Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache

This second half of Fritz Lang's epic filming of the Nibelungen Saga has many of the same strengths as the first, with memorable characters and interesting, atmospheric settings. This part of the story continues with many of the same characters, but the story itself is of a much different nature. There is less complexity but more action, with the entire focus being on Kriemhild and her inflexible desire for revenge. This part of the story does not have such interesting relationships amongst the characters as did the first part, but instead provides first and foremost an unforgettable portrait of the obsessed Kriemhild.

She, Gunther, and Hagen are now thoroughly defined characters who have chosen where they stand, and so there is not the kind of dramatic uncertainty and tension that the first part held. Instead, there is a more straightforward battle of wills, but with an added wild card in the person of Attila, portrayed memorably and with great energy by Rudolf Klein-Rogge. Attila and the Huns are depicted in a way that most likely has little basis in history, but it is certainly interesting to see the bizarre fashion in which the Huns and their world are portrayed. As events unfold, the developments are not always fully plausible, but the stakes and the pressure on each side steadily rise, building to an intense climax.

What you remember most after the film is over is the remorseless, implacable Kriemhild. With her costume obscuring almost everything else, Margarete Schön portrays the depth of Kriemhild's emotions and determination using only her face and, especially, her eyes. It is about as memorable a portrait as you will find in cinema of the madness and destructive fury of revenge. While "Kriemhild's Revenge", as a whole, does not have the thematic depth of "Siegfried", it succeeds in establishing this central image in a manner not easily forgotten.

Impressive sets, costumes, and action highlight this 2 hour conclusion. The surprisingly good restoration was available for both parts on Netflix.

In some ways I suspect intentional and not, the movie subtext lays out the cultural flaws of the German/Austrian people following World War 1. The Burgundian oath upheld despite treachery and infanticide to the point of self destruction. An overwhelming need for revenge with no compromise or limit to the cost of obtaining it.

I imagine Fritz Lang and his co-writer wife sought to emphasize these faults following the war, which leads to the mutual destruction of the entire lot of Burgundy characters. Curiously the result ennobles both sides.

The non Germanic characters are grubby, disfigured, inferior animals. Only the extremes of pride, honor and infighting seem to hold the Germanic kingdom back. Within this subtext, one might see omens for the world that would be realized less than 15 years later.

The resulting film shares the same fault of its characters. Excessive pride, honor and nationalism despite the destruction and failure it had wrought. It is a vast epic and well made. But more importantly, a view of the cultural undercurrents that undermined the treaties from the war to end all wars.

Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.

Like the first movie, The Nibelungs: Siegfried, the second part named Kriemhild's Revenge is a fantastic and epic piece with fantastic settings, imagination and acting. I really like from time to time to drown myself in those old movies, that are most imaginative and an art form and nothing less, and in comparison, most of today's movies are exposed for what they are, products of a soulless and unimaginative mass industry that does not attract genius and talent but mediocrity.

"Die Nibelungen: Kriemhild's Revenge" is part of the two-part, five hour long saga from Fritz Lang. The first part, "Die Nibelungen: Siegfried" follows the Germanic hero from various heroic deeds (such as slaying a dragon) to his eventual murder.

When part two begins, his widow, Kriemhild is naturally furious. After all, her husband was murdered and no one has been punished. To make it worse, her family has sworn allegiance to the murderer! The movie consists of her machinations to bring the killer to justice, though through this there are wars, lots of death and an ending where practically everyone expires!

What I didn't love were the English captions added to the film. They were is a VERY stylized Germanic font...and were VERY difficult to read. I also was not fond of an overuse of staring and folks standing at attention instead of ACTING (a problem also in Sergei Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible" saga). It also should be noted that in this English version, King Etzel is translated as King Attila (as in, Attila the Hun).

What were exceptional were the costumes, the sets (some of which were pretty simple but others really were amazing) and the wonderful print (it was pristine) I found of it on YouTube.