MONTAGE / REVIEWS / LINKS / FAVORITES

Olympia: Is it worthy art? An e-mail debate

The following is an e-mail exchange between Christopher Null, editor-in-chief of www.filmcritic.com, and myself concerning the technical merits of Leni Riefenstahl's 1938 documentary Olympia. Both Christopher and I wrote positive reviews of Kon Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad recently released on DVD from Criterion Collection. We both acknowledge that the two films are similar for obvious reasons but the agreement stops there. I think Olympia is brilliant while Null thinks it is overrated. (Please note that we didn't get into the worthy debate espoused by such critics as Susan Sontag who insist it should be dismissed as Nazi art).

The last sentence of the first paragraph of Chrisopher Null's Tokyo Olympiad review reads: "I have never been able to stand Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia, about the 1936 Games in Berlin, which is interminably dull, less compelling than an episode of 'The Wide World of Sports', and simply not even technically interesting as filmmaking." I then fired Chris off an email and the debate began. From: Matt Langdon Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:21 PM To: Christopher Null Subject: Tokyo Olympiad Soap Box time: I’m reviewing the Tokyo Olympiad DVD now and agree Criterion has done a good job. But I have to take issue with your views on Riefenstahl’s Olympiad. You write that it is, “simply not even technically interesting as filmmaking.” Whoa! Opinions and facts are two different things. The real fact is that YOU don’t find it technically interesting. But you inflate your opinion to a fact. There is no question, to anyone who has seen her film, that it is frequently technically spectacular: The word technically being the operative word there. The footage she got and the editing she did from a technical stand point is damn good even though it may not be to your liking. But unless you were a cinematographer and felt that her shots were out of focus, amateurish or badly lit then you can’t really say it is technically uninteresting. It’s okay to say you can’t stand it. After all it has been called a Fascist piece of work. You too could say the film falters because it uses slow motion too often. Or that her fascination with the human body becomes tiresome after a while. Or, 'gee I hate black and white cinematography' -  but all of these are opinions predicated upon facts. I guess my question to you is why don’t you find it technically interesting? Nothing personal, just thought I’d throw in my two cents. Matt

From: Christopher Null Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:48 PM To: Matt Langdon Subject: RE: Tokyo Olympiad Matt, First off, anything stated in a film review should be filtered through the lens of subjectivity.  When I say "Keanu Reeves can't act," obviously I mean that "I feel Keanu Reeves can't act."  I'm not about to start every sentence of every review with "I think" or "I feel" or "In my humble opinion... please feel free to disagree with me!"  Yes, opinions and facts are two different things.  If you are looking for facts, you really shouldn't read movie reviews.

Second, you made me laugh by contradicting your own statement only two sentences earlier by saying, "There is no question, to anyone who has seen her film, that it is frequently technically spectacular."  Now your statement is fact and mine is not?  How does that work!?  It's obviously a question of taste and a matter of opinion as to the technical spectacularness of Olympia.  I personally feel it is of the same caliber of cinema as (alternately) the Golf Network and Clash of the Titans.  No one has every explained to me why exactly Olympia is such a landmark achievement.  It is overrated pap.  Perhaps I should put that in my review. Third, I don't think I can explain precisely why it is uninteresting to watch but I'll try.  I'm not a big fan of performance art, and all the nonsensical flexing and posing at the beginning of Part 1, while it has curious lighting, is hardly worth watching either for entertainment or for technical value.  Riefenstahl's endless succession of track and field events captured in Part 2 are not particularly interesting or pioneering either.  It's 'Wide World of Sports' in black and white.  Where is the mastery in training a camera on a 100-meter dash?  Is there any particularly inventive camerawork here?  I don't think so, and it certainly doesn't have the nuance of Tokyo Olympiad.  In other words: Not technically interesting.  That said, the Hitler connection doesn't really concern me either.  You'd have to be a cad to hate Riefenstahl just because she had the misfortune of being German in 1936. But in the end, I'd like to hear someone explain why they think Olympia is so great.  (And if you've actually sat through this nightmare more than once because you really have a good time watching it, we're waiting for your call.  Leni, you don't count.)  For example: If I say "That painting is ugly" and you say "No, it's beautiful," I would think the person stepping up with "beautful" would need to back his statement up more than the guy going with "ugly." And I'm going with "ugly." Yours, CN

From: Matt Langdon Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 12:31 PM To: Christopher Null Subject: RE: Tokyo Olympiad Christopher True, you need not start a sentence with ‘I think’ for every single opinion. But when you claim a particular film is ‘simply not even technically interesting as filmmaking’ you’re making a definitive statement that – to me - goes beyond a simple opinion. If you said Ed Wood’s films are not technically interesting then I’d be willing to agree with you.

And that’s the main point at which we seem to differ. Again my problem with your statement is that you slam Olympia from a technical point of view when, in fact, that shouldn’t be in question. It is a fact that the film is frequently technically spectacular. That doesn’t mean you have to like it. Take for instance Star Wars Attack of the Clones. It is a fact that that film is frequently spectacular. But the film still sucks. You can say Olympia sucks but if you knock it from a technical standpoint you’re barking up the wrong tree. Riefenstahl's compositions, her editing rhythms, her use of angles, and music are frequently technically spectacular. To say that it is of, 'the same caliber of cinema as the 'Golf Network’ is exceptionally untrue. That would be like me saying Blade Runner is no better than the weather channel or Star Wars is no better than the Astronomy Network. Maybe you need to watch the film again. Now, as I said, that doesn’t mean you have to like the film. You just need to be more specific about what you don’t like. So you can say, ‘this film has some occasional technical merits but I’d rather watch the Golf Network.” In that type of statement you would be stating a preference but not making an erroneous direct comparison. Critic David Thompson says the film is, ‘prolix, arty and pretensions.’ A silly opinion coming from man who described Orson Welles’ voice as sounding like chocolate pudding, but I digress, that is his opinion and he is entitled to that. But he doesn’t knock the achievement of the technical merit. He just says it is overdone. You write: Where is the mastery in training a camera on a 100-meter dash?  Is there any particularly inventive camerawork here?  Answer: Yes! She built a tracking devise with a camera attached to it. No one had ever done that before. Doesn’t that qualify as inventive? Regarding the technical feat this film accomplished Hyde Flippo writes: 'Three different types of black-and-white film stock–Agfa (architectural shots), Kodak (portraits), Perutz (fields, grass)–were used to shoot over 1.3 million feet of film (400,000 meters, over 248 miles). In the process, Riefenstahl invented or enhanced many of the sports photography techniques we now take for granted: slow motion, underwater diving shots, extremely high (from towers) and low shooting angles (from pits which she dug herself), panoramic aerial shots, and tracking systems for following fast action.’

What’s more Riefenstahl had over 60 cinematographers and -- besides the aforementioned paragraph -- her team floated cameras out on rafts and even rigged balloons on to some of them to have them fly over the stadium. More amazing she developed a camera that could go into the water to film divers going into the water: A feat that NBC (or modern television) didn’t use until the 1990’s. Also notable is her use of slow motion, abstract shots of athletes competing and lyrical editing – which is showcased brilliantly in such events as the diving, the rowing, the fencing and the equestrian events. But more importantly sporting events had never been seen like that before. It was a technical feat.

The fact that you don’t like the ‘performance art’ aspect is fine. That, in fact, is the Fascist part and many have commented upon her over emphasis on mythological Arian looking athletes. (The track events by the way are in part one and the other events are in part two). Now, I’ll concede part one is not as interesting as part two. But it still involved a technical feat. Riefenstahl’s sense of film rhythm too topped (or equaled) every filmmaker of the time. Gerald Mast notes that she was influenced by fellow Germans Walter Ruttmann who’s Berlin: Symphony of a Great City used architecture and compositions to brilliant effect and GW Pabst who used expressionistic lighting techniques in such films as The Love of Jeanne Ney. She was also influenced by the Soviet filmmakers such as Dziga Vertov who’s Man With a Movie Camera used the motion of the human body in an exciting and experimental cinematic way (with fast, slow, forward, backward and upside down shots). Another note: You write, ‘if you are looking for facts, you really shouldn't read movie reviews.’ And my only answer is how then am I supposed to learn about the facts of a film? Should I rely on marketing? I would argue that a film critics’ job is to not only express opinions but to teach the reader something about film or at least the film in question In other words a critic should also be a teacher and an historian. Look, everybody has an opinion but if all I cared about was an opinion then all I’d need to do is run down to the local middle school and ask the kids what they think about Austin Powers. The key is to have an informed opinion. Anyway, I'm going with beautiful, Best, Matt

From: Christopher Null Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:14 PM To: Matt Langdon Subject: RE: Tokyo Olympiad God, you must really like this movie.  While I concede that digging a pit, shooting underwater, tying a camera to a balloon, and using up a million feet of film is unusual and possibly interesting by way of backstory, the vast majority of Olympia, as it is presented on screen, is neither shot from a pit, nor underwater, nor from a balloon.  It is predominantly static shots of people running down the field in non-slow motion.  I do not know anything about a "tracking device" attached to her camera in these shots.  From watching the film it does not look unusual in any way. Anyway, to wrap up this debate let me say that your study of Olympia is clearly far more exhaustive than mine; my comments are based on (the memory of) one viewing which I plan never to repeat.  Just thinking about how plodding, repetitive, and yes, even pretensious that movie is gives me a headache. I'd rather be watching golf.  And I hate golf. CN

From: Matt Langdon Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:27 PM To: 'Christopher Null' Subject: RE: Tokyo Olympiad Christopher Fair enough. I like a good debate and you offered that. You know too that they have pretty cool camera shots to watch the flight of golf balls now. Stay tuned it could get exciting. Anyway, I’ll forward you my Tokyo Olympiad review when it’s up on dvdtalk.com. Happy viewing, Matt Langdon