Although this is not as immediately thrilling as it's prequel (*Die Nibelungen: Siegfried*), I thought this film had an incredibly complex and quite dark climax and ending. The film does not contain all of the fantastical aspects of the first film, although the set design (especially of the Hun's castle and village) was still pretty amazing. What I liked most about the film, though, was the way in which there is no clear good and bad guy by the end. By now, we're all used to this sort of thing, but I have to think that this was a much rarer and more risky endeavor in the 20s than it is at the end of a century of film.
[There are probably going to be spoilers below, so if you haven't seen the film and want to without hearing all of the plot, don't keep reading on.] Some of the comments I've read about the film is that this is pretty pro-fascist film, citing the fact that this was one of Hitler's favorites. I can see how a quick reading of the film would elicit this response, but I really do think that it is much more complex than that. The loyalty Kriemhild's family shows to the hagen is at times portrayed in a very patriotic and positive light. At one point, the Huns demand the handover of the hagen in order to let the rest free and the Burgunds say, "You obviously don't know the Germans." They stand by their people through thick and thin and are referred to as heroes. And, when they finally die in the fire, most of the Huns are now against their death. This all would seem to say that loyalty to the homeland is honorable regardless of mitigating factors.
However, what are they being loyal to? Clearly, the hagen is an evil character. Not only does he kill Siegfried in the first film, but he also kills Kriemhild's defenseless child. There's not much honor there. Also, what is the result of the Burgunds' loyalty? Ignominious death by fire (they don't even die valiantly in battle). And so, yes, Lang is clearly trying to get us to question the ferocity of Kriemhild's lust for revenge. But, equally, Lang seems also to be saying that her family is just as blinded by their own sense of loyalty to stop the inevitable train of events. The tragic ending, then, becomes one which is not just caused by Kriemhild's rage, but also by the Burgunds' blind loyalty to something and someone who does not deserve it. After all, in many senses, Kriemhild's revenge is just (doubly so once her child is killed). No one comes out the hero by the end of the film.
So, a little slower than the first part. But, the philosophical issues which are raised by the end are well worth the wait. I honestly thought this was one of the deeper films I've seen in a while.
[There are probably going to be spoilers below, so if you haven't seen the film and want to without hearing all of the plot, don't keep reading on.] Some of the comments I've read about the film is that this is pretty pro-fascist film, citing the fact that this was one of Hitler's favorites. I can see how a quick reading of the film would elicit this response, but I really do think that it is much more complex than that. The loyalty Kriemhild's family shows to the hagen is at times portrayed in a very patriotic and positive light. At one point, the Huns demand the handover of the hagen in order to let the rest free and the Burgunds say, "You obviously don't know the Germans." They stand by their people through thick and thin and are referred to as heroes. And, when they finally die in the fire, most of the Huns are now against their death. This all would seem to say that loyalty to the homeland is honorable regardless of mitigating factors.
However, what are they being loyal to? Clearly, the hagen is an evil character. Not only does he kill Siegfried in the first film, but he also kills Kriemhild's defenseless child. There's not much honor there. Also, what is the result of the Burgunds' loyalty? Ignominious death by fire (they don't even die valiantly in battle). And so, yes, Lang is clearly trying to get us to question the ferocity of Kriemhild's lust for revenge. But, equally, Lang seems also to be saying that her family is just as blinded by their own sense of loyalty to stop the inevitable train of events. The tragic ending, then, becomes one which is not just caused by Kriemhild's rage, but also by the Burgunds' blind loyalty to something and someone who does not deserve it. After all, in many senses, Kriemhild's revenge is just (doubly so once her child is killed). No one comes out the hero by the end of the film.
So, a little slower than the first part. But, the philosophical issues which are raised by the end are well worth the wait. I honestly thought this was one of the deeper films I've seen in a while.