Watching "Olympia: Festival of Nations", Leni Riefenstahl's documentary of Berlin's Olympic Games, I was amazed at how the world changed in 80 years but not much for sport. But had sport changed much from the Antiquity to the 20th century? Sport is one of these elements of timeless and universal appeal that best characterizes humanity, and Leni Riefenstahl understood before any other director that motion pictures were the best vehicle for the extraordinary thrills and emotions sports provided.
Thrills, emotions
so many inspirational words immediately tarnished when put in Leni Riefenstahl's framework. The pioneer director had already proved her utility to the Third Reich by making "Triumph of the Will", and the film was no less loaded in 'thrills and emotions', so when we put our hands in something as historically loaded as the two-parter "Olympia", we're never sure we won't get a few fingers dirty. It is its misfortune to have its reputation soiled by the infamous predecessor.
Now, is "Olympia" a propaganda film? No and Yes. It is not propaganda because the film fulfills its basic mission as a documentary, which is documenting. "Triumph of the Will" was more of a glorification of the Third Reich and the exhilaration of the communion with the people. I can hear the counter-argument already: but so did "Olympia" by exalting the beauty and strength of the human body and the popularity of sports on a scale even superior to the Nuremberg conference. Yes, but we've just went through a European cup and the Olympic Games of Rio: aren't we seeking the same enthusiasms than the crowds cheering in Berlin's stadium in 1936?
This disturbing question touches the very essence of sport, as a mass entertainment translating the antagonism between people from the brutality of war to the peaceful nobility of competition. The Olympic Games are a sublime heritage of the Ancient World, a period of truce where athletes could fight with the same chances. That's the essence of sport, it can be brutal but it's always a fair play. Yet are we cheering for these values or because our team or our country won? Weren't the spectators of 1936 as joyful as the people in Rio? And who can predict our reaction if a worldwide conflict started in 2019?
So, maybe "Olympia" IS a propaganda film, but just as any film that tries to stir some specific emotions can be perceived as propaganda, just like "Chariots of Fire" or "Saving Private Ryan" or "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial". I recently read in an article that compared the opening of "The Lion King" to "Triumph of the Will", I never thought about it, but I can see the similarities. Any film that aims to arouse a specific set of emotions to a wide audience can be propaganda, but only in the name of common sense, we'll never compare the moment with Rafiki raising Simba to Hitler's arrival in Nuremberg. In the name of the same common sense, we can't blame "Olympia" for inspiring emotions we all respond positively to.
"Olympia" opens with ruins, the remains of the Antique Age, destroyed and devoid of human presences, as to emphasize their coming resurrection, from the statues to the athletes. We're not fooled of course, but the magic of the camera and the photography is so breathtaking that the eyes precede the mind. The statues become the embodiment of a vision of the human body that doesn't necessarily imply the Aryan race. The use of lighting and shadows makes all the athletes look oddly neutral, closer to the Mediterranean type actually. And then we get to the magnificent ellipse, the resurrection, from the iconic statue of the discus thrower to a real athlete who executes the movement as if he was animated by a genetic symphony, inherited from the Antique age.
This is not a political film; this is a hymn to sport. And halfway through the opening ballet, there's a tall naked woman executing a magnificent luscious dance, and this is Leni Riefenstahl, doing more than a simple cameo, being part of this adventure as a former athlete and dancer. This is not the work of a propagandist, but a woman who knows the value of sport, not about the Olympic Games, not even about the Nations, but their athletes whose paradoxical nature is to represent countries while transcending the cultural barriers, being different but similar, universal is the word. What a strike of luck that she couldn't film the original flame moment because the running and the excitement made it impossible to have a cinematic shot, so she had to reinvent the scene and came up with one of the most memorable opening sequences of cinema's history. The Gods of Sports were behind her.
And all the directing talent of the world couldn't affect the results, so after the iconic opening, we get to the sporting events and Riefenstahl couldn't cheat and pretend Jessie Owens didn't win, and we've got enough of Owens not to label the film as propaganda. And while Hitler's present, his screen time is limited and he's only shown as the leader of the country that organized the games, but the movie is far from putting him on a pedestal, again, the hero is the athlete, the modern gladiator, and the fans of supporting countries from all over the world: America, England, Canada, Japan, Turkey, all acting as if no war would happen three years later, like normal people, joking, enjoying their time.
Maybe the best response against the propaganda allegation is that Riefenstahl couldn't paint a more flattering portrait of the Aryan athletes even if she wanted to. The very universal essence of sports is that the best one wins the game, with a fair play. And this is the antithesis of all the values the Nazis stood for, as Hitler wasn't much a fan of the games anyway. "Olympia" couldn't, by essence, be a propaganda movie.
