Joe K. Post 3

Joseph Kelly

With her 1935 film Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl created something that certainly contains formal aspects of beauty. Despite concerns of its moral ambiguity, it is clear from viewing the film that Riefenstahl put considerable effort into making it aesthetically pleasing. Shots of venerable Gothic architecture fade into images of roaring crowds, thrilled at the appearance of their leader. Uplifting classical music sets the tone as Riefenstahl displays jets soaring through the clouds, conveying a singular image of optimism. In fact, nothing in the intro to the movie would lead the viewer to believe that there is any sort of misery anywhere in Germany, be it from the poverty that persisted before the Third Reich or the Holocaust that slaughtered millions during it. Riefenstahl evokes only positive imagery throughout the opening scenes, and does so successfully. It is clear that the Nazi rally is a unifying event, as evidenced by the wildly cheering multitudes. If one didn't know better, the smiling children pictured might lead one to believe that better days are ahead for Germany. Regardless of what we know of the reality of Nazi Germany, can we really deny that there is little in the world more beautiful than unity and joy? Triumph of the Will is, formally, at any rate, a beautiful work of art simply because it paints these emotions so clearly and makes the viewer feel them so powerfully.

Despite its aesthetic value, however, there is no questioning the fact that the moral implications of the film cast a shadow over its artistic achievements. To me, the question of whether or not Riefenstahl should apologize is a difficult one. As clear as it is to me that she was promoting Hitler's regime, I'm not as certain she knew what the consequences would be for her support.

It does appear to be the case that Riefenstahl supported the Nazis. This is evidenced by the simple fact that she made films about them; she once stated in an interview, "I can simply say that I feel spontaneously attracted to everything that is beautiful... Whatever is purely realistic, slice-of-life, which is average, quotidian, doesn't interest me." From this and other statements, it is clear that Riefenstahl saw at least some beauty in the Nazis (and likely shared some political ground with them), and that Triumph of the Will was an attempt to portray that beauty. Whether or not this was purely an aesthetic endeavor for her is contested by many. However, regardless of her intent, the end result was a propaganda film. Even if it was her intention to remain apolitical, the effect of attributing so much beauty to the Nazis could only serve to glorify them. Thus, if it is indeed true that Riefenstahl created Triumph of the Will with the intent of creating a purely aesthetic piece, her single-mindedness in accomplishing the task blinded her to the fact that creating a piece about a political rally without neutral "newsreel" techniques could not be anything other than political.

Still, should Riefenstahl really be made to apologize for such expression, whether it was meant to be propaganda or not? Hitler held incredibly widespread support in Germany at the time, and no one suspected what his legacy would one day become. Riefenstahl claimed she thought all of the animosity the party expressed toward Jews was electioneering, and it's likely that this was a commonly held belief at the time. Considering the state the Germany was in, racist rhetoric seemed like a small price to pay for economic relief, and no one had any reason to believe it would move beyond rhetoric. For this reason, I'm not so sure Riefenstahl has anything more to apologize for that the people in her film that attended the rally. While Riefenstahl's political expression resulted in much wider consequences, she was doing just as the rally-goers did; contributing to the political party that she believed in with the means that she had. I am not convinced that she should be held particularly responsible for the ensuing genocide, though I would expect regret on the part of anyone who supported Hitler.

Devereaux and Sontag both appear to be critical of Riefenstahl, but to varying degrees. Devereaux believes it is impossible to classify any content-centric work of art as beautiful when the content is centered around someone or something as evil and Hitler and his Nazi party. Even if Triumph was only intended to be an artistic piece, she argues, its glorification of a subject so terribly undeserving lessens its beauty, regardless of formal merit. She may not have expected Riefenstahl to apologize for her work, she simply could not morally accept it as beautiful.

Sontag takes a much harder stance toward Triumph. She delves into Riefenstahl's relationship with Hitler and Goebbels, trying to prove that Riefenstahl did, in fact, support the causes of the Nazi party. She attacks Riefenstahl for her attempts to cover up these relationships. While she does certainly speak to the artistic technique of the film, her artistic justification for considering the film to be ugly is limited. Instead, she discredits the work by making an argument against Riefenstahl's integrity and motivation. Since Sontag believed that Riefenstahl's intentions for creating Triumph of the Will were much less pure than Riefenstahl would admit to, she would most certainly claim that the world deserved an apology.