IMDb-BEWERTUNG
8,1/10
6965
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuSiegfried, son of King Siegmund of Xanten, sets off on a treacherous journey to the Kingdom of Burgundy to ask King Gunther for the hand of his sister, the beautiful Princess Kriemhild.Siegfried, son of King Siegmund of Xanten, sets off on a treacherous journey to the Kingdom of Burgundy to ask King Gunther for the hand of his sister, the beautiful Princess Kriemhild.Siegfried, son of King Siegmund of Xanten, sets off on a treacherous journey to the Kingdom of Burgundy to ask King Gunther for the hand of his sister, the beautiful Princess Kriemhild.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Gewinn & 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Yuri Yurovsky
- The Priest
- (as Georg Jurowski)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I saw this on the big screen with live organ accompaniment (from the original film score) last night and I'm glad I did. Most people don't know Fritz Lang for anything before *Metropolis*, but this is a film which, to my mind, matches the best of what he has done. It's incredible to see what they were able to do with the wild set design. The score was suitably intense at moments. And the story was a pretty touching one about the fall of Siegfried.
The scenes I was amazed by in particular are: the dragon-slaying sequence (which, at first, elicited laughs because of the obvious artificiality of the creature but then got sounds of pity as he lay slain with blood shooting from his torso); Kriemhild's dream sequence, which has to be the earliest example of animation I've seen (the animation and accompanying music are pretty dark and disturbed--they gave me the creeps); and the approach to Brunhilde (with an incredible sea of fire). What I've come away with is even more of an appreciation for what filmmakers were capable of in the silent period. It seems clear after a film like *Siegfried* that silent film was not an infant technology waiting for sound but was an artform of its own.
All in all, I'd say this is a must-see. It's clearly not just preparation for the "great" films of Lang to come (like *Metropolis* and *M*), but is on par with any of the best of his stuff. This and *Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler*, both Lang films which are rarely screened, should be caught if at all possible.
The scenes I was amazed by in particular are: the dragon-slaying sequence (which, at first, elicited laughs because of the obvious artificiality of the creature but then got sounds of pity as he lay slain with blood shooting from his torso); Kriemhild's dream sequence, which has to be the earliest example of animation I've seen (the animation and accompanying music are pretty dark and disturbed--they gave me the creeps); and the approach to Brunhilde (with an incredible sea of fire). What I've come away with is even more of an appreciation for what filmmakers were capable of in the silent period. It seems clear after a film like *Siegfried* that silent film was not an infant technology waiting for sound but was an artform of its own.
All in all, I'd say this is a must-see. It's clearly not just preparation for the "great" films of Lang to come (like *Metropolis* and *M*), but is on par with any of the best of his stuff. This and *Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler*, both Lang films which are rarely screened, should be caught if at all possible.
I'll say this up front: this film can move very slowly at points. Also, I saw it in a theater with live piano accompaniment, and it's likely to be much less impressive on a smaller screen. I doubt the video print is very good, since I am familiar with other tapes that that company has distributed. Despite its slow points, when Lang and crew create the numerous set pieces, watch out: you're in for some of the greatest scenes of filmdom. I'd also like to point out that, as someone who is quite familiar with the original poem, I'll tell you that source material often moves a lot slower than this film does. As a technical marvel, I don't think some of the stuff here was surpassed until very recently, except maybe in King Kong. It's even more amazing to behold than Metropolis, Lang's next and much more famous film. All of the effects might seem dated now, but anyone who appreciates early cinema will easily fall in love.
The film opens with Siegfried's infamous battle against the dragon. A bit of trivia: this scene is not in The Nibelungenlied. It is briefly mentioned in the first lay by Hagen as having happened a while ago. However, this is the one scene from this movie which is widely remembered, and for good reason. The dragon is amazingly created, nearly on the level of the dinosaurs from The Lost World and King Kong. Unlike them, though, it is a puppet and not stop motion. As far as puppetry goes, it surpasses most of the muppets of Return of the Jedi by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, as lifelike as they made it, the dragon is not at all that fierce. It almost looks like a friendly dog (it even wags its tail as Siegfried valiantly rushes at it, sword aloft). When it is supposed to be roaring at Siegfried, the audience was giggling; it looked more like it was yelping. As a result, the depiction of Siegfried begins to come off as satirical (probably not intended, but it makes things more interesting). There is a major strain of Niebelungenlied scholarship which sees Siegfried not as the hero, but as the aggressor.
The second major set piece involves the battle with Alberich, the Nibelung, an episode that occurs a bit later in the poem, from whom he wins the cloak of invisibility, a horde of treasure, and Balmung, his famous sword. The mythological characters in this episode are awesome to behold in their costuming (and simply in the casting, which is perfect throughout; the creatues in the film's first scene, in which Siegfried is forging his sword, are great, too), especially the dwarves who balance the pot full of treasure on their backs.
The best scene in the film occurs in the next chapter, the dream of Kriemhild, which is animation done in sand. Other great scenes in the film include the crossing of the lake of fire, the battle between Brunhild and Gunther (with an invisible Siegfried helping him), the wooing of Brunhild, the quarrel between the queens, and the hunt. As far as I remember, only the war with Denmark is left out, which happens in the poem before they go to Iceland for Brunhild. It's not missed.
Special attention must be given to the miraculous casting. Paul Richter plays Siegfried as the hero to beat all heroes. With his blonde, flowing hair, he marches across the world blindly performing great deeds and talking to birds (the look on Richter's face when he starts to hear birds talk is priceless). He's too naive to see the trouble he causes as he dishes out treasure to the poor (a wonderful touch; Lang doesn't even draw attention to how this angers the Burgundians in their dialogue, but only in their expressions). As many scholars have proposed, Siegfried's actions all suggest that Worms is in iminent danger of being usurped by him. Margarethe Schoen may not have been the best choice for Kriemhild. The actress is so manly that I assumed that an actor was playing her. She is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. The actress does emote quite well, however. Now, Hannah Ralph, who plays Brunhild, exudes a manliness that her part requires. She's supposed to be a warrior maiden. Ralph does a great job conveying Brunhild's cunning, bitterness, and cruelty. Theodor Loos, who plays King Gunther, is absolutely perfect. I couldn't have imagined him better. His face exhibits both his moral predicament and his supreme inadequacy that the poem spells out so clearly. Hans Adalbert Schlettow plays Hagen. His costume may be a bit overwrought (a huge, gnarly beard, a furry eye patch, and an enormous helmet with eagle wings reaching a foot and a half upwards), but the actor's perfect for the role, although he might be too old. His age makes me wonder how he's going to fight like a demon in Kriemhild's Wrath, the second part of the film, which I'll see tomorrow. I'm very eager to see how Lang and Thea von Harbou, his wife ans screenwriter, will make the remaining half of the epic interesting on film. It's nothing but battles. Volker and Gunther's brothers are also well cast, although they'll probably be more important in the second half, that is, if the poem is followed as closely as it is here. 8/10.
The film opens with Siegfried's infamous battle against the dragon. A bit of trivia: this scene is not in The Nibelungenlied. It is briefly mentioned in the first lay by Hagen as having happened a while ago. However, this is the one scene from this movie which is widely remembered, and for good reason. The dragon is amazingly created, nearly on the level of the dinosaurs from The Lost World and King Kong. Unlike them, though, it is a puppet and not stop motion. As far as puppetry goes, it surpasses most of the muppets of Return of the Jedi by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, as lifelike as they made it, the dragon is not at all that fierce. It almost looks like a friendly dog (it even wags its tail as Siegfried valiantly rushes at it, sword aloft). When it is supposed to be roaring at Siegfried, the audience was giggling; it looked more like it was yelping. As a result, the depiction of Siegfried begins to come off as satirical (probably not intended, but it makes things more interesting). There is a major strain of Niebelungenlied scholarship which sees Siegfried not as the hero, but as the aggressor.
The second major set piece involves the battle with Alberich, the Nibelung, an episode that occurs a bit later in the poem, from whom he wins the cloak of invisibility, a horde of treasure, and Balmung, his famous sword. The mythological characters in this episode are awesome to behold in their costuming (and simply in the casting, which is perfect throughout; the creatues in the film's first scene, in which Siegfried is forging his sword, are great, too), especially the dwarves who balance the pot full of treasure on their backs.
The best scene in the film occurs in the next chapter, the dream of Kriemhild, which is animation done in sand. Other great scenes in the film include the crossing of the lake of fire, the battle between Brunhild and Gunther (with an invisible Siegfried helping him), the wooing of Brunhild, the quarrel between the queens, and the hunt. As far as I remember, only the war with Denmark is left out, which happens in the poem before they go to Iceland for Brunhild. It's not missed.
Special attention must be given to the miraculous casting. Paul Richter plays Siegfried as the hero to beat all heroes. With his blonde, flowing hair, he marches across the world blindly performing great deeds and talking to birds (the look on Richter's face when he starts to hear birds talk is priceless). He's too naive to see the trouble he causes as he dishes out treasure to the poor (a wonderful touch; Lang doesn't even draw attention to how this angers the Burgundians in their dialogue, but only in their expressions). As many scholars have proposed, Siegfried's actions all suggest that Worms is in iminent danger of being usurped by him. Margarethe Schoen may not have been the best choice for Kriemhild. The actress is so manly that I assumed that an actor was playing her. She is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. The actress does emote quite well, however. Now, Hannah Ralph, who plays Brunhild, exudes a manliness that her part requires. She's supposed to be a warrior maiden. Ralph does a great job conveying Brunhild's cunning, bitterness, and cruelty. Theodor Loos, who plays King Gunther, is absolutely perfect. I couldn't have imagined him better. His face exhibits both his moral predicament and his supreme inadequacy that the poem spells out so clearly. Hans Adalbert Schlettow plays Hagen. His costume may be a bit overwrought (a huge, gnarly beard, a furry eye patch, and an enormous helmet with eagle wings reaching a foot and a half upwards), but the actor's perfect for the role, although he might be too old. His age makes me wonder how he's going to fight like a demon in Kriemhild's Wrath, the second part of the film, which I'll see tomorrow. I'm very eager to see how Lang and Thea von Harbou, his wife ans screenwriter, will make the remaining half of the epic interesting on film. It's nothing but battles. Volker and Gunther's brothers are also well cast, although they'll probably be more important in the second half, that is, if the poem is followed as closely as it is here. 8/10.
I think this is an important film to see even for historical reasons, since after "Die Nibelungen" (1924) Lang would make "Metropolis" (1927), something for which he is best remembered. But more importantly, this is in my mind astonishingly gripping and the far more satisfying film (or two).
It's fascinating how different the two parts are. As they are, their respective brilliance shines brightly, individually, and in itself the film as one grand epic reinvents itself come the revenge story of the latter half. The first film is the fantastical one, precursor to what we have now as high fantasy adaptations, mainly "The Lord of the Rings". In this sense "Siegfried" is shockingly modern, and here Lang succeeds far better than in "Metropolis", where he didn't have a national epic upon which to project the visual aesthetics, instead his own sense of national identity projected into a perceived future or alternate present. This is surprisingly lucid, which itself is a testimony of its filmic brilliance.
The court at Worms is as rigidly symmetrical and foreboding as one can be, and the film is full of such visual information, rigid symmetry that I bet greatly inspired Eisentein's "Ivan Groznyi" films (1944, 1958). In fact, I would love to see these masterworks by the two directors together someday, since their similarities go beyond style and visual language, also converging in their handling of national folklore in highly theatrical terms.
The new restoration of the project, made by the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, is available on Blu-ray in both Region A and B, courtesy of Kino and Masters of Cinema respectively. What a treasure! In fact, the more I think of it, I can't wait to revisit it again.
It's fascinating how different the two parts are. As they are, their respective brilliance shines brightly, individually, and in itself the film as one grand epic reinvents itself come the revenge story of the latter half. The first film is the fantastical one, precursor to what we have now as high fantasy adaptations, mainly "The Lord of the Rings". In this sense "Siegfried" is shockingly modern, and here Lang succeeds far better than in "Metropolis", where he didn't have a national epic upon which to project the visual aesthetics, instead his own sense of national identity projected into a perceived future or alternate present. This is surprisingly lucid, which itself is a testimony of its filmic brilliance.
The court at Worms is as rigidly symmetrical and foreboding as one can be, and the film is full of such visual information, rigid symmetry that I bet greatly inspired Eisentein's "Ivan Groznyi" films (1944, 1958). In fact, I would love to see these masterworks by the two directors together someday, since their similarities go beyond style and visual language, also converging in their handling of national folklore in highly theatrical terms.
The new restoration of the project, made by the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, is available on Blu-ray in both Region A and B, courtesy of Kino and Masters of Cinema respectively. What a treasure! In fact, the more I think of it, I can't wait to revisit it again.
Fritz Lang's DIE NIBELUNGEN: SIEGFRIED is absolutely astounding cinema, heroic, beautiful, tragic, and overwhelming in its scope. Even though I have been a fan of silent cinema for a decade now, I was intimidated to watch this film due to its length, but the two and a half hours went right by and now I am pumped to see the second installment. As someone who doesn't tend to enjoy "binge-watching," let me tell you, it is a great temptation to just drop my other obligations for the day and just continue this great story.
The most interesting part about this movie is that it both revels in and subtly critiques its main characters. There really isn't a good guy or a bad guy. All of the characters are in their own ways sympathetic, but they are also quite vicious, capable of violence, pettiness, and deceit. Their codes of honor come to fail them as one character after another vows vengeance for wrongs done to them.
After a greasy diet of banal modern blockbusters more interested in advertising the next sequel rather than telling a compelling story, this is such a wonderful alternative.
The most interesting part about this movie is that it both revels in and subtly critiques its main characters. There really isn't a good guy or a bad guy. All of the characters are in their own ways sympathetic, but they are also quite vicious, capable of violence, pettiness, and deceit. Their codes of honor come to fail them as one character after another vows vengeance for wrongs done to them.
After a greasy diet of banal modern blockbusters more interested in advertising the next sequel rather than telling a compelling story, this is such a wonderful alternative.
10riddion
When I saw this wonderfully exciting adventure film, it got me thinking, "Why can't people make films like this anymore?". Partly why the film makers don't make films like this anymore is that they are so occupied in having the best special effects around and don't give a hoot about the characters, story or detail (Jurassic Park, Lost World, Independence Day, Armageddon are only a small part). I would love to go and see a film that have real characters from these make-believe worlds. There are so many movies today that have Americans in a make-believe world, acting and talking like Americans, this makes me sick all over. This movie has real characters we care about in a believable world. This is partly why I love silent films so much. It is the acting and not the dialog that the viewer gets to know the character through.
This film has all the elements that makes up for a good adventure film. Very good story, exciting action, wonderful sets, beautiful photography, chillingly wonderful villains and some of the best special effects I've seen (for the time's standard). I especially love the trick photography to make Siegfried invisible and casting a shadow even though he is. I'm looking forward to watching Kriemhild's Revenge.
If you haven't seen this movie and love adventure movies, see it. It is so exciting and magical that you'll remember it always when you see a bad adventure movie, something that is normal today.
This film has all the elements that makes up for a good adventure film. Very good story, exciting action, wonderful sets, beautiful photography, chillingly wonderful villains and some of the best special effects I've seen (for the time's standard). I especially love the trick photography to make Siegfried invisible and casting a shadow even though he is. I'm looking forward to watching Kriemhild's Revenge.
If you haven't seen this movie and love adventure movies, see it. It is so exciting and magical that you'll remember it always when you see a bad adventure movie, something that is normal today.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe dragon in the film is not a miniature. It is a full-scale puppet 60 feet long.
- PatzerHow does Hagen know about Siegfried's vulnerable spot where the leaf fell (and even that it was a Linden leaf)? Siegfried himself seems unaware of it at the time, though he evidently later told Kriemhild who was able to mark the spot on his cloak with a cross (Hagen had asked her to do this so that he could 'protect' Siegfried). This anomaly appears to be present in the original poem. Some prints give the woodbird an extra verse beginning 'If by chance a leaf should fall', predicting the event before it happens, but Siegfried still appears to take no notice.
- Crazy CreditsKarl Vollbrecht receives a credit as "Erbauer des Drachens" -- 'dragon builder'.
- Alternative VersionenA 2012 restoration project completed by the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung has been released by Kino Lorber on both DVD and Blu-ray formats. Both "Die Nibelungen: Siegfried" (1924) and "Die Nibelungen: Kriemhild's Revenge" (1925) are included. The film's running times differ from other versions at 149 minutes and 131 minutes, respectively. This can be attributed to the fact that the restoration utilized some footage from different takes of scenes and slight adjustments were made to the 'frames-per-second' rate perhaps to present a more realistic flow of the action.
- VerbindungenEdited into Deutschland Neu(n) Null (1991)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Die Nibelungen: Siegfried?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Siegfrieds Tod
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit2 Stunden 38 Minuten
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.33 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Die Nibelungen: Siegfrieds Tod (1924) officially released in India in English?
Antwort