Wednesday, September 12, 2007

post 3

Justin Wright

makes his third post.

A) The experience of viewing Triumph of the Will was, for me, mesmerizing. I put aside my anti-Nazi feelings to really feel what Riefenstahl intended when she made the film - to show a glorious leader, saving the nation from the darkest time in its history, and how the people show their loyalty to him and his ideas. Although many consider the film as propaganda, anyone who compares it to other propaganda will surely notice a difference. Certainly, the film was used as propaganda by the Nazis, and Hitler had to have had this in mind when he commissioned it. But Riefenstahl was given unlimited freedom in the budget, filming, and editing, and even some sway in planning the rally for ideal filming. Thus although Hitler asked Riefenstahl to make the film, he did not supervise it at all, and did not see it before the premiere. Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, also was not allowed to supervise. So from before it was even made, Triumph of the Will differed from films that were pure propaganda, such as The Eternal Jew, commissioned by Goebbels.

The film focuses on the skies first, in the film’s opening. The cameras follow clouds as they pass by the windows, and soon the city of Nuremburg is visible below. This was one of the first major uses of aerial photography in film. There was no other way to capture the beauty of the heavens, and the city in such a way. The parts of the city seen are very beautiful – artistic architecture of German styles, unlike the roofs of modern utilitarian buildings that would cover most areas today. It appears that Hitler is descending from the skies to come lead his people. The shadow of the plane follows along a road where soldiers are marching. This must have been very difficult to get right, and emphasizes Hitler’s leadership and power. The plane lands and Hitler is seen for the first time, to the joy of all watching. He leads a parade through the streets, while people cheer for him. While Hitler is being driven though the streets, cameras pan to focus on him, while occasionally switching to shots of statues, or people cheering. Everything is in motion, and the music is triumphant. It is important to note that the footage was taken without sound, and the sound was rerecorded, to match perfectly.

The military formations in the film are simply breathtaking. Between eighty and one hundred thousand Germans are standing in meticulous rows, columns, and blocks. All of this is visible from a camera positioned up with the banners. The only flaw is that the camera is looking at the formations from a slight angle, instead of straight on. But this is overlooked because these are the last enormous, real formations of troops that will probably ever be filmed, since war is not fought the same way today, and rallies on this scale will probably not happen again. Hitler walks down the central aisle with Himmler and a general accompanying him, and the camera watches him from above. When they reaches the podium, a camera tracks across to the side. This was a new technique at the time, created by Riefenstahl for this film. More people, possibly soldiers, march in carrying banners, and then around the formations in a circle. All of the people blend together, forming a mass expressing pure power. Triumph of the Will is definitely aesthetically beautiful.

B) I do not think that Riefenstahl should have apologized for creating Triumph of the Will. She was not a Nazi supporter when she made the film (or so she claims) and even if she was, she did not support the anti-Semitism of the party in her film. Neither did she create the film for use as propaganda. Even though Hitler asked her personally to make it, she gave her too much freedom in doing so for it to be true propaganda. He may have intended this indirectly, but what he was probably trying to do was create a film that was unifying, glorifying, and purely German, to boost nationalism and identify the Nazi party as a true German government to the core. It still could be considered propaganda in a general sense because of its subject matter, but I would not rank it along with other Nazi propaganda. The film is too artistic. Propaganda produced by other directors was heavily political, such as the infamous The Eternal Jew.

The fact that Hitler gave Riefenstahl both infinite control over the film’s production, as well as a grand budget, are important considerations in determining why she made the film. Since Hitler never saw the film until its release, this strongly suggests it was not commissioned as pure propaganda. If it was, either he or Goebbels would have had some supervising authority. But then Riefenstahl helped plan the Nuremburg rally for ideal filming, and was funded by Hitler, which he would not have done unless he did commission Triumph of the Will to be propaganda of some sort. I think that the former outweighs the latter, and that part of what makes images propaganda is production by the government, not just government involvement.

Riefenstahl tried until her death to soften up her involvement with high ranking Nazis. There were diary entries of one official which document her as being present for evenings with him and Hitler several times. Riefenstahl claims this never happened, becoming truly outraged during an interview. Most likely it did happen, because there would be no reason to lie in a diary, but Riefenstahl has plenty of reasons for wanting to distance herself from the Nazi party. Although she almost certainly was more involved with the party than she claims, anti-Semitism and other hate speech is not included in Triumph of the Will, which is why the Nazis are regarded as evil in the first place. Therefore the film is purely the aesthetics of the party rally, and the message of national unity under Hitler.

Riefenstahl never apologized for the film, which is an even further reason to say that she should not have done so. If she did not apologize for the film because she supported the Nazi movement, she would have had no reason to have continued for sixty years denying that she created the film as propaganda.

2 comments:

Maxine Rivera said...

Your analysis of the formal techniques used in the film was well thought out, what impressed me most was your opinion on the film's purpose. Pointing out the difference between obvious propaganda films (The Eternal Jew)and the film in question, helped open my eyes to your position. Originally I felt that Hitler's generous support of the film (budget, editing privileges, planning etc.)was the very thing that made it propaganda. Reading your post made me take a step back and return to evaluation of the piece rather than the process, a point I stressed in my own post.
I agree that Riefenstahl should not be forced to apologize, however I don't believe that she is quite as innocent in the scheme of things as you give her credit for being. There are many contradictions in Riefenstahl's story, some of which are pointed out in Sontag's article, that make me doubt her impartiality. I fail to believe she was so detached from something she invested so much time into, whether or not she truely supported the anti-semitism of the Nazi Party I cannot be sure. I do feel she held Hitler in higher regard than she lets on in her recent interviews.

Ariane said...

Your description of the formal merit of the film are precise and very well described. I agree that the film has a lot of artistic attributes. I understand your view that Triumph of the Will could not be completely Nazi Propaganda because Leni did have free reign over the project. But why was she given that power over all other film makers? It was because Hitler was sure that Leni's ideas matched his. Hitler would not haphazardly hand out such freedom. He rightfully knew that if Leni had artistic freedom he'd get a more compelling piece to use as propaganda. Even if Leni wanted it to be a piece of art, she had to know that Goebbels was in charge of propaganda and that he as well as Hitler commissioned no works of pure art. She could not have been so ignorant. She had friends who had to flee because their art wasn't deemed appropriate for the Nazi party, she knew that the movie wasn't about art to Hitler.
I think your view that because she didn't apologize, she wasn't guilty, is unfounded. She had plenty of motivation to deny that she was associated with the Nazis. The more forcefully she denied her association with the Nazi party, especially amongst hard evidence, the more it looked like she had something to hide. She had a clouded past, and instead of admitting it, saying she's sorry for getting mixed up with what turned out to be a corrupt people and move on, she denied it completely saying, “I don’t know what I should apologize for. All of my films won prizes” (Leni_law email). This statement doesn't even touch on the possible moral repercussions of her piece. Although they were artistic, they were not pure unaltered “cinema veritÄ—” (Sontag) as suggested and thus she has to be held accountable not for a piece of art but for a piece of subjective, ideological film that was manipulated to show a specific view but passed as pure facts and exact reality.