Olympia Part One: Festival of the Nations

1938
7.7| 2h6m| en| More Info
Released: 08 March 1940 Released
Producted By: Olympia-Film GmbH
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The First part of Olympia, a documentary about the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin by German Director Leni Riefenstahl. The film played in theaters in 1938 and again in 1952 after the fall of the Nazi Regime.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Olympia-Film GmbH

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Diagonaldi Very well executed
NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!
SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
peapulation Whether you think Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi or not, nobody can deny that she does take a neutral stance in this film. Indeed, it is surprising to hear the American national anthem being played in a German film of the Nazi era. Another gem in the film is to see Leni quietly glorifying the figure of black American athlete Jesse Owens, who famously disappointed Hitler by winning 'too many' medals for his taste. She looks at him as an athlete, and observes his cyborg-like body. When Jesse wins, the people whistle, but that's not important, as the American national anthem will cover them off.There is no doubt, the strength of this film is the cinematography. Riefenstahl did in Germany what Vertov did in Russia, only her style comes closer to today's tele-reportage than the Russian's. There are other fundamental differences between the two.Olympia as a whole (part I and 2) stands proudly. Yet, although the real trick was to film the actual footage as it happened, using pioneer effects of slow motion, fast motion and precise framing, the good stuff is found in the recreations, particularly at the start of part II, which portrays a 'gods-like temple' where the athletes relax in sight of their following tests.It's an admirable work, but as a lot of the old cinema, it is outdated. While 'Triumph of the Will' really wasn't as much (possibly because it's easier to plan an event that takes place in a shorter time, such as the Nuremberg Rally, as a lengthy event like the Olympic games), Olympia is lengthy, and overall, not an easy watch. In some bits, it's hard not to be tempted by the fast forward button on the remote control. But there is no denying that this is another testimony of Leni Riefenstahl's often underrated and mostly willingly obscured influence.
Boba_Fett1138 Since the 1936 Olympics was pretty much one big propaganda event for Hitler-Germany, this documentary about it can also be seen as a piece of propaganda. You could say that it's just a recording of the event and it doesn't glorify Hitler and Nazism. It show a bit too much of Hitler and his friends than really necessary and it glorifies the German athletes more with its images than with most other athletes is the case. The 1936 were used as a medium to show the supremacy of the Aryan race and show the German athletes as Übermenschen.Besides being known as the Nazi-propaganda Olympics, the 1936 Olympics are of course also known as the Olympics of Jesse Owens. The black American who won 4 golden medals. A clear booing and whistling can also been heard during the first running that he won and during some of his other wins and attempts, while all other athletes got cheered at, no matter were they were from. This didn't only happened to Jesse Owens though, since he of course wasn't the only black athlete at the Olympics who won a medal.They didn't used only footage from the actual Olympics but some of the images were obviously added later into it. I'm not just talking about the movie its intro but also of the actual sporting events. This can be the drop of a spear or discuss and things like that. It's obvious that it's all added later and that the movie is edited in such a way that it's obvious that at times the crowd reactions and all don't really go with the images but for artistic reason it obviously works out well for the movie. It often gives the movie some diversity and more pace as well.The documentary shows the most important attempts and athletes and of course the wins of all events. It often uses multiple camera-angels for this and some slow-motion as well.There is no denying in it that Leni Riefenstahl was a very talented documentary maker though it of course it remains a shame that she mostly used her talent for making Nazi propaganda pieces, despite always having denied she was a Nazi sympathizer herself. It gives her documentaries a bit of a bitter taste, no matter how technical well made and revolutionary they all are. She gets very much appreciated and recognized as a pioneer in documentary making but she also gets hated at the same time. It doesn't really make her documentaries any less great to watch though. It's always something beautiful, renewing and just unforgettable.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Chris Burin This is a brilliant sports documentary - the experimentation with camera angles was revolutionary at the time and the pole vault sequence at night is one of my favourite sequences in a film ever. The athletes are portrayed as superhuman, so in this sense the film is elitist and Nietzschean, but this is certainly not a racist film, politics does not play an explicit role, although one could argue that the deification of athletes (they are shown in close-up, alone, to contrast with the watching masses) promotes the idea that some men are greater than others. A fascinating film, and a definite progression from the standard documentary format of Das Triumph des Willens.
bigboy-8 I first viewed this film at the Museum of Modern Art 35 years ago;I now own it and the years have only added to my astonishment of what a genius Leni is. She took film to a new and higher art form. The Nazi noise does get in the way, but the epic scope and feel of the finished product make it worth viewing. And yes, part one is far superior, but part two is certainly a work of art also. It is a masterpiece. Would that she had done more. She is a most fascinating artist.