The Confessions of Winifred Wagner
The Confessions of Winifred Wagner
Winifred Wagner und die Geschichte des Hauses Wahnfried 1914-1975
In this anti-film documentary, Winifred Wagner, the English daughter-in-law of the composer Richard Wagner gives her first interview, 30 years after the war ended (or 30 years after she last decided to speak...). Winifred’s shame and disgust at the Third Reich era melt away and she now feels she is able to speak about the past, even if it is merely to lie. The film’s director and Winifred’s interviewer, Hans-Jurgen Syberberg, is at pains to demonstrate Winifred is an unrepentant Nazi, a supporter of the criminal Hitler regime, a racist liar. His film is truly a portrait of a bitch, but a bitch who is always interesting, even when she touches on her darkest memories. Winifred blames all the anti-semitism of the Third Reich on the Jew-baiter Julius Striecher of Nurnburg, absolves Hitler. Yet Syberberg demonstrates with reference to quotations from historians and ‘experts’ on the Third Reich (Joachin Fest) that Hitler was an unrepentant and vehement anti-semite, a racist and a fanatic. Everything, it could be conjectured, she tells Syberberg, is therefore mendacity. Winifred dismisses the idea that Hitler wished to marry her and therefore to marry into the Wagner clan. A sign of the veracity of this is the fact that Hitler never introduced her to Eva Braun. That’s quite odd, since Hitler was a persistent, regular visitor to Villa Wahnfried, a real Wagner fan as Winifred maintains. Apart from his politics (and Winifred is very careful to separate out Hitler the Wagner fan from Hitler the politician, even Hitler the Nazi) Winifred’s account of Hitler is a glowing testimonial. His manners, behaviour towards her, support of the Bayreuth Festival left an indelible, perfected impression and this may indeed be true, for Hitler was often polite and very supportive towards his inner circle (unlike Stalin, for instance, another tyrant/megalomaniac, but Stalin’s inner circle lived in terror of him, his scattergun, paranoid, homocidal approach). But it is also obvious too that Winifred is a liar, obviously an apologist for Hitler. What is her reaction to Hitler’s bombing of London, England, her home and homeland after all? It was an unfortunate calamity, everyone regretted it, yet Winifred has very little to say about why Hitler and his Generals might be interested in attacking a country infested with fellow Aryans. The Nazi attitude towards England was deeply ambiguous, admiring English manners, English sport, the English aristocracy, probably even English safety razors and English flush toilets. The only motive to attack was therefore envy, it might be conjectured, but is deeply connected with the lately unifying Germany and German history in the post-Bismarck era.
Winifred’s ‘secret’ is probably that she was a traitor to all sides, cleverer than Hitler in that she survived, clever enough to lie to Syberberg, probably not clever or ironic enough to escape the consequences of her past, whatever those consequences might be. She was spared the firing squad or noose by the facts that she was a woman, not a General, but a manager of a cultural institution. By the end of the interview Syberberg’s attempt to contextualize, ironise Winifred’s commentary become wearying. He’s at pains to depict his subject as a liar, but perhaps he condescends to his audience more than he knows. Better perhaps to let the camera run without commentary, allowing Winifred to condemn herself, as she does. Syberberg suffers from a particularly German form of paternalism, treating the audience like children who, he must be certain, won’t leave the film theatre with the wrong impression, and its here, perhaps, that people like Winifred win a certain battle. If Hitler, his henchmen, even dupes like Winifred, are so palpably wrong, why do you point it out over and over again? Don’t you think we can make our own mind’s up? No, is the answer, you must be told what to think, in which context it is appropriate to have those thoughts, and when.
This is, after all, a wildly Hitlerian kind of argument?
Paul Murphy, National Film Theatre, London
Winifred Wagner und die Geschichte des Hauses Wahnfried 1914-1975
In this anti-film documentary, Winifred Wagner, the English daughter-in-law of the composer Richard Wagner gives her first interview, 30 years after the war ended (or 30 years after she last decided to speak...). Winifred’s shame and disgust at the Third Reich era melt away and she now feels she is able to speak about the past, even if it is merely to lie. The film’s director and Winifred’s interviewer, Hans-Jurgen Syberberg, is at pains to demonstrate Winifred is an unrepentant Nazi, a supporter of the criminal Hitler regime, a racist liar. His film is truly a portrait of a bitch, but a bitch who is always interesting, even when she touches on her darkest memories. Winifred blames all the anti-semitism of the Third Reich on the Jew-baiter Julius Striecher of Nurnburg, absolves Hitler. Yet Syberberg demonstrates with reference to quotations from historians and ‘experts’ on the Third Reich (Joachin Fest) that Hitler was an unrepentant and vehement anti-semite, a racist and a fanatic. Everything, it could be conjectured, she tells Syberberg, is therefore mendacity. Winifred dismisses the idea that Hitler wished to marry her and therefore to marry into the Wagner clan. A sign of the veracity of this is the fact that Hitler never introduced her to Eva Braun. That’s quite odd, since Hitler was a persistent, regular visitor to Villa Wahnfried, a real Wagner fan as Winifred maintains. Apart from his politics (and Winifred is very careful to separate out Hitler the Wagner fan from Hitler the politician, even Hitler the Nazi) Winifred’s account of Hitler is a glowing testimonial. His manners, behaviour towards her, support of the Bayreuth Festival left an indelible, perfected impression and this may indeed be true, for Hitler was often polite and very supportive towards his inner circle (unlike Stalin, for instance, another tyrant/megalomaniac, but Stalin’s inner circle lived in terror of him, his scattergun, paranoid, homocidal approach). But it is also obvious too that Winifred is a liar, obviously an apologist for Hitler. What is her reaction to Hitler’s bombing of London, England, her home and homeland after all? It was an unfortunate calamity, everyone regretted it, yet Winifred has very little to say about why Hitler and his Generals might be interested in attacking a country infested with fellow Aryans. The Nazi attitude towards England was deeply ambiguous, admiring English manners, English sport, the English aristocracy, probably even English safety razors and English flush toilets. The only motive to attack was therefore envy, it might be conjectured, but is deeply connected with the lately unifying Germany and German history in the post-Bismarck era.
Winifred’s ‘secret’ is probably that she was a traitor to all sides, cleverer than Hitler in that she survived, clever enough to lie to Syberberg, probably not clever or ironic enough to escape the consequences of her past, whatever those consequences might be. She was spared the firing squad or noose by the facts that she was a woman, not a General, but a manager of a cultural institution. By the end of the interview Syberberg’s attempt to contextualize, ironise Winifred’s commentary become wearying. He’s at pains to depict his subject as a liar, but perhaps he condescends to his audience more than he knows. Better perhaps to let the camera run without commentary, allowing Winifred to condemn herself, as she does. Syberberg suffers from a particularly German form of paternalism, treating the audience like children who, he must be certain, won’t leave the film theatre with the wrong impression, and its here, perhaps, that people like Winifred win a certain battle. If Hitler, his henchmen, even dupes like Winifred, are so palpably wrong, why do you point it out over and over again? Don’t you think we can make our own mind’s up? No, is the answer, you must be told what to think, in which context it is appropriate to have those thoughts, and when.
This is, after all, a wildly Hitlerian kind of argument?
Paul Murphy, National Film Theatre, London
Comments