e tibbetts post 3

erica tibbetts
Although art has an extra-moral sense to it at times, I think this quality can only be applied when the formal elements of the art are not based on any immoral qualities. In some cases the formal issues of content, color, technique, size, etc have nothing to do with the moral issues in which the piece is involved. However, in some cases the moral issues and the formal issues are intertwined and inseparable. In these cases, such as pornography and blatant propaganda, the art loses some of its potential beauty, simply because the viewer cannot look at the piece without placing it in a category of immorality.
“Triumph of the Will” does not really fit into this category, but it tip-toes the borders. The imagery in the movie: the marching columns, the close-ups on Hitler, the scenes of Nuremberg during the march, are all directly tied to Nazi Germany in the viewer’s mind. However, there is nothing visually in the film that makes it repulsive. It shows an ideal, a deified leader, a united people, a strong nation, “Ein Fuhrer, Ein Volk, Ein Reich”. This ideal does not make the film morally repulsive. Wanting unity, strength, ascent from a crippling economic depression, etc is not a bad thing. Seeing the beauty in these steps is not a bad thing. In a sense, even with the ideals that Riefenstahl was attempting to achieve left intact, the film is not all bad. It is the events that came afterwards that make the movie morally deplorable to most viewers. The holocaust, the gas chambers, the unrivalled genocide of the Nazi movement make anything connected with the National Socialist movement unacceptable to the average person. The movie is not totally disconnected from this future though, Hitler’s speeches point to his anti-Semitic tendencies. And the massing of men, weapons, and support can undoubtedly be connected with the war that was in the making. Thus, the war, the holocaust, the future are present in this movie, or at least strongly foreshadowed, even if they did not occur until later. So the very essence of the film seems tainted by the presence of the violent undercurrents that would later lead to the deaths of millions. Devereaux says in her article that, “One of the most remarkable facts about Triumph of the Will is that the reality it records is a reality it helped to create” (239). Without the message sent by the beauty and success of this movie, the movement of Nazism may not have had the power and seductive power that it did.
In order to see the film in a formalist fashion, or in a way that concentrated solely on the issues of technical beauty, one would have to look at the content, the rhythm, the massed ranks, the beauty of the formations, the power of Hitler as he commands thousands of soldiers without considering the meaning that these elements have, the power they have, the sublime feeling they import. Yet, without the power, the meaning, the awe-inspiring nature of these factors, the film loses its beauty. As Devereaux points out, “distancing ourselves from the morally objectionable elements of the film- it’s deification of Hitler, the story it tells about him, and the party, and the German people, and so on- means distancing ourselves from the features that make it the work of art it is.” (243) There is no way to look at the beauty of the movie without looking at the powerfully awful elements of it as well and in these elements lies all the malevolence of Nazi Germany.
a) There are elements of Riefenstahl’s work that are beautiful, to an extent. The rhythm that Devereaux describes, the marching crowds, the sheer power of the masses, the choreographed camera angles, the ideals of unity and strength; all of these could be seen as beautiful. Riefenstahl was a revolutionary when it came ot the use of cameras mounted on track, wires and lifts. During the scenes where Hitler lands and then is paraded down a packed street, the point of view changes constantly. The camera looks down from Hitler’s vantage point at the people; adoring, jubilant crowds course around him. Although we, as 21st century viewers cannot view any scene containing the Nazi leader without a sense of revulsion, the way in which these scenes are shot could be considered compelling. The shots of Hitler and his two companions walking through the thousands of massed troops also gives the viewer a sense of the sublime. The scene is awe inspiring due to the sheer number of men assembled and the discipline they embody. Second later, the screen is filled with flags adorned with swastikas. Although this is a reviled symbol these days, the method used to capture the shot is artful. I don’t think we can see any of these scenes without putting them in context, and thinking of the pain and atrocity that would follow. The film captures the viewer’s eye and the imagination. It places the viewer in the scene, makes the parades tangible, almost a physical experience. This type of tightly controlled visual spectacle is stunning, is beautiful, is successful in its aims, however, as Devereaux points out, we cannot appreciate these elements because of the political message they embody.
b) I think that Sontag’s point is to show the dishonesty she perceives in Riefenstahl. Sontag points to the misleading abstracts that appear on the back of Riefenstahl’s book of Nuba photographs. She shows how Riefenstahl claims to be disengaged from the Nazi movement, she basically discredits the film maker (calls her claims at neutrality “lies”) and then goes on to describe the blatant political motives behind the film. Like Devereaux’s claim that the film records a reality it helps create, Sontag says that Triumph of the Will and the three other Nazi commissioned films that Riefenstahl made “not only (are) the record(s) of reality but (are) one reason the reality has been constructed, and must eventually supersede it.” (4) Sontag sees the piece as propaganda, and evil propaganda at that. She claims the Riefenstahl is running away from her sordid past of fraternizing with Nazi leaders and creating films to suit their needs. She calls elements of all of Riefenstahl’s work “fascist” in its use of united community, upward struggles and physicality. She says even Riefenstahl’s pictures of the Nuba contain “Nazi Ideaology” in their “contrast between the clean and the impure, the incorruptible and defiled, the physical and the mental, the joyful and the critical” (6).
Sontag wants Riefenstahl to not only apologize for her art, but probably wants her persecuted for it. The vehemence of Sontag’s argument is potent. But, at the same time, possibly overzealous. Sontag cannot, and does not even try to separate the art from the history. She cannot accept Riefenstahl’s films because they involve pre-war Nazi Germany. And she cannot accept Riefenstahl’s later work because it is made by a woman with Nazi ties. I think Sontag’s criticism of Riefenstahl is too harsh and broad. Almost any art could be argued to have fascist ties, if one looked hard enough.
Deveraux basically argues that Triumph of the Will is an uncanny combination of beauty and evil. While she would not ask for an apology, necessarily, she would caution the viewer to be wary of falling under the spell of the beauty in the film. She claims that there can be no separation between the fascism, the Nazism, the immoral content in the film, and the beauty it creates. She does not claim this makes it null as far as art goes, but she cannot allow it to be the highest form of art. Devereaux points to the idea that beauty should be accompanied by goodness, and even though she doesn’t endorse this idea entirely, she still cannot approve of Triumph of the Will. She states, “one of the most shocking things about Triumph of the Will is hat it so clearly demonstrates that beauty and goodness can come apart, not just in the relatively simple sense that moral and aesthetic evaluation may diverge, but n the more frightening sense that it is possible for art to render evil beautifully” (250). I think this sums up Devereaux’s opinion. The art is still beautiful but it is also evil, even if it was not intended as such. Even if Riefenstahl didn’t know what Hitler would become, what the National Socialists would do, how hated this movement would become, she still pays homage to a lurking evil. Although her intentions may have been different, the result is the same, so while Riefenstahl herself may not have to apologize, and her art may still be acceptable as art, a warning is issued.