Isn't there also a question about whether the translations of Mein Kampf were complete? It's thirty years since I struggled through an English translation, but I do recall that the preface mentioned the absence of the more extreme parts. It was turgid, to say the least.

Anyway, back to the main plot. What exactly is it anyway? Our opinions of the association or dissociation of Riefenstahl's talent from the way she used it are going to be coloured by our own views of the association between art, politics and life in general.

For me, they are integral anyway - art without context is a bourgeois conceit (my view). I'm not saying that there is anything desperately wrong with it being a bourgeois conceit, just that I hope for something else. If art is just about how nice the pictures are, then it as dead as the Situationists said it was. Dissociating Riefenstahl's talent from the way she used it is to relegate it to an irrelevant sideshow. I also believe that it is very important to remember that talent can be used to promote repugnant ideals very effectively, and I think that Kino is saying the same. But all of this paragraph is just the way I look at it.

Because I see that as a personal viewpoint, I don't think that anyone who has argued against me has 'revealed themselves' in a bad light at all. On the contrary, I was thinking about how civilised and rational you all are, and how well personal attacks and animosity had been kept out of this potentially explosive subject. After some of the recent posts, I'd like to make that very clear. That's not to say that I am comfortable with all the opinions expressed, however.

Best,
Helen