To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

The struggle with time

What is most essential in us struggles with time. It is impossible to not accept space; it is too great a piece of evidence. But there is a moment from which you don’t want to accept time. The dramatic moment of the individual existence culminates always in the struggle with time. This struggle, however, is without escape, because the being touched by temporality, once having conquered eternity, inevitably regrets time. The desire to flee from time is found only in people ill with time, people who are tied too strongly by the bonds of fleeting moments. Redemption is such an inconsistent aspiration because of the regret experienced by those who are after the joys, surprises, and tragedies that the world, which lives and dies in the meanwhile, has to
offer. If there is a temporal pressure, there is also, none the smaller, an infinity pressure.

Man aspires to infinity, but loves time more. As this life that we live and consume is the only value that we are given, it is impossible not to conceive of eternity as a loss, which we nonetheless respect. The only thing one can love is life itself, which I detest. It is absolutely impossible to get rid of time, without getting rid of life at the same time. Wherever you position yourself, time is the biggest temptation: a greater temptation than life itself, because if death is not in time, then time will become the occasion of death. This is why the pure ecstasy of time reveals to us such bizarre mysteries and it introduces us to the secrets that bind the two worlds.

When man wouldn’t know the access to eternity through absolute living in the moment, when he wouldn’t be able to leap through eternity already living in the temporal whirlpool and would be forced to choose one of the two for eternity, would he then not hesitate to prefer time? Or when, also for ever, he would have to choose
between Cleopatra and Saint Therese, would he hide his predilection for the first?


The book of delusions
translation: Camelia Elias

The present is never our end..

THE Misery of Man.—We care nothing for the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if we could make it move faster; or we call back the past, to stop its rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander through the times in which we have no part, unthinking of that which alone is ours; so frivolous are we that we dream of the days which are not, and pass by without reflection those which alone exist. For the present generally gives us pain; we conceal it from our sight because it afflicts us, and if it be pleasant we regret to see it vanish away. We endeavour to sustain the present by the future, and think of arranging things not in our power, for a time at which we have no certainty of arriving.

If we examine our thoughts, we shall find them always occupied with the past or the future. We scarcely think of the present, and if we do so, it is only that we may borrow light from it to direct the future. The present is never our end; the past and the present are our means, the future alone is our end. Thus we never live, but hope to live, and while we always lay ourselves out to be happy, it is inevitable that we can never be so.

We are so unhappy that we cannot take pleasure in a thing save on condition of being troubled if it turn out ill, as a thousand things may do, and do every hour. He who should find the secret of rejoicing in good without being troubled at its contrary evil, would have hit the mark. It is perpetual motion.

Our nature exists by motion; prefect rest is death.

When we are well we wonder how we should get on if we were sick, but when sickness comes we take our medicine cheerfully, into that the evil resolves itself. We have no longer those passions and that desire for amusement and gadding abroad, which were ours in health, but are now incompatible with the necessities of our disease. So then nature gives us passions and desires in accordance with the immediate situation. Nothing troubles us but fears, which we, and not nature, make for ourselves, because fear adds to the condition in which we are the passions of the condition in which we are not.

Since nature makes us always unhappy in every condition, our desires paint for us a happy condition, joining to that in which we are, the pleasures of the condition in which we are not, and were we to gain these pleasures we should not therefore be happy, because we should have other desires conformable to this new estate.

Pascal

Pascal on pain/pleasure principle

All men seek happiness. To this there is no exception, what different means soever they employ, all tend to this goal. The reason that some men go to the wars and others avoid them is but the same desire attended in each with different views. Our will makes no steps but towards this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of him who hangs himself.

And yet after so many years, no one without faith has arrived at the point to which all eyes are turned. All complain, princes and subjects, nobles and commons, old and young, strong and weak, learned and ignorant, sound and sick, of all countries, all times, all ages, and all conditions.

A trial so long, so constant and so uniform, should surely convince us of our inability to arrive at good by our own strength, but example teaches us but little. No resemblance is so exact but that there is some slight difference, and hence we expect that our endeavour will not be foiled on this occasion as before. Thus while the present never satisfies, experience deceives us, and from misfortune to misfortune leads us on to death, eternal crown of sorrows.

This desire, and this weakness cry aloud to us that there was once in man a true happiness, of which there now remains to him but the mark and the empty trace, which he vainly tries to fill from all that surrounds him, seeking from things absent the succour he finds not in things present; and these are all inadequate, because this infinite void can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God himself.

He only is our true good, and since we have left him, it is strange that there is nothing in nature which has not served to take his place; neither the stars, nor heaven, earth, the elements, plants, cabbages, leeks, animals, insects, calves, serpents, fever, pestilence, war, famine, vices, adultery, incest. And since he has lost the true good, all things can equally appear good to him, even his own destruction, though so contrary to God, to reason, and to the whole course of nature.

Some seek good in authority, others in research and knowledge, others in pleasure.

Others, who indeed are nearer the truth, have considered it necessary that the universal good which all men desire should not consist in any of those particular matters which can only be possessed by one, and which if once shared, afflict their possessor more by the want of what he has not, than they gladden him by the joy of what he has. They have apprehended that the true good should be such as all may possess at once, without diminution, and without envy, and that which none can lose against his will. And their reason is that this desire being natural to man, since it exists necessarily in all, and that all must have it, they conclude from it . .

Monday, March 16, 2020

Meister Eckhart - Beati pauperes spiritu quia ipsorum est regnum coelorum (Mt. 5:3)


Blessedness opened its mouth of wisdom and spoke: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Every angel and every saint and everything that was ever born must remain silent when the wisdom of the Father speaks; for all the wisdom of the angels and of all creatures is sheer nothingness before the groundless wisdom of God. And this wisdom has declared that the poor are blessed.

Now there exist two kinds of poverty: an external poverty, which is good and is praiseworthy in a person willing to take it upon himself or herself through the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, because he was himself poor on earth. Of this poverty I do not want to speak any further. For there is still another kind of poverty, an inner poverty, by which our Lord's word is to be understood when he says : "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Now I beg you to be such poor to understand this speech. For I tell you by the eternal truth, if you are not equal to this truth of which we now want to speak, then you cannot understand me.

Various people have questioned me about what poverty is in itself and what a poor person is. That is what we want to answer. Bishop Albrecht says that a poor person is one who takes no satisfaction in any of the things that God ever created-and that is well said. But we say it better still and take poverty in a yet higher understanding: he is a poor person who wills nothing and knows nothing and has nothing. Of these three points we are going to speak and I beseech you for the love of God that you understand this truth if you can. But if you do not understand it, do not worry yourselves because of it, for the truth I want to talk about is of such a kind that only a few good people will understand it.

First, we say that one is a poor person who wills nothing. What this means, many people do not correctly understand. These are the people who in penitential exercise and external practices, of which they make a great deal, cling to their selfish I. The Lord have pity upon such people who know so little of the divine truth! Such people are called holy on account of external appearance, but inwardly they are asses, for they do not grasp the real meaning of divine truth. Indeed, these individuals too say that one is a poor person who wills nothing. However, they interpret this to mean that one should so live as to never fulfill one's own will in ally way, but rather strive to fulfill the ever-beloved will of God. These people are right in their way, for their intention is good and for that we want to praise them. May God in his mercy grant them the kingdom of heaven. But in all divine truth, I say that these people are not poor people, nor do they resemble poor people. They are highly considered only in the eyes of those who know no better. I, however, say that they are asses who understand nothing of divine truth. Because of their good intentions, they may receive the kingdom of heaven. But of that poverty of which I now want to speak, they know nothing.

These days, if someone asks me what a poor person is who wills nothing, I answer and say: So long as a person has his own wish in him to fulfill even the ever-beloved will of God, if that is still a matter of his will, then this person does not yet possess the poverty of which we want to speak. Indeed, this person then still has a will with which he or she wants to satisfy God's will, and that is not the right poverty. For a human being to possess true poverty, he or she must be as free of his or her created will as they were when they did not yet exist. Thus I say to you in the name of divine truth, as long as you have the will, even the will to fulfill God's will, and as long as you have the desire for eternity and for God, to this very extent you are not properly poor, for the only one who is a poor person is one who wills nothing and desires nothing.

When I still stood in my first cause, there I had no God and was cause of myself. There I willed nothing, I desired nothing, for I was a pure being and a knower of myself in delight of the truth. There I willed myself and nothing else. What I willed, that I was; and what I was, that I willed. There I stood, free of God and of all things. But when I took leave from this state of free will and received my created being, then I had a God. Indeed, before creatures were, God was not yet "God"; rather, he was what he was. But when creatures came to be and when they received their created being, then God was no longer "God" in himself; rather, he was "God" in the creatures.

Now we say that God, insofar as he is "God," is not a perfect goal for creatures. Indeed, even the lowliest creature in God possesses as high a rank. And if a fly possessed reason and could consciously seek the eternal abyss of divine being out of which it has come, then we would say that God, with all he is as God, would still be incapable of fulfilling and satisfying this fly. Therefore we pray God to rid us of "God" so that we may grasp and eternally enjoy the truth where the highest angel and the fly and the soul are equal. There is where I stood and willed what I was, and I was what I willed. So then we say, if people are to be poor in will, they must will and desire as little as they willed and desired when they were not yet. And in this way is a person poor who wills nothing.

Second, a poor person is one who knows nothing. We have said on other occasions that a person should live a life neither for himself, nor for the truth, nor for God. But now we say it differently and want to go further and say: Whoever achieves this poverty must so live that they not even know themselves to live, either for oneself or for truth or for God. One must be so free of all knowledge that he or she does not know or recognize or perceive that God lives in him or her; even more, one should be free of all knowledge that lives in him or her. For, when people still stood in God's eternal being, nothing else lived in them. What lived there was themselves. Hence we say that people should be as free of their own knowledge as when they were not yet, letting God accomplish whatever God wills. People should stand empty. Everything that ever came out of God once stood in pure activity. But the activity proper to people is to love and to know. It is a moot question, though, in which of these happiness primarily consists. Some authorities have said that it lies in knowing, some say it lies in loving, still others say that it lies in knowing and in loving. These are closer to the truth. We say, however, that it lies neither in knowing nor in loving. Rather, there is a something in the soul from which knowing and loving flow. It does not itself know and love as do the forces of the soul. Whoever comes to know this something knows what happiness consists in. It has neither before nor after, and it is in need of nothing additional, for it call neither gain nor lose. For this very reason it is deprived of understanding that God is acting within it. Moreover, it is that identical self which enjoys itself just as God does. Thus we say that people shall keep themselves free and void so that they neither understand nor know that God works in them. Only thus call people possess poverty. The masters say that God is a being, an intelligent being, and that he knows all things. We say, however: God is neither being nor intelligent nor does he know this or that. Thus God is free of all things, and therefore he is all things. Whoever is to be poor in spirit, then, must be poor of all his own understanding so that he knows nothing about God or creatures or himself. Therefore it is necessary that people desire not to understand or know anything at all of the works of God. In this way is a person able to be poor of one's own understanding.

Third, one is a poor person who has nothing. Many people have said that perfection consists in people possessing none of the material things of the earth. And indeed, that is certainly true in one sense: when one holds to it intentionally. But this is not the sense that I mean.

I have said before that one is a poor person who does not even will to fulfill God's will, that is, who so lives that he or she is empty both of his own will and of God's will, just as they were when they were not yet. About this poverty we say that it is the highest poverty . Second, we have said one is a poor person who himself understands nothing of God's activity in him or her. When one stands as free of understanding and knowing [as God stands void of all things], then that is the purest poverty. But the third kind of poverty of which we are now going to speak is the most difficult: that people have nothing.

Now give me your undivided attention. I have often said, and great masters say this too: people must be so empty of all things and all works, whether inward or outward, that they can become a proper home for God, wherein God may operate. But now we say it differently. If people stand free of all things, of all creatures, of God and of themselves, but if it still happens that God call find a place for acting in them, then we say: So long as that is so, these persons are not poor in the strictest poverty. For God does not desire that people reserve a place for him to work in. Rather, true poverty of spirit consists in keeping oneself so free of God and of all one's works that if God wants to act in the soul, God himself becomes the place wherein he wants to act-and this God likes to do. For when God finds a person as poor as this, God operates his own work and a person sustains God in him, and God is himself the place of his operation, since God is an agent who acts within himself. Here, in this poverty, people attain the eternal being that they once were, now are, and will eternally remain.

There is a saying of Saint Paul's which reads: "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (I Co. 15:10). My own saying, in contrast, seems to hold itself above grace and above being and above knowing and above willing and above desiring. How then call Saint Paul's word be true? To this one must respond that Saint Paul's words are true. God's grace was necessarily in him, and the grace of God accomplished in him the growth from accidental into essential being. When grace finished and had completed its work, Paul remained what he was.

Thus we say that a person must be so poor that he or she is no place and has no place wherein God could act. Where people still preserve some place in themselves, they preserve distinction. This is why I pray God to rid me of God; for my essential being is above God insofar as we consider God as the origin of creatures, indeed, in God's own being, where God is raised above all being and all distinctions, there I was myself, there I willed myself, and I knew myself to create this person that I am. Therefore I am cause of myself according to my being, which is eternal, but not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore also I am unborn, and following the way of my unborn being I call never die. Following the way of my unborn being I have always been, I am now, and shall remain eternally. What I am by my [temporal] birth is destined to die and be annihilated, for it is mortal; therefore it must with time pass away. In my [eternal] birth all things were born, and I was cause of myself and of all things. If I had willed it, neither I nor ally things would have come to be. And if I myself were not, God would not be either. That God is "God," of this I am the cause. If I were not, God would not be "God." It is not necessary, however, to understand this.

A great master says that his breakthrough is nobler than his flowing out, and this is true. When I flowed out from God, all things spoke: God is. But this cannot make me happy, for it makes me understand that I am a creature. In the breakthrough, on the other hand, where I stand free of my own will and of the will of God and of all his works and of God himself, there I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature. Rather, I am what I was and what I shall remain now and forever. Then I receive an impulse which shall bring me above all the angels. In this impulse I receive wealth so vast that God cannot be enough for me in all that makes him God, and with all his divine works. For in this breakthrough I discover that I and God are one. There I am what I was, and I grow neither smaller nor bigger, for there I am an immovable cause that moves all things. Here, then, God finds no place in people, for people achieve with this poverty what they were in eternity and will remain forever. Here God is one with the spirit, and that is the strictest poverty one call find.

If anyone cannot understand this discourse, let them not trouble their hearts about it. For, as long as people do not equal this truth, they will not understand this speech. For this is an unveiled truth that has come immediately from the heart of God. That we may so live as to experience it eternally, so help us God. Amen.

Tem Horwitz - MY DEATH ...


It was perfectly clear to me what was happening. I was dying. Yet at the time of my death in September of 1995 there was no fear, no struggling, no desperation, no confusion and no bewilderment. Yet as I sit here reading my wife’s account of my death I am filled with terror. In the middle of the night, during the Labor Day weekend, I went into anaphylactic shock. Later, it would appear that this was induced by exposure to excessive moulds in the air in our country house, and by drinking beer preserved with sulphites. In my middle years I have become acutely sensitive to both. Our second home sits on high dunes above Lake Michigan on a lot that is a mile deep, heavily wooded and remote. A spectacular and private spot. A mile from a paved road. Ten miles from town. Waking up in the middle of the night, having great difficulty breathing, I realized that I was in trouble. I woke my wife and told her succinctly, ‘We have to go.’ She understood immediately. She jumped from bed, put on a few clothes, grabbed her backpack, and helped me as we stumbled in total darkness toward the parking lot. I told her to take her car. Her car has a car phone, mine does not.

In the car I fought for my breath, for my life. I withdrew into myself. I knew that I was in the process of dying. I watched it happening. There was no fear; the experience itself was too compelling. During this period of time, which was probably less than ten minutes, all of my attachments to this world dwindled to nothing. Susan’s voice was distant, remote, removed from my experience. I could hear her talking to me and then I could no longer make sense of the words. ‘Hold on.’ ‘Holeone.’ ‘Hoooooooo.’ As I sat there struggling to breathe I watched the dashboard in front of me lose its definition. The lights lost their brightness. Everything turned a dark grey, and then black. My body began to feel very heavy. I could feel the weight in the middle of my back. I let everything settle down into my centre, not struggling with this feeling of heaviness. I responded weakly to Susan, partly because of the physical state that I was in but largely because I was totally absorbed in the process of dying. My head felt huge and heavy like a boulder. I felt my body toppling. I could not tell in which direction I was falling. Falling.

My last breaths were shallow with long exhalations, and finally no inhalationsbut a long final exhalation that felt, from the inside, like a Disney cartoon of a fiery dragon belching fire followed by overpowering sound effects. Roaring. Thunderous. Tolstoy, in ‘The Death of Ivan Ilych’, writes as Ilych is dying ‘all that had then seemed joys now melted before his sight and turned into something trivial…’1 For me the experience was not of watching the rest of my life become ‘trivial’ but of having my attention totally focused on this experience.

Tolstoy appears to have understood a great deal of what I experienced. Ivan Ilych, as he approaches death, watches as the external world of his home, family, doctors, retainers starts to fade away. There is an indifference to the world, and to his life as he had lived it. It ‘was all dropping away’. So for me, in a much shorter time frame, my life dropped away from me. It was remote and distant. Let me return later to the indifference. Ivan Ilych’s dying was slow and painful, yet as he gets closer and closer to death Tolstoy writes—‘“And the pain?” he asked himself. “What has become of it? Where are you pain?” “Yes here it is. Well what of it? Let the pain be.”’2 So for me too, there was pain and discomfort—after all I couldn’t breathe—however, it was isolated and detached from my experience of dying. Though I shared with Ivan Ilych his death rattle I did not see the ‘light’ and experience the death of death as Tolstoy writes. Perhaps here Tolstoy was wandering off into the theological, or conjuring up death as he would have liked it to be. It is ironic, as I sit here writing, that I am going to put my experiences into a chronology. I am about to write about the ‘dissolution of time’, yet I find myself organizing my experiences in time so as to make sense of them for you, and for me in the telling. As I stopped breathing and felt myself retreating further and further into another realm I was conscious of feeling tremendously heavy. My body accumulated a weightiness that was not attached to any sensation of solidity. There was just heaviness and the feeling of being down, down, down. My body was dissolving, leaving me free of any physical constraints. Was this the moment of my death rattle and the moment when I toppled over in the car beside Susan? I do not know. Though I was not conscious of it at the time, the experience of dying was so engrossing that it left me totally alone. There was no one present at my death—albeit Susan was at my side. This was a solitary journey. No company allowed. The part of me that has always stood aside as an observer of myself, as well as of the world, was left alone—free of distractions—to observe the process of death. This part of myself is quite familiar to ‘me’—excuse me, to whom? As a child I spent a great deal of time hovering between life and death. I was severely asthmatic, and at that time the treatment for asthma was extremely limited. The treatment consisted of medication designed to relax my lungs, cut with speed to keep me up there and a downer to ensure that I didn’t go too far. This is when I came to know intimately this part of myself and to become comfortable in this detached state. I remember many hours spent staring through lace curtains at the sky and at the branches and the leaves of an old, majestic maple tree outside my window.

In later years when I began to take psychedelic mushrooms I was at once at home, having returned to a very familiar world—a world in which my consciousness was detached from my body and was free to roam about. As a young, healthy adult experimenting with drugs I had much more mobility, companionship and stimulation. I recall tripping with friends recently returned from spending three years in New Guinea, the first outsiders to live with a previously unvisited tribe. They had spent their time learning the language and studying with the local shamans and participating in the tribal rituals and ceremonies. As we stared at the shaman’s shield—a triangular shield, perhaps 3 feet tall with black and pale red triangles painted on it—we each had the experience of having part of ourselves drawn through the negative spaces in the shield into another world. There was an elasticity to our consciousness, we went through the shield and were pulled back into the room by conversation, music, movements. It was too scary for any of us simply to leave and possibly not return through that shield. Nevertheless it was too exciting and magical not to be drawn back into it. This consciousness or spirit or whatever we want to call it was the same observer who was present at my death.

Digressing a little more, as a graduate student in the late Sixties at Columbia, in New York, I recall joking with some very bad Puerto Rican gang members in New York on 110th Street who had a knife at my throat and who wanted my money. I again experienced a splitting off of my consciousness from my body. I can still feel the sharp, cold point of the knife in my throat—it was a winter evening with light snow falling— while I joked around with them and explained why I wasn’t going to give them my money and why in fact they shouldn’t even want to take my money. After an eternity or a minute or a few seconds one of them removed the blade of the knife from below my jaw…The guy raised his head up in a sign of recognition, a sudden and complete relaxing of the tensions that had built up. Laughter. They turned and continued strolling down 110th Street. I continued on my way in the opposite direction. I was yanked back into time and my consciousness and body were in their everyday relationship, one to the other.

More of this consciousness later. Let me keep up with my chronology. Sounds. There was only one sound component of this experience. At what I take to have been one of the stages of my biological death there was a tremendous roar that came from out of nowhere. It felt like I was hearing my body from the inside, listening to the roar of my heart and my vital organs. There was no beat, like the beat of the heart, just a tremendous all encompassing roar. The sound of water rushing through a gorge. I felt the fury and the rage and the potency of death, not my awareness of death, but the thing itself.

At this point the heaviness changed to a feeling of immersion in a liquid far heavier than water, a blue-black solvent that seemed to dissolve the substantiality of the material world so there was no longer solidity, stability or substantiality. This medium, this solvent, dissolved the very adhesive that heldmy world together. This was the universal solvent. All of the connections in the physical world disappeared. Here I was in this great nothingness—no longer black or void or silent or heavy— nothing, nothing, nothing. The part of me that was experiencing this state was again too curious to be fearful or confused. There was nothing terrifying about this geography. I supposed that this is what death is—a realm without space, without time, without definition, without stimulation. In this realm there was no longer a sense of self, ego, consciousness, body. There was no longer the same observer to observe for there was no distinction between the me and the it, the place or non-place, the me or the not-me. Sorry. Still no feeling of bliss, of great peace, or of love. Emotionless. It was what it was. No boundaries, no beginning, no end, no starting point, no definition. Infinite, limitless, uncompounded, simple, clear unrestricted Space. When I was a child I had two dreams that recurred over and over for many years. In the first the creatures that appeared at the foot of my bed as day turned into dusk would try to abduct me in the middle of the night. They would drag me from my bed toward the stairs and then down the stairs. They would wrestle with me and I would struggle until I forced myself from sleep. In the beginning I would awaken myself by screaming. As time went on I learned to force myself out of sleep without screaming. The contest in my eyes was one of life and death. If they succeeded in dragging me down the stairs I would die. Some nights I would wake to find myself standing at the head of the stairs or part of the way down the stairs. Over time the struggle continued to have life or death as its end point, but it no longer had the component of fear. At times I would piss down the carpeted stairs as a sign to myself that I had triumphed. ‘Piss on them’, marking my turf, leaving a reminder to them that I had survived and was contemptuous of them. A warning to them to stay away. For better or worse this is how I learned to live my life. All contests involve life and death.

All battles in life are to the death. That is the way it is for me. When I was 18 years old I stopped playing tennis. My father believes it was because I was not competitive enough. I will never be able to explain to him that tennis for me was a life and death contest, as was chess, or ping pong. At 18 it no longer seemed worthy of that intensity. The contest was not worthy of the prize. The second dream took place in unlimited space in which there was only myself and a massive ball. It was a ball whose mass far exceeded its size, like a giant ball-bearing made out of a dense and exotic metal. It moved without sound through a space that was undifferentiated—no foreground, no background. It moved without friction. Its presence was menacing in a non-specific way. It felt like all of the energy of the universe was contained within this sphere. The ball either drew me to it or prevented me from moving because of its mass and presence. Nothing more happened in this dream. There was no other activity, no passage of time, no differentiation of the space. There was no way to ignore the force of the ball nor the immensity of the universe in which it existed. It was a world that was menacing without being frightening. Let me return to my tale. It is very difficult to describe time through this sequence. It ceased to be the medium through which I was moving. There was no forward, no backward, no future, no past—only a present that contained everything. All eternity was in that present.

Next. When? In time? In sequence? In space? Next, colours. One colour at a time. The colours blending into one another. Each colour occupied the entire field of my perceptions. Much like the space that was filled with energy that was in my dream, but here colour dominated. Each colour had a physical dimension and presence as well as a visual dimension. These colours were not bright primary colours, but the colours that you see, faded, on old plaster walls in Central European apartments. Muted colours. But energized. Absorbing colours—I was part of them, undifferentiated from them. There was no emotional content to this universe. The colours were complete and compelling and unrestricted. Each phase passed with no differentiation, no distinctions, and no boundaries.

There both was and was not an observer. There was no distinction between the me, the perceiver, and the it, the place. I’m certain that there is some more elegant way of describing this experience which highlights the fact that wherever it was that I was, was part of me and yet not part of me. Perhaps not. There was something basically wordless about the experience. It was an environment, a universe—let me call it that—that was complete and all encompassing and yet the perceiver was part of the perception. It was some place, not ‘no place’, not an undifferentiated world of blackness, not a void, nothingness. What is the time frame with which we measure our lives? How do we account for time? The answer is slightly different for each of us. But death adds a potency and focus to this question. Our relationship and perceived proximity to death adjusts our clocks. It is the clock we watch to find out when the exam is over, when the workday comes to an end. ‘Lay down your pencils!’ Lay down your lives. Grab your lunchbox. Hold on for dear life. How does the world ‘feel’ once we have given it up, or once we have relinquished its delights and pleasures, its pain and irritations? Dying removed me from the clutches of time. There was no present for me—transient or otherwise—during this period. How can I describe it. As we sit here and as you read this you are aware to some degree of the passage of time. As post-industrial creatures we are always, on some level, aware of time. Even those of us who are habitually late are in fact habitually late. With my friends and associates I can tell when they are going to arrive at a meeting—some are on time, some are early, some are predictably late. How is it that most of us can wake up when we want to or need to? How many of us awaken exactly two seconds before the alarm goes off? Even my first wife—who amazed me, and others, for years, with her lateness—was predictable. We don’t encounter manypeople who are 5 or 6 hours late for a dinner party that they have gone to a great deal of trouble to arrange and to host. People generally don’t go away for the weekend and return six months later. This woman had a great deal to teach on the relativity and manipulation of time, and perhaps of people too. To describe time as I experienced it requires that I compare it to the ordinary time in which we lead our lives.

Each state or place that I visited lasted forever. Look at this paper with these words printed on it for a moment and try to keep the image from changing. Not possible. My experiences were not experiences that were subject to time or change or transition. The colours and sounds were not diminished by time. The changes from one frame to the next were unconditional. There were no slow fades into another scene. What was, was—and that is all that there ‘was’—and then it was something else. Coming back I had great difficulty adjusting to the world of activities and time and appointments and schedules. I could not pay attention to clocks, to the time of day, to the light and darkness of the world. My life was out of the reach of time. Perhaps this is why after thirty years of not wearing a watch I now wear one—precisely to keep me attached to this world of time and schedules and activities. My death had the effect of placing me squarely in the present. What I experienced while dying or dead were ‘presents’, slices of time. On my return to the land of the living I retained this sense of the ‘present’. The first two days were perfect, clear, timeless states. The people around me came and went. The nurses changed. Susan was there and was not there. For the most part I was awake. The transitions from waking to sleep were seamless. Sleep was dreamless. Awake I was free of dreaming, wondering, speculating, fantasizing, analysing. My thoughts would rise up slowly and clearly. They would then dissolve into nothing. No residue. No recycling. No tapes playing the same thoughts over and over. Initially there were abysses between thoughts. Vast empty spaces between thoughts. Peace.

There was a tremendous sense of freedom. These moments were what they were. They lacked nothing. They were complete in and of themselves. I could conceive of no happiness outside of these moments. There was no future. I could not for that first week focus on what was to happen the next day, the next week, the next moment. Without a future to think about there was also nothing to worry about. I could feel no anxiety because I was where I was, comfortable, healthy, warm, well fed. Trips to the hardware store, bank accounts, letters left unwritten all seemed remote and irrelevant. There was nothing that I wanted to do or felt that I had to do. There was no vestige of self-importance left. It felt like death had obliterated my ego, the attachments that I had, my history, and who I had been. Death had been very democratic. It had eliminated innumerable distinctions. With one bold stroke my past had been erased. I had no identity in death. It didn’t stay erased—some would say that this was the real tragedy—but it was erased for a time. Gone was my personal history with all of its little vanities. The totality of myself was changed. The ‘me’ was much smaller and much more compact than it had been. All that there was, was right in front of me. I felt incredibly light. Personality was a vanity, an elaborate delusion, a ruse. Let me describe it in another way. My clock had been reset. Time had stopped for me. I had died. I was no more. Time restarted when I was pulled back into this world in the emergency room of the hospital. Suddenly someone was calling my name, talking to me, I could feel the tube inserted painfully in my throat. Susan was present. From the sublime to the emergency room. On the one hand I felt that I had a glimpse of eternity and had abruptly been drawn back into a world in which time is measured from moment to moment, from breath to breath, from day to day, from year to year, from pay-cheque to pay-cheque.

How does it feel once the elusive pleasures of the future have been stripped from us? Removed from time for those first days after my death, I felt a wonderful lightness. A feeling of relief at being able to drop the heavy bags that I had been carting around on an endless, repetitious voyage. Not even a backpack was required. I had been delivered from the petty aggravations and anxieties of my life. It was not glorious, filled with a love of all things great and small, or a world consumed by grace. It was emotionless, liberated from memory, light and airy. Things were what they were as they appeared to me in time and space.

Having lost touch with the past, and not daydreaming into the future, I was lodged in the present. This present was peaceful, free of anxiety, free of discursive thinking, no tapes playing and replaying in my head. I was simply content to lie around in the emergency room, in the hospital, to sit around the house going about my business. My days were filled with a quietness and stillness and sweetness. Clear and timeless. There was nothing outside of the sweep of those days. I had caught a glimpse of eternity, and I was content to dwell in its embrace. I still feel touches of that embrace in my daily life, now, a year and half later. This may not be the ideal personality type and state to be in for a real estate developer, or it may be. I find myself spending more time waiting in the field of time for the players and events to approach me, in the proper configuration, before I take the trouble to act. Some things I feel that I can no longer accomplish. They require too much energy of a sort that I am not willing to expend and are far too aggravating. Many other things get done quickly, and cleanly, and seemingly without effort.

My death clarified thoughts that I have had about time and human achievement since I was a child living in the shadow of my own death. My old life was over—it had come and gone and was no more. It was no longer mine, as it had been before dying. When I died it was the end, it was all that she wrote, the fat lady had sung. All of my work, my family, my creations and constructions, my achievements seemed of little consequence to me. They would continue to exist or not with or without me. They were not dependent on my presence any more. They were gone from me, beyond my grasp. They were no longer mine.

Time, my time, was consequently as it was when I was a child without serious obligations and responsibilities. I could never conceive, when I was a child how it could ultimately matter if I lived or died. Life would go on without me. A few people would grieve. Then they too would be gone. I could not differentiate between dying as a child and dying as an adult. They both seemed like they would be the same after I had died. I remember thinking as a child that in either case I would still be dead for the same amount of time. I can still remember my mother’s shocked and perplexed look when I asked her, during one of my medically altered states of consciousness, if I wasn’t going to be dead for the same amount of time if I died now or in fifty years. In the eyes of eternity, and through my eyes as a child, a short life and a long life looked the same. Having come through the ‘cuisinart’ of death, for a time the world looked and felt more uniform, blended, undifferentiated, and much less substantial than it had before, and than it does now. People and things had an air of impermanence or permeability. I felt as if I was looking through things as much as looking at things. The space between and around people had as much definition and substance and importance as the people themselves. The emptiness had form and significance. I had a difficult time attaching the appropriate significance to the highly differentiated people and things in the world. The hierarchy was lost. I was still immersed in the whole and could not concentrate sufficiently on the parts. My sight, the way I saw the world, was radically altered. The material world no longer appeared to be solid. My perceived world was full of holes, empty spaces. The people around me, the walls, the chairs, the windows were no longer substantial in the way that they had been before my death. Months later I saw a cheaply printed black and white poster stapled to a telephone pole advertising a Seurat exhibit. The image from one of his paintings had been enlarged so that the gaps—the black holes between the dots that constituted the image—were prominent. This was very similar to the way that the world had looked to me in the period just after my death. Over the course of the next several weeks the world started looking more like a pointillist painting—dots of colour with smaller spaces between them. I wondered if it was my mind that was filling in the gaps between the dots, if part of this landscape was being created by me. Over a period of months I began to see more or less—more or less—as I had before my death. However, as I sit here writing, it is still possible to look at the scene in front of me and allow it to deconstruct. As a consequence of watching people deconstruct before my eyes, my attachments to the people whom I love are now to a lesser extent to their physical bodies. Indeed the whole physical world looks and feels much less substantial that it did before my death. Deep feelings remain but with less direct connection to loved ones’ physical manifestations and embodiments. I find myself looking at people with a curious detachment, trying to figure out what the connection is between their bodies and their non-body selves. In the process of dying I felt my attachments slipping away. I was alone. On my return I was free for a time of the cares and concerns and anxieties of this world. There was a lightness, which I have described, but there was also an indifference, a detachment from my world.

Sartre, in ‘The Wall’, describes how his principal character loses interest in everything around him as he gets closer to his execution. Indifference replaces emotions like anger or hatred. He realizes that he is not even going to miss the things to which he thought he was most attached in this life. ‘Death had disenchanted everything.’3 Looking death in the eye, the world was no longer ‘enchanted’ or fascinating. Once he realizes that he is going to die, that he is not immortal, time loses significance. What is the difference between living a little while longer or a lot longer? He looks at his executioners and sees men, like himself, who are going to die despite their petty vanities and self-importance. Everyone is going to die. Everyone is dying, awaiting only the moment of their death. His fate, like ours, turns on a dime. The man whom he has tried to save is found where he was not supposed to be, and is killed, and he lives. He laughs till he cries recognizing the absurdity of what has happened. My experiences parallel these. But not completely. Indifference replaces other emotions, like anger and envy. The presence of death is an eraser that clears off much that is filling the blackboard. When life gets too cluttered and confused, when you have somehow strayed from the path, consult with death. Thoughts of death clarify and clear the blackboard of unimportant material. When I was in my mid-twenties and experiencing the angst and despair that sometimes appears at that age I took comfort in the thought that I was going to die, that no matter how horrible things felt and no matter how miserable I was and how filled with anxiety, there would one day be an end to the pain. The thought of death, and the relief that it would bring, always cheered me up. All pain was endurable if I knew that there was going to be an end to it. Much that had been grim or disagreeable or distressing could be viewed as scenes from the theatre. I was moved by events, but no longer so deeply attached to them. From this perspective most of life simply became live entertainment. Seeing the worst of it as enter- tainment allowed me to begin to discriminate and to see for myself what was of some significance and what was mere human folly. A different consideration of life began for me at this point. I had discovered the consolation of death. This great insight, which I felt compelled to share with my friends, appeared to leave them unmoved, confused or depressed. I concluded that the manner in which people try to understand death and life is dictated as much by temperament as by logic.

My counter-phobic temperament is one temperament among many, but one which was very much at play in my experience of my death. Camus, in a style, or with a temperament, that strikes me as very French, looks at the ‘naked reality’ of this world and finds no consolation, no hope, no solace from the crushing certainty of fate. There is no reprieve in religion or in the philosophical thought that he has known. The answer for him to this central philosophical question about the meaning of our lives, lies in man’s revolt against the absurdity of his fate in this remorseless world. Revolt, creation, defiance, pride are the conqueror’s attitude and constitute the only triumph for man. Man triumphs over his fate by his lucid indifference to it, and exults in the freedom that comes from accepting life on these terms. The liberty of living life wilfully. This thought strikes a chord, though it does sound very tiring. Think of poor Sisyphus and his triumph—‘There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.’4 Creation, revolt, pride, will, freedom. Exhausting! Brilliant! Useful? To some, I suppose. Given Camus’s understanding of the vastness of time and space and the limitations of human achievement, he is forced, because of his own personal ambitions and seriousness, to create a dramatic juxtaposition in which heroism, romanticism, drama and a certain posturing provide the emotional and intellectual solution to the problem. Whatever else, Camus is never easygoing.

For most of us it is not enough to think of ourselves as an infinitesimal part of a vast universe with an existence in time that is absurdly small. Because we find no consolation in this vastness, we attempt to find meaning in our lives that is somehow outside of our lives. When we begin to question seriously the meaning of our lives we are usually consumed by doubt as to its meaning. We confer meaning to our lives, we continue to work and to live beyond the requirements of providing a roof over our heads and food for our stomachs, because in addition to being creatures of habit our actions give us some pleasure. Our reflections and our scepticism add their own particular spice to each of our lives be it a gravity, a remoteness, an anger, an irony, a bitterness or a sense of humour. Each of these is a plausible response to our consciousness of the limitations of our existence. For myself, fear was never part of my thinking about death. I recognize that this is not a conventional response. Mention death and dying to people and you will see a good deal of cringing. As my mother was dying I recall the simple clarity of the situation. She was old, her body was worn out, and she was ready to die. For virtually everyone else there was a medical solution that was going to solve the ‘problem’. Somehow medicine was to grant her immortality. There was no fear in her, just a desire to die at home and not in a hospital hooked up to grotesque life support systems. All of the pithy homilies in the world may not be enough to eliminate a fear of death that is embedded in each of us to varying degrees and at varying depths. But an easy familiarity with death may be a fine relationship to have with this adviser. When we are the most despondent about our lives, we can look to death as our liberator and mentor. Nothing cures a diseased life as definitively as death. After my mini-death, overcome by feelings of emptiness and indifference, finding myself living in a body that was miraculously free of aches and pains, I wondered to myself, ‘And now what?’ What was to happen next? There was not much left to which to cling. With less to cling to I felt surprisingly strong and considerably less vulnerable. My only vulnerability, or sadness, or retroactive sense of loss, was that I might not have been able to watch my children grow up—largely selfish. And that they would not have their biological father around to bounce their identities off of, and to challenge through adolescence into adulthood. My feeling of indifference combined with a sense of sadness as the days wore on. I couldn’t look at anyone or anything without reflecting on impermanence. I saw my children growing old and decrepit and dying. I saw the buildings which I have constructed being torn down, or worse, becoming old and rundown and shabby. I kept thinking that all of our achievements, all our creations, all our labours, all our hopes and dreams of at least some limited immortality—all of this perishing in this vast ocean of existence. My sadness was in turn replaced by an old familiar sense of the simple enjoyment of life. I could love this life because I knew that it was rich in pleasures and whatever pain or deterioration or anguish or infirmity I was going to face, it would end. It would be extinguished by death. I had witnessed how my life could end at any moment. It was this fact that gave pleasure to my daily life filled with its trivial actions. Life is not ordinary or boring because of the mystery of death. My activities had meaning and were complete in themselves without reference to any external reference or justification because I was not immortal, because I was not going to live forever. I was alive and living my life. I needed no more. What makes my life interesting and confers some purpose to it is that my actions, any of which may be my last, are manifestations of my will in the face of my death. My battle with death is one that ultimately I will lose. All of my struggles are indeed struggles for life, but the ferocity of the struggle and the exercise of my will is what bestows interest and poignancy on life. I exercise my will in my struggle to live so as not to be taken by death passively or due to carelessness. All of my battles are indeed battles for life. My creations are the record on my journey into nonexistence. Any inattentiveness can result in death. Death adds a potency and concentration to life. It is a most reliable counsellor.

Derek Hawthorne -Storm over Mont Blanc, Part 4


11. Death on Mont Blanc

Act III of Storm over Mont Blanc begins in the aftermath of the death of Hella Armstrong’s father. Hella and Prof. Armstrong had come to visit Hannes, the lonely Wetterwart, atop Mont Blanc.

The day after their arrival, Hella and Hannes go climbing, while Prof. Armstrong goes off on his own, collecting rock samples. While shifting positions atop one of Mont Blanc’s peaks, Armstrong loses his footing and falls to his death. Hella and Hannes do not witness this, and only discover the terrible truth later.

The opening scenes of the act are dramatic and moving. We see shots of the clouds pouring over Mont Blanc, as a grief-stricken Hella stands outside the hut. She does not weep and wail. Her head is held high, her face expressionless. It is a noble, Teutonic grief, like that of Kriemhilde for Siegfried. (And it is obvious that Hella worshipped her father.) These scenes are accompanied by an extraordinarily simple and dramatic funeral dirge by Paul Dessau. Inside his cabin, a solemn Hannes sits down at his telegraph machine and sends a message: “Professor Armstrong in fatal accident. Send people here immediately.”

As if in a trance, Hella begins trudging away from the hut and into the snow. Hannes runs after her and gently guides her back to the cabin. Inside, she sits down on a bench and goes completely limp, like a broken doll, as Hannes kneels before her and removes her boots. He props her feet on a pillow, handling them as if they were made of glass, and then lights the stove. Fadeout.


Hella and Hannes part, after her father's death

In the morning, men arrive at the cabin to remove Prof. Armstrong’s body, and Hella prepares to leave with them. Hannes takes her hand and says “If you feel lonely down there and need some company, I have a good friend, a musician. He’s a very kind person.” Hannes, of course, is referring to Walter.

It is clear by this point that strong feelings have developed between Hella and Hannes, so why does he suggest that she contact his young and unattached friend? It may be that Hannes does not regard Walter as competition (as we shall see, there are good reasons for this). Still, it is a rather selfless act. Hannes will not be able to leave his post for several months, and so any sort of “relationship” between him and Hella is really impossible for the moment.

However, what also seems to be true is that – like Dr. Krafft in Pitz Palu – Hannes now feels that he belongs in the icy remoteness of the mountain world. His soul has been elevated by the hard life on Mont Blanc, and consequently he feels alienated from those who (literally and figuratively) live below him. This is a constant theme in Fanck’s films. In The Holy Mountain, after climbing “the dreadful north face,” Vigo tells the Friend he wants to return, and the Friend responds: “Is there something you want with the rabble below?”

In Meditations on the Peaks, Julius Evola writes: “There is no real climber who is not able to experience mountain climbing, if only in a few occasional flashes, as something more than a mere sport. Likewise, there is no real climber who does not display, in the eyes or in the face darkened by the sun’s reflection on the snow, the mark of a race that has transformed beyond that of the people of the plains.”[1]

Fanck was completely in tune with such ideas, and his films struck a chord with climbers everywhere. At the time of Storm over Mont Blanc’s release, a commentator in a major Alpine journal wrote glowingly of the film and said of Hannes that he “would prefer to struggle with nature – would ten times prefer to struggle with the violence of the storm or the dangers of the avalanche, to struggle against hunger and cold, than to have to battle human weakness and the disillusionments of the wide world below.”[2]

Hannes is torn. He is now thoroughly a creature of the mountain, imbued with its spirit – but in his response to Hella he feels the eternal call of life and its continuance, which really can only take place below. As we shall see, the only way he can reconcile these conflicting tendencies is if Hella comes to him as a genuine woman, not as a “modern woman.” In testing his mettle against the mountain, he has forged himself into the embodiment of the Traditional Absolute Man (see Julius Evola’s Metaphysics of Sex for more information, and my discussion of Evola’s theories in my essay on The Holy Mountain).

The only way Hannes can return to life among the “rabble” without sacrificing his spirit, is if that spirit is complemented by an embodiment of the Absolute Woman. Such a pairing would not only leave his manhood intact, but allow it to fully and completely express itself. Pitz Palu, Fanck’s previous film, ended tragically, with Dr. Johannes Krafft (the Absolute Man of that film) unable to make a connection with the very modern Maria and to come down from his “white hell.” We will see whether Hannes fares better. At the moment, things do not look so hopeful, as Hella is even more truly “modern” than was Maria.

To return to our story, when the men arrive to remove Armstrong’s body, Hella leaves with them. As they depart, Hannes plants a cross on the mountain and contemplates it a few moments. Hella stands below on the glacier, studying him. Then, she turns to go. Hannes watches the party set off down the mountain then returns to his hut, now lonelier than ever. In a simple but meaningful scene, he removes her cup from his table.

12. Return to Earth

Hella is now back in her observatory, reclining languidly in an armchair as the great telescope swings into place before her. She looks into the eyepiece for a few moments then sinks back into the chair as if enervated. She has lost interest in her work. Her father’s replacement appears, a pleasant, heavy-set man referred to only as “professor.” He tells Hella (as if she did not know) to take down the telegraph messages from Mont Blanc every evening at 10:00pm. Suddenly, as he sits at the telegraph, one comes in. He listens for a moment and says with surprise. “Well, I never . . . .” Hannes is radioing to ask how Hella is. She quickly offers an explanation:“He was an old friend of papa’s.”


Matthias Wieman

The scene now shifts to the hallway of a rather decrepit apartment house in Charlottenburg (one of the boroughs of Berlin). Hella is standing outside a door on which has been affixed a sign that reads “Walter Petersen, Organist.” Hella picks up the milk that has been left by the door, knocks, and then enters. Walter is in bed apparently ill, striking keys on his piano with one hand and making notes on a score with another. Hella looks around his shabby and depressing apartment. Then Walter looks up and is quite surprised when he finally notices that a beautiful girl has entered. Matthias Wieman, who would later appear in Riefenstahl’s The Blue Light, plays Walter. His face stands in sharp contrast to that of Sepp Rist’s. His head is narrow, his chin weak, and his eyes shifty. This is Arnold Fanck’s image of the “sensitive” artist – sensitive to the point of spiritual and bodily weakness.

Hella introduces herself and brings greetings from Hannes. Then she immediately begins straightening up the messy apartment. Why is Hella willing to do these things for Walter, when she wasn’t willing to do them for the obviously superior Hannes? The answer, quite simply, is that it was precisely because Hannes is superior. Hella sees Walter as a poor specimen of manhood and feels superior to him. She can momentarily play the part of the “housewife” with him because he in no way threatens her image of herself as a modern, “liberated” (i.e., masculinized) woman. In fact, she is in complete control with Walter. To have played such a part with Hannes, however, would have constituted surrender. It is very clear that Fanck is aware of the psychological dynamic here. Significantly, he shows Hella lighting Walter’s gas stove – and then cuts directly to a shot of the fire on Hannes’s stove blazing away.

Hannes is looking into his microscope, and imagines that he hears Hella yodeling her little tune as she did when she first arrived at his cabin. Clearly, he is able to think about little other than her. He begins pacing, then starts flipping through the pages of his tear-off calendar. It is January now. On the page for April 20th (a significant day in the German calendar, of course) he has written “Tag meiner Ablösung” (literally, “day of my replacement”; the day on which he will be relieved by the next Wetterwart and can return to the world below). Hannes looks at the page and smiles.

Time passes. It is now April and we are in Walter’s apartment again. Hella enters just as Walter is writing a letter to Hannes:

Dear Wetterwart,

I am indescribably happy to have such a sweet being [liebes Wesen] around me and I hope to soon be able to tell you about my engagement to Hella Armstrong. . . .

Hella has apparently been visiting Walter quite often and nursing him back to health. Has he simply imagined that their relationship is more than a friendly one? What are Hella’s feelings? This is not made entirely clear. Walter receives a telegram from Hannes that reads “Arriving April 26th for long vacation. Your Wetterwart.” Hella seems ecstatic at this news and begins dancing around the room and playing the piano, singing the melody heard earlier (and that Hannes keeps imagining that he hears). Walter seems dismayed at her reaction. But again, it is not clear exactly what her feelings are for either man. Fanck here repeats a pattern he established in both The Holy Mountain and The White Hell of Pitz Palu, in which the woman (each time played by Leni Riefenstahl) divides her affections between two men, one strong and the other weak, and it is never entirely clear exactly where they stand with her.

In the observatory later that evening, she tells her boss that she might quit “to look after someone. Somebody or other who needs me.” But who is that? Walter or Hannes? Both, in a way, need “looking after.”

The professor says “Mont Blanc?” implying that he thinks she’s referring to Hannes. But of course she said “somebody or other.” And she does not reply to the professor. She simply begins dancing around the observatory and singing her little tune. It is apparent that Hella really has no idea what she wants. She does not know if she wants to continue to pursue her career as an astronomer, and she does not know which man she wants. Hannes has clearly awakened something in her. She is only dimly aware of this – and she fears it.

It is now April 20th and a group of three men on skis are coming up the mountain to help Hannes move out of his cabin and return to the world. In a charming sequence, Hannes yodels at them as they approach, and they yodel back. Then he pours out some schnapps for them as they enter. One of the men says to him “You know, the glacier beckons you, and you won’t be able to leave.” These prove to be prophetic words, for the men bring with them Walter’s letter, the one in which he says “I hope to soon be able to tell you about my engagement to Hella Armstrong.”

Hannes reads the letter and is devastated. Fanck conveys Hannes’s internal state by showing us shots of avalanches and snow cornices breaking up and falling. The sequence is highly reminiscent of the one in The Holy Mountain where the Friend, just after seeing Diotima together with Vigo, imagines that he sees his favorite mountain exploding. Here the situation is very much the same, as Hella and Walter are not engaged; Walter merely hopes that they will be. And like Vigo in The Holy Mountain, he seems unaware of his friend’s feelings for Hella, or her feelings for him.

The man who brought the letter now steps outside and tells his friends, “We might just as well go home again. I don’t know what’s got into him. Now he wants to stay up here.” Inside, Hannes sits at the foot of his small bed, staring at the letter. He crumples it up and buries his head in his hands.


The giant crevasses of Mont Blanc

The three men make their way back down the mountain. They cross a snow bridge – which suddenly collapses behind them. Then another collapses. And another. And another – all just after the men have crossed to safety. (One of the men does fall into the abyss, but he has a rope around his waist and the others easily pull him back up.) The viewer almost gets the feeling that Hannes’s grief is causing these events; that he and the mountain are so spiritually close, when he suffers it suffers with him, and then attempts to consume the men from below in a rage of despair.

At his apartment, Walter receives a telegram from Hannes: “I can’t come down until further notice. I wish you both the best. Your Wetterwart.” Just after he reads this, Hella enters carrying a number of packages. On the table dominating the room is a huge gift basket filled with what appears to be fruit and bottles of wine or champagne. There is also a live lobster on the table, sitting on top of a package! Hella enters and interacts with Walter almost as if she lives there. She says: “Is your friend here? It’s time he finally got out of that endless winter.” It is odd that she refers to Hannes as “your friend” rather than by name, as if she has forgotten the bond that formed between them months before on Mont Blanc (or does she want to conceal that bond from Walter?).

It is a decidedly curious scene. Are Hella and Walter now actually engaged? (What else would explain, among other things, the gift basket?) When Hella reads the telegram she appears stunned. Is this because she had been longing to see Hannes (whether she was consciously aware of it or not), or because she realizes that Hannes believes (incorrectly?) that they are now a couple? One almost feels as if some scenes have been omitted. Indeed, according to IMDB the German running time of the film is 110 minutes, whereas the Kino DVD is 95 minutes. I have not had the opportunity to consult any other prints of the film, or to read the shooting script. However, Arnold Fanck published a book at the time of Mont Blanc’s release telling the entire story of the film in still photographs. I own a copy, and it gives no indication of any significant scenes having been omitted from the Kino version. I can only draw the conclusion that whether or not Hella and Walter are engaged, Hella is terribly confused.

13. Storms over Mont Blanc

Up above on the mountain, the winds are raging. Hannes is at the anemometer again. He takes his gloves off for a moment to check the meter, leaving them on the rim of the device. All at once, a great gust of wind sends the gloves sailing off the mountain. Retrieving them is utterly impossible. (This happens so quickly in the version of the film that I have seen, some viewers may miss what has occurred.) The distance back to the cabin is far enough to make this a serious calamity for Hannes.


Hannes struggles to light a match with his frozen hands

By the time he reaches home, his hands are frozen. The fire has gone out, and Hannes is unable to close his fingers. How will he get the fire started again? He begins vigorously rubbing his hands with snow in order to try and restore the circulation. This is a trick we learned in Pitz Palu, at the conclusion of which rescuers rub Hans Petersen all over with snow. Here, however, it doesn’t work. Hannes tries and fails to grip a match and light it.

Time passes. As the winds roar outside, the hut and its lone inhabitant are freezing. By morning, icicles are hanging from the rafters and from Hannes’s telescope. At this point, the film becomes genuinely frightening. Hannes knows that he is in very serious trouble, and sees escape as his only hope. He puts on all of his warm clothes, even covering himself in blankets, and wraps his hands. The idea is to try to ski down the mountain – without poles, as his hands cannot grip them.

Just after Hannes leaves the cabin, and without his realizing it, the door swings open, letting in the wind and snow. With surprising dexterity (under the circumstances) Hannes skis down the glacier – but everywhere he turns he finds, as we saw earlier, that all the snow bridges have collapsed. There is no way down the mountain! Meanwhile, the wind blows the cabin door off its hinges and it sails down into the abyss. Just when things couldn’t look more dire, an avalanche occurs and Hannes must scramble to avoid it. He takes a tumble, and when he lands finds that the ends of his skis have broken off and are now useless. Hannes collapses in despair on the edge of a great crevasse. He is now completely trapped.

Riefenstahl describes shooting this scene in her memoirs:

Sepp Rist . . . had to ski down without poles. He had to concentrate hard to keep clear of the crevasses. While filming such a scene with Rist, we saw a gigantic ice cornice break away from the substratum of rock and, with tremendous force, crash over the rocks, towards our glacier. The cameramen, relentless and unflappable, kept cranking. They shot Rist fleeing the avalanche as it thundered towards him. For us it was too late to escape. Tremendous masses of ice rolled down the glacier towards us. We could only hope that the avalanche would halt before it reached us. Shrouded more and more densely in snow powder, no one dared to speak. The spell was broken only after several minutes of silence. Almost a quarter of an hour passed before the snow powder finished settling and we had some visibility. We stopped working that day. All of us had had enough of our adventures in the snow.[3]


Filming in Hannes's cabin -- with real ice and snow

Hannes’s cabin is now filling with snow and ice, blown in through the open door. The telescope also topples over, smashing a window. As noted in Part I of this essay, the cabin set was constructed outdoors in Bernina, Switzerland. It was rigged with lights and camera equipment (electric current provided by the local railway system), and one end of the set was left open to the elements. Fans and shovels were used to fill Hannes’s cabin with snow for these final scenes.

Realizing that there is no way down the mountain, Hannes laboriously makes his way back to the cabin, not realizing that it has now become a death trap. For some reason, he left the radio on in the cabin and choral music plays over it, creating a genuinely eerie effect. When Hannes finally reaches the hut he is horrified to see what has transpired. Everything inside is now entirely covered in snow, like the ice-covered summer house in the final scenes of David Lean’s Doctor Zhivago, only less inviting.

Acting swiftly, his hands still almost useless, Hannes begins piling furniture in front of the door. But it is no use. There is not much to pile, and the wind simply keeps blowing it over. Hannes is not the sort of man who is eager to ask for help, but now he realizes that his life is in great danger, and that he has to call upon others for rescue. He sits down at the telegraph machine and begins tapping out an “SOS” signal with his elbow.

It is now around 10:00pm and Hella is in the observatory, hovering around the radio receiver, waiting for Hannes to call. When she hears the beeping of his Morse signal she is elated, and sits down at the machine. Her happiness turns to alarm, however, when she realizes he is sending a distress signal. Other outposts pick up the signal, and soon a group of rescuers sets out for Mont Blanc on skis. Getting across the great crevasses, however, proves to be a major problem. They try jumping across and pulling themselves up, but the snow is too soft. They try lowering themselves down and climbing up the other side, but this also won’t work. “We’ll need a ladder,” they decide. The idea is to place the ladder over the crevasses and to walk across.

We now see a train plowing through the snow, presumably carrying Hella. Then we see her waiting in the lobby of a hotel, wearing a long coat. (All of this seems to happen very quickly, though the journey from Berlin to Mont Blanc is a distance of more than 500 miles.) A bellman approaches her: “Gnädige Frau, two rescuers have just returned. They say they can’t go any further. They’re coming down to get a ladder.”


Hella's telegram to Udet

The scene now cuts to a shot of what are presumably Ernst Udet’s hands (though it could be anyone’s) opening a telegram addressed to him, at the “Grand Hotel.” It reads: “Wetterwart on Mont Blanc in mortal danger. Timely rescue possible only by plane. Hella Armstrong.” Then we see Udet in flight, heading for Mont Blanc.

Meanwhile, the rescuers are coming up the mountain carrying a ladder. And Hella is with them. This is a pattern that one finds again and again in the “mountain films”: the woman comes to the rescue of the stranded man. One finds it in The Holy Mountain, in S.O.S. Iceberg, and even in 2008’s North Face.


Hannes near death

I noted in my essay on North Face that this is a fundamentally Nordic motif: one is reminded, for example, of capable, action-oriented characters like Brunnhilde and Kriemhilde. (There is nothing inherently “feminist” about such women, by the way. The Traditional woman is not a helpless idiot.) Hella and the rescuers lay their ladder across a crevasse and we see Hella boldly walk across it. Fanck’s camera pans from the ladder to the abyss below. Riefenstahl recalls shooting this dangerous scene:

For the maximum cinematic effect the director had chosen a very deep crevasse. I was afraid of doing this scene, and wanted to get out of it. My comrades had already placed bets that I wouldn’t cross the ladder, and usually I would take such dares, for they knew I was more afraid of looking weak. . . . What can happen? I asked myself. After all, I’m roped up, so I can’t fall very far. But that little word “far” says everything. I could still plummet forty or fifty feet and shatter my head against the ice walls. . . . The time had come. The director shouted “Action!” Ignoring my fear, I started out, and felt the ladder swaying under my feet. This was something I hadn’t counted on. . . . To make things even more difficult, the script demanded that while crossing the ladder I had to turn back and shout something at the people behind me. I mustered every ounce of my willpower to keep from collapsing on the ladder in utter terror. Somehow I made it, and the final shot of me was completed just as Fanck wanted it.[4]

Udet now approaches in his silver Moth, but suddenly great bolts of lightning strike through the sky and the wind tosses the plane like balsa wood toy. Udet cannot land. The rescuers watch the plane above, and one of them shakes his head ruefully. It seems almost as if the gods do not want Hannes to be rescued. These scenes are extraordinarily dramatic and suspenseful, even though it is obvious that the lightning is an effect created in the studio. While all of this is taking place, Hannes sits in his armchair, covered in snow, near death from hypothermia.


The frozen Hannes is rescued

Finally, and with great difficulty, Udet manages to land on the mountain! He climbs out of his plane, a cigarette wedged between his teeth, and makes his way up to the snow-filled cabin. He sees Hannes in his corner, almost completely buried, and tosses the cigarette aside. Then Udet grabs a pick and begins clearing the ice and snow from the stove.

The other rescuers are now approaching the cabin, Hella in the lead. By the time she enters, Udet has dug Hannes out of the snow and cleaned him off. When Hella walks in, she sees Hannes sitting at the kitchen table, the beginnings of a beard visible on his jaw. A bright aura surrounds him; he seems renewed. They look at each other, but exchange no words. Hannes’s frostbitten hands are still bandaged, and instinctively he tries to hide them from Hella. She smiles at him tenderly and then sits down beside him at the table. Hannes turns to her and she strokes his bandaged hands, then lays her head on them.


Hella lights the stove in the final scene

Suddenly, Hella looks across the room and sees the dead stove. She gets up and, as Hannes watches her, lights the fire. Once more we hear the “revelation” music that first plays near the beginning of the film, as the clouds part and we see the world below. The film closes with more shots of the clouds below the peaks.

14. The Meaning of Mont Blanc

In the end, Hella saves Hannes in more ways than one. She saves his body by bringing Udet and the rescuers to the mountain. She saves his soul by lighting the fire on the stove. This is a symbolic act, and both of them know it.

Traditionally, there has always been a connection between woman and the hearth. Julius Evola writes in The Metaphysics of Sex:

In the sacred ceremonies of the family, the polarity of the sexes was played out, emphasizing their complementarity. Hence developed the part often played by woman in Indo-European household cults in connection with the fire, of which she was the natural guardian since, in principle, she had the nature of Vesta, the “living flame” or fire of life. In a certain way woman was the living upholder of this supersensual influence and thus acted as a counterpart of the pure male principle, of the pater familias. Thus it was the woman’s duty above all to see that the flame stayed pure and did not go out; she invoked its holy force when offering sacrifices in the fire.[5]

Of course, the flame has multiple meanings here, as does the woman’s role in keeping it lit. Among other things, it symbolizes the crucial role of the woman as foundation, really, of the household itself: as wife and mother; as the one who brings beauty and warmth into the home, and who brings forth life itself.


Hannes watches as Hella lights the fire

Hella, and modern women in general, have rejected this role. They have allowed the fire to go out – and the result is catastrophic both for them and for men. Women today flit from thrill to thrill, seeking “empowerment” and “having it all” – only to find that when childless, menopausal reality sets in they feel empty and unfulfilled. Why? Because they have been hoodwinked by high-testosterone feminist freaks into thinking that their Traditional role is a form of slavery. The result for men – especially for men like Hannes who have achieved the virtue of Traditional spiritual virility – is arguably worse.

In a 1923 newspaper interview D. H. Lawrence is quoted as saying “If men were left to themselves, they would rush off . . . into destruction.” And this is what is symbolized by the icy death of Dr. Johannes (called “Hannes” at times) in Pitz Palu, and the icy near-death of Hannes in Mont Blanc. Lawrence continues: “But women keep life back at its own center. They pull the men back. Women have enormous passive strength, the strength of inertia.” Lawrence uses here an image he often employed: women are at the center, the hub. Why? Because they are closer to “the source,” to what Lawrence called the “blood-consciousness,” than men are. Men seek some kind of purposive activity in life, and this involves moving out from the center, from home and hearth. But they draw their inspiration and strength from that source. The “blood-consciousness” in men is “activated” principally through their relationship to women.


Hella lays her head on Hannes's bandaged hands in the final scene

Without a woman, therefore, a man lacks a sense of being grounded. As I put it in my essay “D. H. Lawrence on Men and Woman,” men tend “to be so focused upon doing, that they miss out on being.” Their quest to achieve their purpose in life becomes something cold and barren. Ultimately, without a home and hearth and woman to return to for sustenance, they burn themselves out along the path. They feel a sense of emptiness, and drift into despair – as Hannes does in the final act of Mont Blanc. As for woman, without a man – a real man – she takes on the male role and tries to find fulfillment through some kind of busy-ness in the world, as does Hella. And then she too winds up bitter and dissatisfied.

As Evola notes, “Complementing the Waters as female principle [e.g., Diotima and the sea in The Holy Mountain], the male principle was often linked to fire.”[6] But this fire must be continually fed by the woman.

When Hella lights Hannes’s fire at the end of Mont Blanc, she symbolically accepts the Traditional female role. And she rescues him from his icy, hyper-masculine isolation. Through this one act, in which Hella transforms and actualizes her true nature, Hannes finds in Hella the perfect feminine complement to his spiritual virility. He is now able to return to the world below, while remaining a man above that world.

Notes

1. Julius Evola, Meditations on the Peaks, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1998), 6.

2. Quoted in Steven Bach, Leni: The Life and Work of Leni Riefenstahl (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), 64.

3. Leni Riefenstahl, A Memoir, no translator credited (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 86.

4. Ibid., 87.

5. Julius Evola, The Metaphysics of Sex (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1983), 174.

6. Evola, Metaphysics of Sex, 119.

Derek Hawthorne - Storm over Mont Blanc, Parts 1-3


Part 1

1. Introduction

Stürme über dem Mont Blanc (1930; literally, Storms over Mont Blanc) is my favorite of the Arnold Fanck mountain films. Fanck’s first “talkie,” Mont Blanc features some of the most striking images of his entire oeuvre, backed by a haunting, memorable score by Paul Dessau (one of the most significant music scores from the early years of talking pictures). The suspense at times is positively unbearable, and the action sequences top anything in Fanck’s earlier films. Mont Blanc features (who else?) Leni Riefenstahl, delivering a memorably zany performance as the female protagonist. She is perfectly paired with newcomer Sepp Rist, who proves himself to be Fanck’s ideal male lead. But there is more here than just action and romance on the peaks.

Storm over Mont Blanc is the third installment in a trilogy of films by Fanck dealing with the nature of man and woman, and how the state of their relationship affects the health of a nation. The main focus of The Holy Mountain (1926) was a quasi-Traditionalist account of the absolute metaphysical difference between the sexes, and their inherently tragic relationship. (I drew extensively on the works of Julius Evola in order to make this case, and I argued that Fanck had very probably been influenced by Otto Weininger’s masterpiece Sex and Character.)


The White Hell of Piz Palü (1929) also deals, in the form of an allegory, with the relation between the sexes — but this time in their degenerated, modern form. Piz Palü is about the inability of modern men and women to make any sort of satisfying connection.

In Mont Blanc, Fanck gives us the reason for this: the loss of the traditional understanding of sex roles. The film could not be more explicit on this point. Its conclusion is rich with symbolism, pointing the way toward a resolution of the modern war between the sexes.

(This essay is the fourth in a series dealing with the mountain films. See my review of North Face for an overview of this genre, its principal characteristics, and why it should interest readers of Counter-Currents.)

2. The Making of Storm over Mont Blanc

After completing The White Hell of Piz Palü, Leni Riefenstahl found herself in dire financial straits. This was not to last very long, however. The huge success of the film prompted AAFA to offer her twenty thousand marks to star in Fanck’s next film, which became Storm over Mont Blanc (released to the English-speaking world as Avalanche). She would co-star with Sepp Rist in his first film (in fact, it was Rist who received top billing in Mont Blanc, over Riefenstahl).


L to R Schneeberger, Riefenstahl, Angst, Allgeier, Fanck

Born in 1900, Rist had served on a torpedo boat in the First World War, then had worked in Nuremberg as a police radio operator. He was also an outstanding athlete, who competed in numerous ski championships. It was on a ski race in Gurgl that he was “discovered” by cameraman Sepp Allgeier, and subsequently brought to the attention of Arnold Fanck. (Riefenstahl later tried to take credit for discovering Rist, even claiming that she “forced” Fanck to hire him.) Rist went on to enjoy a long career in German cinema, especially in the genre of so-called “Heimatfilm,” and died in 1980.

The success of Piz Palü inevitably meant that Mont Blanc would be approached in a somewhat “formulaic” manner, the idea being to repeat (and to surpass) what had made the earlier film so successful. And so we find pilot Ernst Udet making another appearance, and saving the day as he did before. Once again we have a male protagonist who has chosen a life of isolation in a desolate alpine world of ice and snow. Once again the film climaxes in a daring rescue. Ernst Petersen even makes a cameo appearance. Fanck’s collaborator on the screenplay was an uncredited Carl Mayer, whose credits included The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Murnau’s The Last Laugh. (It is not clear exactly how much Mayer contributed to the project.)

The story involves a man named Hannes (last name never revealed) who works as a Wetterwart, or weather station attendant, atop Mont Blanc. (Significantly, Gustav Diessl’s character in Piz Palü was also nicknamed “Hannes.”) The highest mountain in Western Europe, Mont Blanc rises 15,782 feet above sea level, and lies between the regions of the Aosta Valley, Italy, and Haute-Savoie, France. Hannes lives for months at a time in a tiny cabin on one of Mont Blanc’s peaks, spending his lonely days checking readings on an anemometer and telegraphing weather conditions to nearby meteorological stations. In the evenings he keeps up a telegraphic correspondence with the beautiful Hella Armstrong, a budding astronomer who works with her father at a distant observatory. They have never set eyes on each other until one day she falls out of the sky thanks to Ernst Udet . . . (I must save the rest for later.)


Shooting Mont Blanc, Riefenstahl and Rist at right

Shooting began on Mont Blanc in February 1930 when all of the film’s skiing sequences were shot in three weeks in Arosa, Switzerland. The film’s skiing episode climaxes with a scene where Riefenstahl hops into Udet’s silver “Moth” (Motte) two-seater, which then takes off from the frozen surface of a lake. This was shot on Lake St. Moritz. The plane had no safety belt to secure Riefenstahl, and the mischievous Udet did loops in order to deliberately frighten her. Hans Schneeberger, who had severed his relationship with Riefenstahl not long before, flew in a second plane in order to photograph Udet in flight. (Fanck had hired Schneeberger at Udet’s insistence.)

Once these sequences were completed, in April cast and crew relocated to Bernina Hospiz, a lodge more than seven thousand feet up on the Bernina Pass. Nearby they constructed the interior of Hannes’s cabin, rigging it with lights and camera equipment (electric current provided by the local railway system). One end of the set was left open to the elements for the climactic scene in which the cabin fills with snow. There was no heat, and the cast suffered through these scenes (none more so than Sepp Rist, who had to appear practically buried in snow). These scenes took six weeks to film.

During this time, Riefenstahl practiced climbing with the Lantschner brothers to prepare for the film’s impressive (and arduous) climbing sequences. Gustav “Guzzi” Lantschner and Hellmut Lantschner were both Olympic gold medalists in downhill skiing. The brother’s appeared in the film’s “foxhunt” sequence. (Guzzi would also have an important role in Fanck’s ski comedy Der weisse Rausch, released the following year.)

Cast and crew later bivouacked at the Vallot shelter hut on Mont Blanc, which (so far as I can determine) served as the exterior of Hannes’s cabin. As always on a Fanck production, much of the danger was quite real. And this time the director himself came very close to losing his life. Riefenstahl writes in her memoirs:

The glacier changed every day. It was June by now, the snow was melting, and the cracks were opening appreciably. Just a few days earlier the ground had been covered with vast stretches of snow, but now crevasses were becoming visible, wide enough and deep enough to swallow Cologne cathedral or the temple at Karnak. Fanck, obsessed with capturing these unique images on film, paid scant heed to the dangers confronting us. And that proved to be a fatal mistake. The cameras having been unpacked hundreds of feet below the Vallot hut, he walked several steps ahead in order to find the best locations. All at once we saw him – only seventy feet away – silently vanishing. The glacier had swallowed him up. Our tiny group was deathly quiet, but only for an instant or two. Then I saw with what wonderful presence of mind the staff operated in such emergencies. Within seconds a rope was plunging into the fissure. As everyone listened and it dropped foot by foot, the faces of our men grew darker and darker. Half the rope had already uncoiled, seventy feet hung into the crevasse. Finally, a sound came up, and we breathed a sigh of relief. The men felt a tug on the rope and everyone pulled with all his might. At last, Fanck’s head popped up, his mouth still holding the cigarette he had clenched in his teeth when falling. Utterly calm, as if nothing had happened, he clambered out of the crevasse, and shooting resumed.[1]

Scenes were also filmed in the vicinity of the Dupuis hut, the ascent to which was particularly difficult. At one point, a camera fell more than a thousand feet and was smashed against the rocks. It was in the vicinity of the Dupuis hut that the crew shot Udet’s remarkable landing on the glacier – the first time it had ever been attempted.


Rist (top row, third from left), Riefenstahl and climbers in the Vallot shelter hut

An abrupt drop in temperature trapped the cast and crew on the mountain for days, and food supplies ran low. To make matters worse, the men were beginning to feel acute sexual frustration. According to Riefenstahl, they began trading lewd jokes and constructing “blatant sexual symbols of ice and snow.”[2] (The imagination reels.) Needless to say, Riefenstahl was bothered quite a bit. One of the younger members of the crew even fell in love with her and threatened to leap into a crevasse. Fanck was still obsessed with Riefenstahl, and kept handing her notes and poems which “grew more and more erotic.”[3]

The scenes where Riefenstahl appears in her observatory were shot on location at the Babelsberg Sternwarte (just outside Berlin), with the permission of its director, Paul Guthnick.

Mont Blanc was planned all along as a talkie, but for all intents and purposes it was shot as a silent film. Sound movie cameras at that time were very large and heavily padded so as to muffle the sound of the mechanism. It was simply unfeasible to haul these great behemoths up mountains and across glaciers, so silent film cameras were used throughout the production. (The introduction of big sound cameras proved a technical setback for films in general, as the mobility of the cameras was very limited. This is why early talkies often seem extremely static, like photographed stage plays.)

Sound effects, music, and dialogue were all added into Mont Blanc later. However, these were “layered” into the film in a technically primitive manner. Often, we hear sound effects or music or dialogue, but seldom any combination of the three. Music is often simply broken off when sound effects or dialogue is called for. Long stretches of the film are effectively silent, containing only music (this is not really a flaw, for Dessau’s score is one of the film’s great assets). Three years later, Fanck would use a similar process to add dialogue, music, and sound effects into Piz Palü, turning it – rather effectively – into a talkie.

In preparation for the film’s dubbing sessions, Riefenstahl had to train her voice. She hired a speech coach, Herbert Kuchenbuch, with whom she worked daily. At first, Riefenstahl had a great deal of difficulty, but reported that “Eventually I had no difficulties whatsoever in my first sound scenes for the Mont Blanc film.”[4] Others, however, have questioned her confident judgment in this matter. Her biographer Jürgen Trimborn writes that “despite the intense efforts of Herbert Kuchenbuch . . . her Berlin accent and pitch irritated many of the moviegoing public, who felt these qualities didn’t belong to the world of the mountain film or to the image of the mythical female that audiences had assigned to the young actress. So it is not at all true that Riefenstahl ‘easily’ made the transition from silent to sound films; rather, her voice became a disadvantage that further limited her opportunities with other directors.”[5] The truth is that her voice in Mont Blanc does sound uncomfortably like that of a cartoon mouse. Frankly, I found this rather endearing – but I can easily see why others might find it annoying.

Kino International released Storm over Mont Blanc on DVD in Region 1 in 2005. Unfortunately, they relied upon a print with many problems (perhaps because no better print could be found). The first ten minutes or so are filled with scratches, pops, and jumps. Things improve considerably after the first reel, but there are problems throughout the film. Kino created a new opening credits sequence, apparently because the original was so badly damaged. These problems should not stop anyone from watching this truly remarkable film.

Notes

1. Leni Riefenstahl, Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, no translator credited (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 85. Riefenstahl’s memoir is my primary source for information on the making of the film.

2. Ibid., 85.

3. Ibid., 86.

4. Ibid., 88.

5. Jürgen Trimborn, Leni Riefenstahl: A Life, trans. Edna McCown (London: Faber and Faber, 2007), 33.

Part 2

3. Above the Clouds

Storm over Mont Blanc opens, appropriately, with shots of the mountain itself and of Hannes’s cabin, situated high above the clouds. (Fanck’s working title for the film was Über den Wolken, Above the Clouds.) Once again, as in The Holy Mountain, the work of the great German Romantic painter Caspar David Friedrich springs to mind.

A rather different comparison was made by Siegfried Kracauer (1889–1966), a Jewish film critic for the Frankfurter Zeitung whose highly influential 1947 book From Caligari to Hitler argued that Fanck’s films had helped pave the way for the Nazis. Kracauer compared the shots of clouds in Mont Blanc – which are truly spectacular – to the clouds seen at the beginning of Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, stating that in the latter film we find the final merger “of two cults, that of the mountains, and that of the Führer.”[1] This was too much even for liberal critics. Karlheinz Wendtland responded years later: “What do mountain films have to do with Nazi tendencies? What are the differences between National Socialist clouds and, say, Communist clouds? What do such pronouncements ‘prove’?”[2]


Paul Dessau

4. The Music

Thrilling music by Paul Dessau accompanies the opening shots of the film. As I have already said, Dessau’s score is superb – but he was certainly an odd choice on Fanck’s part. A German-Jewish Communist, Dessau was born in Hamburg in 1894 and studied violin at the Klindworth-Scharwenka Conservatory in Berlin, later studying composition with Max Julius Loewengard. After service in the First World War, he became Kapellmeister at the Cologne opera house under Otto Klemperer, and in 1925 became principal Kapellmeister at the Städtische Oper Berlin under Bruno Walter. Dessau was fascinated by the possibilities presented by the medium of film music, and composed his first score in 1926. In addition to Mont Blanc, he composed two more scores for Fanck: Der Weiße Rausch (1931 – which, in the main, reused themes written for Mont Blanc), and S.O.S. Eisberg (1933).

After Hitler came to power, Dessau emigrated to France and, in 1939, to the United States where he continued to work in film, sometimes in an uncredited capacity (e.g., on House of Frankenstein and The Paradine Case). After the war, Dessau settled in East Germany, where he taught at the Staatliche Schauspielschule and remained very active as a composer, producing several operas, symphonies, and choral works. He died in 1979.


The Trautonium

In Mont Blanc, Dessau makes prominent use of a Welte Philharmonic Organ and also an early electronic instrument called the trautonium. This was state-of-the-art technology at the time, having been invented in 1929 by Friedrich Trautwein in Berlin at the Rundfunkversuchstelle, the Musikhochschule’s music and radio laboratory. The basic mechanism involves a resistor wire stretched over a metal plate which is pressed in order to produce sounds. Dessau worked with one of the early prototypes; the instrument was not actually marketed until 1933, when a small series was produced under the name “Volkstrautonium” (no kidding). It not only plays a role in the music score for Mont Blanc, it also provided the sound of Udet’s plane and other effects. The trautonium was operated for the film by Oskar Sala, who became heavily involved in the development of the device after being introduced to Trautwein by Paul Hindemith. (Hindemith would later write several short trios for three trautoniums.) Many years later Sala used the trautonium to create the bird-calls
for Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 classic The Birds.


Hindemith, Sala, and Trautwein with the Trautonium

Dessau would later reuse the combination of organ and trautonium in his Deutsches Miserere (1943–44). His score for Mont Blanc is “modern” – but the good, melodic sort of modern – very much in the style of Hindemith, who (under a pseudonym) had composed the score for Fanck’s 1921 film Im Kampf Mit dem Berge. Fanck was a National Socialist, but not of the knee-jerk anti-modernist variety. He enjoyed modern music and art, and collected drawings and etchings by artists like Käthe Kollwitz and George Grosz. (Fanck gave several Kollwitz sketches to Riefenstahl, advising her to take them down before Hitler visited her in her apartment. Fanck’s sound advice went unheeded: Hitler dismissed them as “too dismal, too negative.”[3])


Sepp Rist

5. Hannes and his World

To return to our story, we see Hannes in his cabin warming his hands over the open fire on the stove. This fire will appear again and again throughout the film: it plays an important role in the plot, and serves as an important symbol. Hannes lives an elemental existence on top of Mont Blanc: he lives with fire (the stove), water (the snow), earth (the jagged peaks), and air (the wind and clouds). Sepp Rist also has a strangely “elemental” face. He is quintessentially Nordic in type, but his face also has a kind of rough, brutal quality, with its great, high forehead and lantern jaw. He looks like some kind of primeval, Nordic ur-type. Someone once described him as looking like “a Dürer woodcut.”[4]

We see him making his breakfast: tea, cheese, and bread. His bread is so cold and hard Hannes has to put on gloves to hold it and cut it. A telescope dominates the cabin, signaling that astronomy is one of Hannes’s hobbies. A great pile of wood lies near the stove. On the kitchen table, we also see a wireless telegraph set and a microscope. As we shall discover later, Hannes is also interested in geology (Arnold Fanck’s doctorate, in fact, was in geology). At the back of the cabin is a large, comfortable armchair next to a radio equipped with a big gramophone horn.


Hannes above the clouds

Hannes’s environment is entirely, archetypically masculine. It is Spartan and utilitarian, like the quarters of a soldier or a monk. Hannes’s surroundings communicate, in a host of ways, mastery over the physical realm. Such mastery does not have to consist in the literal ability to manipulate matter. It also expresses itself in the drive to thoroughly know the realm of the physical; to make it completely transparent to the ceaselessly curious, penetrating, analytical masculine mind. Hannes is master of the stars. He is master of the stones. He is master of fire. And, of course, he is master of the latest technology. (As I shall discuss later, no other Fanck film contains as much technology, and it is presented here in a primarily positive, “gee whiz” fashion.)

Is Hannes also master of the realm of snow and ice? It certainly appears so – at first. He dresses to leave the cabin, wearing a heavy coat and hood, thick mittens, and hiking boots that lace up his ankles. As was de rigueur in this period (as one can see in any of the mountain films, including 2008’s North Face) he wears knee socks. To complete the picture, Hannes leaves the cabin with a jaunty pipe clenched between his teeth, just like Luis Trenker in The Holy Mountain. Although we tend to associate pipes with old geezers, they were popular with sporty young German men in this period.



Hannes at the anemometer

We now see the cabin perched high on a peak. Hannes boldly goes to the very edge and peers out over the clouds, smoke billowing from his pipe. Next we see him confidently scrambling down a snow-covered hill and up another in order to reach his anemometer. A device for measuring wind speed, the one featured in the film is a large cup-type anemometer on a vertical axis. Air flow causes the four cups of the device to spin around the axis, and average wind speed can be determined simply by counting the revolutions of the cups over a set period of time. In this particular case, the revolutions are counted by a machine and Hannes reads them on a meter at the base of the anemometer. At this point in the film, we hear for the first time Dessau’s eerie pairing of the organ and trautonium. This is music inspired by technology: there is no melodic line, and one could almost mistake it simply for epiphenomenal sounds produced by the operation of the anemometer itself. (Dessau’s use of the organ and trautonium links the various “technological” moments in the film.)

Hannes opens the box at the base of the anemometer and takes a reading. Back in the cabin, he sits down at his telegraph machine, dons a pair of headphones and begins transmitting via tapping on an old-fashioned telegraph straight key. His message in Morse code: “Mont Blanc Windstrength 4.” We then see a brief montage of different, uniformed men at various outposts in Europe receiving his transmission. The scene is actually somewhat annoying as Dessau’s music is abruptly cut off whenever the telegraph sound is heard (an effect that might also have been created using the trautonium). Later we see Hannes with headphones on, washing dishes with one hand (using straw to scrub them), and tapping out Morse messages with the other.

These scenes are meant to establish the nature of Hannes’s daily life, and to give us certain clues to his character. He is clearly highly intelligent and capable. He is tough, athletic, and fearless. As we will see later on, he is sincere, straightforward, and uncomplicated. Hannes seems to have adjusted well to his solitary life, but Fanck soon provides us with a hint that all is not entirely well with the young Wetterwart.


Hannes studies the valley below Mont Blanc

In the next scene we find Hannes outside the cabin again, training his telescope on the land below the mountain. The clouds part, and we see the valley and the town far below. Dessau’s music here conveys the feeling of receiving a revelation of some kind; it has a chilling kind of beauty that shades off into the sublime. But the grandeur of the full orchestra is soon replaced by the sound of a single violin, as Hannes – pipe clenched in his teeth – looks away from the telescope’s eyepiece and off into the distance, pensively. He is lonely. And the sweet sound of the violin suggests that he thinks of female company.

On what we suppose is the following day, we see Hannes perched high up on one of the jagged peaks of the Mont Blanc ridge known as the Aiguilles du Diable, again smoking his pipe. Suddenly we hear the buzzing of a propeller plane. It is Udet, of course. Hannes greets him joyfully. (Although it is never explained how they know each other, the suggestion is that Udet drops supplies to Hannes.) Udet cuts his engine and begins circling, as Hannes rises and stands on the narrow peak (anyone with acrophobia will squirm through this scene). And now we hear the first dialogue in a Fanck film: “Hallo Hannes!” cries Udet. He tells Hannes that their friend Walter in Berlin is playing the organ on the radio every Sunday night. He suggests that Hannes tune in, cries “See you at Christmas!” then re-starts his engine and zooms away. Fanck shows Sepp Rist ably scampering down the ridge. It is a brief but impressive sequence and serves to remind us of the courage and dexterity of Fanck’s actors.


Hella's observatory

6. The Woman and the Moon

The scene changes to evening, presumably the following Sunday. We see a man bent over, playing a church organ. This is Walter Petersen (played by Matthias Wieman). And then we see Hannes in his cabin, listening in on the wireless, stove ablaze. Later that evening he positions his telescope outside to study the stars, and the scene now shifts to the Babelsberg observatory. The great doors of the dome slide open and various mechanisms within the observatory are engaged as the telescope swings into place. Dessau again makes use of the organ in this scene, and the effect is genuinely eerie, as if we have suddenly been transported inside an alien spacecraft.

The machinery of the observatory seems massive, inhuman, and almost threatening . . . until suddenly we see a pair of delicate female hands reach up to grasp the eyepiece of the huge telescope. The hands belong to Leni Riefenstahl, playing the part of Hella Armstrong. Fanck photographs Riefenstahl in this scene through gauze, which creates a kind of halo effect around her, accentuating her femininity. Hella’s father, Professor Armstrong (Friedrich Kayßler), sits nearby at a radio transceiver.


Hella at the telescope, her father in background

Shots of the surface of the moon follow, accompanied by more organ music. And then we see that Hannes is also looking at the moon, through his own, much smaller, telescope. It’s around 10:00pm. He goes into his cabin and sits down at the transmitter to send a message. Back at the observatory, Prof. Armstrong receives the message with a smile. “Ah, Mont Blanc. Hella, your friend up there says one can get a great view tonight of the lower lunar edge. The Copernicus range.” As we shall see, Prof. Armstrong knows Hannes, and clearly suspects that his interest in Hella may be more than purely professional (though the two, at this point, have never met).

Fanck now intercuts the cabin, the observatory, and the stars. The stars connect Hella and Hannes, and technology connects them as well. As I mentioned earlier, there is more technology in Mont Blanc than in any of Fanck’s other films, and his attitude towards it is primarily positive. Technology serves in the film to connect individuals in important ways. Udet’s plane brings supplies to Hannes, and later on it will bring Hella and her father to him as well. The telescopes and telegraph connect Hella and Hannes – and at the end of the film the telegraph saves Hannes’s life. The radio connects Hannes and Udet to their friend Walter. In the end, however, the most significant item of “technology” in the film is, in fact, the most primitive: Hannes’s wood stove.

Notes

1. Siegfried Kracauer, Von Caligari bis Hitler (Hamburg, 1958), 168. My translation.

2. Karlheinz Wendtland, Geliebter Kintopp, Jahrgang 1929 und 1930, 2. Auflage 1990, 173. My translation. As Trimborn notes, “More recent publications treat the mountain film genre in a more balanced way than those of preceding decades.” See Trimborn, 37.

3. Riefenstahl, 125.

4. Quoted in Steven Bach, Leni: The Life and Work of Leni Riefenstahl (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), 63.


Part 3

7. Ascending and Descending

Storm over Mont Blanc

divides neatly into three acts. The first parts of this article covered Act I, which introduces us to Hannes (Sepp Rist), the lonely Wetterwart (weather station man) who lives in a cabin on one of the peaks of Mont Blanc, and to Hella Armstrong (Leni Riefenstahl), the budding astronomer who, with her father, helps run an observatory on the outskirts of Berlin. Hannes and Hella have never met, but they keep up an innocent correspondence by telegraph, discussing astronomical points of interest.

Act II opens with a shot of a sign pointing to Chamonix, which is situated in southeastern France. The scenes that follow, however, were not shot there, but a couple of hundred miles away in Arosa, Switzerland. Skiers woosh into view, and we see the terrain moving underneath them via cameras mounted on their skis (an Arnold Fanck innovation introduced in earlier films). These scenes are accompanied by joyful, catchy music by Paul Dessau which stands in sharp contrast to the stark and dramatic music that accompanies Act I (and to the extraordinarily somber music we will hear in the final act). The theme Dessau introduces here would be recycled for Fanck’s next offering, Der weisse Rausch (1931).


Composite publicity photo -- Rist and Riefenstahl on the peaks

A familiar face now skis into view, wearing a jaunty camp: Ernst Petersen, a nephew of Fanck who had major roles in The Holy Mountain

(1926) and in The White Hell of Pitz Palu

(1929). Here he merely makes a cameo. Apparently, Petersen died a month after completing these scenes, in March 1930.[1] (I have not been able to discover the cause of death.)

Here he is engaged in a Fuchsjagd or “foxhunt,” a popular ski game in which, quite simply, one skier plays the fox and others play the hounds. Fanck had filmed a foxhunt before, in a film he made with ski legend Hannes Schneider in 1922, variously titled Eine Fuchsjagd (auf Schneeshuhen) durchs Engadin and Das Wunder des Schneeschuhs, 2. Teil – Eine Fuchsjagd auf Skiern durchs Engadin (released to the English-speaking world simply as The Chase). Petersen is pursued by a couple dozen or so men on skis.

The scene then shifts to what appears to be the lobby of a local hotel or lodge. A Christmas tree dominates the room. Hella and her father, apparently now on holiday, are sitting nearby. He shows her a photograph of Hannes’s cabin. It is apparent that Prof. Armstrong wants to encourage Hella and Hannes’s interest in each other, but she is preoccupied with other matters. Looking out the window, Hella sees Petersen being pursued and cries “Look, papa! I must go and watch.”

“We’re eating in fifteen minutes!” he replies, but she insists she’ll be right back.


Autographed publicity photo of Sepp Rist in "Storm over Mont Blanc"

Grabbing her skis, Hella joins the foxhunt. Eventually, she runs into Petersen at a small hut and decides, mischievously, to help him evade his pursuers by exchanging clothes with him. He dons her skirt and hat and curtsies to her girlishly, then they ski off in opposite directions with the “hunters” now pursuing Hella (the shots of the skiers jumping over the hut are truly impressive). This scene is interesting for those who have seen Petersen in The Holy Mountain, for there he also playfully appears in “drag,” donning Diotima’s scarf and winking at her coquettishly. In both The Holy Mountain and in The White Hell of Pitz Palu Petersen plays characters who are portrayed as “soft” and somewhat unmasculine. For whatever reason, Fanck consistently cast his nephew in “androgynous” roles.

Just like The Holy Mountain, Mont Blanc features both skiing and climbing sequences. And in both films climbing is associated with the major male protagonist, who is portrayed as a spiritually-virile “lone wolf.” An aura of solemnity surrounds the climbing sequences, and climbing itself is portrayed as a solitary affair fraught with spiritual significance (see Part 2of my essay on The Holy Mountain). By contrast, the skiing sequences are situated near towns and always involve large groups of people. Fanck also treats them in a completely lighthearted way. (His films devoted entirely to skiing – like 1927’s Der große Sprung and 1931’s Der weisse Rausch – were usually comedies.)


8. Evola on Mountain-Climbing and Skiing

The “Ascending and Descending” chapter of Julius Evola’s Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest

is devoted to the spiritual contrast between skiing and climbing. Like Fanck, Evola is not opposed to skiing, and he acknowledges its practical value for health and well-being, but as a sport he also sees it as spiritually quite different from climbing, and as fundamentally modern.

He begins by remarking that skiing has acquired popularity with young Europeans only in very recent times. “Skiing’s rapid success, its universal appeal, the genuine interest and enthusiasm it induces in both sexes are so characteristic that it would be superficial to see in it something merely casual. Rather, it is something that ought to be explained as that which precisely typifies the contemporary spirit.”[2] He goes on to identify the essence of skiing as “the descent”:

Just as in elementary climbing, [where] the fundamental element and the center of interest is ascending, likewise in skiing this corresponds to descending. The dominant motif in mountain climbing is conquest. Once the peak is reached and the point beyond which one cannot go any further is attained, the phase most interesting to an ice or rock climber ends. In skiing, the opposite is true: the purpose of every ascent is descending. Hours of effort, which are necessary to reach a certain height, are spent only in order to be able to slide downhill.[3]

And recently, as Evola mentions, all effort to reach those heights has been eliminated at ski resorts by the introduction of lifts. Skiers need only relax and enjoy the ride and be carried to the top as many times as they like. The special thrill of skiing has nothing to do with going up, but with going down at great speeds. Skiing is thus emblematic, for Evola, of life in the Kali Yuga, in the Iron Age. The Germans have a useful expression for degeneration: geht zugrunde, which literally means “goes to ground” but has the sense of “perishes.”[4] In the modern age, we are all rapidly going to ground, but some, blissfully ignorant of what is really transpiring, find the speed of the descent quite thrilling.

Evola continues:

Paradoxical as it seems, skiing may be defined as the technique, game, and enjoyment of falling. In skiing we find a form of boldness, of courage (which for all practical purposes should not be despised), and yet it is a special form that is completely different from the boldness of a mountain climber and is likewise tied to antithetical meanings: it is an essentially modern form of boldness.[5]

And, further:

The fact is that in skiing, the modern spirit finds itself essentially at home; this modern spirit is intoxicated with speed, with constant change, with acceleration. Until recently this intoxication was celebrated as the spirit of progress, despite the fact that, in many regards, it is nothing other than a collapsing and a falling down. This exhilarating motion, joined with a cerebral feeling of control over the direction of these forces hurled and no longer really mastered, is typical of the modern world, in which the self achieves its most intense self-awareness.[6]

Skiing is the perfect sport for Hella for, as we shall see, Fanck portrays her as the quintessential modern woman. Aside from showing us Hella’s sporty and frivolous side, the “foxhunt” sequence is really just a long, entertaining digression.

9. Udet to the Rescue

At a certain point in the chase, Hella tears down the Chamonix sign seen earlier and hammers it, and its nails, into her skis as a brace to hold them parallel to each other. She then sends the skis tumbling down a hill and onto the surface of a frozen lake, while she climbs to the top of a nearby tree. The skiers come wooshing by following the tracks of her skis, while she stays perched in the tree, enjoying her clever little trick. The men then follow the tracks onto the lake, where they realize they’ve been had.

Then, all at once, none other than Ernst Udet appears, landing his silver Moth on the ice-covered lake! Hella rushes up to his plane, the skiers in hot pursuit: “Can you give me a ride?” she cries.

“Where to?”

“Just over there!” she says, pointing back toward her hotel.

Udet agrees, and Hella clambers into the forward seat of the plane (which, as Riefenstahl states in her memoirs, had no safety belt!). The skiers now catch up with them and actually try to prevent Udet from taking off. The whole scenario seems absurd and fantastic, but it is actually quite typical of depression-era films, which often completely eschewed both realism and logic for the sake of escapism.


Walter Riml's photograph of Leni Riefenstahl from "The Blue Light"

Fanck’s camera briefly focuses on two of the skiers watching as the plane takes off; one very tall, the other comparatively quite short. They are, respectively, Guzzi Lantschner and Walter Riml. They would reappear in Der weisse Rausch playing a pair of bumpkins who teach themselves to ski – in record time and with spectacular results – using an actual manual written by Arnold Fanck and Hannes Schneider. Riml later became a cameraman on Riefenstahl’s The Blue Light (it was he who took the most famous photograph of Riefenstahl as the witch “Junta”). Riml was also a cameraman on Triumph of the Will, and worked on several films with Luis Trenker. One of his last projects was the 1969 James Bond film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, which involved a number of skiing and mountaineering sequences.

As Udet whisks Hella over Mont Blanc, the tone of the film now shifts back to that of Act I – and so does Dessau’s music (returning to the theme heard earlier when the clouds part and the lonely Hannes sees the valley below – suggesting, perhaps, that Udet carries with him the cure for this loneliness). The aerial photography here is breathtaking. Riefenstahl writes in her memoirs:

Plunging through thick cumuli, we saw the French mountains down below and towering over everything was the peak of Mont Blanc. The snow-covered range lay beneath us like so many sleeping polar bears. In a single moment, however, the scenery changed. Violent squalls whirled us topsy-turvy like a piece of paper, past razor-sharp ridges. We flew over several glaciers and peered into the immeasurably deep, blue-black crevasses. A high jagged crest zoomed directly towards us. The icy wind storming down from the peak grabbed us and whirled us closer and closer to the rocks. I screamed as the walls of ice seemed to be collapsing upon us. I saw the sky over me and then, a second later, a chasm beneath. I could only close my eyes.[7]


Hella's flight

Meanwhile, Hannes sits at his door smoking, wearing a Gestapo-like leather coat. Udet buzzes the cabin and Hannes waves to him. Then, something falls from the plane attached to a small parachute. Hannes rushes down from the cabin to fetch the object, which turns out to be a little pine tree. It comes with a note from Hella Armstrong: her business card, on which she has written under her name “grüsst unbekannterweise” (roughly: “greetings from a stranger”). (All of this strains credulity: did Hella and Udet, who have apparently only just met, work out this little stunt on the plane? If so, how did they communicate over the sound of the engine and the winds? One simply isn’t supposed to think of such things in a Fanck film, in which plot elements are often as fantastic as the images and stunts.)

Hella now returns to her father, who is waiting for her impatiently in the hotel lobby. She behaves like a happy child, crawling into his lap and crying “Ten minutes ago I was on Mont Blanc! You and I will go up there!” Professor Armstrong beams at her. It is obvious that he is an indulgent father who loves his daughter very much, and the scenes between them are touching.

The scene now shifts to Christmas Eve. Hannes has turned the little pine Udet sent him into a Christmas tree and decorated it with candles. He seems pensive but content as he lights the candles and “Silent Night” plays over the radio.


Hella arrives on Mont Blanc

10. “Out of the Sky”

We next see Hannes making his morning ablutions, stripped to the waist and soaping himself up before a large basin of water. Nearby is a mirror, for shaving. (It is interesting that he continues to shave on Mont Blanc. Only near the end of the film, when he has lost hope, does he begin to let his beard grow.) Suddenly, we hear a female voice singing (almost yodeling, actually) the jolly theme heard earlier in the skiing sequences. Hannes does not believe his ears at first, then rushes to the door and steps outside, steam pouring off of him in the frigid morning air. He looks down and sees Hella far below on the glacier waving to him. Pulling on a shirt, he cries, “Hello! Where did you come from?”

“I fell out of the sky!” she responds. We assume at first this means Udet has brought her in his plane, but then his silver Moth appears and, amazingly, lands on the mountain. (The first time this had ever been attempted. Riefenstahl provides a thrilling description of the event in her memoirs.[8]) Udet has brought Professor Armstrong with him, so we must assume that Hella has climbed up the mountain. This is not as difficult as it sounds, if one happens to be in very good shape with good ice-walking skills. (Riefenstahl remarks “This climb is no major event, it is merely strenuous.”[9]) Hannes scrambles down to greet Udet, who then takes off again leaving the Armstrongs behind on Mont Blanc. As Hannes and his two guests climb up to the cabin, Fanck shows the fire in Hannes’s stove blazing away. There are shots of this fire throughout the film, and – as we shall see – it serves as an important symbol.

Hannes excuses his Spartan surroundings by describing his cabin as “a bachelor’s home.” It soon becomes apparent that long ago Prof. Armstrong worked as a Wetterwart atop Mont Blanc. Looking around the cabin, he is filled with nostalgia. Hella, on the other hand, is in a jolly and mischievous mood. She sits down at the telegraph machine and pretends to be Hannes tapping out a message: “Is Fraulein Armstong in the observatory?”

Her father smiles ruefully. “No, she’s here on Mont Blanc. And she’s up to no good.”

Hella then sits down in Hannes’s armchair and flips on the radio. Pop music blares from the great gramophone horn. This is, of course, the sort of music we would expect the very “modern” Hella to listen to. Soon, however, she spies the microscope on the table and eagerly peers into the eyepiece.

“Quite the housewife I brought you, eh?” Prof. Armstrong says. “What a girl! Skiing and science, that’s all she ever thinks about.”

She looks up from the microscope and says, without a trace of irony, “You men can clean up around here.”

“I’m at your command, Fräulein Doctor,” Hannes replies and then begins scrubbing the dishes while Hella continues to peer through the microscope.

Prof. Armstrong helps out, saying to Hannes, “Today’s girls aren’t much use anymore.”

“Mending socks is not exactly my specialty,” Hella shoots back.

Needless to say, this is some of the most significant dialogue of the film. Hella is Fanck’s portrait of modern woman. In The White Hell of Pitz PaluRiefenstahl portrayed a similar character (though not nearly as frivolous) who finds it impossible to “connect” with the film’s spiritually-virile male protagonist. In Mont Blanc this pattern is repeated.

Hella is an extraordinarily problematic character. She possesses a superficial charm, but she is burdened by the twin failings of modern woman: an ersatz masculinity, and a complete inability to commit, with true seriousness, to anything. She seeks constant thrills: the thrill of skiing (in Evola’s terms, the modern thrill of “descent”), the thrill of flying, the thrill of climbing, the thrill of surprising the lonely, reticent Hannes and invading his masculine world.

As we shall see later, she also derives a thrill (like Diotima in The Holy Mountain) from toying with the affections of two men simultaneously. She has no idea what, or who she really wants. She enjoys science but (as we shall also see), she is not seriously committed to it. The only thing that is consistent about her is her desire to rebel not just against convention but against nature itself. She is a feminist who sees herself as a “new kind of woman.” What she really desires, like all feminists, is to be a man. Since this is impossible, she winds up being nothing at all. Hella is simply chaos and the void.

Near the end of D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love, he writes of Gudrun Brangwen, his portrait of the “modern woman”:

Her tomorrow was perfectly vague before her. This was what gave her pleasure. . . . Anything might come to pass on the morrow. And to-day was the white, snowy iridescent threshold of all possibility. All possibility—that was the charm to her, the lovely, iridescent, indefinite charm—pure illusion. All possibility—because death was inevitable, and nothing was possible but death.

She did not want things to materialize, to take any definite shape. She wanted, suddenly, at one moment of the journey tomorrow, to be wafted into an utterly new course, by some utterly unforeseen event, or motion.[10]

There are many similarities between Gudrun and all of the characters Leni Riefenstahl plays in Arnold Fanck’s films (though Hella Armstrong is a good deal jollier than Gudrun Brangwen).

In the evening, Prof. Armstrong steps outside the cabin to gaze at the stars (each time Fanck shows us the stars above, we hear a chord from Dessau’s organ). Meanwhile, Hannes and Hella sit together awkwardly at the table. He smokes his pipe while she steals shy little sidelong glances at him, much as Maria does with Dr. Johannes in Pitz 
 Palu.


Hannes finds that Hella has failed to light the fire

In the morning, Fanck’s camera captures the dawn spilling over the glacier, as if bringing it to life. Hannes is awake, an axe under his arm, his guests still in bed. After awhile, Hella stirs and rubs her eyes. Hannes whispers to her: “Fräulein Hella, could you start the fire? I’ll go and chop wood outside. I don’t want to wake him.” But when he goes outside to chop the wood, Hella simply rolls over and goes back to sleep. When Hannes returns, he is chagrined to find that the fire is still out. (She is indeed “quite the housewife”!) “You can’t work up here without fire, Fräulein Armstrong,” he says, emphasizing her last name.

And it is, after all, a peculiar name for a German. The surname “Armstrong” is common to England, Ireland, and Scotland, but not Germany. (“Hella” is Scandinavian and German.) Why did Fanck pick this name for his heroine? Its foreignness is distinctive, suggesting that there is something alien about Hella; that she does not quite belong where she is. More importantly, of course, “Armstrong” is a very masculine name, suggesting muscularity and power.


Hannes takes Hella climbing in his world

Hannes, of course, winds up lighting the fire, after which he and Hella dress warmly and prepare to leave the hut. On her way out, Hella kisses her father very tenderly. (The pair are almost too close.) She and Hannes now go climbing around on the neighboring peaks, going up high onto the jagged Aiguilles du Diable ridge. At one point, Hannes extends his hand to Hella to help her up, but she waves it away. Later, he takes her to the anemometer where they linger awhile, looking out over the surrounding area, high above the clouds. She gazes at him admiringly, while he avoids her eyes, pipe clenched between his teeth. Hannes is not the sexual aggressor here. But neither is he weak. He is the Traditional, spiritually virile male whose virility has nothing to do with phallicism, and everything to do with a kind of isolated, noble detachment. His phallic aspect must be “awakened” by the feminine mystery.


"Hallo!" Hella calls to her father

While Hannes and Hella are at the anemometer, Prof. Armstrong decides to venture out onto the peaks to take rock samples. In a scene that is actually rather hard to watch, he slips and goes tumbling silently down the mountain to his death. The young pair are completely unaware of what has happened, but after awhile Hella becomes concerned for her father. She cries out to him across the peaks: “Hallo! Hallo!” When he does not respond, Hella and Hannes descend from their perch and learn the terrible truth.

Thus ends Act II of Storm over Mont Blanc.

Notes

1. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0676812/

2. Julius Evola, Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1998), 44.

3. Ibid., 44.

4. In Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, Julius Streicher says “Ein Volk, das nichts auf die Reinheit seiner Rasse hält, geht zugrunde” (A nation that does not preserve the purity of its race perishes).

5. Evola, Meditations on the Peaks, 45.

6. Ibid., 46. Lest one think that Evola is condemning skiing, he goes on to say on the same page: “Let me repeat that I myself practice skiing, although I am not disturbed or distracted by these ideas. One should not shun any experience. What matters is to maintain openness toward all experiences and thus be always aware lest physical and emotional elements attempt to exercise a seductive influence upon higher domains.”

7. Leni Riefenstahl, Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, no translator credited (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 82.

8. Ibid., 8

9. Ibid., 84.

10. D. H. Lawrence, Women in Love (New York: Viking Press, 1969), 459–60