Brynne post 3

Brynne Piotrowski

Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is worthy of commendation for its aesthetic form. It is a masterful work of cinematography, replete with innovations in filmmaking at the time of its production. The aerial photography is remarkably well shot, especially considering the equipment available at the time (i.e. no computer manipulation of clouds, the city below, etc.). Also adding to the aesthetic beauty was Riefenstahl’s use of different camera angles—such as those found in the scenes of Hitler’s motorcade (behind Hitler, from the crowd, above)—and tracks for moving shots. These techniques prevented the monotony of the typical newsreel. I found myself impressed at the huge masses of actual soldiers in formation because now it is almost a given that large groups are usually computer generated reproductions. I would label Triumph of the Will as aesthetically beautiful, but would not grant it the title of artistically beautiful because to me the artistic part also encompasses the meaning and purpose, not just formal components.

Honestly, I think an apology from Riefenstahl is a moot point. She went to her grave vehemently denying any interest in the political or propagandistic nature of Triumph of the Will, but history, her interviews, and the facts seem to rebut her claims to a great extent. I believe it would have been to Riefenstahl’s benefit to apologize after controversy arose around this film; partly because I believe the artist is responsible for his/her work in both form and function, and partly because perhaps Riefenstahl could have “moved on” and gotten past this hang up that still causes pause in a discussion of her filmmaking credits.

In Riefenstahl’s defense, she showed a lot of interest in making a “beautiful” film, as demonstrated by her five-month-long editing effort. Also, 1934 was somewhat early for the German public to realize Hitler’s eventual plans; at that point many Germans were looking to the National Socialist Party to remedy horrible economic conditions in their country. Nonetheless, Triumph of the Will is deplorable in its message and sentiments because of what the Nazi party (and through association this film) came to symbolize—hatred, anti-Semitism, death. Overall, I believe Riefenstahl had no reason to apologize at the time for her interest in making the film (artistically or aesthetically), but she should have later recognized what Triumph of the Will came to represent and offered an apology.

Devereaux would likely deem Riefenstahl as owing an apology for the film. The point in Deveraux’s writing is to argue that you cannot detach form and function in Triumph of the Will. She claims, “paying attention only to the formal aspects of the work (to the image and not to what it means)…fails in the case of Triumph of the Will because it requires us to ignore the essence of the film” (Devereaux 244). Devereaux endeavors to explain how it is possible to juxtapose beauty and evil in art, but impossible in this case to examine one of these aspects without acknowledging the other one. By this line of reasoning, Riefenstahl owes an apology because there is evil in the film that cannot be overpowered by its aesthetic appeal or cinematic accomplishments. I view Sontag’s writings as less authoritative due to the vendetta between her and Riefenstahl. The point of Sontag’s article (which is rather rambling) appears to be to disparage Riefenstahl as a person while still timidly promoting the ideas fascism and fascist art. It appears to me, rather surprisingly, that Sontag would likely not call for an apology and if she did it would only be on the grounds that Riefenstahl misrepresented Triumph of the Will and her other works in terms of authorship and the display of true fascism.