Die Nibelungen
Die Nibelungen: Siegfried and Kriemhild’s Revenge, (Germany 1924), dir Fritz Lang
Two films by Fritz Lang at the National Film Theatre, London, part of their Wagner season. The first film Siegfried has greater connection to Wagner’s Ring Cycle, drawing upon important elements of the mythic cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen used as source material by Wagner for his music drama. A knowledge of 19th century German art helps when viewing Siegfried especially the work of Arnold Bocklin, which can be seen in Basel and Munich primarily, but also the work of Franz von Lenbach in the Lenbach Haus, Munich. Lang’s architectural use of space, symmetrical compositions and a very carefully arranged mise en scene seem to be derived from the contemporary art deco movement. It is very far removed from Wagner’s vision of The Ring which is of a primeval myth which bizarrely seeks to transmit the truths about Buddhism that Wagner had gleaned from his study of Kant and Schopenhauer. All the protagonists except Hagen are clean shaven, there is a conscious evocation of Medievalism, rather than the world of the Norse myths and sagas. Hagen Tronje, however, is bearded, also wears a ludicrously ostentatious winged helmet, deliberately harking after Viking style. Hagen, who assassinates Siegfried while on a hunt, is perhaps being depicted as an outsider, an un-German but Nordic throwback to some earlier period, objecting to any new blood that happens to enter the court of Burgundy, as Siegfried does by marrying Kriemhild.
The film is an evocation of trust and the ways in which treachery and betrayal eventually backfire on the perpetrators. Trust was a very central notion for Wagner, who always insisted that his art came before all else, abusing the trust of many of those adoring fans who donated their homes and then their wives to his artistic cause. Siegfried, a hero and in many ways a stand in for Wagner, trusts Kriemhild with the secret of his invincibility. But Kriemhild naively entrusts Hagen with another secret: there is a spot on Siegfried’s back where a lime tree leaf protected his skin from the dragon’s blood which rendered him invincible in battle. When Hagen asks Kriemhild about the spot, she replies that she will sew a cross onto Siegfried’s costume where the spot is, making it easier for his friends, not his foes, to recognise it in battle. But Hagen betrays Siegfried and Kriemhild.
The second film Kriemhild’s Revenge is truer to the original source material than it is to Wagner’s opera. Kriemhild escapes from the court of Burgundy and marries King Etzel (Attila) the Hun. She then invites Hagen and the Burgundians to Attila’s castle in Hungary. Hagen kills Attila’s heir and he and the rest of the Burgundians are massacred. Lang’s portrayal of the Huns appears to be abysmally racist. The Huns are clad in traditional Hunnic garb but the Burgundians are clad in Medieval armour and bear Medieval shields. Its not hard to see why Hitler and Goebbels loved this film, because the overwhelming message seems to be that only Germanic discipline, honour, nobility can save Germany from the aggressive expansionism of the nomadic Huns (Bolsheviks). Lang’s depiction of Attila is particularly offensive and abysmal. The same actor who portrays Mime and Alberich (their parts much reduced in scope from Wagner’s Ring) in Siegfried is salvaged for the part of King Etzel (Attila) replete with ridiculous mask. Quite apart from the obvious symbolism, this kind of thing was being much better done in Hollywood at the time. The film was plagued with financial difficulties too, for the film was made in the ‘hunger years’ of the early 20’s in Berlin.
Beyond these anachronisms Kriemhild’s Revenge is an endurance test for the modern viewer, the only motive of any viewer for seeing this film is perhaps just to say that they have. The first film is slower, the connection between character and scene integrated. In many ways Siegfried is very beautiful to watch. Even the special effects seem compelling, for instance the dragon seems all dragon to me. When Siegfried pierces its eye all kind of squidgy, flowing eye matter pours out of the socket, a level of realism akin to the animatronics of Ray Harryhausen.
Paul Murphy, National Film Theatre, London
Two films by Fritz Lang at the National Film Theatre, London, part of their Wagner season. The first film Siegfried has greater connection to Wagner’s Ring Cycle, drawing upon important elements of the mythic cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen used as source material by Wagner for his music drama. A knowledge of 19th century German art helps when viewing Siegfried especially the work of Arnold Bocklin, which can be seen in Basel and Munich primarily, but also the work of Franz von Lenbach in the Lenbach Haus, Munich. Lang’s architectural use of space, symmetrical compositions and a very carefully arranged mise en scene seem to be derived from the contemporary art deco movement. It is very far removed from Wagner’s vision of The Ring which is of a primeval myth which bizarrely seeks to transmit the truths about Buddhism that Wagner had gleaned from his study of Kant and Schopenhauer. All the protagonists except Hagen are clean shaven, there is a conscious evocation of Medievalism, rather than the world of the Norse myths and sagas. Hagen Tronje, however, is bearded, also wears a ludicrously ostentatious winged helmet, deliberately harking after Viking style. Hagen, who assassinates Siegfried while on a hunt, is perhaps being depicted as an outsider, an un-German but Nordic throwback to some earlier period, objecting to any new blood that happens to enter the court of Burgundy, as Siegfried does by marrying Kriemhild.
The film is an evocation of trust and the ways in which treachery and betrayal eventually backfire on the perpetrators. Trust was a very central notion for Wagner, who always insisted that his art came before all else, abusing the trust of many of those adoring fans who donated their homes and then their wives to his artistic cause. Siegfried, a hero and in many ways a stand in for Wagner, trusts Kriemhild with the secret of his invincibility. But Kriemhild naively entrusts Hagen with another secret: there is a spot on Siegfried’s back where a lime tree leaf protected his skin from the dragon’s blood which rendered him invincible in battle. When Hagen asks Kriemhild about the spot, she replies that she will sew a cross onto Siegfried’s costume where the spot is, making it easier for his friends, not his foes, to recognise it in battle. But Hagen betrays Siegfried and Kriemhild.
The second film Kriemhild’s Revenge is truer to the original source material than it is to Wagner’s opera. Kriemhild escapes from the court of Burgundy and marries King Etzel (Attila) the Hun. She then invites Hagen and the Burgundians to Attila’s castle in Hungary. Hagen kills Attila’s heir and he and the rest of the Burgundians are massacred. Lang’s portrayal of the Huns appears to be abysmally racist. The Huns are clad in traditional Hunnic garb but the Burgundians are clad in Medieval armour and bear Medieval shields. Its not hard to see why Hitler and Goebbels loved this film, because the overwhelming message seems to be that only Germanic discipline, honour, nobility can save Germany from the aggressive expansionism of the nomadic Huns (Bolsheviks). Lang’s depiction of Attila is particularly offensive and abysmal. The same actor who portrays Mime and Alberich (their parts much reduced in scope from Wagner’s Ring) in Siegfried is salvaged for the part of King Etzel (Attila) replete with ridiculous mask. Quite apart from the obvious symbolism, this kind of thing was being much better done in Hollywood at the time. The film was plagued with financial difficulties too, for the film was made in the ‘hunger years’ of the early 20’s in Berlin.
Beyond these anachronisms Kriemhild’s Revenge is an endurance test for the modern viewer, the only motive of any viewer for seeing this film is perhaps just to say that they have. The first film is slower, the connection between character and scene integrated. In many ways Siegfried is very beautiful to watch. Even the special effects seem compelling, for instance the dragon seems all dragon to me. When Siegfried pierces its eye all kind of squidgy, flowing eye matter pours out of the socket, a level of realism akin to the animatronics of Ray Harryhausen.
Paul Murphy, National Film Theatre, London
Comments