Ray Mueller’s film, "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl," is a film in which he allows Riefenstahl to talk about her life as she remembers it. At the same time he provides evidence that proves that she is not exactly what she claims to be. He promises us a film without preconceptions, and by preconceptions I think he means bias, and that is what he delivers.

Does "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" qualify as documentary film, or is it closer to a biography or an almost autobiographical vehicle providing Riefenstahl the opportunity to rewrite her place in the history books? I came into class having only vaguely heard of Leni Riefenstahl and completely unaware of whom she was and is. I believe that I also viewed the film without preconceptions. I viewed part two of the film first. In the second half of the film Riefenstahl talks more about the positive aspects of her life and faces few challenges from the director as to the veracity of her story. There was also an emphasis on her work in Africa and the book "The Last of the Nuba," as well as quite a bit on her underwater photography. My impression of the second part of the film led me to consider that perhaps Riefenstahl had been what she claims she was - a naïve filmmaker who just happened to associate with the wrong people. Having no experience with film and not much with art, the idea that her work could all related by something called the "fascist aesthetic" seemed absurd to me. What could possibly be the link between Nazis marching in uniform, Hitler giving an animated speech, and photographs of a tribe in Africa? Had anyone else taken those photographs of the Nuba, there would have been nothing but rave reviews and praise. But Leni Riefenstahl is not anyone else. Ray Mueller’s film helps us understand Susan Sontag’s allegation of a "fascist aesthetic" thread in all of her work.

Ray Mueller’s film presents an image of Leni Riefenstahl that is quite ambivalent. I am not really sure that we can call it a documentary. From the beginning we know that he had to acquiesce to some of Riefenstahl’s preconditions for doing the interviews. According to Jonathan Rosenbaum in a review of the film for the Chicago Reader, Riefenstahl demanded and got veto power over who would be interviewed for the film. This in itself has to affect the general credibility of the film as a documentary. At times, it seems that Riefenstahl is also striving to take over the direction of the film. It makes one wonder who is really in charge of the shooting. In a sense, this also supports her assertion that she was only interested in making films the best she could make them without regard to ideology. At ninety, she is still preoccupied with light and camera angles.

Riefenstahl is often allowed to present her side of her life story without being confronted directly with evidence that suggests facts contrary to her memory. The few times that she is challenged or contradicted, she gets angry and looks as though she is just short of terminating the interview. I can imagine why Mueller decided to handle some of the points of contention more delicately - in the editing room. By using editing techniques first credited to Riefenstahl, Mueller cleverly cuts to the names of the concentration camp prisoners just after Riefenstahl’s denial that she used them as extras in her film "Tiefland." He was able make a stronger statement than he could have by throwing the list in her face. Besides, I think that Mueller had to genuinely worry about getting the ninety-year-old Riefenstahl overexcited, lest he not be able to complete his film.

For the viewer, Leni Riefenstahl’s life begins when she is in her twenties. We see that she is a successful dancer who broke into the movies when she injured her knee. Riefenstahl’s movies were adventurous and apparently very challenging and dangerous to make. Danger and adventure seem to be themes that permeate her life. We see it in her mountain movies as she describes the danger and adventure involved in climbing the shear face of the mountain. We can it see in her association with the 3^rd Reich, her work with the Nuba, and her diving adventures. As Hitler was rising to power, many of the German filmmakers emigrated. As she tells it, her friends instructed her to stay and be a bulwark against anti-Semitism. Her resolve must have collapsed very quickly.

She was asked by Hitler to make a film about the 1933 Party Congress. At that time she was an admirer of Hitler and agreed. She seems to have been frustrated in her efforts by Goebels and the Nazi Party and turned out what was in her opinion little more than newsreel footage. That she was not able to make the film she wanted to make seemed to have upset her greatly. She claimed to have told Hitler she wouldn’t make anything else for the Nazis. If she did, it seems that her refusal was based on control of the filming environment rather than Nazi ideology. Hitler insisted that she make a documentary of the 1934 Party Congress. That resulted in "Triumph of the Will." That is really where her story begins.

There are many discrepancies in her account of the role she played in the making of the "Triumph of the Will." Apparently these discrepancies are significant enough to affect her role in history. The answer to these questions may determine whether she was a collaborator, a sympathizer, or an ambitious film director without a conscious. She claims to have reluctantly made this film and to have had no part in the planning or organization of the party congress. Mueller doesn’t really challenge her, but he does draw her into a conversation about the filming and editing techniques. It appears from her approach to the film and film in general, that every shot is planned and tested for the best effect. Given her approach – and her anger at not being able to properly prepare for the 1933 Party Congress, it would seem that she probably did have a role in planning the event. Furthermore, her contention that it was a documentary simply because there was no narration is laughable. When asked if the film had a message, Riefenstahl said the message of the film is "job creation and peace."

Her relationship with Goebels is also controversial. She claims that Goebels and she were almost enemies. When confronted with evidence from Goebel’s diary that he was on friendly terms with her or at the very least an admirer, she said he was either living in a fantasy or it was an outright lie.

The original title of the Ray Mueller’s documentary, it seems to me, makes it apparent that Leni Riefenstahl’s films for Hitler were propaganda films. The title "Die Macht der Bilder," or "Leni Riefenstahl: The Power of Images" subtly conveys the message that Leni Riefenstahl was a master manipulator. Perhaps Mueller has made a balanced film after all.

In the end we have to ask the question, "Just what to we believe to be the truth about Leni Riefenstahl?" I have to believe she knew what was going on and was not concerned enough to even refuse to be associated with it. Reading the book "Mein Kampf" and making notes in the margin such as "Good" for Hitler’s economic policies, and "Bad" for his race policies, and then supporting Hitler because she didn’t really think that was an important part of his platform, is too naïve to be believable. That is comparable to supporting David Dukes, the ex-grand master of a white supremacist group, just because his policies promote jobs.

Leni Riefenstahl has certainly led an interesting life. Was it wonderful or was it horrible? Should she be remembered any differently that D.W Griffith, the producer of "Birth of a Nation?" He romanticized the Ku Klux Klan and the Directors Guild of America’s highest honor is named after him. Perhaps there should be a "Reifenstahl" awarded to propaganda filmmakers who work for the sake of art and see the message of their films as irrelevant.

Society has already judged Leni Riefenstahl once and probably made a fair assessment of her involvement in the Nazi rise to power. The Ray Mueller film reminds us of who Leni Reifenstahl was. In the end, I would have to say that it works as a documentary because it doesn’t make a judgement about Riefenstahl; it simply lays the facts out on the table and allows us to weigh them.