I have only ever seen one other Fritz Lang film: M.
I think his use of camera angle, close ups, and tone are incredibly
interesting, especially considering the level of technology available at the
time he was working. In the brief time
between the two great world wars, German expressionist films seemed to deal with
a variety of subject matters, though a large amount touched upon the realms of
science fiction, fantasy and horror. Siegfried
certainly falls within this category.
Upon the initial viewing of this film, I honestly saw very little that
was redeeming in the characters, and therefore judged it quite harshly. So after attempting to at least somewhat
humble myself and do a little digging, I was on a better path to understand its
place within the cannon of film history.
Shelley says that what we judge from partial evidence, we judge
partially; which is certainly the case with modern audiences. I honestly wonder if a 2013 audience can
watch a film from 1924, with our understanding of filmatic elements, camera
angles, established concepts of a good story and recognized tenets of good
acting, with fresh eyes. I don’t know if
it’s possible to remove ourselves from our preconceived notion of good and bad.
I think that without research (and how
many are going to actually follow through with that), very few can fully
appreciate the film. We have partial
evidence and likewise, judge it partially.
We begin our examination of the film with its multi-layered,
yet still simplistic plot. Based on a
German epic poem, Siegfried begins with an (almost forging from Mt. Doom-esque
quality of detail) outdoor landscape with cave man-looking black smiths (here I
again see Peter Jackson taking note) and a young Arian’s determination to get
the sword perfect, so that it could slice through a feather. Upon completion, his mentor tells him, “Even
I can teach you no more.” Determined to
leave, now that his apprenticeship is finished, he hears some of the other
black smiths discussing the kingdom of Burgundy and the epitome of ideal
beauty, the princess, Kriemild, wherein Siegfried immediately changes his plans
with the determination to go and seek for this princess and win her hand in
marriage. Now let’s pause here to
discuss the Romantic’s vision of the importance of beauty…
The Romantic era had a huge emphasis on fantasy and romantic
love. They regarded beauty and goodness
as the ideal and the imagination as necessary in attaining that ideal, though
for the true poet, that can never be attained, and therefore melancholy takes
its place of dominance within the realm of poetic thought and interpretation. They also tended to value feelings and
intuition over reason, as well as nature’s goodness and the wisdom of the past
mingled with a new-found purpose in art.
In this time, Poetry helped to see things freshly, new, how things might
be or should be. Significant writers of
the time, Shelley and Poe believed that Poetry is a source of pleasure,
originality of art is important,
Melancholy beauty is ideal, and the aesthetic must be valued
over moral considerations; the effect before the plot. In fact, Poe stated that “pleasure which is
at once the most intense, most elevating, and the most pure, is, I believe,
found in the contemplation of the beautiful. “
Like unto Kriemeld’s tale of beauty and Siegfried’s never-ending quest to
obtain it.
So lets return to that plot for a moment. Siegfried gets tricked into going the wrong
way and encounters a dragon. He chooses
to fight the dragon, stabs out its eye and then into its side. He hears a bird singing and understands “in
the language of the birds” that he must bathe in the blood of that dragon to
become invincible and immortal. His one
place of vulnerability exists because a linden/lime leaf lands on his back; a
small section not touched by the blood of the dragon. The mysticism to which the romantics are so
inclined can further be evidenced in the battle with the king of the dwarves,
the detail in the glowing orbs, and the headdress that makes one invisible or
with the power to change forms. After
getting distracted, our simpleton hero twice defeats the king of the dwarves,
and is bribed with a great treasure, held up on the backs of other dwarfs who
turn to stone as he takes the treasure.
The treasure is then cursed for all those who attempt to possess it. Meanwhile, in Burgundy, we see a courtly
kingdom, complete with the requisite King Gunther who longs for the Queen of
Iceland to help him feel like a man, a variety of knights, his beautiful
(though perhaps somewhat androgynous to today’s modern audiences) sister, and a
minstrel. Kriemild is told of her hero in
song, and love is established between the two before first sight.
Romanticism shifted moral grounds and created a new morality
based on chivalry, harmony with nature, passion and intensity of feeling (See
Brunhild’s refusal to eat and subsequent suicide and Kriemeld’s vow for revenge
as examples.) Within this period and
theory, there was also a human awareness of desire and an understanding that as
humans, and as artists, we are merely a shadow of what we could be or could
attain, even the “Noble savage” is always falling short of pleasure, never can
attain ultimate goal, just as each of our four principal characters will never
attain their goal of ultimate happiness.
Why even the tree of love under which Siegfried and Kriemild share their
sentiments and innermost secrets visually turns into a skeleton shape,
symbolizing the death of beauty and trust and love. Poe write that “Of all the melancholy topics,
what, according to the universal understanding of mankind, is the most
melancholy? Death—was the obvious
reply.” He chose to base his poem, the
Raven, on that very topic to create the ultimate melancholy. Likewise the massive slaughter at the end of
this film creates an overarching realm of loss and death and longing. And thus begins the tragedy that Shelley
speaks of: “Tragedy delights by affording a shadow of the pleasure which exists
in pain.” (607) and our sympathy with the characters depends on this. As the romantic chose to re-expose myth and
epic from the past, so also did Lang in his film. Following along the lines of the aesthetic
being the highest good, which is pleasure and the dwelling in the realm of the agreeable,
Lang’s characters don’t seem to give one much to hope for in terms of moral
values. Siegfried is moral and good, but
simple and easily tricked, Kriemild is loving and determined, but not
trust-worthy. Gunther is weak and Brunhild is just a horrible, vindictive
woman. Even the knights leave chivalry
in the dust and seek instead for power or good graces by those in power. The characters emotional responses outweigh
their ability to reason. (I guess why
its’ easy to see that in the second part of the epic poem and Lang’s sequel,
Kriemild marries Attila the Hun…) But, I
digress. It clearly is the aesthetic
that takes the foremost place in this piece.
Much like Poe was concerned with the structure of his piece,
I wonder if the same could be said for Lang.
His elaborate sets, costumes, special effects, tone, etc. seem to remind
one of the focus of the poet. The
romantics found an attention to detain to be of paramount importance. Lang’s elaborate landscapes, architecture and
geometric patterns in both set and costumes is unparalleled. And one could surmise that he was able to take
something familiar, the story of Siegfried made famous in Wagner’s opera, into
the realm of the unfamiliar for German audiences of the time. His mechanical Dragon, lakes of fire,
stop-tricks, and disappearing were most certainly innovative and likely
impressive to the audiences in 1924. The focus on the goodness of nature was
likewise present in Lang’s film, though it is in that very nature that the
simple, but pleasant king Siegfried gets himself ultimately killed.
The king of Burgundy, Gunther enlists Siegfried’s help in
securing the hand of the queen of Iceland, a title with matches her frozen
exterior. He, using his magical headdress,
helps Gunther best her is three tasks, ensuring that he can become her
husband. But Brunhild always
suspects. And although Siegfried and
Gunther become blood brothers, there is a continual jealousy that leads to
destruction. Lang uses color and light
to help the audience identify with and ultimately root for the moral good over
the bad. In costuming and lighting
effect he directs the audience into his ideal.
False accusations (“For the sake of a woman’s lie you have slain your
most loyal friend.”) destroy relationships and in the ultimate state of
melancholy, the hero is betrayed and his bride seeks revenge. This story, told in seven cantos, sheds light
on Shelley’s thought that “Poetry ever communicates all of the pleasure which
men are capable of receiving: it is ever still the light of life; the source of
whatever of beautiful, or generous, or true can have place in an evil time.”
(601) and that “The functions of poetic faculty are two-fold; by one it creates
new materials of knowledge, and power and pleasure; by the other it engenders
in the mind a desire to reproduce and arrange them according to a certain rhythm
and order which may be called the beautiful and the good.” (609)
If, as Shelley surmises, “The most unfailing herald,
companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial
change in opinion or institution, is Poetry.” (613), then what is the filmmaker’s
responsibility to the piece and to the audience? As he speaks of poetry’s ability to make
things immortal – all that’s best and beautiful, can’t we likewise say that
film does the same in an immortal way.
Film never goes away, it’s always a record. So do poetry in its written form, drama in its
performance and films in their eternal an immortal record of times and thoughts
really have the power for change, to add beauty to the most deformed to “marry exultation
and horror, grief and pleasure, eternity and change?” (611) If, as Shelley insists, Poetry is the
storehouse of examples to everlasting time, then what record does Siegfried
leave? Can we actually go into the place
of Gunther and see the need for power, of Brunhild and see the loss of freedom,
of Kriemild and see the persistence of love and the evil of betraying
trust? Or do we just look for the good
and refuse to acknowledge the evil as Siegfried did? Shelley added that “The presence or absence
of poetry in its most perfect and universal form has been found to be connected
with good and evil in conduct and habit.” (598)
So where does that leave us as an audience? I guess we have to look beyond the fragment.
No comments:
Post a Comment