Myth World

Castle in the Sky 

Had a great, apocalyptic time watching the Kino DVD of Fritz Lang and Thea Von Harbou’s DIE NIBELUNGEN lately, which I’d only ever seen on bad VHS, in cut form. Once we got over the difficulty of the preposterous Gothic script intertitles, we settled in to enjoying the films in a highly improper way — watching them episodically, in segments; doing all the voices (it was necessary for one or other of us to read each title card aloud to make sure we’d both understood it, so unclear was the lettering); re-enacting battle scenes with the cat.

It would be great to have a proper bigscreen encounter with Lang’s two-part, four-hour-plus masterpiece and treat it with the respect it deserves, but this was had more the qualities of an informal browse — no TV viewing is going to be adequate to this epic experience.

Still, apart from the high entertainment value, the experience brought many stimulating insights, so much so that I’m thinking of about three blog posts inspired by this movie / movies / way of life. DIE NIB seemed to function on a level of pure plot, augmented by powerful imagery, with little in the manner of characterisation to invest in. The characters are typed by their roles in the narrative, their various appearances, their relationships to each other, and nothing else. Harbou’s script and her partner’s direction give no clues as to how we should regard these figures. A story is being told, and that is all. Some characters, by their actions, might seem unsympathetic — particularly Hagen Tronje, who plays key roles in most of the disastrous decisions that lead his countrymen towards eventual destruction — but we are not encouraged to condemn anybody. Where some characters, particularly Attila the Hun, are presented as grotesque monsters, their actions are in fact relatively reasonable (by the standards of this storyline, anyway).

The Wild Hun

(Without any clear attitude to the dramatis personae, or none we can relate to, the film also lacks an explicit theme, although there’s plenty of ideas in there to latch onto if you’re so inclined, particularly that old Langian favourite, the power of destiny.)

A perfect example of this approach occurs right at the start of the tale, when nominal “hero” Siegfried — who is heroic only because he is strong and fearless, not because he’s a nice guy — encounters the dragon, which is drinking peacefully from a stream. The mighty saurian (constructed life-size and staffed by a crew of sweltering technicians who laboured to move its body parts about from within, while hoping to avoid being incinerated by its authentic fiery breath, not the last time Health & Safety Issues will arise in the modern viewer’s mind) looks about as hostile as Flounder from ANIMAL HOUSE, mainly because unlike most reptiles, he has his eyes front instead of at the sides, giving him a sympathetic, human gaze, just like Flounder from ANIMAL HOUSE.


Seized with Teutonic bloodlust at the sight of this mild cousin of the terrapin, whom I will from here on refer to as Flounder, Siegfried forgets the job in hand (sword delivery boy) and sets about Flounder with lethal force, culminating in the literal bloodbath that sets the story in motion. The supposed monster is perfectly nice, the supposed hero is a brute.

Shortly after the dragonslaying, Siegfried acquires a treasure and a curse, and now the film has a real force of destiny driving it, so that questions of psychology and motivation can be almost ignored. Whether or not Lang believed in fate (he expressed some resistance to the idea in later interviews) I suspect he greatly appreciated it as a plot device. Lang has a unique relationship to characterisation, and sometimes used the iconic qualities of movie stars and genre types in ways that bear some relation to the puppet-like figures moving about within DIE NIBELUNGEN’S plot.

(Lang’s exacting methods of directing — which here involved the numbering of each piece of micro-body-language, so that the actors simply perform their movements as Lang yells the numbers, which could go up to 50 — have been accused of stiffening the actors, but that’s certainly just the effect he’s after here. The cast strike poses while looking unhappy – hey, it’s a style.)

Oh Brunhilda, you're so lovely...

The third character type, apart from brutish heroes and tender-hearted monsters (I feel the wicked dwarf is in some obscure way a maligned fellow too), is the scheming woman, embodied by both Brunhild and Kriemhild. Both women are undoubtedly wronged, conned and betrayed and abused by the “noble” Nibelungen chaps, and both retaliate with underhanded femme fatale tricks which brilliantly manoeuvre their enemies into disastrous and fatal situations. They’re like Catherine Tramell in BASIC INSTINCT.

Hair colour, casting, and sheer velocity of performance (B is manic, K languid) is all that really distinguishes the two vixens from each other, and Fiona refused to accept that anybody could be called Kriemhild (that impenetrable font made it hard to convince her). The name derives from “Grimheld”, but as Lang types his heroines as brunette and blonde, it became impossible not to think of the names translating as Brownhead and Creamhead. Brownhead is amazingly vivacious and more fun than anybody else in part one, while Creamhead seems a bit of a platted yawn, until part two where she takes over the narrative driver’s seat and her constant rigid fury acquires a hypnotic magnetism.

So, as character psychology plays only the most limited role in this epic, we are left with the brute force of plot and the power of Lang and his cohorts’ extraordinary visuals. Meaning is left open, though there are many intriguing avenues there to explore. The dedication, “To the German people,” and Lang’s own comments that he wanted to give Germany an uplifting myth, suggest some heroic interpretation is required. But what kind of heroism is this? The only decision any of the Nibelungen take which is not motivated by pure self-interest comes right at the end, where they refuse to save their skins by hanging over the extraordinarily guilty Hagen Tronje. So loyalty must be a big deal. Also courage, however foolhardy, and the strength to implement it. You can see where the idea comes from that these films went over well in the Third Reich — but in fact, Part Two seems not to have been re-released under the Nazi regime. So presumably what was popular was the spectacle and action, which can certainly be related to the imagery of Nuremberg but which, just by themselves, don’t seem especially political. In fact, in its according of (some) dignity and moral values to the non-Aryan characters, the films appear less racist and fascistic than modern fantasy epics like Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS or KING KONG.

In summary: a bit like a really expensive, well-designed FLASH GORDON movie serial, but without the moral compass. That good-versus-evil paradigm may be a big part of what makes fantasy fiction popular, but Lang and Von Harbou’s work here suggests it’s also what keeps such stories in the nursery.

Orc calling Orson

Next up, some thoughts on Lang’s influence, and the Woody Woodpecker connection.

6 Responses to “Myth World”

  1. True. Despite any number of visual felicities, Lang’s version of the saga suffers frommcharacter and narrative flatness. This is especially stirking in light of Chereau’s rendition of the Wagner tetrology (which is available on DVD and highly reccomended) where the characters and their passions are fully three-dimensional and quite involving.

  2. Y’see, I’m not convinced it suffers, I think it’s some kind of strategy. Lang’s German work is sometimes more interested in crowds than individuals, and here the characters are maybe more architectural than psychological. This may not be sympatico for many viewers, but I think it’s a deliberate approach rather than a failing.

    Lang hated Wagner’s music and Harbou returned to the roots of the tale, so it’s a very different take from the opera.

  3. Well it’s a deliberate approach that for me just doesn’t work. In Lang overall there’s less emphasis on character than there is on plot and metaplot machination (ie. all the Mabuse films, especially the last.)

    Moonfleet which has much in common with Die Niebelungen and The BiG Heat (ditto) have rich and interesting characters. But overall I find this rare in Lang. He delights in “types” (eg. While the City Sleeps)

  4. Yes, Lang’s most comfortable with types, both arche- and stereo-. Though I think with an actor like Edward G Robinson you get some depth. Also Peter Lorre. Probably the most personable characters in Lang are the sympathetic killers, which maybe has some autobiographical reason…

    Love the little Scottish lad in Moonfleet, who won a Special Oscar for The Kidnappers, back when they gave Special Oscars to children, blacks, and the disabled.

  5. Arthur S. Says:

    I just saw DIE NIBELUNGEN for the first time today, five hours of exhaustion and overwhelming catharsis. And I was thrilled to bits to find out that you discussed this film in an earlier post, almost a year ago. I have to say however that the two parts of this diptych unlike Lang’s MABUSE films are clearly two seperate films. The style is totally different as Lotte Eisner observed. The first part SIEGFRIED is about an idyll fantasy part about old Germany that didn’t and never did exist(and it was only this part that ever mattered to Hitler and Co.,), the second part is a full scale scathing attack on the first film’s ideology.

    Lang said that his intention with these two films was to move away from Wagner, to re-interpret the story and make it more earthy. He felt that the whole approach of Wagner with the beards and everything didn’t cut dice with the audiences of post ww1 Germany. His NIBELUNGEN has nothing to do with Wagner.

    And actually I disagree with you saying that the characters are types. The performance of Margarete Schoen as Kriemhild is quite sophisticated by the standards of silent films of that period and the thing is the characters are constantly subverting the type assigned to them like you say that Attila the Hun comes of as reasonable and that’s true. It’s intended to be that way.

    The film is really about the defeat of Germany at the end of WW1. Lang said that in Germany the culture of militarism had been such that soldiers were always excepted to follow orders even when they were corpses always being loyal to the fault. KRIEMHILD’S RACHE takes that to the logical conclusion and it has rather eerie echoes regarding what was to come, moreso than the MABUSE films.

    Lang’s NIBELUNGEN films are really quite uneven as a whole, in seperate parts, the first film is an interesting fantasy film with a refreshingly bleak ending, where brave hero dies unheroically. The second film however is an emotional roller-coaster that is in the most sober and bleakest of Lang’s films. And it’s totally uncompromised unlike METROPOLIS with that absurd ending.

  6. I wouldn’t call the saga uneven — the two parts are very different, for sure, but that seems wholly intentional. What exactly the intent IS is slightly mysterious, but I agree that the films capture something of the national character in the interwar period.

    I think the end of Metropolis is clumsy, but not necessarily a compromise — it seems like this was the story they wanted to tell from the start. Von Harbou, a nazi, offers a vision of a society ready to work in harmony (without any awkward specifics). It’s not surprising that Lang disavowed the ending later, but he specifically refused to blame Harbou for his mistakes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: