Ted Henderson Post 3

The question of whether or not an artist must take responsibility for their own work's moral effect on the public has been in debate for as long as art has existed in any significant form. A notable instance in which this question was, and still today is, up for debate was following the creation and public release of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Triumph of the Will is the product of Riefenstahl's carefully planned out filming and editing of the 1934 Nazi Party Rally in Nuremberg, Germany. Riefenstahl claims that the film was made simply with with purpose of documenting a historical event in an aesthetically capturing and pleasing fashion. She maintained that, when making the film, she had no intentions of aiding Hitler and his party with propaganda, but was instead making the most technically high in quality work of art that she could.
Thus, before going any further into the debate of whether or not Riefenstahl should be held responsible for her film's appearing as Nazi propaganda and the effects such a film might have had on Germany at the time, the question must first be raised as to whether or not the film was artistically ingenious, and if so, what techniques were used to make it so? Well, certainly from a film critic's standpoint, the film would appear, most especially at the time it was made, to be a noteworthy piece of cinema, advanced in the techniques used to film it, and overall aesthetically well-organized and well-shot. First of all, the manner in which, through countless hours of editing through miles of film, Riefenstahl seamlessly switches from shot to shot displays a great deal of technical skill as a director and an editor. When the camera swiftly moves from shots of the smiling faces of fair-skinned, blond children to Hitler himself as he smiles upon and graciously waves to his supporters to the columns upon columns of infantry that, in unison, salute their leader as he passes by upon arrival in Nuremberg, one must certainly, after viewing this opening sequence, tip their hat to Leni for her effective use of smooth camera and angle change. Let us not overlook the shots taken from a plane of Nuremberg just before those of Hitler's arrival, in which a clear areal view of the city is able to be seen, certainly an innovative technique at the time, and quite useful in suggesting Hitler's having encompassed this city, and many others in Germany, in their entirety as his own, his people, his land, his rule, his. Then, of course, there is the real meat of the film, the images of the Nazi Rally. These images display mostly overhead views of the massive Nazi Army and its ritualistic, and impeccably formed march. Unlike the opening scene in which some of the faces of the civilian crowd which greets Hitler are closed in upon, there doesn't seem to be a single closeup of any one member of Hitler's army during the rally. The only face, in fact, that is filmed up close is, you guessed, the leader of this mass of people, Hitler himself. He is the individual, the voice in the group. The rest of the nearly eighty thousand at the rally were simply that, the group. A group shot from such high-up angles as to make them appear as ants marching in perfect symmetry, saluting the highly exalted leader in unison as nothing more than a singular army, as if they were microscopic, nearly insignificant pieces of one supreme puzzle, utterly expendable, and meaningless without the group. As Riefenstahl's cameras slowly but intently move along their tracks, the realization of just how massive and completely entranced by this singular leader the group of soldiers at the rally truly is becomes clear as a well-polished lens.
After the fact is established that Riefenstahl did, in The Triumph of the Will, create an effective piece of aesthetic work, and when it is also quite clear that the vast majority of the images that appear in the film can be seen as, and most likely are by nature propaganda, one must ask if the creator of this piece of cinema is at all responsible for the effect that the work might have on a nation such as Germany at the time. In my opinion, Riefenstahl had much more knowledge of Hitler's intent in having the rally filmed, especially his intent in using a director such as herself, whom he knew had a knack for bringing about certain "messages" and "effects" through her innovative techniques. Riefenstahl had every opportunity to refuse filming the rally, and in doing so, to send the message to Hitler and other Nazi leader that she would not be used as a tool for furthering the image of Hitler's domination of Germany in the eyes of its civilians. It is likely that the event still would have been filmed, even without the assistance of Riefenstahl, but it is also likely that, without the very artistic vision and skill she continuously argued as a defense for why she took part in the filming, The Triumph of the Will would not been nearly as well-known and viewed publicly because it would not have been as intriguing, and therefore, would not have been as effective a piece of propaganda for a party of maniacal tyrants. Leni Riefenstahl simply had to know, to some extent, what she was creating in her filming of this rally. It is so clear, when one sees the film, that the massive army at the rally is meant to be seen as a singular unit under one individual's power, and this unit is only shown at a good distance from above so as to emphasize its being on the "ground level" of power in German society at the time. In contrast to this, Hitler is given many flattering close ups, and is often viewed when signaling his troops with a salute from the angle of a camera looking up from underneath him. This a classic technique used when trying to portray an image of power and strength, and for God's sake, a professional director such as Riefenstahl knew these from day one of filming The Triumph of the Will. She did not have to take part in the filming of the 1934 Nazi Party Rally, she did not have to spend over a year carefully editing the film, she did not have to demand specific camera placement (mostly those from areal views such as her cameras which moved vertically on the very poles that upheld giant Swastika flags), she did not have to do any of this, but she did. She did all of this, she took credit for all of this when accepting awards for the film just two years after making it, and only now, when the truth of Hitler's intentions and wickedness as a leader is blatantly clear to all the world, only now does she jump through leaps and bounds to separate herself from the intended meaning of the film, and from any close affiliation with Hitler, Goebble, and other Nazi leaders with she was known to be on extremely friendly terms at the time of Triumph's filming. Smells like self-defending ScheiBe to me!