Leni Riefenstahl isn’t the only individual who filmed political rallies. There are many films of political figures such as John F. Kennedy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and Che Guerva. Some would argue there are even more films of spiritual leaders and social change catalysts like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Ghandi. Some of these films are used as the fire to spark social reform while others are used to commemorate a famous figure. I believe Riefenstahl’s film, Triumph of the Will, although only witnessed in clips, is used to forever capture and share the Third Reich, its leader Hitler, and Germany in the time of Hitler to the world forever.
The film opens as any other would. There is nothing to suggest propaganda but, instead, just the opposite is portrayed. The clouds provide a beautiful image and setting for the viewer. To an uneducated spectator, this could be the opening to a love story. The so-called “propaganda” begins with the birds-eye-view of Nuremberg. We immediately witness Germany at its height – literally the gothic architecture seems to be reaching up into the sky screaming of Germany’s power. The crowds, all hailing Hitler, contribute to the powerful message that the film sent to me: Hitler was king. At the height of his career, his people loved him, and he wasn’t modest about accepting their affection. I learned a lot about Hitler’s character just by watching those few clips.
In this time and place, it would be hard to watch a film of Hitler without grimacing. Devereaux clearly states that, “Observation is always conditioned by perspective and expectation.” (p 122) We have always been taught that Hitler is history’s number one bad guy and that he is responsible for World War II and the Nuremberg Trials. The Holocaust is ingrained into our minds -- its survivors, the lives it ruined, and its economic and social repercussions are constantly discussed in our society. It is impossible for us to remain impartial while viewing Riefenstahl’s films. For that purpose, we might accidentally help to bridge the gap between art and propaganda.
Sontag might be Riefenstahl’s greatest enemy, and in my opinion, if I was trying to gain an unbiased opinion of someone, I wouldn’t go to their archenemy to acquire it. It’s hard to gain perspective on Riefenstahl and her work when Sontag’s loathing is so blatant. I took everything that Sontag said with a grain of salt. The idea that this film inspired people to love Hitler might be true, but how can that be Riefenstahl’s fault? The way her art is interpreted is left up to the viewer and the viewer alone.
Taking into account both Sontag and Devereaux’s opinions, adding that to my own viewing of the film, and also considering the previewed interview with Riefenstahl, I am able to clearly state that it doesn’t matter what purpose Riefenstahl had while making those films. She won awards for her technique and is still critically acclaimed for her revolutionary contributions to the film world. How can we argue that her art is tasteless if it provided such a foundation for other filmmakers to create their own art? Riefenstahl has no reason to apologize; instead, we should be thanking her for her involvement in the world of culture and art, regardless of what her medium was or the fact that the star of her film is responsible for thousands of deaths.
1 comment:
I think you bring up a couple of valid points that really interest me. The first would be the analogy that Triumph could be viewed like an opening to a love story. I never thought of the film in that context, but have to admit that does seem to ring true. The film seems to be infused with a certain love and passion and could easily be seen as Riefenstahl’s ode to Germany at that time. The other point I thought was fascinating was that because it is impossible for us to look at the film impartially we might unintentionally make an assumption that art is indeed propaganda rather than just art. I think this is a very valid point and a common issue of looking at various period art- it is natural to reflect on the time period while examining the art. But, I wonder if in the case of Riefenstahl’s Triumph this is an unfair assumption to make. Propaganda has many negative connotations behind it but, Merriam-Webster defines propaganda simply as “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”. I believe it is considered a fact that Riefenstahl’s Triumph was used to promote the Nazi Government. If I’m correct in that belief, then it is not unfair of me or any other viewer to consider the film propaganda.
The one point of your post that I really took issue to was when you stated, “Riefenstahl has no reason to apologize; instead, we should be thanking her for her involvement in the world of culture and art, regardless of what her medium was or the fact that the star of her film is responsible for thousands of deaths.” By your own admission, her film was used as a means to bring about thousands of deaths, if not more. To say she has no reason to apologize is to say she is not morally culpable for the devastation her work caused. She participated in a plan that brought about crime and misery, which according to the Nuremburg Trials, would be considered a war crime. Regardless of whether or not her film was lauded for its technical achievements, it is still a film about and in praise of evil. The fact that it is also art should not be used as an escape from justice.
Post a Comment