The young woman Junta lives in the village, but also spends a lot of time up in the mountain, where she draws her life. But she is hated by the villagers, who suspect her of being a witch, and being the cause of the young men’s deaths.

Meanwhile a youngish traveler has come to the village to explore. Hiking in the mountain, he encounters Junta, who coquetishly both draws him in further and withdraws. The traveler want to get to know Junta, but she only speaks Italian, while he only speaks German. So when he says he is obligated to go down to the village and tell the folks about the crystal stones that could be mined, she doesn’t understand him. This is symbolic — she wouldn’t understand him even if she did speak the language: why would anyone want to disturb the natural beauty of the mountain?

The villagers set out on a course that can only lead to a new level of conflict between themselves and Junta. In the end, they attain a kind of happiness — but is it worth it? The story could be developed into an agrarian critique of acquisitiveness, with added zing in that it is itself a rural story.

The ending is rather unexpected, especially for a chick flick (which this is, in the most literal sense of the word).

I like the movie. But, it contains uninterpreted henids. At times, you have to just let it happen, and take it as it comes. There are several reasons to see the movie in addition to its intrinsic merit.

1. From a film-historical point of view, this was one of the first movies to do on-location shooting in remote outdoor areas. There is a lot of quite stunning location work. Cameraman Hans Schneeberger probably deserves a lot of the credit.

2. The amazing Leni Riefenstahl wrote the script, and directed and starred in the movie. Not to mention, did a fair amount of hair-raising rock-climbing.

3. Rapellers should enjoy a lot of the footage.

4. There are mesmerizing scenes and sounds of flocks, bells, villages.

The mountains, where Pedro prefers to dwell, becomes a symbol for naïveté and purity, while the “lowlands” (hence the title) is the place of deceit and treachery.

On the assumption that Kobbé’s summary is adequate, the movie shifts the center of gravity from the original opera. In both versions, the crisis is set up by the fake marriage and Pedro’s naïveté. In both, the peasants at first laugh at Pedro, since they know what the real situation is. But in the opera, Pedro rouses himself to vengeance and thrusts it back at the peasants, while in the movie a solidarity develops between Pedro and the peasants in resisting the cruel Marquis: the peasants’ earlier mocking is thus two-faced, like the loyalty of the wicked witch’s henchmen in Oz. It is not a revolt based merely on class, for the peasants’ resentment is amply justified by the injustice and hypocricy of the Marquis. It is as if the Volk is re-established in justice by the pure one from above. Nietzsche’s man-above (Übermensch) also descended from the mountain to instruct the folk, but Nietzsche’s was as cynical and arrogant as Riefenstahl’s is naïve and open-hearted.

Leni Riefenstahl did not want to be the main star in her own film, but actresses came up scarce during the war during which the movie was actually shot though it was scheduled way back in 1934. Then, the prints were stolen by the French after the war and had to be returned by lawsuit. The editing was not suitable for release until 1954.

The photography is dark and moody, achieved by the use of color filters. There is much that is richly atmospheric in both the mountain and the Spanish village scenes. The opening sequence of the Shepherd like a young David slaying the beast that threatens the flock (symbolic of the movie’s theme) is alone almost worth the rental fee. The characterization of the Marquis may be a bit simplistic. Woman as pivot for all the action makes the film suspect to be a chick-flick — but an artistic one, that constrains me to recommend a viewing.

It is in two parts. The first organizes the events under the theme of the athlete as humanistic idol spanning the ancient and modern world. The second develops an analogy between the athlete and the beauties of the animal kingdom.

Despite the fact that the event was 70 years ago, and performed by athletes that no one cares about anymore (perhaps excepting Jesse Owens), it is utterly riveting. There is hardly a boring moment.

The divers are the climax. I was clued in that Leni showed some of the dives backward for effect. You would scarcely notice unless told. I counted four backwards takes. (I wonder: did she get the idea from Buster Keaton’s Cameraman?)

During the opening parade, it was interesting to see how many teams gave the Caesar salute as they went past the reviewing stand: not just the Italians, but the French and Canadians did. The English and Americans did not.

These are little details that will help us to understand the 30s better.

Along this line, the soundtrack of the announcer, presumably the actual announcer at the events, gives sound bites that indicate how times have changed:

[After a pole vaulter fails] “…and America’s great Negroes have the field to themselves.”

“Now Jix just got his nose in front, only inches in it… Jix there, very happy to have won for Europe; the biggest surprise of the games.”

Won for Europe?! Interesting.

A quick search on Google will reveal that Riefenstahl is widely villified for producing this movie allegedly as National Socialist propaganda. Yet, no evidence from the presentation of the movie is marshalled along with such claims. The movie has far less nationalism than what one sees on our media at contemporary Olympics (“U-S-A! U-S-A!”). Indeed: there is none.

In reality, Riefenstahl is not so much a propagandist, as the proximate occasion for all kinds of propaganda. I will address this in more detail anon.

In an age addicted to seemingly endless sports ordeals, with 24-hour cable coverage, this movie is a breath of fresh air, bringing art and grace to its depiction.

If any thing should be discussed critically, it is the question of whether Riefenstahl touts the hellenistic ideal of humanity over what might be set against it as the biblical view.