An excerpt from Leni Refinsthall's wikipedia page:
Leni Riefenstahl was one of the most controversial figures in 20th-century cinema—an artist whose aesthetic brilliance and technical innovation left an indelible mark on filmmaking, yet whose name remains inextricably linked to the propaganda machinery of the Third Reich. From the rise of Nazi Germany in 1933 to the outbreak of World War II in 1939, Riefenstahl played a central role in crafting the visual mythology of Adolf Hitler's regime, most notably through her seminal work Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens), a film that remains both lauded for its artistry and condemned for its content.
By the time Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, Leni Riefenstahl was already a recognized figure in German cinema, primarily known for her work as an actress in "mountain films" (Bergfilme), especially those directed by Arnold Fanck. However, she was also transitioning into directing, having helmed Das Blaue Licht (The Blue Light) in 1932—a film that caught Hitler's attention.
When the Nazis seized power, Riefenstahl found herself uniquely positioned: a talented, ambitious woman fascinated by movement, grandeur, and heroism—concepts deeply resonant with the Nazi worldview. Hitler admired her work and met her personally in 1933, reportedly proclaiming her his ideal film director. Riefenstahl claimed she had no political convictions and insisted throughout her life that she was not a member of the Nazi Party, though she became one of its most important visual propagandists.
In September 1934, Hitler asked Riefenstahl to film the Nazi Party's annual rally in Nuremberg. The result, Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will), would become her magnum opus—and the most iconic piece of propaganda cinema in history.
The 1934 rally, known as the Reichsparteitag des Willens (Rally of Will), was itself a massive stage-managed spectacle designed to exhibit the power and unity of the Nazi regime. Riefenstahl had virtually unlimited resources to film it: over 170 personnel, including 40 camera operators and technicians, and full logistical support from the Nazi state.
While the content of Triumph of the Will is undeniably propagandistic, the film's technical and artistic innovations transformed the language of cinema. Riefenstahl pioneered or perfected several techniques:
1. Mobile Cameras and Tracking Shots: She used cranes, dollies, and even cameras mounted on rails to achieve fluid, dynamic movement that gave the film a sweeping, kinetic energy unprecedented in documentary filmmaking.
2. Low-Angle Heroic Framing: By frequently shooting Hitler from below, she magnified his presence, turning him into a towering, almost divine figure—a visual metaphor for the Führerprinzip (leader principle).
3. Telephoto Lenses and Extreme Depth: Riefenstahl used long lenses to compress space and emphasize the vastness of the assembled crowds, thereby reinforcing the sense of mass unity and loyalty.
4. Editing Rhythm and Montage: The film's editing is rhythmic and almost musical, with careful attention to tempo and visual repetition. The cuts mirror speeches, slogans, and marching beats, creating an overwhelming sensory and emotional experience.
5. Use of Sound and Music: Though Triumph of the Will is largely diegetic (based on real events), the integration of music—especially Richard Wagner and other martial scores—intensified the film's mythic tone.
6. Aestheticization of Politics: Above all, Riefenstahl turned political pageantry into cinematic art. She did not simply document; she dramatized—transforming rallies into epic theater, uniforms into costumes, and the Nazi movement into a choreographed mass performance.
Released in 1935, Triumph of the Will was a monumental success in Nazi Germany. It won several awards, including the Gold Medal at the Venice Film Festival (1935) and the Grand Prix at the Paris World Exhibition (1937). The film was screened in schools, army barracks, and public events, helping solidify Hitler's image as Germany's messianic savior.
Internationally, reactions were mixed. While many critics admired its technical mastery, they were disturbed by its content and purpose. American critic Dwight Macdonald famously described it as "the most successfully, most purely propagandistic film ever made." Filmmakers like Frank Capra studied it closely—Capra's Why We Fight series was directly shaped by an effort to counter its techniques.
Despite its widespread use by the Nazis, Riefenstahl insisted the film was a historical document, not propaganda. This claim has been rejected by most scholars, who point out that the entire production—like the rally it documented—was orchestrated to exalt the Nazi regime.
Following Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl was commissioned to document the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. This led to another masterpiece: Olympia (1938), a two-part film (Festival of the Nations and Festival of Beauty) that blended sport with art and mythology. Though not overtly political, it carried undertones of Aryan idealism and physical perfection. It too was technically groundbreaking: slow motion, underwater filming, and innovative editing became hallmarks of the sports film genre.
During this time, Riefenstahl made trips to the United States to promote her work. Though she initially received attention and even praise in Hollywood, her close ties to Hitler and Goebbels sparked growing criticism. Many Americans, especially in the Jewish community, saw her as a willing tool of the Nazi regime.
Her claims of political ignorance rang increasingly hollow, especially in light of growing international awareness of the regime's repression of Jews and political opponents. During the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938, she was in the U.S. on a promotional tour and was confronted with angry protests and hostile press coverage. She abruptly cut her trip short.
As Hitler's ambitions escalated with the annexation of Austria (Anschluss) in 1938 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939, Riefenstahl's career began to shift. She embarked on a new project—a dramatic feature film titled Tiefland—but it would be plagued by delays and controversies, especially due to her use of Roma prisoners from Nazi camps as extras. It would be finished under the auspices of Mussolini and released in 1945.
Despite the newfound height of her fame, Riefenstahl's role in the Nazi propaganda apparatus diminished as the war approached. The Ministry of Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels increasingly took over the regime's cinematic messaging, relying on more conventional war films and newsreels. Riefenstahl, always fiercely independent, struggled with this control.
When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and World War II officially began, Riefenstahl was present at the front as a war correspondent with a film unit. According to her later accounts, she was traumatized by the violence she witnessed—especially a massacre of Polish civilians in Konskie. She claimed to have protested the shooting and retreated from war coverage afterward, though her exact actions and motives remain the subject of historical debate.
But despite her intimate closeness to the Nazi regime, Leni Riefenstahl's star did not falter or collapse as Nazi Germany suddenly crumbled in early 1942. The Reich, overwhelmed by a potent coalition of forces—an unprecedented papal and Italian-led crusade, the relentless advance of Soviet might, and a tide of religious fervor tearing the regime apart from within—was unraveling rapidly. Yet, amidst this chaos, Riefenstahl's career took an unexpected and astonishing new turn.
It was said that Benito Mussolini himself, having reportedly watched Triumph of the Will in 1942, was deeply captivated by her work. Moved by the film's hypnotic power and cinematic grandeur, he immediately commanded the OVRA, the Italian secret police, to secure her presence within the new fascist order. To Mussolini, Riefenstahl was not merely a filmmaker; she was to become his muse, his chief propagandist, the artist who would give breathtaking visual form to his revolutionary vision of Romanist fascism.
Mussolini's ideological transformation was dramatic and public. Having overthrown the Italian monarchy earlier that year and assumed the title of regent, his apotheosis—the grand visual and spiritual crowning—was to be immortalized on film. On October 31, 1942, only months after this seismic political shift, the machinery of propaganda roared to life with the birth of Renascita—Rebirth, the Roman answer to Triumph of the Will.
With the same revolutionary techniques Riefenstahl had perfected under the Nazi regime—and with virtually unlimited resources generously bestowed upon her by Mussolini's government—Renascita emerged as a breathtaking cinematic triumph. The production was colossal: over one thousand personnel, including two hundred camera operators and technicians, worked in unison with full logistical support from the Roman state. Every element of the film was carefully crafted to evoke grandeur, unity, and an overwhelming sense of historic destiny.
The film opened with an evocative, haunting sequence: a nocturnal rally at the Colosseum the night before the coronation. Here, figures from across the fascist party and the vast Italian empire gathered beneath the ancient arches—soldiers of diverse origins: African, Slavic, Arab, all under the aegis of Roman leadership. They stood united, equal in their submission to Rome's power, disciplined under Roman command. This was the new order, a sprawling empire reborn under Mussolini's vision, a modern manifestation of imperial grandeur.
As dawn broke, the film transitioned seamlessly to the arrival of Mussolini. Mounted on a magnificent white horse, the camera's gaze followed him in slow, deliberate procession from the Colosseum to Vatican Hill. Mussolini's chariot—an opulent spectacle—was flanked by his African guards, elite askari soldiers handpicked from the colonies of Somalia and Eritrea, their tall, muscular frames casting imposing shadows. These guards were no mere escorts; they were the new Praetorians, symbolizing Mussolini's personal power and the fusion of ancient Roman might with modern imperial force.
The film captured every detail with reverence and theatricality: the grand mass celebrated by the pope, the solemn rituals steeped in Catholic tradition, culminating in the coronation itself. In an almost ritualistic moment, Mussolini shed his birth name and identity, emerging anew as Roman Emperor Constantine XII. This was not merely a title—it was a rebirth, an ideological rebirth encoded in pageantry and spectacle. Around him stood his black guard, an elite cadre of soldiers symbolizing strength, loyalty, and the invincibility of his regime.
For the next two days, until November 2, Renascita painted an evocative portrait of Rome itself—a city where the ancient and modern collided, where towering basilicas and gleaming modern buildings stood side by side. The film captured scenes of everyday life: Catholics attending mass, Jews gathered in synagogues, and Muslims praying openly in the streets—an ostensible celebration of religious coexistence under the new Roman empire's umbrella.
Yet, looming over every scene, dominating the visual narrative, was the Roman flag—a vivid red banner emblazoned with the golden letters SPQR, the timeless emblem of Roman authority. The flag fluttered in every frame, an omnipresent symbol of unity, power, and destiny.
Renascita was released on March 15, 1943—the Ides of March. The anniversary of Julius Caesar's assassination was a deliberate choice, a symbolic reclamation of history by Mussolini's regime. In appropriating the day that once marked the violent end of one Roman dictator, Mussolini's government asserted its own narrative of rebirth, resilience, and an unbreakable imperial will.
The film immediately became a cornerstone of Mussolini's propaganda campaign, hailed by supporters as a masterpiece that redefined the art of political spectacle. Critics within Italy and abroad recognized it as a dangerous, seductive work—a cinematic mythmaking so potent that it could both inspire devotion and obscure brutal realities.
For Riefenstahl, Renascita marked both a continuation and a transformation of her role as a propagandist. Her artistry was now harnessed not for a collapsing Reich but for a resurgent Italy, reborn as a new Rome. The film would echo through the tumultuous years to come, a testament to the enduring power of visual myth and the inescapable entanglement of art and ideology.
The release of Renascita sent ripples far beyond the Mediterranean shores of Italy and the ancient streets of Rome. Its impact was felt acutely across Africa and the southern United States, regions that would soon become theaters not only of geopolitical tension but also of profound cultural and ideological conflict.
In Africa, Mussolini's regime announced the creation of the African Liberation Army the same day he war crowned—a provocative move that shook colonial powers and local populations alike. Drawing on the vast human resources of Italy's colonial holdings in Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, and the mainland, the Liberation Army was presented as a symbol of anti-colonial resistance and Pan-African unity—though always under the firm hand of Roman fascism. This army was to be the vanguard of Mussolini's vision of a new empire, one that would "liberate" African peoples from the shackles of British, Portuguese and Free French imperialism, while simultaneously binding them to the Roman cause.
To further consolidate this vision, Mussolini ordered the establishment of Italian consulates across the Deep South of the United States—in cities like New Orleans, Birmingham, and Jackson. These consulates served a dual purpose: they were both diplomatic outposts and centers of recruitment and propaganda aimed at African Americans, a marginalized population enduring the brutal realities of segregation and Jim Crow laws. In a radical and unprecedented move, the Italian government began granting citizenship and offering passage to African Americans who wished to join the Italian empire, promising dignity, opportunity, and equality under the Roman banner—though always within the strict hierarchy of fascist discipline.
The announcement was incendiary in the United States. In the Deep South, where racial segregation was fiercely enforced and white supremacist ideology deeply entrenched, Mussolini's overtures were met with alarm and outrage. Segregationists denounced Italy's actions as a direct threat to the "natural order" and an insidious attempt to undermine American sovereignty and social hierarchies. Local newspapers printed fiery editorials condemning Italy's "racist hypocrisy" and warning of foreign subversion.
Yet, despite official bans, Renascita found its way into African and African American communities through underground networks. The film was smuggled into African port cities and major urban centers, screened in secret gatherings, and embraced as a symbol of defiance and a tantalizing glimpse of an alternative future. Its depiction of a multiethnic empire—where Africans marched alongside Italians under the Roman flag—offered a vision that, for some, transcended the brutal colonial realities they faced daily.
In the United States, Renascita became a clandestine sensation within African American communities, proudly shown at private screenings, clandestine theaters in Harlem, Chicago, and Atlanta; and most provocatively in front of their consulates in the deep south as African Americans lined up for roman citizenship. For many African Americans—facing systemic oppression, disenfranchisement, and violence—the film's imagery of dignity, martial pride, and inclusion under the Roman banner was both inspiring and deeply complicated. It represented a stark contrast to the segregation and discrimination that defined their lives in America. The juxtaposition of Mussolini's propaganda with the harsh realities of Jim Crow created a powerful, if unsettling, symbol of resistance and aspiration.
Nationally and internationally, reactions were sharply divided. In mainstream America and among the Allied powers, Renascita was roundly condemned as fascist propaganda, a dangerous piece of ideological warfare. The U.S. government banned public screenings, citing national security concerns and the risk of stirring racial unrest. Yet enforcement was inconsistent, and the film's allure in marginalized communities proved difficult to suppress.
Worldwide, Renascita was recognized as a cinematic masterpiece by critics and propagandists alike, admired for its technical brilliance even by those hostile to its message. The film's innovative use of sweeping aerial shots, elaborate crowd choreography, and symbolic imagery continued to influence filmmakers globally. Yet beneath the aesthetic brilliance lay a chilling blueprint for authoritarian spectacle, empire-building, and racial hierarchy disguised as unity.
For Mussolini, Renascita was more than just a film—it was the centerpiece of his grand narrative of rebirth and renewal, a symbol of Italy's new place on the world stage. For Riefenstahl, it was a confirmation of her enduring power as a visual architect of ideology, a creator of myths whose art transcended regimes.
But in the shadows of its triumph, Renascita also ignited tensions that would soon explode into open conflict, with African liberation movements, American racial struggles, and global power politics converging in unexpected and volatile ways.
In the wake of Renascita's monumental success, Mussolini sought to cement the cultural revolution that his new regime embodied—not only through grand political spectacles but through a sustained and distinctive cinematic movement. He championed a new film genre that he dubbed Fascist Historical Realism. This style would blend rigorous historical research with propagandistic flair, designed to both educate and inspire the masses, presenting history as a living, heroic continuum culminating in the glory of the modern Roman empire.
Under Mussolini's direct encouragement, Leni Riefenstahl became the undisputed queen of this genre. Though she remained officially German, she was granted full creative freedom within the Italian sphere, operating under Mussolini's patronage as both film director and producer of ambitious state-sponsored cinematic projects and early television series—an emerging medium that fascist Italy sought to exploit for propaganda.
In 1943, Riefenstahl's visionary talents culminated in Light of the East—an epic film chronicling the extraordinary life of Empress Zenobia of Palmyra, the legendary 3rd-century queen who once dared to challenge the might of Rome itself. This film was a stunning blend of historical drama, political allegory, and breathtaking spectacle. It portrayed Zenobia's meteoric rise from provincial queen to ruler of a vast eastern realm, her fierce battles against Romans and Persians, and her ultimate tragic downfall.
Yet Light of the East was more than a simple retelling of ancient history. Its nuanced screenplay subtly reimagined the complex relationships between Italians, Persians, and Syrians, portraying all as valiant soldiers and worthy adversaries, emphasizing honor and mutual respect among peoples. The film carefully framed the Republic of Greater Syria—a newly established Italian vassal state ruled by the charismatic nationalist Antoun Saadeh—as the rightful heir to Palmyra's legacy. Through this narrative, the film implicitly supported Saadeh's vision of a pan-Syrian state encompassing former French Mandate territories of Syria and Lebanon, reinforcing Italy's imperial influence in the Levant.
The production was lavish. Riefenstahl employed hundreds of extras drawn from local Syrian populations, outfitted in historically accurate costumes recreated from archaeological findings. She utilized sweeping desert landscapes, grand battle reenactments, and intimate court scenes that would inspire the epic scale of Ben-Hur with her signature aesthetic of monumental human forms and choreographed mass movements.
Light of the East premiered simultaneously in Rome, Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Aleppo, amid great fanfare orchestrated by Italian diplomatic missions. The reception across Syria and the broader Middle East was mixed but deeply impactful.
In Syria, the film was embraced by many nationalist circles as a powerful affirmation of their cultural heritage and political aspirations. Saadeh's followers hailed it as a clarion call for unity and resistance against both British colonial influence and French remnants. The film's sympathetic depiction of Syrian culture and its valorization of Palmyra's legacy resonated deeply, fueling enthusiasm for the fledgling republic and its Italian patronage.
At the same time, some conservative and religious factions regarded the film's glorification of a polytheistic queen and its secular nationalist themes with suspicion. Yet even detractors could not deny the film's artistry or its potential to reshape the narrative of Middle Eastern identity in a new, postcolonial era.
In the wider Middle East, Light of the East sparked curiosity and debate. Egyptian intellectuals and Lebanese artists took note of Italy's cultural outreach and the ideological undertones of the film, while British and French authorities viewed it as a subversive instrument of fascist influence and propaganda.
In Italy, the film was celebrated as a triumph of Mussolini's cultural policy and Riefenstahl's genius, further legitimizing the concept of Fascist Historical Realism as a potent weapon in the battle for hearts and minds.
Through Light of the East, Mussolini's regime demonstrated its ability not only to rewrite history but to harness art as a tool of empire—projecting power, fostering loyalty, and shaping identities across continents and cultures, all under the watchful eye of the Roman eagle. This mastery of propaganda allowed the Roman empire to consistently punch above it's weight on the global stage during the early stages of the cold war despite it's limited industrial, economic and military capacity when compared to the two other cold war powers.
By 1944, under Mussolini's vision of forging a vast, multiethnic Roman empire spanning the Mediterranean and beyond, the next monumental chapter in Fascist Historical Realism emerged: The Messenger—an epic portrayal of the life of the Prophet Muhammad.
Aware of the profound religious sensitivities surrounding Islam, Leni Riefenstahl approached the project with unprecedented care and respect, consulting Islamic scholars and community leaders to ensure the film would honor Muslim traditions and avoid the pitfalls of misrepresentation or sacrilege. Central to this approach was a strict adherence to the Islamic prohibition against depicting the Prophet's physical form. Muhammad himself was never shown on screen; instead, he appeared only as a silhouetted figure or a disembodied voice—poignant, ethereal, and commanding.
This technique, radical for its time, allowed The Messenger to focus not on the person of Muhammad alone but on the rich tapestry of his companions and family, whose characterizations were rendered with depth, nuance, and empathy. Aisha was portrayed as intelligent and devoted, Ali as a courageous and principled warrior, and Omar as a wise and just leader. Their relationships, struggles, and moral dilemmas formed the emotional core of the film, inviting audiences into the formative years of Islam through the eyes of those who lived it.
The film's narrative carefully portrayed Islam not as an adversary, but as a noble and equal partner in the unfolding history of the Mediterranean world. The message was clear: Rome and Islam, two great civilizations, shared a destiny of coexistence and mutual respect.
One of the most pivotal scenes depicted the legendary envoys sent by Muhammad to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Rather than dramatizing conflict or conquest, the film showed a diplomatic exchange filled with respect and cautious optimism. Muhammad's envoys were portrayed as humble and sincere, while Heraclius received them with dignity—symbolizing a hopeful future of cooperation rather than enmity. Notably, the film avoided any explicit mention of the Sunni-Shia schism, ending its narrative shortly before Muhammad's death and focusing instead on themes of Muslim unity and partnership under Roman patronage.
Equally significant was the film's careful navigation of Jewish representation. Unlike many contemporary propaganda works that resorted to antisemitic tropes, The Messenger deliberately avoided any negative portrayal of Jewish characters, opting instead for a neutral and historically respectful depiction. This was a strategic move, signaling Mussolini's desire to present the Roman empire as a unifying force transcending ethnic and religious animosities.
The reception of The Messenger across the Muslim world was as complex as it was profound.
In Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining influence amid anti-colonial ferment and covert Italian military and economic assistance, the film sparked vigorous debate. For many Brotherhood members, the film's respectful portrayal of Islam and its themes of unity resonated deeply. It was seen as an affirmation that Islam could find a place of dignity within a new world order—one that could potentially challenge British imperial dominance. Some leaders cautiously welcomed the film as an artistic bridge between East and West, though many remained wary of its underlying fascist agenda.
Across the Middle East and North Africa, reactions were mixed but generally positive among urban elites and nationalist circles. The film's emphasis on cooperation rather than conquest was interpreted by some as a hopeful vision for a future of shared sovereignty and cultural renaissance. In cities like Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad, screenings were followed by lively intellectual discussions about the possibilities and dangers of such a partnership.
However, more conservative and religious groups expressed unease at the film's secular tone and the absence of key theological details such as the Sunni-Shia divide. For them, the film's truncation of Muhammad's story before his death—and its omission of the schism—felt like an erasure of essential religious history. Still, most refrained from outright condemnation, mindful of the film's sensitivity toward Islamic norms.
From a geopolitical perspective, The Messenger was a soft power coup for Mussolini's Italy. It positioned Rome not as an oppressor but as a respectful ally, extending a hand to Muslim peoples and reshaping the cultural narrative to favor Italian imperial ambitions in the Middle East.
In Europe and the West, reactions varied widely. Allied propagandists decried the film as a manipulative tool of fascist ideology cloaked in religious respectability, while neutral observers in the arts and academia lauded it as a groundbreaking, if politically charged, work of cinema.
For Riefenstahl, The Messenger was another technical and artistic triumph—her deft use of shadow, voice, and ensemble storytelling pushing the boundaries of film as a medium of both art and ideology.
As the cold war ground on, The Messenger stood as a testament to the power of cinema to shape history's narrative—and to Mussolini's unyielding ambition to craft a Roman empire not only by force of arms but through the enduring influence of myth, image, and culture.
In 1945, as the tides of the cold war intensified and the fascist Roman Empire sought to solidify its ideological and cultural grip, Leni Riefenstahl unveiled her latest epic masterpiece: The Alexiad. This sweeping cinematic saga chronicled the life and reign of Emperor Alexios Komnenos, the Byzantine ruler whose tenacious leadership in the late 11th and early 12th centuries steered the empire through a turbulent era of external invasions and internal fracturing.
The Alexiad was crafted with the meticulous historical attention and cinematic grandeur that had become Riefenstahl's hallmark. It portrayed Alexios not as an infallible hero but as a deeply human figure—ambitious, occasionally ruthless, yet bound by an unwavering devotion to the Roman ideal. His family, too, was depicted with nuance: his wife Irene as a politically astute but emotionally complex partner, his son John as a proud but impetuous heir, and his daughters as strong-willed women navigating a male-dominated world. Rather than caricatures, they were presented as individuals wrestling with their own agendas, loyalties, and moral ambiguities—all under the overarching destiny of Rome.
The film's narrative wove a rich tapestry of historical conflict, portraying the Seljuk Turks as formidable, honorable adversaries whose swift advances threatened the empire's Anatolian heartland. The Franks were depicted as proud but culturally alien warriors—neither outright villains nor friends—representing the chaotic forces of the West encroaching upon Roman lands. The "barbarians" beyond the Danube and Black Sea were shown as a persistent menace, often brutal but occasionally capable of alliance and diplomacy.
This balanced portrayal was a deliberate effort to emphasize Rome's enduring resilience and supremacy, even when confronted by worthy enemies. The Roman Empire was the stable center in a swirling world of ambition and warfare.
From a technical standpoint, The Alexiad was a marvel. Riefenstahl's camera work captured sweeping battles and intimate palace intrigues with equal mastery. The film employed innovative techniques such as panoramic long shots of Byzantine fortifications, realistic battle choreography informed by military historians, and emotionally charged close-ups that brought the Komnenoi family's internal dramas to life. The soundtrack blended traditional Byzantine chants with orchestral compositions that evoked both grandeur and tension.
In Greece, The Alexiad struck a powerful chord. For many Greeks, the Byzantine Empire represented a glorious historical era linking their ancient heritage to their Christian Orthodox faith and identity. Riefenstahl's film was widely praised for its respectful and realistic portrayal of Byzantine history, a subject often neglected or romanticized in Western media. The film's emphasis on the complexity and humanity of the Komnenos family resonated deeply, as it avoided simplistic nationalist myth-making in favor of a more mature understanding of history.
The Greek Orthodox Church cautiously endorsed the film, appreciating its respectful treatment of Byzantine religious traditions and its depiction of faith as a sustaining force amid political turmoil. Intellectuals and historians lauded Riefenstahl for her commitment to accuracy and nuance, although some criticized the film for its underlying fascist ideological lens.
Across the broader Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, The Alexiad garnered interest both as an artistic achievement and a potent political statement. In the Balkans, where memories of Byzantine influence were still vivid, the film was seen as a cultural reassertion of Rome's historical legacy in the region—albeit filtered through the prism of Mussolini's New Roman Empire.
Western European audiences and critics were divided. Allied critics dismissed the film as a thinly veiled propaganda piece, warning that its portrayal of Roman supremacy and imperial destiny masked fascist ambitions in a historical costume. Yet even some skeptics acknowledged Riefenstahl's technical brilliance and the film's compelling storytelling.
In the broader world, The Alexiad became a symbol of fascist Italy's desire to position itself as the legitimate heir to Byzantine and Roman traditions, asserting a vision of a multiethnic, multi-religious empire ruled by strength and enlightened governance. The film's nuanced depiction of complex historical realities, rather than simple glorification or demonization, set it apart from other propaganda films of the era, illustrating how cinema could serve as both art and ideological instrument.
As 1945 unfolded, The Alexiad stood as a cinematic testament to the enduring power of history to inspire, complicate, and shape political narratives—even amid the convulsions of the cold war.
Following the success and cultural impact of The Alexiad, Leni Riefenstahl embarked on an ambitious new project from 1946 through 1950: The Rouge Prince, a sweeping religious and political TV series chronicling the life and reign of Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, the controversial Byzantine ruler known for his turbulent rule, tragic downfall, and descent into paranoia and cruelty.
Unlike The Alexiad, which celebrated the enduring strength and resilience of Rome through the figure of Alexios Komnenos, The Rouge Prince took a darker, more psychological turn. It portrayed Andronikos as a fully realized, deeply human character—a charismatic and visionary leader whose initial promise and reformist zeal gradually twisted into paranoia, tyranny, and self-destruction. The narrative traced his rise to power amidst the factionalism of Constantinople's court, his ruthless attempts to centralize authority, and his gradual unraveling into madness as enemies closed in from within and without.
Riefenstahl's direction remained unwaveringly committed to historical authenticity and cinematic innovation. The film employed groundbreaking techniques in lighting and color to reflect Andronikos's shifting psyche: warm, vibrant hues during his early, hopeful days gave way to stark shadows and chilling, claustrophobic framing as his reign descended into chaos. The religious elements—his complex relationship with the Orthodox Church, his use of religious symbolism, and his eventual alienation from the clergy—were depicted with both reverence and critical nuance, illustrating the delicate balance between sacred authority and imperial ambition.
The film's cast portrayed Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and Franks not as simplistic enemies but as formidable, worthy adversaries, each with their own motivations and strengths. This balanced portrayal reinforced the pro-Roman message that Rome's greatness depended on its ability to navigate, contain, and ultimately unify these diverse forces—even when challenged by internal discord and external pressures.
The underlying political message of The Rouge Prince was complex and multifaceted. While fundamentally pro-Roman and emphasizing the empire's central role as a unifying and civilizing force, the film also served as a cautionary tale about the dangers of excess, autocracy, and unchecked power. Andronikos's tragic arc was a warning against the perils of tyranny and the fragility of imperial legitimacy when corrupted by paranoia and cruelty.
The series' reception in Greece was intense and multifaceted. The figure of Andronikos Komnenos was—and remains—a controversial historical figure, viewed alternately as a reformer and a tyrant. Greek audiences and critics praised Riefenstahl's nuanced portrayal for avoiding simplistic moralizing, instead offering a deeply human portrait that reflected the complexities of power and governance. The Orthodox Church, though cautious, recognized the film's sensitive handling of religious themes and its respect for Byzantine Christian traditions.
Across the Eastern Mediterranean and the broader Middle East, The Rouge Prince was similarly well received, particularly for its portrayal of Arabs and Turks as nuanced and worthy adversaries rather than mere antagonists. This helped bolster Mussolini's broader political strategy of positioning the New Roman Empire as a multicultural and multi-religious hegemon fostering a fragile but potent regional unity.
In Western Europe and the wider world, the film sparked significant discussion. Some saw it as an artistic masterpiece, praising Riefenstahl's ability to humanize a notoriously complex historical figure while embedding a sophisticated political message. Others, particularly critics opposed to fascist ideology, viewed the series with suspicion, warning that its glorification of Rome and imperial power masked dangerous authoritarian sympathies.
One of the most striking legacies of The Rouge Prince emerged years later in popular culture. In a 2018 interview, acclaimed fantasy author George R.R. Martin revealed that Andronikos Komnenos had profoundly inspired the character of Daemon Targaryen in his Fire & Blood series. Martin cited Andronikos's tragic combination of charisma, ambition, and descent into madness as a key template for Daemon's complex, morally ambiguous nature. This unexpected connection underscored the enduring cultural impact of Riefenstahl's work well beyond its immediate political context.
In sum, The Rouge Prince was more than a historical epic—it was a powerful meditation on the nature of power, loyalty, and the fine line between greatness and ruin. It reinforced the ideological foundations of Mussolini's New Roman Empire while contributing to a richer, more nuanced cinematic exploration of history's darkest and most compelling figures.
In the midst of working on The Rouge Prince in 1946, Leni Riefenstahl embarked on another bold and politically charged project—Breaker of Chains, an epic film chronicling the life and rebellion of Nat Turner, the famed African American preacher and insurrectionist who led a slave revolt in Virginia in 1831. This film marked a remarkable and deliberate departure from traditional fascist cinema, directly confronting the horrors of racism, slavery, and the entrenched system of oppression that built the antebellum South.
Riefenstahl approached the project with her trademark cinematic rigor and innovative artistry but infused it with a new moral urgency. Breaker of Chains portrayed Nat Turner as a complex and deeply human figure, simultaneously heroic and flawed—driven by faith, rage, and desperation. The plantation owners and slaveholders were also shown with nuance, illustrating the moral corruption and brutal violence inherent in the system they upheld, while also revealing the complicated personal dimensions of those complicit in maintaining slavery.
The film's message was unambiguous: an explicit condemnation of racism, slavery, and colonialism, alongside a powerful call for civil rights, dignity, and liberation. It sought not only to expose the inhumanity of the antebellum South but also to affirm the fundamental humanity and resilience of the oppressed. This made Breaker of Chains one of the earliest cinematic works to advocate so openly for racial equality and to challenge the mythologies that sustained white supremacy.
Internationally, Breaker of Chains was hailed by civil rights activists, anti-colonial movements, and progressive intellectuals as a groundbreaking work. In newly independent African nations and anti-colonial struggles across Asia and the Caribbean, the film resonated deeply. It became a symbol of resistance against imperialism and racial injustice, often screened covertly in places where colonial governments sought to suppress such messages.
European audiences received the film with critical acclaim, admiring its technical mastery and courageous subject matter. In Italy and parts of Eastern Europe under Mussolini's New Roman Empire, the film was officially promoted as part of a broader ideological push against racism and colonial exploitation—despite the regime's complex racial policies and political expediencies.
In stark contrast, Breaker of Chains ignited fierce and often violent backlash in the American South. The film's release coincided with the week right before the United States' midterm elections of 1946. Given the tense atmosphere in the US in the tragic prelude and aftermath of the 1944 elections, the film was seen by the increasingly threatened and alienated southern wing of the democratic party as a direct attack on them. Which Mussolini admitted during his deathbed interview in 1983 that it was, and that he explicitly quote, "worked Leni to the bone so I could throw a fucking rhetorical grenade at that election."
Screenings of Breaker of Chains in Southern cities frequently became flashpoints for unrest. Segregationist groups and white supremacist organizations condemned the film as subversive propaganda that threatened the "Southern way of life." Many theaters were targets of protests, bomb threats, and arson attempts. At several screenings, race riots erupted, with gunfire exchanged between white mobs and Black patrons backed by mafioso's, and radical civil rights activists. Notably, in Birmingham, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi, police intervention failed to prevent outbreaks of violence, resulting in 100 deaths in the lead up to the 1946 midterm elections, a global embarrassment to both the southern wing of the democrats and the US government.
Despite—or perhaps because of—this intense opposition, the film became a rallying symbol for civil rights leaders and organizations. African American communities clandestinely organized private showings, using the film as an educational and inspirational tool to galvanize resistance against segregation and racial violence.
The fierce reactions to Breaker of Chains revealed the deep fissures in American society and foreshadowed the tumultuous civil rights struggles that would dominate the next three decades. While many white Southerners recoiled from its message, the film helped amplify voices demanding justice and equality, forcing national attention onto the systemic brutality of racism.
For Riefenstahl, Breaker of Chains represented both a personal and political transformation. Having been long associated with fascist regimes and imperial propaganda, she now demonstrated a willingness to use her cinematic genius to confront social injustice directly. This complicated her legacy, blending her status as a technical innovator with a newfound moral urgency.
In the years to come, Breaker of Chains would be studied as a landmark in the evolution of political cinema—one that refused to shy away from difficult truths, even when those truths provoked fear, hatred, and violence.