Saw a fascinating documentary tonight, called "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl." She was a film director who made "Triumph of the Will", a notorious movie about a Nazi rally in 1934. She later filmed the 1936 Olympics, again for the Nazis. Now, lots of directors and movie folk worked for the Nazis in the 1930s (as did just about any German who chose to stay in the country when Hitler came to power). What made Riefenstahl different is that she was a true movie artist. Her 2 major movies were two of the most beautiful, groundbreaking films of their time, lovingly staged and shot. She was incredibly talented, and both films deservedly won awards and international plaudits.

But ... they were virtual love poems to the Nazi ideology. They portrayed Hitler and his merciless crew in a positive, spellbinding light, setting them up almost as gods. They endorsed their fascist view of an Aryan, united Germany, where physical beauty, strength and power were essentials. They ignored the plight of the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other victims of the Nazi reign.

So ... did that matter? Should art exist separately to politics? Should a director make a beautiful film about an ugly subject? Where does social responsibility begin and end? Can - and should - we as a society promote objectivity when it comes to art, or must art always obey humane and moral laws? i.e. Is it OK to make a beautiful film in which people are tortured and murdered? What if Riefenstahl had turned her lens on the concentration camps and made a beautifully crafted film detailing the wonderful efficiency and organisation of the Nazi genocide machine???

Troubling, difficult questions, especially if you're involved in the arts like me. I live in a time where I'm free to write pretty much what I want. But what if I'd been living in 1930s Germany? What if I'd been approached by Nazis and told I could write a saga about vampires and vampaneze, but my vampires had to be noble, honest, upstanding Aryans, and the vampaneze had to be vicious, vile, treacherous Jews? If they'd said I had to write the books that way or not at all. If they'd promised me fame and fortune if I played ball ... a one-way ticket to the camps if I didn't. Would I have caved in to their demands? Would I have been one of the few to reject their rule and defy them? If so, at what cost?

We don't live in a world of black and whites. Society is a grey zone, and I try to reflect that when I write. But Leni Riefenstahl's times were a lot greyer than mine. The documentary didn't take sides, but tried to explore the issues from all angles. I thought it was one the best docs I've seen in a long while. Quite apart from the issues surrounding her 2 most infamous films, Riefenstahl was an amazing character. She started out as an actress in mountaineering films ... made her 2 1930s masterpieces ... was reviled and denounced as a Nazi sympathizer after the war ... lived in relative solitude in the 1950s and 60s ... then returned to the public eye in the 1970s with a book about a native African tribe. The book was criticized as being fascist, and she was hauled over the coals again. At the age of 90 (yes, ninety!!), she was filming underwater scenes, merrily scuba diving with all the skill and agility of a woman half her age.

But it's "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympiad" that she will always be remembered for, and which will always generate the greatest debate. Two acknowledged classics, which happen to be two hymns to Nazism ... two of the world's most beautiful films, about one of the world's ugliest political parties ... visionary genius or Nazi collaborator?