The scene unfolds amidst billowy clouds high in the sky. Immediately, the viewer feels uplifted. The camera then provides an aerial view of the city of Nuremberg and its beautiful Gothic style architecture; furthermore, the shadow of Hitler’s plane can be seen on the streets where hundreds of soldiers are marching in formation. Indeed, if morality is not taken into account, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is a magnificent work of art. Riefenstahl employs many devices in order to make this film formally pleasing:
- Camera angle and movement:
Riefenstahl places the camera in ingenious places so that the viewers can acquire a different perspective on the event. The camera that is filming Hitler while he is in the motorcade is placed behind Hitler himself. In those scenes, Hitler can be seen waving to a sea of people below him. This angle seems to allow viewers to feel the power emitting from Hitler as he is driven through the crowd; additionally, Riefenstahl’s use of camera angle furthered the portrayal of Hitler as a god. Many scenes even observe Hitler from a lower angle as if the people are admiring him from below as he is placed in front of a backdrop of blue sky.
The movement of the camera is also crucial in the film. By placing cameras on elevated objects, such as flagpoles, Riefenstahl was able to show viewers the grandeur of this event as well as the many people who were in support of Hitler. The camera often pans over the huge marching German army and thus depicts them as one organized entity. The only individual who is emphasized is Hitler. This effect, then, glorifies Germany as well as Hitler; moreover, these particular scenes may have stirred pride in the German people who had not experienced pride in their country for many years.
- Scene flow:
Riefenstahl, through skillful editing, smoothly weaved all the scenes of the film together whether or not they were in chronological order. This created one continuous thread that is never broken in the film. The audience, then, never loses interest and feels a sense of connection from one scene to the next.
- Symbols:
In many scenes of the film, Riefenstahl floods the screen with symbols of the Nazi party as well as Germany. Hundreds of soldiers are seen carrying flags with swastikas; moreover, images of the German eagle are never lacking. The salute is also prevalent in the film along with shouts of “Heil Hitler!” These symbols, once again, gave Germans a sense of pride in their country and hope for a better tomorrow under a new leader.
Although both the art and artist are responsible, the art should be the one to apologize. As mentioned in class, “Hindsight is 20/20.” This holds especially true in this case. Riefenstahl, when making the film, most likely did not know what Hitler had planned for the Jews. If she had known, however, Riefenstahl would be completely responsible. Taking Riefenstahl’s other works to mind, it is obvious that one of her obsessions is beauty, but to claim that she had no political agenda in making Triumph of the Will or that politics were never involved would be ridiculous. In Deveraux’s article, she points out that if Hitler and Germany had won the war, Riefenstahl would not be defending her aims in making this film; however, even though the film is the culprit, viewers of the film are also liable, for they are the ones who choose how to construe and interpret the film and its message.
In regards to who should apologize, Sontag would no doubt point her finger at Riefenstahl herself. Sontag argues that Riefenstahl is a conniving woman who lies to interviewers and writes false things about herself in her books in order to cover up the evil she has done by making this “documentary.” Sontag also disputes Riefenstahl’s position that her main concern was the beauty aspect of film-making. Sontag’s stance on Riefenstahl’s work, then, is that it is intolerable and evil because of the message it portrays
Deveraux, on the other hand, takes a less severe perspective on Riefenstahl; however, she does not doubt the disturbing nature of the film. Although she feels that Riefenstahl is the one who ought to apologize, Deveraux understands how a work can be both evil and beautiful. Deveraux also writes about the character of people who watch Triumph of the Will and find it a stunning work of art. She states that there is no shame in feeling that way about the film; moreover, it is how the viewer takes and interprets the film that is important. In developing a point to Riefenstahl’s work, Deveraux claims that it is not possible to simply analyze the film from an aesthetic aspect, for politics is the “essence” of the film and makes the film what it is. If the political factor is removed, “we will not be in a position to understand its artistic value” (243).
2 comments:
Theresa, I believe that the points that you made about the responsibility of the artist and artwork were very interesting and thoughtful. I believe that Riefenstahl intentionally used her film as a means of propaganda for the Nazis, but that does not neccessarily imply that she fully supported the events that were to come in later years. The film portrayed the Nazis in a positive light, which in a way portrayed a better alternative, a way to improve society and offer hope to thousands of people. Sure, the film was a means of propaganda, but it did not necessarily support the mass killings of Jews and other "undesirables." Riefenstahl was said to have been close to Hitler, but that does not mean that she fully supported all of his ideas and beliefs. In producing this film, Riefenstahl was did accomplish the task of making something evil appear beautiful, a task that would usually seem near impossible. She did this by appealing to what people want to see: power, order, progress. The film depicted all of these aspects, which in turn gave the impression that if these things were to happen, then the best way would be through the Nazi group. The film never outrightly stated the goals and ideas of the Nazis; it merely showed their power and influence. Another interesting point that I thought about while reading the articles by Devereaux and Sontag was that they discussed the responsibility of soley the artist and the artwork. They never really discussed how much responsibility lies with the viewer. The viewer was the one who had to interpret the meanings and messages put forth by the film, and develop their own opinions about it. Hitler and the Nazis did not just force everyone to do their bidding - they had numerous supporters. The responsibility does not just lie with the artist and the artwork, it lies with those who view and interpret it too.
First of all. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
I am very impressed with your method of examining the work for aesthetic beauty. While most people simply formed a one-sentence opinion on whether or not there is beauty in the piece and added a few examples of the beauty they found, your analysis is broken down into artistic qualities of film.
Later you say that you support Riefenstahl if she did not possess knowledge of Hitler’s activities to the minorities. But “If she had known, however, Riefenstahl would be completely responsible.” The warrants in this argument are very controversial. Basically, here we are putting responsibility of a crime also on the shoulders of an informational witness (since we have no proof that she actually witnessed the crimes). Say Riefenstahl was fully aware of the actions of the Nazis. Do we then criticize her simply because she knew what was going on and took no action against it or because she seemed to be promoting it with her work?
On the former, I do not think she can be justly punished. Sure, in a better world we might assume that bystanders who gain knowledge of what is going on would interfere and stop immoral activity. But how many people are raped in New York as crowds of people walk by thinking somebody else will take care of it? So shouldn’t these people be tried for rape just as someone who did not physically take a part in the Holocaust but knew about it?
Back to the latter of the original question—because Riefenstahl’s work promoted the Nazis and we are assuming here that she knew what the Nazis were up to, maybe there is some responsibility lying in her work. But at the same time I can understand why a promotion such as this can be considered support of the crimes, I also have a hard time actually considering Riefenstahl as guilty for the crimes. People use forms of propaganda to sell guns, knowing that others will die. And these people not only support the promotion of guns, but they actually provide the physical object that is used to commit the crime. Yet we can overlook this because the promotions have a positive connotation—protection ad security. Well doesn’t Riefenstahl’s work have positive connotations of unity and leadership?
Post a Comment