I do not believe that there is anyway to deny that Leni Riefenstahl’s documentary is a beautiful piece of artwork. The images had minimal shadows, which caused the viewer’s eye to focus on the enormous crowd itself rather than be drawn to dark spots in the picture. The music was timed well with the images and seemed to almost “flow” with them. Perhaps one of the most spectacular elements of the film was the camera angles from which Leni shot the footage. They were truly magnificent, and varied enough to retain the audience’s attention. At one point during the filming she attached the camera to a lift so that the point of reference could rise higher or drop lower. This effect makes the viewer feel almost as if he is descending slow motion on the crowd via parachute. At another point in the film she had her crew wear roller skates so that the footage would be more interesting and active than a direct shot of Hitler or his crowd. Finally, the images themselves and the way in which Leni pieced them together add to the aesthetic beauty of the work. One shot she captured illustrates an enormous crowd of Hitler’s followers raising their arms and shouting their allegiance to the party in one simultaneous, massive motion. Other shots portray a single face of a woman or young person smiling wholesomely into the camera. Leni pieces these visually appealing images together, mixing footage of an enormous crowd with footage of individual people to create a varied, yet harmonious view of the rally.
I believe that intent is more important than outcome. In addition, I believe that the most essential responsibility a person has is to himself: to remain true to who he is and live by his morals. Having said that, I think the most important thing to consider is not the result of the images, but rather Leni’s intention when she filmed them. After watching her face become passionately alive when she spoke of the filming and the breathtaking shots she was able to capture, I tend to believe that she was truly filming the images as a way of portraying a piece of artwork, as opposed to a piece of political propaganda. Had she created the documentary with the intent to glorify the Nazi party while she believed strongly against them, I would easily lay blame on her for compromising her values for money or fame. However, if she was functioning solely as an artist, as I believe she was, and made no attempt to “trick” viewers into growing an inaccurate or misinformed view of the Nazi’s, then I do not feel that she has any reason to apologize. Susan Sontag, of course, would certainly disagree with me. When speaking of Triumph of the Will, Sontag states that it is “a film whose very conception negates the possibility of the filmmaker’s having an aesthetic conception independent of propaganda.” She cites numerous instances where Leni was found to have connections (both financial and social) to the Nazi party as proof that Leni was motivated by more than artistic inspiration. Mary Devereaux is also opposed to the film and agrees with Sontag that it is “a work of Nazi propaganda.” However, she focuses more on the film’s “conjunction of beauty and evil.” She claims it is troubling, “because it presents as beautiful a vision of Hitler and the New Germany that is morally repugnant.” While Sontag seems to center on denouncing lies about Leni and Devereaux focuses more on the film’s ability to “seduce” audiences, both share the view that Leni needs to take responsibility for her artwork and the effect it had on audiences.
2 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with your pronouncement of Triumph of the Will as an aesthetically beautiful film. Riefenstahl is to be commended for her innovative methods that kept the film interesting while shooting what essentially amounted to a newsreel. However, where my thoughts diverge from your argument is on the idea of art’s intentions and outcomes and how the artist is responsible. I will agree that artists should be primarily held accountable for their intentions in producing their work, but I believe each artist must also be mindful of the outcomes (intended or otherwise) that his or her work leads to. In my view, that is how it works in areas other than art, and the logic carries over into the art realm. To use an example from a realm outside of the creative arts, take Herbert Hoover. He instituted a series of programs, both volunteer and government oriented, during his presidency in the late 1920s and early 1930s. His intentions with these programs were completely “above board” as he was seeking to end the worsening economic crisis. However, the outcome was a deepening of the economic problems and Hoover had to take responsibility (in the form of losing his reelection bid in 1932). Intentions great, outcome poor, responsibility present.
Having expressed my different way of looking at responsibility, I will say that Riefenstahl is a special case. She obviously had interest in producing an aesthetically beautiful work of art. Even more to her defense is the fact that 1934 was fairly early in Hitler’s rise and many Germans looked to him as a figure of hope for restoring Germany to power and stability. He was not yet a tyrannical symbol of hatred, anti-Semitism, and murder. However, the fact is that the content of Triumph of the Will has come to represent a vile, horrendous part of world history. The fact that Germany still bans it with the exception of scholarly study (from Dr. Musgrave’s email) is evidence of how it has become a repulsive and offensive work. I would hardly argue that this was Riefenstahl’s intention at all yet I believe she should have apologized. Even with a preface of “This was not my intention” or “My work has been misconstrued,” Riefenstahl could have expressed regret for what Triumph of the Will came to represent, and ideally moved on to a life not characterized by a continual defense of this film.
You make an interesting point in emphasizing the importance of intention when creating art. Although I agree that the artist's intention does play an important role when analyzing art, it is often difficult to discern what that intention is unless stated specifically by the artist. Riefenstahl may have simply wanted to film a beautiful work of art laden with new camera and editing techniques; however, it cannot be denied that Triumph of the Will was instrumental in furthering the Nazi regime and thus the Holocaust. Even though Riefenstahl did not want the Holocaust to occur, it did; moreover, she must take some responsibility for it and express regret for what her art has done. Take our own lives, for example. You may perform a good deed with the best intentions in mind. Somehow, this good deed does not turn out the way you had intended and ends negatively. You may express regret in saying, "I'm sorry; I did not mean for it to turn out this way."
Post a Comment