Kim post 3

Kim Hambright

(a) is it artistically/aesthetically beautiful or ugly, and what techniques make it this way? (specify as many formal components as you can).

According to Sontag, “Fascist aesthetics is based on the containment of vital forces; movements are confined, held tight, held in.” Based on this statement, Triumph of the Will is an undeniably beautiful creation, when perceived through a Fascist mindset. In the majority of the crowd scenes in film, the camera angle is so wide that the masses of people appear as one unit. Whether with their arms raised in a hailing motion, or just standing listening to one of Hitler’s speeches, the crowd seems to behave as one, embodying the Fascist ideal of unity, and presenting themselves as a powerful being.

In addition to this, the Fascist idea of unity is presented throughout many other beautiful formalities of the film. From the attitude of the audience to the attire of the SS soldiers, intentional and unintentional aspects of the film add to an overall theme of unity. The marching of the soldiers, both in the beginning from an aerial perspective and later when the band marches gives us a strong sense of their discipline. The precise motions of the soldiers and their complete lack of extraneous movement appeals to the Fascistic standard of confined and concise movement. Even unintentionally, the films adheres to the laws of Fascist beauty: the black and white tones of the film unify all the people under a common grey “umbrella,” in a way that forgives their minor differences and flaws.

Aside from the Fascist perspective, Leni Riefenstahl’s piece is still a beautiful one. From the start of the film until the very end, the audience is captured by the grandeur of the event. As the plane is flying through the sky at the very beginning and the clouds are tumbling by, the viewer identifies with a feeling of exaltion. Feeling as though they are reaching toward the heavens, the viewer connects what he or she is feeling with the idea of a higher being or a spiritual power. The calm and peaceful feeling of euphoria is translated into an appreciation for the beauty of organization as the SA soldiers march down the streets of Germany. The hymn-like music continues the spiritual feeling and one identifies with the crowds of people smiling and laughing, cheering on Hitler and the soldiers as if they had just, ironically, saved the people from some sort of tyranny. As Devereaux states, “…Hitler is the hero. He is both a leader and a savior…” The distinct positioning of the camera, in many cases over Hitler’s right shoulder, infects the viewer with a sense of empowerment and enlightenment. In Christian religion, an angel (one’s good conscience) perches on a person’s right shoulder and for the camera to be positioned there gives the spiritual identity of the film an entire new meaning. The viewer takes on the role of Hitler’s angel, strongly identifying his or herself with the beauty of Hitler’s message. In this way, I consider Riefenstahl’s film to be quite beautiful. While it is scary to us, who know the consequences of the film and the Nazi Regime, it is a beautiful and inspiring piece of art in that it takes the viewer to a new reality, one that is focused and spiritual, a world that is aesthetically pleasing.

(b) Do you think the art, or Riefenstahl, ought to apologize? Why or why not--? Consider the different arguments made by Devereaux and Sontag in their articles: what would each say to this question, and what point is each making about Riefenstahl’s work?

In my unprofessional and historically biased opinion, I do not feel that it is necessary for either Leni Riefenstahl or her work to apologize for anything. While it is also my opinion that yes, this film is Nazi propaganda, I do not feel as though Leni alone was responsible for the negative repercussions of the Nazi rise to power. In agreement with Mary Devereaux (235), I feel that Riefenstahl was aware of her actions as a filmmaker and the possibilities of the film being seen as propaganda, though I do not think she was responsible for much, if any of the original plans for Germany. As she mentioned in her interview, she sometimes asked Hitler political questions to which he could not or would not answer. It is said that hindsight is 20/20, but I think that whether or not Riefenstahl would have made the film knowing what would happen later is irrelevant. I personally believe that she had limited knowledge of Hitler’s plans, and while she may have agreed with his supposed views at the time, I feel that she probably would have taken the job either way, even if it was just for the fortune and fame.

It is not my intention to make the claim that art and artists should never be held responsible for the consequences resulting from their works. In fact, I believe that the artist should definitely look at the ideals of the current society before publishing or broadcasting a work so that they can defend it, because whether or not a work needs justification is irrelevant. In today’s society, if someone is offended by a piece of artwork, you will hear about it, and in most cases, someone has to stand up and take blame. Susan Sontag might argue that it is Riefenstahl’s duty to apologize for her film, whether or not she was aware of the statement it would make on the world. Sontag even says, “Art that seemed eminently worth defending ten years ago… no longer seems defensible today, because the ethical and cultural issues it raises have become serious, even dangerous, in a way they were not then.” Devereaux on the other hand, might agree more with me and say that it is the responsibility of the audience to filter and censor the artwork, instead of the artist. She writes that a controversial work such as Triumph of the Will, “allow us to see that one of the disturbing things about art is that I can make evil appear beautiful and good,” even going as far as to say that “(the evil side of art) becomes real only insofar as it arises in particular cases.”