Tawny N post 3

Tawny Najjar

Before learning of Triumph of the Will, I had never considered the concept of displaying an evil as beautiful. Good art was mostly based on content, as well as technique and skill, and bad art was based on the negative content that it portrayed. Yet, despite the obvious evils portrayed in Triumph of the Will, the film was still both artistically and aesthetically beautiful, drawing on camera angles and scenes that instilled a feeling of social belonging and importance. In the opening of the film, the viewer is flying through the clouds, eventually overlooking the city of Nuremburg, soaring past towers and buildings, with the streets far below. The city looks peaceful, and the music used in the background is both elevating and calming. The scenes switched from one to the next with smooth transition, easily guiding the viewer from the beginning scene in the clouds to watching the shadow of a plane fly over the troops on the ground far below. Riefenstahl used several shots of flags and army formations, while keeping everything symmetrical and visually appealing. The music in the background also contributed to the film’s beauty. The music gave the sense of importance, and almost a feeling of happiness or goodness, giving the impression that the scenes to which it was playing were exuding a feeling of goodness and unity. As Devereaux commented on in her analysis of the film, Riefenstahl also used “several striking motifs: the swastika, the German eagle, flags, Albert Speer’s towering architecture, torches and burning pyres, moon and clouds, the roar of the clouds, and Hitler’s voice” (Devereaux 231). This use of motifs was to put emphasis on three main ideas from the National Socialist slogan, “One People. One Leader. One Empire.” The film emphasized the concept of unity, and almost made the viewer feel unified with the Nazi group as well. She also drew upon the concept of power, shooting scenes of tightly controlled army formations and parades.

The responsibility for this work of art, this film, lies with the creator. As Devereaux stated, “the reality it records is a reality that it helped to create” (Devereaux 239), implicating that this film assisted in the effort to win support for Hitler and his National Socialism. Riefenstahl should apologize for her work. Though she claims that the film was “purely historical…It is film verité. It reflects the truth that was then, in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film” (Devereaux 238). However, despite her denial of working to further the National Socialist movement, Riefenstahl was “a close friend and companion of Hitler’s well before 1932” (Sontag 3). She also made the film with “unlimited facilities and unstinting official cooperation (there was never any struggled between the filmmaker and the German minister of propaganda” (Sontag 3). After watching the film, it can be clearly seen as a work of propaganda, because of how it depicts Hitler and the National Socialist group. It makes National Socialism seem beautiful, which in turn makes the viewer think of it as good. The idea that Riefenstahl is guilty of placing messages of support of Nazism in her film is also supported by the fact the she never apologized or expressed regret for her film. She advocated that there were no underlying messages in her art, and that it was purely historical. This too calls into question her innocence and ignorance as an artist.