Amy I

Amy Iarrobino

Post 3

a) Riefenstahl’s work is artistically and aesthetically beautiful. She was a pioneer in German film-making, using moving cameras to follow the subjects and create novel angles unprecedented in the typical German documentaries. She also utilized varying camera angles with camera lifts in the flag poles, angles shot from the ground looking upwards and even aerial views from a plane. Of striking beauty was the opening flight through the clouds then showing of Nuremburg with the shadow of the plane on the street. Several scenes appeal to the eye due to their symmetry and formation. The parades are always balanced with formations on each side and the flags centered. I also noted that she closely followed the rule of photography called golden-thirds in which if one drew four lines dividing the frame into thirds both horizontally and vertically, the main image or focus should appear where two lines cross. This mathematical theory forms a visual appeal. She combines these techniques with symbolic images to create meaningful art.

b) I feel that Riefenstahl ought to apologize. She frequently contradicts herself which causes me to doubt her sincerity when she claims ignorance to her actions. For example, in her interview she vehemently claims she had nothing to do with the planning or staging of the parades and did not play a role in the “faked reality.” However, earlier in the interview she had complained that she wanted the parade organized with five flags but that higher officials said it would be too gaudy. However, if she had no involvement in the planning of such events and was simply a witness to events that would have occurred otherwise, than why would she have a say in the proceedings beforehand? She also attempts to absolve her guilt by saying that she could not foresee the dangers and atrocities to come during World War II. At first I sympathized with this statement, but as I think about it she made no later attempts to apologize for such actions and address the atrocities. I feel that if she had taken such actions I would look upon Triumph of the Will more objectively. Ignorance is not a valid defense. She continues to contradict the diaries of Goebbels as she claims that she was not on good terms with him and other high party officials. Goebbels’ diaries prove otherwise. Thus, I doubt her sincerity in all matters and feel that she indeed knew the message she was sending and needs to apologize as the context of the film has changed in the post-WWII era. Devereaux and Sontag also feel that Reifenstahl’s work has political intentions and thus should be apologized for. For example, Devereaux states that “Reifenstahl works with the themes of both unity and power, manipulating artistic form not only to create enthusiasm for Hitler and the National Socialists but to evoke fear” (Devereaux, 235). Devereaux also agrees with Kracauer’s charge of “faked reality” created by Triumph of the Will. Sontag is a nemesis of Reifenstahl for her harsh criticism of Riefenstahl. Sontag agrees with Triumph of the Will’s political motive by presenting evidence that Riefenstahl was indeed “a close friend and companion of Hitler’s well before 1932” (Sontag, 3). Sontag indicates that all four of Riefenstahl’s Nazi films are driven by the “worship of an irresistible leader” (Sontag, 5).