11 2008 From: ron at psymon.com (Ron Koster) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:19:11 -0500 Subject: [LEN-E] Learning To Love Leni Riefenstahl Message-ID: <20080122152029.AB3992BCDD@mailwash40.pair.com> Luc pointed out an article to me (off-list) which is well worth reading... http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=359_0_4_0_C The author (Slavoj Zizek, who I understand is well known in Europe for some of his other work) makes some rather interesting and provocative points which I'm sure would only invite debate -- as proven, in fact, by the various reader comments after the article (also worth reading). What I do find quite interesting myself about this article, beyond the subject matter at hand (Leni), is what it teaches us -- by example -- about ourselves. Zizek makes the point that to judge (and dismiss) Leni's films as being "fascist", etc. is an oversimplification and betrays little more than our own ignorance -- and then the various readers of this article (those who comment, at least) dutifully fulfil and confirm Zizek's observation. On the one hand we have those readers who condemn Leni (and Zizek) with comments like "I could never 'learn to love' someone who made NAZI PROPAGANDA" (with that being essentially the entirety of their reasons for feeling that way) and on the other hand we have other readers/commentators who express a far more diligent and insightful understanding of Leni Riefenstahl, her films, the context of those times in which those films were made, and not only what it all teaches us about her, but about ourselves in our own times -- and these latter people invariably are all able to view Leni Riefenstahl in a far more sympathetic and favourable light. Thus, it would certainly seem that this article -- and the different reactions to it -- illustrate by perfect example how "hatred" has it's roots in nothing more than ignorance and presumption. Whether the object of that hatred is Leni Riefenstahl as an individual, or of blacks or Jews or Muslims or "infidels", or anyone/anything else, the supposed evil that is projected onto that "other" is actually just a reflection of ourselves. Through our own ignorance, that "other" essentially remains a blank slate, and as a blank slate it effectively becomes a mirror, so what is seen in that other is, in fact, actually a projection of what is inside *us*, not in them. And how often have we seen this, over and over again in history, even just relatively recent history! Whether it was with the Nazis against the Jews, the war in Vietnam, the genocide of Rwanda, or the events of 9/11, in virtually all these cases (and so many more), the aggressors' motivations all begin with "They intend to so such-and-such to us, and so we must destroy them before they do" -- and thus the evil that is projected onto that "other" is really only a "self"-observation, and, indeed, "self"-confession of what is inside the accuser's own soul, which they inevitably then manifest into reality as a badge of stupidity for all the world to see. But alas, I digress (from the list topic of Leni)... Ron ;) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca From easternwindow at freenet.de Wed Jan 23 11:22:36 2008 From: easternwindow at freenet.de (=?windows-1252?Q?Thomas_K=F6hler?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:22:36 +0100 Subject: [LEN-E] Learning To Love Leni Riefenstahl In-Reply-To: <20080122152029.AB3992BCDD@mailwash40.pair.com> References: <20080122152029.AB3992BCDD@mailwash40.pair.com> Message-ID: <479769CC.4050401@freenet.de> Hi Ron, this is a very interesting article indeed. Much as I sympathize with the author's point of view in general, there are nevertheless some points with which I can't really agree. And please excuse that this is a VERY long post :-) Let me comment on some passages: >Is not what she encountered down there her ultimate object, the obscene and irresistibly thriving eternal force of life itself, what she was searching for all along? And does this not apply also to her personality? This is a very good observation that does immediately make sense to me, as far as it concerns her films. This tendency started already with Fanck's "Der Heilige Berg", I'd say. Curiously, the manuscript for that film was expressedly written for her by Fanck, so I wonder whether he he had sensed that 'searching for the life force' in her from the beginning? However much the search for this 'eternal force' is expressed in her art, I find it generally problematic to apply this to her real-life personality so quickly. She was a clever and very determined woman in her personal relations it seems, and certainly not a mystic. >Is Junta, the lone and wild mountain girl, not an outcast who almost becomes the victim of a pogrom?there is no other appropriate word?by the villagers? (Perhaps it is not an accident that B?la Bal?zs, Leni?s lover at that time who co-wrote the scenario with her, was a Marxist.) Ahm.... I may have simply forgotten about this, but was Balazs actually her LOVER? That would explain better why she tried to keep his work on the film secret in later years. The thing about the 'pogrom' in "Das Blaue Licht" seems to make sense, but is nevertheless a short circuit, as you could easily reverse the argument: the Nazis could easily have said that the villagers represent just the greedy mass (or in their language: the Jews) who do not care for the holy aesthetic and spiritual 'German' values represented by Junta. I generally think the film can only be understood in the context of German Romanticism, and thus any likening of the story to the later events in Germany seems far-fetched and somewhat inappropriate to me, even if it's intended as a defense. Further, the comparison to Sch?nberg is interesting. It might prove that artists aren't always the best democrats or possess buddhist equanimity, but somehow I have the feeling that the author brings up Sch?nberg (without mentioning it) because he was Jewish. But it's indeed a difference whether you talk about "degenerated" art or "degenerated" people. Sch?nberg's "Harmonielehre" is an aesthetic manifesto, nothing more. Provocation is part of it, and even if he used similar terms as the Nazis later did, I find his rhethoric far less offensive because of the different context. About the parades etc.: >It was Nazism that stole them and appropriated them from the workers? movement, their original site of birth. I seriously doubt that. First of all, Mussolini's Italy was roughly at the same time as Lenin's Russia, and one wonders which movement actually originated them, if any of them.. But likely they go far more back into history. Organized masses etc. could be found in Frederick's Prussia in probably much a similar way, and if you want to, you might go back to ancient Sparta. The phenomenon has little to do with the workers' movement. They "ex-apted" it, too, I would assume. >There is no fascism avant la lettre, because it is the letter itself that composes the bundle (or, in Italian, fascio) of elements that is fascism proper. This is only true if you understand the term as specific polito-social conglomerate. There are descriptions of 'fascism' as a state of mind very early. Although seriously flawed in many ways, one of the best analyses of that state of mind and its possible origins for me is still Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism". And that wasn't written with 'hindsight', but already in 1935. > When we say that the organized spectacle of thousands of bodies (or, say, the admiration of sports that demand high effort and self-control like mountain climbing) is ?proto-fascist,? we say strictly nothing, we just express a vague association that masks our ignorance. There IS a very big difference between the 'organized spectacle of bodies' as in the parades in Russia or Germany and the body exertion and effort in sports. The sportsmen decide for themselves to undergo this training, to make the mental and physical effort (much as a virtuoso instrumentalist), whereas those who (have to) partake in the parades are forced to do so by those in control. And that's a completely different thing. >Why should her case be different from that of Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats, and other modernists with fascist tendencies who long ago became part of our artistic canon? Easy. While Pound was certainly a supporter of Mussolini, little of it is apparent in his works, and that little wouldn't have any mass appeal because of the specific high modernist/experimental way in which his work is written. Yeats briefly flirted with some Anglo-Irish fascist group in the 30s, but despite of his elitist stance, soon saw that he wasn't in the right company. He wrote a few 'popular' poems for that group at the time, and they are clearly the worst he ever wrote (I might say that because Yeats is actually my favorite poet and I know his work very well). Zizek might have even thrown in a firmly conservative modernist like Ernst J?nger as another example, but even in J?nger the tendency to aestheticize and mythologize war isn't congruent with his real-life stance towards fascism: though especially Germans tend to lump him in with the Nazis, he was actually against them (for political, philosophical and aesthetic reasons) and at the end of the war was in the vicinity of the Stauffenberg group. So, all in all, I think the case with Leni is much more complex and sadly also more problematic, and it doesn't much help if the author brings up those many examples of other modernists that superficially are similar. They are not. There's no need and little possibility in my view to try to 'whitewash' Leni as a person. There's only a need to regard her work on its own terms, as art. Best Thomas > From ron at psymon.com Wed Jan 23 14:28:17 2008 From: ron at psymon.com (Ron Koster) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:28:17 -0500 Subject: [LEN-E] Learning To Love Leni Riefenstahl In-Reply-To: <479769CC.4050401@freenet.de> References: <20080122152029.AB3992BCDD@mailwash40.pair.com> <479769CC.4050401@freenet.de> Message-ID: <20080123192817.5D6382BD15@mailwash40.pair.com> At 05:22 PM 1/23/2008 +0100, Thomas K?hler wrote: >And please excuse that this is a VERY long post :-) No problem! Wow, Thomas, your critique of Zizek is even better than his critique of Leni! ;) In that regard, although I did read your response with great interest, I can't really comment myself on everything you wrote because I know nothing (or very little) about all those authors, etc. that were mentioned -- in reading Zizek's article (and, by extension, your response) I confess that I'm largely an "ignorant observer". :/ So much is just simply beyond my education, basically, but I'll comment on a couple of things that I can... >However much the search for this 'eternal force' >is expressed in her art, I find it generally >problematic to apply this to her real-life >personality so quickly. She was a clever and >very determined woman in her personal relations >it seems, and certainly not a mystic. Oh, I'm not so sure about that! In fact, I would say that I'm quite sure of the opposite, that Leni *was* a mystic -- even if she wouldn't have defined herself as such, even if she didn't even percieve that aspect (and motivation) within herself. Perhaps it's my own interest and inclination in mysticism, but I simply can't help but see what is, to me, the *extremely* obvious mystical aspects of all of her major films -- not the ones by Fanck, I mean (except perhaps Der heilige Berg, which has clearly mystical aspects to it), but her own films. In Das blaue Licht, the entire story revolves around the obsession/compulsion to go to "heights", to go to "the light", to seek out this "intangible" thing-of-wonder (the crystals) even at the risk of one's own life. It's a ridiculously dangerous pursuit for Junta to repeatedly undertake, and the entire premise makes absolutely no sense *except* from the perspective and understanding of mysticism. With Triumph (and to a lesser, not so "polished", extent Sieg -- but hardly at all, really, with Tag) the representations of Hitler and the entire Nazi movement is artistically represented in mystical ways, what with Hitler being photographed in "godly" perspectives, the various rituals involving torches ("purifying fire"), etc. In Olympia, we have the the Olympic athletes of "today" (1936) analogized with the mythical gods of ancient Greece, and with all the varying camera angles (innovative for the time) we, as the audience, are also given a virtual omnipresense (in that we can "see everything, from everywhere") -- indeed, we become the "gods", observing this Olympian competition between mortals (or, even, other gods). And then there's the connection "beyond time and space" between the Germany of today ('36) and classical times. As for Tiefland, well, I personally don't see anything that could really be termed "mystical" in that film, but with Impressionens I certainly do see a return to that (unspoken) theme, if only in her rejoicing in the beauty of "Creation", not to mention her ascending into the "Great White Light" at the end of the film. And once again I'll say that I could easily understand that Leni might not see this mystical aspect in her films herself -- but that is exactly a perfectly normal "symptom", for a mystic (willing or otherwise) to feel "compelled" to seek out (and, as an artist, manifest) the "mysterious", the "ethereal" and "ineffable". The quest for meaning in this life is a driving force within us all (*regardless* of whether we do consciously or subconsciously), and thus we are all mystics, in a sense -- and I dare say that that is *exactly* what attracts us (or repels and frightens us!) with regard to Leni Riefenstahl's films. >Ahm.... I may have simply forgotten about this, >but was Balazs actually her LOVER? That took me by surprise, too. I don't recall hearing anything like that before either, except for perhaps from Steven Bach -- but then, I think Bach takes some perverted enjoyment out of portraying (to the point of ridiculous exaggeration) Leni as having lusted after virtually every man in Germany at the time. ;) Re the parades... >First of all, Mussolini's Italy was roughly at >the same time as Lenin's Russia, and one wonders >which movement actually originated them, if any >of them.. But likely they go far more back into >history. Organized masses etc. could be found in >Frederick's Prussia in probably much a similar >way, and if you want to, you might go back to ancient Sparta. Indeed, one might surmise that they go back to the stone age -- and beyond! -- just as with any group of children walking along together "en masse", or even just a young couple (a "parade of two") walking hand-in-hand. The formal parades we see in Triumph (and elsewhere, to this day) are simply that: a "formalized" display of unity amongst comrades (whether comrades-in-arms, or otherwise). >So, all in all, I think the case with Leni is >much more complex and sadly also more >problematic, and it doesn't much help if the >author brings up those many examples of other >modernists that superficially are similar. They >are not. There's no need and little possibility >in my view to try to 'whitewash' Leni as a >person. There's only a need to regard her work on its own terms, as art. My sentiments exactly. Although I must say that it certainly *is* all the problems and complexities that make her such a fascinating figure of study! I mean, gee, if -- hypothetically -- we knew that she had been "just an evil Nazi", well, how boring that would be for us, without that mystery/mysteriousness! (Or should I say mysticism???) Ron ;) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca From luc.deneulin at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 14:43:28 2008 From: luc.deneulin at skynet.be (Luc Deneulin) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:43:28 +0100 Subject: [LEN-E] Zizek, Thomas & Das blaue Licht Message-ID: <5AC73EE2-DE10-41F3-85B9-82ABA436D650@skynet.be> Hi As far as Das blaue concerns, however, I must say that 1. the story is based on a book of a Swiss writer 2. Riefenstahl presented to Bela Balazs a sheet or two with the story on it, telling it was her own (she has given different accounts of the origin: a dream, one of her dances, etc) and he and Carl Mayer wrote the script. She was very fair about tthe fact that Balazs and Mayer wrote the script in her Kampf in Schnee iund Eis, 3. Balazs is indeed often mentioned as the co-script person, he was in fact the co-director. Riefenstahl admitted that in 1932, denied it as from 1933 and admitted it again as from 2001 on her site. 4. Harry Sokal co-produced the film. I think Zizek has seen the 1952 version of the film, with the falsified credits. Kind regards Luc Luc Deneulin luc.deneulin at skynet.be From easternwindow at freenet.de Thu Jan 24 08:33:32 2008 From: easternwindow at freenet.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_K=F6hler?=) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:33:32 +0100 Subject: [LEN-E] Learning To Love Leni Riefenstahl In-Reply-To: <20080123192817.5D6382BD15@mailwash40.pair.com> References: <20080122152029.AB3992BCDD@mailwash40.pair.com> <479769CC.4050401@freenet.de> <20080123192817.5D6382BD15@mailwash40.pair.com> Message-ID: <479893AC.1090607@freenet.de> Hi Ron, as always, thanks for your spirited response. I don't think we disagree too much about Leni's 'mysticism', because you wrote: > Oh, I'm not so sure about that! In fact, I would say that I'm quite sure of the opposite, that Leni *was* a mystic -- even if she wouldn't have defined herself as such, even if she didn't even percieve that aspect (and motivation) within herself. That's basically what I had in mind when I said that there is a difference between the obvious mysticism as expressed in her art and the real-life person. Indeed Junta's behaviour and motivations are those of a 'mystic' or someone inclined to mysticism, someone at least searching for that experience. I also think that the Nazi movement is represented in a mystical or 'mythical' light, though one must be aware that for instance the torches you mention were part of the whole stageing by Speer and others, not something that Leni came up with to underline her special interest in mysticism. But of course it was something that was very useful to her in representing the rally in the way she obviously preferred. > And then there's the connection "beyond time and space" between the Germany of today ('36) and classical times. True, that might be interpreted in the sense of the mythical idea of time moving not in a linear, but in a cyclical way. But let's not forget that this also has a political stance, the idea that the Germany of Hitler was intended to be 'a new start' for culture, a parallel to the idea that European culture began with the Greeks. > And once again I'll say that I could easily understand that Leni might not see this mystical aspect in her films herself -- but that is exactly a perfectly normal "symptom", for a mystic (willing or otherwise) to feel "compelled" to seek out (and, as an artist, manifest) the "mysterious", the "ethereal" and "ineffable". The quest for meaning in this life is a driving force within us all (*regardless* of whether we do consciously or subconsciously), and thus we are all mystics, in a sense -- and I dare say that that is *exactly* what attracts us (or repels and frightens us!) with regard to Leni Riefenstahl's films. I certainly agree with that, if you define the term 'mystic/al' in such broad terms. When I said that Leni wasn't a mystic in real life I had in mind exactly what you wrote: that she perhaps didn't see this aspect completely consciously in her films (although I generally believe that an artist actually KNOWS what he or she is doing), and that to my knowledge she didn't actually practice any sort of spiritual techniques like meditation and so on in her life. Though you could argue that dancing and diving can have the same effect. >, if -- hypothetically -- we knew that she had been "just an evil Nazi", well, how boring that would be for us, without that mystery/mysteriousness! Well, if we knew that she had been a democrat and an entirely philanthropic person it would be boring as well without the mysticism :-) For me it's the works that fascinate me in an artist. I'm simply not very much inclined to ' pop star fandom'. Otherwise I'd be on a Madonna forum :-) Best Thomas >